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.

[Wootah]

Contradiction:

I'm the son of god, tell no one.
Matthew 16:20
Mark: 8:20

I'm the son of god, tell everyone.
Matthew 28:19
Mark: 16:15

Which is it? It would seem to me that this message would/should be consistent.

Before it was not time, after it was time. I might need more detail to see why you brought this up.

Also is Mark 8:20 the correct source?

[mwtech]

This thread has been fascinating and I'd like to thank Mwtech for starting it, because it has certainly been illuminating. I personally like the fact that the Murder( or more precisely "Thou shalt not kill")commandment is considered one of God's own created laws, yet he violates His own commandment when he murders the world during the flood. I mean, what's the point of having a law if you won't follow it yourself?

Another interesting case of what seems like hypocracy in the Bible:

God's rules for testing the existence of other Gods - Isaiah 41:21-24 "Set forth your case, says the Lord;
bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.
Let them bring them, and tell us
what is to happen.
Tell us the former things, what they are,
that we may consider them,
that we may know their outcome;
or declare to us the things to come.
Tell us what is to come hereafter,
that we may know that you are gods;
do good, or do harm,
that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing,
and your work is less than nothing;
an abomination is he who chooses you.

God's rules for testing his existence - Luke 4:12 "You shall not test the Lord your God.

[mwtech]

If you would allow one to presume justice exists ... surely you know about situations where law enforcement has acted to kick down a door and arrest someone? Even if these situations end in violence the law official is not a murderer for bringing justice to the criminal.

But what about all the innocent children and even unborn babies of pregnant women who died in the flood or in the genocides committed by the Israelites in God's name? What justice is there in the death of those who have not even entered the world or who can't even comprehend sin, let alone commit it yet?

Secondly, if you saw the movie Noah, these people were living much closer to the time of Adam & Eve. They were much more aware of God than we are now. I could certainly imagine an atheist today being surprised to find out God exists but not back then.

Surely you realize that the movie Noah had very, very little to do with the Bible. I don't think you should be using a movie to support your theological case. Also, if the people alive during the time of the flood were so evil, why would we assume they were aware of God. Anyone who was aware of a God as tyrannous as YHWH, wouldn't be as evil as those in the story were made out to be, if for no other reason than fear of punishment. Especially not every single person except for Noah.

So it is completely not a might makes right issue. It is a justice issue.

It is completely not a case of murder but justice.

Killing innocent people, which the Bible says God has done, is not just. It is murderous. You can argue that God is just giving the innocent children a fast pass to heaven, but you cannot call it just.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 241 by mwtech]

But what about all the innocent children and even unborn babies of pregnant women who died in the flood or in the genocides committed by the Israelites in God's name? What justice is there in the death of those who have not even entered the world or who can't even comprehend sin, let alone commit it yet?

I think that if we had the statistical data and the evidence that more people were saved by the flood than if the stated nature of the humans at that time were allowed to persist. Certainly none of the babies would have been allowed by their parents to grow up and know about God.

Surely you realize that the movie Noah had very, very little to do with the Bible. I don't think you should be using a movie to support your theological case. Also, if the people alive during the time of the flood were so evil, why would we assume they were aware of God. Anyone who was aware of a God as tyrannous as YHWH, wouldn't be as evil as those in the story were made out to be, if for no other reason than fear of punishment. Especially not every single person except for Noah.

If they were not aware of God then they had no chance of going to heaven anyway.

Killing innocent people, which the Bible says God has done, is not just. It is murderous. You can argue that God is just giving the innocent children a fast pass to heaven, but you cannot call it just.

If justice comes for a criminal then, simply by the punishment, it will probably not go well for the criminal's family. The just nature of what happens to the criminal necessarily affects their family and that is OK. That doesn't make the person that caught and punished the criminal unjust.

Now if all the adults were unjust then what would happen to their children after the adults were punished. You would not be OK with starvation. The global flood mercifully ends the horrible situation on the earth pre-flood.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 240 by mwtech]

I presume the smiley face indicates that you recognise it is not a contradiction right?
On the despondent chance that you are not joking ...

God actually wants us to test him, as in trust him, and see how your life goes. Jacob in the OT wrestles with God. This is an instance in history, that also serves as a metaphor, for how we are to relate to God. God wants us to wrestle with him, don't blindly follow but also don't simply not try. Then in the NT Paul says in 1 thesolonians 20: Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; It's the same concept, if it is good then use it. As you test God and find Him good then you build your faith. Similarly as you actively choose to resist sin you become more aware how powerful sin is.

Luke 4:12 is to the believer, in this case Jesus, to not test their Lord. As I have faith in God now I would not say, jump off a cliff expecting God to come to my beck and call. God is the Lord, not me.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 242 by Wootah]

I think that if we had the statistical data and the evidence that more people were saved by the flood than if the stated nature of the humans at that time were allowed to persist. Certainly none of the babies would have been allowed by their parents to grow up and know about God.

But the god of the bible has demonstrated that he can precisely kill en masse i.e the last plague of Egypt. Why not use something similar here. The flood just kills everything in its path animals plants humans etc. whether or not they are innocent or not. That is not justice its senseless killing. Also we don't know the stated nature of humans at that time. What does god consider wicked? I mean he includes things like having sex with your wife while she is on her period as wicked. Personally I don't trust god's judgment here.

-indiscriminate killing and genocide
-unclear terminology to justify killing
-killing of animals that serves no purpose
-killing of plant life


and seriously why the animeals?!?!?!?!!? couldn't a virus do just the same without killing 99.9% OF THE ANIMALS?

[Randall]

@ Wootah-

Why didn't god just show himself to the world instead of killing everyone in it? Surely that would have been more merciful than drowning every living creature...His actions shows a lack of compassion and more resembles the lack of restraint of an insolent child.

The fact that anyone could attempt to defend this criminal action of punishing all for the sins of some, defies all logic. Killing the criminals family because of the criminal isn't justice, it's murder.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 240 by mwtech]

I presume the smiley face indicates that you recognise it is not a contradiction right?
On the despondent chance that you are not joking ...

I don't think it is a contradiction. It's onw of those things that made perfect sense to me when I was a Christian, like it does to, but once I realized I don't think God is real, it seems vvery ironic and actually funny to me. It's not one of the things I think can't be explained when you start with the assumption that God is real. But, when you start with the assumption that it was written by men, it makes it look like they knew God was not real and were afraid for him to be tested because of fear of failure. So they just changed the rules for him. Again, not something I would debate with a theist, I know you could explain it easily, and I would have said the same thing when I believed. It is just funny to those who see the Bible as mythology.

God actually wants us to test him, as in trust him, and see how your life goes. Jacob in the OT wrestles with God. This is an instance in history, that also serves as a metaphor, for how we are to relate to God. God wants us to wrestle with him, don't blindly follow but also don't simply not try.

Speaking of the wrestling story, this one struck me as odd even as a Christan (I was a fundamentalist, or at least I was told that's what I was). Why would the angel he was wrestling have so much trouble that he had to break Jacob's bone just to try and win? An angel with the power of God wouldn't even need to touch you to overpower you. Maybe it makes sense if you assume that the angel limited himself to be of equal power of the average man, just so he could carry out the metaphor? It's just one of those things you can't take literally I suppose.

[mwtech]

I think that if we had the statistical data and the evidence that more people were saved by the flood than if the stated nature of the humans at that time were allowed to persist. Certainly none of the babies would have been allowed by their parents to grow up and know about God.

But if that is the logic we're going with, why did God let us live here anyway? He knows the choices of every human being from the beginning of time to the end. Why not just put us where we belong without making us actually live it out? If you say that we have to live it out in order for God to be fair and give everyone the chance to choose, then you can't say those children didn't deserve the chance.

Why is it okay for God to abort every fetus in existence, but a horrid crime for a woman to get an abortion today? If I were to get pregnant, you can certainly believe I would not raise my child to believe in God. If I got an abortion, would you think it was okay because the baby had a better chance of getting to heaven that way than if I raised it? Let's go beyond baptising our babies to ensure their salvation, just kill them before they have the chance to sin.
If you didn't notice the sarcastic tone there, I don't think that's a good idea, for us or for God. If the point of this life is to make our choices, even if God already knows them, then it is not just to grant that to some and not to others.

Surely you realize that the movie Noah had very, very little to do with the Bible. I don't think you should be using a movie to support your theological case. Also, if the people alive during the time of the flood were so evil, why would we assume they were aware of God. Anyone who was aware of a God as tyrannous as YHWH, wouldn't be as evil as those in the story were made out to be, if for no other reason than fear of punishment. Especially not every single person except for Noah.

If they were not aware of God then they had no chance of going to heaven anyway.

Well, don't you think it would have made a little more sense for God to appear to a few of them, like he did for plenty of others? Instead of killing everyone, maybe speak to a few of the younger people, who were probably never told about God by their atheist parents. If the reason they had no chance of heaven was because they were ignorant, the just thing to do would be to give them a chance to see evidence of god, and then choose whether or not to continue being "evil". This still has nothing to do with the movie Noah, which was very little like the biblical story.

Killing innocent people, which the Bible says God has done, is not just. It is murderous. You can argue that God is just giving the innocent children a fast pass to heaven, but you cannot call it just.

If justice comes for a criminal then, simply by the punishment, it will probably not go well for the criminal's family. The just nature of what happens to the criminal necessarily affects their family and that is OK. That doesn't make the person that caught and punished the criminal unjust.

Now if all the adults were unjust then what would happen to their children after the adults were punished. You would not be OK with starvation. The global flood mercifully ends the horrible situation on the earth pre-flood.

So they were just neccesary casualties that couldn't have been avoided. Noah couldn't have brought everyone 10 and under onto the ark with him? God could have killed them just as easily after they reached an age of understanding as he could have in the flood. You can't tell me the all-powerful God couldn't have kept these innocents alive after he destroyed everyone else in some way other than a flood. There are plenty of things a human mind could think up to solve the problem, and how many more ways do you think the all powerful creator could think of?

The flood story makes no sense to me at all. God, even though he knew it would happen, and even though he is omnipotent and could have avoided it, regretted making man so much that he would kill every living thing on Earth, save 8 people.
Then after the flood is over "the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done."

So God, who is all knowing and all powerful, kills 99% of life on Earth because men are evil form youth. Then God says to himself, "you know, all men are evil from their youth, I won't destory them all again just because of that." Couldn't he have thought about that before he did it the first time?

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

If you're looking for Truth, why bother with this. Instead of the easy target, why not defend your atheism against deism Don't get me wrong, I think those are the only two reasonable positions on God, and they're equally likely because there's no evidence for or against God or how the universe came to be. Most reasonable atheists (scientists, Dawkins, etc.) have admitted that God is a possibility. I think so many people who've left the Church overreact. They reject one revealed religion or another based on it's lack of reason, but then declare that there is no God without a basis in reason.