Biblical Contradictions

[achilles12604]

Ok. I looked over the last few pages of topics and I couldn't find one dedicated to this discussion (much to my surprise). Therefore I am starting it.


What are the biblical contradictions which the atheists keep refering to and what are the answers by apologists.

Ready, set . . . GO!

[ENIGMA]

There's probably thousands of interpretations of the United States Constitution also, which is much more recent and documented by Federalist Papers, etc. So, maybe it's not the document, but the people themselves.

Was the constitution supposedly authored/inspired by a perfect supernatural being?

I think at least some of the developers would have said yes. It does say "we are endowed by our creators with certain unalienable rights" after all.

The US Constitution does not contain that phrase. It does not contain any equivalent phrase. There is no phrase in the Constitution that, barring massive drug usage, dementia, or some other state of mental or physical impairment, could be construed to mean that phrase.

I am attempting to drive home this point, because such a statement has been made previously on this forum, and I would rather not see it be repeated. My last attempt to illustrate this point by copying and pasting the entire US Constitution and inquiring where the phrase occurs was frowned upon by the forum's moderation staff, so I consider this the next best option.

[McCulloch]

There's probably thousands of interpretations of the United States Constitution also, which is much more recent and documented by Federalist Papers, etc. So, maybe it's not the document, but the people themselves.

Was the constitution supposedly authored/inspired by a perfect supernatural being?

I think at least some of the developers would have said yes. It does say "we are endowed by our creators with certain unalienable rights" after all.

The US Constitution does not contain that phrase. It does not contain any equivalent phrase. There is no phrase in the Constitution that, barring massive drug usage, dementia, or some other state of mental or physical impairment, could be construed to mean that phrase.

I am attempting to drive home this point, because such a statement has been made previously on this forum, and I would rather not see it be repeated. My last attempt to illustrate this point by copying and pasting the entire US Constitution and inquiring where the phrase occurs was frowned upon by the forum's moderation staff, so I consider this the next best option.

That phrase comes from the The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, is the Declaration of Independence part of US constitutional law?
Was the Declaration of Independence divinely inspired?
Why do you think that the passing reference to the unnamed Creator was dropped between the writing of the Declaration and the Constitution?
What does this have to do with the question for debate anyway?

[Cathar1950]

There's probably thousands of interpretations of the United States Constitution also, which is much more recent and documented by Federalist Papers, etc. So, maybe it's not the document, but the people themselves.

Was the constitution supposedly authored/inspired by a perfect supernatural being?

I think at least some of the developers would have said yes. It does say "we are endowed by our creators with certain unalienable rights" after all.

The US Constitution does not contain that phrase. It does not contain any equivalent phrase. There is no phrase in the Constitution that, barring massive drug usage, dementia, or some other state of mental or physical impairment, could be construed to mean that phrase.

I am attempting to drive home this point, because such a statement has been made previously on this forum, and I would rather not see it be repeated. My last attempt to illustrate this point by copying and pasting the entire US Constitution and inquiring where the phrase occurs was frowned upon by the forum's moderation staff, so I consider this the next best option.

I think you are right it is in the declaration of independence.
I think it was dropped because they wanted to have religion not be an issue while the declaration was for going to war and it is nice to have God on your side. Also people will die for freedom and religion but once your settle it is time to Govern.

[achilles12604]

There's probably thousands of interpretations of the United States Constitution also, which is much more recent and documented by Federalist Papers, etc. So, maybe it's not the document, but the people themselves.

Was the constitution supposedly authored/inspired by a perfect supernatural being?

I think at least some of the developers would have said yes. It does say "we are endowed by our creators with certain unalienable rights" after all.

The US Constitution does not contain that phrase. It does not contain any equivalent phrase. There is no phrase in the Constitution that, barring massive drug usage, dementia, or some other state of mental or physical impairment, could be construed to mean that phrase.

I am attempting to drive home this point, because such a statement has been made previously on this forum, and I would rather not see it be repeated. My last attempt to illustrate this point by copying and pasting the entire US Constitution and inquiring where the phrase occurs was frowned upon by the forum's moderation staff, so I consider this the next best option.

I think you are right it is in the declaration of independence.
I think it was dropped because they wanted to have religion not be an issue while the declaration was for going to war and it is nice to have God on your side. Also people will die for freedom and religion but once your settle it is time to Govern.

It was dropped? HUH? What declaration are you looking at? the one I have includes this reference to God. There are other references to God in important documents during the formation of the US as well but that is for another thread.

You really think that this phrase was dropped out of the declaration? Wow.

[Cathar1950]

What would God in any document have to do with biblical contradictions?
Even if all the founding fathers believed as you do which they didnt you would still have just their opinions. What is the point? We toss around God all the time it is on our money, what difference does it make? Do you think not having the 10 commandments in public buildings makes us more or less holy or worthy?
So some paper mentions a Creator does that mean it specifies the nature of that creator or makes the bible true? The Enlightenment among other things played an important part. Methodism helped, as it was a gathering and communication between people and communities.
Pubs were big and much of our work was done there and the drinks flowed. Even Pubs were places of equality among men. I wonder if it played a larger factor then the bible or religion.
It is not like people were being persecuted for their beliefs and the revolution was Gods plan to save the world. It was an experiment lead by a bunch enlightened rich land owners and merchants that paid less taxes then anyone else and wanted land free for the taking as the removed the native people Are you going to count the God fearing witch burners to as our holy righteous Christian beginnings? So what is your point?

[achilles12604]

What would God in any document have to do with biblical contradictions?
Even if all the founding fathers believed as you do which they didnt you would still have just their opinions. What is the point? We toss around God all the time it is on our money, what difference does it make? Do you think not having the 10 commandments in public buildings makes us more or less holy or worthy?
So some paper mentions a Creator does that mean it specifies the nature of that creator or makes the bible true? The Enlightenment among other things played an important part. Methodism helped, as it was a gathering and communication between people and communities.
Pubs were big and much of our work was done there and the drinks flowed. Even Pubs were places of equality among men. I wonder if it played a larger factor then the bible or religion.
It is not like people were being persecuted for their beliefs and the revolution was Gods plan to save the world. It was an experiment lead by a bunch enlightened rich land owners and merchants that paid less taxes then anyone else and wanted land free for the taking as the removed the native people Are you going to count the God fearing witch burners to as our holy righteous Christian beginnings? So what is your point?

Such fire from your fingers. Actually your side brought it up. But you are right, it has nothing to do with this thread. So lets move on again.

[Cathar1950]

What would God in any document have to do with biblical contradictions?
Even if all the founding fathers believed as you do which they didnt you would still have just their opinions. What is the point? We toss around God all the time it is on our money, what difference does it make? Do you think not having the 10 commandments in public buildings makes us more or less holy or worthy?
So some paper mentions a Creator does that mean it specifies the nature of that creator or makes the bible true? The Enlightenment among other things played an important part. Methodism helped, as it was a gathering and communication between people and communities.
Pubs were big and much of our work was done there and the drinks flowed. Even Pubs were places of equality among men. I wonder if it played a larger factor then the bible or religion.
It is not like people were being persecuted for their beliefs and the revolution was Gods plan to save the world. It was an experiment lead by a bunch enlightened rich land owners and merchants that paid less taxes then anyone else and wanted land free for the taking as the removed the native people Are you going to count the God fearing witch burners to as our holy righteous Christian beginnings? So what is your point?

Such fire from your fingers. Actually your side brought it up. But you are right, it has nothing to do with this thread. So lets move on again.

My side? What is my side? In what context was it mentioned and how are you using it? Which one of my side mentioned it and why? Did you address his or her point? What is your side?

[micatala]

I think at least some of the developers would have said yes. It does say "we are endowed by our creators with certain unalienable rights" after all.

The US Constitution does not contain that phrase. It does not contain any equivalent phrase. There is no phrase in the Constitution that, barring massive drug usage, dementia, or some other state of mental or physical impairment, could be construed to mean that phrase.

You are of course correct, as McCulloch has also pointed out. I stand corrected.

My point was not that the constitution (or the declaration of independence) are equivalent to scripture, or that the U.S. was established as or should be a theocracy in any way. I fully support the doctrine of separation of church and state (even though this phrase is not in the constitution either).

My point was that the framers were religious men and were motivated, 'inspired' one might say, by their faith and their work was in part informed by this faith. Of course there were many other 'enlightenment' influences as well.

You still have yet to provide anything other than 'it must be so' statements to support the idea that anything inspired by a perfect God must be perfect.

What else would you like me to provide?

A perfect being cannot create anything which is imperfect. By definition.

I would remind you that I am not arguing that the Bible was 'directly created' by God. It seems to me if you would acknowledge this, then your argument does not hold up. At least to this point you have not provided any logical reason why it is impossible for a perfect God to 'inspire' a non-perfect work unless you assume that God himself wrote the entire work or miraculoulsy changed the nature of the human authors so they were at least temporarily perfect.


Again, I do not view the Bible as 'created directly by' God. As I have said, the Bible is authored by men. The Bible is the response of some men to their (perceived, if you wish to characterize it that way ) interactions with God. The fact that God is perfect does not make men perfect, nor does it logically imply in any way that any interaction men experience or any record they leave as a result of this experience must be perfect.

I had thought I had illustrated this amply with numerous examples. I am not sure why this seems to be so hard to accept or understand.

If I give a 'perfect' mathematical lecture on the mean value theorem in calculus, this does not mean my students are going to perfectly understand or be able to perfectly reproduce it. God himself could not guarantee this if he were giving the same lecture, unless he wanted to miraculously intervene and instantaneously make all the students perfect apprehenders of all things mathematical. God may be perfect, but we are demonstrably not.


The sun creates heat and light energy under the operation of laws governing thermodynamics, nuclear physics, etc. These laws (as far as we know) operate 'perfectly', always the same laws operating always the same way, with no 'mistakes' or 'errors'. We are pretty good at accurately measuring the results of the operations of these laws, and we have a reasonably good picture of how the sun works, but alas, we are not perfect so neither are our measurements nor our understanding.

Again, you can ask why he would not simply 'make us perfect' so we could all understand the MVT or the laws of physics or God perfectly, but failing to find an answer to this why question does not negate the above argument.


I repeat most emphatically. There is absolutely no logical basis for concluding that the Bible must be perfect under the assumption that God is perfect, except perhaps if one adds the additional assumption that God directly authored the Bible.


As I have said before, I do not make this additional assumption, nor do many other Christians, although some do.



If we want to further parse the issue and get into various definitions of perfect, we can do that, in order to address whether a 'perfect' being can directly produce something that is 'not perfect.' At this point, I will merely note that in many places in the Bible, the word that has been translated into English as 'perfect', might better be translated as 'complete' or 'fully mature', not necessarily 'without error.'

I will also note that the Bible allows the possibility that 'direct creative acts' by God do not necessarily have to produce 'perfection.' When God is described as performing various creative acts in Genesis, it does not say 'and God marvelled at the perfection He created', it says ' and God saw that it was good.'

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I would remind you that I am not arguing that the Bible was 'directly created' by God. It seems to me if you would acknowledge this, then your argument does not hold up.

I know this. It is not even a viable argument, given the contradictions that have been cited.


Your analogies involving the mathmatical lecture and thermodynamics leave out one major factor. As you said, let's say the professor presented a flawless lecture, and a student, in an attempt to reproduce the lesson for one of his buddies who missed the class, got a few of the concepts wrong. Would the professor, having known about the errors in the student's lesson, endorse it as being congruous with his own teachings as God does with the Bible?

An analogy I used previously; Let's say you are an environmentalist making a policy reccommendation to the president. You call up a president's aide and relay your recommendation to him, but the aide copys the recommendation down wrong, or even inserts a bit of his own opinion in it before presenting it to the president. Would you still endorse the recommendation, knowing that it is not in it's original form?

Of course not. Why would God?

2Ki 8:26 Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to rule
2Ch 22:2 Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to rule

We know that this particular tidbit (amoung others) would most certainly NOT be endorsed by God. So if the entire Bible is not representative of his divine will, which parts are? There is absolutely no way of knowing.

So sure, the writers of the Bible could have taken their inspiration from this percieved "God". In the same way, one could probably use Ghandi, in some convulted way, as an inspiration for conducting a mass genocide. This does not mean that either God nor Ghandi would support or encourage these things.

Whether inspired by him or not, the Bible is most certainly NOT the word of God.

[Cathar1950]

As I understand the bible usually when the speak of perfection they are meaning complete or mature or even whole.
I think Greek concepts of perfection got into the works where it is thought of as in with out flaw. Any one with the slightest historical knowledge of the bible understands that it was written by people.
Even Paul claimed the angels gave the law to man. It seems to be something he picked up from one of the apocryphal books. No one ever said Paul was perfect but they sometimes act like he was.
From what I have read of micatala's writings I am sure he is not into the inerrant doctrine.
For the believer I don't think it is Necessary and it sometimes seems to work against those that hold such views.
I personally don't think the bible is the word of God and when the bible does speak of the word of God it seems to be talking about his commands or reasoning. The sacred writings seem to have had a life of their own and where constantly being adapted much the way language changes. I sometimes wonder how well a cannon serves the needs of believers or does it enslave them? Of course you could argue that if they didnt have a cannon people could write anything and say anything. But the problem is they do anyway as they interpret. Like Hartshorne says if we had a perfect book we wouldnt recognize it anyway because we are humans.