I have doubts about the truthfulness of Christianity. This is difficult for me, because my Christian faith was very precious to me for basically my entire life. But, there has been a shift from "accept Christianity, in spite of difficulties" to "do not believe, because of difficulties", for me personally.

Firstly, Jesus saying that He would return within the lifespan of the audiences listening to him, once I examined all the verses together (Matthew 10:23, 16:27-28, 24:3-34), and took a consistent meaning of "this generation" in Matthew, where it means "this generation" of people currently living (Matthew 11:16, 12:41-42, 12:45, 17:17, 23:36), was a major break for me. Accepting that God, without explicitly saying so, "delayed Jesus's second coming", in spite of what Jesus said (and especially how he said it), is really difficult. The way that the writers of the New Testament speak of Jesus's return also indicates that they thought it would be very soon (Romans 13:11-12, 16:20: 1 Corinthians 7:29, 10:11: Philippians 4:5: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, Hebrews 9:26, 10:37, James 5:7-8: 1 Peter 4:7 Revelation 1:1, 1:3, 22:6). The only book that appears to deal with it not taking place is 2 Peter, which has an incredible amount of controversy surrounding it (rejected early, apparently quotes Jude, very different from 1 Peter).

Additionally, I have a sort of meta-problem regarding what allegedly took place in the resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus was supposed to be the ultimate vindication of him by the God of the universe; a divine endorsement of him, and his message. Unfortunately, his resurrection was not made a public spectacle, to where there would be no doubt that it took place. He did not go into the Temple in Jerusalem, and proclaim to Caiaphas, "It is me, I have returned from the dead". He did not appear before all Jerusalem, so that the city would be in uproar, and there could be no doubt that the one who they had seen publicly killed in a grievous way was now standing before them whole. Instead, unfortunately, his alleged resurrection was only witnessed by a few close associates, and in private, whereafter, he vanished and was never seen again. And, none of the writings of these close associates who saw him, if they ever made any, survive, with the exception of maybe one letter alleged to be from Peter, and "John's" alleged writings, which almost no one who specializes in the topic believes are actually written by John the Apostle. The meta question would be, if God had raised Jesus from the dead, why not vindicate him publicly in such a way that none could deny it? Why instead make the object of faith for all who came in the future be the disputed writings alleged to come from a few close followers? Why not have Jesus stay and teach for a few years or decades, so that all doubts would be banished forever?

Additionally, the New Testament's descriptions of miracles are not really possible to reconcile with the historical growth of early Christianity. According to the New Testament, Jesus prolifically performed many undeniable miracles, some of which were in front of thousands of witnesses. The New Testament also records the resurrection of dead saints, who then made public appearances in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53). It of course records the resurrection of Jesus, which was seen by at least 500 people (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). It then records a lengthy miraculous ministry of the Apostles, in which they performed miracles in front of thousands of people (Acts 2:41). Yet, for all this, according to the historical record, Christianity was a relatively small movement, having about 10,000 followers by the end of the first century (the exact number is not important - anything less than an empire-wide explosion does not make sense, in light of what the Bible claims). This is why there is such a scant written record from the first and second centuries. It remained a small, relatively unimportant religious movement, and most Jews ignored it.

This cannot simply be dismissed. If one sees an undeniable miracle, they do not simply move on with their lives as if nothing happened. Instead, it would become a pivotal highlight of their life. They would not only immediately tell their friends and family, but it would become a story that they would tell over, and over, and over again, deep into their old age, to anyone who would listen. Far lesser stories are told by grandparents today to the point where their audience, if familiar with them, can practically recite them verbatim. How much more common would this be in an oral culture, where recounting stories would constitute a primary form of entertainment for most people?

Consider, for instance, Matthew's resurrection event, in which dead saints were said to appear to many in Jerusalem after the resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 27:52-53). Consider if someone who was dead came to your own house. Quickly, you would tell your neighbors. Your mother would go down to the marketplace, and tell all of her friends. Within a few hours, everyone in your town would know. Within a day, people from different cities would know, and some would come to see. It would be the most important event that ever happened to you. The entire town would be in an uproar for the entirety of the event, and it would be famous in short order. For decades, everyone in that town would remember it as the event of a lifetime, and the story would persist for generations. This is how actual people would react to a miracle. The New Testament, however, has so many incredible, world-shaking miracles take place, and yet historical reality shows that there was no great conversion of Israel, let alone the Roman Empire, in the century in which all of these extraordinary events were supposed to be taking place. The 500 alleged witnesses of the resurrection apparently could not be bothered to tell anyone they knew, or have even a single person write down and preserve what they had seen in a way that would be traceable to them. If these witnesses ever existed at all, it appears that they simply disappeared into history, as nothing exits to indicate who they were, or that they ever saw anything.

However, if thousands had seen these undeniable miracles, as the New Testament describes, then one would expect such a massive preponderance of evidence for them that it could not be denied that something took place, even from a secular point of view. There would be government accounts of uproar, and commotion, and mass conversion, and many firsthand reports of the events themselves, from different perspectives. This is not what is seen at all. Christianity remained extremely small, and Jerusalem and Israel continued on as if nothing particularly remarkable happened, with many converts coming from Gentile areas far from the founding location, and away from any eyewitnesses. This is contrary to all human nature, and how people who would have seen a miracle would actually behave, and what their impact on their communities would have been. Therefore, it is very likely that the events never happened.

Additionally, the nature of Scripture is a big problem for me. Why should anyone believe, for instance, that the epistle of Jude was inspired by the God of the universe? Or that God sanctioned what was written in the book of Hebrews, or James? Or that those who took it upon themselves to write Gospels actually had all the facts concerning Jesus, and represented him accurately? And where they disagree, which of them was more accurate to what Jesus originally said, or did, or what happened? Who are these men? Are they reliable? Are the honest? Are they intelligent? They did not claim a divine commission for writing. So, why should I believe that their writings are protected from error in any sense? Their works being very well-written, or quoting Old Testament scripture, or agreeing with other works in the corpus, or being attached to those who allegedly knew Jesus in some way, does not mean that the God of the universe protected them from error in some way while they wrote.

Consider also the position that since Jesus was the Christ, commissioned with a message from God, we must listen to everything that he taught. I cannot actually do that. I cannot speak to Jesus. There is nothing written by him. And, there is no way to read what he said, without first putting one's faith in human beings, and supposing that their representation of him is accurate. This is putting faith in men, not Jesus, and not God, because the best I can do is believe the witness of men other than Jesus, that he actually said what they present as being said by him. Additionally, I have to rely on the witness of men who copied these writings, and translated them. This is squarely putting one's faith in men. God never promised to me that He would inspire these writings, or preserve them, nor did He tell me to read them, and trust them as legitimate. Rather, men have told me that they are legitimate communication from God, and I am to trust them at every step in the alleged transmission process, from God to me, in a roundabout way. And, given how loose "John" appeared to have been with the words of Jesus, and given that several Gospel authors either trimmed, or embellished his words in places (given the differences in parallel passages in the various accounts), I have cause to doubt that these authors were merely acting as sounding boards, rather than editors and redactors. And, I cannot see their sources, or interview those who they may have interviewed, or speak to them, either. The same point made in this paragraph could be applied to Old Testament books in which God is allegedly being quoted.

This issue of the object of one's faith is a major sticking point for me. In Christianity, the object of my faith would not actually be Jesus, as I have never met Jesus, nor heard him speak. He has not told me anything. It would not be God, as I have never met God, and never heard Him speak. Neither God, nor Jesus ever told me to trust the Bible. So, my faith would not be in them. It would be in the men who are purporting to speak for them, and also those who gave me the writings which allegedly came from those men. The same is true of the Old Testament prophets. My faith in reading Isaiah is not in God. It is not even in Isaiah. It is in the writers, transmitters, editors, and translators of the book of Isaiah, that it actually represents what the man Isaiah said or taught. If I first put my faith in these men, then I can put my faith in the man Isaiah. But, I have never met Isaiah. I never witnessed whatever miracles that he may have performed as evidence of a divine commission. So, I have no valid reason to place my faith in the man Isaiah, that he is speaking for God. But, if I were to, my faith would still not be in God, but in Isaiah. Short of actually seeing the miraculous verification of his work, the best one can do is put their faith in man. And, since no Christians living today have ever seen any of the undeniably supernatural miracles of the Bible take place, none of them can actually say that they have their faith in God, properly speaking. They have their faith in men, who professed at various times to speak for God, and those who claimed to transmit their words. This means that denying the authority of the Bible is not denying God, or professing lack of faith in God. God never told me to read it, or trust it. If He did so, I would certainly do it. Refusing to do it after He told me so could be called a lack of faith in God. But refusing to trust the authenticity of the current Bible is something altogether different.

But, this leap of faith is a bit of a brick wall. No matter how much one tries, they will never be able to go back in time, and actually verify with certainty that what they are reading actually happened. This is very frustrating for those who are aiming to stake their lives on the Bible. There is a point in which no more certainty can be achieved, and one ultimately has to trust in the authors, transmitters, and editors of the books that they are reading within the Bible, even in spite of massive problems. An "apologist answer" here may be that "God requires faith". But, as already discussed, this would be faith in human beings. If God Himself told me something, I would believe it, even if it was contrary to my own intuition, or seemed unlikely to me. That would be faith in God. This is something different. Additionally, God, in this scheme, would actually not have required faith for the extraordinarily lucky few who got to see the alleged supernatural confirmation of these writings. They would have been able to say that they had faith in God. However, for all others, their faith would, at best, be in mankind. This same brick wall comes into play when there are doctrinal controversies, and one cannot simply ask the authors of these books what they meant, or specifically believed, but I digress.

Therefore, before even getting into more specific examples of difficulties with the Bible itself (unlikely stories, possible contradictions, possible historical problems, etc.), given some of the above considerations, I cannot say that I believe in the truthfulness of Christianity. When I read the Bible, I have serious doubts as to whether I am reading a message from God, or the heavily altered, edited, and redacted words of various people, who were writing what came to their minds. And, I cannot interact with any of the authors, neither do I have any supernatural proof for their claims to speak for God, nor has God told me to place my trust in it. This makes the religion of Christianity unbelievable, in my opinion.

Specific Examples

In this section, I will list some specific examples of other issues from the Bible which caused me to tip toward unbelief. Note that I will cite the SBL Study Bible to substantiate some points below, but the same points could be made by appealing to many other contemporary scholarly publications:

• The genealogies in Genesis chapter 5 and 11 present unrealistic human lifespans, and when traced through, an unrealistic age for mankind, and the earth. Additionally, the early chapters of Genesis give lifespans of many hundreds of years for people, while presenting some of them as being part of civilizations, with cities, metallurgy, etc.
• The flood of Noah and the character of Noah (who is supposed to have lived to be 950 years old, yet is nearly a contemporary with Abraham) are unrealistic. And if the flood is given a global scope, it is historically and scientifically impossible in multiple ways
• Abraham is 86 years old when Ishmael is born (Genesis 16:16). Isaac is born when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:5), making Ishmael around 14 years old at that time. Ishmael is then cast out after Isaac is weaned (another few years) with his mother Hagar (Genesis 21:8-14), which would mean he was 16-17 years old. Yet, Ishamel is apparently spoken of as a little child would be spoken of (Genesis 21:14-18), not a 16-17 year old young man. Probably represents multiple stories or traditions being blended
• Abraham's wife Sarah is taken for her beauty at around age 90 (Genesis 17:17, 20:2), after she laughed at a woman her age being able to bear (Genesis 18:12-15). She and Abraham also remarked on how old he was as well at 100 years old (Genesis 17:17, 18:12 - as do Paul and the author of Hebrews - Romans 4:19, Hebrews 11:12), despite Abraham's father being 130 when he had Abraham (Genesis 11:32, 12:4, Acts 7:4), and also the extreme age of some people in what would have been rather recent history, like Noah, who would have nearly contemporaneous with Abraham. If you sketch out the genealogies in Genesis 11:10-26, he lived to 950 years old, and died about 2 years before Abraham was born. Also his son Shem would have been alive when Abraham was born (Genesis 11:11), and he would have been over 400 years old as well, etc. Also, Abraham goes on to have 6 more kids with another wife after Sarah dies (Genesis 25:1-2), and dies at age 175 (Genesis 25:7-8), which makes his and Sarah's comments about his age (Genesis 17:17, 18:12) make little sense, given that he would have been about middle aged when Isaac was born. Isaac himself lives to be 180 (Genesis 35:28-29). Isaac's son Jacob died at 147 (Genesis 47:28), and had Joseph when he was around 90 years old, and Benjamin when he was even older. Probably represents multiple layers of editing and blending stories together
• The story of Lot impregnating his daughters on back-to-back nights, and those children growing up to be the patriarchs of the enemies of the Israelites (Genesis 19:32-38), is very difficult to believe. They somehow have enough wine in the cave they have fled to, and Lot does it two nights in a row, and it says he did not know what happened. Seems like an etiological legend
  • SBL Study Bible - "These ethnographic stories cast aspersions on Israel's cultural rivals while acknowledging a kinship between them. The offspring of Lot and his daughters have names that betray their shameful origins: Moab sounds like "from the father" in Hebrew, and Ben-ammi means "son of my kinsman.""
• Moses's birth narrative (Exodus 2:1-5) is extremely similar to a legendary birth narrative of Sargon of Akkad. Both are abandoned by their mothers as infants, put into a basket sealed with tar, then placed into a river, and found by someone who raises them
  • SBL Study Bible - "This story depends literarily on the birth legend of Sargon I, the legendary founder of the Assyrian Empire. Both texts share an important number of motifs. Sargon and Moses are exposed by their mothers (their fathers are absent). They are set out in a basket on a river, found, and adopted: in the case of Sargon by the goddess Ishtar, who makes him king; in the case of Moses by the Egyptian princess, who makes him a member of the royal court. Even though the Sargon story is supposed to refer to the third-millennium king, it was written under Sargon II, at the end of the eighth century BCE, at which point several copies of it were disseminated throughout the Assyrian Empire. Since Moses's story cannot be older, it confirms a dating of the Moses narrative to the seventh century."
• The Exodus narrative does not correspond to known Egyptian history
  • SBL Study Bible - "The question remains as to whether there is an actual historical kernel to the events described in the exodus and Sinai narratives. In its present form, the story cannot be understood as reflecting eyewitness reports. The story is full of miraculous elements, and one cannot imagine that a people of several million persons (Exod 12.37 mentions 600,000 adult males) could cross a sea in one night. In the Egyptian sources, there is no allusion to such an exodus."
• Ecclesiastes shows linguistic evidence of being written far later than Solomon, although it claims to be written by Solomon (Ecclesiastes 1:1, 1:12, 1:16, 2:8-9, etc.)
  • SBL Study Bible - "Its earliest plausible date is the 450s BCE, based on its use of specific vocabulary."
• Elihu's section in the book of Job (Job 32-37) could potentially be a later addition. Neither Job, nor God, nor any of Job's friends ever interact with Elihu at all, and he is never mentioned anywhere else in the book. Job 38, the chapter after Elihu, fits in well just after Job 31
  • Robert Alter's Old Testament Commentary - "Although some scholars have tried to save the Elihu speeches as an integral part of the book, the plausible consensus is that it is an interpolation, the work of another poet. No hint of Elihu's presence is made in the frame-story at the beginning, and he is equally absent from the closing of the frame in chapter 42. The poetry he speaks is by and large not up to the level of the poetry in the debate between Job and his three reprovers, and there is a whole series of Hebrew terms that appear only in the Elihu speeches."
• The book of Proverbs, specifically Proverbs 22:17-24:22, appears to borrow from an Egyptian text called the Instruction of Amenemope in some pretty striking ways
  • SBL Study Bible - "Two of the authors listed are probably foreign (Agur son of Jakeh and Lemuel), and one section of Proverbs was influenced by the Egyptian wisdom literature of Amenemope (22.17-24.22), making Proverbs international in character."
• Many scholars believe that Isaiah and Zechariah both had major portions added to them by different authors
  • Regarding Isaiah - SBL Study Bible - "In all likelihood, chapters 40-55 contain the work of one or more authors active in Babylon and/or Judah during the mid-to-late sixth century BCE. These chapters have explicit references to the Persian leader Cyrus, who reigned from roughly 559 to 530 BCE (44.28; 45.1, 13). There are also allusions to the subjugation of Babylon in chapters 46 and 47 and a prophetic call for an exodus from the city (48.20)."
  • Regarding Zechariah - SBL Study Bible - "Chapters 9-14 reflect a changed social and political situation. Whereas chapters 3-4 reflect God's faith in Judah's political and religious leadership, chapter 11 is openly critical of its "shepherds." This shift suggests that chapters 1-8 and 9-14 originated in different historical contexts. They also differ in style and content."
• The book of Jeremiah was probably originally much shorter. There is a shorter Hebrew version of Jeremiah (which is also arranged in a different order) that is preserved in the Septuagint
  • SBL Study Bible - "A final element related to origins and composition is that the book of Jeremiah seems to have developed in two related but different Hebrew editions that coexisted simultaneously. This is apparent in the difference between the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) and Greek (Septuagint) versions of Jeremiah. The Greek version is one-eighth shorter than the Hebrew and has a different order (for example, placing the oracles concerning other nations [chs. 46-51 in Hebrew] in the middle of the book). English Bible translations of Jeremiah are nearly always taken from the longer Hebrew version. However, the manuscripts of Jeremiah preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Greek version also goes back to a Hebrew forerunner that has the same length and arrangement."
  • There is a similar phenomenon with the book of Ezekiel, albeit less extreme
    • SBL Study Bible - "The Septuagint (Greek version) of Ezekiel is roughly 5 percent shorter than the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text and probably derives from an early form of the book. Ezekiel 12.26-28; 32.25-26; 36.23b-38, not present in one important Septuagintal papyrus, are likely later additions to the emerging book. This newer material reflects eschatological concerns."
• The temple that Ezekiel describes in detail in chapters 40-48 of his book, which was written during the Babylonian captivity, was never built by the Jews who returned. The relevant portion of the book of Ezekiel mentions sin/trespass offerings (Ezekiel 40:19, 42:13, 43:19-27, 44:27-29, 45:17-25, 46:20, etc.), Levitical priests (Ezekiel 40:45-46, 43:19, 44:10-15), Sabbaths and other holy days (Ezekiel 44:24, 45:17, 46:1-4, 46:12), and dead people (Ezekiel 44:25), making any future fulfillment from a Christian point of view make little sense
• Daniel 5:31 is probably a historical error
  • SBL Study Bible - "5.31 Darius the Mede is not a known historical figure; Babylon was conquered by Cyrus the Great of Persia in 539 BCE, not by the Medes, despite the prophecies of Isa 13.17-22; 21.1-10; Jer 50.9, 41; 51.11, 28; see Dan 9.1. There were three kings of Persia named Darius, of whom the first ruled 522-486 BCE."
• Daniel records king Nebuchadnezzar acknowledging the supremacy of the God of the Jews in chapter 4, after a period of 7 years of madness. There is no non-Biblical source that mentions or suggests anything like this occurring at all. And, if he had converted, one would expect that to have some effect on the Jewish Babylonian captivity, which he himself caused. However, there is a later Babylonian king named Nabonidus, who was the father of Belshazzar (interestingly, Daniel says that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar [Daniel 5:2, 5:11, 5:18, 5:22]), and a document from the Dead Sea Scrolls called the "Prayer of Nabonidus" describes him going mad for 7 years, and then being healed by the most high God of the Jews. So, it appears the book of Daniel conflated Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus, or repurposed this legend and applied it to Nebuchadnezzar (a much more famous king). I would encourage anyone reading this to simply read the Prayer of Nabonidus, then read Daniel chapter 4, and see for themselves, also considering the unlikelihood that Nebuchadnezzar publicly acknowledged the supremacy of the God of the Jews after going mad for 7 years, and then wrote a public conversion decree for his whole empire which apparently quotes Psalm 145:13 (Daniel 4:3, 4:34, compare Daniel 7:14, 7:27), Isaiah 40:17 (Daniel 4:35), and Job 9:12 (Daniel 4:35)
• Daniel 11 and Isaiah 44-45's (Cyrus) hyper-specific prophecies are both in extremely controversial parts of their books, which lends to the likelihood that they were ex eventu prophecies
• Many scholars believe that Micah is a composite book
  • SBL Study Bible - "The book is not the product of a single author but a composite text that took shape over centuries. Scholars debate the number and dates of the stages within the book's development, but most agree on two key moments in the book's composition. The first is the eighth century BCE and includes most of chapters 1-3, probably 6.9-15, and perhaps a few other verses (5.1, 5b-6). These texts announce God's imminent punishment of Samaria and argue that Jerusalem will suffer the same fate. The condemnation of the Northern Kingdom suggests a date before the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE. This material, which features a first-person prophetic voice (1.8; 3.8), likely comes from Micah himself, though the only mention of this name occurs in the superscription (1.1), which most regard as a late addition to the book.
    A second key moment for the book consists of the Babylonian exile (586-539 BCE) and its aftermath. The exile is mentioned explicitly in 4.10 and is presupposed by references to the remnant scattered among the nations (4.6; 5.7-8). Also featured in texts from this period is the promise of a restored Zion (4.13; 7.11), where this remnant as well as the nations will gather (2.12-13; 4.1-8, 11-12; 7.12).
• Some other meta considerations:
  • God allegedly doing all of His dealings with mankind before the invention of audio recorders, photography, and video
  • The great antiquity of humanity, and the number of cultures which showed no awareness of the God of the Israel at all, despite existing for hundreds of years, and in many places all over the globe. Also, the extremely slow spread of Christianity to the New World
  • The Bible containing no miraculous scientific knowledge at all, when revealing a few simple things would have saved billions of lives
  • The utter lack of Old Testament teaching on personal eternal Salvation, when such teaching is a major emphasis of the New Testament, and extremely important for every individual to have absolute clarity on. Nowhere in the Old Testament is an Israelite told what they need to do to have eternal life, and yet, the New Testament seems very focused on revealing all sorts of criteria (which are themselves extremely difficult to attempt to synthesize)
  • The fact that the Old Testament does not systematically or didactically teach on the identity or role of the Messiah. Instead, it is a concept gathered from scattered texts, most of which are ambiguous, ensuring interminable debates between Christians and Jews as to what the alleged figure was supposed to do, when he would appear, and how he would be recognized

There are many other issues, in addition to the ones explained above, but the above are demonstrative of why I do not personally believe that the Bible is inspired by God anymore.