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.

[shnarkle]

Q: Does the biblical text say God is omnipotent(there is nothing he cannot do)? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is omniscient(knows all things)? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is benevolent and loving towards all? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is perfectly good/morally perfect? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is super wise and merciful? (Yes/No question)

Hmm, five questions, but still no contradictions from the texts yet.

The hybridized people weren't eradicated.

Q: What nonsense are you babbling about?

The bible clearly says everyone and everything that was not in the ark perished.

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
"Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark"[/i]

Fantastic! I'm impressed. At least someone around here knows how to post a passage from the bible. Now here's the really tricky part. Now post just ONE other passage that contradicts this one. The important thing to know here is that the ONE other passage needs to be from the bible as well. You see, the idea here is to post one passage that says one thing, and then post another passage that says something else that is contradictory to the first passage you posted. So we've already got one passage posted, all we need now is to post ONE more.

Presumably the other passage would have to say something that is the opposite of this passage. Here's an example:

I am NOT going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. ONLY A FEW THINGS on earth will perish."
"Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the SUBMARINE"[/i]

[alexxcJRO]

Hmm, five questions, but still no contradictions from the texts yet.

Please don't avoid things. Looks bad.
Please answer the questions:
Q: Does the biblical text say God is omnipotent(there is nothing he cannot do)? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is omniscient(knows all things)? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is benevolent and loving towards all? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is perfectly good/morally perfect? (Yes/No question)
Q: Does the biblical text say God is super wise and merciful? (Yes/No question)

Fantastic! I'm impressed. At least someone around here knows how to post a passage from the bible. Now here's the really tricky part. Now post just ONE other passage that contradicts this one. The important thing to know here is that the ONE other passage needs to be from the bible as well. You see, the idea here is to post one passage that says one thing, and then post another passage that says something else that is contradictory to the first passage you posted. So we've already got one passage posted, all we need now is to post ONE more.

Dear sir you said the hybrids weren't eradicated.

The bible says otherwise, that they were eradicated. Therefore my previous point still stands:

There are many other verses where God commands, promises the slaughtering of children, infants; after the hybridized people were eradicated.
There are many other verses where God inflicts countless suffering and death to countless children, infants; after the hybridized people were eradicated.
There are many other verses where Israelites inflict suffering and death to countless children, infants because of God's order and with God's help; after the hybridized people were eradicated.
They were not continually evil but innocent, yet they still suffered because of God.

[shnarkle]

Hmm, five questions, but still no contradictions from the texts yet.

Please don't avoid things. Looks bad.

It doesn't look bad; it looks completely ridiculous.

Please answer the questions:

Uh, there's only one question. Here it is in case you've forgotten it already:

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"?

and I already answered it. Here's my answer just in case you missed it.

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.

Now I should point out here that I didn't actually post any scripture to support this contradiction because most people are aware of it already. However, I would have posted it had anyone genuinely wanted to protest the veracity of my claims. We're not that far along with your posts as you haven't presented a text which contradicts the one's you've posted so far. So there's nothing to really discuss in the first place. We still need that ONE text that contradicts what you've posted so far.

Dear sir you said the hybrids weren't eradicated.

Yep, I sure did. That's the claim I made and it was completely unsubstantiated, just like everything you've posted so far. See how that works? You've done nothing but ignore the OP completely, and instead chose to go on one irrelevant rant after another. So in the spirit of equality, and in an effort to oblige those who are looking for others to treat them the way they treat others, I will also simply ignore your irrelevant posts as well.

The bible says otherwise, that they were eradicated. Therefore my previous point still stands:

Yeah, we got that you're under the impression that you made a point, but the OP is about finding a contradictory point to show that there is a contradiction within the texts, not a contradiction between what the text says and what I say. We can do this all day long and never find one single contradiction of any significance. Which only goes to show that those who claim that the bible is chock full of significant contradictions are really just exercising their own confirmation bias in projecting thier beliefs onto others. Those beliefs won't stick here as this OP is about only those contradictions that exist in the bible.

There are many other verses where God commands, promises the slaughtering of children, infants; after the hybridized people were eradicated.
There are many other verses where God inflicts countless suffering and death to countless children, infants; after the hybridized people were eradicated.
There are many other verses where Israelites inflict suffering and death to countless children, infants because of God's order and with God's help; after the hybridized people were eradicated.
They were not continually evil but innocent, yet they still suffered because of God.

Okay, so let's recap. God kills people for all sorts of reasons, and in the process we learn that some of these people are innocent; at least that's the claim. Until these claims are documented with proof, they're remain unsubstantiated claims. But just for the sake of argument, so what? This isn't a contradiction within the texts. All youl've posted are claims that God kills people. Is there some rule or definition that states that the gods can't kill people? The gods won't kill people? Are there passages that state that God killed people and then contradictory passages that state that he didn't kill them after all? That would be a great example of a contradiction if it could be substantiated.

Something tells me we're probably not going to find out any time soon, at least not on this subject...

[alexxcJRO]

Hmm, five questions, but still no contradictions from the texts yet.

Please don't avoid things. Looks bad.

It doesn't look bad; it looks completely ridiculous.

Please answer the questions:

Uh, there's only one question. Here it is in case you've forgotten it already:

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"?

and I already answered it. Here's my answer just in case you missed it.

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.

Now I should point out here that I didn't actually post any scripture to support this contradiction because most people are aware of it already. However, I would have posted it had anyone genuinely wanted to protest the veracity of my claims. We're not that far along with your posts as you haven't presented a text which contradicts the one's you've posted so far. So there's nothing to really discuss in the first place. We still need that ONE text that contradicts what you've posted so far.

Dear sir you said the hybrids weren't eradicated.

Yep, I sure did. That's the claim I made and it was completely unsubstantiated, just like everything you've posted so far. See how that works? You've done nothing but ignore the OP completely, and instead chose to go on one irrelevant rant after another. So in the spirit of equality, and in an effort to oblige those who are looking for others to treat them the way they treat others, I will also simply ignore your irrelevant posts as well.

The bible says otherwise, that they were eradicated. Therefore my previous point still stands:

Yeah, we got that you're under the impression that you made a point, but the OP is about finding a contradictory point to show that there is a contradiction within the texts, not a contradiction between what the text says and what I say. We can do this all day long and never find one single contradiction of any significance. Which only goes to show that those who claim that the bible is chock full of significant contradictions are really just exercising their own confirmation bias in projecting thier beliefs onto others. Those beliefs won't stick here as this OP is about only those contradictions that exist in the bible.

There are many other verses where God commands, promises the slaughtering of children, infants; after the hybridized people were eradicated.
There are many other verses where God inflicts countless suffering and death to countless children, infants; after the hybridized people were eradicated.
There are many other verses where Israelites inflict suffering and death to countless children, infants because of God's order and with God's help; after the hybridized people were eradicated.
They were not continually evil but innocent, yet they still suffered because of God.

Okay, so let's recap. God kills people for all sorts of reasons, and in the process we learn that some of these people are innocent; at least that's the claim. Until these claims are documented with proof, they're remain unsubstantiated claims. But just for the sake of argument, so what? This isn't a contradiction within the texts. All youl've posted are claims that God kills people. Is there some rule or definition that states that the gods can't kill people? The gods won't kill people? Are there passages that state that God killed people and then contradictory passages that state that he didn't kill them after all? That would be a great example of a contradiction if it could be substantiated.

Something tells me we're probably not going to find out any time soon, at least not on this subject...

Dear sir,

We have on one hand biblical text that points to:

1. God is an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good/morally perfect(benevolent and loving towards all, does not do evil), super wise, just and merciful being.

and on the other hand we have biblical text that points to:

2. God is a malevolent, capricious, unwise, unjust, unloving, genocidal, infanticidal bully
(
-orders some humans to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals); to not show mercy and compassion to non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);

-promises to to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);

-inflicts countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals). He burns alive, drowns countless of them. He kills countless of them by plagues, sword either directly or by proxy. He has no mercy for non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals), he punishes them together with the moral agents;
).

1 is suported by A and 2 is suported by B.

A.
Omnipotence:
"And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.""
" For nothing will be impossible with God."
"Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?"

Omniscient:
"Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
"in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things."
" Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.'
"For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done"

God is benevolent and loving towards all. His love is everlasting.
"9 The Lord is good to all
he has compassion on all he has made.;"
" For God so loved the world", that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
"Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.""
"Give thanks to the God of heaven, for his steadfast love endures forever.""

God is perfectly good/morally perfect
"To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.""
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.."
" His work is perfect, For all His ways are just;."
"As for God, His way is blameless;"""
" For God cannot be tempted by evil"", nor does he tempt anyone;"

God is super wise and just:
"Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.;"
"13 “ With Him are wisdom and might; To Him belong counsel and understanding"�
"20 Daniel answered and said, “Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him"�"
" His work is perfect, For all His ways are just;"

God is super merciful:
"14 David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great."
"4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy."


B.
"15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel" from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. "

"“ Thus says the Lord", ‘About amidnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt,
5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstones; all the firstborn of the cattle as well. "

“See, I will stir up against them the Medes ,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children. �

“ I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD.�

"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say : ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ “

"Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
22 “I will rise up against them,� declares the Lord Almighty.
“ I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors, her offspring and descendants, " declares the Lord."

" The LORD says , “All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children. � "

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men , “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.� So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!� the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!� So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.�

" I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle , so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted."

" My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out."

" They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything.�

"And the men of Israel turned back against the people of Benjamin and struck them with the edge of the sword, the city, men and beasts and all that they found. And all the towns that they found they set on fire."

"You shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle , with the edge of the sword."

"So Joshua struck the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings. He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

"And the Lord gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel. And he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it. "

"And the others came out from the city against them, so they were in the midst of Israel, some on this side, and some on that side. And Israel struck them down, until there was left none that survived or escaped. But the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him near to Joshua. When Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai and struck it down with the edge of the sword. And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000, all the people of Ai"




C: So we have a major contradiction in the bible because the texts points to God being both an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good/morally perfect(benevolent and loving towards all, does not do evil), super wise and merciful being and a malevolent, capricious, unwise, unloving, genocidal, infanticidal bully.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 74 by alexxcJRO]

We have a winner!!!

I honestly didn't think anyone in this forum would ever come up with anything of this magnitude. This is exactly what I was looking for. Bravo!

I'm so smazed that anyone was able to post a reply that could not only supply the texts along with the texts which contradict them that I can't even begin to scrutinize it for any possible errors. This isn't to say that I didn't read it. I read it with pleasant surprise.

Again, Bravo, and thanks for addressing the question presented.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 75 by shnarkle]

Yes but there is no commentary as to how A contradicts B. They are just presented and we are expected to accept the axiom. In other words in order to build a valid argument one must present

A MUST mean xxx.
B MUST mean yyy.
Since X and Y be CANNOT be reconciled we have a contradiction.

• However, any attempt to present the above as fact will inevitably fall at the first hurdle: "A means xxx" according to your interpretation which is one of many which are possible.

It is impossible to prove there is no other possible way of interpreting a given scripture thus there is usually no way to present a true (rather than a presumed) contradiction. Even a statment such as "Snow is black" can be taken in a non-literal sense. Who's to say that the "snow" here refers to the Devil's snow which is indeed presented as "black"?

In short there are usually too many variables in scripture to offer anything but opinion.

JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 75 by shnarkle]

So your gripe is that you expect debates here to be so unfamiliar with the Bible as to cite it to the knat's toosh?
That is a rather extreme attitude to have. You ignore the rest of us, because we have sufficient understanding of the Bible to refer to it, with understanding?
If you are going to place such constraints, they should be in your ground rules and assumptions.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 77 by Willum]

You ignore the rest of us, because we have sufficient understanding of the Bible to refer to it, with understanding?

Not at all. The problem is that while you may have sufficient understanding of the texts, this does not necessarily mean that I do as well. I'm not a mind reader, so unless you want to provide the texts as well as the texts that contradict those texts, you're wasting your time here because I don't know what you're talking about unless you provide the texts themselves.

Moreover, given that some of these texts are a bit obscure sometimes, occasionally it helps to mention exactly what the contradiction is that you are presenting.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 78 by shnarkle]

I am afraid we do understand the texts.
I am afraid that you are no judge of our understanding.
I am afraid referencing well-known scripture, or citing verses should be sufficient, to those who actually do know scripture.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 74 by alexxcJRO]

Before I reply to your awesome response to my question put for debate, I would like to address your claims that I am defending the God of the bible. Up until your most recent post you haven't comprehended the intent of this OP or the fact that I am not defending the God of the bible. This is about contradictory or inconsistencies within the texts of the bible by the biblical authors, and I am in no way defending these authors either. As I hope to point out in greater detail in my response, I not only am not defending the God of the bible, it is impossible to do so in the first place. Note also that when I use the terms "we":"us";"humanity"etc. I'm referring to them as the authors view them, not as referring to whoever is reading this post or involved in this discussion. In other words, I'm viewing the texts as a fictional narrative that invites the reader in, but doesn't require us to accept that invitation.

When dealing with contradictions, we need to first address the axiom of non-contradiction. Which means that we can't contradict this principle without apply or presupposing it. In other words, possibility means non-contradiction. Something is intrinsically possible when it is not self-contradictory. An example of a self-contradiction would be a square circle or the square root of 2 is a rational number. If it is not possible to contradict the principle without applying it, then it is not "non-contradictory" to contradict the principle. In other words, it is contradictory to contradict the principle. This is a tautology.

So the quesion becomes one of whether we can convert this axiom into a principle of knowledge. To say what cannot be said, means to say what cannot be meaningfully said. However, this is not to say that everything that is said is all that can be said. Not all can be said, and therefore not all is said especially when it comes to posting two passages that appear to contradict each other.

This can be extended to thinking in that something contradictory cannot be thought because thinking is non contradictory thinking, and contradictory thinking is not thinking. So the axiom of non-contradiction extends to that of "non-contra-thinking", but only insofar as thinking is logical. The fact is that not all is logically thought or even that not all is thought. Some things are ungraspable by the intellect. Examples abound in these debates.

1. God is an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good/morally perfect(benevolent and loving towards all, does not do evil), super wise, just and merciful being.

Let's unpack that because there's more than meets the eye. Omnipotent means all powerful, he can do anything. This is not to say that God would do anything. The biblical God has set aside a Day of Judgement, but he doesn't have to wait until Judgement Day to exercise all judgement; just (excuse the pun) ultimate judgement. So your claim is that God exercises his judgement upon the innocent. The problem with this claim is that the authors already thought of that, and when Paul is writing to Romans who undoubtedly have no familiarity with the Hebrew texts, he clarifies what they say:

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? Romans 3:5

When Paul says that he speaks as a man, he's pointing out that what we as human beings view as vengeance isn't at all because whatever we attibute to transcendence will never stick. He's pointing out that God is righteous. It's quite simply a given. When presenting a proof, what is given isn't what is being proved. So Paul's conclusion is that God will judge the world, but he doesn't stop there. It isn't just that God will judge the world, but that the whole world is guilty. Here's where your claim that these people were innocent falls apart.

for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: Romans 3:9,10

In the bible, there are Jews (or aka Israelites), and the rest of the world commonly referred to as Gentiles. For Paul that's everyone, and everyone is guilty before God. This is essentially a given as well except that there are reasons provided starting with Lucifer then Adam and Eve's disobedience and continuing on right down to the messiah who turns things around.


Omniscient means "all knowing", and therefore God cannot be known. This fact is so obvious most people never notice it. The characters within the biblical narratives are not omniscient and therefore can't know everything. In fact, what little they do know may be inaccurate, especially when dealing with an infinite, or transcendent God.

Good means that there is no evil in God, but that is only because evil exists. If there were no such thing as evil, this term "good" wouldn't mean anything. When good exists along with evil, there is a standard by which good and evil are determined. That standard can't be made by those who are evil or ignorant in any way. In the biblical narratives that leaves out everyone except God. These authors are quite shrewd, and effective at fixing the game.

Super wise is not a sufficient attribute for God because super is really just another word for "very", and isn't as much as one who is the most wise or one who possesses all wisdom or ultimate wisdom. Therefore God must be omnisagacious. This isn't sufficient either, just a step in the right direction.

and on the other hand we have biblical text that points to:
2. God is a malevolent, capricious, unwise, unjust, unloving, genocidal, infanticidal bully
(
-orders some humans to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals); to not show mercy and compassion to non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-promises to to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-inflicts countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals). He burns alive, drowns countless of them. He kills countless of them by plagues, sword either directly or by proxy. He has no mercy for non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals), he punishes them together with the moral agents;

Malevolent means to have evil intent, or to be evil minded. Capricious means that what God does is arbitrary. Unjust and unloving need no elaboration. I don't think you provided any examples of bullying. Jonah was conspicuously absent from your examples. Merely carrying out God's justice isn't bullying. Pestering someone repeatedly to do your bidding could be construed as bullying.

This is why I think the story of Jonah is the closest thing to Bullying in the biblical texts. However, the texts also indicate that God also chastens those he loves which might require some persuasion or bullying. One could argue that God is bullying Pharaoh, but it is Pharaoh who isn't complying with God. His ignorance is no excuse. This is a rule of law that was taken straight from the biblical texts, and placed within the US judicial system e.g. "Ignorance of the law is not a defense"

Omniscient:
"Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
"in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things."

This is within a greater context dealing with a fundamental distinction between those who are sinful and those who are innocent. This is probably one of the fundamental principles of your argument so we need to look at what the text is saying.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

The biblical texts point out who is "born of God". Examples include Adam and Eve; the sons of god, i.e. his angelic messengers, including Lucifer who later became Satan; and lastly those who are "born again". John isn't referring to any of those except those who are born again. He's addressing the church, not Adam, Satan, etc. The difference being that they were originlly born into sin THEN born again. The bible begins with everything being good, and then things get progressively worse, while the trip back begins with a new birth back to perfect sinlessness.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

So as those who are born of God are manifest, they manifest God's will. Everyone else is still under the condemnation of God. They don't have to do anything wrong or evil for this to be the case as evil only produces evil, and all of humanity is evil according to the biblical narratives. They {i.e.Adam and Eve) weren't created evil, but chose evil. This is where Paul's comments to the Ephesians are pertinent as well.

by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man boast.

In other words, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to get on God's good side. Contrary to popular opinion, repentance, claiming or confessing God as your lord and savior, getting baptized, etc. are worthless until AFTER God chooses them according to his will and time frame.

Now an argument could be made that God isn't being fair to Adam and Eve's descendents in that he's punishing them for something that they didn't do. On the surface this seems like a fair argument, but this isn't the case. Transgressing God's law is essentially and effectively a death sentence on all humanity. It's like the fallout from a nuclear reaction. There are pollutants that rearrange dna, and those changes remain in their descendants for the next few thousand years. With the violation of God's law, there are changes to the ontological condition of humanity which is so corrosive that the death it produces is passed on continually, and renders them guilty before God. This is just an explanation for those who don't think this is fair. Paul points out that it's simply a given that everyone is guilty, therefore God decides who lives or dies according to his omniscient wisdom.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

It should be noted here that Cain continued to have children who would have to be evil as well because they all have their origins in "that wicked one". Moreover, all descendents of Adam are evil as well through their disobedience. The authors of the bible have thier bases covered.

He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

This word abide is pertinent to your argument.

a·bide
[əˈbīd]
VERB
(abide by)
accept or act in accordance with (a rule, decision, or recommendation).
"I said I would abide by their decision"
synonyms: comply with · obey · observe · follow · keep to · hold to · [more]
informal
(can/could not abide)
be unable to tolerate (someone or something).
"if there is one thing I cannot abide it is a lack of discipline"
synonyms: tolerate · bear · stand · put up with · endure · suffer · [more]
(of a feeling or memory) continue without fading or being lost.
synonyms: continue · remain · survive · last · persist · stay · hold on · [more]
archaic
live; dwell.
synonyms: reside · live

Those who abide or live in death are already essentially dead. There is nothing wise, merciful or loving about them. They're effectively Zombies, and for all practical intents and purposes they're effectively dead already. A few of the more recent Zombie movies show the dilemma of having to kill a loved one who has become a zombie. They have to resist the affection they have for the one's they love in order to put them out of their misery. Love trumps the warm fuzzy feelings. The case of Amalek is dealt with in this line:

17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

Amalek doesn't have the love of God, and is going against God's will.
Which leads us to your quote:

19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

The question is, do those who have hearts that condemn them know that their hearts condemn them, and is this even relevant? It isn't necessary because it is God who knows all things, not us. The fact that we are ignorant of our own evil doesn't negate the fact that we are evil. This is supported by Jeremiah's words.

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

Only God, and those he chooses to reveal it to, can know the deceptions of the human heart.

You were blameless in your behavior from the day you were created until wickedness was discovered in you. Ezekiel 28:15

This is pointing out that God doesn't create wickedness. Wickedness appears along with free will, and one can't help but choose evil when one is ignorant.

Notice that he says the heart is deceitful above all things. What about Satan? Isn't Satan a thing? Doesn't Satan exist? How can the deceitfulness within the heart of humanity eclipse that of Lucifer? This appears to be a blatant contradiction, doesn't it? Only if Satan isn't a personification of the heart, or ego. If that could be proven, it would be a definite contradiction.

When the gospel narratives describe Jesus being tempted of the devil, the temptations are no different than what we have today, i.e. power. Power over people, self mastery, and ultimately power over God; the power to become God. Modern psychology would call this the workings of the ego, or super ego. So the narratives are effectively just personifying the natural inclinations of our own egos. In other words, Satan is just another name for the ego. Personifying things is common throughout the biblical texts so there is no reason we can't apply this here as well. Ezekiel points out that in the end Satan isn't real anyways when he describes him being turned to ashes within.

For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,

The thing to note here is that to say, "there is no one like Me" is to say that he is incomparable. There is nothing in the created world that can compare to God. In other words, God is transcendent. In fact, the most accurate way to articulate it would be to say that the word "God" is synonymous with transcendence. The terms are synonymous, but there is no referent for transcendence. The referent doesn't exist.

This is where our analysis crumbles apart because God transcends our morality. We can attribute whatever we want to God, but none of it will ever stick. The theist can attribute benevolence to God while the skeptic attributes malevolence, and both are incorrect. Both have assumed that they can even articulate a thing about God in the first place. The fact of the matter is that we are effectively talking about a God of our own imagination. The authors are effectively presenting a God that is above reproach. One doesn't have to agree with their God Who throws loaded dice, but the fact remains that they've set the rules and their rules don't contradict.

Nonetheless, if the authors are going to make the attempt they have to start somewhere, and so they come up with a word which can have no referent in the created world. This is no small feat, and one has to admit their honesty in pointing out that he is incomparable. So how do they get around contradicting themselves? They point out that God is the cause of everything, and even the cause of evil. He has others fulfill his will without getting his own hands dirty. This may seem unfair or deceitful, but it isn't contradictory or inconsistent with a God that allows people to have free will. Without evil there can be no choice between good and evil to begin with. Without polar opposites there can be no free will.

The fact that what is good is also transcendent is where most jump ship and go bananas because without what is good being evident, there can ultimately be no free will. So the texts all show that what is good is revealed, but not everyone sees it; those who do, respond while those who don't, don't. Paul goes into detail on this issue in his letter to the Romans (ch.9) which has caused great controversy for most people who read it. This doesn't mean that it is contradictory though. It's right in line with the rest of the bible. This is not to defend it, but to show that it isn't contradictory.

"15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel" from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. "

The word "so" indicates a reason for what God is sending which is a plague. You haven't provided a reason for suggesting why God's reasons are capricious. The point to remember here is that the reason must be a capricious one from the text. We may assert that the reasons are capricious, but we must remember that this is within the context of a world that is already justifibly condemned to death. One could argue that WHEN God chooses to carry out justice is capricious except that the texts have already given the reasons why which prompts God's justice.

Are plagues evil? Are they immoral? As you have already pointed out,albeit not with regards to the plagues themselves; they are non moral agents. This isn't to say that they have transcended morality, but that is beside the point. The fact is that non moral agents can't be judged by anyone's moral standards.

However, transcendence does transcend morality. Which doesn't necessarily mean that God is free to do evil, or that the standard of morality is no longer pertinent. The fact is that a transcendently good God is beyond our ideas of good and evil, right and wrong. In other words, in relation to an infinitly good God, all are not just evil, but infinitely evil. We can't perceive or comprehend an infinitly good God so we can't comprehend that the people in the biblical texts are evil. Our inability to understand doesn't negate the fact that this is perfectly consistant and non contradictory.

This is even more the case when the authors make their god THE God of the bible. They are strict monotheists, albeit with some modifications in the New Testament. For them, God is the very ground of their moral sense, as well as their actions, thoughts, feelings, etc. Whatever moral revulsion they may have at sacrificing their son, or wholesale genocide is given to them by their God. They don't just give in, there is no other option. If God isn't infinitly above this then we are degrading monotheism, and using it to justify our own beliefs and judgements. The monotheistic God isn't a "stamp God" to certify what we know, or a "gap God" to fill in the blanks for what we don't know.

People are free to believe in their own sense of truth and goodness, but if we put conditions on God then we are just unbelievers playing with words. We believe in a god that is beautiful, truthful and good according to our standards, which we then turn around and pretend that God has given us. This is making God in our own image. This anthropomorphic humanism is rampant throughout the biblical texts, not to mention the world we live in; believer and non believer alike. The monotheistic God cannot be a pragmatic hypothesis. If there is a monotheistic God, he will not be at our service.

all the firstborn of the cattle as well. "

This may seem a bit extreme and arbitrary, but at the same time there is also a consistency in that it is only the first born, and this theme of primogeniture runs throughout the biblical texts. There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in driving home a point that is being repeatedly ignored. In this case Israel is God's first born who is being prevented from life, therefore Egypt's first born shall die; e.g. "An eye for an eye". The problem is that Israel is worth way more than Egypt so Egypt must also lose the first born of their cattle, not to mention all of their gold and silver. Even this isn't enough, but God has made his power known which is what the texts indicate as his purpose. Again, we may not agree with his methods, but this isn't a problem unless his methods are contradictory. Given that all are condemned and worthy of death, there can be no contradiction.

“See, I will stir up against them the Medes ,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children. �

So the Medes aren't materialistic like those they are going to destroy. They are in possession of a superior morality that can't be bought. They will not be swayed by mercy or compassion from carrying out justice.

"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say : ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ “

Here again, God has reasons for carrying out justice. The authors seem to be laying out a system of morality that must have consequences for those who transgress them. We may think that these consequences are excessive or even unjust, but the texts clearly don't see it that way at all. This doesn't mean that the texts are contradictory. It just means that we don't agree with their idea of justice, and unless we can prove that their ideas are contradictory; they aren't.

"Let the offspring of the wicked never be mentioned again.
21 Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.
22 “I will rise up against them,� declares the Lord Almighty.
“ I will wipe out Babylon’s name and survivors, her offspring and descendants, " declares the Lord."

The texts indicate they're wicked, but again I hasten to reiterate what Paul says

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

This is no small assertion. Paul is pointing out that God has revealed his will, purposes, etc. through these texts. Obviously God doesn't have to reveal them exhaustively, just accurately.

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

In other words, the righteousness of God is a given

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

When Paul says that he speaks as a man, he's pointing out that what appears like petty revenge is our perspective of the effects of transcendent righteousness.

6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

Obviously God would't be able to judge the world if he wasn't just, omniscient, etc.

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one...etc.

Given that no one is righteous, omniscient, wise, etc except God; there is no one who can judge God.
And just as relevant is the fact that existence is not transcendent, therefore transcendence doesn't exist. God doesn't exist. Good luck judging what doesn't exist in the first place.