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.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 22 by Apollo] That's a 'glass half empty" type of argument, imo.

I reject the snake-handling stuff (as do most Christians)

Which leaves you in the position of denying the clear words of Jesus. Are you acknowledging that the bible has false verses in it?

Of course, we do not know if for certain Jesus even said those words. And if you read most of my other posts, you will see that I think the Bible has SOME false, outrageous, and unhelpful verses in it.

Are you, as an Atheist, taking all the words ASCRIBED to Jesus at face value? If so, I find that somewhat ironic.

The challenge for us moderate Theists is to try to determine for ourselves which verse are authentic and which are not, and which things are meant and understood (even then) non-literally. We rely on scholarship and common sense. There are many good books on this topic, such as John Shelby Spong's "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism."

I'll give you an example, a lot of us moderate Theists think that the Jesus of the of the Gospels is most probably most authentic when he sounds the most Jewish, and the most human. Like when Jesus quotes the Shema in Mark as the prelude to the Two Great Commandments.

Even Fundamentalists, (which I am not) do not take the Bible as literally, and as infallibly, as say most Muslims take the Qur'an.

To Muslims, the Qur'an is the infallible, DICTATED Word of God.

To Trinitarian Christians, (again, which I am not) the Word of God is a person, ie Jesus.

Sometimes Christians sound more like Muslims in regard for their Holy Book, they go too far. I call this "Bibliolatry" making an idol out of a book.

I am not one of them, far from it.

[Apollo]

That's a 'glass half empty" type of argument, imo.

I reject the snake-handling stuff (as do most Christians) and base my beliefs and practices on the solid bedrock of:

I'm going to stop you there. The fundamental matter is that you don't accept the bible as a credible source. You use other methods to decide what's right and wrong and what you should do. Then some of those decisions match things in the bible and others don't.

You can take the Bible out of the equation entirely and still get the same result. Or you can use it the same as any other book of claims to prompt thinking about issues - but in that case philosophy and ethical essays are better designed for such thinking.

[Elijah John]

That's a 'glass half empty" type of argument, imo.

I reject the snake-handling stuff (as do most Christians) and base my beliefs and practices on the solid bedrock of:

I'm going to stop you there. The fundamental matter is that you don't accept the bible as a credible source. You use other methods to decide what's right and wrong and what you should do. Then some of those decisions match things in the bible and others don't.

You can take the Bible out of the equation entirely and still get the same result. Or you can use it the same as any other book of claims to prompt thinking about issues - but in that case philosophy and ethical essays are better designed for such thinking.

You're ignoring part of what I'm saying,.The ESSENTIALS I build my faith on, which you omited in your quote, are the standards by which I judge the other parts of the Bible, some of which I accept, and some of which I reject. The fact that I reject SOME parts, does not mean I reject the whole as a non-credible source.

And regarding other essays on ethics and philosophies, they do not contain the POETRY of the Bible, which to me, is important.

And face it, the Bible has better stories, but I accept those for what they are, stories with varying degrees of truth contained therein.

To accept, or reject the Bible in it's entirety is dogmatic thinking, (imo) be it from an Atheist, or from a Fundamentalist. Two sides of the same dogmatic coin, the way I see it anyway.

In fact, neither position requires much thinking, just simplistic, catagorical judements, in regard to the Bible.

[Apollo]

[Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

I did not omit any relevant parts of your quote. My point hinges on that if you do not believe the bible is a reliable source, why should you care what *any* of it says - if you're just going to evaluate it based on external criteria anyway?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 33 by Elijah John]

I did not omit any relevant parts of your quote. My point hinges on that if you do not believe the bible is a reliable source, why should you care what *any* of it says - if you're just going to evaluate it based on external criteria anyway?

I think I explained that. And the part that you omited, the standards of my faith, were my INTERNAL criteria, which I came up with (chose) on my own, with no one feeding it to me. But I think you also misunderstood when I made reference to external scholarship. Such as Spong's book.

I was trying to say that it is not JUST our own common sense and reason as our guide, but it is also some external scholarship that is helpful. You seem to be saying , that if we moderate Theists rely on ANY external authority, even another religious source, that we should reject the whole Bible in favor of a-theistic philosophical treatises? How does that make any sense?!

And you ask, why should I care what ANY of it says, if it is not perfect? Well, to use a common expression, some parts of the Bible just speak to me, while other parts do not, or speak in a negative way.

[Apollo]

I think I explained that. But I think you also misunderstood when I made reference to external scholarship. Such as Spong's book.

I was trying to say that it is not JUST our own common sense and reason as our guide, but it is also some external scholarship that is helpful. You seem to be saying, that if we moderate Theists rely on ANY external authority, even another religious source, that we should reject the whole Bible in favor of a-theistic philosophical treatises?

I'm saying simply that if the bible is not a reliable source, nothing it says should be considered to have special credibility - because you have to use external sources to confirm what it says. This is pretty obvious.

It's no different in practicality than the example of the book I gave that has a series of facts in it, some of which are true and some aren't. You would not be justified in turning to a random fact in the book and basing any sort of belief on it.

This book could have some great ideas and true statements in it. But the book has no inherent utility as a source of knowledge or truth.

And you ask, why should I care what ANY of it says, if it is not perfect? Well, to use a common expression, some parts of the Bible just speak to me, while other parts do not, or speak in a negative way.

Can't you say this of *any* book?

[1213]

1. How many talents of gold were given to king Solomon?
-1 Kings 9:28 "and they came to Ophir and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon."
-2 Chronicles 8:18 "and Huram sent him by the hands of his servant ships and servants that had knowledge of the sea; and they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to King Solomon.

Either Huram sent Solomon 420 talents, or 450 talents. Both cannot be true at the same time.

The reason why I wanted the conversation to be here was that I think it is not reasonable to start one on one debate on simple “contradictions�. Therefore I asked to give one example of best contradiction. And thank you for these two.

My answer to 420 or 450 is that Bible doesn’t tell that only 420 or only 450 talents were given nothing more or nothing less ever. By that knowledge it is possible to say that 420 were given and 450 was given. That is why I think there is no real contradiction in that part, because they are not exclusive.

2. How old was Ahaziah when he began his reign?
-2 Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem."
-2 Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem."

Either Ahaziah was 22 years old or he was 42 years old when he began his reign. Both cannot be true at the same time.

And on what basis Ahaziah couldn’t have reigned two times?

[Apollo]

1213, what *would* count as a contradiction in your mind? Would anything?

Let's say the bible said "The earth is flat" and later said "The earth is round".

Then, someone tried to explain it by saying "Well, the first part is talking about the earth as it appears from ground-level at that part of the world where the inspiration took place. Also, it's more of a metaphor anyway - saying all places are equal before god. The second part is the literal explanation of the shape of the globe."

You can invent an explanation for anything. If you think even objective, numerical definitions are reconcilable by imagining new information, what *would* you have to see to accept it as a contradiction?

[Elijah John]

I think I explained that. But I think you also misunderstood when I made reference to external scholarship. Such as Spong's book.

I was trying to say that it is not JUST our own common sense and reason as our guide, but it is also some external scholarship that is helpful. You seem to be saying, that if we moderate Theists rely on ANY external authority, even another religious source, that we should reject the whole Bible in favor of a-theistic philosophical treatises?

I'm saying simply that if the bible is not a reliable source, nothing it says should be considered to have special credibility - because you have to use external sources to confirm what it says. This is pretty obvious.

It's no different in practicality than the example of the book I gave that has a series of facts in it, some of which are true and some aren't. You would not be justified in turning to a random fact in the book and basing any sort of belief on it.

This book could have some great ideas and true statements in it. But the book has no inherent utility as a source of knowledge or truth.

And you ask, why should I care what ANY of it says, if it is not perfect? Well, to use a common expression, some parts of the Bible just speak to me, while other parts do not, or speak in a negative way.

Can't you say this of *any* book?

It is not a reliable souce when it comes to science, and it is not a reliable source when it comes to history, but that does not preclude it's utility (a concept that seems important to you) as a Spiritual guide, IF one approaches it with common sense, reason and discernment.

Let's take my passing reference of the scholarship of "external sources" as you say, out of the equation. And speak of what speaks to us as individuals, I have explained my own internal criteria for interpreting the Bible, and similar approaches, anyone can use. Several of the "external" authors I have read, have written about (some) concepts and approaches that I had ALREADY DISCOVERED ON MY OWN. But even if not, if I had simply adopted their approaches to Scripture, that would not necessarily preclude the validity of the Bible.

As far as parts of the Bible "speaking to me" and others not, and your reply that "Can't one say that of *any* book?" I would say to this: maybe, but that is like saying with regard to my assertion that the Declaration of Independence speaks to me as an American, "can't you say that about ANY document?"

Well, the Declaration is not just any document, and the Bible is not just any book.
You did not address my Declaration analogy when I said THIS in a post above:

"Should Americans also toss out the Declaration of Independence with it's talk of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", because Jefferson also contaminates the document with his own cultural bias when he refers to American Indians as "savages", Should I therefore disregard Jefferson as some individual who had NOTHING useful or edifying to say?

Well, should I?

Likewise the Bible is not just any book. It is foundational to much of English if not Western literature, and it is foundational as a Spiritual inspiration for billions of seekers, for better or worse, like it or not. Even more so than the dialogues of Plato, or anything by Homer, Virgil or Cicero.

And discriminating and discerning the passages of the Bible is not "random", I never advocated a random approach, I think I made that clear.

[1213]

1213, what *would* count as a contradiction in your mind? Would anything?

Let's say the bible said "The earth is flat" and later said "The earth is round".

Then, someone tried to explain it by saying "Well, the first part is talking about the earth as it appears from ground-level at that part of the world where the inspiration took place. Also, it's more of a metaphor anyway - saying all places are equal before god. The second part is the literal explanation of the shape of the globe."

If we take for example hollow rubber ball, the material is flat, but the product is round.

According to the Bible earth meant dry land. It is possible that dry land is flat plate that is curved to a round ball.

God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:10

I think all depends on how things are defined. I think contradiction is two claims that really exclude others.