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.

[Zzyzx]

.

When Paul seen the light he heard something that went through his mind. This is why Jesus said, 'it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.' The others hearing a voice in 9:7 shows they also heard what Paul heard before falling to the ground. In 22:9 where is written, 'they heard not the voice of him that spake to me', simply means they did not understand what they heard and were afraid to to accept it.

It COULD mean that or it COULD mean that Paul/Saul was hallucinating or having an encephalitic seizure and others were not, or it COULD mean nearly anything when speculating about people who lived two thousand years ago and whose actions and words were likely folklore before they were gospel.

Whoever wrote "Acts" may have made up the whole thing. Writings attributed to Paul/Saul say almost nothing about the "vision" episode.

Without all the verses that support this it is only personal opinion.

WITH verses in support it is STILL personal opinion. In reasoned debate (or reasoning in general) parts of a book are not used to "support" other parts of the same book.

Would you (generic term) consider it "support" if four salesmen made similar claims in company promotional literature?

The problem is most people, especially Christian, generally don't want to hear it because it disagrees with present beliefs.

I've notice that too.

Some of us (often Non-Theists) WANT to hear EVIDENCE that counters existing ideas, theories, explanations. Human knowledge (and individual knowledge base) can grow ONLY when new, accurate information is presented, evaluated, and accepted if rigorously, independently verified.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 224 by mwtech]

Here it is. When Paul seen the light he heard something that went through his mind. This is why Jesus said, 'it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.' The others hearing a voice in 9:7 shows they also heard what Paul heard before falling to the ground. In 22:9 where is written, 'they heard not the voice of him that spake to me', simply means they did not understand what they heard and were afraid to to accept it.

Without all the verses that support this it is only personal opinion. You can consider it, reject it, or look further into it with the Bible. Your choice. In no way do I want anyone to accept it just because I said it. I like to say what verses to examine then hear what others think. If they recognize the same things I have I still don't tell them true or false. I ask why they came to the conclusion made. The problem is most people, especially Christian, generally don't want to hear it because it disagrees with present beliefs.

This will have to be my last post for today.

Okay, I don't want to be close minded. I am really trying to see what you are saying here, but I think you will have to spell it out for me a little more.
Sorry if I'm just being thick, but I'm not sure why Jesus saying 'it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.' supports what you are saying. I'm not even sure which point it is supposed to support. If I am correct, "kicking against the prick" is an idiom that comes from agriculture. Ox goads used on plow animals had a prick on them to prick the animal to keep it moving. Sometimes the animals would kick against the prick and it would cause it to dig further into its flesh. Hard to kick against the prick means the struggle ends up hurting you more than cooperation would. I can't see how this plays into Paul and/or the others seeing or hearing something. Maybe I'm just missing your point entirely.

While I agree that assuming "hear" means understand in one verse and not the other would be convienient, I can't in good concience decide for sure that's what it means just for convenience's sake.

The word used in Acts 9:7 is ἀκο�οντες (akouontes). It is used 15 times in the Bible, including Luke 8:10 "he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’" So this supports the word 'hear' in Acts 9:7 meaning the physical act of viration hitting eardrums.

The word for 'hear' in Acts 22:9 is ἤκουσαν (ēkousan), which comes from the same root as akouontes (akouó: to hear, listen) and both are listed under the same definition in Strong's concordance (Strong's Greek 191). The word used in Acts 22:9 is also used in John 4:1, 9:40 and 7:32. All these verses talk about pharisees hearing things, and we know the pharisees are often called out for not properly understanding the word of God. John 9:40 actually talks about the pharisees hearing and misunderstanding something Jesus said. "Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?""The word in blue here is the same word, ēkousan, used in Acts 22:9 which you claim means to understand. But the pharisees heard (vibrations hit their eardrums) but did not understand what Jesus said, as he had to explain himself to them in the following verse. "Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." And John 10:6 spells it out for us as plainly as it can be. "This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them." So if we are going off other verses to find the true meaning of Acts 22:9, I would have to conclude that hear does not equate to understand. I really wish I could agree with you, but I just can't see the evidence to support your argument over mine.

Sorry to be long-winded in my explanation, but you see, I am not just close minded and hate the Bible and religion. I put a lot of thought and study into it and simply find the conclusion to be that there is a contradiction. What verses would you offer that support your understanding of Acts 22:9?

[jcb]

[Replying to post 230 by mwtech]
There would be no point in posting anything here from the Bible. It is not acceptable here.
Let me ask this. There are 1000's of publications available about the universe. Let's narrow that to 1000. In all 1000 the main topic of the publications is, 'what each scientist him/herself understands as fact about the universe'. Now let's say the authors are basically saying the same things throughout each book. Let's also say that 100 authors appear to be in complete disagreement with the other 900 in various places of the publications.
Now let's say a 1000 years have passed; the 1000 publications are still in circulation as one book; 1000's of explanations have been given to bring the ancient publications in agreement; and the explanations were and are made by other assumed highly reputable scientists in the same field. Still there is no agreement. None of the scientists agree amongst themselves on the ancient publications. Only more confusion is added. People decide that if all doesn't agree, none can be true.
Today and before, science is faced with this exact scenario. Did or do scientist totally reject the writings of all the scientists before them? IN NO WAY. This is where they began and begin.
My question is, Why not take the same approach with the Bible as scientists? After all, though one book, it consists of the writings of multiple authors that have survived 1000's of years.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 231 by jcb]

The difference in deciding the truth of the bible and the truth of a science book is that we don't need to rely on ancient text for truth. If one scientist says one thing and another says another, we can test each one to see if it is true. This can't be done with the bible. In fact, the bible forbids us to test God. We are told many extraordinary and outrageous things and expected to believe them as a matter of faith with no evidence, and then to change our entire lives to act upon them. The entire point of the scientific method is that experiments must be documented and results recorded so they can be repeated by other scientists. If it is not repeatable, the experiment is not taken seriously and the hypothesis cannot move forward. If scientists are faced with any piece of information, instead of making a decision right then and there about whether it is true or false, they use the claim as a piece of evidence and do plenty of testing to decide the truth.

As for posting from the bible, since we are discussing from the Bible about contradictions in the Bible, any evidence that will actually support your claims will be acceptable from the Bible or else where. If you feel you have anything that will change my mind I am certainly open to it. But a comparison to another scenario won't change the facts of the contradiction(?) we are discussing. To do that, I will need a direct rebuttal to the argument I presented. If you don't have one, that is okay too.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 231 by jcb]

You are really confusing a hypothesis with a theory with your scenario here.

Now let's say a 1000 years have passed; the 1000 publications are still in circulation as one book; 1000's of explanations have been given to bring the ancient publications in agreement

I would treat such a contradictory book the same way I treat the bible they can't all be right. They are all men/women who wrote them. There is no supernatural involved.

I see no reason in dedicating any significant time to such a publication it would be an interesting read to see where mankind was 1000's of years ago. But the value of scientific data from a 1000 year old book would pale in comparison to the current data. I would have all the answers to the questions posed from such a book.

Same with the bible except the writers are talking and arguing about something fictional. So it would be interesting to see the world view of certain cultures over a period of time. But there LITERALLY IS NOTHING to be gained morally,scientifically, or historically from such a book.

[KenRU]

Contradiction:

I'm the son of god, tell no one.
Matthew 16:20
Mark: 8:20

I'm the son of god, tell everyone.
Matthew 28:19
Mark: 16:15

Which is it? It would seem to me that this message would/should be consistent.

[mwtech]

I think we should give jcb or anyone else who would like to chime in a last chance to defend the contradiction in Acts before we move on to another.

[Randall]

This thread has been fascinating and I'd like to thank Mwtech for starting it, because it has certainly been illuminating. I personally like the fact that the Murder( or more precisely "Thou shalt not kill")commandment is considered one of God's own created laws, yet he violates His own commandment when he murders the world during the flood. I mean, what's the point of having a law if you won't follow it yourself?

[Danmark]

This thread has been fascinating and I'd like to thank Mwtech for starting it, because it has certainly been illuminating. I personally like the fact that the Murder( or more precisely "Thou shalt not kill")commandment is considered one of God's own created laws, yet he violates His own commandment when he murders the world during the flood. I mean, what's the point of having a law if you won't follow it yourself?

The traditional Christian theology invoked about this issue inherently involves the concept of 'might makes right,' the doctrine that since god is creator of all things he makes the rules; that 'good' cannot be defined without God; that good = God and God = good.

This is just another way of saying 'might makes right.' God, the superman, does not have to follow the rules. The rules do not apply to the superman.

This very same 'might makes right' ethic is abhorred by Christian theology unless applied to their God; in which case it is given a different label.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 237 by Danmark]

Replying to both 237 and 236.

If you would allow one to presume justice exists ... surely you know about situations where law enforcement has acted to kick down a door and arrest someone? Even if these situations end in violence the law official is not a murderer for bringing justice to the criminal.

Secondly, if you saw the movie Noah, these people were living much closer to the time of Adam & Eve. They were much more aware of God than we are now. I could certainly imagine an atheist today being surprised to find out God exists but not back then.

So it is completely not a might makes right issue. It is a justice issue.

It is completely not a case of murder but justice.