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.

[Danmark]

You can add Genesis 1 to those. God breezed through 14 billion years or so of work in just six days, but then he needed the next entire day to 'rest.' I'm not minimizing the literally fantastic amount of work God did in just six days , but after all, he is GOD. In addition to the contradiction with the verses that say God does not grow faint or worry, why did he need to rest after just six days?

It almost sounds like it's obviously just a myth, a myth designed to tell people they need to take a day off once a week.

Well, it could be reasonably argued that God didn't rest because he needed to. He rested because 1) he was finished making things, and 2) he was providing an example for humans to go by because human bodies do benefit from a break.

So I wouldn't necessarily call it a contradiction as much as a wording issue here.

It's true certainly, that the Hebrew word translated as 'rest' has also been translated 'stopped' or 'ceased from his labors.' [Tho' why he even needed six days for what he could supposedly do in an instant is beyond explanation] Whether or not this is a 'contradiction' is arguable. What is not arguable is the more important point. This "God" is a human invention. He is constantly described in human terms, with human physical and emotional attributes. This is natural because the authors of Genesis were humans. "God" did not write Genesis or any of the "Holy Scriptures." The entire work is quite simply and quite obviously man's effort to describe and explain the "God" he thought necessary to explain nature.

Ever since we could look back at Earth from the Moon, we have known that this creator-god who lives in the heavens is simply the product of the human imagination. Such myths are no longer necessary.

So you knew it wasn't a contradiction and still put it forward as one? Why? Is your ideological position as explained above worth saying anything for?

You misread my statement. I believe it is contradictory to say a creating 'god' rests when he supposedly does not need to. You mistake my openness to differing translations and opinions as capitulation. You also ignore the point about why it took this unrestricted all powerful god SIX days, when he could have done it in an instant. But my main point is not that this absurd and ridiculous description of a 'God' contradicts other verses in the Bible [it does] but that the description is so obviously anthropomorphic. The creation story virtually screams at the reader: "THIS IS A STORY INVENTED BY MEN!"

I agree that there is much to appreciate about Judaism and Christianity to the extent those faiths accentuate love and forgiveness and empathy for one's fellow man. But that does not erase the fact the myths and 'God' are so obviously creations of man; anthropomorphic in the extreme. Nor does it erase the many examples of genocide and God's wrath. This petulant ranting crybaby of a 'God' kills the human population of the entire planet because he gets angry. He only spares one family, a family he later curses for drunkenness and voyeurism as soon as the flood is over. The contradictions go on and on and I stand by my assessment this is a 'God' of contradictions. That is because he is not a God at all, but an invention of man, a species of animal apparently oblivious of the contradictions inherent in his mythologies.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 171 by Danmark]

Then show it. You can't simply pick an interpretation that you like and show a contradiction. That's called making a strawman.

You have at least considered that your contradiction has a valid non contradictory interpretation.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 171 by Danmark]

Then show it. You can't simply pick an interpretation that you like and show a contradiction. That's called making a strawman.

You have at least considered that your contradiction has a valid non contradictory interpretation.

I did show it. The anthropomorphic nature of this angry, vengeful, jealous, murdering, and sometimes resting god is self evident in the scriptures that are worshiped as if they came from god. But, please, do not hold my fair mindedness, and willingness to allow contrary interpretations and translations of ancient texts against me. I am trying to set a good example by at least considering the faulty opinions of my fellow debaters.

[Idealist]

[Replying to post 168 by Danmark]

Yes, I do agree. I agree that all information which comes to us from the past should be taken for what it is, be it the Bible or the histories of Pliny the younger. We should place the most importance on what we observer of the world and reality as it exists today, as well as giving credit to accurately predicted phenomena, since the ability to make accurate predictions is one of the strongest characteristics of any scientific theory. But there are people who tend to see the forest and people who tend to see the trees. The scientific method is great at describing individual phenomena, and it has to a certain extent become better at unification, such as unifying the theories of electricity and magnetism into a single theory of electromagnetism. The greatest goal of most "see the forest" type scientists is to unify every possible physical theory into a single one - a single unified theory. This is similar to what religious people have done. I am not a religious person, but I'm not a pure naturalist, either. I don't think that either effectively describes the better part of reality. Richard Dawkins says that the one thing which he finds hardest to deal with by being an atheist is the fine-tuning argument. He says the world has the appearance of design, but that appearances can be deceiving. I agree with him on the last part, but not on the first. There is a nature to relity which denies mindless naturalism, and by "mindless" I mean a process which occurs without any intelligent input. You might say I am stuck in a position from which mythical religion seems very unlikely, but also from which cumulative science seems totally inadequate.

[Danmark]

.... There is a nature to relity which denies mindless naturalism, and by "mindless" I mean a process which occurs without any intelligent input. You might say I am stuck in a position from which mythical religion seems very unlikely, but also from which cumulative science seems totally inadequate.

I am with you until this last part. Over the last 3000 years of intellectual thought and experiments about nature, one by one the necessity for a 'mindful' nature; that is, a God directed nature has been refuted. Why should there continue to be this obstinate insistence that whatever we have difficulty explaining must be shoved into the "God must have done it" category?

Dawkins and others may have some difficulty with the 'fine tuned universe' argument. I do not. This is an anthropocentric argument that assumes WE are the reason the universe exists. In the trillions of possible universes that could have come into being, we happen to be in this one. If this universe were much different, 'WE' would not be here to ask such questions. If some element had changed then perhaps some other sentient organism would be asking those questions and claiming the universe was 'fine tuned' for THEM.

I am not sure if this argument is understood. I have made it before. Another way to put it is that while we all agree that the odds are astronomically opposed to the idea that flipping a trillion pennies would result in any particular order of heads or tails, we agree that the pattern will be random. It is BACKWARD thinking to claim that THIS particular pattern that resulted in any special case could not be by chance. It WAS by chance. It could have been different, but wasn't. This particular random sequence is ours, not by design, but by reality. This does not mean there was a designer or fate, or whatever. It simply means we are here instead of something else.

Perhaps a trillion trillion universes have come and gone with or without any sentient life. This one is the one that resulted in us and in our egocentric belief that we are the center of it. NONE of this remotely demands resort to the magical thinking of supposing a 'God' as an explanation. Tho' it may offend some, the insistence on a 'God' explanation seems to me to be both primitive and unimaginative. It is also an explanation that gives us reason to stop asking questions, to stop exploring, to stop wonder.

[jedicri]

[Replying to post 28 by Strider324]

St Thomas Aquinas actually addressed this asking whether Christ's Genealogy is Suitably Traced by the Evangelists. He poses the following in his Summa Theologica, 3rd Part, Question 31, Article 3 :

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's genealogy is not suitably traced by the Evangelists. For it is written (Is.53:8): "Who shall declare His generation?" Therefore Christ's genealogy should not have been set down.
Objection 2: Further, one man cannot possibly have two fathers. But Matthew says that "Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary": whereas Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli. Therefore they contradict one another.

Objection 3: Further, there seem to be divergencies between them on several points. For Matthew, at the commencement of his book, beginning from Abraham and coming down to Joseph, enumerates forty-two generations. Whereas Luke sets down Christ's genealogy after His Baptism, and beginning from Christ traces the series of generations back to God, counting in all seventy-seven generations, the first and last included. It seems therefore that their accounts of Christ's genealogy do not agree.

Objection 4: Further, we read (4 Kings 8:24) that Joram begot Ochozias, who was succeeded by his son Joas: who was succeeded by his son Amasius: after whom reigned his son Azarias, called Ozias; who was succeeded by his son Joathan. But Matthew says that Joram begot Ozias. Therefore it seems that his account of Christ's genealogy is unsuitable, since he omits three kings in the middle thereof.

Objection 5: Further, all those who are mentioned in Christ's genealogy had both a father and a mother, and many of them had brothers also. Now in Christ's genealogy Matthew mentions only three mothers -- -namely, Thamar, Ruth, and the wife of Urias. He also mentions the brothers of Judas and Jechonias, and also Phares and Zara. But Luke mentions none of these. Therefore the evangelists seem to have described the genealogy of Christ in an unsuitable manner.

On the contrary, The authority of Scripture suffices.

I answer that, As is written (2 Tim.3:16), "All Holy Scripture is inspired of God [Vulg.: 'All scripture inspired of God is profitable'], etc. Now what is done by God is done in perfect order, according to Rom.13:1: "Those that are of God are ordained [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God']. Therefore Christ's genealogy is set down by the evangelists in a suitable order.

Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says on Mat.1, Isaias speaks of the generation of Christ's Godhead. Whereas Matthew relates the generation of Christ in His humanity; not indeed by explaining the manner of the Incarnation, which is also unspeakable; but by enumerating Christ's forefathers from whom He was descended according to the flesh.

Reply to Objection 2: Various answers have been made by certain writers to this objection which was raised by Julian the Apostate; for some, as Gregory of Nazianzum, say that the people mentioned by the two evangelists are the same, but under different names, as though they each had two. But this will not stand: because Matthew mentions one of David's sons -- -namely, Solomon; whereas Luke mentions another -- -namely, Nathan, who according to the history of the kings (2 Kings 5:14) were clearly brothers.

Wherefore others said that Matthew gave the true genealogy of Christ: while Luke gave the supposititious genealogy; hence he began: "Being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph." For among the Jews there were some who believed that, on account of the crimes of the kings of Juda, Christ would be born of the family of David, not through the kings, but through some other line of private individuals.

Others again have supposed that Matthew gave the forefathers according to the flesh: whereas Luke gave these according to the spirit, that is, righteous men, who are called (Christ's) forefathers by likeness of virtue.

But an answer is given in the Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. [*Part i, qu. lvi; part 2, qu. vi] to the effect that we are not to understand that Joseph is said by Luke to be the son of Heli: but that at the time of Christ, Heli and Joseph were differently descended from David. Hence Christ is said to have been supposed to be the son of Joseph, and also to have been the son of Heli as though (the Evangelist) were to say that Christ, from the fact that He was the son of Joseph, could be called the son of Heli and of all those who were descended from David; as the Apostle says (Rom.9:5): "Of whom" (viz. the Jews) "is Christ according to the flesh."

Augustine again gives three solutions (De Qq. Evang. ii), saying: "There are three motives by one or other of which the evangelist was guided. For either one evangelist mentions Joseph's father of whom he was begotten; whilst the other gives either his maternal grandfather or some other of his later forefathers; or one was Joseph's natural father: the other is father by adoption. Or, according to the Jewish custom, one of those having died without children, a near relation of his married his wife, the son born of the latter union being reckoned as the son of the former": which is a kind of legal adoption, as Augustine himself says (De Consensu Evang. ii, Cf. Retract. ii).

This last motive is the truest: Jerome also gives it commenting on Mat.1:16; and Eusebius of Caesarea in his Church history (I, vii), says that it is given by Africanus the historian. For these writers says that Mathan and Melchi, at different times, each begot a son of one and the same wife, named Estha. For Mathan, who traced his descent through Solomon, had married her first, and died, leaving one son, whose name was Jacob: and after his death, as the law did not forbid his widow to remarry, Melchi, who traced his descent through Mathan, being of the same tribe though not of the same family as Mathan, married his widow, who bore him a son, called Heli; so that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers born to different fathers. Now one of these, Jacob, on his brother Heli dying without issue, married the latter's widow, according to the prescription of the law, of whom he had a son, Joseph, who by nature was his own son, but by law was accounted the son of Heli. Wherefore Matthew says "Jacob begot Joseph": whereas Luke, who was giving the legal genealogy, speaks of no one as begetting.

And although Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) says that the Blessed Virgin Mary was connected with Joseph in as far as Heli was accounted as his father, for he says that she was descended from Melchi: yet must we also believe that she was in some way descended from Solomon through those patriarchs enumerated by Matthew, who is said to have set down Christ's genealogy according to the flesh; and all the more since Ambrose states that Christ was of the seed of Jechonias.

Reply to Objection 3: According to Augustine (De Consensu Evang. ii) "Matthew purposed to delineate the royal personality of Christ; Luke the priestly personality: so that in Matthew's genealogy is signified the assumption of our sins by our Lord Jesus Christ": inasmuch as by his carnal origin "He assumed 'the likeness of sinful flesh.' But in Luke's genealogy the washing away of our sins is signified," which is effected by Christ's sacrifice. "For which reason Matthew traces the generations downwards, Luke upwards." For the same reason too "Matthew descends from David through Solomon, in whose mother David sinned; whereas Luke ascends to David through Nathan, through whose namesake, the prophet, God expiated his sin." And hence it is also that, because "Matthew wished to signify that Christ had condescended to our mortal nature, he set down the genealogy of Christ at the very outset of his Gospel, beginning with Abraham and descending to Joseph and the birth of Christ Himself. Luke, on the contrary, sets forth Christ's genealogy not at the outset, but after Christ's Baptism, and not in the descending but in the ascending order: as though giving prominence to the office of the priest in expiating our sins, to which John bore witness, saying: 'Behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.' And in the ascending order, he passes Abraham and continues up to God, to whom we are reconciled by cleansing and expiating. With reason too he follows the origin of adoption; because by adoption we become children of God: whereas by carnal generation the Son of God became the Son of Man. Moreover he shows sufficiently that he does not say that Joseph was the son of Heli as though begotten by him, but because he was adopted by him, since he says that Adam was the son of God, inasmuch as he was created by God."

Again, the number forty pertains to the time of our present life: because of the four parts of the world in which we pass this mortal life under the rule of Christ. And forty is the product of four multiplied by ten: while ten is the sum of the numbers from one to four. The number ten may also refer to the decalogue; and the number four to the present life; or again to the four Gospels, according to which Christ reigns in us. And thus "Matthew, putting forward the royal personality of Christ, enumerates forty persons not counting Him" (cf. Augustine, De Consensu Evang. ii). But this is to be taken on the supposition that it be the same Jechonias at the end of the second, and at the commencement of the third series of fourteen, as Augustine understands it. According to him this was done in order to signify "that under Jechonias there was a certain defection to strange nations during the Babylonian captivity; which also foreshadowed the fact that Christ would pass from the Jews to the Gentiles."

On the other hand, Jerome (on Mat.1:12-15) says that there were two Joachims -- -that is, Jechonias, father and son: both of whom are mentioned in Christ's genealogy, so as to make clear the distinction of the generations, which the evangelist divides into three series of fourteen; which amounts in all to forty-two persons. Which number may also be applied to the Holy Church: for it is the product of six, which signifies the labor of the present life, and seven, which signifies the rest of the life to come: for six times seven are forty-two. The number fourteen, which is the sum of ten and four, can also be given the same signification as that given to the number forty, which is the product of the same numbers by multiplication.

But the number used by Luke in Christ's genealogy signifies the generality of sins. "For the number ten is shown in the ten precepts of the Law to be the number of righteousness. Now, to sin is to go beyond the restriction of the Law. And eleven is the number beyond ten." And seven signifies universality: because "universal time is involved in seven days." Now seven times eleven are seventy-seven: so that this number signifies the generality of sins which are taken away by Christ.

Reply to Objection 4: As Jerome says onMat.1:8, 11: "Because Joram allied himself with the family of the most wicked Jezabel, therefore his memory is omitted down to the third generation, lest it should be inserted among the holy predecessors of the Nativity." Hence as Chrysostom [*Cf. Opus Imperf. in Matth. Hom. i, falsely ascribed to Chrysostom] says: "Just as great was the blessing conferred on Jehu, who wrought vengeance on the house of Achab and Jezabel, so also great was the curse on the house of Joram, through the wicked daughter of Achab and Jezabel, so that until the fourth generation his posterity is cut off from the number of kings, according to Ex.20:5: I shall visit [Vulg.: 'Visiting'] the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations."

It must also be observed that there were other kings who sinned and are mentioned in Christ's genealogy: but their impiety was not continuous. For, as it is stated in the book De Qq. Vet. et Nov. Test. qu. lxxxv: "Solomon through his father's merits is included in the series of kings; and Roboam . . . through the merits of Asa," who was son of his (Roboam's) son, Abiam. "But the impiety of those three [*i.e. Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias, of whom St. Augustine asks in this question lxxxv, why they were omitted by St. Matthew] was continuous."

Reply to Objection 5: As Jerome says on Mat.1:3: "None of the holy women are mentioned in the Saviour's genealogy, but only those whom Scripture censures, so that He who came for the sake of sinners, by being born of sinners, might blot out all sin." Thus Thamar is mentioned, who is censured for her sin with her father-in-law; Rahab who was a whore; Ruth who was a foreigner; and Bethsabee, the wife of Urias, who was an adulteress. The last, however, is not mentioned by name, but is designated through her husband; both on account of his sin, for he was cognizant of the adultery and murder; and further in order that, by mentioning the husband by name, David's sin might be recalled. And because Luke purposes to delineate Christ as the expiator of our sins, he makes no mention of these women. But he does mention Juda's brethren, in order to show that they belong to God's people: whereas Ismael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, Jacob's brother, were cut off from God's people, and for this reason are not mentioned in Christ's genealogy. Another motive was to show the emptiness of pride of birth: for many of Juda's brethren were born of hand-maidens, and yet all were patriarchs and heads of tribes. Phares and Zara are mentioned together, because, as Ambrose says on Lk.3:23, "they are the type of the twofold life of man: one, according to the Law," signified by Zara; "the other by Faith," of which Phares is the type. The brethren of Jechonias are included, because they all reigned at various times: which was not the case with other kings: or, again, because they were alike in wickedness and misfortune.

[Joab]

[Replying to post 162 by Danmark]

It's not a contradiction. If you can't see it then what can I do to help?

I might build a house and when finish I stop. Am I stopped?

A word which we understand might be used to convey a message that we understand. The bible is for us not for God.

How many translations translate the word as stopped?

Are all of the translations (the vast majority) that translate the word as rest wrong?

Why do christians need desperately to alter the definitions of words in order that the words they read mean what they want, rather than what they say?

Did the definitions that the christians claim these words mean have the same meaning 500yrs ago?

[Idealist]

[Replying to post 175 by Danmark]

When I say "mindful," I am not necessarily referring to a God such as man has tended to turn to. I'm saying exactly what I mean - that there might well be an intelligent force or input which directly affects the unfolding of reality, just as the wind affects a drifting leaf.

I'm glad for you that you are able to feel such certainty that a non-living universe just happened to one day give birth to life, and even further to an advanced intelligence by which it could explicitly examine itself. And yet despite this profound complexity the information which is gained still remains totally meaningless. The universe could explode tomorrow and it would have no meaning, since its creation had no meaning. I personally have always been fascinated by the actions of people, and have studied them all my life. I cannot convince myself that they are simply chaos in action. It's an answer I find to we way too easy. If a single person were to win a big lottery in twenty consecutive states then no one would believe it was due to total chance. They would never say, "well maybe it only happens once every ten-thousand universes, and this is just that particular universe." No, an investigation would be launched to determine how the results could have possibly happened.

[LightSeeker]

[Replying to Idealist]

I agree with your well thought out investigation of scriptural differences.

But as a duelist, I can see the reason behind the genealogies. It was important to the "Jews" that the link between Christ and ? prevailed. To the spiritual, the only link important is the spiritual one. It's the difference between finding truth in physical or spiritual. The Father doesn't lie. Christ doesn't lie. But Christ told us in John 8:44 that gods do lie, and murder as well.

The Jews with their physical intellect wanted physical proof. Christ was spiritual truth. And was trying to speak the difference between the two, which the Jews could not hear or see.

The church today has moved to that same path. Follow the guy in the beautiful white robe. He knows.

[mwtech]

It has been over a week since I posted a supposed contradiction. It has gone unrefuted. An I to assume that nobody has a way to twist it around to not contradict itself? That would be unexpected, but a pleasant surprise.

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 354#666354]
Here we have a verse that says God does not grow faint or weary.
Isaiah 40:28
Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

And here we have two verses where God grows weary of his people
Jeremiah 15:6
You have rejected me, declares the LORD; you keep going backward, so I have stretched out my hand against you and destroyed you— I am weary of relenting

Isaiah 43:24
You have not bought me sweet cane with money, or satisfied me with the fat of your sacrifices. But you have burdened me with your sins; you have wearied me with your iniquities.[/quote]