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.

[Strider324]

I think a good place to start is with the definition of the Law of Contradiction (or Non-contradiction as some prefer). Put simply, the law states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. Put another way, something cannot be one thing and its opposite at the same time. Therefore, it is illogical to say that Rover is a dog and Rover is not a dog. The animal can be one or the other, but it can't be both at the same time -- at least, not according to the laws of logic.

Given that definition, can you point out some specific examples from the Bible that you consider contradictory, that is, examples that break that law?

Josephs father was Jacob - Mt 1:16

Josephs father was Heli - Lk 3:23

[Apollo]

So are you suggesting that to reject the command (or prediction in Mark) to handle poison snakes as ridiculous means we must reject the Golden Rule as well?

Rejecting that claim as untrue does mean that we should reject the bible as a reliable source for anything. Imagine the following.

A computer generated a list of facts, randomly chosen between true claims and untrue claims. "The earth is flat" might be in the book, as might "The earth is roughly spherical".

Now let's say the book was held up to people that didn't know how it was put together and they were asked to determine if it was a reliable source. A good way to do that is to check its claims and then find out if any are wrong. If the book has false claims in it, that means it isn't a reliable source.

If a book says both, "The earth is flat" and, "The earth is round" it isn't a reliable source. That doesn't mean you throw out the idea that the earth is round, you just wouldn't base your beliefs upon anything this book says. You'd have to independently confirm it via reliable sources and means of investigation. The book itself isn't an aid to determining what's correct.

[Inigo Montoya]

Given that definition, can you point out some specific examples from the Bible that you consider contradictory, that is, examples that break that law?

Josephs father was Jacob - Mt 1:16

Josephs father was Heli - Lk 3:23

Easy. Haven't you ever seen My Two Dads?

[bluethread]

I think a good place to start is with the definition of the Law of Contradiction (or Non-contradiction as some prefer). Put simply, the law states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. Put another way, something cannot be one thing and its opposite at the same time. Therefore, it is illogical to say that Rover is a dog and Rover is not a dog. The animal can be one or the other, but it can't be both at the same time -- at least, not according to the laws of logic.

Given that definition, can you point out some specific examples from the Bible that you consider contradictory, that is, examples that break that law?

Josephs father was Jacob - Mt 1:16

Josephs father was Heli - Lk 3:23

Different genealogies, His father-in-law was Heli, but he was begotten of Yacov. Notice that the four women are referred to as asides in the Mt. 1 account. Unlike modern Jewish genetic identification, early Judaism was paternal. It is my understanding that the return to paternal identification is a hot issue in modern Judaism. Anywho, even though Luke records Yeshua's maternal genealogy, it is the record of the heads of household. Next?

[mwtech]

My original intention was to have a one on one debate and not post examples on the public forum to avoid having multiple conversations at once. I suppose I can give a few examples.

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.

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.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]

In fact, the Qur'an states that nature is full of "signs for thinking men" that point to the existence and attributes of God.

That may gave been the case many, many years ago when the religion was founded. Now God is the answer for men who are done thinking. People who don't want to try and find a natural explanation for anything they don't already have one for. A few thousand years ago, it was heresy to claim that the sun didn't revolve around Earth, but now there is a simple, rational explanation. Now it is heresy to assume that the universe was not created, but happened natural. In another thousand years, there may be a simple, natural explanation for that too.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]

In fact, the Qur'an states that nature is full of "signs for thinking men" that point to the existence and attributes of God.

That may gave been the case many, many years ago when the religion was founded. Now God is the answer for men who are done thinking. People who don't want to try and find a natural explanation for anything they don't already have one for. A few thousand years ago, it was heresy to claim that the sun didn't revolve around Earth, but now there is a simple, rational explanation. Now it is heresy to assume that the universe was not created, but happened natural. In another thousand years, there may be a simple, natural explanation for that too.

Maybe, but right now, the existence of God cannot be definitively proven or disproven.

Also, it is ironic that it was Islamic culture which kept learning alive during the "Dark Ages" when Christian Europe let many lessons learned from Greece and Rome slip away, or be swept under the rug.

[Strider324]

I think a good place to start is with the definition of the Law of Contradiction (or Non-contradiction as some prefer). Put simply, the law states that something cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. Put another way, something cannot be one thing and its opposite at the same time. Therefore, it is illogical to say that Rover is a dog and Rover is not a dog. The animal can be one or the other, but it can't be both at the same time -- at least, not according to the laws of logic.

Given that definition, can you point out some specific examples from the Bible that you consider contradictory, that is, examples that break that law?

Josephs father was Jacob - Mt 1:16

Josephs father was Heli - Lk 3:23

Different genealogies, His father-in-law was Heli, but he was begotten of Yacov. Notice that the four women are referred to as asides in the Mt. 1 account. Unlike modern Jewish genetic identification, early Judaism was paternal. It is my understanding that the return to paternal identification is a hot issue in modern Judaism. Anywho, even though Luke records Yeshua's maternal genealogy, it is the record of the heads of household. Next?

Yes, they are different genealogies. But yours is a tired apologetic with no basis. It's irrelevant what modern Judaism does. Judaism at the time of the NT was paternal. The fact that there are contradictory genealogies is simply evidence that either one is wrong, or both are wrong. Further, the scripture itself does not allow for this bizarre apologetic. Heli is not written as the father-in-law. He is clearly written in inspired scripture as the father of Joseph.

The truth is - as with so many apologetics - that when this contradiction was pointed out, the church's only option was to either admit to errancy, or desperately scramble for this excuse. Sorry, you'll have to do better than this.

[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) and base my beliefs and practices on the solid bedrock of:

-Basic belief in God and God's name as a focus of prayer. (check out the book of Psalms in a translation that honor's God's name, and does not replace it with "Lord")
-The Ten Commandments
-The two great laws of love, (love of God and Neighbor)
-The Golden Rule (treat others as you would have them treat you)
and the Beattitudes of Jesus.

Are you suggesting that I throw all this good stuff out, because there are admittedly atrocities, contradictions AND absurdities also in the Bible?

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 mentions American Indians as "savages".

Even this champion of Reason and child of the Enlightenment is not perfect, yet by your line of argument, would you consider him as one who has NOTHING useful or edifying to say?

Your comparison is cold and clinical, imo. You have a scientific outlook, all well and good, but I have a poetic outlook on life, religion and spirituality. Each to their own.

[Strider324]

[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?