Bible Contradictions

[mwtech]

I used to be a Christian and only recently become an atheist after studying the Bible enough to notice the flaws. I believe the Bible in itself to be contradictory enough to prove itself wrong, and I enjoy discussing it with other people, especially Christians who disagree. I would really like to have a one on one debate with any Christian who thinks that they have a logical answer for the contradictions in the Bible. The one rule I have is that you can't make a claim without evidence, whether from the Bible or any other source. I am interested in logical conversation, and I don't believe that any Christian can refute the contradictions I have found without making up some rationalization that has no evidence or logical base.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by mwtech]

What you consider evidence and what an apologist might consider evidence are probably two very different things. I suggest looking at the Gen 1 vs Big Bang thread to get an idea of what to expect in such a debate or the Adam and Eve thread as well.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 2 by DanieltheDragon]

What you consider evidence and what an apologist might consider evidence are probably two very different things.

Truer words were never spoken!
It might be of benefit for MWTECH to outline some definitions and/or examples &/or try to be as specific as possible before getting too deep into it.
Otherwise.... is very possible

[mwtech]

[Replying to connermt]

I don't want to be too specific as to what I mean by evidence because, as stated, I don't know what might be offered up as evidence. I can give an example of what I consider to be an unacceptable rebuttal. I was previously talking with a Christian who, when confronted with what I found to be biblical contradictions, claimed that he could not give an explanation, but God doesn't want us to be able to fully understand the bible. He wants there to be questionable passages and what look like contradictions in order to test our faith. He also claims to know that God exists because he has dreams where god reveals himself to said Christian. This argument is backed up by no biblical evidence, and was fabricated on the spot in order to prevent facing an actual conundrum. And claiming you know god exist because you saw him in your dreams does not convince an atheist of anything except that it might benefit you to see a psychiatrist.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 4 by mwtech]

I was previously talking with a Christian who, when confronted with what I found to be biblical contradictions, claimed that he could not give an explanation, but God doesn't want us to be able to fully understand the bible. He wants there to be questionable passages and what look like contradictions in order to test our faith.

I heard something like this once: a believer said that fossils are there in order to test our faith that the earth isn't as old as science indicates.
Sometimes people just want so hard to believe in something, they will say/do absolutely anything to convince themselves. That's the problem with a belief system that has little to no foundation in facts but in 'he said she said they said he said'.

...claiming you know god exist because you saw him in your dreams does not convince an atheist of anything except that it might benefit you to see a psychiatrist.

I would have wondered to him what else he dreams about that is real....might have been an interesting conversation.

Well, good luck! And welcome - you'll learn a lot (if that's good or bad.... )

[Strider324]

You'll find a continuum of apologetics presented on this site, just as in most places. Few here will try to defend the absolute infallibility of the bible as they have learned the hard way that it is an untenable position. More likely you will get the more moderate position that the contradictions are not important because the general message is true.

This of course is like a math textbook author claiming that since some of his most complicated equations and solutions are perfectly correct, the numerous errors in other computations can be ignored - even if they provide the foundation for the higher equations.

An argument that concludes that "god is perfect and you so logically you must worship him or be tortured forever" holds little persuasive value for me when it's pillars are grounded in talking snakes, zombie walks, winged pixies, and a homeless guy living inside a whale....not to mention the advocacy for slavery, sexual abuse, and incest. That's just me tho.

[mwtech]

That is precisely why I denounced my faith. You can't claim the bible is true just because the bible says it's true. And if you are going to base your faith on a book as your only evidence, that book better be perfect. If the details can't hold up then why believe any of it. Humans would be terribly arrogant to claim that they knew enough to pick and choose out of the bible which parts are true and which don't matter. But that doesn't stop them from trying.

[Elijah John]

That is precisely why I denounced my faith. You can't claim the bible is true just because the bible says it's true. And if you are going to base your faith on a book as your only evidence, that book better be perfect. If the details can't hold up then why believe any of it. Humans would be terribly arrogant to claim that they knew enough to pick and choose out of the bible which parts are true and which don't matter. But that doesn't stop them from trying.

So are you suggesting that to reject the command (or prediction in Mark) to handle poison snakes as ridiculous means we must reject the Golden Rule as well?

I contend that we all "pick and choose", even Fundamentalists who deny that they do. They follow one conservative INTERPRETATION of the Bible, but not the only one.

But I wish you well, and would say that the evidence of contradictions does not invalidate the Bible as a whole, but it does prove that it is not innerrant. I agree the Bible is far from perfect and contains many contradictions, but where contradictions do exist, isn't it sensible to pick the more rational assertion, that is unless BOTH assertions are ridiculous, which isn't always the case.

Also, relating to a previous post on this thread, the Bible is not a math book, or a science text, where innerancy is more important for clinical truth and purity. It is a work of sacred literature, and really cannot be compared to a scientific text.

Literature is subject to interpretation, scientific facts are not.

[Strider324]

Also, relating to a previous post on this thread, the Bible is not a math book, or a science text, where innerancy is more important for clinical truth and purity. It is a work of sacred literature, and really cannot be compared to a scientific text.

Literature is subject to interpretation, scientific facts are not.

But the bible is not claimed to be simple literature - it is proclaimed to be the absolutely correct instructional guide for determining the answers to the most important existential questions of mankind. If anything, it should be held to a more stringent standard of clarity, readability, purity and preciseness than a mere textbook. The LAST thing such a text should be is subject to interpretation.

[mwtech]

So are you suggesting that to reject the command (or prediction in Mark) to handle poison snakes as ridiculous means we must reject the Golden Rule as well?

Absolutely I am. Either the Bible was written by God or it wasn't. If it was, it should be perfect and true. If it isn't, then why bother basing your life off of it? I'm not saying that it is wrong for anybody to do anything the bible says they should. But if you want to reject part of the Bible, and still practice the Golden Rule, don't do it in the name of God. Do it because every human is capable of having proper morals without the threat of God's judgement keeping them in check.