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.

[edform]

.

Rubbish!

Moderator Clarification
Since you are new to the Forum (and perhaps to debate), this is a clarification rather than a warning

.

I'm 70 years old and began in online debate when computers had green screens and the only way of going online was by steam driven modem.

In civil, respectful, honorable debate we do not refer to an opposing argument as "rubbish" but present rebuttal arguments instead.

Since you have raised the matter in public, and at the possible expense of being banned here, you might perhaps take a look at the grotesquely insulting and dismissive tone of voice adopted by the Poster called Stryder in this thread - I expressed my honest opinion of what he said about the position of Jesus in respect of Old Testament prophecies - he did not ask for debate, he dismissed all debate as beneath him. Perhaps I should have said: ' You couldn't even begin to support that claim,' but the effect would have been no different. I hoped he would react to my firmness by offering ideas to be considered.

Also in civil, respectful, honorable debate we discuss ideas not personalities.

I don't believe I have discussed personalities. I've been too busy since I came here posting carefully thought out and researched explanations of difficulties suggested by other posters.

Ed Form

Those who ignore Forum Rules and Guidelines face disciplinary action -- up to and including banning.
Rules
C&A Guidelines

[/color]
______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required. [/quote]

[Strider324]

[Replying to post 99 by edform]

You were asked to address the prophecies cited in Is 2 and 11, but responded only with citations from chapters 1, 38, 52 and 53.

Perhaps you will more readily be able to respond to the actual questions if we keep it simple.

The bible attests that Jesus fulfilled prophesy by being born of a virgin. It states that the prophesy is found in Is 7:14:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."

Sadly, this is a false translation and an obvious fraud. The actual honest Hebrew translation is thus:

Behold, the young woman has conceived-[is with child)-and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel."

("Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel")

Almah, everywhere it is used in the OT, means a maid, or young woman who has reached the age of consent - whether a virgin or not. Further, in every place in the OT where a virgin is described, the word used is 'bethulah'. And yet, even when Hebrew scholars pointed out the translation error to the nascent church - they maintained this fraud anyway.

Therefore, this is not even a prophesy of a future event, but an accounting of an already completed one - and it is a product of fraud. Why does the NT falsely call this a prophesy, and why did they dishonestly translate the Hebrew?


And just to help you - It's clearly spelled Strider....

[edform]

I'll start with these two verses.
God has never tempted someone.
James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
and
God has tempted someone.
Genesis 22:1
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
When looking into these two verses, I found many christian apologetics explaining it as being two kinds of tempting in the two different verses. Their belief is that James refers to the temptation to do evil, but Genesis refers to a test of faith.
I would have to argue that it has the same meaning in both instances. James 13 says that if a man is tempted to do evil, he is not tempted of God. To ask Abraham to sacrifice his son is tempting him to do something evil. As a matter of fact, what greater temptation is there for such a faithful man than for God himself to ask something of you? We know from Deuteronomy 12:31 that god finds human sacrifice to be an abomination (You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.). God IS tempting Abraham to do something God abhors. Whether he stops Abraham or not is irrelevant to the fact that he did tempt him. Before Abraham knew that God intended to stop him, we was tempted to do something evil that God told him to do.

James himself uses the word in two different contexts…

James 1:12
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

And James 1:13-16
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.

The first is pretty simple – you’ll be tested in life but, if you grind your way through it and are approved you have a great treasure waiting for you. [The word ‘dokimos’ given as ‘tried’ in the KJV was used as a complimentary term in Greek – for example: people who gave full weight of precious metal in their coins were ‘approved.’]

In the other context, however [verses 13-16], the same word is used of the mental process that may cause failure in such a trial – it isn’t the hard tests that God subjects you to in life that produce misbehaviour, it’s your own mind succumbing to enticement. James defines the difference between trial and temptation. So God will ‘test’ you, but you will ‘tempt’ yourself if aspects of those tests get at you and you choose to go the wrong way.

In Abraham’s case, let me set aside the moral dimension for a moment. Here the word can only mean ‘test.’ God ordered Abraham to do something really difficult, terrible in fact. The word ‘temptation’ cannot be applied: God didn’t offer Abraham any inducement; there was no benefit that any man who loved his son could possibly see and desire. So, in the sense that James defines – God tests but you see personal benefit in some aspect of things that test you and go the wrong way – Abraham was ’tested’ by God, not ‘tempted.’

To deal with the moral dimension of the Abraham Isaac incident we need to tease out all as much of the circumstances as the texts give us, and there’s much more than I think you’ve spotted.

Isaac was a willing participant. This comes to light from details in the story and from facts that surround it.

To begin with, Abraham was more than 130 years old at this point and his son, Isaac was a grown man of over thirty years – I won’t go into a proof of this here because the post will finish up the size of a barrage balloon, but it is not difficult to prove.
It would therefore have been physically impossible for Abraham to have tied up Isaac, laid him on top of a stone altar that he would have to build, and take a knife to him, unless his son agreed to the course of events.

We also find in the text…

Genesis 22:5-8
And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

The first use of the phrase ‘they went both of them together’ indicates companionship in a journey to do something, but the second occurrence, the one at the end of the passage I’ve cited, follows an explanation [of which we are offered only a fragment] and indicates agreement - they cooperated in carrying out God’s command. That double use of the phrase is one of the most moving things in all of Scripture.

So we need to ask: why would they do this? The answer isn’t difficult and it lies in the certainty of Abraham’s and Isaac’s faith in God’s promises. God made promises to Abraham with regard to his own future and that of his descendants…

Genesis 13:14-17
Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.

Genesis 17: 7-8
…I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

I’m sure you know these passages and the others like them in which the promises were expanded. They contain elements that are not possible unless Abraham will, at some future time, be raised from the dead and caused to live for ever – he cannot possess the land of Canaan in perpetuity unless he is alive to possess it, and as Stephen pointed out at his trial, he did not own any of it during his life [except the plot under the oaks at Mamre that he bought at an outrageous price to bury his wife – so God didn’t give him it.]

Acts 7:5
And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

Now since we are expressly told that Abraham believed God and God counted him righteous because of that faith, he must have believed that he would be resurrected and if that’s the case he would have taught resurrection to his son.

We need to add to the idea that both men believed in resurrection from the dead to a situation where the land of Canaan would belong to them forever, the fact that this state of affairs didn’t just involve the two of them it was to involve multitudes of their descendants and one specific descendant in particular. Speaking of the promises to Abraham, Paul told the Galatians…

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Inspection of the promises as they were reiterated and given their final expansion by the angel after the events on Mount Moriah, shows that Paul was right…

Genesis 22:17-18
…and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

The seed here is an individual.

Finally then, one last idea…

Genesis 21:12
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

The New Testament prophets pick up on this specific promise – the line of descent by which the promises would proceed would be the progeny of Isaac. Yet when Abraham was ordered to go and do away with his son, Isaac had no wife and no children. Someone who was completely convinced that God would keep his promises, and who also believed that the promises required Isaac to have children, would realise that the order could not possibly mean the end of Isaac – either God would let him do the deed and then raise Isaac immediately in order to get the line of progeny under way, or God would not let him do the deed. We can see that he had reasoned that the second of these two outcomes was what would happen because he told Isaac that God would provide a lamb.

I conclude, therefore, that God knew that Abraham would do as he was told, and also knew that his faithful friend had correctly understood his character – had understood that God would never permit him to do anything so awful.

The reason why all this was done, however, is the truly terrible thing. God himself would have to allow wicked men to do to his own son, what Abraham had rightly realised he would never permit him to do to his. No other means of salvation was possible. Men and women had to be shown the beauty of God’s character in the life of a man and also shown the depravity of human nature in what men would do to him – salvation is God’s gift to those who are so appalled by what human nature can sink to that they earnestly desire to be given God’s character instead.

I won’t go on to deal with all the spin-offs of this story – like the fact that the verb used by Jesus in Eli, Eli Lama Sabacthani is capable of the translation ‘thicketed’ – 'why have you tangled me in a thicket,' this is way long enough already.

Ed Form

[edform]

[Replying to post 99 by edform]

You were asked to address the prophecies cited in Is 2 and 11, but responded only with citations from chapters 1, 38, 52 and 53.

I'll split this into two messages - a quick one now to set the record straight and a full response to your examples later - probably tomorrow: it's 25 minutes past 1 in the morning here and I'm off to bed in a moment.

The quick response - you seem to have missed the fact that I was answering Goat's message which contained no specific suggestions on which bits of prophecy I should deal with - it is message 94 in the thread as the citation URL at the top of my reply shows clearly. I haven't got round to answering McCulloch's message with the specific requests yet, but I will.

And I see you've raised the hoary old almah/parthenos debate - what fun.

Ed Form

[Strider324]

[Replying to post 99 by edform]

You were asked to address the prophecies cited in Is 2 and 11, but responded only with citations from chapters 1, 38, 52 and 53.

I'll split this into two messages - a quick one now to set the record straight and a full response to your examples later - probably tomorrow: it's 25 minutes past 1 in the morning here and I'm off to bed in a moment.

The quick response - you seem to have missed the fact that I was answering Goat's message which contained no specific suggestions on which bits of prophecy I should deal with - it is message 94 in the thread as the citation URL at the top of my reply shows clearly. I haven't got round to answering McCulloch's message with the specific requests yet, but I will.

And I see you've raised the hoary old almah/parthenos debate - what fun.

Ed Form

Except the debate was over long ago. But I agree, it will be fun for somebody.

[Idealist]

[Replying to post 6 by Strider324]

"An argument that concludes that "god is perfect and you so logically you must worship him or be tortured forever" holds little persuasive value for me when it's pillars are grounded in talking snakes, zombie walks, winged pixies, and a homeless guy living inside a whale....not to mention the advocacy for slavery, sexual abuse, and incest. That's just me tho."

What is there in a post like this (the one you made toward the beginning of the thread) that would leave open any room for reasonable discussion? How do you have a discussion with anyone who openly commits to being an extremist on any particular subject, no matter which side they stand on? Christians intentionally cherry-pick the Bible to prove their points while atheists do the exact same thing to prove the Christians wrong. Isn't the whole process flawed? Is is logical to expect rational conclusions from any flawed discussion? The whole thing reminds me a little of the Cold War.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 6 by Strider324]

"An argument that concludes that "god is perfect and you so logically you must worship him or be tortured forever" holds little persuasive value for me when it's pillars are grounded in talking snakes, zombie walks, winged pixies, and a homeless guy living inside a whale....not to mention the advocacy for slavery, sexual abuse, and incest. That's just me tho."

What is there in a post like this (the one you made toward the beginning of the thread) that would leave open any room for reasonable discussion? How do you have a discussion with anyone who openly commits to being an extremist on any particular subject, no matter which side they stand on? Christians intentionally cherry-pick the Bible to prove their points while atheists do the exact same thing to prove the Christians wrong. Isn't the whole process flawed? Is is logical to expect rational conclusions from any flawed discussion? The whole thing reminds me a little of the Cold War.

I would go further and agree that logic holds no persuasive power at all. Emotional ad hominems have always been more effective. However I see no reason to personally be beholden to emotion. That's just me tho.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 78 by bluethread]
Jesus does not fulfill messianic prophesy. The facts of the OT speak for themselves on this.

Rubbish!

Is that the best you can do to defined that? How about, well, point to the best OT prophecy you can that Jesus fulfilled,... and show me, in context, with a good translation that Jesus full filled it. Also, show that it wasn't 'written to'.

I'll return to your challenge in another post, but let me turn your words back on you. Why have you not said to Stryder: 'Is that the best you can do?' I have no problems in discussing the fulfilment of prophecy by Jesus, but general, sweeping claims like Stryder's, with no evidence to back them, are just so much hot air. My answer was the best he was entitled to.

Now to your demands: if you are of the same opinion as Stryder, perhaps you can list an OT prophecy or two that Jesus failed to fulfil - I'll be happy for you to chose the standard pot-boilers, where it is obvious that the words were intended as prophecy, and argument has already gone on endlessly whether Jesus can be seen to have fulfilled them; you don't need to delve into anything abstruse or novel. From looking at your by-line in this forum, I rather fancy that you toe a party line in such matters anyway, with no significant knowledge or study behind your messages, so asking too much of you might not be very productive.

Ed Form

Ah.. the logical fallacy of 'shifting the burden of proof'. I do not know what you think is a 'prophecy' in the Jewish scriptures at all, so how can I answer that.

However, the following tasks are not yet completed that the Messiah was suposed to do

All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)
* Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)
* There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)

[Strider324]

Goat scribed:

Ah.. the logical fallacy of 'shifting the burden of proof'. I do not know what you think is a 'prophecy' in the Jewish scriptures at all, so how can I answer that.

That's a good point. Christians appear to have as much difficulty agreeing on how to recognize a messianic prophesy as they do agreeing on topics like 'faith or works'.

I have engaged a number of christians who aver that every single verse of the bible is a prophesy that applies to Jesus. How convenient is that?

[Strider324]

[Replying to post 106 by Idealist]

Really? You've never drawn a conclusion based on scholarship and then participated in debate about it? I would hardly call that process 'extremist'. And is it really your conclusion that all christians and atheists do nothing more than cherry pick? There are no christians or atheists that present valid syllogistic arguments and conclusions?

That position would seem..... extreme. It appears your first post was meant to also be your last, as you see no value in being here among the silly cherry-pickers.