Bible Contradictions

[mwtech]

I used to be a Christian and only recently become an atheist after studying the Bible enough to notice the flaws. I believe the Bible in itself to be contradictory enough to prove itself wrong, and I enjoy discussing it with other people, especially Christians who disagree. I would really like to have a one on one debate with any Christian who thinks that they have a logical answer for the contradictions in the Bible. The one rule I have is that you can't make a claim without evidence, whether from the Bible or any other source. I am interested in logical conversation, and I don't believe that any Christian can refute the contradictions I have found without making up some rationalization that has no evidence or logical base.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 159 by Danmark]

Ergo it was a deliberate action on God's part and not a need for rest as we need rest. The question of why God rested and what it means for us is a big part of Christianity.

Again I wonder how you thought you had an actual contradiction?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 159 by Danmark]

Ergo it was a deliberate action on God's part and not a need for rest as we need rest. The question of why God rested and what it means for us is a big part of Christianity.

Again I wonder how you thought you had an actual contradiction?

There is no need for wonder. God worked and on the sixth day he rested. The Bible tells us so. The Bible also tells us he has no need for rest. This is the contradiction. One could say the same for humans I suppose. When we rest it is because of a "deliberate action." But it is an action based on need, just like eating. We can delay the action for a time, but eventually we yield to the need.

I see this contradiction in 'God' as one of many. The logic insisted upon by the Christian theologian is that God is beyond needs for himself. He is all and in all; he is perfect; he is everything. Yet the descriptions of God show him as very human. He is loving beyond measure, yet easily provoked; he loves us, yet he has wrath that 'exceedeth' all proportion; he is the author and maker of everything, yet he is jealous.

God is himself a contradiction. He is contradictory and the descriptions of him confound his definition because he simply does not exist. He is a very human invention and is just as contradictory. To me, the greatest contradiction is that we profess to believe in this contradiction that reflects the very qualities of its author.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 158 by mwtech]

Edform provided overly generous answers. I trust you appreicated them.

I wonder if any non Christian wants to argue against that one you presented? Are you really stumped for an answer to it?

Providing generous answers does not make them good answers. I can appreciate the time he put into speaking with me, but if you read my rebuttal, you will see why I disagree with him. And as I stated, I would be more than happy to discuss it further if he wished, but he has said he was dropping out. If he has no counter argument he wishes to present to mine, then I am ready to move on to the next topic. So if the question you are asking is do I accept his answers, I can't say I do. That would require further convincing.

Also, why would I want to debate with a non-Christian about Christian theology. I assume that only a Christian thinks Christian theology is correct. That is who I am interested in debating. Am I stumped for an answer? No, I think the answer is that the Bible was written by humans and the only way they had to explain God's displeasure in sin was to say he grew weary of it. Thus. slipping up and creating a contradiction to the passage where they said God does not grow weary.
I am, however, interested in the pursuit of knowledge, so if anyone has a view differing from mine, I think it would benefit me to know about it. Isn't that why you bother to participate in a forum?

[mwtech]

You can add Genesis 1 to those. God breezed through 14 billion years or so of work in just six days, but then he needed the next entire day to 'rest.' I'm not minimizing the literally fantastic amount of work God did in just six days , but after all, he is GOD. In addition to the contradiction with the verses that say God does not grow faint or worry, why did he need to rest after just six days?

It almost sounds like it's obviously just a myth, a myth designed to tell people they need to take a day off once a week.

Well, it could be reasonably argued that God didn't rest because he needed to. He rested because 1) he was finished making things, and 2) he was providing an example for humans to go by because human bodies do benefit from a break.

So I wouldn't necessarily call it a contradiction as much as a wording issue here.

[Danmark]

You can add Genesis 1 to those. God breezed through 14 billion years or so of work in just six days, but then he needed the next entire day to 'rest.' I'm not minimizing the literally fantastic amount of work God did in just six days , but after all, he is GOD. In addition to the contradiction with the verses that say God does not grow faint or worry, why did he need to rest after just six days?

It almost sounds like it's obviously just a myth, a myth designed to tell people they need to take a day off once a week.

Well, it could be reasonably argued that God didn't rest because he needed to. He rested because 1) he was finished making things, and 2) he was providing an example for humans to go by because human bodies do benefit from a break.

So I wouldn't necessarily call it a contradiction as much as a wording issue here.

It's true certainly, that the Hebrew word translated as 'rest' has also been translated 'stopped' or 'ceased from his labors.' [Tho' why he even needed six days for what he could supposedly do in an instant is beyond explanation] Whether or not this is a 'contradiction' is arguable. What is not arguable is the more important point. This "God" is a human invention. He is constantly described in human terms, with human physical and emotional attributes. This is natural because the authors of Genesis were humans. "God" did not write Genesis or any of the "Holy Scriptures." The entire work is quite simply and quite obviously man's effort to describe and explain the "God" he thought necessary to explain nature.

Ever since we could look back at Earth from the Moon, we have known that this creator-god who lives in the heavens is simply the product of the human imagination. Such myths are no longer necessary.

[Strider324]

[Replying to post 158 by mwtech]

Edform provided overly generous answers. I trust you appreicated them.

I'm not sure I would consider the tactic of providing 'answers' in the form of a virtual Gish Gallop to meet the definition of 'generous', unless one considers several paragraphs of extraneous asides that border on being off-topic to meet the definition of that word.

[Idealist]

[Replying to post 156 by Danmark]

You say that "all that has to be done to start to understand the natural world is to reject ancient, prescientific myths and simply observe." Yet it is through this very process that I deduce there must be something more. Everything I have studied and observed has led me to the conclusions I have, and isn't this true of most rational people, no matter what their beliefs?

By "spontaneously erupting," I meant the singular point of time in which chemistry must have first formed biology, not the time it would take for the first living matter to evolve into the complexity we see today.

It is true that some lower animal forms do show some forms of intelligence similar to our own, but none show true consciousness the way we do. Besides which, comparing lower lifeforms to computers seems illogical to me. We know that computers are created things. Yes, there have been a few experiments in which computer programs "learn" rudimentary tasks simpler than the ones performed by even the simplest known virus, but I really don't see that as evolved intelligence. Richard Dawkins says that mankind need three great gifts of "luck" in or for us to exist, these being the creation of the universe, the beginning of life, and the beginning of intelligence. Know one knows with any fair reason how any of the three came to be. If it is all through material means then the three great lucks are fortunate indeed, but if there were some creator force then none of them need be luck at all.

[Danmark]

You say that "all that has to be done to start to understand the natural world is to reject ancient, prescientific myths and simply observe." Yet it is through this very process that I deduce there must be something more. Everything I have studied and observed has led me to the conclusions I have, and isn't this true of most rational people, no matter what their beliefs?

What I suggest is that you separate what you actually observe from the claims of others, not just their observations, but more importantly their conclusions about what they claim those observations mean.
When those in the distant past make claims for phenomena that we do not observe today, we should at the least be sceptical and we should certainly not proceed as if those claims that fly in the face of what we observe today are accurate representations of nature.
When you say

Everything I have studied and observed has led me to the conclusions I have....

you are making he mistake of equating what you have observed with what what you have merely been told. Wouldn't you agree that a distinction should be made between those two methods of learning?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 162 by Danmark]

It's not a contradiction. If you can't see it then what can I do to help?

I might build a house and when finish I stop. Am I stopped?

A word which we understand might be used to convey a message that we understand. The bible is for us not for God.

[Wootah]

You can add Genesis 1 to those. God breezed through 14 billion years or so of work in just six days, but then he needed the next entire day to 'rest.' I'm not minimizing the literally fantastic amount of work God did in just six days , but after all, he is GOD. In addition to the contradiction with the verses that say God does not grow faint or worry, why did he need to rest after just six days?

It almost sounds like it's obviously just a myth, a myth designed to tell people they need to take a day off once a week.

Well, it could be reasonably argued that God didn't rest because he needed to. He rested because 1) he was finished making things, and 2) he was providing an example for humans to go by because human bodies do benefit from a break.

So I wouldn't necessarily call it a contradiction as much as a wording issue here.

It's true certainly, that the Hebrew word translated as 'rest' has also been translated 'stopped' or 'ceased from his labors.' [Tho' why he even needed six days for what he could supposedly do in an instant is beyond explanation] Whether or not this is a 'contradiction' is arguable. What is not arguable is the more important point. This "God" is a human invention. He is constantly described in human terms, with human physical and emotional attributes. This is natural because the authors of Genesis were humans. "God" did not write Genesis or any of the "Holy Scriptures." The entire work is quite simply and quite obviously man's effort to describe and explain the "God" he thought necessary to explain nature.

Ever since we could look back at Earth from the Moon, we have known that this creator-god who lives in the heavens is simply the product of the human imagination. Such myths are no longer necessary.

So you knew it wasn't a contradiction and still put it forward as one? Why? Is your ideological position as explained above worth saying anything for?