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.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 56 by shnarkle]

OK, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I hope that puts things in context, if not I will explain more carefully.

Not clear what your point is yet.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by alexxcJRO]

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

You're going to have to supply the post you're referring to as I have no idea what you're talking about.

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?

I'm not sure. Pray tell, how does one do that? You tell me. Again, would you care to provide the posts you're referring to? Please show where I'm defending him.

When you get done with that, please take another look at the OP and notice that what we're looking for here are contradictions from the texts. Thanks for providing all those passages from the texts, but you didn't provide any contradictions. You just simply pointed out that God kills people.

[alexxcJRO]

You're going to have to supply the post you're referring to as I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not sure. Pray tell, how does one do that? You tell me. Again, would you care to provide the posts you're referring to? Please show where I'm defending him.

Through out this thread you were defending the main character from the biblical text: Yahweh.

Many have pointed that there is a contradiction between Yahweh actions and his supposed attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, perfectly good, super wise, merciful and benevolent. Mostly what God has done in the story of Noah: drowning millions of infants.

And you defended this Yahweh character by saying that the infants that suffered and died in Noah’s story were continually evil because they were hybrids.

I then pointed out that:
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.

When you get done with that, please take another look at the OP and notice that what we're looking for here are contradictions from the texts. Thanks for providing all those passages from the texts, but you didn't provide any contradictions. You just simply pointed out that God kills people.

Q: Seriously I need to spell it out to you?:)

A omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, super wise, merciful, benevolent being who promises, orders the slaughtering of countless non-moral agents(small children, infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals), has inflicted countless suffering and pain to non-moral agents(small children, infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals); has killed in many horrific ways countless non-moral agents(small children, infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) is a major contradiction.

[shnarkle]

You're going to have to supply the post you're referring to as I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm not sure. Pray tell, how does one do that? You tell me. Again, would you care to provide the posts you're referring to? Please show where I'm defending him.

Through out this thread you were defending the main character from the biblical text: Yahweh.

Unlike you, I'm simply looking to see where the contradictions may be found.

Many have pointed that there is a contradiction between Yahweh actions and his supposed attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, perfectly good, super wise, merciful and benevolent. Mostly what God has done in the story of Noah: drowning millions of infants.

I'm impressed that you point out that his attributes are "supposed". That is quite perceptive because as we all know it is logically impossible to attribute anything that is omniscient i.e. "all knowing". Therefore you're going to have some work ahead of you attempting to prove a contradiction. Here again, I would suggest you take a look at the OP and find those texts that actually provide these contradictions you think exist.

And you defended this Yahweh character by saying that the infants that suffered and died in Noah’s story were continually evil because they were hybrids.

I simply pointed out that the claim was made that the flood victims were innocent whereas the text indicated that they were "continually evil" which proves that the claim of innocence was attributed to the text when the reality is that the attribution doesn't exist.

I then pointed out that:
There are many other verses where God commands, promises the slaughtering of children, infants; after the hybridized people were eradicated.

The hybridized people weren't 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.

The hybrids weren't eradicated

When you get done with that, please take another look at the OP and notice that what we're looking for here are contradictions from the texts. Thanks for providing all those passages from the texts, but you didn't provide any contradictions. You just simply pointed out that God kills people.

Q: Seriously I need to spell it out to you?:)

A omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, super wise, merciful, benevolent being who promises, orders the slaughtering of countless non-moral agents(small children, infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals), has inflicted countless suffering and pain to non-moral agents(small children, infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals); has killed in many horrific ways countless non-moral agents(small children, infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) is a major contradiction.

Says you. Let's see it in the texts I've already pointed out that you can't place any of those attributions on omniscience. Nothing that is all knowing can be known. Again, this simply requires you to read the OP again and supply the texts themselves. When it says to supply the contradictions it doesn't mean whatever contradictions you can imagine, but to actually present them.

Again, the examples are numerou from right online which I would highly recommend you check them out to give you an idea of what I'm talking about as they give plenty. My point here isn't to have countless examples provided, but to present the most significant.

Examples include "no one can see the face of God and live" verses "Moses spoke with God face to face" Those two statements are contadictory.

I'd just like to see the most significant examples you know of.

[jgh7]

The closest to inconsistency that I still don't quite understand is the law of the OT both as it is followed in the OT and as it is followed in the NT.

This is a great point. There are a number of issues with this not the least of which is the fundamental distinctions between the law itself and the law that deals with the violation of the law, and intentional verses unintentional sin as well as the prescriptions for each type of violation. So just from this sketch we can see four immediate categories emerge. Conflating any one of these with another one will lead to immediate confusion. This is what I believe is the crux of the problem.

----------

In the OT, it seems to start out as absolute. In the following verses, a man is stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath:

Numbers 15:32-36
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.
35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.� 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

This is dealing with a an intentional violation of the law, and it's prescription.

----------

Moving further into the OT, there seems to be a shift which emphasizes more leniency in the form of mercy, as is shown in this often quoted verse:

Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

This seems to be dealing almost exclusively with the sacrificial system, except with regards to acting merciful to others

----------

Moving on to the NT, we can see Jesus putting heavy leniency on the law, since his disciples were eating on the Sabbath...

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. The only thing that springs to mind is when the disciples are walking through the fields picking grains. Jewish scholars have pointed out that the accusations levied at them by the legalists are unfounded as there is no prohibition against eating on the Sabbath; just working on the Sabbath. The text doesn't indicate that they are working to eat, but simply walking along and while they are walking they are eating the grain along the side of their path.

and since he justified performing well-intentioned (for lack of a better word) works on the Sabbath. An example is this quote:

Luke 14:5
Then he asked them, "If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?"

This is a direct reference to the OT

4If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. 5If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him....

12Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed. Exodus 23:4,5,12

Notice that it doesn't state helping one's neighbor, but one's enemy which is exactly what Jesus teaches. Presumably if one is instructed to let one's ox and ass rest, retrieving it from a well would be necessary.

----------

Finally, everything gets really confusing when Jesus says this:

Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them...

Most people understand the meaning of "fulfill" to mean that he kept the law and by keeping the law one has life.

5Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them

The reference is to Leviticus 18:5 The other interpretation is that by fulfilling the law, his sacrifice symbolizes the perfect unblemished sacrifice that effectively removes the need for a sacrificial system. Neither are mutually exclusive. The law is still in effect, yet those who keep the law will never violate it and therefore the penalty phase becomes redundant.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

A clear warning that the law is still in effect. The righteousness of the Pharisees was notorious, practically impossible to be more righteous than a Pharisee.

----------

So basically Jesus seems to be stressing the Law here. I am still confused about this teaching and observance of the Law in general, but overall the point of the NT seems to be love others as yourself and to basically ignore laws that are extreme such as stoning a woman for adultery and such.

Again, while stoning is sanctioned it isn't required. The other thing to notice is that when the law was given to Israel, they had just been set free from their bondage in Egypt. They were then living in close proximity to their God. His holiness was deadly, and it was virtually impossible to get anywhere near him unless you were as holy as he is. He wants them to draw near to him so they have to eradicate sin from their midst.

When Jesus is speaking they're in bondage again; different setting requires different outcomes.

The other thing about the woman "caught in adultery" is that the case brought before him requires a procedure be performed to establish her punishment. It isn't to spare her from a stoning because stoning wasn't the prescribed punishment.

Contrary to popular opinion, Jesus didn't deny the need for capital punishment. He clearly articulated

For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

Yes, I don't know why I stated you couldn't eat on the Sabbath, my brain must have wandered off. It was as you said though, with respect to the work done to pick the grain. It makes sense that if God was so close to the people in the OT, then perhaps that entailed extremely strict enforcement of the law in order to preserve holiness.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 61 by shnarkle]

Here I will rephrase:

OK, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and we have all the benefits and curses from that act, correct? and so got the knowledge of good and evil.

shnarkle said
Who are we to assume it is undue suffering, and why exactly do we assume that it is God to be blamed? .

So, you ask, who are we to assume that it is God to be blamed?
We have the right to assume based on the curse upon mankind, that knowledge allows us to judge God's actions.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 61 by shnarkle]

Here I will rephrase:

OK, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and we have all the benefits and curses from that act, correct?

I don't know. I don't have an exhaustive list of benefits and curses. I doubt that I have all the curses available. I'm also not convinced that even if we do have them all, I don't necessarily think that means we would have kowledge of them all as well.

and so got the knowledge of good and evil.

Perhaps. I can only speak for myself and I don't feel like I've got all of the knowledge of good and evil.

shnarkle said
Who are we to assume it is undue suffering, and why exactly do we assume that it is God to be blamed? .

So, you ask, who are we to assume that it is God to be blamed?
We have the right to assume based on the curse upon mankind, that knowledge allows us to judge God's actions.

How? Why?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 67 by shnarkle]

Welp, so you have either obfuscated or ignored each issue I have raised.
A tactic I doubt "your lord and saviour," or God would approve of, if he existed.
If God requires this sort of debate technique, then what kind of God is he?

A kind of God that needs his devote to defend him from his own actions and inconsistencies?

[alexxcJRO]

Unlike you, I'm simply looking to see where the contradictions may be found.

Yeah yeah and i am a flying pink unicorn.

I'm impressed that you point out that his attributes are "supposed". That is quite perceptive because as we all know it is logically impossible to attribute anything that is omniscient i.e. "all knowing". Therefore you're going to have some work ahead of you attempting to prove a contradiction. Here again, I would suggest you take a look at the OP and find those texts that actually provide these contradictions you think exist.
I simply pointed out that the claim was made that the flood victims were innocent whereas the text indicated that they were "continually evil" which proves that the claim of innocence was attributed to the text when the reality is that the attribution doesn't exist.

Q: Does the biblical text say God is omnipotent(there is nothing he cannot do)? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is omniscient(knows all things)? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is benevolent and loving towards all? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is perfectly good/morally perfect? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is super wise and merciful? (Yes/No question)

The hybridized people weren't eradicated.

Q: What nonsense are you babbling about?

The bible clearly says everyone and everything that was not in the ark perished.


"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
"Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark"

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 67 by shnarkle]

Welp, so you have either obfuscated or ignored each issue I have raised.
A tactic I doubt "your lord and saviour," or God would approve of, if he existed.
If God requires this sort of debate technique, then what kind of God is he?

A kind of God that needs his devote to defend him from his own actions and inconsistencies?

Raising issues isn't what this topic is about. This OP is about presenting condradictions from the texts. So far I count zero contradictions. Lot's of words, but nothing even appraching an inconsistency. There are numerous contradictions you can peruse online to get an idea of what we're looking for here. Short of that, this really isn't all that complicated. The only god necessary to respond to this topic is one that can utilze simple logic.