The most significant contradiction or inconcistency?

[shnarkle]

There are no shortage of online sites providing numerous examples of contradictions and inconsistencies from the biblical texts. While some of these are quite simply the result of poor reading comprehension skills or an unfamiliarity with the texts, others seem legitimate. Many of those that are legitimate are inconsequential, but some could be quite controversial and may have significant ramifications.

Of all the contradictions found in scripture, which ones could prove to be most disturbing, or have the most serious ramifications for "believers"?


One that I think fits this bill is Paul's view on eating food sacrificed to false gods. He doesn't seem to have a problem with it if it doesn't have a negative effect over a fellow believer's faith. While I can see his point, and also agree that none of those pagan deities are real, I do wonder how he is able to disregard the law which he upholds; a law that forbids eating anything that is sacrificed to idols.

The reason this could be looked at as disturbing is because it indicates to me that Paul has attributed capriciousness to Paul's God.

[benchwarmer]

It loves the world. It kills innocent babies during the flood and other city/region takeovers.

It loves the world. It drowns wildlife for zero reason.

It has the ability to target and kill a single person for sinning - Uzzah.
It needs to drown the entire planet to attempt to solve sinning.

It can turn hearts to stone - Pharoh
It can't turn hearts to be sinless

And of course, the targeted killing of the first born of Egypt in the Exodus story. So God could have used less of a blunt instrumentt, and more of a surgeon's scalpal in order to excise evil from the world, and thus save countless individuals and animals from undue suffering.

Sometimes the Bible does YHVH a disservice in it's portrayal of Him. I realize we proably differ on this, but I attribute this kind of savagery to the human element, (that of the scibes and writers), primitive as they were. But I also detect a progression from bararism to more enlightened teachings, such as those found in the Prophets, and ultimately in Jesus.

But you do highlight a major significant contradiction in the Bible. But all these contradictions do not suggest to me that there is "no God" nor does it tell me that there is no Divinine reality to the God of the Bible. As a Thesist, the contradictions tell me that we need to use our gift of God-given Reason in order to discern the human element, from the Divine.

I totally agree EJ. I would not use these contradictions as proof there is no god, just no god AS WRITTEN. i.e. there very well might be a god, but surely it's not as inept and clueless as the one sometimes portrayed in the Bible canon. As you suggest, these are clearly the writings of men who are attempting to paint a god of their choosing. Since the stories don't line up, it's clearly not all the same god.

[benchwarmer]

It loves the world. It kills innocent babies during the flood

There is nothing in the text to even remotely suggest that those killed during the flood story were innocent. The burden of proof is on you to supply these alleged contradictions from the texts. Until then, I see no point in bothering with these unsubstantiated claims.

The only 'sin' babies hold, according to Christianity, is inherited sin from Adam. i.e they have not themselves become aware of any law or God, thus are unable to sin yet themselves.

Even Jesus upholds this:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 18:3 New International Version (NIV)
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So, what we have is a god character that seems fine destroying life that itself has done no wrong. I call that innocent. You claim, with your Christian glasses on, they carry the sin of Adam, so are fine to be destroyed. It's sad that us unbelievers appear to have more compassion that some Christians and this god character from the OT.

In the NT, a more elegant solution is crafted where simple belief and acceptance of a savior is all that's required.

The fact you can't see or won't admit the contradiction and vastly different natures is telling of an apologist clinging to keep all the stories 'true'.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 49 by Elijah John]

And of course, the targeted killing of the first born of Egypt in the Exodus story. So God could have used less of a blunt instrumentt, and more of a surgeon's scalpal in order to excise evil from the world, and thus save countless individuals and animals from undue suffering.

I agree, but only insofar as the unstated assumption applies. In other words, God uses a surgeon's skill when necessary and a flood when that is appropriate; rather than as a hammer that sees only nails. We tend to think we're so superior to ancient civilizations when the reality is that we've only advanced from the hammer to the pneumatic nail gun.

More often than not it's the other way around. It takes me three seconds to grab a book off the shelf and start reading, whereas to find a book on my computer takes minutes and occasionally hours while I wait for the computer to do a scan or update. Forty years ago a checker at the supermarket could ring up a cart full of groceries while a "bag boy" bagged them and loaded them back into the cart, and have the receipt in my hand so fast I rarely had to stop walking. Today I hear, "Sorry the computers are down", or I hear of a fuse blowing and leaving half the country in the dark. That's progress?

I'm admittedly technologically inept, but I can't remember the last time I had to wait in traffic, or stand in line at the grocery checkout. For some reason people think that if you grow your own vegetables or have chickens running around the shed, you're some kind of primitive country bumpkin. I doubt half the population would recognize a vegetable growing in the ground or know how to pick it and prepare it if it wasn't already packaged and came with instructions.

My point is that the rest of our civilized world seems to look at my plight in life as dismal pointless unnecessary suffering when it is no plight at all; one man's trash is another man's treasure. Who are we to assume it is undue suffering, and why exactly do we assume that it is God to be blamed? I might as well blame God for computer Trojan zbots and rush hour traffic.

[Willum]

Well, we are being punished for eating the apple right? and we have all the benefits and curses from that act, correct? and so got the knowledge of good and evil.

shnarkle said
Who are we to assume it is undue suffering, and why exactly do we assume that it is God to be blamed? .

So, you ask, who are we to judge?
We have the right to judge based on the curse upon mankind.
No wonder Matthew is so vehement against judging, we have the power granted to us by eating the apple to look upon God's works and see evil and be offended.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 51 by benchwarmer]

It loves the world. It kills innocent babies during the flood and other city/region takeovers.

This assumes the babies are innocent; the text indicates that they aren't. Therefore you are introducing a contradiction that doesn't exist in the text.

It loves the world. It drowns wildlife for zero reason.

This assumes that drowning wildlife is unloving in any and all cases, and that no reasons were provided. Reasons were provided that you don't agree with. Disagreement isn't contradiction

It has the ability to target and kill a single person for sinning - Uzzah.
It needs to drown the entire planet to attempt to solve sinning.

We needn't inject a "one size fits" all solution into the text. You're also adding words which simply aren't in the text. The texts say nothing about "ability" and "needs", or "to solve sinning".

It can turn hearts to stone - Pharoh
It can't turn hearts to be sinless

The assumption here is that God is unable when the texts don't indicate an inability, but a purpose instead. Using not only your example, but Paul's amplification of it, we read:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.�[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?� 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’�[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

A lot to unpack there, but there is clearly no indication of God's inability to carry out his will.

More importantly, there are no internal contradictions or inconsistencies.

[shnarkle]

Well, we are being punished for eating the apple right?

No. There is no apple in the text.

and we have all the benefits and curses from that act, correct? and so got the knowledge of good and evil.

Not sure what your point is here. Some context would be helpful.

shnarkle said
Who are we to assume it is undue suffering, and why exactly do we assume that it is God to be blamed? .

So, you ask, who are we to judge?
We have the right to judge based on the curse upon mankind.

You might be missing the point here. The burden of proof is upon you for your assertions. You are assuming undue suffering without providing anything from the text to show how this is a contradiction.

No wonder Matthew is so vehement against judging, we have the power granted to us by eating the apple to look upon God's works and see evil and be offended.

Still not seeing what you're talking about. There does seem to be some logic to what you're talking about, but without the contradictory contexts you're referring to, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[shnarkle]

It loves the world. It kills innocent babies during the flood

There is nothing in the text to even remotely suggest that those killed during the flood story were innocent. The burden of proof is on you to supply these alleged contradictions from the texts. Until then, I see no point in bothering with these unsubstantiated claims.

The only 'sin' babies hold, according to Christianity, is inherited sin from Adam. i.e they have not themselves become aware of any law or God, thus are unable to sin yet themselves.

All I can do here is suggest you reread the OP which is asking you to provide any significant contradictions or inconsistencies within the texts themselves which might hold serious ramifications for believers. To then provide doctrinal tenets from a religion instead of the biblical texts is to literally miss the point of this OP completely.

3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

The text provided says nothing about innocence. Children possess all sorts of attributes including, but not limited to; ignorance, playful, subservience (especially within that culture), lack of rights, etc. To arbitrarily pick one which isn't articulated doesn't supply us with a contradiction.

So, what we have is a god character that seems fine destroying life that itself has done no wrong. I call that innocent. You claim, with your Christian glasses on, they carry the sin of Adam, so are fine to be destroyed. It's sad that us unbelievers appear to have more compassion that some Christians and this god character from the OT.

I've made no claims to children carrying the sins of Adam and I don't wear glasses, nor am I a Christian, but of course this is all besides the point isn't it? Again, all I can do is to suggest that you check out the OP to see what it's actually about. It really has nothing to do with religion of any kind or any of their real or imagined tenets.

In the NT, a more elegant solution is crafted where simple belief and acceptance of a savior is all that's required.

The fact you can't see or won't admit the contradiction and vastly different natures is telling of an apologist clinging to keep all the stories 'true'.

It would be interesting to see if these assertions hold any water (pun intended), but until you take the time to read the OP and provide the texts you have only hinted at, we'll never know.

[jgh7]

The closest to inconsistency that I still don't quite understand is the law of the OT both as it is followed in the OT and as it is followed in the NT.

----------

In the OT, it seems to start out as absolute. In the following verses, a man is stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath:

Numbers 15:32-36
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.
35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.� 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

----------

Moving further into the OT, there seems to be a shift which emphasizes more leniency in the form of mercy, as is shown in this often quoted verse:

Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

----------

Moving on to the NT, we can see Jesus putting heavy leniency on the law, since his disciples were eating on the Sabbath and since he justified performing well-intentioned (for lack of a better word) works on the Sabbath. An example is this quote:

Luke 14:5
Then he asked them, "If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?"

----------

Finally, everything gets really confusing when Jesus says this:

Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

----------

So basically Jesus seems to be stressing the Law here. I am still confused about this teaching and observance of the Law in general, but overall the point of the NT seems to be love others as yourself and to basically ignore laws that are extreme such as stoning a woman for adultery and such.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 56 by shnarkle]

OK, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I hope that puts things in context, if not I will explain more carefully.

[shnarkle]

The closest to inconsistency that I still don't quite understand is the law of the OT both as it is followed in the OT and as it is followed in the NT.

This is a great point. There are a number of issues with this not the least of which is the fundamental distinctions between the law itself and the law that deals with the violation of the law, and intentional verses unintentional sin as well as the prescriptions for each type of violation. So just from this sketch we can see four immediate categories emerge. Conflating any one of these with another one will lead to immediate confusion. This is what I believe is the crux of the problem.

----------

In the OT, it seems to start out as absolute. In the following verses, a man is stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath:

Numbers 15:32-36
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.
35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.� 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

This is dealing with a an intentional violation of the law, and it's prescription.

----------

Moving further into the OT, there seems to be a shift which emphasizes more leniency in the form of mercy, as is shown in this often quoted verse:

Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

This seems to be dealing almost exclusively with the sacrificial system, except with regards to acting merciful to others

----------

Moving on to the NT, we can see Jesus putting heavy leniency on the law, since his disciples were eating on the Sabbath...

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. The only thing that springs to mind is when the disciples are walking through the fields picking grains. Jewish scholars have pointed out that the accusations levied at them by the legalists are unfounded as there is no prohibition against eating on the Sabbath; just working on the Sabbath. The text doesn't indicate that they are working to eat, but simply walking along and while they are walking they are eating the grain along the side of their path.

and since he justified performing well-intentioned (for lack of a better word) works on the Sabbath. An example is this quote:

Luke 14:5
Then he asked them, "If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?"

This is a direct reference to the OT

4If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. 5If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him....

12Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed. Exodus 23:4,5,12

Notice that it doesn't state helping one's neighbor, but one's enemy which is exactly what Jesus teaches. Presumably if one is instructed to let one's ox and ass rest, retrieving it from a well would be necessary.

----------

Finally, everything gets really confusing when Jesus says this:

Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them...

Most people understand the meaning of "fulfill" to mean that he kept the law and by keeping the law one has life.

5Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them

The reference is to Leviticus 18:5 The other interpretation is that by fulfilling the law, his sacrifice symbolizes the perfect unblemished sacrifice that effectively removes the need for a sacrificial system. Neither are mutually exclusive. The law is still in effect, yet those who keep the law will never violate it and therefore the penalty phase becomes redundant.

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

A clear warning that the law is still in effect. The righteousness of the Pharisees was notorious, practically impossible to be more righteous than a Pharisee.

----------

So basically Jesus seems to be stressing the Law here. I am still confused about this teaching and observance of the Law in general, but overall the point of the NT seems to be love others as yourself and to basically ignore laws that are extreme such as stoning a woman for adultery and such.

Again, while stoning is sanctioned it isn't required. The other thing to notice is that when the law was given to Israel, they had just been set free from their bondage in Egypt. They were then living in close proximity to their God. His holiness was deadly, and it was virtually impossible to get anywhere near him unless you were as holy as he is. He wants them to draw near to him so they have to eradicate sin from their midst.

When Jesus is speaking they're in bondage again; different setting requires different outcomes.

The other thing about the woman "caught in adultery" is that the case brought before him requires a procedure be performed to establish her punishment. It isn't to spare her from a stoning because stoning wasn't the prescribed punishment.

Contrary to popular opinion, Jesus didn't deny the need for capital punishment. He clearly articulated

For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.