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.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 6 by Hawkins]



I feel like highlighting this for the folks watching at home.

God's plan of bringing humans to heaven was thus defeated....

&

However God has a "plan B" to go...

Am I the only one giggling over an omniscient and omnipotent agent not only having its intent defeated but also needing a plan B?

And why the focus on Paul? Is the new testament for conveying Paul's commands or Jesus's?

Where and when does Jesus say it's ok to abandon the Law?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

It strikes me as odd that you went the topic of food sacrificed to idols. If we are going to examine Paul’s view of the OT Law, it would seem that circumcision is a more appropriate topic. Circumcision was a far more important OT law. Paul went into much greater detail about the Christian’s response to this law. (Romans 2-8, 1 Corinthians 7:18-20, Galatians 2:3-3:29, Acts 15:1-35).

These passages deal with Paul's response to those who believe that one can establish their righteousness or justify themselves by their works. Paul's resposne is to point out that no one is justified by the law, but this in no way suggests that the law was done away as he makes clear repeatedly. The passage in Corinthian isn't addressing the ritual of circumsion per se, but simply referring to those who keep the law to be justified verses those who keep the law because they're saved.

Your passage from Galatian points out that the law that was "added because of transgressions" is what is done away not the law that is violated and therefore produces the transgressions themselves. In other words, if we have 1 (law) and we add another 1 (law), and then we subract that one we added, what do we have left? We have the original law. One cannot transgress a law that doesn't exit, therefore the law existed prior to sin.

The passage from Acts deals with the fact that the new converts were going to the synagogues on the sabbath listening to the Mosaic law being read to them. There is no point in going and doing that if the law is done away with. This is explicitly stated as the reason why they didn't feel any need to repeat the entire Mosaic law to them.

If Paul was right about circumcision (we are free from it) then he was right about eating meat sacrifice to idol (it is not sin). If Paul was wrong about circumcision then he was wrong about meat sacrificed to idols.

These are both non sequiturs.

Also, I think Jesus words in Mark 7:17-19, where “Jesus declared all foods “clean� also apply.

If one looks for the meaning of "clean, purifying, cleansing etc." there are some references of a Levitical pronouncement of cleanliness, but the context of this passage doesn't lend itself to that interpretation. Instead we see a comparison between the process of defilement and the digestive process. In the parallel passage in Matthew Jesus immediately points out that the Pharisees have made the commandments null and void through their traditions. For Jesus to then suggest that the law is now done away with by his pronouncement makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, the dietary laws aren't in view in this passage in the first place. Again, this comment collapses in on itself if one is to use the "declaring" version of this passage as it is the pronouncement of a Levitical priest, and Levitical pronouncements are explicitly concerned with the letter of the law.

If we use any of the other clean laws that are supposedly done away with as well, it becomes obvious that this idea doesn't follow.

"Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they heard of his disciple whom had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?". He answered and said to them,...There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile. Because it entereth not into one's heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)

Moreover, unclean food is rotten food. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that things like pork, shellfish etc. are considered food. However, there are plently of references to "unclean animals" which are not to be eaten. If the scribe who added those words had said, "Thus he declared all unclean animals clean" it would have made sense.

This parenthetical remark doesn't even show up in the margins until 400 AD in the codex Bezai. From there it migrates into the translations. So Mark never wrote it, and Jesus never said it.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 6 by Hawkins]



I feel like highlighting this for the folks watching at home.

God's plan of bringing humans to heaven was thus defeated....

&

However God has a "plan B" to go...

Am I the only one giggling over an omniscient and omnipotent agent not only having its intent defeated but also needing a plan B?

It's mildly amusing, but irrelevant to this OP which concerns actual contradictions, not the imagination of those reading it.

And why the focus on Paul? Is the new testament for conveying Paul's commands or Jesus's?

The new testament conveys both of their teachings wich may or may not agree with each other. As the OP suggests, there may be some significant contradictions which anyone is free to provide with the reasons why they are so significant.

Where and when does Jesus say it's ok to abandon the Law?

Where and when does Paul say to abandon the law, and how does this contradict Jesus?

[shnarkle]

Even just simply killing all the people would have been a better start. Or how about just killing the actual sinners?

See above. Killing everyone would have meant killing Noah and his family who weren't "evil continually". So as it turns out he actually did kill just those who were "evil continually".

You've completely missed my point.

Did God need to drown out kangaroos to get rid of sinners? How about those iguanas?

An argument could be made that leaving the rest of the differing populations in tact could have created an imbalance so a complete reset insures that they all start out with the relatively same numbers. This is all besides the point as the OP is dealing with contradictions not "whats a better way?"

You think killing babies is merciful? Or loving?

When they're "continually evil"? You betcha. Do you think it would be a great idea to have a whole population of little Chuckies running around?

[Danmark]

Even just simply killing all the people would have been a better start. Or how about just killing the actual sinners?

See above. Killing everyone would have meant killing Noah and his family who weren't "evil continually". So as it turns out he actually did kill just those who were "evil continually".

You've completely missed my point.

Did God need to drown out kangaroos to get rid of sinners? How about those iguanas?

An argument could be made that leaving the rest of the differing populations in tact could have created an imbalance so a complete reset insures that they all start out with the relatively same numbers. This is all besides the point as the OP is dealing with contradictions not "whats a better way?"

You think killing babies is merciful? Or loving?

When they're "continually evil"? You betcha. Do you think it would be a great idea to have a whole population of little Chuckies running around?

I get the part about the complexity of environment and starting over fresh, but the post suggests that babies can be consciously evil like the fictional 'Chucky.' And let's be clear, even at the risk of stating the obvious. 'Chucky' is a wholly fictional creature, not even human. in the real world, why would a god destroy infants, not to mention kittens?

[shnarkle]

Even just simply killing all the people would have been a better start. Or how about just killing the actual sinners?

See above. Killing everyone would have meant killing Noah and his family who weren't "evil continually". So as it turns out he actually did kill just those who were "evil continually".

You've completely missed my point.

Did God need to drown out kangaroos to get rid of sinners? How about those iguanas?

An argument could be made that leaving the rest of the differing populations in tact could have created an imbalance so a complete reset insures that they all start out with the relatively same numbers. This is all besides the point as the OP is dealing with contradictions not "whats a better way?"

You think killing babies is merciful? Or loving?

When they're "continually evil"? You betcha. Do you think it would be a great idea to have a whole population of little Chuckies running around?

I get the part about the complexity of environment and starting over fresh, but the post suggests that babies can be consciously evil like the fictional 'Chucky.' And let's be clear, even at the risk of stating the obvious. 'Chucky' is a wholly fictional creature, not even human. in the real world, why would a god destroy infants, not to mention kittens?

There is nothing that necessarily prevents one from viewing these stories as fictional accounts. We aren't dealing with the real world. We're dealing with significant contradictions within these texts.

Regardless, the account itself states that the reason for the flood was to wipe out these hybridized people who were "continually evil". They seemed to have some breeding program going to breed continually evil people

[alexxcJRO]

There is nothing that necessarily prevents one from viewing these stories as fictional accounts. We aren't dealing with the real world. We're dealing with significant contradictions within these texts.

Regardless, the account itself states that the reason for the flood was to wipe out these hybridized people who were "continually evil". They seemed to have some breeding program going to breed continually evil people

There are many other verses where God commands, promises the slaughtering of children, infants; after the hybridized people were eradicated.

There are many other verses where God inflicts countless suffering and death to countless children, infants; after the hybridized people were eradicated.

There are many other verses where Israelites inflict suffering and death to countless children, infants because of God's order and with God's help; after the hybridized people were eradicated.

They were not continually evil but innocent, yet they still suffered because of God.

Q: Why are you defending a capricious, malevolent bully?

Q: How can you defend a being that promises, orders the slaughtering of countless children, infants; that according to the bible has killed in many horrific ways countless children, infants?





"15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. "

"“Thus says the Lord, ‘About amidnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt,
5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the firstborn of the cattle as well."

“See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children.�

“I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD.�

"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ “

"Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
22 “I will rise up against them,� declares the Lord Almighty.

“I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors, her offspring and descendants," declares the Lord."

"The LORD says, “All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children.� "

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.� So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!� the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!� So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.�

"I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted."

"My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out."

"They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.�

"And the men of Israel turned back against the people of Benjamin and struck them with the edge of the sword, the city, men and beasts and all that they found. And all the towns that they found they set on fire."

"You shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword."

"So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

"And the Lord gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel. And he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it. "

"And the others came out from the city against them, so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side. And Israel struck them down, until there was left none that survived or escaped. But the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him near to Joshua. When Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai and struck it down with the edge of the sword. And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000, all the people of Ai"

[benchwarmer]

An argument could be made that leaving the rest of the differing populations in tact could have created an imbalance so a complete reset insures that they all start out with the relatively same numbers. This is all besides the point as the OP is dealing with contradictions not "whats a better way?"

And you are still missing the point. The fact that God chooses a drastic, brain dead approach (which fails anyways) the first time and chooses a more 'sensible' approach (i.e. basically sacrifice himself depending on your theology) the second time shows the obvious contradiction in nature of this god character.

In case that is still sailing overhead, how do you reconcile an all knowing, loving god with two completely different approaches to the same problem? I call that a contradiction in the nature of the presented god character. Anyone who claims there is no contradiction is left explaining how the same diety, who supposedly created the entire universe, chooses 2 completely different ways to solve a problem. One irrational, unnecessary, and useless, the other targeted, 'elegant', and though useless in this life, maybe useful in the next if you believe.

You think killing babies is merciful? Or loving?

When they're "continually evil"? You betcha. Do you think it would be a great idea to have a whole population of little Chuckies running around?

Hahahahaha!!! You think every 'sinful' baby grows up to be a 'Chuky'?! Given you believe we are all sinful and clearly only a very small percentage of babies group up to be psychopaths, your claim is clearly false and a desperate attempt to save face for your favorite god character. This is getting off into a tangent again so let's get back to the contradictory nature of this god.

It loves the world. It kills innocent babies during the flood and other city/region takeovers.

It loves the world. It drowns wildlife for zero reason.

It has the ability to target and kill a single person for sinning - Uzzah.
It needs to drown the entire planet to attempt to solve sinning.

It knows everything. It fails to solve sinning the first time.

It knows everything. If tails to solve sinning the second time.

It can turn hearts to stone - Pharoh
It can't turn hearts to be sinless

Basically we have a hodge podge of what this god can and can't do and Christians focus on the 'good' stuff being from god and the 'bad' stuff being our fault all the while attempting to apologize for why this god can't get it's act together.

[Elijah John]

It loves the world. It kills innocent babies during the flood and other city/region takeovers.

It loves the world. It drowns wildlife for zero reason.

It has the ability to target and kill a single person for sinning - Uzzah.
It needs to drown the entire planet to attempt to solve sinning.

It can turn hearts to stone - Pharoh
It can't turn hearts to be sinless

And of course, the targeted killing of the first born of Egypt in the Exodus story. So God could have used less of a blunt instrumentt, and more of a surgeon's scalpal in order to excise evil from the world, and thus save countless individuals and animals from undue suffering.

Sometimes the Bible does YHVH a disservice in it's portrayal of Him. I realize we proably differ on this, but I attribute this kind of savagery to the human element, (that of the scibes and writers), primitive as they were. But I also detect a progression from bararism to more enlightened teachings, such as those found in the Prophets, and ultimately in Jesus.

But you do highlight a major significant contradiction in the Bible. But all these contradictions do not suggest to me that there is "no God" nor does it tell me that there is no Divinine reality to the God of the Bible. As a Thesist, the contradictions tell me that we need to use our gift of God-given Reason in order to discern the human element, from the Divine.

[shnarkle]

An argument could be made that leaving the rest of the differing populations in tact could have created an imbalance so a complete reset insures that they all start out with the relatively same numbers. This is all besides the point as the OP is dealing with contradictions not "whats a better way?"

And you are still missing the point. The fact that God chooses a drastic, brain dead approach (which fails anyways) the first time and chooses a more 'sensible' approach (i.e. basically sacrifice himself depending on your theology) the second time shows the obvious contradiction in nature of this god character.

You're conflating those who are destined to be destroyed with those he has destined to be saved. In the Noah narrative God chooses to save Noah, and destroy those who are "continually evil". While you may choose to believe that those who the texts indicates are "continually evil" are in fact innocent due to some unstated reason, and therefore they should be saved some other way; the fact is that the texts give no indication that God is in any way destroying them as a means of saving them. I have followed your argument, and pointed out that your assertions are no where to be found within the text itself. If I missed where God intended to save these "continually evil", please point out the chapter and verse. Thanks

In case that is still sailing overhead, how do you reconcile an all knowing, loving god with two completely different approaches to the same problem?

Again, there is nothing to reconcile as this isn't "the same problem". Your assertion is unfounded. The sacrifice is to save, but as I pointed out earlier those who don't believe will be destroyed just like those who didn't believe in the Noah narrative.

You think every 'sinful' baby grows up to be a 'Chuky'?!

False equivalence. No, I was pointing out that "Chuky" is "continually evil" just like those described in the text who are described as being "continually evil". I was comparing one fictional example with another. I was comparing continually evil with continually evil. You are forgetting that actual babies have nothing to do with this fictional account. Comparing actual people to fictional characters will undoubtedly indicate blatant contradictions, but then that's not what this OP is asking for you to present, is it?

Given you believe we are all sinful and clearly only a very small percentage of babies group up to be psychopaths, your claim is clearly false and a desperate attempt to save face for your favorite god character. This is getting off into a tangent again so let's get back to the contradictory nature of this god.

I applaud your ability to see when you are going off on a tangential rant. Nowhere have I claimed that "we are all sinful". Our ontological state, nor the statistical incidence of psychopaths are not in question, and have nothing to do with this OP.

It loves the world. It kills innocent babies during the flood

There is nothing in the text to even remotely suggest that those killed during the flood story were innocent. The burden of proof is on you to supply these alleged contradictions from the texts. Until then, I see no point in bothering with these unsubstantiated claims.