The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?

[shnarkle]

There are no shortage of online sites providing numerous examples of contradictions and inconsistencies from the biblical texts. While some of these are quite simply the result of poor reading comprehension skills or an unfamiliarity with the texts, others seem legitimate. Many of those that are legitimate are inconsequential, but some could be quite controversial and may have significant ramifications.

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?


One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. While I can see his point, and also agree that none of those pagan deities are real, I do wonder how he is able to disregard the law which he upholds; a law that forbids eating anything that is sacrificed to idols.

The reason this could be looked at as disturbing is because it indicates to me that Paul has attributed capriciousness to Paul's God.

[Danmark]

shnarkle wrote:

In other words, they were never believers to begin with.

I think it all depends on how we are defining just what a Christian is. I think there are several kinds.

First of all, there are cultural Christians. They aren't followers of Jesus, just people who live in a country built on Judeo-Christian standards.

There are also nominal Christians, those who may give some credence to the idea of God. They may attend church and they may attend Bible studies, etc., but they aren't in a relationship with the Lord.

Then there are Biblical Christians, that is, people who are Christians as the Bible describes them. These are people who are in a relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit. God made humankind to be in a loving relationship with him. The Bible uses metaphors of parent and child, husband and wife, as well as friend, to describe God's relationship with us.

For those of us who are the latter, we have difficulty with atheists who say they used to be Christians. .

It may be hard for you to accept or understand, but that is exactly MY testimony and experience and I am hardly alone. Dan Barker, Bart Erdman, dozens of other authors, and people I grew up with and knew as well as I knew my brothers, ALL report the same experience. We were 'born again,' experienced the 'infilling of the holy spirit, were not just 'saved,' but 'sanctified.' Then we became better educated about the history of the church and the canon, and came to believe in something different.

This is no different than Republicans becoming Democrats or vice versa. Just as a 'sinner' can repent and be 'saved,' a Christian believer can repent his folly.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 104 by alexxcJRO]

contradictions disturbs believers. It disturbed me when I was a believer.

Again, this isn't about you. You were never a believer.

How is it you are able to claim knowledge of another person's past beliefs and call him a liar when he says he believed something in the past.

I'm not calling him a liar. The "how" is quite simple, and I provided the proof text jsut below my comment.

Sure you are. Quoting a Bible verse does not cover the fact you claimed he was not being accurate when you claimed to have superior knowledge about his own claim of personal belief. That 1 John 2:19 is dead wrong does not absolve you from being equally wrong. This is the trouble with 'proof texting,' using the Bible. What you've actually accomplished just discredits the Bible or your interpretation of it.

1 John 2:19 is a transparent attempt at bootstrapping.

Are you also claiming that 1 John 2:19 is 'proof' I was also not a believer when I went to Japan as a missionary? Are you seriously claiming that all Christians who discover they were wrong never believed in the first place?

I too, was a "true orthodox believer" until I discovered the failed prophecy of Matthew 16.28. I began to question and the facade of Bible perfection soon collapsed.

1 John 2.19 is refuted by real world experience, as alexx, Danmark, myself and others could attest. In fact, "John" demolishes his own credibility in 1 John 2.18 when he calls the "now" of his contemporaries, the "last hour".

Billions of hours have passed since that "last" Johannine hour.

Now I am an "unorthodox" believer, and insist that every Bible passage stand on it's own intrinsic merit before acceptance. "Because the pastor* says the Bible is perfect" doesn't cut it for me anymore.

* or the Church, or the demomination, or the Pope, or the Magisterium, or any "Bible believin' Christian" for that matter.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 104 by alexxcJRO]

contradictions disturbs believers. It disturbed me when I was a believer.

Again, this isn't about you. You were never a believer.

How is it you are able to claim knowledge of another person's past beliefs and call him a liar when he says he believed something in the past.

I'm not calling him a liar. The "how" is quite simple, and I provided the proof text jsut below my comment.

Sure you are. Quoting a Bible verse does not cover the fact you claimed he was not being accurate when you claimed to have superior knowledge about his own claim of personal belief. That 1 John 2:19 is dead wrong does not absolve you from being equally wrong. This is the trouble with 'proof texting,' using the Bible. What you've actually accomplished just discredits the Bible or your interpretation of it.

1 John 2:19 is a transparent attempt at bootstrapping.

Are you also claiming that 1 John 2:19 is 'proof' I was also not a believer when I went to Japan as a missionary? Are you seriously claiming that all Christians who discover they were wrong never believed in the first place?

I'm simply providing two proof texts that point out that those who leave were never believers. Again, this isn't even about you or that other guy. The topic is about contradictions in the texts, not contradictions from you. He says he was a believer, but the texts state that he couldn't have been. It doesn't matter if the texts are completely wrong. That's not the point. The point is to ask are the texts contradicting themselves.

Again, I'm ont suggesting that he wasn't a sincere believer. My comment was only addressed to him insofar as it peratains to the subject of this thread. He and you are free to provide any and all texts that contradict the texts I provided.

We had both agreed that the texts were FICTION. From that standpoint alone, he isn't a believer. It makes no difference if he used to believe in a work of fiction. We both know that it's a work of fiction that we are discussing, and this text points out that those who leave were never believers. He can claim that he was, but this is neither here nor there. It's completely irrelevant to the topic. I pointed this out to him.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 112 by Elijah John]


Quick fun fact, EJ. A billion hours is 114,808 years!


As to the rest of you, I say it doesn't matter one whit if there's contradictions or not, authors known or unknown, or the years written nailed down exactly.

None of those things increase the likelihood of demonstrating magic occurred in the ancient world. These things are taken on faith, because faith is all you have at your disposal.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 112 by Elijah John]


Quick fun fact, EJ. A billion hours is 114,808 years!

Just a guess...another one, a million perhaps?

Many hours, but it has been many, many more than one, even if we are speaking of "generations".

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 115 by Elijah John]

No doubt, buddy. Your point is a good one and remains unchanged. It's just I'd recently been doing weird conversions like that and it shocked me. Felt like sharing with the class. As you were, my good man.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 112 by Elijah John]


Quick fun fact, EJ. A billion hours is 114,808 years!


As to the rest of you, I say it doesn't matter one whit if there's contradictions or not, authors known or unknown, or the years written nailed down exactly.

None of those things increase the likelihood of demonstrating magic occurred in the ancient world. These things are taken on faith, because faith is all you have at your disposal.

It has nothing to do with faith. I have been reading works of fiction for years and never once found it necessary to exercise faith in order to read any of them. This thread isn't attmpeting to prove magic occurred anywhere either.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 117 by shnarkle]


I'm aware of what the thread is about. The implication is that contradictions or inconsistencies matter, though. They matter to you, obviously, since you author the thread. I'm merely addressing the end game of the apparent caring about them one way or the other.

[alexxcJRO]

Again, this isn't about you. You were never a believer.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any accuracy.
Yes I was. I sincerely believed God of the bible exists. I sincerely believed in Jesus sacrifice. I repented and got baptized with water in front of the whole church.

I've never encountered a believer who was disturbed by it.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic.
Non-sequitur.
It does not follow that there is not a believer who is disturbed because you have not encounter one.

The texts quite plainly point out that this deity can do no wrong.

The texts contain contradictions dear sir. 😊)

To say that God's knowledge is limitless, or that God knows everything that there is to know is not to exhaust the meaning of omniscience. To be all knowing necessasrily means that God cannot be known.

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any accuracy.
The definition of omniscient is clear. There is nothing in it about God not being known.

omniscient

1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
• an omniscient author
• the narrator seems an omniscient person who tells us about the characters and their relations
• —Ira Konigsberg
2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge
• the omniscient God
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omniscient


omniscient

[om-nish-uh nt]
Spell Syllables
• Examples
• Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, orunderstanding; perceiving all things.
noun
2.
an omniscient being.
3.
the Omniscient, God.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omniscient

Sure, Paul points it out in his letter to the Galatians

This is just ridiculous. 😊)
The text says "now that you know God" not that God cannot be known.

Galatians 4:9
“9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces[a]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?�

Commentary on this passage:
“
“But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?�

“But now� is the contrast after the conversion of the Galatians.
after you have known God,
Now that the Galatians came to “know� [intimately] God on a personal level, why would they revert to legalism? Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.
or rather are known by God,
Paul corrects the emphasis of the previous phrase. Salvation is not due to Galatian efforts at gaining God’s favor butGod who planned their salvation billions of years in eternity past.
Galatian knowledge of God did not come from within them; it came from God Himself, from the sovereign grace of the gospel. It was not they who made the change in their lives but the gospel. We know God only because He took the initiative.�
https://versebyversecommentary.com/gala ... atians-49/

Notice that the author points out that he did "NOT" make himself known to them. Fail.
Says you. Given that no one can see God and live

Dear sir you said: “Jacob wrestles with the angel of the Lord who is also referred to as the Lord.
I already debunked this angel hypothesis.
This verse says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob saw God, that God was seen, and that he appeared as God almighty(Exodus 6:2-3). Therefore no angel.


"2 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord;
3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them."(Exodus 6:2-3).

The text say clearly: "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless; “. The text clearly says Abraham saw God Almighty and not an angel.
We have another contradiction. Nobody saw God vs some saw God.

However, the fact is that as long as you want to talk about it, I'm going to applaud the fact of you're honesty in admitting that you've been triggered.

I never admitted I was triggered. All I said was that you might be a troll.
Stop the straw-man please.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to Elijah John]

I too, was a "true orthodox believer" until I discovered the failed prophecy of Matthew 16.28. I began to question and the facade of Bible perfection soon collapsed.

Here's what it says:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

If we look at the Greek we see the particle "an" with the Subjunctive Mood which makes this a hypothetical statement. It isn't really translatable, but it always seems to result in the conditional "till" or "until". This is how it is presented in 10:23; 23:29;and 24:34 as well. So what would this statement be conditioned upon? It must be obvious for so many people to immediately conclude that it didn't happen, right? So what was it conditioned upon?

1 John 2.19 is refuted by real world experience, as alexx, Danmark, myself and others could attest.

Could you elaborate on this? What are you talking about, and how does it relate to this topic? In other words, where is the contradiction?

In fact, "John" demolishes his own credibility in 1 John 2.18 when he calls the "now" of his contemporaries, the "last hour".

Again, I'm at a loss to see the contradiction here. Where is the other text that contradicts this one?

Billions of hours have passed since that "last" Johannine hour.

Ah, so this creates a contradiction within the texts themselves?

Now I am an "unorthodox" believer, and insist that every Bible passage stand on it's own intrinsic merit before acceptance. "Because the pastor* says the Bible is perfect" doesn't cut it for me anymore.

Well, I'm not sure that any of the authors claim that the bible is perfect either which would be more in line with this topic.

* or the Church, or the demomination, or the Pope, or the Magisterium, or any "Bible believin' Christian" for that matter.

For what matter? For the matter of this topic? Opinions don't mean anything unless they're found within the pages of these texts AND contradictory. We could poll the whole world, and it wouldn't matter one iota to this topic. So why bring all sorts of yahoos into it when it doesn't have anything to do with it?