Self-Contradictions of the Bible

[sylvan3]

I didn't read through all of these as they had the same pattern.

None of these are contradictions.

Example 1. God happy with his creation, then not.

When we were originally created, yes God was happy with us and knew it was good, but as is typical for us, we don't stay that way. At creation we were sinless... then Adam and Eve sinned... then mankind became basically evil and fallen. Therefore, no longer could God stand us as sinful people in his holy presence.... therefore, sent Jesus eventually.

Therefore God can and is both happy and not.

Could you elaborate on your last sentence above? Please include the concept of God's omniscience relative to why he would be unhappy when he knew ahead of time that Adam and Eve were going to sin.

Edited July 23, 2006 by sylvan3

[Leonard]

There's a greater consequence than HELL........?????????????

YES! YES THERE IS! And that is to intellectually dishonest. I would a thousand times rather spend time talking with an intellecually honest atheist (in fact, I ADORE THE INTELLECTUAL REPARTE WITH THEM!), than with an intellectually dishonest 'Christian'!!!

IT IS UTTERLY IMPERITIVE TO OUR INDIVIDUAL HUMANITY to be intellectually honest!

[Leonard]

Chestnuts! Chestnuts! All much to easy for me to waste time on. I'm quite sure that if you put on your little thinking cap for a moment, you can come up with the solutiions to all of these.

C'mon! I BELIEVE the Bible, and I can give you far better 'contradictions' within it's text, than these silly 'pretend' contradiction you've reproduced here. I WANT A CHALLENGE!

I'm sorry; you'll just have to do MUCH BETTER or risk boring me...........

The text is clearly contradictory, if it isn't, then explain it. By explain it, I mean tell me why what I just listed, which is only 23 of the 144 contradictions in William Henry Burr's book, are not contradictions. Since you cannot, it is contradictory. And asking for a challenge when you've utterly failed to even address the point of a 'perfect book' being contradictory is even more irrational than believing something with no evidence.

As for those of you who continually use the consequence of hell as a reason for your faith, or that I should be faithful, is morally bankrupt. You are 'moral,' or at least live by a set of morals, because you fear hell. An atheist, on the other hand, is moral simply for the sake of Being moral, and not out of fear. The religious, in this case Christians, choose their actions based on a fear of damnation, whereas the atheistic operate morally with no such evil consequence.

The fact that you 'believe' something is absolutely meaningless in this argument, because your belief about anything in any other discourse with no evidence would be useless as well. Religion, as it currently exists, is the only portion of our human discourse where evidence, for whatever reason, is not necessary to the conversation. Generally, if someone says "It's my belief that God exists and he intercedes in our affairs," that's pretty much the end of the argument. We are not allowed to ask "what makes drawing ethics out of the bible different from drawing ethics out of other mythical and allegorical doctrines like the Iliad and the Odyssey." And this is a question which both must, and cannot, be truthfully answered by apologists.

Also, to comment on the assertion that I am somehow seeking rebellion out of all this, that is dramatically inaccurate, and ignorantly composed. You are operating on a presupposition that you are right, which for all its worth, should exclude you from rational conversation. Since you obviously are not correct in your assumption that I somehow am relishing in the demonic and blasphemic light of atheism, the rest of your characterization of my personal beliefs are equally unfounded. To be clear, I do not discount the possibility that God exists, I merely am conclusive in my assumption that the Christian God is not him.

Now you've done it! You've gone and BORED me. You see, I simply asked you to 'put on your thinking cap', and I just KNOW you yourself can answer each and every one of these 'contradictions,' and instead you've decided just to wallow in the pretense that these are really 'contradictions.' Even after I offered to give you some which are MUCH BETTER 'STUMPERS' than the ones you've reproduced. All these have been answered for at least 1800 years! Come now, get some new material.

By the way, I don't think I stated any 'assumption' about the moral character of your beliefs, and certainly never stated any 'characterization' of them. I only talked about what you wrote, and stated it was too simplistic (and OLD, incidentally) for me to waste my time on. Personally, I would rather watch Whose Line Is It Anyway?. This last paragraph has been a lot more fun than answering anything else you wrote about!

Then again, I've been uncharacteristically grouchy these last few decades.........

[Leonard]

Has anyone ever been to the North Pole? Seen it for yourself? Then do you believe it's there? Why? Because most other people believe it's there? Because you read it in a book? Saw a video? All that can be faked. But everyone believes it's there. That's faith. No, I haven't seen the North Pole for myself but I have faith that it's there. I've never seen God with my physical eyes but He's way more real to me than the North Pole....does anyone know what I'm trying to say?

I will admit to having faith in lots of things. But if all I had was faith, I sure wouldn't be arguing that what I had faith in was the real deal. That's what apologists do.

TOUCHE' SYLVAN! At last you have gotten to the very heart of the issue! You are still too sweeping in your appraisal of 'what apologists do' but your statement is MOST insightful. I'm beginning to get excited again! Why there's almost a hint of intellectual honesty............. (Just teasing!)

[Jorge S]

To be clear, I do not discount the possibility that God exists, I merely am conclusive in my assumption that the Christian God is not him.

Hi, Arjuous

The root of your problem lies in that statement. I also became a Christian from more or less the same grounding, i.e. a self-imposed presupposition. I'm glad you honestly stated that your decision is based on a personal assumption. You have decided what God you would believe in and the One depicted in the Bible does not match your expectations.

If you meditate upon the relationships you have been engaged into during your adult life you may clearly see that assumptions did not do to them any good or were not implicated at all. You needed to know every particular person for who they were and what you objectively knew about them had probably nothing to do with the sketches you assumed.

Same happens with God. You need to know Him for Who He is rather than expecting Him to become what you think He should be. Christians have resolved to believe in the biblical God because we have opened ourselves to Him and allowed Him to speak to us, not otherwise.

The contradictions you have quoted purport to be logical but they are based on illogical argumentation and/or methodology, e.g.:

1- They are taken out of context, therefore they are forced to say what the critic wants and not what God may have intended.

2- They ignore the historic character of God's Revelation. Certain passages suit an epoch or a situation and cannot be taken absolutely.

3- They are oblivious to the fact that a Supreme Being (with all attributes and qualities with would intellectually ascribe to such a Being) chose to make himself knowable in common language accessible to the majority of people anytime and everywhere. The terms, stories, parables or allegories used in different passages are there to convey an understandable truth and should not be treated mechanistically.

4- The Bible is a very special book written over a long span of time by different people from different backgrounds in different places. The unity of the Book is given by Its Ultimate Author (God) and Its Main Subject (Our Salvation.) The Bible is naturally cross-referenced: it contains its own answers. The level at which you understand The Bible depends on your own level of spiritual progress triggered and sustained by God Himself.

5- Due to reasons 2, 3 and 4, the Bible is more than a list of 'articles' of faith or 'philosophic' concepts to learn by heart, as many critics would like it to be. The Bible is essentially a record of God's historic dealings with Mankind whereby the bases for our faith are seen in operation along time. Needless to say they have endured the test of time.

Would you allow God to speak directly to you? I can offer my prayers in this regard.

Be blessed.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Jorge S

[sylvan3]

Has anyone ever been to the North Pole? Seen it for yourself? Then do you believe it's there? Why? Because most other people believe it's there? Because you read it in a book? Saw a video? All that can be faked. But everyone believes it's there. That's faith. No, I haven't seen the North Pole for myself but I have faith that it's there. I've never seen God with my physical eyes but He's way more real to me than the North Pole....does anyone know what I'm trying to say?

I will admit to having faith in lots of things. But if all I had was faith, I sure wouldn't be arguing that what I had faith in was the real deal. That's what apologists do.

TOUCHE' SYLVAN! At last you have gotten to the very heart of the issue! You are still too sweeping in your appraisal of 'what apologists do' but your statement is MOST insightful. I'm beginning to get excited again! Why there's almost a hint of intellectual honesty............. (Just teasing!)

Thanks for the comment. Actually, I have always been intellectually honest IMO. Why, I can even accept other people's beliefs if they are being honest. Honest.

[ted]

Why would someone assume that people who accept God at His Word were not being intellectually honest with themselves?

Is that to say that we have to assume the Bible is full of lies and contradictions in order to be honest with ourselves?

I'm confused.

t.

[Anne]

Arjuous,

if you wish for the verses to be explained, please let me know, via this thread. However I do warn you that they are not contradictory, it all just depends upon who's looking glass you are watching through. However if you wish for each verse to be explained, i am more that happy to do so.

God of Israel bring you safely home.

[sylvan3]

Why would someone assume that people who accept God at His Word were not being intellectually honest with themselves?

Is that to say that we have to assume the Bible is full of lies and contradictions in order to be honest with ourselves?

I'm confused.

t.

I don't see anything confusing. I'll return the question to you: Am I to assume that everyone who says they "accept God at His Word" is being honest with me or themselves? Let's be realistic. I know for a fact that's not true. My statement was not a blanket statement saying that all who "accept God at His Word" are not honest.

[Arjuous]

Well, Jorge S

First, let me say I appreciate your manner in addresssing me, that is with respect. I realize, as we all probably do, that there is little chance either of us will convince the other. However, you must admit that your belief doesn't allow you the leeway that say, an atheist, would have in determining his/her place in the universe. But I'm getting off topic, I just want to you to know I appreciate your civility.

I'll start by addressing your post. You began after an introduction by saying,

"I'm glad you honestly stated that your decision is based on a personal assumption. You have decided what God you would believe in and the One depicted in the Bible does not match your expectations."

I think you have the idea right, but some of the presuppositions of this statement might lead others to misinterpret my worldview. My decision, if we are assuming that decision is Not to believe the bible, is based upon personal experience, research, and evidence, not an assumption. I admit, it's easy to confuse the two, but they are certainly different. The next statement you make contains a similarly skewed presupposition. It isn't as if I have expectations of who or what God would be, in any facet. The evidence and reasoning behind Christianity, however, I am convinced is not the work of God, if he exists.

Now we can go into different theological arguments about the 'existence' of God, but I don't feel it would do any good, because this is a predominately Christian audience, and it's beside the point in general. Rather, Christianity, since it believes without evidence some extraordinary claims about the universe, must be able to defend itself, and Should be able to do so with ease. So, that being the case, let's focus on Christianity.

Some people might miss the point when apologists begin to try and explain self-contradictions. I'll try and address those by addressing the 4 points you mentioned.

The contradictions you have quoted purport to be logical but they are based on illogical argumentation and/or methodology, e.g.:

1- They are taken out of context, therefore they are forced to say what the critic wants and not what God may have intended.

They actually aren't taken out of any Christian context at all, only from different stories. Firstly, the God of the Christian faith is very tempermental and emotional, which is enough for me to start being skeptical. Besides that, though, most of the contradictions listed in William Henry Burr's book (which was printed in 1860 and compiled in 1859 by the way, I'm not sure how someone assumed that the 'contradictions' have been somehow been 'solved' or 'explained' for 1800 years), are based upon simple reasoning. If in the book that God wrote, which is infallible, it states a principle or property of God, which means then that the principle IS an UNDENIABLE FACT about God. This connection is perfectly rational. So, a principle is, let's say, James 1:13 that says "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, NEITHER HE TEMPTETH ANY MAN." But that principle is contradicted BY GOD in Genesis, where in Genisis 22:1 the author wrote "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

Or, in John 1:18 it says "No man hath seen God AT ANY TIME." But again, in Exodus 33:11 it says "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." These are fundamental contradictions about the nature of God and they are Littered throughout the text. It is not congruent at all, and there's no basis for congruence to even be considered. Context in the storyline, isn't relevant to the case being made, that God contradicted himself on a fundamental principle, which is within a Christian Context, not a specific one.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Arjuous