Happy Atheist Forum

Whenever I say that the Bible contridicts itself, and is not a credible source of information, I get the question,

"And where exactly does it contridict itself?"

Here's a list I found listing 143 different contridictions within the Bible.

Theological doctrines:

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31

God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16

God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48

3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16

God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11

God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17

God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28

6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21

God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8

7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3

God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12

8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26

God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19

9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19

God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14

10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25

God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12

11. God is the author of evil
Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25

God is not the author of evil
1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13

12. God gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5/ Luke 11:10

God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving
them
John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17

13. God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17

God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28

14. God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15

God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33

15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19

God is kind, merciful, and good
James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/
1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8

16. God's anger is fierce and endures long
Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4

God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute
Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5

17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings,
sacrifices ,and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9

God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings,
sacrifices, and holy days.
Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12

18. God accepts human sacrifices
2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39

God forbids human sacrifice
Deut 12:30,31

19. God tempts men
Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13

God tempts no man
James 1:13

20. God cannot lie
Heb 6:18

God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits t deceive
2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9

21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him
Gen 6:5,7

Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him
Gen 8:21

22. God's attributes are revealed in his works.
Rom 1:20

God's attributes cannot be discovered
Job 11:7/ Is 40:28

23. There is but one God
Deut 6:4

There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7

Moral Precepts

24. Robbery commanded
Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36

Robbery forbidden
Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15

25. Lying approved and sanctioned
Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22

Lying forbidden
Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8

26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned
2 Kings 14:7,3

Hatred to the Edomite forbidden
Deut 23:7

27. Killing commanded
Ex 32:27

Killing forbidden
Ex 20:13

28. The blood-shedder must die
Gen 9:5,6

The blood-shedder must not die
Gen 4:15

29. The making of images forbidden
Ex 20:4

The making of images commanded
Ex 25:18,20

30. Slavery and oppression ordained
Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8

Slavery and oppression forbidden
Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10

31. Improvidence enjoyed
Matt 6:28,31,34/ Luke 6:30,35/ Luke 12:3

Improvidence condemned
1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22

32. Anger approved
Eph 4:26

Anger disapproved
Eccl 7:9/ Prov 22:24/ James 1:20

33. Good works to be seen of men
Matt 5:16

Good works not to be seen of men
Matt 6:1

34. Judging of others forbidden
Matt 7:1,2

Judging of others approved
1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12

35. Christ taught non-resistance
Matt 5:39/ Matt 26:52

Christ taught and practiced physical resistance
Luke 22:36/ John 2:15

36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed
Luke 12:4

Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed
John 7:1

37. Public prayer sanctioned
1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3


Public prayer disapproved
Matt 6:5,6

38. Importunity in prayer commended
Luke 18:5,7

Importunity in prayer condemned
Matt 6:7,8

39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned
Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5

The wearing of long hair by men condemned
1 Cor 11:14

40. Circumcision instituted
Gen 17:10

Circumcision condemned
Gal 5:2

41. The Sabbath instituted
Ex 20:8

The Sabbath repudiated
Is 1:13/ Rom 14:5/ Col 2:16

42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day
Ex 20:11

The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites
out of Egypt
Deut 5:15

43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death
Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36

Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in
the same
John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5

44. Baptism commanded
Matt 28:19

Baptism not commanded
1 Cor 1:17,14

45. Every kind of animal allowed for food.
Gen 9:3/ 1 Cor 10:25/ Rom 14:14

Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food.
Deut 14:7,8

46. Taking of oaths sanctioned
Num 30:2/ Gen 21:23-24,31/ Gen 31:53/ Heb 6:13

Taking of oaths forbidden
Matt 5:34

47. Marriage approved
Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4

Marriage disapproved
1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8

48. Freedom of divorce permitted
Deut 24:1/ Deut 21:10,11,14

Divorce restricted
Matt 5:32

49. Adultery forbidden
Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4

Adultery allowed
Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3

50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced
Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17

Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union
Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16

51. A man may marry his brother's widow
Deut 25:5

A man may not marry his brother's widow
Lev 20:21

52. Hatred to kindred enjoined
Luke 14:26

Hatred to kindred condemned
Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29

53. Intoxicating beverages recommended
Prov 31:6,7/ 1 Tim 5:23/ Ps 104:15

Intoxicating beverages discountenanced
Prov 20:1/ Prov 23:31,32

54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers
and punish evil doers only
Rom 13:1-3,6

It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the
good and receive unto themselves damnation therefor
Ex 1:17,20/ Dan 3:16,18/ Dan 6:9,7,10/ Acts 4:26,27/
Mark 12:38,39,40/ Luke 23:11,24,33,35

55. Women's rights denied
Gen 3:16/ 1 Tim 2:12/ 1 Cor 14:34/ 1 Pet 3:6

Women's rights affirmed
Judg 4:4,14,15/ Judg 5:7/ Acts 2:18/ Acts 21:9

56. Obedience to masters enjoined
Col 3:22,23/ 1 Pet 2:18

Obedience due to God only
Matt 4:10/ 1 Cor 7:23/ Matt 23:10

57. There is an unpardonable sin
Mark 3:29

There is not unpardonable sin
Acts 13:39

Historical Facts

58. Man was created after the other animals
Gen 1:25,26,27

Man was created before the other animals
Gen 2:18,19

59. Seed time and harvest were never to cease
Gen 8:22

Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years
Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6

60. God hardened Pharaoh's heart
Ex 4:21/ Ed 9:12

Pharaoh hardened his own heart
Ex 8:15

61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died
Ex 9:3,6/ 14:9

All the horses of Egypt did not die
Ex 14:9

62. Moses feared Pharaoh
Ex 2:14,15,23; 4:19

Moses did not fear Pharaoh
Heb 11:27

63. There died of the plague twenty-four thousand
Num 25:9

There died of the plague but twenty-three thousand
1 Cor 10:8

64. John the Baptist was Elias
Matt 11:14

John the Baptist was not Elias
John 1:21

65. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob
Matt 1:16

The father of Mary's husband was Heli
Luke 3:23

66. The father of Salah was Arphaxad
Gen 11:12

The father of Salah was Cainan
Luke 3:35,36

67. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David
Matt 1:17

There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David
Matt 1:2-6

68. There were fourteen generations from the Babylonian captivity
to Christ.
Matt 1:17

There were but thirteen generations from the Babylonian
captivity to Christ
Matt 1:12-16

69. The infant Christ was taken into Egypt
Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23

The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt
Luke 2:22, 39

70. Christ was tempted in the wilderness
Mark 1:12,13

Christ was not tempted in the wilderness
John 2:1,2

71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount
Matt 5:1,2

Christ preached his first sermon on the plain
Luke 6:17,20

72. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee
Mark 1:14

John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee
John 1:43/ John 3:22-24

73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff
and sandals
Mark 6:8,9

Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither
staffs nor sandals.
Matt 10:9,10

74. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus
Matt 15:22

It was a Greek woman who besought Him
Mark 7:26

75. Two blind men besought Jesus
Matt 20:30

Only one blind man besought Him
Luke 18:35,38

76. Christ was crucified at the third hour
Mark 15:25

Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour
John 19:14,15

77. The two thieves reviled Christ.
Matt 27:44/ Mark 15:32

Only one of the thieves reviled Christ
Luke 23:39,40

78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper
John 13:27

Satan entered into him before the supper
Luke 22:3,4,7

79. Judas committed suicide by hanging
Matt 27:5

Judas did not hang himself, but died another way
Acts 1:18

80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas
Acts 1:18

The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests
Matt 27:6,7

81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre
John 20:1

There were two women who came to the sepulchre
Matt 28:1

82. There were three women who came to the sepulchre
Mark 16:1

There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre
Luke 24:10

83. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre
Mark 16:2

It was some time before sunrise when they came.
John 20:1

84. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and
they were standing up.
Luke 24:4

There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down.
Matt 28:2,5

85. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre.
John 20:11,12

There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre
Mark 16:5

86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave
Matt 12:40

Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave
Mark 15:25,42,44,45,46; 16:9>

87. Holy ghost bestowed at pentecost
Acts 1:8,5

Holy ghost bestowed before pentecost
John 20:22

88. The disciples were commanded immediately after the
resurrection to go into Galilee
Matt 28:10

The disciples were commanded immediately after the
resurrection to go tarry at Jerusalem
Luke 24:49

89. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at
Jerusalem
Luke 24:33,36,37/ John 20:19

Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee
Matt 28:16,17

90. Christ ascended from Mount Olivet
Acts 1:9,12

Christ ascended from Bethany
Luke 24:50,51

91. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood
speechless
Acts 9:7

Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate
Acts 26:14

92. Abraham departed to go into Canaan
Gen 12:5

Abraham went not knowing where
Heb 11:8

93. Abraham had two sons
Gal 4:22

Abraham had but one son
Heb 11:17

94. Keturah was Abraham's wife
Gen 25:1

Keturah was Abraham's concubine
1 Chron 1:32

95. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the
interposition of Providence
Gen 21:2/ Rom 4:19/ Heb 11:12

Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years
old without any interposition of providence
Gen 25:1,2

96. Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor
Josh 24:32

Abraham bought it of Hamor
Acts 7:16

97. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed
forever
Gen 13:14,15,17; 17:8

Abraham and his seed never received the promised land
Acts 7:5/ Heb 11:9,13

98. Goliath was slain by Elhanan
2 Sam 21:19


The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan
1 Chron 20:5

99. Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram
2 Kings 8:25

Ahaziah began to reign in the eleventh year of Joram
2 Kings 9:29

100. Michal had no child
2 Sam 6:23

Michal had five children
2 Sam 21:8

101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel
2 Sam 24:1

David was tempted by Satan to number the people
1 Chron 21:1

102. The number of fighting men of Israel was 800,000; and of
Judah 500,000
2 Sam 24:9

The number of fighting men of Israel was 1,100,000; and of
Judah 470,000
1 Chron 21:5

103. David sinned in numbering the people
2 Sam 24:10

David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah
1 Kings 15:5


104. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of
famine.
2 Sam 24:13

It was not seven years, but three years of famine
1 Chron 21:11,12

105. David took seven hundred horsemen
2 Sam 8:4

David took seven thousand horsemen
1 Chron 18:4

106. David bought a threshing floor for fifty shekels of silver
2 Sam 24:24

David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of
gold
1 Chron 21:25

107. David's throne was to endure forever.
Ps 89:35-37


David's throne was cast down
Ps 89:44

Speculative Doctrines

108. Christ is equal with God
John 10:30/ Phil 2:5

Christ is not equal with God
John 14:28/ Matt 24:36

109. Jesus was all-powerful
Matt 28:18/ John 3:35

Jesus was not all-powerful
Mark 6:5

110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation
Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6

The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation
Matt 5:17-19

111. Christ's mission was peace
Luke 2:13,14

Christ's mission was not peace
Matt 10:34

112. Christ received not testimony from man
John 5:33,34

Christ did receive testimony from man
John 15:27

113. Christ's witness of himself is true.
John 8:18,14

Christ's witness of himself is not true.
John 5:31

114. Christ laid down his life for his friends
John 15:13/ John 10:11

Christ laid down his life for his enemies
Rom 5:10

115. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 19:7

It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 18:31

116. Children are punished for the sins of the parents
Ex 20:5

Children are not punished for the sins of the parents
Ezek 18:20

117. Man is justified by faith alone
Rom 3:20/ Gal 2:16/ Gal 3:11,12/ Rom 4:2

Man is not justified by faith alone
James 2:21,24/ Rom 2:13

118. It is impossible to fall from grace
John 10:28/ Rom 8:38,39

It is possible to fall from grace
Ezek 18:24/ Heb 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:20,21

119. No man is without sin
1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10

Christians are sinless
1 John 3: 9,6,8

120. There is to be a resurrection of the dead
1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16

There is to be no resurrection of the dead
Job 7:9/ Eccl 9:5/ Is 26:14

121. Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world
Prov 11:31

Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world
Rev 20:12/ Matt 16:27/ 2 Cor 5:10

122. Annihilation the portion of all mankind
Job 3: 11,13-17,19-22/ Eccl 9:5,10/ Eccl 3:19,20

Endless misery the portion of all mankind
Matt 25:46/ Rev 20:10,15/ Rev 14:11/ Dan 12:2

123. The Earth is to be destroyed
2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11

The Earth is never to be destroyed
Ps 104:5/ Eccl 1:4

124. No evil shall happen to the godly
Prov 12:21/ 1 Pet 3:13

Evil does happen to the godly
Heb 12:6/ Job 2:3,7

125. Worldly good and prosperity are the lot of the godly
Prov 12:21/ Ps 37:28,32,33,37/ Ps 1:1,3/ Gen 39:2/
Job 42:12

Worldly misery and destitution the lot of the godly
Heb 11:37,38/ Rev 7:14/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Luke 21:17

126. Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing
Mark 10:29,30/ Ps 37:25/ Ps 112:1,3/ Job 22:23,24/
Prov 15:6

Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward
Luke 6:20,24/ Matt 6:19,21/ Luke 16:22/ Matt 19:24/
Luke 6:24

127. The Christian yoke is easy
Matt 11:28,29,30

The Christian yoke is not easy
John 16:33/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Heb 12:6,8

128. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness
Gal 5:22

The fruit of God's spirit is vengeance and fury
Judg 15:14/ 1 Sam 18:10,11

129. Longevity enjoyed by the wicked
Job 21:7,8/ Ps 17:14/ Eccl 8:12/ Is 65:20

Longevity denied to the wicked
Eccl 8:13/ Ps 55:23/ Prov 10:27/ Job 36:14/ Eccl 7:17

130. Poverty a blessing
Luke 6:20,24/ Jams 2:5

Riches a blessing
Prov 10:15/ Job 22:23,24/ Job 42:12

Neither poverty nor riches a blessing
Prov 30:8,9

131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment
Prov 3:13,17

Wisdom a source of vexation, grief and sorrow
Eccl 1:17,18

132. A good name is a blessing
Eccl 7:1/ Prov 22:1

A good name is a curse
Luke 6:26

133. Laughter commended
Eccl 3:1,4/ Eccl 8:15

Laughter condemned
Luke 6:25/ Eccl 7:3,4

134. The rod of correction a remedy for foolishness
Prov 22:15

There is no remedy for foolishness
Prov 27:22

135. A fool should be answered according to his folly
Prov 26:5

A fool should not be answered according to his folly
Prov 26:4

136. Temptation to be desired
James 1:2

Temptation not to be desired
Matt 6:13

137. Prophecy is sure
2 Pet 1:19

Prophecy is not sure
Jer 18:7-10

138. Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years
Gen 6:3/ Ps 90:10

Man's life is but seventy years
Ps 90:10

139. The fear of man was to be upon every beast
Gen 9:2

The fear of man is not upon the lion
Prov 30:30

140. Miracles a proof of divine mission
Matt 11:2-5/ John 3:2/ Ex 14:31

Miracles not a proof of divine mission
Ex 7:10-12/ Deut 13:1-3/ Luke 11:19

141. Moses was a very meek man
Num 12:3

Moses was a very cruel man
Num 31:15,17

142. Elijah went up to heaven
2 Kings 2:11

None but Christ ever ascended into heaven
John 3:13

143. All scripture is inspired
2 Tim 3:16

Some scripture is not inspired
1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17

In an old work of fiction that big and with so many authors and story tellers, it's bound to be littered with contradictions. I find that the philosophical contradictions are the worst, though. Murder, rape, slavery, bigorty...god is a flip flopper on some of the most important messages. Nice try, but no dice.

Nice work, dude.  That's a hell of a list!

Quote from: "Willravel"In an old work of fiction

Sweet!  I find your irreverence inspiring.

Quote from: "SteveS"Nice work, dude.  That's a hell of a list!

Quote from: "Willravel"In an old work of fiction

Sweet!  I find your irreverence inspiring.

I'd call it pragmatism or realism more than irreverence, but I'm always glad to inspire. [schild=11 fontcolor=000000 shadowcolor=C0C0C0 shieldshadow=1]Thanks, dude![/schild]

wow, thanks so much for this. u spent a lot of time on this too. great job i cant wait to show my family and start WWIII, . thanks again.

oh, correction, you found this. well good post then, .

Does anybody wish the Bible were true?

JustInterested, which one and in what way?

If you mean the KJV Judeo-Christian one, then yes I think it'd be cool if I could change water to wine.  I could then quit my job and start up a winery.

Quote3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16

God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

To dwell both in light and in darkness is not a contradiction which in turns contradicts the subject of this thread.  I gues now your post is not a credible source of informations.

I would like this alot better if the versus were quoted in context.

Dude, just a small point, if one thing being wrong discredits the entire post, then in turn if just one of these contradictions is correct, would that discredit the entire bible?

I'm not disputing whether his post is credible or whether the Bible is credible. I'm disputing the logic.

If the evidence is not credible than you can't use it to deem something else not credible.

I'm using his definition of not credible.

I miss the incredible hulk btw!

Just, still by your own logic anything which can be proven non-credible in part destroys the credibility of the whole.  I think the OP's definition of not credible went undefined and at a guess would be defined as something which has numerous errors; not a single error as you seem to think.possible to live in both...but neither of the verses say that.

I think the light vs dark one can be argued as a contradiction...but let's put that one aside...what do you think of the other contradictions especially the more challanging ones.

The way I see it, either:

1. The Bible is the word of God. His words were implanted directly into the minds of a group of followers, who merely recorded them as He intended.
---> If so, the contradictions in the Bible are directly attributable to God. Why would God contradict Himself in such a way as to make His message unclear? A lack of clarity which has caused (at best) divisions within the Church and (at worst) violence?

2. The Bible was written by man and was influenced by man's corruptability, but was inspired by some sort of connection to God, so its message can still be considered the word of God.
---> Not a satisfying answer. Sure, maybe God didn't intend for the Bible to contain contraditions, but if so, why would He allow these contradictions to come about? Does He lack the power to stop the minds of men from corrupting his message? Remember this is the same God who apparently made the universe somehow.

3. The Bible was written by man and is not the word of God.
---> Same deal. Why doesn't God intervene to stop man from falsely claiming that a flawed Bible is His divine word? If the same happened to any of us we'd sue for defamation. Does He lack the power to intervene? If you believe this option you're probably not a Christian, since accepting the Bible as the word of God is pretty much mandatory.

I guess this is just a variation on the problem of evil.

JustInterested, I'd like to return to the challenge --- I'm not sure I'm buying the statement that this light/darkness thing isn't contradictory.  It's weak as bible contractions go, but still.  Here's the first statement (Tim 6:16):

QuoteKJV Bible, I Timothy 6:16

Who only have immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting.  Amen.

Now, here's the second statement (I Kings 8:12):

QuoteKJV Bible, I Kings 8:12

Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness

Next statement (Ps 18:11):

QuoteKJV Bible, Psalm 18:11

He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies

Finally, last statement (Ps 97:2):

QuoteKJV Bible, Psalm 97:2

Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.

So --- does god "dwell in the thick darkness", his "secret place", while "clouds are darkness are round about him", or is he/she/it "dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto"?

I agree, this is a weak point (because who really cares), but it's still contradictory, no?

Would it matter if I came up with an explanation?  Probably not.  But I can assure you that there are many Theologians out there who could give you perfectly good reasons for these "seemingly" contradictory verses of the Bible.  After 3min of research, here is a link to one persons response to these contradictions:  http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm).

But this really isn't the issue.  It doesn't matter how the Bible was written.  The Bible can't be true for a non-believer. And I'm sure the Bible isn't the reason you initially said no the question "Is there a God?". If the Bible was written in such a way with no apparent contridictions and full of black and white do's and dont's, I'm sure the non-believer would respond with "This is clearly the work of humans" or "There's nothing special about these writings as they compare to other writings, surely God would be more creative than this."

You have to understand that for us believers (in Jesus Christ that is), it is all about the relationship (or atleast should be) with Jesus Christ.  There are 2 very important components if you want this relationship to grow, The Bible and prayer.  These 2 things feed off each other.  Through reading the Bible you learn how and what to pray for and what to expect.  Through prayer, God's word reveals it's true meaning. Of course this needs to all be done in complete surrenderment (is that a word?) of ones heart.

So why is the Bible written in such a way to include apparent contradictions and seemingly off-the-wall verses?

Well I believe it's this:

As I discussed earlier, how the Bible was written and it's contents doesn't really matter to the non-believer. It's not made for the non-believer.  So The Bible and it's contents have no affect (affect or effect? I never could get that one) on the non-believer.

On the other hand, suppose the Bible was written in such a way where it was cut and dry without any room for interpretation.  How would this effect the believer?  Well, It would only require somewhere between 10 - 48 hours of our time, depending on your reading skills, to determine exactly
how God wants us to live our lives.  Why is this a problem?  Because like I said earlier, the goal of a Christian should be the continuing development of close and intimate relationship with our Lord and Savior.  We all know that time spent and communication are absolute necessities if you want to get to know someone.  With a Bible written equivalent to a childrens book, you lose both of these components.

It's things like these apparent contradictions that keeps us believers looking and searching and coming back to God's Word.  I don't uderstand the majority of the Bible at this point in my life, but that doesn't mean I don't believe it's the Word of God. I have complete faith that as I search for understanding of God's Word that my relationship with Jesus Christ will be strengthened and knowledge and wisdom will be attained and I will be able to stay within God's will which is what we're all (Believers) searching for.

Remember, I didn't decide to believe in Jesus Christ because I had a full understanding of the Bible.  Just like your initial rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior had nothing to do with these "apparent" contradictions.

Hi JustInterested, just a few things:

The URL you posted gives me a "Page Not Found" error - is it perhaps just a mistaken URL?  I'm curious to know how somebody would address some of these contradictions --- that fact that they've addressed them is meaningless to me unless I can see what their response was (and whether it holds water or not).  Also,

Quote from: "JustInterested"I have complete faith

That's all you really had to say --- an appeal to faith makes the existence of contradictions in scripture irrelevant.  The contradictions will only matter if you are trying to read the work rationally;  to subject it to logical critical analysis.  As soon as you say "I have faith" you are conceding that your interpretation of the scripture is not following a rational guideline.  So who cares if it has contradictions?  Certainly not you --- because you have faith  :wink:  .

Said another way,

Quote from: "JustInterested"As I discussed earlier, how the Bible was written and it's contents doesn't really matter to the non-believer. It's not made for the non-believer. So The Bible and it's contents have no affect (affect or effect? I never could get that one) on the non-believer.

So, as you say, belief comes first.  You must believe, then you can read the content and find meaning in it somehow through faith.  But faith comes first, bible comes second.  

Two things that puzzle me about this approach:

1) This is odd if

Quote from: "JustInterested"... for us believers (in Jesus Christ that is), it is all about the relationship (or atleast should be) with Jesus Christ.

because how would anyone have ever heard of Jesus without the bible?

2) You must agree that a rational person will not find faith by reading the bible.  As you say, you must have the faith first.  A rational analysis is doomed to failure --- which is a point I'm very content to rest on  :wink:  .

Does anyone here know if there are contradictions in the Book of Mormon?

Quote from: "MommaSquid"Does anyone here know if there are contradictions in the Book of Mormon?

You can check out the Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/) for stuff. There are only 2 contradictions within the book though, but more in the science presented by the book.

Quote from: "JustInterested"And I'm sure the Bible isn't the reason you initially said no the question "Is there a God?"

Actually, it was the reason I began to question Christianity.  I found a journal I wrote back in high school the other day and there is a part in it where I was writing about my friends being from various christian denominations and me finding myself to be more non-denominational.  Then followed that observation by stating that a lot of the bible simply didn't make sense but that i thought i was true then saying I think I believe that.  The date for that journal entry was during a time I had remembered myself being really religious.  So, I think it is safe to say that the contradictions in the bible do cause those who honestly believed to question the foundation of that belief.

You are right that the bible had nothing to do with why I don't believe in any god.

QuoteJustInterested wrote: ‹ Select ›
I have complete faith

That's all you really had to say --- an appeal to faith makes the existence of contradictions in scripture irrelevant. The contradictions will only matter if you are trying to read the work rationally; to subject it to logical critical analysis. As soon as you say "I have faith" you are conceding that your interpretation of the scripture is not following a rational guideline. So who cares if it has contradictions? Certainly not you --- because you have faith  .

The problem here is you think faith and logic can't co-exist.  I don't have faith that these aren't contradictions.  My faith is in Jesus Christ (I'll expound on that more here in a second) and from this I can deduce logically that these aren't contradictions.  When doing this you must have a starting point, a definition.  In this situation, God has to be our starting point.  Heres where the problem comes in.  If you say I don't believe in God, then you certainly don't believe the Bible is the Word of God and therefore certainly you wouldn't care about the contradictions either (your argument works both ways).  Anyways back to my logic.

So since God is my starting point and I've made the decision to first believe and then put my faith in him, I now have to define him.  We can only define Him how the Bible defines Him because thats who He is.  The Bible defines him as all-knowing and unable to lie (among other things). I'll stop right there because now I can conclude that none His words contradict themselves.

So I believe in the biblical God therefore His word is true and these are not contradictions.

This is why I have a problem with the argument "If there was a God then why..."  Once you suppose the biblical God exists, the only conclusions you can logically make are ones that don't contradict the Bible.  Meaning you can't say "Well if God existed yadi, yadi, yadi... that's why He doesn't exist."  That doesn't make sense.  I could see George saying that one. Movin on!

QuoteSaid another way,

JustInterested wrote: ‹ Select ›
As I discussed earlier, how the Bible was written and it's contents doesn't really matter to the non-believer. It's not made for the non-believer. So The Bible and it's contents have no affect (affect or effect? I never could get that one) on the non-believer.

So, as you say, belief comes first. You must believe, then you can read the content and find meaning in it somehow through faith. But faith comes first, bible comes second.

Two things that puzzle me about this approach:

1) This is odd if

JustInterested wrote: ‹ Select ›
... for us believers (in Jesus Christ that is), it is all about the relationship (or atleast should be) with Jesus Christ.

because how would anyone have ever heard of Jesus without the bible?

2) You must agree that a rational person will not find faith by reading the bible. As you say, you must have the faith first. A rational analysis is doomed to failure --- which is a point I'm very content to rest on  .

1.   Obviously the Bible existed before I had faith.  I heard the story of Jesus before I had faith.  But I also believe every single one of us has to make a choice about the existence of God.  Whether it's choosing to believe a god exists, believe no gods exist, choosing not to think about it(after you've thought about it of course), etc.  So when you hear the words of the Bible you have to make some kind of choice.  Still at this point it's just a story.  So now anyone who chooses not to believe the story is true for what every reason cannot engage in a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and therefore unable recieve the full meaning of God's word.  Remember we are talking about God's Word.  These are His Words.  If we as humans with limited minds were able to understand God's Word with only human rational thought then that would make us God or vice versa.  So we need His help to understand His word.  We need the Holy Spirit!  Yay!!! (as my girlfriend says... shes not here. she just says yay alot... I'm a dude by the way... and have ADHD... wait...).  Hang with me I'll answer your question after a little preaching.

So how do we get the Holy Spirit.  We first have to believe the Biblical God exists.  This means Jesus Christ died for our sins.  This means I have to admit that I am a sinner and need a savior.  So you invite Jesus to come live in your heart.  By this act of faith He says yes and you have the beginning of a beautiful relationship (if you so choose to keep persuing it by keeping the faith).  At this point the Bible is no longer a story but is now the Word of God. This happens after you first believe and then prove it by faith by denying oneself and choosing Jesus Christ. This is what I meant by faith first then the Word of God.

This has to be a choice btw.  For God to minipulate it to where we were forced to believe would be dehumanizing.  It would be like forcing someones hand in marriage.  There probably wouldn't be much Love there.

2.  I don't believe a rational person, irrational person, a koala bear or Michael Jackson could find faith.  Faith isn't something thats found.  It's revealed.  I believe this chair will hold me, how much faith I have in that is revealed when I sit on it or don't sit on it or how tentatively I sit on it.  The great thing about Jesus Christ is, he doesn't ask us to sit down without any doubts, he just asks us to sit no matter how tentative and he'll hold us up.

Yes, rational thought from a human being with a limited mind is doomed  when trying to understand Gods Word when not believing in God.  But that in itself makes sense and Ironically provides some evidence that His Words are true when he says anyone who rejects Jesus Christ will be blinded, foolish, and without wisdom (doesn't say not able to reason with the knowledge obtained).

Anyways, sorry if this came off a little preachy.  I understand I can't change anyone and that is not purpose.  I found that engaging in tough questions has led me to search for answers which has in turn increased my faith and at the same time fulfills my need to analyze things.  And who asks the tough questions?  Inteligent atheists!  So thats why I'm here.  I wonder how a Christian forum would react to an atheist posting?

The link didnt work but this is the right address.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm)

Quote from: "JustInterested"2.  I don't believe a rational person, irrational person, a koala bear or Michael Jackson could find faith.  Faith isn't something thats found.  It's revealed.  I believe this chair will hold me, how much faith I have in that is revealed when I sit on it or don't sit on it or how tentatively I sit on it.  The great thing about Jesus Christ is, he doesn't ask us to sit down without any doubts, he just asks us to sit no matter how tentative and he'll hold us up.

I don't understand why the religious ALWAYS use this sitting in a chair == faith analogy. It's fatally flawed.

I understand the properties of wood, metal, plastic, and other materials used in chair construction. I understand the properties of glue, nails, staples, and other joinery. I understand weight distribution, and the relative weight limits of chairs. I've seen people sit in chairs, and I've sat on them in the past.

That's not faith, that's observation and critical thinking. That's real world stuff. Heck, I can even make a chair.

Quote from: "JustInterested"The problem here is you think faith and logic can't co-exist.

Well, yeah. Faith is the belief in something for which no proof exists. Sort of the antithesis of logic.

Food for thought: If we were having this conversation in Riyadh right now, you'd be telling us that there are no contradictions in the Koran, and that once we accepted the word of our pedophile prophet Muhammad (PB&J), we'd see that there were no contradictions.

Pretty interesting how religious beliefs are tied to geography.

JustInterested:

How would a child born in a small tribe in Africa receive the “real” word of God? How would this child ever know anything about Jesus and the teachings of Christianity? This child would grow up in his or her tribe and learn some form of religion from the elders, but their religion would be completely wrong, according to you. For this child to know about Jesus, a Christian would need to go to that village and teach them about Christianity. However, what makes your version of god so much better that their version? Explain to me how your religion is the right religion and theirs is not when you came to know Christianity in a similar way? Also if no Christian ever went to that tribe to teach them about Christianity, then they would never know anything about Jesus or the God you worship. No amount of faith would reveal Jesus to them. They would simply not know anything about him. Did you see and talk to Jesus or did someone else teach you about him? Explain to me what would happen to this child’s soul if they never heard about Christianity, and how could god let this happen?

Hey JustInterested - thanks for taking the time to construct your considered response.  Allow me to do it the justice of a thorough rejoinder.

Okay, first off:

Quote from: "JustIntereseted"The problem here is you think faith and logic can't co-exist. I don't have faith that these aren't contradictions. My faith is in Jesus Christ (I'll expound on that more here in a second) and from this I can deduce logically that these aren't contradictions. When doing this you must have a starting point, a definition. In this situation, God has to be our starting point.

I very strongly disagree - logic has to be our starting point.  Without logic we can have no meaningful discussion.  To explain what I mean by this, consider how you would explain what god is, or what qualities god possesses, if you throw logic under the bus?  Without the law of identity, a thing does not have to be itself.  So what is god?  Without the law of the excluded middle (a statement must be either true or false), and the law of noncontradiction (a statement cannot be both true and false), then what does the statement "God is unable to lie" mean?  Is this true, false, both, or neither?  The correct answer is "none of the above - the statement is meaningless without logical backing".

In the final anaylsis, logic must rule the day.  Otherwise, we devolve into nonsense and meaninglessness.

With this being the case, I say that your decision to "start with God" is wrong; you must start with logic - we are all constrained to start with logic.

So, on to the question at hand, "can faith and logic co-exist".  Well, the very fact that we are distinguishing faith from logic shows that the two concepts are different.  Since logic must rule the day, and logic embodies the law of noncontradiction, then in order to show that faith and logic can co-exist we must demonstrate that faith and logic do not conflict.

Certainly, it's possible for things that are not logic to co-exist with logic.  Consider science - it co-exists happily with logic.  This is because whenever our science is shown to be illogical we recognize that this means the science is wrong, and we alter our science.  But, what you've demonstrated in your argument is that you "force" faith and logic to "co-exist" by using faith to trump logic.  When there is conflict, you resolve it through faith and not through logic - so you have actually demonstrated that faith and logic cannot co-exist.

To illustrate my point - when we identify a logical contradiction in the bible you do not take this as what it is - evidence that the passage in question must be wrong.  Instead, you appeal to faith.  You're going to argue that your faith is logical but it is merely a logical deduction from an unjustified presupposition.  Namely,

Premise 1: God is unable to lie
Premise 2: The bible is the word of god
Conclusion: The bible cannot contain contradictions

But this argument begs the question "Is the bible the word of god?", or possibly "Is god unable to lie?".  I know you feel that logic backs you up because you are employing a logical deduction --- but a logical argument is dependent upon all its pieces functioning together.  Another way to say this is that a conclusion is only as strong as the premise upon which it is based.  This makes it incumbent upon you to logically demonstrate and support the premise of this argument: that the bible is the word of god and that god is unable to lie.  But you make no pretension of backing this up logically and don't hesitate to defend these premise with faith:

Quote from: "JustInterested"I've made the decision to first believe and then put my faith in him

So, consider the unenviable position that we've found ourselves in: between a logical analysis of the bible showing a contradiction, and a faith based argument that contradicts the first finding, we have actually shown that in this case faith must have led us astray - it must be wrong.  If it were true, then it would not conflict with logic.  If we try to trump logic with faith, then we cannot rely on logic at all.  In fact, any claim that your deduction should be valued based on it's being logical goes out the same window you just threw the rest of the logic.

Another problem I have with this is that your entire argument is circular.  

Quote from: "JustInterested"So since God is my starting point and I've made the decision to first believe and then put my faith in him, I now have to define him. We can only define Him how the Bible defines Him because thats who He is.

The bible is "who he is".  So, the bible and god are interchangeable at this point since you've equated them.  So saying that "god is my starting point" is perfectly akin to saying "the bible is my starting point".  Now, we are able to present your argument in it's true form:

Premise: The bible is correct
Conclusion: The bible is correct

Basically, you are saying that if you believe (accept through faith) that the bible is correct, then you will believe the bible is correct.  Which is a meaningless tautology.

Also, here is a statement that I find troubling:

Quote from: "JustInterested"So I believe in the biblical God therefore His word is true and these are not contradictions.

I would hasten to point out that the only conclusion you can draw from the statement "I believe in the biblical God" is that "I believe his word is true".  Belief cannot alter reality.  Truth is true, and Falsity is false, irregardless of what anyone believes.  Believing something to be true or false cannot alter the actual fact of whether it is, in fact, true or false.

Phew - I'm getting hand cramps (and getting seriously thirsty), so I'm gonna have to wrap this up.

Response to section:

Quote from: "JustInterested"1. Obviously the Bible existed before I had faith ...

My above basically covers this point.  We must use logic to make sense of everything and anything, or we can make no sense at all.  "human rational thought", as you say, is just thought that is concordant with logic.  If logic cannot make sense of god's word, then god's word does not make sense.  Period.

Also, you argue we must all choose to believe, not to believe, or ignore the question.  I agree - but I would stress that you must base your belief on a logical inquiry.  You cannot just presuppose that god exists and then somehow justify your choice.  Your choice, and your belief, must be logical extensions of truth if you want them to have any validity.

Response to section:

Quote from: "JustInterested"2. I don't believe a rational person, irrational person, a koala bear or Michael Jackson could find faith ...

Same answer as above - also, I think MikeyV addressed this very sufficiently in his post, and jcm also raises a similar and very valid counter point (about geographic location, and which religious starting point you choose - the fact that this is guaranteed to create irresolvable conflicts is yet another reason why we must all use logic as our base).

Quote from: "JustInterested"Anyways, sorry if this came off a little preachy. I understand I can't change anyone and that is not purpose. I found that engaging in tough questions has led me to search for answers which has in turn increased my faith and at the same time fulfills my need to analyze things. And who asks the tough questions? Inteligent atheists! So thats why I'm here.

No apologies required - I'm glad you came - I'm enjoying the conversation!  Cheers  :cheers:

Yeah. What Steve said.  

And I'll take a Sam Adams, please.  :cheers:

Sam Adams - Always a Good Choice  

Hey Mikey,

QuoteI don't understand why the religious ALWAYS use this sitting in a chair == faith analogy. It's fatally flawed.

I understand the properties of wood, metal, plastic, and other materials used in chair construction. I understand the properties of glue, nails, staples, and other joinery. I understand weight distribution, and the relative weight limits of chairs. I've seen people sit in chairs, and I've sat on them in the past.

That's not faith, that's observation and critical thinking. That's real world stuff. Heck, I can even make a chair.

Yes you probably understand how a chair is built but I doubt you requested the stress calculations from the manufacturer.  We all know anytime humans put their hands on something there is a possiblity of failure.  So actually whether you realize it or not, you are putting your faith in the manufacturer, the vendor, and/or the delivery company to some degree on whether they supplied you with a sufficient product.

Sorry I didnt realize the chair analogy was used so often.  I pride myself on originality.

JCM,

QuoteHow would a child born in a small tribe in Africa receive the “real” word of God? How would this child ever know anything about Jesus and the teachings of Christianity? This child would grow up in his or her tribe and learn some form of religion from the elders, but their religion would be completely wrong, according to you. For this child to know about Jesus, a Christian would need to go to that village and teach them about Christianity. However, what makes your version of god so much better that their version? Explain to me how your religion is the right religion and theirs is not when you came to know Christianity in a similar way? Also if no Christian ever went to that tribe to teach them about Christianity, then they would never know anything about Jesus or the God you worship. No amount of faith would reveal Jesus to them. They would simply not know anything about him. Did you see and talk to Jesus or did someone else teach you about him? Explain to me what would happen to this child’s soul if they never heard about Christianity, and how could god let this happen

Precisely!  Someone would have to go to this said tribe and present them with the Gospel.  Jesus Christ didnt come to send people to heaven and hell, he came so that we may have life on earth by paying the ultimate sacrifice.  It is the believers responsibilty to share the good news.  How this news is shared is where the problems come in.  

On the other hand, if someone or a group of people were never given the oportunity to hear this good news, they would not be punished for this.  It would be like an infant passing.  They never had the oportunity choose or reject Jesus as Lord and Savior.

I don't like to look at ones beliefs being better or worse.  It's all about the truth.  I believe Jesus Christ is the truth.  Not because my mom said so.  Not because the preacher said so.  Not because I lived in the United States.  You can't fool God.  I heard the story of Jesus because of these people and I couldnt say no.  Still nobody made the choice for me. This is one of the reasons I believe that faith in Jesus is the only way.  He dosent discriminate.  You can be rich or poor, disabled or athletic, in any location, old or young, etc.  The only thing you need is a heart and a choice.

I guess I could ask you the same questions.  What makes your choice right and the tribes choice wrong?  Why is your way so much better than theirs?  You see by deciding to not believe in God you are implying that anyone who does is wrong.  I've decided to believe in Jesus Christ and therefore I have to believe that anyone who doesnt is wrong.  But this doesnt make me any different than you. We've just made different choices.  We cant all be right.

Steve,

I'm not going to quote you becuase it confuses me. So I'll somehow try to cover everything in my rambling over the next few sentences.  Of course that all depends on whether I understood what you were saying or not. So here we go.

You say a statement must be true or false.  So when I say God cannot lie, this statement must be either true or false and not none of the above as you have suggested.  Now there are 2 possiblities.  If it is true that God cannot lie then these are not contradictions.  If God can lie then who cares about the contradictions.  I really see no problem with this reasoning, I guess I'll call it that and not logic.  I realize this doesn't prove anything and that the conclusion itself is in question but I think the steps are reasonable.  Anyways to more important stuff.

I contend that by simply identifying phrases that someone wrote 2000 yrs ago in a different language as contradicting without any investigation is not only illogical but unreasonable and puts you in the same boat you put me in.  Heck I had trouble just trying figure out what you were trying to say and we are able to respond to one another.  I think this is what you are trying to do.

1. premise - contradictions
2. step - bible can't be true
3. conclusion - biblical God doesnt exist

Certainly I would agree that the conclusion would be true if the premise were true, but I believe you have an unjust premise.  I think upon any investigation in determining the meaning behind these phrases in question you would find at the very least your premise cannot be proven. Which would mean you have also started out with an illogical premise.  

Why can we not simply identify these phrases as contradictory?  Because we must first determine the meaning behind these words and to do this we must get to know the author as well as we can.  Let's take a look at a couple of phrases:

I will never grow grass.
I am going to let my grass grow.

These 2 senteces certainly appear to be contradictory.  But ofcourse when you find out the true meaning behind these 2 phrases you will see that they are not contridictory at all.

I will never grow grass because I don't smoke it and the risk/reward is not in my favor.
I am going to let my grass grow becuase I'm tired of mowing it.

As you can see we must determine the meaning of the words in order to determine whether there is a contradiction or not.

So back to determining the meaning of the biblical phrases in question.  Forget for a moment whether God exists or not.  We just want to know what the author is trying to say at the moment.  To do this we need to get to know the author.  Since in this case we cant talk face to face with him,  we need to look at his other writings.  We need to look at how hes using other words.  We need to look at other claims he's making.  We need to look at possible motives.  We need look at all we can in order to determine the true meaning behind these words. Because what we both want is the truth right? Or atleast some evidence pointing in that direction.

The problem is, upon doing this, we find out that the author has actually claimed to have heard God, he's quoted God, and had recorded accounts that he claims were God inspired.  

So now you've done all you can or atleast got to point where you've realized that choice is ultimately going to have to be made on whether you believe this author or not and this would require a decision on whether or not this Biblical God existed.  And of course this cannot be proven but I do believe if you were to investigate all the evidence and facts surrounding the authenticy of the Bibles contents you would be hard pressed for a convincing arguement that the Words were fabricated.

So now, using logic I might add, I have concluded that you must make a faith based decision about the existence of this Bibilical God before concluding any words of the Bible to be contradictory.  God first!

On the issue of faith and logic.  I guess if you define something logical as something that can be proven then no faith and logic cant co-exist.  But you must concede that every human must make faith based decisions on a daily basis and these decisions are based on logical evidence and that logical decisions follow directly from these faith based decisions.

I think a good example of this is in our Judicial system. We ask 12 people to sit and listen to evidence and make logical deductions in determing whether or not the person on trial is guilty or not. Inviting 12 strangers to determine the outcome of a trial requires faith in itself.  You wouldn't suggest our judicail system is illogical would you?  Anyways lets look at what happens in the court room. The lawyers call witnesses to the stand and jury eventually has to decide whether they believe this person or not.  It cannot be proven that the person is telling the truth.  So the jury makes a faith based decision about the trusworthiness of the witness and then logically deduces from there.  It would be illogically to believe a person when he/she says "I saw him/her do it" and then say "I don't think he/she did it."  So I think it's clear since not everything can be proven, we as humans have to make faith based decisions.  And at times logic plays a big role into what decision we make and the faith based decisions we make affect the logical steps we take afterwards. In this sense, logic influnces faith and faith influences logic.  I think that have to co-exist.
 
Ok I'm done.  Don't know if I covered everthing but the guy who forgot to deliver my honey baked ham last weekend called and I need to chat with him.  I can't believe I put my faith in him and logically invited my mam over for some pig.

QuoteThe problem is, upon doing this, we find out that the author has actually claimed to have heard God, he's quoted God, and had recorded accounts that he claims were God inspired.

This makes the auther even more untrustworthy. We've learned from history that many god inspired people lied for god. They though that they could do that, because their special link with god made they stand above the law (even above their own christian laws). Take for example Bishop Eusebius, who wrote in his 12th Book of Evangelical Preparation: "How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived.".

The 5th and 6th centuries was the 'golden age' of Christian forgery. In a moment of shocking candour, the Manichean bishop (and opponent of Augustine) Faustus said: "Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since â€" as already it has been often proved â€" these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."

Let's assume that we could take the bible in court. We ask then 12 independ intelligent people to judge whether the bible is truthful or not. Based on all the evidence that we know off, the most likely verdict would be that the bible contains too many lies and inconsistencies and can therefore not be trusted to be the word of a god. Conclusion: you'd need a lot of faith to remain christian, if you know the truth :lol:.

Quote from: "JustInterested"Steve,

I'm not going to quote you becuase it confuses me. So I'll somehow try to cover everything in my rambling over the next few sentences. Of course that all depends on whether I understood what you were saying or not. So here we go.

Eh, this saddens me, I did try to be as clear as I could.  Thanks for trying, anyway.

Quote from: "JustInterested"1. premise - contradictions
2. step - bible can't be true
3. conclusion - biblical God doesnt exist

Suffice it to say that I did not leap to step 3, as I believe this would indeed be a leap (technically a non-sequitur).  For instance, what if the "biblical god" does exist, and that god is not always accurately described by the bible?  

There are actually several reasons that I do not believe the biblical god exists, and I would hold most of these beliefs even if there were not contradictions in the bible.

I feel that you are making a generalization where I was not intending to make one.  My only claim is that if a statement is contradictory then it cannot be true.  Each claimed contradiction of the bible would have to be handled individually;  it's possible that the bible has some true statements, and some false statements.

The problem is that if we find a genuine contradiction, and you argue that faith tells you that the identified contradiction is not, in fact, a contradiction, that I argue that faith is incorrect in this instance.  That's all  :wink:  

Also, simply starting with a presumption that the book cannot contain any contradictions is not logically supportable.  Arguing that the book says it is true, and therefore believing that the book is true without further analysis, is also logically unsupportable - this is a circular argument.

Small clarification,

Quote from: "JustInterested"I really see no problem with this reasoning, I guess I'll call it that and not logic.

Reasoning is the application of logic to thought.  Reasoning is logical.  It's okay, you can call it logic  :wink:  

Here's somthing really important,

Quote from: "JustInterested"Why can we not simply identify these phrases as contradictory? Because we must first determine the meaning behind these words and to do this we must get to know the author as well as we can.

Paydirt!  I want you to understand that you've amended your argument - you are no longer arguing that the bible cannot contain contradictions, you are trying to logically show a way that what we are perceiving as a contradiction could be interpreted in a way that it is not.  Do you recognize that this is very different, fundamentally, from simply arguing that the work cannot contain contradictions?  You are now arguing that based on interpretation, these might not actually be contradictions.  This is a worthwhile exercise.

Per your example,

QuoteI will never grow grass.
I am going to let my grass grow.

The problem with this argument is that it is unclear --- if the proponent wished his thoughts to be clearly perceived, he should have written:

1. I will never grow marijuana
2. I am not going to mow my lawn

So, what difference does it make?  Well, if the bible contains the words of a perfect god, then why would a perfect god be unclear?  At the very least, god is not "perfectly clear", and therefore not really perfect.  But we know the bible was probably written by people, right?  So, maybe what's really going on is that the people have got things wrong, or made things unclear.  But if so, then can we trust the description of god given to us in the bible?  Not without reservation.  Agreed?

Quote from: "JustInterested"The problem is, upon doing this, we find out that the author has actually claimed to have heard God, he's quoted God, and had recorded accounts that he claims were God inspired.

So, what we have is a personal claim, with no supporting evidence.  I find no reason to give this undue credence.  People lie, people fabricate, people are mistaken.  The fact that somebody claims god spoke to them personally makes me doubt the objectivity of the individual more than it makes me believe in god.  Plenty of people "witness" that they have been abducted by aliens, see ghosts, and have traveled through space and time outside of their own body.  Do you believe these accounts just because they are given by another human being?  Do you believe every accused criminal who maintains their innocence?  What about people who claim they can cast magical spells, read minds, communicate with the dead, etc.?

Quote from: "JustInterested"So now you've done all you can or atleast got to point where you've realized that choice is ultimately going to have to be made on whether you believe this author or not and this would require a decision on whether or not this Biblical God existed.

Eh, not quite.  If I decided that I did not believe the author, then I would not take his statement as evidence that the biblical god existed.  If I did believe the author, then I might.  My point being that to be logical, we would first have to decide whether or not the author was accurately reflecting the truth.  Then we could make a decision as to the existence of the biblical god.  Logic first, god second.

Quote from: "JustInterested"And of course this cannot be proven but I do believe if you were to investigate all the evidence and facts surrounding the authenticy of the Bibles contents you would be hard pressed for a convincing arguement that the Words were fabricated.

I, of course, disagree.  I think it can be readily shown that historical events are incorrectly portrayed in the bible.  Whether the words were fabricated or not, there is clear evidence that they are mistaken - they are wrong.  They might not all be "fabricated" because the authors may not have know that they were wrong.  But if they are wrong, surely god would have known since he is allegedly omniscient?  So one thing seems clear, these are not the accurate words of any omniscient gods, because a god could not be both omniscient and mistaken.

Quote from: "JustInterested"So now, using logic I might add, I have concluded that you must make a faith based decision about the existence of this Bibilical God before concluding any words of the Bible to be contradictory. God first!

Okay, this is a tad depressing.  I have tried to be very clear about why you must embrace logic first - you must embrace logic even to read the bible or you cannot make any sense of any written statement in any language.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and allowing there to be metaphorical statements in the bible that are open to interpretation, you must still argue that the work is reliable before you choose to believe what it says (if you want to say that you are behaving logically).  Saying "God first!" is a clear indication that you do not, in fact, understand my objection.  I require no faith-based decision to read the bible one way or another.  If the bible is the only evidence of god, then I would require a faith based decision to believe in god, because the evidence is not reliable.  If there is no evidence of god that can be rationally demonstrated to another human being, then you do not require faith to reject a god belief.  Faith is belief in the absence (or disregard) of rational evidence.  If I do not believe because I do not have evidence, that is a rational (and not faithful) decision.

Quote from: "JustInterested"On the issue of faith and logic. I guess if you define something logical as something that can be proven then no faith and logic cant co-exist. But you must concede that every human must make faith based decisions on a daily basis and these decisions are based on logical evidence and that logical decisions follow directly from these faith based decisions.

Again, I disagree.  Logic is a process, deriving statements from known values.  Logic is used to prove things, and logical thought can happily embrace unknowns.  When you quantify those unknowns, you have probability and statistics.  Furthermore, I do not have to be able to prove something to have a rational basis for believing it.  What I do have to have is a reason that is rationally demonstrable, and I have to qualify my belief as being uncertain if my basis is uncertain.  Sometimes our beliefs can be said to be very certain, other times they can have significant uncertainties, but if they can be rationally justified then they are rational beliefs.  If I have evidence that a particular thing is very unlikely, then a positive belief in that thing cannot be held rationally.  Examples:

1. I believe it is possible, although very unlikely, that I may win the lottery with the ticket I just purchased from White Hen.  (This is rational)

2. I believe that I am going to win the lottery with the ticket I have just purchased from White Hen, because I'm feeling lucky today.  (This is not rational)

3. I believe that I am going to win the lottery with the ticket I have just purchased from White Hen, because I "fixed" the lottery machine to pick the same numbers in the drawing as the ones I just purchased .  (This is rational - although its also unethical and illegal)

You are right to say that these beliefs are crucial - if I believed, irrationally, that I was going to win the lottery with the ticket I just bought (in the case where I am not cheating) and then quit my job, well, this is how irrational beliefs lead to damaging irrational behavior.  This is how behaving rationally (it's unlikely that I'll win, so I'm keeping my job until the drawing and only quiting if I win) is superior to irrational (I have faith that I will win so I'm quiting my job now --- oops, I lost, now what?  Guess I'll have to try to find another job, probably can't use the previous employer as a reference, either.)

About the jury trial --- technically, the tribunal asks the jurors if they feel the charges have been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".  There is no place for faith in a courtroom - you must evaluate the evidence, and do so with all regard for logic and rational thought.  If the evidence against a person was simply one person's eye-witness testimony then I would have a very hard time convicting that person.  But what if there is blood, DNA, physical links to the crime scene, hard photographs of the person at the crime scene, maybe video of the accused committing the crime?  Now, not believing they did it seems to be lacking evidence - the evidence is overwhelmingly indicating that they did.  The court specifically calls on reason - they pivot the case on a "reasonable" doubt.  They do not call on faith.

I'm not trying to be personally insulting, but let me say that the prospect of me being on trial and you being in the jury box is scaring the hell out of me right now  

 :wink:

Steve,

I think we've shown just in the short while of communicating in the same time period the importance of getting to the meaning behind the words of another person.

QuotePaydirt! I want you to understand that you've amended your argument - you are no longer arguing that the bible cannot contain contradictions, you are trying to logically show a way that what we are perceiving as a contradiction could be interpreted in a way that it is not.

Sorry if I gave the perception of trying to show the bible had no contradictions.  From the beginning I've only been trying to show why I believe the Bible doesn't contradict itself.  I admitted last post that simply saying the The bible is the Word of God, God can't lie, so these aren't contradictions doesnt prove anything.  But I  also showed you must make a decision about the existence of the Biblical God before you can determine the meaning behind any of the versus in the Bible (I wasn't trying to say God first then logic, I was trying to say Decision about God before conclusion about meaning of Words).  I'll try to demonstrate this again.

You say,

QuoteEh, not quite. If I decided that I did not believe the author, then I would not take his statement as evidence that the biblical god existed. If I did believe the author, then I might. My point being that to be logical, we would first have to decide whether or not the author was accurately reflecting the truth. Then we could make a decision as to the existence of the biblical god. Logic first, god second.

Right, you would first have to decide whether the author was being truthful and in doing so you would be making a decision about the existence of the Biblical God.  One of the things the Bible says is that The Word is God and God is the Word.  So if you decided you did not believe the author then you would be saying the Word is false and therefore the Biblical God is false.  My argument before was intended to show that you must make a decision about the existence of the Biblical God before you can logically make a conclusion about the "apparent contradictions" and I think I've shown this.  Since I believe the authors of this book, it would be "irrational" for me to believe that the Bible contradicts itslef.

QuoteThe problem with this argument is that it is unclear --- if the proponent wished his thoughts to be clearly perceived, he should have written:

1. I will never grow marijuana
2. I am not going to mow my lawn

So, what difference does it make? Well, if the bible contains the words of a perfect god, then why would a perfect god be unclear? At the very least, god is not "perfectly clear", and therefore not really perfect. But we know the bible was probably written by people, right? So, maybe what's really going on is that the people have got things wrong, or made things unclear. But if so, then can we trust the description of god given to us in the bible? Not without reservation. Agreed?

Oh im getting depressed :wink: .  You said "Well, if the bible contains the words of a perfect god, then why would a perfect god be unclear? At the very least, god is not "perfectly clear", and therefore not really perfect."  

If The Bible contains the words of a perfect God then the Words are perfect and it is US that is uclear.  Certainly you would agree that a All-Knowing being trumps the logic of a human being.  I discussed in a previous post as to why the bible is not presented in a seemingly clear cut way.

Yes I agree if there are Words that arent meant to be their then I couldn't trust the description given in the Bible of God.  But again if you want to logically decide if some Words don't belong, you must first determine the meaning behind these Words and thus make a decision about the existence of the Biblical God.

See, you have to understand this whole thing can't be about logic.  There are so many different people with different levels of intelect that it would be silly that the basis for finding God would be dependent on ones ability to analyze using logic.  I'm sure 'and I think you would agree, that there are people who are able to logically argue much more affectively than you and I that are on both sides of the fence.  There are philosofers that believe in God and there are philosifers that don't.  There are Historians that believe in God and there are historians that don't.  There are Psychiatrists that believe in God and there are Psychiatrists that don't.  There are archeologist that believe in God and there are archeologists that don't.  There are scientists that believe in God and there are scientists that don't.

This isn't about facts, there are facts and evidence that support both sides.  This is about the one thing that keeps us alive.  This is about heart. It has to be.  Imagine being in a relationship based completely on logic and facts.  There would be no surprises.  There would be no trust issues.  There would be no questions.  There would be no news. There would be no need for faith.  And in turn, there would be no excitement, no fun, no learning, no progress, and worst of all NO LOVE.  The very thing God created us for, to love Him and to be loved, wouldn't exist.

My intentions for responding to this thread were to give the non-believer some insight into how a Christian could believe the Bible even with these apparent contradictions. Obviously for one non-believer to tell another non-believer that the Bible is not true is meaningless.  So I took it implicatory that the purpose of this post was to give ammunition to use against the believer. I fully understand why you believe these verses to be contradictory, hopefull now you can atleast, even if it's just a little bit, comprehend why I don't believe these are contradictions (In short, I believe every word in the Bible is the inspired Word of God and it would be irrational for me to believe it contained contradictions).  You may think it's irrational for me to believe that these Words are the inspired Word of God, but like I said earlier, in this situation it cannot all be about facts and logic.  I'm not crazy.  CS Lewis wasnt crazy.  Dr. Gary Collins is not crazy.
We've just made a different choice.

QuoteI'm not trying to be personally insulting, but let me say that the prospect of me being on trial and you being in the jury box is scaring the hell out of me right now

Where's your faith?

JustInterested,

Quote from: "JustInterested"I think we've shown just in the short while of communicating in the same time period the importance of getting to the meaning behind the words of another person.

Agreed - wholeheartedly!  I'm trying to listen, and trying not to reject anything out of hand.

Quote from: "JustInterested"Sorry if I gave the perception of trying to show the bible had no contradictions. From the beginning I've only been trying to show why I believe the Bible doesn't contradict itself. I admitted last post that simply saying the The bible is the Word of God, God can't lie, so these aren't contradictions doesnt prove anything. But I also showed you must make a decision about the existence of the Biblical God before you can determine the meaning behind any of the versus in the Bible (I wasn't trying to say God first then logic, I was trying to say Decision about God before conclusion about meaning of Words). I'll try to demonstrate this again.

OK - fair enough.  Just please try to understand that for me, I'd rather approach any inquiry in a manner that avoids presuppositions - I'd rather let an open minded inquiry lead me where it will without having to make prior assumptions.  This is why I find "accepting or rejecting God" prior to making conclusions about the meaning of the bible to be problematic to me.  It seems like I'm already making up mind, but then, on what basis?

Quote from: "JustInterested"Oh im getting depressed

I take the fact that we've both expressed depression to be a result of the frustration inherent in attempting to reconcile such diametrically opposed views.  This frustration I certainly understand - I live in a world where something like 97% of people think and believe very differently then I do, and for the life of me I cannot understand why.

Quote from: "JustInterested"If The Bible contains the words of a perfect God then the Words are perfect and it is US that is uclear. Certainly you would agree that a All-Knowing being trumps the logic of a human being. I discussed in a previous post as to why the bible is not presented in a seemingly clear cut way.

This I believe I can respond to.  Okay - as you conceded above, we can't really prove anything about the bible simply by accepting it or rejecting it.  So, what we really have here is a claim made by other human beings - a claim that the bible contains the accurately transposed words of a perfect god.  But, from the tone of the bible, and the words of the authors, it seems clear that these people believed that god was trying to reveal knowledge to them.  If this was the intent of a perfect god, then I do not believe that it is fair to say it is we that are unclear.  If I tried to introduce arithmetic to a preschooler by launching into a definition of formal mathematical logic, I could justifiably be judged a terrible teacher.  Likewise, if god were truly perfect, wouldn't he be able to communicate with us perfectly, even if we are such "lesser beings"?  God would surely know that we are "unclear", and due to his perfection, surely would know the exact method to overcome this limitation and express himself in a way that would be clearly perceived by us?  This is my point here.  I understand that if you take it for fact that god is perfect, then his words must be perfect, but I am contending that there is no god, and that the alleged words of god are imperfect because they were uttered by a human being and not by a perfect god.  I'm making that determination because the words, upon analysis, are confusing and contradictory - not because I've presupposed that they are truth or false.  This is how I think presupposition gets us into trouble - what's the point of the analysis?

You reference your earlier post where you explain why you think the bible is deliberately unclear - to lead a believer to a lifetime of devotion trying to come at the correct meaning of god's words.  But this explanation really doesn't work for me, if you consider that the message of the bible seems largely devoted to telling us how we should live our lives.  I'm going to invoke a chess analogy here to show you what I think is wrong with this.

The game of chess is largely simple: the rules are not hard to understand, the board and the number of pieces are not very large, and the pieces have very clear and unambiguous restrictions on where they can be and how they can be moved.  The rules are crystal clear and easily understood - and yet a person can devote their entire life to this game and not master it.  Knowing how to intelligently control the pieces and react to the opponent is the part that is difficult.  After years, you can still learn something new.  Although the game is so definitively bound, it is remarkably difficult to program a machine to play the game well and consistently defeat the best human opponents.  Now, consider the "life problem".  Life will present a far larger set of unforeseeable, unpredictable, and adverse situations in which we must make decisions.  Even if the life lessons in the bible where concise and crystal clear, I argue it would take a lifelong devotion to understand how to consistently apply these principles correctly - and through this practice a large amount of personal growth and understanding would still be possible.

So I'm given to wonder why anyone (god or otherwise) would deliberately produce a muddled, indecipherable message.  The most plausible reason that I can think of is that the authors were not in communication with any gods and were trying to make people behave in a way that they wanted, personally.  Appealing to "godly mysteries" servers as a remarkably consistent way to hide any errors in their messages, to allow them to recover from mistakes or other inconsistencies (like contradictions :wink: ) without having to face-up that they made the whole thing up.  Consider the other people that deliberately create complex, muddled, misleading guidances: police, lawyers, governments, shysters, con-men, etc.  In particular, I find the legal ramifications most disturbing - why make complex laws that are hard to understand?  From a cynical viewpoint, to preserve the power of the court to interpret situations as they wish at any particular moment in time, without the populace being able to cry foul because none of them really know what the darn laws mean anyway.

A particularly heinous example of this is found on sex offender listing on the internet.  Look up your area sometime - I did this in Illinois and was disturbed to find that the legal definition of "criminal sexual assualt" involves the act of "sexual penetration", which is further defined "legally" to mean an act of "sexual contact".  Now - why go to such lengths to redefine "contact" as "penetration" and "assault"?  So that if you are called upon to justify why you are exposing a person to public humiliation, you can argue "this creep is guilty of criminal sexual penetration - are you defending him/her!?!" without mentioning that no penetration of any kind was necessarily involved.  Worse, this practice blurs the line between full rape and simple fondling - doesn't this distinction seem important?

Forgive me my long tangent - maybe I'm just paranoid, but I am highly suspicious of intentionally muddled statements that are explained as being in my best interest.  I really do not buy this.

Phew - gettting thirsty again ( :wink: ).

Okay, just a few more things and I'll wrap this up.

Quote from: "JustInterested"Imagine being in a relationship based completely on logic and facts.

Honestly, this "imagination" seems wonderful to me.  What's wrong with logic and facts?  I believe you answered this implied question with:

Quote from: "JustInterested"There would be no surprises. There would be no trust issues. There would be no questions. There would be no news. There would be no need for faith. And in turn, there would be no excitement, no fun, no learning, no progress, and worst of all NO LOVE. The very thing God created us for, to love Him and to be loved, wouldn't exist.

My problem with this is that to me, without facts and logic, there can be no understanding.  What I love above all else is understanding.  I am obsessed with reality.  I want to know what is true - I don't want answers that make me feel happy, I don't want answers that make me comfortable, I don't want someone to pat me on the head and tell me its all going to be okay - I want to know the truth.  And the only way that I can reliably find to do so is to apply reason, facts, and logic to absolutely everything.

Finally,

Quote from: "JustInterested"I fully understand why you believe these verses to be contradictory, hopefull now you can atleast, even if it's just a little bit, comprehend why I don't believe these are contradictions (In short, I believe every word in the Bible is the inspired Word of God and it would be irrational for me to believe it contained contradictions). You may think it's irrational for me to believe that these Words are the inspired Word of God, but like I said earlier, in this situation it cannot all be about facts and logic. I'm not crazy. CS Lewis wasnt crazy. Dr. Gary Collins is not crazy.
We've just made a different choice.

Okay - I think I can understand why you don't believe these are contradictions.  Hopefully, you can understand why I choose to reject your explanation - I do think it has to be all about facts and logic.  In short, I do think it is irrational to believe the bible contains the inspired word of god, and therefore any conclusions derived from this position I find invalid.  If there was any way that someone could make me understand why people believe the bible is the inspired word of god I would be grateful - because I don't understand this in the least.  How did you determine that other holy scriptures are invalid, if you found this one valid?  In other words, do you believe the Vedas, or the Qur'an?  Are these words inspired by god?  Why not?  I'm honestly curious to know.

Oh, and I don't contend that CS Lewis or Dr. Gary Collins were/are crazy - merely mistaken :wink:

Thanks for the conversation,
Steve

Can I change my name?  I'm now also curious, sweating, and hungry...

For the record, I've looked at just about all of these verses and they look like contradictions to me.  But then again I had to take a remedial English class before my college of choice would accept me.  The good news is I got in tight with the football players...  What? What?

But, at the same time, I realize that if the Bible was in fact written by perfect God then who am I to question it's contents.  I do not think it is God's intention to be unclear or to fool us. In fact, The Bible is actually very clear on how one is to prosper, gain wisdom, have peace, never perish and recieve the Word of God. We can have these things by simply accepting the new covenent He made for all people, Jesus Christ. He wants to reveal is words to us, his truth to us and his guidance to us.  But He can't do this until we first choose him.  

Imagine for a moment (I love this part where I get you to imagine something) wanting desparately to be with a certain woman.  You know you can make her happy.  You know you've got what it takes to satifsfy her and to make her heart but she refuses to give you the time of day.  She knows your there but from what shes sees in passing, she thinks your a little cheesy, a little too short, clumsy and that you possibly have a bladder control problem.  She hears good things about you but the people she hears these things from are a little suspect themselves.  

What are you to do?  You've done all you can.  You've offered to take her to dinner.  You've asked her to come to your debate tournament.  You've invited her to the dog park where you and your 3yr old Standard Poodle spend every Friday evening and you've texted her every other day for 2 months straight.  The only thing you want is for her to show you a little trust and faith so you can reveal to her who you really are.  So the way I see it there are 2 options.  Leave it up to her to choose whether she desires to know you or tie her up and forcefully make her spend time with you.  

For God to have the loving relationship with his people he so desires, it has to be a decision made by us and by revealing himself to someone who doesn't desire to know him would be like forcing the hand in marriage of the women you so desire when she says no.  I'm sure that would be a lovely wedding night.

We all desire to know the truth.  I believe that very desire is a desire laid on every man's heart and it's the desire to know God.  But at the same time it's our choice as to whether we recognize it or not.  I think this is one of the main reasons you see so many seemingly intelligent atheists.  If one were to admit that a higher power held all the answers, this would require at the same time that person to admit he/she doesn't hold the answers or at the very least one of the answers.  We all want to be the first to figure something out or come up with a new idea.  It's a very eccilerating feeling. I think this was one of the downfalls of Freud.  The feeling of, if there is a God then He has the answers and if my theories are true then they aren't original and if my theories are false then who cares, so there can't be a God.  

Anyways, I'm not real sure how I got there but about comparitive religion.

In short why do I believe the Bible and no other holy doctrine?  Because the Bible is the only one that has a character, namely Jesus Christ who claims to be God and dies for that claim and proves it by defeating death.  To me that sounds too crazy to be made up, especially if you consider the motive of the authors.  What were they trying to do here?  Convince people to live a certain way by saying God came to earth, died on a cross and then rose from the dead. I'm sure people would jump all over that bandwagon. Unless of course it really happened. I don't know.  I've chosen myself and I've chosen Him in this life and I'd rather stick spoons in my eyeballs every other hour than live this life on my own again.

One of my next ventures is to really dig deep into other religions and find out the differences in my beliefs and theirs.  As it stands right now, I would be doing everyone a disservice by addressing the fundamental differences in the world religions.  

The informations out there though.  Here's a book I recommend.  I'ts very interesting reading and at times difficult for me to understand so probably right up your alley.  If you so dare...

http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/boo ... g_man.html (http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html)

I'll leave this one for SteveS or McQ.     This one would be too easy, and plus  I'd get a headache 'quoting' all this to explain it all to her ..(edit--oh!  this is not the beginning of the thread!  oops!!! my bad!) ... she IS at least  correct in identifying she does not have an understanding of the bible.
Think i oughta send her my web site comparing an abusive relationship and the famed Jesus/human relationship?  it IS kinda cute....

hey, rlrouse, over here! I'm talking to myself again!!! bah ha ha!!!

tigerlily - I'm planning to respond to this --- too lazy so far.  I actually think this discussion has been productive - I feel I'm now in at least some agreement with JustInterested.  These storms have been killing me at night (you're in Indiana, you know what I'm talking about)!  And I'm only comfortable ditching so much work to blab on the forum :wink:

Yeah, STeveS, this rain!! the storms!!
I wake up with a start !  every nite with all that thunder and lightening, gotta get up and make sure our home is not on fire from a lightening strike...so far, so good.

Cutting the grass is taking over my every nice sunny day!!!!

 i'm building an ark!!!  the neighbors are not taking kindly to my collecting their dogs, though, which are the only animals i have access to for collecting....it'll make for a strange new world, ....just dogs..

You ARE having a productive dialogue, here, and i admire the effort and points you are making.  When i interrupted with my post, i somehow thought her last post was the beginning of a thread.
........... i gotta try this forum sober once.  bah ha ha!!!!

Hi JustInterested (and sweaty and hungry :wink: ),

I'm glad we can see more "eye to eye" on the contradictions.  I think we just look at the problem a different way.  For example, you say:

Quote from: "JustInterested"I realize that if the Bible was in fact written by perfect God then who am I to question it's contents.

This is the problem to me - this way of thinking is only valid if we presuppose the fact that the bible was actually written by a perfect god - then this point would be valid.  My trouble is that I don't like to presuppose anything unless I have to, so I tend to be skeptical: rather than just accepting that the bible was written by perfect god, I look at the bible and find the content questionable - which makes me question the claim.  I ask, "why do we think the bible was written by perfect god"?  I've yet to receive a compelling answer.  People usually answer along the lines of:

Quote from: "JustInterested"I've chosen myself and I've chosen Him in this life and I'd rather stick spoons in my eyeballs every other hour than live this life on my own again.

This explanation runs along the lines of "by accepting and believing this, I find peace, purpose and happiness in my life".  Fair enough, but this isn't a compelling reason to believe the religion is true - more of an argument for believing it due to its perceived beneficial effects.  Also, I can't really "choose" to believe something that I don't believe.

Quote from: "JustInterested"Imagine for a moment (I love this part where I get you to imagine something) wanting desparately to be with a certain woman ... What are you to do?

You could try getting her drunk - I recommend "Amaretto Stone Sours"  ( :wink: j/k of course)

Quote from: "JustInterested"He wants to reveal is words to us, his truth to us and his guidance to us. But He can't do this until we first choose him.

See - I just plain don't understand this - if god wanted to reveal his word to me, and god is omnipotent, why doesn't he just do it?  Why "can't" he do this until we "choose" him - makes no sense to me;  Is god at our mercy?  All powerful god is constrained by our choices?  You answer this implied question more-or-less as follows:

Quote from: "JustInterested"For God to have the loving relationship with his people he so desires, it has to be a decision made by us and by revealing himself to someone who doesn't desire to know him would be like forcing the hand in marriage of the women you so desire when she says no. I'm sure that would be a lovely wedding night.

Okay - I see where you're going with this - but if this is true, and god knows me and my thoughts and had a large personal responsibility in why I am the way that I am and why the world is the way that it is - then wouldn't god understand why I will not "choose" him for any old cockamamie reason?  And how will I know which god to choose?  Presumably, the other religions of the world will say the same thing you have said: you must choose to believe us first, then it will become clear and make sense to you.  I say this approach is all bass ackwards, getting the cart in front of the horse.  We must determine what makes sense before we choose what to believe!  Not the other way around - or you could end up believing any old thing.  I presume that this is why there are so many religions, and why they seem to be distributed in geographical patterns and time periods.....born in India?  Probably Hindu.  Born in the US?  Probably Christian.  Born in Iran?  Probably Muslim.  Born in ancient Greece?  Probably believe in Zeus.  Born in ancient Egypt?  Probably believe in Amun-Ra.  And so on and so forth.....

Everybody is pushing a different god, and none of them can offer up legitimate evidence that their god is the true god - they all want you to just arbitrarily place your faith in them first, and then try to understand.  Can you at least see why I distrust this approach?

Just one more thing:

Quote from: "JustInterested"We all desire to know the truth. I believe that very desire is a desire laid on every man's heart and it's the desire to know God. But at the same time it's our choice as to whether we recognize it or not. I think this is one of the main reasons you see so many seemingly intelligent atheists. If one were to admit that a higher power held all the answers, this would require at the same time that person to admit he/she doesn't hold the answers or at the very least one of the answers. We all want to be the first to figure something out or come up with a new idea. It's a very eccilerating feeling. I think this was one of the downfalls of Freud. The feeling of, if there is a God then He has the answers and if my theories are true then they aren't original and if my theories are false then who cares, so there can't be a God.

I really don't think I suffer from this sort of ego affliction at all - I want to know what is true, and I don't mind if somebody else discovers it and then educates me.  If a higher being exists that has all the answers I would much prefer said higher being to get off it's butt, come down here, and lay it all out for me!

I see this problem as actually being the opposite of how you present it: I see atheists as people who are happy to admit that there a great many things that we do not, as yet, know.  I see theists as people who are far more "impatient with ambiguity".  In other words, the theist seems to be the person claiming all the answers: the world exists because god made it, people exist because god made them, when you die you go to heaven and live forever, etc.  I'm the one saying "we don't know the ultimate origin of existence, or whether it even has an origin".  "We believe evolution led to the existence of people through descent with modification from previous life forms", but we don't know how/if abiogenesis occurred (yet).  I'm just a guy who is uncomfortable leaping to unsupportable conclusions - not some arrogant know-it-all who's catering to my own insufferable ego by having to believe I'm smarter than everyone for figuring all the answers out myself.  I'm chasing knowledge, not self-affirmation.

Anyway - that's my perspective.

I know I don't have much to add to this long, logical discussion and I don't know about anyone else, but my rejection of much of the Bible certainly did have to do with the "apparent" contradictions... contradictions in the content, in the translations, and in its application to the real world. As a UU, I am still happy to use the Bible in a manner similar to Thomas Jefferson: some concepts are "keepers" but if I don't like part of it I just cut it out of my spiritual repertoire (and yes, after several years of being a UU, I do believe an atheist can be just as or more spiritual than a Christian).

Interesting perspective, childprime.  I guess it depends on what we mean by the word "spiritual".  I certainly feel wonderment, amazement, fascination, humility, thoughtfulness, reflectiveness, and similar when pondering the cosmos and my existence within it.  But there's nothing even remotely supernatural in these thoughts.  Its the "spirit" in "spiritual" that seems ambiguous to me.

QuoteInteresting perspective, childprime. I guess it depends on what we mean by the word "spiritual". I certainly feel wonderment, amazement, fascination, humility, thoughtfulness, reflectiveness, and similar when pondering the cosmos and my existence within it. But there's nothing even remotely supernatural in these thoughts. Its the "spirit" in "spiritual" that seems ambiguous to me.

well put, SteveS, i am gonna keep that one!  You crystallized for me my very own thoughts!!!!  Thanx!  I'll buy the next keg!!

 By the way, nice effort in helping Just Interested sort these things out!  Really nice of you, and your thoughts are worded so well.  ....Where'd she go?

I was thinking JustInterested was a "he", but it doesn't matter 'cause I'm not sexist  8)  
 
Thanks for the kind words.  I hope he comes back too - I like this sort of discussion, and I like JustInterested.  Its weird, when I first joined this forum I had lots of discussions/arguments with a user named "Scrybe", and I started to like him a lot too.  I always end up liking the people I disagree with!  Any head shrinkers present - what does this say about me?

I'll take it as a compliment that my writing evidently comes across a little feminine to some.

Steve you diagnosed yourself earlier in your post.  You don't want back pats and cookies.  You're not in it for the free fanny pack you win for guessing the number of items in the glass jar.  You'd rather a baphoon (sp?) like me come in here and question your thoughts and try to convince you that's it's reasonable to believe the Bible is true in it's entirety. So why do you like me?  Typically people like me for my good looks but since that's not possible in this situation maybe you feel sorry for me. I don't know.  I don't claim to know the answer.  Yes, you read that right.  I am a Christian who does not know the answer.

Why is my spelling so terrible?  Did it take everything you had not to call me out on "ecclilerating"?  My spelling is simply subpar.

I would like to apologize for my absence.  I felt like I needed to spend more time in literature.  I wish we had more time.  We should have made 1 day = 81 hrs.  Then I could get a lot done in one day.  

I feel like its been too long to respond to your post specifically so I'll just start typing random thoughts and see what happens.

One thing seems to be certain, we both want to know the truth.  I believe that the Bible is the truth.  You believe there is a truth (otherwise what are you searching for) but it certainly doesn't belong to a god as far as you can tell.

You find it hard to believe that a loving God would not reveal himself.  I find it hard to believe that we have somehow evolved into this being who would ask such a question.

Many find it hard to believe that a loving, merciful God could exist in a world full of suffering.  I say thank God he exists amidst all the suffering. (yes I know a lot of the suffering is done in the name of religion)

My point is this.  As hard as it is for you to believe in a God, it is just as hard for me to believe there isn't a God.  I think I'll start another thread that revolves around this question.  Not on the existence of God, but on the people who we know exist that believe and don't believe in God.

Anyways,  Sorry if this response wasn't what you wanted.  I'll show myself more around these parts.  This post was really just to let you know I was still here and to let Tigerlily know that if her criteria for deciding whether someone was male or female was based on that kids comments in Arnold Swarczineggearefer kindergarten class, then she should know that I am a boy.

Or you could try to be less coy and just come out and say who you are.

That might give you a little more credibility.

Just a suggestion.

Actually there are 2,000. Read The Bible Handbook by American Atheist.
After ready that book you might even laugh of some of the tings you can find in the bible, like: 2 Kings 18:27 that they may eat their own dung and drink their own pis with you.

Mal.2:3 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of a man, in thy sight.

The bible is a book of smut.

Quote from: "Churchworker"Actually there are 2,000. Read The Bible Handbook by American Atheist.
After ready that book you might even laugh of some of the tings you can find in the bible, like: 2 Kings 18:27 that they may eat their own dung and drink their own pis with you.

Mal.2:3 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of a man, in thy sight.

The bible is a book of smut.

Read your PMs. Your pushing it here.

Read your PMs. Your pushing it here.

Whatever. Like I said in my other posts I expect to be banned anyway, but I don't care as I am on several other atheist forums and have three of my own and I consider all religion a joke and its followers and believers idiots and morons to be made fun of.

In the name of the Fat Fucker, the Son of a Bitch and the Holy Goat. Ah women.

Quote from: "Churchworker"Read your PMs. Your pushing it here.

Whatever. Like I said in my other posts I expect to be banned anyway, but I don't care as I am on several other atheist forums and have three of my own and I consider all religion a joke and its followers and believers idiots and morons to be made fun of.

In the name of the Fat Fucker, the Son of a Bitch and the Holy Goat. Ah women.

No.

Not, "Whatever."

Why would you, as an atheist, expect to be banned (and apparently seek it) from an atheist site, when you have the potential to contribute something positive?

If you are as seasoned as you claim, then you should have the good sense and manners to respect the rules of this forum.

If you are asking to be banned for being a rude fool, then we will be happy to accommodate you.

[whispering in McQ's ear] do it do it do it...

QuoteWould it matter if I came up with an explanation? Probably not. But I can assure you that there are many Theologians out there who could give you perfectly good reasons for these "seemingly" contradictory verses of the Bible. After 3min of research, here is a link to one persons response to these contradictions: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm).

But this really isn't the issue. It doesn't matter how the Bible was written. The Bible can't be true for a non-believer. And I'm sure the Bible isn't the reason you initially said no the question "Is there a God?". If the Bible was written in such a way with no apparent contridictions and full of black and white do's and dont's, I'm sure the non-believer would respond with "This is clearly the work of humans" or "There's nothing special about these writings as they compare to other writings, surely God would be more creative than this."

You have to understand that for us believers (in Jesus Christ that is), it is all about the relationship (or atleast should be) with Jesus Christ. There are 2 very important components if you want this relationship to grow, The Bible and prayer. These 2 things feed off each other. Through reading the Bible you learn how and what to pray for and what to expect. Through prayer, God's word reveals it's true meaning. Of course this needs to all be done in complete surrenderment (is that a word?) of ones heart.

So why is the Bible written in such a way to include apparent contradictions and seemingly off-the-wall verses?

Well I believe it's this:

As I discussed earlier, how the Bible was written and it's contents doesn't really matter to the non-believer. It's not made for the non-believer. So The Bible and it's contents have no affect (affect or effect? I never could get that one) on the non-believer.

On the other hand, suppose the Bible was written in such a way where it was cut and dry without any room for interpretation. How would this effect the believer? Well, It would only require somewhere between 10 - 48 hours of our time, depending on your reading skills, to determine exactly
how God wants us to live our lives. Why is this a problem? Because like I said earlier, the goal of a Christian should be the continuing development of close and intimate relationship with our Lord and Savior. We all know that time spent and communication are absolute necessities if you want to get to know someone. With a Bible written equivalent to a childrens book, you lose both of these components.

It's things like these apparent contradictions that keeps us believers looking and searching and coming back to God's Word. I don't uderstand the majority of the Bible at this point in my life, but that doesn't mean I don't believe it's the Word of God. I have complete faith that as I search for understanding of God's Word that my relationship with Jesus Christ will be strengthened and knowledge and wisdom will be attained and I will be able to stay within God's will which is what we're all (Believers) searching for.

Remember, I didn't decide to believe in Jesus Christ because I had a full understanding of the Bible. Just like your initial rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior had nothing to do with these "apparent" contradictions.
   

So your post basically says that your Bible makes another contradiction. It claims God to be good when really he left his book detailing the path to salvation open to loads of interpretations, and to be a load of nonsense to anyone who didn't read it with the conviction that it was true, and if it were interpreted wrong, or if a non-believer read it, and as it was meant to do, it made no sense to them (Which would put them further off Christianity), then the person who interpreted it wrong or saw it as a load of nonsense would go to burn eternally.

God's a nice guy, isn't he?

Hi JustInterested - I was gone for a few weeks, and just stumbled upon this today.

Quote from: "JustInterested"You'd rather a baphoon (sp?) like me come in here and question your thoughts and try to convince you that's it's reasonable to believe the Bible is true in it's entirety.

Exactly!  Why?  Because what if I couldn't defend my thoughts?  What value would they be to me?  I'd have to discard them if I could not maintain them in the face of critical analysis.  How do I know that I'm questioning myself as thoroughly as someone else would?  Letting another person criticize my thoughts is a far better test than anything I could come up with on my own.  And what's to lose?  If I'm wrong then I'm wrong - better to know and change then keep living with something that's wrong but have no idea.  Maybe I'm making assumptions without realizing it - well, during an argument you would be sure to point this out to me - and there is the opportunity for growth.

Quote from: "JustInterested"So why do you like me? Typically people like me for my good looks but since that's not possible in this situation maybe you feel sorry for me. I don't know. I don't claim to know the answer. Yes, you read that right. I am a Christian who does not know the answer.

Haha!  I don't know how you look - but anyway I'm straight, so that's probably not it.  :wink:  

I thought we had a long, mostly polite discussion - this I like.  Exchange of ideas - and its only possible if people are willing to read and try to understand.  Toss things back and forth, mull them over, think about them - that sort of thing.  Rather than just spewing rhetoric at each other.  Also - you don't know the answer; neither do I.  Honesty as well - notice how we weren't trying to convert each other?  Just talking.  These are the reasons I like you.  I think.  I'm not really sure.  Like I said I start to like people I have long discussions with, even (and/or especially) if we don't agree.  Weird - you don't know any head shrinkers, do you?  This is probably some personality disorder on my part.

I certainly don't feel sorry for you - why would/should I?

Quote from: "JustInterested"Why is my spelling so terrible? Did it take everything you had not to call me out on "ecclilerating"? My spelling is simply subpar.

What would be the point of that?  Honestly, the word threw me for a minute, but I eventually figured out what you meant.  Spelling only has value as a way to communicate clearly - once I knew what you meant the end effect was the same.  I've probably jacked up a few spellings too - so what?

Quote from: "Mark Twain"Anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination.

Quote from: "Andrew Jackson"It's a damn poor mind which can only think of 1 way to spell a word.

Back to the topic at hand,

Quote from: "JustInterested"You find it hard to believe that a loving God would not reveal himself.

More like I find it hard to believe that a god that wants people to know about him would not reveal himself.  If god is perfect, then is god perfectly rational?  If so, then god would know that I won't believe on faith.  Why would god value faith above certainty?  Above rationality?  And more importantly, why believe this is the case?  Maybe it doesn't make sense because there is no god.

Its not so much that I don't believe in god because he doesn't reveal himself, but rather that I don't believe other people who think god is real because these sorts of descriptions of god seem self-contradictory.  The more they talk the more they weave this web of what appears to me to be nonsense.  How can I believe this stuff?  I certainly have no personal experience of god, so I'm left with: nothing.  No reason to believe.  So I don't.  My rational mind just rejects these stories on the grounds that they make no sense.

Quote from: "JustInterested"I find it hard to believe that we have somehow evolved into this being who would ask such a question.

Ah - now this I don't find hard to believe.  The way we are analytical, the way we see cause in everything, the way we attempt to discover other minds and figure out what they're thinking, what they're doing, the way we anthropomorphize everything --- well maybe we're faking ourselves out.  Postulating a god and attributing existence and events to his will --- almost seems inevitable to me that this would happen.  Every single culture on earth has basically come up with gods to explain things.  They're all different gods, and the gods all work in different ways --- but they're all gods.  What's the common denominator?  The human mind - human nature.  Why believe its something more?

Quote from: "JustInterested"As hard as it is for you to believe in a God, it is just as hard for me to believe there isn't a God.

I understand and accept this.  What I'm curious about is why?  I've tried to discuss why I don't believe in god - why do you believe?  All the talk about god wanting to reveal himself and god being kind and loving despite the existence of suffering seems like rationalization: why there could be a god with these attributes that would still reconcile with our experiences.  But how did we get past step 1?  Why believe there is a god in the first place?  Rather than postulate a god and then try to explain his attributes - I question whether or not there even is a god.  No matter the attributes for now - why god in the first place?

And welcome back - I'm glad you decided to stick around!