What is your tablet for discrediting the Bible?

[sawthelight]

The Bible should stand alone as truthful without any error to be deemed as the true word of God. However, what happens when just one error in the Bible is found? Does it take just one error or is more of them required to discredit the Bible? How about having 8 solid errors to rock your faith?

One error may seem inconsequential but it still would deem God in error and the Bible as fallible and finite. But to add insult to injury when 8 blatant errors show up, it is safe to discard the Bible as nothing more than the sole concocting of human beings.

What is your tablet of Biblical errors that you find contradictory and have caused you to dismiss the Bible as a fallacy? What debates did you have that included these tablets of errors you had with Christian theists that left you disenchanted or in utter disappointment?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is my list of debates with theists that came to an unsatisfactory conclusion:

1) The marriage parable [Matthew 22:30 VS. Revelation 21:9, Ephesians 5:25-27].
Jesus says no marriage will occur in heaven yet the Lamb (a.k.a Jesus) is standing with his bride in heaven after the Day of Judgement. No marriage is supposed to occur in heaven.

2) The mustard seed parable [Matthew 13:31-32].
Jesus claims as a fact that the Mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in the Bible. Yet we know the Orchid seed is smaller than the Mustard seed. Jesus failed to be correct.

3) Faith VS. Deeds [Romans 2:6-10, Galatians 2:15-16 VS. James 2:14-24].
The Bible contradicts when Paul says ONLY FAITH allows a believer into heaven when James says that faith AND WORKS together earns salvation. Both contradict.

4) The Law is to be upheld. The Law is abolished [Matthew 5:17 VS. Ephesian 2:15].
Jesus came NOT TO abolish the Law but to uphold it. Paul says that the Law HAS BEEN ABOLISHED. Two opposing doctrines.

5) The Trinity is polytheism rather than monotheism [1 John 5:7-8 VS. John 14:28].
Somehow the Trinity is supposed to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all equal as one. Yet Jesus says "the Father is greater than I". Indication of unequal standings.

6) God is against God [Luke 4:5-7 & Revelations 11:16-18].
God gives away all authority on earth to Satan his enemy. He is also the suspect who killed his angels for destroying earth. A house divided against itself will not stand.

7) Children punished for sin of parents VS. The children no longer punished for parent's sin [Deuteronomy 5:9 VS. Ezekiel 18:1-30].
Shows that God has a changing nature.

8) God has a supposed unchanging nature [Hebrews 6:17].
Point # 7 indicates a change of nature. Being a distant and indifferent God in the OT to becoming a more approachable and accessible God in NT is a change of nature.


-----------------------------------------

These 8 points I bring up show blatant forgeries, contradictions, and errors that indicate that the God of Israel is nothing but an indecisive, inconsistent, charlatan who professes the supposed truth to the right way.

The word "right" however is synonymous with the words honest, legitimate, proper, and appropriate (Thesaurus.com).

The 8 points I listed above show me that the God of Israel is anything but "right." He is sporadic with his decrees which cost the lives of people for mistakes that God has made. God is not taking responsibility for the action he takes. The blame is shifted unto his creation who have no clue when things go awry.

This sounds a lot like big business being bailed out in US when they commit fraud on an international scale which results in tax payers paying for the mistakes of big business. How is that right at all? This example illustrates the God of Israel.

This allows me to leave Christianity with confidence and be certain of the choice I made as right. Writing out a list like this helps me compile my thoughts better to know why I left rather than have it all jumbled in my head. This is my tablet if you will.

What are your reasons for being disenchanted with Christianity? Can you make a list?

[Willum]

[Replying to sawthelight]

So you don't see it as him drawing an analogy everyone could understand?

The argument, win or lose is a waste.
It doesn't even convince me, and I believe Jesus is a fiction designed to get Jews to pay tax and obey Roman law...

As far as the Caesar thing goes, I think it was part of Jesus' concept to love the enemy as self even if that person was Caesar in which Jews payed tribute too. That makes sense I suppose.

As far as the Caesar ting goes:
The God Venus desired a sacrifice of doves.
The God Hecate wanted a sacrifice of dogs.
The God Caesar wanted a sacrifice of money, and loyalty.
The God God, wanted prayers and sin.

Would it be OK for a Jew to sacrifice to Hecate?
No.
Would it be OK for a Jew ot sacrifice to Caesar?
No.

Is it OK to venerate Caesar with a graven image stating he was a God?
No.

Jesus advocated these things.
Bye Jesus.

[sawthelight]

[Replying to post 60 by Willum]

:bones: I see your point.

We have differing views and I can understand. We all have different things that are important to us.

At least the information is out there for the taking.



But I will still say that the analogy Jesus made is 100% inaccurate and that matters to me.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

What is your tablet for discrediting the Bible?

The Bible's lack of credibility.

The Bible should stand alone as truthful without any error to be deemed as the true word of God.
...

Naw, it could just mean that God's him one big ol' goofy, forgetful, error-prone individual.


Alas, with an invisible, undetectable god, we'll never know.

[Elijah John]

Why is it all or nothing? Why do some errors (absurdities, contradictions or atrocities) contained within the Bible make it a "fallacy" as a whole, as the OP seems to be suggesting?

Seems to me a single (or more) error only discredits the edifice of infallibility, not the value of of the Bible completely.

For this rational Theist, only God is perfect. To consider the Bible to be perfect is a form of idolatry, it seems to me.

The Bible is not perfect thus God is not perfect. God is then fallible as man. No need to worship a fallible God any longer. Waste of time.

Why would an imperfect Bible necessitate an imperfect God? The Good Book did not drop in-tact from Heaven, but rather was compiled over centuries, under inspiration, not dictation.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and in this case, the weak link is human understanding and bias, brought to the receiving table of Divine inspiration.

The Bible writers, heard, but perhaps imperfectly, and through the filter of their cultural bias. Pure water can be contaminated to the degree the drinking cup is impure.

[sawthelight]

Why is it all or nothing? Why do some errors (absurdities, contradictions or atrocities) contained within the Bible make it a "fallacy" as a whole, as the OP seems to be suggesting?

Seems to me a single (or more) error only discredits the edifice of infallibility, not the value of of the Bible completely.

For this rational Theist, only God is perfect. To consider the Bible to be perfect is a form of idolatry, it seems to me.

The Bible is not perfect thus God is not perfect. God is then fallible as man. No need to worship a fallible God any longer. Waste of time.

Why would an imperfect Bible necessitate an imperfect God? The Good Book did not drop in-tact from Heaven, but rather was compiled over centuries, under inspiration, not dictation.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and in this case, the weak link is human understanding and bias, brought to the receiving table of Divine inspiration.

The Bible writers, heard, but perhaps imperfectly, and through the filter of their cultural bias. Pure water can be contaminated to the degree the filter is impure.

So is the water you speak of then a part of God? The water is God? Is that found in the bible too?

You almost made a good point but the word translates from God. Your "chain and water examples" still lacks substance and are still eluding from the fact that God's words are incorrect and unreliable. Is God's word's correct or incorrect in his book? That is the more important matter rather than half-hearted analogies.

Another elusive/superficial argument made to support a house of cards. Not having it. Please continue down your beloved road of incorrectness if you so choose (since you follow the imperfect Bible as you say), just stop prophesying fantasy stories to adult men and women. Thanks.

The blind leading the blind (very ironic). That is faith after all, no?

[JehovahsWitness]

2) The mustard seed parable [Matthew 13:31-32].
Jesus claims as a fact that the Mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in the Bible. Yet we know the Orchid seed is smaller than the Mustard seed. Jesus failed to be correct.

Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
Matthew 13: 32

That says “least�, which can be understood “as of rank or influence�. Why do you choose the meaning smallest in size, when it can also be understood as low in rank?

Perhaps you would like to do an interlinear search regarding that verse concerning the mustard seed. It is here which will confirm in the Greek translation (or Hebrew that may apply) that indeed Jesus was talking about the mustard seed being the smallest of "every" seed in the world.

Let's compare Matthew 13:32 word for word in English to Greek:

"Though it is the smallest of all seeds..."

"ὃ μικ�ότε�ον μέν �στιν πάντων τῶν σπε�μάτων..."

Now let's condense the translations needed down to: "smallest of all seeds"

smallest = μικ�ότε�ον = mikroteron

GRK: ὃ μικ�ότε�ον μέν �στιν
NAS: and this is smaller than all
KJV: indeed is the least of all seeds:
INT: which smallest indeed is

of all = πάντων = pant�n

GRK: μέν �στιν πάντων τῶν σπε�μάτων
NAS: is smaller than all [other] seeds,
KJV: is the least of all seeds: but
INT: indeed is of all the seeds

seeds = σπε�μάτων = spermat�n

GRK: πάντων τῶν σπε�μάτων ὅταν δὲ
NAS: than all [other] seeds, but when
KJV: the least of all seeds: but when
INT: of all the seeds when however

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/13-32.htm (source)

Clearly from the Greek translations themselves it shows that Jesus explicitly said that the mustard seed INDEED IS THE SMALLEST OF ALL SEEDS! It's all there! Nothing more was noted nor nothing less was noted, all in Greek!

This is the last I will argue this point about the seeds unless an apologist has a far exceeding better explanation to challenge me. Until then, I will not answer the next apologist who comes in with superficial answers in which he/she did not do his own research to make his assertion. This is becoming redundant now.

Case closed. Christianity is a fraud and Jesus was wrong.

If that doesn't convince you, so be it (amen?). It's your life. Do whatever the hell you wanna do with it.

Unless of course Jesus was not speaking in absolute terms; which of course we usually don't. This illustrates the problem when people present these supposed errors, they are usually based on unsubstantiated presumptions.

JW

[sawthelight]

Unless of course Jesus was not speaking in absolute terms; which of course we usually don't. This illustrates the problem when people present these supposed errors, they are usually based on unsubstantiated presumptions.

JW

Then perhaps you are right. Jesus never spoke in absolute terms and was uncertain as to what he was saying. Truly an oxymoron for a supposed all-knowing god.

Another way to look at, a direct and absolute god from the OT now changes his nature to being indirect and uncertain in the NT. Which is another contradiction for god cannot change his nature according to the bible.

I guess at this point, heaven too is not absolute nor is righteousness since Jesus never spoke in absolute terms. Yet Christians are absolutely sure they're going to heaven when they cross over. Very funny isn't it?

[1213]

[Replying to post 55 by 1213]

I am sorry, but how does Jesus endorsing Rome and the God Caesar not take every page of the NT, crumple it up and bury it?

Did he not say to give coins that violate the third commandment, to a false god, Caesar, violating the first commandment?

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars...

and doesn't this statement mock his father, as Caesar gets his tithes, but the God of the Jews gets no alms at all... at least not any physical ones.

If Jesus was really pro romans, why did the romans kill him?

[1213]

...
Clearly from the Greek translations themselves it shows that Jesus explicitly said that the mustard seed INDEED IS THE SMALLEST OF ALL SEEDS! It's all there! Nothing more was noted nor nothing less was noted, all in Greek!...

The creek word has also meaning lesser in value, which is why the scripture can be understood to mean that the mustard seed was lesser in rank or value than the other seeds, it was not as important or desired.

[JehovahsWitness]

Then perhaps you are right. Jesus never spoke in absolute terms ...

I didn't say he "never" did but the assumption that he ALWAYS did is totally unreasonable since speech is rarely if ever used exclusively in absolute terms and most so called "contradictions" I have come across have to be based on this most unreasonable assumption.

The mustard seed non-issue being an example.

JW