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.

[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.

If you're looking for Truth, why bother with this. Instead of the easy target, why not defend your atheism against deism Don't get me wrong, I think those are the only two reasonable positions on God, and they're equally likely because there's no evidence for or against God or how the universe came to be. Most reasonable atheists (scientists, Dawkins, etc.) have admitted that God is a possibility. I think so many people who've left the Church overreact. They reject one revealed religion or another based on it's lack of reason, but then declare that there is no God without a basis in reason.

First, I made this post only days after I realized I was an atheist, and it was only then that I acknowledged there were contradictions in the Bible, so looking back, I had this sense of bewilderment that I had never seen them before and felt the need to share that revelation with others. Kind of like when you eat something for the first time and love it, and you just want everyone else to taste it too.

Second, there are many threads in this forum and on the entire website. I am not going to spend my time on every one defending atheism against deism. Whether or not you think that is the only reasonable position is negligable in the eyes of fundamental Christians. That is who I intend to debate with in this thread.

Also, when atheists admit that there being a God is a posibility, they usually don't mean there is a 50-50 chance. Dawkins has stated that he is 99% percent sure ther is NO God. I am very certain that the God of the Bible does not exist. There are people who are very sure he does exist. I would like to debate with them. If you want me to debate your view, make a thread where I can do that.

I think so many people who've left the Church overreact. They reject one revealed religion or another based on it's lack of reason, but then declare that there is no God without a basis in reason.

Most atheists don't state that there is no God. I know of very few who do. I have not stated anywhere that I believe there is no God. I don't believe that any of the Gods proposed by humans to date are real. I don't see any evidence to suggest that there is a desitic god, so I take the position of atheism. I see no reason to believe in a God or gods, so I don't.
I don't think that people who leave the church overreact. I can say for me, it felt like a big smack in the face to realize that I had been taught to believe a lie my whole life, and taught to ridicule anyone who believes what I believe now. I know for many people, they were even more involved in the church than I was. I can only imagine that their break was even more shocking than mine, and for many people who were in it longer than I was, I'm sure it's an emotional change, and it leaves people feeling vulnerable when you have heard everyone you know talk about people who share your beliefs as if they are idiotic or evil or hopeless. I think a strong reaction is reasonable.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[quote="mwtech"[/quote] I don't see any evidence to suggest that there is a desitic god, so I take the position of atheism. I see no reason to believe in a God or gods, so I don't.

That's the point, there is no evidence either way. And the question is really how did the universe come to be, God or no God. The complete lack of evidence either way there is the source for the 50-50.

I can only imagine that their break was even more shocking than mine, and for many people who were in it longer than I was, I'm sure it's an emotional change, and it leaves people feeling vulnerable when you have heard everyone you know talk about people who share your beliefs as if they are idiotic or evil or hopeless. I think a strong reaction is reasonable.

My break was very traumatic because I'd been very religious, and I agree a strong reaction if reasonable--but dumping reason is not reasonable, that's the overreaction.

BTW, I've been debating with Christians, including those in my own family, for my entire adult life, and I don't know of anyone I've convinced to seriously question their faith. That said, I was convinced largely by an atheist, not by his arguments for atheism, but those against Christian (revealed) religion. Just sayin'.

[mwtech]

[quote="mwtech"

I don't see any evidence to suggest that there is a desitic god, so I take the position of atheism. I see no reason to believe in a God or gods, so I don't.

That's the point, there is no evidence either way. And the question is really how did the universe come to be, God or no God. The complete lack of evidence either way there is the source for the 50-50.[/quote]
I disagree with you, but I don't want to debate that here and distract from the OP. I will make a new thread later, or you can make one if you get to it before I do.

[earl]

mwtech said, " I don't see any evidence to suggest there is a god."


You said you recently have taken the position of an atheist and prior to that you were a believer in God.
You state you do not see evidence and now have no reason to believe.

In your prior years of religious training who was it that taught you that you will see material evidence supporting the belief in God?
And ,how is it that material evidence supporting material reasoning must be the standard where by one must experience a spirit God .
I am sure that no one can give you finite data on an infinite subject that will give you material reason.
However evidence within the self is self evident-personal experience -not transmittal to another human as material evidence.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 240 by mwtech]

I presume the smiley face indicates that you recognise it is not a contradiction right?
On the despondent chance that you are not joking ...

I don't think it is a contradiction. It's onw of those things that made perfect sense to me when I was a Christian, like it does to, but once I realized I don't think God is real, it seems vvery ironic and actually funny to me. It's not one of the things I think can't be explained when you start with the assumption that God is real. But, when you start with the assumption that it was written by men, it makes it look like they knew God was not real and were afraid for him to be tested because of fear of failure. So they just changed the rules for him. Again, not something I would debate with a theist, I know you could explain it easily, and I would have said the same thing when I believed. It is just funny to those who see the Bible as mythology.

God actually wants us to test him, as in trust him, and see how your life goes. Jacob in the OT wrestles with God. This is an instance in history, that also serves as a metaphor, for how we are to relate to God. God wants us to wrestle with him, don't blindly follow but also don't simply not try.

Speaking of the wrestling story, this one struck me as odd even as a Christan (I was a fundamentalist, or at least I was told that's what I was). Why would the angel he was wrestling have so much trouble that he had to break Jacob's bone just to try and win? An angel with the power of God wouldn't even need to touch you to overpower you. Maybe it makes sense if you assume that the angel limited himself to be of equal power of the average man, just so he could carry out the metaphor? It's just one of those things you can't take literally I suppose.

This is an excellent example of the silliness that comes from a literalist point of view rather than the literature point of view. The impossibility of such a literalist viewpoint is amply demonstrated by this story, as you ably point out. As Cnorman and others have pointed out, taking the Bible literally is the best way to destroy its credibility as 'the voice of God.'

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 253 by Danmark]

@mwtech - I appreciate you noting it wasn't a contradiction.

It's a most excellent example of the literalism in atheistic readings of the bible. Since we both agree the angel (I think it was God) could win easily then why would you not rather consider why it lost?

But instead a biblical literalism that is beyond my capabilities to read into the text is suggested - and I'm the biblical literalist.

[mwtech]

mwtech said, " I don't see any evidence to suggest there is a god."


You said you recently have taken the position of an atheist and prior to that you were a believer in God.
You state you do not see evidence and now have no reason to believe.

In your prior years of religious training who was it that taught you that you will see material evidence supporting the belief in God?
And ,how is it that material evidence supporting material reasoning must be the standard where by one must experience a spirit God .
I am sure that no one can give you finite data on an infinite subject that will give you material reason.
However evidence within the self is self evident-personal experience -not transmittal to another human as material evidence.

I was never taught as a child that I would see material evidence of God. On the contrary, I was taught that I needed no evidence at all for God. I needed faith and that was all. As long as I started with the presupposition that The God of the Bible existed, I would have all the answers I needed, and anything left didn't need to be answered. To this day, if I feel brave enough to ask my mother what she thinks about something I find unanswerable through Christian methods, she will say "I don't know the answer, but that's okay. If God didn't give me the answer then I don't need to know it." And she will never give it another thought.

I can't say I ever had a reason for believing in God. I was told that was the way it was and I accepted it. Everybody acted as though it were true, so I assumed it to be true. With that unwarranted belief preceding all others, I could rationalize my continued acceptance of the claim by rejecting the arguments of others.

When I finally started questioning my beliefs, I asked myself what reason there is to believe in God. Was there evidence? No. Had I ever had some experience that couldn't be explained naturally? No. If I had, would that mean that a God must be real, or that I am not knowledgable enough to know the explanation? The latter. Does the fact that I don't know something give me reason to fill the gap with the claim that God is the answer? No. Do I have a single reason to believe in God? No. So why do I?.....Because I always just thought I had to. I always thought you believed by default and had to think of a provable reason not to believe. It wasn't until I tried to find a good reason to believe that I realized my default position had been no belief at all, and then I went with what I was taught.

My reason for atheism isn't just based upon the lack of material evidence, although that is a factor. It is the lack of any evidence (material or spiritual), information, clue, whatever you want to call it, that even begins to point to God. The only way to rationalize that belief is to start with the idea that it is true and work it into all explination, which leads to fallicies such as confirmation bias and the God of the Gaps fallacy. That is not a rational way to think. So I stopped thinking that way.

Now that that is cleared up....could we maybe focus on discussion actually relating to the thread?

[earl]

Your reply is most interesting and appreciated.
However I know that the bible is not a well preserved document therefore you will have to engage another to debate your discovered contradictions therein.
I find it is neither a dead document but that's another day.
However listing your found contradictions may appeal to the rest of the forum.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 253 by Danmark]

@mwtech - I appreciate you noting it wasn't a contradiction.

It's a most excellent example of the literalism in atheistic readings of the bible. Since we both agree the angel (I think it was God) could win easily then why would you not rather consider why it lost?

I did. I suggested that it was so he could carry out the metaphor. I assume this story was written to illistrate a point that could only be made if the angel (who you think is God) lost.

But instead a biblical literalism that is beyond my capabilities to read into the text is suggested - and I'm the biblical literalist.

There is no difference between atheist literalism and Christian literalism. Literal means literal. The definition of literalism is "the interpretation of words in their usual or most basic sense."

I will break the passage down and interpret the words in their most usual sense, taking into consideration their usual meaning in the Bible, not just in modern language.

Genesis 32:24
24 And Jacob was left alone, and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
The word man here: ’îš in Hebrew, Strong's concordance definition (numbered by how many times they occur in Bible) advisers* (2), friends* (1), life (1), man (26), man's (4), mankind (1), men (6), mortal (1), mortal man (1), ordinary (1), scoffers* (1), scorners* (1), soldiers* (3). On the contrary, Numbers 23:19 says "God is not man, that he should lie....." Pairing these two verses, there is no way that Jacob is wrestling with God, because Elohim is not ’îš
Never has this word been used to describe God.
25 And when the man saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint as he wrestled with him.
Pretty clear here. The man (which is all he has been reffered to as thus far) has the power to put Jacob's thigh out of socket with the touch of his hand, but does so because he hadn't beaten Jacob. The hebrew word meaning to prevail here is "y�-ḵ�l" which is used in other places to mean, "to be able, have power". So he is not able to prevail over Jacb even though he has the power to disjiont his thigh. If I saw this in a TV show, I would be calling "plot hole", but maybe the meaning is clarified in later verses.
26 And the man said, “Let me go, for the day breaketh.� And he said, “I will not let thee go, unless thou bless me.�
The original Hebrew doesn't actually say "man", but instead just says he, so no clarification on the identity of the being wrestling with Jacob yet. Jacob asking him to bless him could indicate that the being is God or an angel, but plenty of humans bless other humans in the name of God, so Jacob could just as easily be asking a man as far as he knows.
27 And he said unto him, “What is thy name?� And he said, “Jacob.�
So the wrestler asks Jacob his name. If we are going with the usual implication of words, we would assume this being asks because he does not already know. This would imply that it is not an omnicient being, but it would also raise the question of why he was wrestling with Jacob in the first place if he was doing it for God's purposes and didn't know who Jacob was. We could assume that he asks in the same way God asks Adam where he is in chapter 2, although that is getting away from the most usual meaning of words. It seems to make the most sense though. That would mean you have to go beyond literal reading of the text to come to that conclusion.
28 And he said, “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.�
The original Hebrew says "you have struggled" instead of "for as a prince hast thou power". It doesn't say which he just struggled with while wrestling, although it seems odd to think that he has struggled with God and prevailed. But we can't say anything about who he is wrestling with without inserting assumptions beyond the literal reading of this passage.
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, “Tell me, I pray thee, thy name.� And he said, “Why is it that thou dost ask after my name?� And he blessed him there.
It isn't clear to me who blesses who here, and looking at the original language doesn't make it any clearer to me. The Bible seems to have issues with clarifying pronouns. The other wrestler asks Jacob why he wants to know his name. This again raises the question of whether this wrestler asks because he lacks the knowledge of the answer or if it is just rhetorical. The former would indicate that the wrestler is not God, the latter clirifies nothing other than the fact that this interaction occurred so a point could be made to future readers.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [that is, The face of God]: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.�
This verse says that Jacob sees God face to face. This certainly answers the question of who the wrestler is, but it introduces a contradiction. Exodus 33:20 says "But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.� John 1:18 says "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." There is no way to interpret this verse literally without introducing a contradiction. The only way to keep the Bible inerrant here is to conclude that Jacob has not literally seen God face to face, and it is a metaphor for something. This makes it impossible to interpret the words in their most usual sense. Also, assuming this is not a contradiciton would also mean making the conclusion that the wrestler is not God.

So looking at the passage literally, we know that Jacob is wrestling with someone who has the power to touch Jacob's thigh joint and dislodge it. This person asks Jacob two questions, which along with the fact that God cannot be seen face to face, suggests that the wrestler is not omniscient God. The wrestler is called a man, but men don't have that kind of power. So literally interpreting the passage, this wrestler is most likely an angel taking the form of a man.

I realize this post is long, but since you implied that I am not actually reading literally, but reading extras into the Bible, I wanted to show you the process through which I am reading it. To come to the conclusion that Jacob was literally wrestling with God, you would have to make assumptions beyond the most usual or basic meaning of the words there, and read prior assumptions into it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 256 by earl]

There is a large list of contradictions that are pretty easy to find its not as if they are new either as theologians have been dealing with them for centuries. Its not as if these are somehow unknown and new. Seeing as how you recognize that the manuscripts that comprise the bible are by no means well preserve how do you resolve that an all powerful all knowing all loving all just god did not ensure that his message would not be distorted?