The discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts

The critics claim discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts and this should be cause for one to doubt the truthfulness of the Resurrection.

The argument usually goes something like this post found on Reddit — I'll post it here in full below in blue: 

These are not minor discrepancies, such as “which color was Jesus' cloak?”, “were there angels or shining men at the tomb?” or “did Jesus ride on a colt or a donkey?”, these are factual discrepancies, in sense that one source says X and the other says Y, completely different information.

Tomb Story:

1. When did the women go to the tomb?

Synoptics: Early in the morning.
John: Night time.

2. Which women went to the tomb?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, and Joanna.

Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary of James, and Salome. [1]
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Joanna.
John: Mary Magdalene and an unknown person. [2]

3. Did the disciples believe the women?

Matthew: Yes.
Mark: No. [3]
Luke: No, except Peter.

4. Which disciples went to the tomb?

Luke: Peter.
John: Peter and Beloved disciple.

Sequence of Appearances:

5. To whom did Jesus appear first?

Matthew: The women as they fled.
Mark: Mary Magdalene while inside the tomb.
Luke: Two disciples (one of them Cleopas). [4]
John: Mary Magdalene while inside the tomb.
Paul: Peter.

6. Afterward, Jesus appeared to?

Matthew, Luke, and Paul: The Twelve. [5]
Mark: Two disciples (one of them Cleopas).
John: The Ten (Thomas wasn't there)

7. How many of the Twelve were present when Jesus appeared?

Synoptics and Paul: All of them. (11) [5]
John: The Ten (Thomas wasn't there).

Notes

1. the original Gospel of Mark says that multiple women went to the Tomb, but the Longer ending mentions Mary Magdalene alone.

2. At first seams like Mary Magdalene went alone to the Tomb, but in John 20:2 she says:

So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and “we” don’t know where they have put him!”

3. The original Gospel of Mark ends with the women silent, because they where afraid, but I considered the Longer ending in this case, where the Disciples didn't believe Mary Magdalene

4. When the Two disciples went to say to the Twelve that they've seen Jesus, Peter already had a vision of Jesus, Mark says that after Mary Magdalene Jesus appeared directly to the Two disciples, but Paul says that Peter got the vision first, I preferred to give priority to Mark, but that's another conflicting information.

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

5. The Twelve and “All of them” (as Paul says) in this case is the Eleven, cause Judas Iscariot was already dead, the Twelve described by Paul means the name of the group, it's like saying: “I met the Justice league” but Batman wasn't present. 

End of quoted post

Review and Response

What is a discrepancy? According to Webster's it is the quality or state of disagreeing or being at variance or an instance of disagreeing or being at variance.

This is closely related to the term “contrary”: either of two terms (such as good and evil) that cannot both be affirmed of the same subject; though both may be false they cannot both be true; incapable of  harmonious coexistence or are logically incongruent

Since the phrase “completely different information” is used, I assume that what is meant is these accounts are incapable of association of harmonious coexistence. 

So are these 7 discrepancies/contradictions incapable of harmonious coexistence or are logically incongruent?

1. When did the women go to the tomb?

Read the passages

Matthew 28:1-10
Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.” And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

Mark 16:1-10
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping.

Luke 24:1-10
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has [a]risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” And they remembered His words, and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.

John 20:1-3
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.

1 - When did the women go to the tomb, answered:

First note that John does NOT say “night” he says “dark”: Original Greek: σκοτία; Definition: Darkness - source

John 20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark,

Matthew 28 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. So it was still dark.

Mark 16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought aromatic spices so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, at sunrise, they went to the tomb.

So what is the difference between, “while it was still dark”, “as it began to dawn”, and “at sunrise” if they all have the idea of darkness or darkness breaking? Answer: None.

Excursus 

I just want to point out that here are differences in accounts of Alexander the Great's campaigns. Some historians like Plutarch and Diodorus providing more anecdotal and philosophical perspective. Arrian focused on a more factual military chronicle, often drawing from sources like Ptolemy's memoirs which could sometimes exaggerate his own role in events; this can lead to discrepancies in the portrayal of battles, motivations, and Alexander's character across different accounts. 

Some accounts might portray Alexander as having a more harmonious relationship with his commanders, while others could highlight tensions and conflicts, particularly with figures like Cleitus. Some accounts suggest Alexander was driven by a desire to conquer the known world, while others emphasize his pursuit of divine status and cultural unification.

Each account might present a slightly different perspective due to the author's emphasis, bias, geographical location, or social status. But no historian says these differences equate to contradiction, and the whole Alexander the Great story, or the bulk of it, is a myth.

If historians don't dismiss the  Alexander the Great story as myth, why do critics try to use this standard with Jesus? 

If the critic is unaware, they should educate themselves and judge the Resurrection accounts with the same historical standard.

If the critic is aware, then this is just a blatant double standard fallacy — Judging similar two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard. It invaldates their argument and seriously undermines their intellectual integrity. 

2 - Which women went to the tomb, answered

Matthew mentions two women by name. Mark mentions three by name. Luke mentions at least three by name but describes more. John only identifies Mary Magdalene. 

Note that Matthew doesn't say that there were only 2 women; Mark doesn't say that there were only 3 women; Luke explicitly names three women but indicates that there were more in the group; John doesn't say that there was only 1 woman.

When examining the number of women present at the tomb of Jesus, the four accounts could all be seen as accurate representations of what really happened if the group of women included the following people:

• Mary Magdalene
• Mary the mother of Jesus,
• Mary the Mother of James (and Joseph),
• Salome, and
• Joanna.

This group would account for the women mentioned by all four authors. All the authors speak of a group and some authors identify specific members of this group based on their personal perspective, purposes, and audience.

The Gospel authors (and the early Church) certainly had the opportunity to change the descriptions of the women to make sure they matched, but they refused to do so. As a result, we can have confidence in the reliability of these accounts.

Another factor for accuracy and authenticity: In a culture hesitant to accept the testimony of women in civil and criminal hearings, the authors of the Gospels offered women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb. 

Here is Josephus on the credibility of women: But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex. . . . (Antiquities, 4:219)

If this is a late fictional account, one might wonder why the authors didn’t insert Peter and the other male disciples or at least Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathia. They would certainly have made the account more credible to the first hearers. Instead, all the authors describe women as the first eyewitnesses. This “negative information” makes the account more credible. Women weren’t described here to make the narrative more convincing (they actually hurt the account), but were instead described because they happen to be the true first witnesses.

Of course this isn’t in and of itself proof that the resurrection happened. It does, however, make it very unlikely the story was fabricated.

5. To whom did Jesus appear first?

Read the passages

Cleopas and another

13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 

19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, 29 but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.. Luke 24:13-31

Question: Where in the verse does it say that Jesus first appeared to Cleopas and another? 

Answer: It doesn't

Cephas

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve 1 Corinthians 15:4-5

Question: Where in the verse does it say that Jesus first appeared to Cephas?

Answer: It doesn't

The two Marys

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Matthew 28:1-9

Note: Both Mary's met Jesus after they departed... from the tomb [vs 8-9] - but the text doesn't say anything about this being a first appearance; so was there a prior appearance? 

Mary Magdalene

9 Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. Mark 16:9

Note: Here Mary Magdalene is clearly portrayed as the first to see Jesus post-Resurrection 

11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. 12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14 Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. John 20:11-14

Note: We get a little more detail about Mary Magdalene seeing Jesus prior to departing the tomb, she saw Him but didn't recognize Him. 

So Mary Magdalene first saw Jesus at the tomb, then after departing, both Marys saw Jesus. The other passages say that others saw Jesus but none say nor imply that they were first. 

Thus, there is no contradiction about whom Jesus first appeared to post-Resurrection 

*************************************************

Note: this is a work in progress, I will address all 7 "contradictions" in the near future. 

Why the Bible Was Never a Game of Telephone

The Telephone Game Myth: Why Ancient Oral Tradition Beats Modern Memes

Introduction

One of the most popular skeptical tropes on social media compares the transmission of the New Testament to the childhood game of Telephone. The argument goes something like this: someone whispered a story to another person, who passed it down a long chain across decades, resulting in an embellished, distorted final product that bears little resemblance to what Jesus actually said and did.

It is a clever soundbite, but it represents a catastrophic misunderstanding of ancient oral culture and historical manuscript transmission. The game of Telephone is engineered to fail for entertainment; the transmission of the New Testament was engineered for fidelity.

What is the Telephone Game?

The telephone game involves a brief narrative that someone whispers to the next person in line, who then whispers this to the next person, and so on for several people. Then, the last person recites out loud what he or she heard, and everyone has a good laugh for how garbled the story got. If a group of similar people in the same context can’t remember and accurately pass on a saying, how can we trust decades or centuries of faulty memory?

The critics say that memory is faulty and cannot be trusted over a long period of time. This means the Bible almost certainly has many errors and embellishments that were introduced during the time gap between Jesus' life and the first writings of the Gospels and what we have today.

 Five Reasons the Comparison Fails

1. The Motive: Entertainment vs. Exact Preservation The entire point of Telephone is to produce a comedic failure. Accuracy is discouraged because a perfectly repeated message ruins the fun. Ancient scribes and early Christian communities operated under the exact opposite motive: they believed they were stewarding sacred historical testimony and the eternal words of God. Accuracy was paramount, and texts were painstakingly copied and verified.

2. The Mechanism: A Single Linear Chain vs. Multiple Independent Branches Telephone requires a single, isolated line of communication. If person #3 distorts the phrase, person #4 has no alternative source, and the error compounds irreversibly down the line. The New Testament spread across multiple independent geographical streams (Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Ephesus, Caesarea). If a copyist in one region made a mistake or alteration, it remained isolated to that branch. Scholars can easily cross-reference multiple independent manuscript families to identify and filter out isolated variations.

3. The Medium: Ephemeral Whispers vs. Durable Written Texts Telephone is an oral-only exercise where a message is heard once in secret and never referenced again. The New Testament manuscript tradition consists of tangible, durable written documents. Papyrus manuscripts lasted for a century or more in normal use. This means a late second-century scribe was not relying on a hundredth-generation copy; they could readily examine and copy directly from an original apostolic autograph or a first-generation manuscript.

4. The Verification: Blind Endpoints vs. Deep Textual Access In Telephone, you can only check what the last person heard against what the first person said at the very end. With the New Testament, textual critics possess an unprecedented wealth of intermediate and early manuscripts dating back to within decades of the originals (e.g., P52, P46, P66, P75). We do not have to guess what happened along the transmission chain—we can physically read the intermediate links.

5. Community Memory: Private Whispers vs. Public, Controlled Tradition Before books were widely written and circulated, oral transmission in the ancient Near East was not private one-on-one whispering. It was formal, communal storytelling:

• Community Auditing: The stories were told publicly before groups of eyewitnesses who had memorized the accounts. If a speaker misremembered a detail, the community immediately corrected them.

• Apostolic Oversight: The original apostles traveled, supervised, and actively regulated the teaching (1 Corinthians 15:3–8; Galatians 2:1–2).

• High Stakes: Early Christians faced social ostracism, persecution, and martyrdom for their testimony. People do not die for claims they casually invented or neglected to verify.

The Whispering Line vs. The Open Source Network

Imagine two ways of passing a message:

• Method A (Telephone Game Model): A single secret password is whispered down a dark line of ten people at a loud party. By the end, "The sunset is red" inevitably turns into "Bob wears funny hats."

• Method B (The New Testament Model): An official public announcement is read aloud to a room of 50 eyewitnesses who know the speaker well. Ten attendees take careful written notes. Those notes are copied, sent to five different cities, read aloud in town squares, and archived in local libraries.

If a rogue scribe in City C accidentally misspells a word or leaves out a sentence, anyone comparing it to the copies in Cities A, B, D, and E instantly spots the outlier. That is not Telephone; it is a distributed, self-correcting information network.

Conclusion

Comparing the New Testament to a game of Telephone ignores how ancient memory, community verification, and manuscript copying actually worked. Between formal oral traditions guarded by living eyewitnesses, early written documentation, and thousands of independent surviving manuscripts, the text of Scripture was never left to the mercy of a single whispered chain. The New Testament is not a garbled rumor—it is one of the most thoroughly preserved historical records in antiquity.

Misquoting Ehrman: What the Skeptics’ Favorite Scholar Actually Concedes

Metzger, Ehrman, and the Textual Consensus That Shuts Down Skeptics

Introduction

In popular deconstruction culture and online debates, skeptics frequently brandish Bart Ehrman as the ultimate authority to prove the New Testament has been hopelessly corrupted beyond recognition. The popular narrative suggests that thousands of textual variants have turned the original manuscripts into a game of ancient telephone, burying what the authors actually wrote under layers of scribal error and theological tampering.

Yet, when you look past the sensationalized headlines to Ehrman’s actual scholarship, the standard skeptical talking point falls apart. In the closing pages of the very book skeptics love to cite—Misquoting Jesus—Ehrman makes a striking concession about his mentor, Bruce Metzger, that undermines the entire deconstruction narrative.

The Ehrman Concession

In an explicit interview printed in the paperback appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252), Ehrman directly addresses his relationship with Bruce Metzger—widely regarded as the 20th century’s preeminent New Testament textual critic:

"Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian, and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."  [emphasis mine]

[Screen shot of orignal text]

What the Critics Miss: Variants vs. Essential History

When critics claim the New Testament text is unreliable, they routinely conflate two fundamentally different concepts: the sheer number of manuscript copies with the certainty of the original readings.

• Massive Textual Agreement: As Ehrman admits, if a committed Christian scholar (Metzger) and an agnostic scholar (Ehrman) sat down to reconstruct the Greek New Testament from the ground up, they would agree on over 99% of the text. Their genuine disagreements amount to a few dozen isolated variants across the entire New Testament corpus.

• No Core Doctrine at Stake: The vast majority of the 400,000+ variants across Greek manuscripts consist of spelling differences, word order rearrangements, and untranslatable Greek particles. Not a single foundational Christian doctrine or core historical claim rests on a disputed variant reading.

Conclusion

The next time an online critic attempts to use Bart Ehrman to argue that the New Testament text is hopelessly corrupted, remind them of what Ehrman himself put in print. The debate between top scholars is not over whether we can know what the original authors wrote—they already agree on the vast majority of the text. The real divide is not textual; it is philosophical. When both the leading Christian scholar and the leading agnostic scholar agree on the underlying words, the claim that textual variants destroy New Testament reliability simply doesn't hold up.

The Four-Point Test Every Atheist Must Take

Flipping the Script: How to Put the Burden of Proof Back on Atheism

Introduction

In conversations about faith and skepticism, believers are almost reflexively pushed into the hot seat. The popular cultural assumption is simple: the Christian makes a positive claim, so the Christian carries 100% of the intellectual burden, while the atheist merely sits back in neutral detachment, "lacking belief."

This dynamic lets skeptics off the hook far too easily. Unbelief is rarely passive; it represents a definite stance on the nature of reality. When an atheist evaluates the universe, consciousness, moral duties, or the historical record, they are choosing one explanatory framework over another. To cut through emotional rhetoric and evaluate whether someone has an actual worldview or merely a list of grievances against religion, start with a straightforward Diagnostic Scale.

The Confidence Scale: Pinning Down the Claim

Ask your interlocutor: On a scale of 1 to 4, how confident are you that there is no God (defined as the classical transcendent, personal Creator)?

1. Not confident: "I don't know, but I think there is enough counter-evidence to justify my personal unbelief."

2. Somewhat confident: "There is enough evidence against God to justify my unbelief and make theists seriously reconsider their faith."

3. Very confident: "The evidence against God is so strong that no rational person possesses justification for believing in God."

4. Extremely confident / Near certainty: "The evidence makes it completely irrational and unjustified to hold any belief in God."

1. Exposing the Hidden Claim Notice what happens the moment an atheist chooses any number on that scale. Even a modest "1" or "2" appeals to evidence. The moment someone invokes evidence to justify their stance, they are making a knowledge claim: that the data of reality better supports a godless cosmos than a created one.

2. Same Data, Competing Explanations The fundamental issue in the debate is not a lack of data; both sides look at the exact same physical world:

• The sudden origin and fine-tuning of the cosmos

• The origin of digital, specified code in DNA

• The reality of objective moral values and intentional consciousness

• The emergence and historical explosion of the early Christian movement

The theist presents a comprehensive, positive explanatory hypothesis: an intelligent Mind as the ground of all being. Skeptics, however, frequently avoid offering a competing explanation, retreating instead into pure critique.

3. Worldview vs. Grievance 

Pointing out difficult Old Testament passages or calling out historical church corruption is not an explanation of reality; it is a moral critique. A complete worldview must account for how non-rational, unguided matter produced rational minds capable of making objective moral critiques in the first place. If an atheist scores a 3 or a 4, they carry the full epistemic duty to demonstrate how naturalism provides a superior, coherent explanation for the existence of the universe and human experience.

The Crime Scene Investigation

Imagine two detectives standing inside an art gallery inspecting an open, empty vault.

Detective A examines the bypassed laser grid, the expertly cracked combination dial, and the neatly disconnected alarms. He proposes a hypothesis: "This was an inside job executed by an experienced safecracker."

Detective B crosses his arms, scoffs, and says, "I reject your hypothesis completely. I simply 'lack belief' in your safecracker theory."

Detective A then asks, "Fine, what is your explanation for the cracked safe and bypassed alarms?"

Detective B replies, "I don't need one! I'm not making a claim; I'm just unconvinced by yours. Maybe a localized thermal fluctuation randomly warped the lock mechanism, but either way, the burden of proof is entirely on you."

Everyone recognizes that Detective B is playing an intellectual shell game. You cannot dismiss an Inference to the Best Explanation simply by declaring yourself neutral while refusing to account for the physical evidence on the floor

Conclusion

Atheism is not a neutral default setting; it is an interpretive commitment about the universe. The 1-to-4 Confidence Test clarifies the discussion by moving it past reactionary talking points and establishing baseline accountability. If an atheist believes the evidence warrants abandoning faith in God, they must step into the arena of ideas, define their position, and defend why unguided matter is the better explanation for the cosmos we observe.

Other posts on atheism.

The atheist's burden of proof

400 Years of Patience: The Moral Context of the Canaanite Judgment

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

You Can’t Choose to Believe - But You Can Choose to Fairly Weigh the Evidence

Why Belief Isn’t a Switch, but an Inference

Introduction 

A frequent pushback in discussions on faith and metaphysics goes like this: "You cannot simply decide to believe in God any more than you can decide to believe an invisible pink elephant is standing in your living room." Epistemologically, the critic has a valid point: human belief is rarely a product of direct, unassisted willpower (a view philosophers call direct doxastic voluntarism). You cannot flip a mental switch and force yourself to believe a proposition you find completely absurd. However, while you cannot directly force belief, you can choose whether to honestly evaluate the evidence, test your presuppositions, and follow the arguments wherever they lead.

The Juror and the Verdict 

You are serving as a juror in a courtroom trial. You cannot simply sit down on day one and force yourself to believe the defendant is guilty out of sheer willpower. If you tried, you would merely be engaging in wishful thinking or self-deception.

However, you can decide whether to pay attention to the witness testimonies, examine the forensic data, cross-examine conflicting narratives, and weigh the competing explanations. At the end of the trial, conviction is not an arbitrary decision; it is the natural cognitive result of being persuaded by the weight of the cumulative case. Belief is not the choice - the willingness to impartially examine the evidence is.

1. The Epistemic Foundation: Reason and Explanation Before jumping to grand metaphysical conclusions, every rational worldview must establish its methodological ground rules:

• The Primacy of Reason: Reason is the foundational prerequisite for all intelligible human thought, discourse, and scientific discovery. Before we can evaluate evidence, construct an argument, or test a hypothesis, we must assume that the laws of logic are valid and that our rational faculties can distinguish truth from error.

  • If a skeptic claims that reason is not the ultimate test for knowledge - or attempts to replace it with pure sensory data, emotional preference, or cultural conditioning - what cognitive tool are they using to evaluate and defend that claim?

  • Any attempt to critique, dismiss, or subordinate reason must rely entirely on reason to construct a coherent objection. Reason cannot be proven invalid without presupposing its validity in the very act of the argument, making its primacy unavoidable, self-authenticating, and absolute.

• Inference to the Best Explanation (Abduction): In science, historiography, forensic investigation, and daily life, we rarely possess direct, real-time observational access to past events or underlying causes. Instead, we reason backward from observed effects to the most probable cause. Rather than demanding direct empirical observation for every claim, rational inquiry relies on abductive reasoning—evaluating competing hypotheses to determine which model best accounts for the full body of data.

  • A superior explanation is evaluated against key epistemic criteria:

    • Explanatory Scope: It accounts for multiple, independent lines of evidence rather than just a single isolated anomaly.

    • Explanatory Power: It makes the observed data plausible and expected, rather than requiring improbable coincidences.

    • Plausibility: It fits coherently with what we already know about reality and causal relationships.

    • Less Ad-Hoc: It does not rely on multiplying unwarranted, speculative assumptions simply to keep the hypothesis alive.

  • When evaluating worldviews, the goal is not to demand absolute geometric certainty, but to determine which framework provides the most coherent, unified explanation of the cumulative facts of our existence.

•           [ Cumulative Data ]

  (Cosmic Origin, Fine-Tuning, DNA, Rationality, Moral Realism)
                             │
            ┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
            ▼                                 ▼
   [ Naturalist Model ]             [ Theistic Model ]
 (Brute facts, unguided matter)    (Transcendent Mind / Designer)
            │                                 │
   Explains partial pieces           Unifies all dimensions
   with high ad-hoc cost             with high coherence 

2. The Explanatory Challenge: Five Foundational Questions

Any coherent worldview or metaphysical framework must offer robust explanatory power for the primary features of reality. When evaluating competing hypotheses through abductive reasoning, five foundational questions demand a credible answer:

• The Origin of Physical Reality (Cosmology): Modern astrophysics and philosophical logic agree that space, time, and matter had an absolute beginning. If physical reality transitioned from non-existence into existence, what caused it?

  • Because physical laws, matter, and time cannot cause themselves, the cause of physical reality must transcend physical reality—being uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immensely powerful.

  • Asserting that the universe popped into existence uncaused out of literal nothingness is not a scientific explanation; it is an appeal to magic without a magician.

• The Origin of Information in DNA (Biology): Living organisms are not merely complex chemistry; they are governed by specified, digital, semiotic code inscribed in the sequences of DNA.

  • In every realm of human experience—whether computer software, hieroglyphics, or written language—specified instructional information originates exclusively from a conscious mind, never unguided physical processes.

  • Chemistry explains the ink and paper of the biological text, but physical chemistry alone cannot account for the semantic code itself.

• The Validity of Human Reasoning (Philosophy of Mind): If naturalism is true, our brains are the accidental byproduct of blind, unguided, non-rational physical processes shaped solely for reproductive fitness and survival, not for truth-tracking.

  • If physical matter and deterministic chemical reactions dictate our every thought, rational inference becomes an illusion.

  • On what rational grounds can we trust our scientific deductions, philosophical reasoning, or logical conclusions if the instruments producing them were not designed to track objective truth?

• The Reality of Objective Moral Obligations (Ethics): Human experience universalizes deep moral convictions—for instance, that torturing an innocent child for fun is objectively evil, regardless of what any culture or tyrant decrees.

  • Under strict materialism, morality reduces to socio-biological herd instinct, subjective personal preference, or chemical conditioning.

  • What grounds binding, objective moral duties and universal human dignity if humans are nothing more than accidental configurations of carbon molecules?

• The Comprehensibility of the Cosmos (Epistemology): The physical universe is governed by elegant mathematical symmetries and invariant laws that our abstract, rational minds are uniquely capable of discovering and mapping.

  • Why should the physical behavior of subatomic particles and cosmic orbits correspond to the abstract mathematical deductions developed inside the human mind?

  • A coherent model must explain the profound alignment between the rational structure of the cosmos and the rational capacity of human consciousness.

 2. The Explanatory Challenge: Five Foundational Questions

Any coherent worldview or metaphysical framework must offer robust explanatory power for the primary features of reality. When evaluating competing hypotheses through abductive reasoning, five foundational questions demand a credible answer:

• The Origin of Physical Reality (Cosmology): Modern astrophysics and philosophical logic agree that space, time, and matter had an absolute beginning. If physical reality transitioned from non-existence into existence, what caused it?

  • Because physical laws, matter, and time cannot cause themselves, the cause of physical reality must transcend physical reality—being uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immensely powerful.

  • Asserting that the universe popped into existence uncaused out of literal nothingness is not a scientific explanation; it is an appeal to magic without a magician.

• The Origin of Information in DNA (Biology): Living organisms are not merely complex chemistry; they are governed by specified, digital, semiotic code inscribed in the sequences of DNA.

  • In every realm of human experience—whether computer software, hieroglyphics, or written language—specified instructional information originates exclusively from a conscious mind, never unguided physical processes.

  • Chemistry explains the ink and paper of the biological text, but physical chemistry alone cannot account for the semantic code itself.

• The Validity of Human Reasoning (Philosophy of Mind): If naturalism is true, our brains are the accidental byproduct of blind, unguided, non-rational physical processes shaped solely for reproductive fitness and survival, not for truth-tracking.

  • If physical matter and deterministic chemical reactions dictate our every thought, rational inference becomes an illusion.

  • On what rational grounds can we trust our scientific deductions, philosophical reasoning, or logical conclusions if the instruments producing them were not designed to track objective truth?

• The Reality of Objective Moral Obligations (Ethics): Human experience universalizes deep moral convictions—for instance, that torturing an innocent child for fun is objectively evil, regardless of what any culture or tyrant decrees.

  • Under strict materialism, morality reduces to socio-biological herd instinct, subjective personal preference, or chemical conditioning.

  • What grounds binding, objective moral duties and universal human dignity if humans are nothing more than accidental configurations of carbon molecules?

• The Comprehensibility of the Cosmos (Epistemology): The physical universe is governed by elegant mathematical symmetries and invariant laws that our abstract, rational minds are uniquely capable of discovering and mapping.

  • Why should the physical behavior of subatomic particles and cosmic orbits correspond to the abstract mathematical deductions developed inside the human mind?

  • A coherent model must explain the profound alignment between the rational structure of the cosmos and the rational capacity of human consciousness.

Conclusion 

Nobody can force themselves to believe in God on command, nor should they. True belief is never an act of arbitrary self-delusion or manufactured emotional willpower; it is the intellect’s natural, involuntary assent when confronted with compelling evidence and explanatory coherence. When we discard the caricature of faith as a blind leap into the dark and treat metaphysical inquiry as an inference to the best explanation, the central question comes into sharp focus: Which worldview actually accounts for rthe world as we find it?

Naturalism leaves us with an uncaused cosmic beginning out of nothing, digital code without an author, non-rational particles generating rational thought, binding moral obligations derived from blind matter, and mathematical laws aligning with human consciousness by sheer luck. In contrast, theism provides a single, unified, and coherent foundation: a transcendent, rational Mind who instantiated the universe, encoded life, and grounded human dignity.

The epistemic choice before us is not whether we can magically force ourselves to believe in invisible pink elephants or flip a psychological switch. The real choice is whether we possess the intellectual honesty and courage to set aside prejudice, follow the evidence wherever it leads, and embrace the explanation that best accounts for the totality of reality.

"Slave": What Ancient Hebrew Really Meant by Ebed and Amah

From Chattel to Chief of Staff: The Surprising Spectrum of Hebrew "Servants"

Introduction

Modern readers encountering the words "slave" or "servant" in the Old Testament almost inevitably picture the horrors of transatlantic chattel slavery—abduction, total dehumanization, and perpetual bondage. Reading that imagery back into ancient Hebrew texts misses the complex social, economic, and spiritual realities of the ancient Near East.

In biblical Hebrew, the terms ebed (masculine) and amah (feminine) carry a semantic range far broader than modern English allows. Depending on context, they can signify a bond-servant settling a debt, a high-ranking royal officer, a trusted family heir, or a worshiper standing in honored devotion before God. Understanding these words requires peeling back modern assumptions to examine how language, culture, and covenant actually operated.

The "Boardroom to Battlefield" Spectrum

Think of the modern term "contractor" or "associate."

If an entry-level worker signs a rigid, six-year employment contract to pay off an overwhelming financial debt, their daily autonomy is sharply restricted by their employer. Yet, in the very same corporate structure, the Senior Executive Vice President might formally address the CEO as "Your humble associate" or "At your service."

Both individuals share a title tied to service, but one denotes economic distress, while the other denotes premier status, loyalty, and executive authority. Calling both simply "slaves" flattens the hierarchy and erases the entire social architecture.

Core Concepts & Linguistic Breakdown

1. The Root Verb: Abad (עבד) Occurring roughly 300 times in the Hebrew Bible, the verb abad fundamentally means to work, cultivate, serve, or labor. Its meaning shifts dynamically depending on the object of the action:

• Agricultural Labor: To "work" a field means to plow or cultivate it (Genesis 2:5).

• Labor for Another: Working for someone else can represent contractual labor (as Jacob served Laban in Genesis 29:15) or severe state oppression (as Israel experienced in Egypt under Exodus 1:14).

• Divine Action & Devotion: When God Himself acts or works (Isaiah 28:21), the root denotes purposeful engagement. Service offered to God is presented not as degrading subjugation, but as a liberating covenant duty.

2. Ebed (עבד) – Masculine Servitude, Status, and Allegiance Occurring almost 800 times, the masculine noun ebed spans several distinct categories:

• Economic Servitude: Debt-servitude under the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 21:2) functioned largely as an insolvency mechanism capped at six years, with stipulations aimed at protecting families and guaranteeing release.

• Domestic Position & Inheritance: An ebed was often an integrated member of the household. Abraham’s chief servant Eliezer was initially in line to inherit his entire estate prior to Isaac's birth (Genesis 15:2).

• Royal Administration: A king's high-ranking ministers, ambassadors, and generals were formally titled his ebedim (servants). In this context, being the king's servant was a mark of supreme political authority over ordinary citizens.

• Honorific Title of Faith: The greatest figures in biblical history—Moses, Abraham, David, and the prophets—are honored with the title Ebed YHWH (Servant of the Lord). In Isaiah, the ultimate messianic redeemer is designated as the "Suffering Servant."

• Polite Diplomatic Form (Ebedek): Saying "your servant" (ebedek) functioned as formal etiquette among equals or to a superior, roughly equivalent to archaic English closures like "Your obedient servant" or Dutch/German honorifics.

3. Amah (אמה) & Shiphchah (שפחה) – The Female Household Sphere The feminine noun amah (along with its related term shiphchah) refers to a female servant, maid, or handmaid:

• Family Integration and Marriage: Unlike male field hands, an amah frequently entered a household through marriage or concubinage arrangements (Exodus 21:7–11). Mosaic law explicitly prohibited treating her as ordinary property; if her marital rights (food, clothing, and marital relations) were neglected, she was granted immediate freedom without financial penalty.

• Expressions of Deep Humility: Women of notable standing used amah to refer to themselves when speaking respectfully to figures of spiritual or civic authority (e.g., Hannah praying before Eli in 1 Samuel 1:16, or Abigail addressing David in 1 Samuel 25:24).

Conclusion

Translating ebed and amah as a single, static English word inevitably distorts the ancient text. In the biblical world, service was the universal language of relationship. It framed financial obligations, defined royal diplomacy, and described the highest calling a human could achieve: total, voluntary allegiance to the Creator. When we restore these words to their original depth, we discover that ancient servitude was not a monolith, but a multifaceted window into ancient law, community, and faith.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16—Does the Mosaic Law Forbid the Return of All Runaway Slaves?

“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him. - Deuteronomy 23:15-16

Three Views

1. This law applies to foreign servants/slaves who have fled to Israel 
2. This law applies to perpetual servants/slaves within Israel 
3. This law applies to all servants/slaves who have escaped from their masters

Pros and Cons 

Pros for [1]: This law applies to foreign servants/slaves who have fled to Israel

a - Some think verse 16 (shall dwell with you, in your midst) indicates that a foreign servants/slaves who has come to Israel is in view (Cragie, New International Commentary on the Old Testament)

b - ANE treaties exist which speak of repatriating slaves; in not permitting this Israel’s law would be distinctive (Merrill, New American Commentary, 312; Block NIV Application Commentary, 544).

c - The previous context dealt with “the topic of military campaigns” and “the plight of foreign servants/slaves may have arisen in the light of this context more than at any other period” (Woods, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, 245).

d - This is how the ancient Jewish writers understood it (Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, 100)

Cons for [1]

a -  Israelite-born escaped servants/slaves would have also needed a guarantee of a place to live. Given his socially weak condition, the protections of this law make good sense for Israelite-born slaves as well.

b - Block cites not only treaties that deal with this issue but also laws; this law could deal with both situations (Block NIV Application Commentary, 543-44). This point therefore actually supports view 3.

c - The contextual connection is not clear. These verses could just as likely be connected with what follows.

d - The testimony of ancient Jewish writers gives weight to position 1, but is not decisive.

Pros for  [2] This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners servants/slaves within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary)

a. Debt slaves served for a term of six years (and presumably did not, therefore, have a reason to run away) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary)

Cons for  [2] 

a. There is no exclusion in the text of debt slaves, 

b, Six years with a cruel and wicked master would have been a long time.

Pros for [3]. This law applies to all servants/slaves who have escaped from their masters (Wright, 
New International Biblical Commentary).

a. The text itself does not limit the law to foreign servants/slaves 

b. The option to choose any place in Israel does not necessitate that a foreign servants/slaves is in view. Rather, a benefit is being extended “on behalf of the poor and the weak” Deuteronomy 15:7-8  This law would put pressure on the system of servanthood/slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial to the servants/slaves. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area.

c. The existence of this law would testify that slavery/servanthood in Israel was to be of such a nature that no servant/slave would want to run away and (as other passages indicate) that some would desire to remain in that condition. This does not prove that Israelite slaves are in view, but it testifies to the likelihood of this possibility.

The decisive factor in favor of position 3 is that the law itself does not specify that it is limited to foreign servants/slaves.

Exodus 21:20-21 Beating Your Slave

Note: the English word "slave" comes from the Hebrew ebed or amah -see here for insightful details 

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Exodus 21:20-21

Is the verse speaking about possession by ownership vs possession by debt contract?

Possession by ownership doesn't make sense. If the slave is his property [possession by ownership], then why is he punished if he kills his slave? [i.e. must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result]

But if this is possession by debt contract, then this does make sense. Certainly it provides no provision for killing, but the 2nd half makes sense since if a worker is out of action for 1–2 days then the owner has one less worker for that time. Any fine would be on top of the lost revenue from the non-working servant. And this seems to be an incentive not to impose corporal punishment willy-nilly, as the owner stands to lose financially.

And this makes significantly more sense when one considers the Anti-Return Law of DT 23:15-16

 
Reading the "slavery" verse with the contextual lens of indentured servitude makes considerably more sense

Note: Even a free person could be physically punished:

“If there is a dispute between men, and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty, then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a number of stripes in proportion to his offense. Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight". Deuteronomy 25:1-3

Physical punishments for crimes or injuries, including floggings, branding and even mutilations, were practiced in most civilizations since ancient times.

Question: Why are you allowed to beat your slave as long as they don't die?

Based on the larger Old Testament context, it is safe to assume that slave masters were not allowed carte blanche authority to do whatever they wanted to their slaves. For instance, the Anti-Oppression laws:

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

In Exodus 21, slave owners are limited in what they can do: if the master goes too far and the slave dies, the master will be punished. If the Old Testament Law is followed consistently, then the punishment for the slave owner might even include the death penalty for murder. 

Of course, if a master beats his slave and the slave is unable to work for some time, the master has punished himself by losing the work he might have received from the slave. The implication here is that it is in the master’s best interest not to be too severe. 

cod3man Defends Unsupported Presumptions, and Claims No Need to Defend the Idea that the Old Testament Condoned Chattel Slavery

Who is cod3man? A Reddit poster, and moderator of three two anti-Christian Subreddits r/DebateReligion, r/DebateAnAtheist, & r/askanatheist.  [I don't see cod3man listed as a mod for DebateReligion even though it's listed on cod3man's profile page......] 

Note: cod3man tried to preemptively bar me from critiquing his views here. Quote: you do not have my permission to reproduce my comment or any portion on your blog. 

Fortunately, there is the fair use doctrine which can be summarized as under the fair use doctrine of the US copyright statute it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes for purposes such as commentary criticism news reporting and scholarly reports [emphasis mine]. I'm clearly critiquing his comments, so I’m on the solid ground. Apparently, cod3man only wants to discuss on Reddit, where opposing views can be suppressed by downvotes.

cod3man makes this statement, "Lichtenstein is a successful country without any military spending". And this statement "Lichtenstein exists". cod3man claims that statement one needs to be defended, and the other does not. Then cod3man boldly makes this statement: we don't need to defend the Old Testament condones chattel slavery.

I'll add statement 4: the Old Testament exists since it is analogous to "Lichtenstein exists".

cod3man's logic is that statement 1 "Lichtenstein/no defense spending" needs to be defended and two "Lichtenstein exists" does not.  If that's true, then the "Old Testament condones chattel slavery" and the  does and "the Old Testament exists" does not.

Why? Because "Lichtenstein/no defense spending" is the core idea, as is Old Testament condones chattel slavery. The author is supposed to focus upon the key or fundamental idea, as it's the reason the subject matter is in discussion.  So it must be defended. 

cod3man states a premise being taken as obvious doesn't mean you can't challenge it. 

How does one do this? By critically examining the data and proposing a better explanation. Which is what I've done with all my post about the Old Testament and slavery. cod3man obviously disagrees with my conclusions, but one should argue from the data, not assert that your view is "obviously" true and needs no defense. That's irrational, unreasonable and illogical. 

So why does cod3man have a problem when I do this if the Old Testament/chattel slavery idea can be challenged? Why not argue from that data instead of asserting that it's obvious that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery? cod3man might be correct, but that needs to be shown via the data and not just asserted

It doesn't make any sense on one hand to say it can be challenged, on the other hand say it needs no defense. If something is challenged, then there is a need for it to be defended.

cod3man it is obvious that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery anyone who reads it plainly comes to that conclusion. 

One of the many problems is that we assume our own frame of reference for the text and assume that what makes sense to us from our own cultural, social, religious context is what the text itself means to say. Like when critics see the word "slavery" they immediately think "chattel slavery",  but that isn't supported by the text nor the historical/social context. 

If cod3man thinks that the context shows that Channel slavery is the best understanding of the ntext, then it needs to be argued for that from the data from the start. Why go through the rigmarole of saying it's "self-evident" or "obvious" when you know you have to argue from the data?

My guess is that it's a bluff. Either critics are too indolent to do the work, or they have done the work and know the argument can't be made. So they try to bluff and bluster....

cod3man: All the scholars who study the OT say that [the OT condones chattel slavery]

First that's incorrect:

There is Paul Copan. 

There's Kushner, The d'rash commentary, edited by Harold Kushner in Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary p457 -  Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.

There's this entry from HANEL, Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.

I could go on, but it doesn't matter, this isn't a "count the scholars on your side, and who has the most wins" - it what's the best explanation from the data. What's the argument from the data, cod3man?

cod3man: The only people who deny it are people like you, who have strong external motivation to do so.

First, to assume that those who say the Old Testament equals chattel slavery do not have strong external motivation is simply false as everybody has biases including experts, including scholars, including atheists. They do not have some sort of innate ability that frees them from all bias.

Are we to think cod3man an avowed atheist, moderating 2 discussion boards promoting/defending atheism is not biased against God or Christianity? 

Second, it doesn't matter; it's what the data says but what we can infer as the best explanation of the data. I know that I've said this over and over, but it's true. What is the best explanation of the data

Let's look at the argument from an atheist scholar who has argued that Exodus 21:16 concerned only Hebrew slaves. Let's not assume that this expert is correct just because he's an expert. Let's examine his argument. 

Joshua Bowen wrote the book that alot of atheists and other critics reference. 

The full argument can be found here: Bowen's Argument Concerning Exodus 21:16 Examined

Bowen's first question, "is this passage describing a Hebrew slave or foreign slave"? [113] then looks at verses 1 through 6 to show that the passages begin with laws regarding Hebrew slaves. Bowen attempts to make a connection between the word "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave) and similarities between the word "habiru/hapiru" that was used to describe groups of outsiders or outlaws and other Ancient Near East texts [114]. He reaches his conclusion: "the passage is speaking about the laws concerning slavery of the Israelite". [115]

So, Bowen's argument is that the use of "eved ivri" [Hebrew slave] in Ex 21:1 means that Ex 21:16 is about Hebrew slaves.

The first problem is that "eved ivri" is not found in vs 16. In fact, after being used in verse 1, it's not used again in all of Exodus 21.

Bowen wants us to think that all the following verses pertain to laws regarding Hebrew slaves. I will grant that the context to verse 11 seems to be in regard to Hebrew slaves.

However, starting in verse 12 we get four verses starting with "whoever", then ten starting "when men" or "when a man does x" versus. [There is one "when an ox", and one "when a fire" verse] Following Bowen's logic are these speaking of a Hebrew ox and a Hebrew fire? 

This strongly suggests that Exodus 21 switch gears in verse 12 to another topic that extends to all persons - personal injuries, manslaughter, murder, theft, etc

So to think that verse 16 is about a Hebrew slave based on the use of "eved ivri" in verse ONE seems to fall apart.... given the multitude of "whoever" and "when a man" verses.

Secondly, the writer who chose to use "eved ivri", chose not to use that term, and instead a different identifier - the terms translated "whoever and "when a man". And in verses 20 and 22 the writer uses ebed (slave)- not "eved ivri" (Hebrew slave)

Given Bowen's argument relies on specific words being used in verse 1, the fact they are not used elsewhere, this strongly indicates that we are no longer talking about Hebrew slaves exclusively in Exodus 21.

Are we to think that laws in verses 12 to 36 about personal injury, manslaughter, murder, theft etc only concern Hebrew slaves but not the general population? If there are specific laws for free Hebrews concerning these matters, where are they? 

No, The best explanation is that verse 12 tacked off onto other topics that included all Hebrews.

As I said, give me an argument from the data, not what a scholar says, or what the "consensus" is

Why don't you just reply on Reddit?