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]

[Replying to post 288 by mwtech]

It makes more sense for it to be read as the bible translators translated it. There's plenty of evidence for that.

In fairness to you I have nothing more to add to this contradiction. I think both sides have been expounded.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 288 by mwtech]

It makes more sense for it to be read as the bible translators translated it. There's plenty of evidence for that.

Well, obviously I don't see the evidence for it as you do, hence the differing viewpoints.

In fairness to you I have nothing more to add to this contradiction. I think both sides have been expounded.

Okay, that's fine. Thanks for the debate.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 272 by Wootah]

I understand what the thread is about, thank you.

A timing thing, really? You're going to have to justify that in order for me to believe that the following is not a contradiction.

I'm the son of god, tell no one.
Matthew 16:20
Then he (Jesus) ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Mark: 8:30
Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.


I'm the son of god, tell everyone.
Matthew 28:19
Jesus said: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Mark: 16:15
He (Jesus) said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

[arian]

[Replying to mwtech]

1) In English we can use the word hear to understand as well. Do you hear what I am saying? This shows that a word with no definitional relationship to another can be used to mean what the other words means. Kapiche? So whether a word has any etymology to another is not necessarily that relevant.

Yes, it is relevant. Having a word in our language that is sometimes used to mean another thing, doesn't equate to the greek word meaning the same two different things. That would be like saying that the word "cool" in English can either mean a temperature or a style or attitude, so it could also mean those same two things in an ancient language with a totally different culture. Greek generally has less words for linking words like "the" and "it", but they have more words to describe different variations of what we just use one word for. It is similar to the passage when Jesus asks three times if Peter loves him. In english it all means love, but there are 3 totally different meanings for the different words in the original language.

2) The bible has usages of hear meaning to understand apart from this one.

Matthew 13:13, which reads: “Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing [akouo] they hear [akouo] not, neither do they understand.�

You realize you are saying that the literal translation of this verse is "They hear, but they do not understand, and neither do they understand." Not only would this be redundant, but the word "neither" indicates that the second hear is a different thing than understand. They neither hear nor understand. How can they both mean the same thing and be two different things at the same time?

The bible is riddled with the concept of people hearing but hearing not. For the broadest example, many can read the Bible and not work out that Jesus is God because they don't want to hear that message.

You proclaiming that Jesus is God and everyone who doesn't believe that just doesn't want to hear it is not an effective argument for the absence of a contradiction. It is just your opinion about people who believe something different than what you believe. I could say that everyone who reads the bible and doesn't see the contradictions that riddle it simply don't want to see them. That wouldn't support the claim that there are contradicitons. It would just be a rude way of suggesting that people are purposefully remaining ignorant so they don't have to change their minds or agree with me.

To my friend Wootah regarding your comment in bold I say; 'hearing they hear you say Jesus is God (or one of the many theistic deities that make up the IDEA of what=god) but since there is no suggestion to that religious claim in the Bible, they pretend not to hear you.'

As for Matthew 13:13, which reads: “Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing [akouo] they hear [akouo] not, neither do they understand.

Jesus was doing miracles right? Yet it didn't add to His credibility for them as to what He was saying, as if they didn't see the miracles. As for hearing, he explained things to them, but they went right back to their religiously indoctrinated understanding as if they didn't even hear it, and pretended not to understand. So He spoke in parables.

The reason for this is clear, because Jesus knew that they seen His miracles, they were right there when He did them. They also heard His clear explanations of the Coming Kingdom because they were right there listening and it was obvious they heard him too. So He spoke in parables to make the distinction between clear explanation, and not-so clear, where hearing they hear, but not understand. And it worked because they started to mumble between themselves; "Wait, .. what, what is He saying? Hey Spielberg, can you understand what He is saying? Is He insulting us, .. is it something about us, .. for petesake WHAT?? What is He saying, .. how are we to respond??"

[arian]

[Replying to post 272 by Wootah]

I understand what the thread is about, thank you.

A timing thing, really? You're going to have to justify that in order for me to believe that the following is not a contradiction.

I'm the son of god, tell no one.
Matthew 16:20
Then he (Jesus) ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Mark: 8:30
Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

The way I understand the Bible explain this, is as Jesus was saying; 'You are my disciples, and I am revealing myself to you, but don't go telling anyone else yet, OK, I want you guys to understand what I'm telling you first because once the religious Pharisees and those Teachers of the law hear what I have to say, in defense of their "self made-religion" they will surely try to kill me. And they will, but I want the multitude, the Lost Tribe of Israel, the Jews to hear me out first, so they can see that it all has been according to what has been written by the Prophets.

Mark: 8:30
Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
-

And finally after the resurrection;

Mark: 16:15
He (Jesus) said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I'm the son of god, tell everyone.
Matthew 28:19
Jesus said: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Aahh.. yes, .. but no. The Bible teaches ONE baptism not three. I mean to baptize them in the name of the Father AND the Holy Spirit when it was the Holy Spirit that came upon Mary without having intercourse got her pregnant?? Who is this 'other father' then?? Who, the Pope?
In the trinity-doctrine it is the Pope, whom the billions of followers bow down to, and worship as 'holy father'. The three-baptisms was put in there to create confusion and to try to justify the many-gods the Gentile Christian-church wanted to keep. So many in fact, that the church had to invent schools of theology to study, and schools of Divinity to teach Diviners to explain them all to the multitudes.

Why not just baptize them in the name of the stepfather Joseph too? How about holy-Mary? If she is the 'Mother of this idea "god"' then surely she is worthy to be baptized in also, no?

Read the Bible outside of added religious contradictions (added words, self made doctrines) and there won't be any contradictions, and you will be able to discern between good and evil, between truth and lies. If you are a 'former-Christian', BE a former Christian and not still think like a Christian.

[mwtech]

As for Matthew 13:13, which reads: “Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing [akouo] they hear [akouo] not, neither do they understand.

Jesus was doing miracles right? Yet it didn't add to His credibility for them as to what He was saying, as if they didn't see the miracles. As for hearing, he explained things to them, but they went right back to their religiously indoctrinated understanding as if they didn't even hear it, and pretended not to understand. So He spoke in parables.

The reason for this is clear, because Jesus knew that they seen His miracles, they were right there when He did them. They also heard His clear explanations of the Coming Kingdom because they were right there listening and it was obvious they heard him too. So He spoke in parables to make the distinction between clear explanation, and not-so clear, where hearing they hear, but not understand. And it worked because they started to mumble between themselves; "Wait, .. what, what is He saying? Hey Spielberg, can you understand what He is saying? Is He insulting us, .. is it something about us, .. for petesake WHAT?? What is He saying, .. how are we to respond??"

In all of this you are just saying exactly the same thing as Wootah. You are saying they heard what Jesus was saying, but they did not understand him. I understand what you are saying. The same argument still applies.

This verse either literally means:
"They hear, but they do not understand, neither do they understand."
or it means
"They hear, but they don't hear or understand."

The first interpretation is redundant and makes no gramatical sense (they neither understand nor understand) the nor implies that the first is something different from the second.

The second interpretation cannot be read literally and not be contradictory. You have to read it in a poetic sense to make it sensible. If you make it non-literal, it basically means, they hear me, but they might as well not have heard a word I said because they didn't understand it at all. If this is the way we are to interpret it, then it also implies that the phrase before, "seeing they see not," means the same thing. They saw it, but it has no practical purpose because they don't know what it means.

The point being. Literally read, the verse is contradictory. Translaing the first 'hear' to 'understand' makes it awkward, grammaticly incorrect, and the word nor implies that it can't actually mean that. Reading it poetically is the only option, but that doesn't support any other time the word 'hear' is used if it isn't paired with the rest of the poetic phrasing.

I'm not saying the passage is contradictory. It is clearly poetic and not literal. But it doesn't support the claim Wootah was making when he brought it up.

[mwtech]

Aahh.. yes, .. but no. The Bible teaches ONE baptism not three. I mean to baptize them in the name of the Father AND the Holy Spirit when it was the Holy Spirit that came upon Mary without having intercourse got her pregnant?? Who is this 'other father' then?? Who, the Pope?
In the trinity-doctrine it is the Pope, whom the billions of followers bow down to, and worship as 'holy father'. The three-baptisms was put in there to create confusion and to try to justify the many-gods the Gentile Christian-church wanted to keep. So many in fact, that the church had to invent schools of theology to study, and schools of Divinity to teach Diviners to explain them all to the multitudes.

Why not just baptize them in the name of the stepfather Joseph too? How about holy-Mary? If she is the 'Mother of this idea "god"' then surely she is worthy to be baptized in also, no?

Read the Bible outside of added religious contradictions (added words, self made doctrines) and there won't be any contradictions, and you will be able to discern between good and evil, between truth and lies. If you are a 'former-Christian', BE a former Christian and not still think like a Christian.

I agree with you up until here. The telling everyone thing is not contradictory if you read it in context.

But, nobody ever claimed that baptizing in three names is contradictory. You pulled this example out of thin air just to beat it down and make it look like anyone who says the bible has contradictions is silly and not actually reading it. Anyone brought up in Christian environment probably knows enough about Christian mythology (pardon the word choice, I know you think it is truth. Substitue it with theology for your uses) claims that the father, son, and spirit, are all one God. This is the biggest straw man I have ever seen on this forum.

And your claim that if you just read the Bible you can tell there are no contradictions, is your opinion. There have been shown contradictions. The last one I brought up was not resolved to not be a contradiction. Both sides gave all the information regarding it and left readers to decide, but it sitll stands, and many disagree with you in thinking that it is non-contradicting. You can't say that it isn't until you have discussed every proposed contradiction, which I doubt will happen, so it remains personal opinion. Just like it is my opinion that there are contradictions, and the only way to erase them is to use confirmation bias.

[micatala]

I realize I have been out of the loop for about 8 pages, but the very severe difficulties with the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus have not been resolved.
Can anyone put the events listed below (given in two sequences) into one coherent sequence?

As part of this, one can certainly address which items might describe the same event, but if this is the case, any discrepancies between the two descriptions of the same event need to be addressed. For example, if one says the pre-dawn visit of Mary M is the same as the post-dawn visits to the tomb by the multiple women are somehow the same event, one would have to explain the timing issue somehow (I really am not sure how this can be done myself).

[Replying to Wootah]

Here is the full paragraph, in the NRSV

After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.� 8 So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!� And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.�

Anyone reading only this narrative would clearly take the order of events as noted by nwtech. In addition, notice the "but" beginning verse 5. This would typically indicate what follows came immediately after what went before.

nwtech alludes to the question of who is doing the narrating. Unless you want to assume, again without any reasonable justification, that there were more people there at dawn at this grave site than the guards and the women, it would have to be one of those groups who bring us these details.

Is it conceivable these details came from the guards? That would be quite a stretch. The are said to be like dead men before the angel speaks, for one. Secondly, there only concern would be to avoid getting executed for not fulfilling their duty.


Now, if you want to create a narrative that is actually 'childish,' to use your words, let's put ALL the details from ALL the accounts into one narrative. I will make an attempt to put these in rough order for now, although, as you will see, there are some insurmountable difficulties. I will equate events between gospels that can be clearly seen to be the same.

1. John: Mary M alone, while it was still dark (clearly this would be well before dawn) comes to the tomb and finds the stone already rolled away.
2. John: She runs to tell Peter (and John) that they have taken the Lord away. I will grant she may have reached this conclusion without looking into the tomb.
3. John:Peter and John run to the tomb, see it is empty. At this point, there is clearly no reason for these two to be told that Jesus' body is missing.
4. John:Mary alone now looks into the tomb, sees no body and two angels.
5. John:Mary sees Jesus, at first thinking him to be the gardener. Jesus tells her specifically not to hold onto his feet.
6. John: She goes and tells the disciples what she has seen and what Jesus told her. No indication of disbelief on the part of the disciples. Clearly, only Peter and John were informed the first time, and now the others are. I will grant it does not say Peter and John are not with the others now, but they DO already know Jesus is missing. If they ARE present at this event, one wonders why they did not inform the others themselves, but that is a minor point.

So far this is all from John and can be taken in chronological order.

However, it would be unclear how to align the Matthew with the John.

7. Matt/Mark/Luke The two Mary's, at dawn, go to the tomb (Matt). In Mark, we have Salome with them, and they have brought spices to anoint Jesus' body. They very clearly expect to find him there. Luke also specifies at dawn, and Mark says this happened after the sun had risen. It is clearly not dark. Luke includes Joanna and other women unspecified in this group.
7a. Mark only: They ask themselves who will roll away the stone.
8. Matt. Earthquake, and angel descends.
9. Matt. Guards fall down as dead men.
9a?: Mark/Luke: There is no quake or angel, they simply 'look up (in Mark)' and see the stone is rolled away.
10. Matt. Angel tells women not to be afraid, but to come into the tomb, and to tell the disciples Jesus will see them in Galilee.
10a. In Mark/Luke, the women go into the tomb, and then see an angel, as they are entering. (In Luke, they see two angels, but only AFTER they are already inside). These one/two angels tell the women more or less the same thing the one angel in Matthew did, but in Mark they specify Peter. So, CLEARLY AT THIS POINT, THE EVENT 2 in JOHN has not yet occurred. If 2 had, Peter would already know Jesus had risen and would not need to be told again.
11. Matt. Both women see Jesus, and he reiterates the 'go to Galilee' instruction. THey hold his feet, which Jesus told Mary not to do in John, because he had not yet ascended. So clearly, 11 comes after 5 from John.
12. Matt/Luke The women evidently to return to the disciples, and give them the instruction, which they are said to obey. Again, in Matthew there is no indication they do not believe the women's story. In Luke, it specifically says the women tell 'the 11' of all this. Peter and John are clearly there for the telling. However, in Luke, the disciples do call this an idle tale.
13. Luke only: Peter, with no indication of being accompanied by John, goes to the tomb. Conceivably, this by itself, ignoring the rest of the narratives, could be the same as 3, except it would again be odd not to mention John.


Now, 7 cannot be the same event as 1 since 1 is clearly earlier in the day.

I would ask Wootah to insert 7 into the narrative from John wherever he thinks it might make any sense at all. I cannot.

From what we have here, one implied order would be.

1 < 2 < 3 = 13 < 4 < 5 < 11 < 12 < 13

Unless you say 5=11, in which case you have a contradiction regarding whether or not the women/woman hold his feet. Even so, you have 13 occurring some time after 13 occurs.

And this is not even taking into account that 7 has to happen long enough after 1 for dark to turn into dawn or even later than dawn. if 7 happens after 3, you of course have a completely hopeless muddle.

If 7 happens between 1 and 2, then it seems everything up to at least 10 also has to happen before 2. On the other hand, 2 clearly cannot be the same as 12, since 2 has only Mary telling only Peter and John, and only later in John's gospel are the others informed. This would put 2 before 10.




How on earth can all this not be considered (several) clear contradictions?

[arian]

As for Matthew 13:13, which reads: “Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing [akouo] they hear [akouo] not, neither do they understand.

Jesus was doing miracles right? Yet it didn't add to His credibility for them as to what He was saying, as if they didn't see the miracles. As for hearing, he explained things to them, but they went right back to their religiously indoctrinated understanding as if they didn't even hear it, and pretended not to understand. So He spoke in parables.

The reason for this is clear, because Jesus knew that they seen His miracles, they were right there when He did them. They also heard His clear explanations of the Coming Kingdom because they were right there listening and it was obvious they heard him too. So He spoke in parables to make the distinction between clear explanation, and not-so clear, where hearing they hear, but not understand. And it worked because they started to mumble between themselves; "Wait, .. what, what is He saying? Hey Spielberg, can you understand what He is saying? Is He insulting us, .. is it something about us, .. for petesake WHAT?? What is He saying, .. how are we to respond??"

In all of this you are just saying exactly the same thing as Wootah. You are saying they heard what Jesus was saying, but they did not understand him. I understand what you are saying. The same argument still applies.

This verse either literally means:
"They hear, but they do not understand, neither do they understand."
or it means
"They hear, but they don't hear or understand."

The first interpretation is redundant and makes no gramatical sense (they neither understand nor understand) the nor implies that the first is something different from the second.

My kids hear me, especially when I get angry at them, but they go back doing the very same thing, I know they heard me, but their action proves otherwise, .. as if they didn't.
Or take it as I have explained previously.

The second interpretation cannot be read literally and not be contradictory. You have to read it in a poetic sense to make it sensible. If you make it non-literal, it basically means, they hear me, but they might as well not have heard a word I said because they didn't understand it at all. If this is the way we are to interpret it, then it also implies that the phrase before, "seeing they see not," means the same thing. They saw it, but it has no practical purpose because they don't know what it means.

This conversation with you is a reflection of what we are debating, you hear what you want to hear, only not what I'm saying.

The point being. Literally read, the verse is contradictory. Translaing the first 'hear' to 'understand' makes it awkward, grammaticly incorrect, and the word nor implies that it can't actually mean that. Reading it poetically is the only option, but that doesn't support any other time the word 'hear' is used if it isn't paired with the rest of the poetic phrasing.

The message Jesus gave to them then, can be interpreted to mean the same today, 'they hear, but do not hear'. We do it all the time, especially my teenage kids.

I'm not saying the passage is contradictory. It is clearly poetic and not literal. But it doesn't support the claim Wootah was making when he brought it up.

Let's say the husband is watching Football on TV, and the wife is telling him something very important, and after a few minutes she says; "Honey, are you even listening to what I'm saying?"

Husband replies: "Uhum, .. yea, sure hon, .. yep, got it, .. love you too!"

But what she said before that holding her suitcase in hand was: "Honey, I had it with you and your football, I'm leaving you!"

Hearing he did not hear, .. seeing (the suitcase in her hand) he did not see, .. obviously.

Look, if I really wanted to, I could create so many contradictions from the Bible that it would make the most sharpest Biblical scholars cry. (just saying) You know why? Because I am at war against religious indoctrinations. they estimate about 38,000 different Christian Denominations, what do you think those are? That's right, each one a slight contradiction to what the Bible really means to get across to us.

God is plural
God is One
Gods name is this
No, .. Gods name is that
We are to worship on Saturday
No, .. we are to worship on Sunday
No, we can worship ANY day
you can eat meat but not pork
No, .. you can eat pork too
No, you are to eat vegetables only
You are to wear hat, and the woman is to cover her head
No, the woman's hair is her covering, and the man wearing a covering is a shame
You are allowed to divorce,
No, you can never divorce
You are never to divorce "except" (Jesus actually responded to me in a dream regarding this one)

Ahh .. I have dealt with so many different 'claimed' contradictions over the years, but I haven't found even one that came from the Bible itself, or that wasn't added in there on purpose. Bible-contradictions are man-made, and they are mostly created to justify their man-made religious indoctrinations like the Trinity-doctrine, or it is to identify their particular denomination from all the others. Then they jump around the entire Bible trying to find at least a word to justify their religious claim.

[arian]

Aahh.. yes, .. but no. The Bible teaches ONE baptism not three. I mean to baptize them in the name of the Father AND the Holy Spirit when it was the Holy Spirit that came upon Mary without having intercourse got her pregnant?? Who is this 'other father' then?? Who, the Pope?
In the trinity-doctrine it is the Pope, whom the billions of followers bow down to, and worship as 'holy father'. The three-baptisms was put in there to create confusion and to try to justify the many-gods the Gentile Christian-church wanted to keep. So many in fact, that the church had to invent schools of theology to study, and schools of Divinity to teach Diviners to explain them all to the multitudes.

Why not just baptize them in the name of the stepfather Joseph too? How about holy-Mary? If she is the 'Mother of this idea "god"' then surely she is worthy to be baptized in also, no?

Read the Bible outside of added religious contradictions (added words, self made doctrines) and there won't be any contradictions, and you will be able to discern between good and evil, between truth and lies. If you are a 'former-Christian', BE a former Christian and not still think like a Christian.

I agree with you up until here. The telling everyone thing is not contradictory if you read it in context.

But, nobody ever claimed that baptizing in three names is contradictory. You pulled this example out of thin air just to beat it down and make it look like anyone who says the bible has contradictions is silly and not actually reading it. Anyone brought up in Christian environment probably knows enough about Christian mythology (pardon the word choice, I know you think it is truth. Substitue it with theology for your uses) claims that the father, son, and spirit, are all one God. This is the biggest straw man I have ever seen on this forum.

You see, here you go again 'seeing but not seeing, hearing but not hearing!'

"Read my lips" (pardon the word choice) but as I keep saying, that Christianity is a religion like the tens of thousands of other religions. Religions believe in gods they have created, or one special god from the many gods as in theism. These are theists, and then there are those who are atheists.
Now the real atheists are the ones who really did stop believing in all them religiously made up gods. I am one of those atheists who stopped believing in all them other gods, especially this three-god-in-one 'plural' Christian god who by all Biblical definition is the demonic spirit that Jesus cast out into the pigs, .. remember? His name was "Legion" for he said: "we are many", or plural, .. same thing.

I know this is confusing since I still have "Christian" in my user group. This is because Christianity uses the Bible, which I also use. But what's the use using the Bible when they made up another god to worship, like the three in one plural god Legion as their God?? Mormons have another idea of God which they worship, Muslims (who also use the Bible) have yet another god from the many in theism.

I believe and understand in God, no name, no frame, not from theism meaning one from other gods as your chosen one like Allah, or multi-gods, or a plural god like the Christian three or more god Legion, .. but God, the one described in the Bible; "I Am Who I Am", .. One, period. And because of the evidence, I am sure. To know more about Him, and me, I read the Bible, only outside of the influence of religion.

And your claim that if you just read the Bible you can tell there are no contradictions, is your opinion. There have been shown contradictions. The last one I brought up was not resolved to not be a contradiction. Both sides gave all the information regarding it and left readers to decide, but it sitll stands, and many disagree with you in thinking that it is non-contradicting. You can't say that it isn't until you have discussed every proposed contradiction, which I doubt will happen, so it remains personal opinion. Just like it is my opinion that there are contradictions, and the only way to erase them is to use confirmation bias.

OK, .. you still don't hear. I even said that there are about 38,000 versions (denominations) of Christians, and this is because they all have a slightly different interpretation of the Bible. EACH split, my friend, .. each split took years, and it was over minute differences of Biblical-interpretations. These differences 'contradicted' the others point of view, correct? Do you think I'm going to go through all those contradictions, all 38,000 of them again when each one took years for Bible scholars and Bible readers to debate over? The contradictions obviously remained, right?

Now think about this for a second, .. these people dedicated their lives studying the Bible, they prayed, some whipped themselves, some starved themselves, most memorized the entire Bible where they could recite it practically backwards, they studied and spoke both Greek and Hebrew and yet after 2,000 years their contradictions got worse not better. Now some claim that Jesus was a homosexual.

So look, if only ONE contradiction split these denominations, and there are about 38,000 of them, and we know (I do anyways since I was part of many splits) that there was a lot more then one contradiction, we are talking about over a hundred thousand contradictions. I mean if this was so, the Bible should be named: "The Book of Contradictions" lol

So instead of finding excuses to deny your Creator by trying to create more religious contradictions, how about try to find God first?

But which one, .. right?
I already told you that theism deals with god, or gods. The one god is clearly one from the many because by definition, theism deals with all gods not just the God of the Bible.

Obviously there can be only One Creator God, just as there can only be one 'eternity' and one 'infinity'.

If you are imagining two infinities, then the first one you are imagining is NOT infinite, and the same with Eternity. There can not be two infinities or eternities side be side, because then you don't understand the meaning of eternal nor infinite.

You see, instead of creating paradoxes, contradictions, religions, lets start with the basic concepts, which actually is already beyond quantum theory, yet even a babe like me in mathematics can understand. Why?
Because a true Believer is not stuck in the physical realm, or with the limitation of the brain. He uses his mind, and only in the renewing of the mind, can anyone see/understand God, or infinity, or eternity, or the existence of 'nothing'.

So my friends, what do you want to do, continue creating more contradictions, or find the true meaning of 'Creator'? Remember, just like Eternity, there can be ONLY ONE Creator, or you get a finite regress that can go on throughout eternity (You noticed I didn't say; 'infinite regress' because that would not make any sense. That would also be like saying; "nothing doesn't exist" lol)

So how about it? What are you afraid of, .. to learn that you may have been wrong all your life? Just look at the reward, you'll know the answer to everything/God, and even see the existence of 'nothing', thrown in there for free!! If that is not treasure worthy enough to give up everything you have even your religion for, what IS? Only I'm not asking you for anything, only true intent, an open mind, and the understanding of the value of such beyond-the-human brain to comprehend prize.

But if you are satisfied with contradictions and paradoxes, hey, stick with Einstein's version of special Relativity, Maxwell's equations, and all the other nonsense that goes along with the Big-bang Evolution Theory, they create new contradictions and paradoxes daily. With that, you'll be stuck believing you are nothing but an ape for petesake.