Contridictions in the Bible

[McQ]

I doubt any of the explanations would be anything really new. They would all point to a select few number of reasons Christians have had engraved into their brains as auto responses in debate against us. For example they could answer every single contradiction with:

"If there is a God then he would be far beyond our understanding and we must trust in his knowledge even when things don't make sense."

Drives me nuts  

Man, are you ever right on with this! No matter what the debate is about, the final trump card for christians is what you just posted. And then it usually goes beyond that to how arrogant atheists are to even begin to think we could challenge god's knowledge.

[BadPoison]

I doubt any of the explanations would be anything really new. They would all point to a select few number of reasons Christians have had engraved into their brains as auto responses in debate against us. For example they could answer every single contradiction with:

"If there is a God then he would be far beyond our understanding and we must trust in his knowledge even when things don't make sense."

Drives me nuts  

Man, are you ever right on with this! No matter what the debate is about, the final trump card for christians is what you just posted. And then it usually goes beyond that to how arrogant atheists are to even begin to think we could challenge god's knowledge.

Right - it's so incredibly frustrating! But couldn't the argument be made, that if God did create us, and God is also truth, shouldn't questioning him with the reason he himself gave us only lead us back to him? Yet, it doesn't - so isn't this the ultimate demonstration of how God must be bogus? Or at least how all of the religions' understanding of him/her/it entirely flawed?

[MariaEvri]

I doubt any of the explanations would be anything really new.

which we're still waiting for, btw...

[chuff]

I doubt any of the explanations would be anything really new. They would all point to a select few number of reasons Christians have had engraved into their brains as auto responses in debate against us. For example they could answer every single contradiction with:

"If there is a God then he would be far beyond our understanding and we must trust in his knowledge even when things don't make sense."

Drives me nuts  

Man, are you ever right on with this! No matter what the debate is about, the final trump card for christians is what you just posted. And then it usually goes beyond that to how arrogant atheists are to even begin to think we could challenge god's knowledge.

Right - it's so incredibly frustrating! But couldn't the argument be made, that if God did create us, and God is also truth, shouldn't questioning him with the reason he himself gave us only lead us back to him? Yet, it doesn't - so isn't this the ultimate demonstration of how God must be bogus? Or at least how all of the religions' understanding of him/her/it entirely flawed?

I think one of the cruelest things about the idea of god is that he supposedly created all of us with corrupted reason.

So the method he gave us to come to correct conclusions and verify evidence (and convict criminals, and make decisions, and solve problems, and innovate) is flawed. And it's supposed to be a gift from him.

And supposedly the only time it doesn't work right is when we try to find out whether god exists or not.. hmm..

[BadPoison]

Right, I don't know what else to say about this.

Did Perspective leave our humble forum? So much for him addressing any contradictions.

[curiosityandthecat]

Right, I don't know what else to say about this.

Did Perspective leave our humble forum? So much for him addressing any contradictions.

Well, staring at over 1,400 contradictions is rather... daunting.  

[G.ENIGMA]

Well remember, the Bible is claiming to be the truth weather you believe it or not.  So since the scripture declares as a matter of fact that God exist, technically it then really does become foolish to deny His existence.

Though I believe that certain events in the bible happened from historic point of view I cannot believe that a God who is so powerful would delibertely allow so many inconsistencies and contradictions to be carried through the generations since the bible was written, without the need to rectify them.

After all its not as if he would have trouble doing so.

[curiosityandthecat]

Well remember, the Bible is claiming to be the truth weather you believe it or not.  So since the scripture declares as a matter of fact that God exist, technically it then really does become foolish to deny His existence.

Though I believe that certain events in the bible happened from historic point of view I cannot believe that a God who is so powerful would delibertely allow so many inconsistencies and contradictions to be carried through the generations since the bible was written, without the need to rectify them. :idea:

[Man-ofGod]

Well remember, the Bible is claiming to be the truth weather you believe it or not.  So since the scripture declares as a matter of fact that God exist, technically it then really does become foolish to deny His existence.

Though I believe that certain events in the bible happened from historic point of view I cannot believe that a God who is so powerful would delibertely allow so many inconsistencies and contradictions to be carried through the generations since the bible was written, without the need to rectify them.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:28  is before the fall of man, LE 12:1-8 is after the fall of man.  This is actually a Bible fundamental.

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

Again, before the fall of man and then after the fall of man.  Last note actually implies that since God is omniscient he would predict the bad and stop it before it happens or that He would not be displeased since he saw it coming.  Another fundamental in the Bible is that God wants his creation to choose him not just serve him out of fear.  Thats why He still created Lucifer/Satin, Humans, and a the third of the Angles that followed Satin.  More philosophical then anything else but you get the point.  If He wanted robot love, He would of created robots:)  Can you feel the love! (or is that tin?).


This can get tedious  If you want, you can select your favorites?

[karadan]

What? Wait.. So there are NO inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible then?

None at all?

Welcome to the forum by the way

[joeactor]

What? Wait.. So there are NO inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible then?
None at all?

Nope.  None.  Nada.

You're forgetting that god is included in all answers:
[attachment=0:3syv3ifd]ThenAMiracleOccurs.gif[/attachment:3syv3ifd]

In my opinion, as long as it is allowed to invoke god, all answers become very simple... and very meaningless.

For every question or inconsistency you bring up, a true believer will find a way to make the data fit the theory.

... which can be difficult if you really want answers.

2 cents,
JoeActor

[Man-ofGod]

What? Wait.. So there are NO inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible then?
None at all?

Nope.  None.  Nada.

You're forgetting that god is included in all answers:
[attachment=0:1krrpuio]ThenAMiracleOccurs.gif[/attachment:1krrpuio]

In my opinion, as long as it is allowed to invoke god, all answers become very simple... and very meaningless.

For every question or inconsistency you bring up, a true believer will find a way to make the data fit the theory.

... which can be difficult if you really want answers.

2 cents,
JoeActor

Hey Joe!

I know what your getting at.  But weather you know it or not, thats a "damned if you do or damned if you don't"  mentality when it comes to the Bible that I often see.  With that mentality, the theory is that you can make any peace of literature "infallible."  But if you bring any other peace of literature , especially when it comes to religion to focus, it will fail the test.  For example, the Quran on a science front:

 Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached
the setting-place of the sun,
he found it going down into a muddy spring, ...
-- Sura Sura 18:86

And from a historical point its not a reliable document at all.

Now if I was forced in a situation to defend the Quran, does not matter what I say, its hard to put that in the context of the entire Quran and justify what it is saying, even if you try to put a philosophical spin on it.

If something is flawed, this is the type of info you would expect in it.  As it stands, I have not seen anything like this in the Bible.  Everything can be explained in its context perfectly.

Also another point  when it comes to the Bible. Yes there is a lot of wisdom in scripture verses. but for some reason when it comes to the Bible, "context" goes out of the window.  In fact, this is part of the reason why there is so many different denominations.  They build theologies on verses taken out context instead of translating them in context to the rest of scripture.

Anyway, on my break:) So I have to cut it short!  Just my 2 cents!

[Whitney]

Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached
the setting-place of the sun,
he found it going down into a muddy spring, ...
-- Sura Sura 18:86
 

Now, I'm not one to defend the Quran.  However, is it possible that this verse, in context, was not meant to be taken litterally?  It sounds rather poetic.

[G.ENIGMA]

I know what your getting at. But weather you know it or not, thats a "damned if you do or damned if you don't" mentality when it comes to the Bible that I often see. With that mentality, the theory is that you can make any peace of literature "infallible." But if you bring any other peace of literature , especially when it comes to religion to focus, it will fail the test. For example, the Quran on a science front:

Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached
the setting-place of the sun,
he found it going down into a muddy spring, ...
-- Sura Sura 18:86

And from a historical point its not a reliable document at all

From my point of view on a quick glance that verse just looks like someone saw a reflection of the sunset in a pool of dirty water ... but described in a more poetic way, it probably means something else to others.

Thats my point.

The jist I am getting from your argument though is that the Bible is a matter of opinion (yours or someone elses), he (god) meant this or what he really meant was that.

Why is it all so ambiguous

[Hollownucleus]

Rather then wait for a recycled explanation of contradictions from Man-of-God and perspective I went right to one of the popular websites http://christiananswers.net
They have quite a few topics listed there "explaining" away the contradictions. I chose one that is pretty important to me:
Why does God allow innocent people to suffer?   http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html

It was pretty much a waste of time reading.

They even bring up the whole argument of if he is all loving he must not be powerful enough to stop evil people from hurting others and if he is all powerful he must not love people enough to keep them from suffering. However they answer that problem by saying God is all knowing and should not be questioned.

So while I try to give people the benefit of the doubt I don't think any argument Man-of-God or Perspective could come up with to defend contradictions in the bible or with God could change my mind as long as you fall back on the tried and failed "because he is God" or "take it on faith" arguments.

But I look forward to being proven wrong.