What is your tablet for discrediting the Bible?

[sawthelight]

The Bible should stand alone as truthful without any error to be deemed as the true word of God. However, what happens when just one error in the Bible is found? Does it take just one error or is more of them required to discredit the Bible? How about having 8 solid errors to rock your faith?

One error may seem inconsequential but it still would deem God in error and the Bible as fallible and finite. But to add insult to injury when 8 blatant errors show up, it is safe to discard the Bible as nothing more than the sole concocting of human beings.

What is your tablet of Biblical errors that you find contradictory and have caused you to dismiss the Bible as a fallacy? What debates did you have that included these tablets of errors you had with Christian theists that left you disenchanted or in utter disappointment?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is my list of debates with theists that came to an unsatisfactory conclusion:

1) The marriage parable [Matthew 22:30 VS. Revelation 21:9, Ephesians 5:25-27].
Jesus says no marriage will occur in heaven yet the Lamb (a.k.a Jesus) is standing with his bride in heaven after the Day of Judgement. No marriage is supposed to occur in heaven.

2) The mustard seed parable [Matthew 13:31-32].
Jesus claims as a fact that the Mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in the Bible. Yet we know the Orchid seed is smaller than the Mustard seed. Jesus failed to be correct.

3) Faith VS. Deeds [Romans 2:6-10, Galatians 2:15-16 VS. James 2:14-24].
The Bible contradicts when Paul says ONLY FAITH allows a believer into heaven when James says that faith AND WORKS together earns salvation. Both contradict.

4) The Law is to be upheld. The Law is abolished [Matthew 5:17 VS. Ephesian 2:15].
Jesus came NOT TO abolish the Law but to uphold it. Paul says that the Law HAS BEEN ABOLISHED. Two opposing doctrines.

5) The Trinity is polytheism rather than monotheism [1 John 5:7-8 VS. John 14:28].
Somehow the Trinity is supposed to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all equal as one. Yet Jesus says "the Father is greater than I". Indication of unequal standings.

6) God is against God [Luke 4:5-7 & Revelations 11:16-18].
God gives away all authority on earth to Satan his enemy. He is also the suspect who killed his angels for destroying earth. A house divided against itself will not stand.

7) Children punished for sin of parents VS. The children no longer punished for parent's sin [Deuteronomy 5:9 VS. Ezekiel 18:1-30].
Shows that God has a changing nature.

8) God has a supposed unchanging nature [Hebrews 6:17].
Point # 7 indicates a change of nature. Being a distant and indifferent God in the OT to becoming a more approachable and accessible God in NT is a change of nature.


-----------------------------------------

These 8 points I bring up show blatant forgeries, contradictions, and errors that indicate that the God of Israel is nothing but an indecisive, inconsistent, charlatan who professes the supposed truth to the right way.

The word "right" however is synonymous with the words honest, legitimate, proper, and appropriate (Thesaurus.com).

The 8 points I listed above show me that the God of Israel is anything but "right." He is sporadic with his decrees which cost the lives of people for mistakes that God has made. God is not taking responsibility for the action he takes. The blame is shifted unto his creation who have no clue when things go awry.

This sounds a lot like big business being bailed out in US when they commit fraud on an international scale which results in tax payers paying for the mistakes of big business. How is that right at all? This example illustrates the God of Israel.

This allows me to leave Christianity with confidence and be certain of the choice I made as right. Writing out a list like this helps me compile my thoughts better to know why I left rather than have it all jumbled in my head. This is my tablet if you will.

What are your reasons for being disenchanted with Christianity? Can you make a list?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 7 by Justin108]

Do you know what "speaking in relative/absolute terms" means? If so how would you explain it? Do you think everyone speaks in absolute terms all the time?

"tinier than other seeds" - this is speaking in relative terms
"the tiniest of all the seeds" - this is speaking in absolute terms

No, they are comparative and superlative adjectives; I didn't ask for examples of parts of speech, my question was what does speaking in relative /absolute terms MEAN? Do you know? If so, are you able to explain ?

relative
ˈrɛlətɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
considered in relation or in proportion to something else.


absolute
ˈabsəlu�t/Submit
adjective
1.
viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.



If Jesus spoke in relative terms, then he spoke relatively to all other seeds. In which case, Jesus is still wrong when he said the mustard seed is tinier than "all other seeds".

Instead of asking me leading questions, explain to me in your terms how Jesus' blatantly false claim is somehow not a false claim?

[JehovahsWitness]

So what do you think the expression "Jesus didn't always speak in absolute terms" means?

If a person (not you, I make no assumptions about your knowledge) ... but if someone doesn't know what speaking in absolute or relative terms means, how can that individual (not you, someone else) argue against it? It's rather like saying, "I don't know what an elephant is but I know THAT isn't one!"


This is why I am asking you -

if (for the sake of argument) Jesus was speaking in relative terms, what would he mean?

and

If (for the sake of argument) Jesus was speaking in absolute terms, what would he mean?

[sawthelight]

So what do you think the expression "Jesus didn't always speak in absolute terms" means?

If you don't know what speaking in absolute or relative terms means or how one can determine which is which how can you argue against it?

This is absolutely meaning the smallest of all seeds when translated into Greek.

The "smallest" (a.k.a mikros):

from the least to the greatest

of "all" seeds (a.k.a pas):

all, the whole, every kind of.

[Source: http://biblehub.com/greek/3956.htm and http://biblehub.com/greek/3398.htm ]

[sawthelight]

Why is it all or nothing? Why do some errors (absurdities, contradictions or atrocities) contained within the Bible make it a "fallacy" as a whole, as the OP seems to be suggesting?

Seems to me a single (or more) error only discredits the edifice of infallibility, not the value of of the Bible completely.

For this rational Theist, only God is perfect. To consider the Bible to be perfect is a form of idolatry, it seems to me.

The Bible is not perfect thus God is not perfect. God is then fallible as man. No need to worship a fallible God any longer. Waste of time.

[Justin108]

So what do you think the expression "Jesus didn't always speak in absolute terms" means?

I never said he "always" speaks in absolutes. But he certainly did in this instance. The language cues are clear; "tiniest of all the seeds".

You see that little "all" there? It means Jesus spoke in absolutes in Matthew 13:31-32 .

If a person (not you, I make no assumptions about your knowledge) ... but if someone doesn't know what speaking in absolute or relative terms means, how can that individual (not you, someone else) argue against it? It's rather like saying, "I don't know what an elephant is but I know THAT isn't one!"

Enlighten me. What does it mean to speak in absolutes and how was Jesus not speaking in absolutes in Matthew 13:31-32?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by Justin108]

Why would you need "enlightenment" on the point? You have already committed yourself to saying he wasn't always speaking in absolute terms, so naturally I presume you know what him speaking in absolute terms would look like.

you said ...

If Jesus spoke in relative terms, then he spoke relatively to all other seeds.

okay, and if he was speaking in absolute terms (about seeds) then he would be speaking about what....?

[sawthelight]

Okay, and if he was speaking in absolute terms (about seeds) then he would be speaking about what....?

Seeds.

Just plain seeds in that instance. That the mustard seed can be compared to all other seeds.

[marco]

One error may seem inconsequential but it still would deem God in error and the Bible as fallible and finite.

If the Bible is God's word, as the Koran is, then a single error is of vast importance. If it's written by nice people giving good views we can dip in and take the bits we like. That doesn't make the book terribly useful, though.

If an egg is bad it is no good pronouncing that bits of it are good. The general judgment is "bad egg." If we find contradictions in the Bible, then the nice parts are still nice, but they rank with Shakespeare's Othello or Hamlet not as God's meditations.

[sawthelight]

One error may seem inconsequential but it still would deem God in error and the Bible as fallible and finite.

If the Bible is God's word, as the Koran is, then a single error is of vast importance. If it's written by nice people giving good views we can dip in and take the bits we like. That doesn't make the book terribly useful, though.

If an egg is bad it is no good pronouncing that bits of it are good. The general judgment is "bad egg." If we find contradictions in the Bible, then the nice parts are still nice, but they rank with Shakespeare's Othello or Hamlet not as God's meditations.

Unless theists actually enjoy the idea of God having some errors in his word. They still like God; they see errors in his book; they don't really care about the errors evident but still enjoy serving God.

You might as well serve another human being as you would serve God if that is the case. That would make much more sense. At least theists could tangibly see their fallible god instead of just talking to themselves all the time. That way no one will call them weird.

[Elijah John]

Why is it all or nothing? Why do some errors (absurdities, contradictions or atrocities) contained within the Bible make it a "fallacy" as a whole, as the OP seems to be suggesting?

Seems to me a single (or more) error only discredits the edifice of infallibility, not the value of of the Bible completely.

For this rational Theist, only God is perfect. To consider the Bible to be perfect is a form of idolatry, it seems to me.

The Bible is not perfect thus God is not perfect. God is then fallible as man. No need to worship a fallible God any longer. Waste of time.

How does that follow that if the Bible is not perfect, then God is not perfect? Non-sequiter.

Or conversely, why must a perfect God produce a perfect Bible?