Why does God give contradictory commands in the Bible?

[Compassionist]

The Bible presents a serious moral contradiction. In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), God explicitly says:

“Thou shalt not kill” (or more accurately in Hebrew, *lo tirtsach* — “you shall not murder”).

Yet, throughout the very same scriptures, this same God commands genocides and mass killings. For example:

Deuteronomy 20:16–17:

“You shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them — the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

1 Samuel 15:3:

“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Numbers 31:17–18:

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”

If “murder” means intentionally taking a human life, then these divine commands directly violate the very moral law God is said to have given.

Apologists often respond in one of three ways:

1. “Killing in war isn’t murder.”
But these passages go far beyond war — they include killing infants and non-combatants. Calling it “warfare” doesn’t make it morally right, especially when commanded by an allegedly all-good being.

2. “Those people were wicked and deserved it.”
But collective punishment of entire populations, including children, contradicts basic moral justice — even within the Bible itself. Ezekiel 18:20 says:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father.”
So how can innocent children deserve death for their ancestors’ actions?

3. “God’s morality is beyond human understanding.”
This argument essentially abandons moral reasoning. If God’s morality can justify genocide, then anything — slavery, rape, torture — could be justified as “God’s higher purpose.” That makes morality arbitrary and destroys the very meaning of good and evil.

In short:
If the command “Thou shalt not murder” is absolute, then the genocidal commands are immoral.
If the genocidal commands are moral because God gave them, then “Thou shalt not murder” has no fixed moral meaning.

Either way, the Bible presents a contradiction that cannot be ethically reconciled without abandoning either moral consistency or divine goodness.

[Clownboat]

Hey Bruce, please show that you speak the truth or kindly retract your claims for being empty and not in evidence.

Anyone reading here wonder why Bruce fails to show that they speak the truth?

Secondly, surely you can do better than scare tactics, no? Let's leave that sort of reasoning to terrorists please. Here, we are to have reasoned debate.

Anyone reading here wonder why Bruce is arguing via scare tactics? Makes me wonder if Bruce teaches Sunday school where such tactics might work.

Lastly. Fear is internal. Therefore you cannot place your fear into me like you tried. I acknowledge your fear, can you acknowledge why I fear not the fear that is in you though?

Anyone reading here wonder why Bruce is trying to place their fear into others?

[Face to face]

There is a contradiction only, if murder is the same as killing. In biblical point of view murder is unlawful killing and not the same as just killing. Therefore there is no contradiction in this.

Compassionist addressed this in the OP.

Killing non-combatants is not warfare and is recognized as murder / war crimes by all international bodies. Killing children, especially, falls under this. The actions described in 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 31 clearly describe murder at the Bible god’s command.

The Jews did not have the ability to make effective prison systems and control and protect their society from criminals with MODERN TECHNOLOGY of monitoring systems, cameras, forensic evidence, fingerprints, photos, telephones, Telegram Messaging systems, railroads in an organized network across the entire country.

The Biblical Jews did not have massive amounts of materials to make chains, steel bars, windows, and ventilation systems and air and water supplies and great powerful scopical binoculars, with satellites, guns and police with police water cannons and infrared sensors.

THE JEWS WERE COMMANDED AND INSTRUCTED ON HOW TO DEAL WITH A MULTI - GENERATIONAL WAR

can you please name a single major long scale war of any magnitude where civilians were not killed and targeted ?

after all the small battles and all primary war efforts have begun the initial stage of all long scale war leads to the death of civilians. The Jews were faced with the same situation of being surrounded by their enemies and fighting a generational war -

THIS WAS A WAR THAT HAD LASTED FOR 40 + YEARS - For over 40 long and painful years the Jews had been fighting with enemies on all sides.

After a " 40 year war, with no end in sight, constantly being attacked by an enemy that outnumbers you by a" 10 to 1 " ratio __

there comes a time when survival decisions have to be made...

After 40 years of fighting an enemy that is determined to exterminate them the Jews are faced with the reality that allowing the enemy to continue to reproduce and multiply would mean the extermination and death of their very own children.

when Muslims and Atheists mention these facts without considering the reality of the situation the Hebrew people were facing it seems- Muslims and Atheists are truly in favor of allowing the enemies of the Jews who are the aggressors to completely exterminate them ?

Muslims and Atheists completely ignore the fact that the Jews are outnumbered, surrounded on all sides and fighting a 40 year long war against multiple enemies continually fighting, in every direction they turn they are attacked and trying to be as humane as they can be.

the Scriptures explained how the Jews begged pleaded and kindly asked - - - - PLEASE< PLEASE PLEASE< PLEASE allow us to peacefully and respectfully just pass through the outskirts and borders of your property ... we are trying to just get to our homeland and ask to please be allowed to pass through the outskirts of your property.

the Jews promised that would not take water, crops, animals or touch any property - they begged and pleaded in honor, still the nations attacked them for 40 years non stop - trying to pick off and kill their weak, elderly and sick and children who were too weak and slow to escape.


then their enemies took turns attacking them and the only choice to ensure their survival was to eliminate entire cities of defense. Jericho was a city of defense that must be destroyed if the Jews are to survive -

GOD HIMSELF COMMANDED THE JEWS TO DESTROY JERICHO - and the Jews obeyed God.

IF the Jews had not obeyed God they would have been completely destroyed. they were commanded to kill the children of the enemy in order to survive against an enemy that greatly outnumbered them.

[Clownboat]

IF the Jews had not obeyed God they would have been completely destroyed.

You're asking us to believe that the God that created the universe, flooded the earth and did all sorts of miracles in the Bible would have been powerless to help the Jews in this instance. He could only help them if they killed children? Does your God prefer female virgin blood or is the blood of any child good enough?

they were commanded to kill the children of the enemy in order to survive against an enemy that greatly outnumbered them.

This god concepts helped in other battles when outnumbered according to the Bible. So why did children need to be murdered in order for the Jews to survive in this story? Jephthah only had to sacrifice his own daughter to the God of the Bible for his victory in battle. She was a virgin though, but I would think most of the murdered children were virgins, so that's confusing.

Does the blood of children empower this God? I don't recall reading such a thing in the Bible.

[William]

There is a contradiction only, if murder is the same as killing. In biblical point of view murder is unlawful killing and not the same as just killing. Therefore there is no contradiction in this.

Compassionist addressed this in the OP.

Killing non-combatants is not warfare and is recognized as murder / war crimes by all international bodies. Killing children, especially, falls under this. The actions described in 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 31 clearly describe murder at the Bible god’s command.

The Jews did not have the ability to make effective prison systems and control and protect their society from criminals with MODERN TECHNOLOGY of monitoring systems, cameras, forensic evidence, fingerprints, photos, telephones, Telegram Messaging systems, railroads in an organized network across the entire country.

The Biblical Jews did not have massive amounts of materials to make chains, steel bars, windows, and ventilation systems and air and water supplies and great powerful scopical binoculars, with satellites, guns and police with police water cannons and infrared sensors.

THE JEWS WERE COMMANDED AND INSTRUCTED ON HOW TO DEAL WITH A MULTI - GENERATIONAL WAR

can you please name a single major long scale war of any magnitude where civilians were not killed and targeted ?

after all the small battles and all primary war efforts have begun the initial stage of all long scale war leads to the death of civilians. The Jews were faced with the same situation of being surrounded by their enemies and fighting a generational war -

THIS WAS A WAR THAT HAD LASTED FOR 40 + YEARS - For over 40 long and painful years the Jews had been fighting with enemies on all sides.

After a " 40 year war, with no end in sight, constantly being attacked by an enemy that outnumbers you by a" 10 to 1 " ratio __

there comes a time when survival decisions have to be made...

After 40 years of fighting an enemy that is determined to exterminate them the Jews are faced with the reality that allowing the enemy to continue to reproduce and multiply would mean the extermination and death of their very own children.

when Muslims and Atheists mention these facts without considering the reality of the situation the Hebrew people were facing it seems- Muslims and Atheists are truly in favor of allowing the enemies of the Jews who are the aggressors to completely exterminate them ?

Muslims and Atheists completely ignore the fact that the Jews are outnumbered, surrounded on all sides and fighting a 40 year long war against multiple enemies continually fighting, in every direction they turn they are attacked and trying to be as humane as they can be.

the Scriptures explained how the Jews begged pleaded and kindly asked - - - - PLEASE< PLEASE PLEASE< PLEASE allow us to peacefully and respectfully just pass through the outskirts and borders of your property ... we are trying to just get to our homeland and ask to please be allowed to pass through the outskirts of your property.

the Jews promised that would not take water, crops, animals or touch any property - they begged and pleaded in honor, still the nations attacked them for 40 years non stop - trying to pick off and kill their weak, elderly and sick and children who were too weak and slow to escape.


then their enemies took turns attacking them and the only choice to ensure their survival was to eliminate entire cities of defense. Jericho was a city of defense that must be destroyed if the Jews are to survive -

GOD HIMSELF COMMANDED THE JEWS TO DESTROY JERICHO - and the Jews obeyed God.

IF the Jews had not obeyed God they would have been completely destroyed. they were commanded to kill the children of the enemy in order to survive against an enemy that greatly outnumbered them.

Warfare is a type of hell….”it don’t look like Johnny’s coming home”. War is confusing…

Assigning an entity which clearly the Izzy’s (Israelites) feared and believed in… adds another layer of mystery to the confusion.Often we sit in our modern surrounds hardly remembering the blood sacrifices of those who in most cases had no choice but to fight - they are remembered more recently as “The Greatest Gen” and following Gens have no collective inkling of the method of madness which allowed them to rest easy and consume product.

Now, to avoid branching off into cynicism, (sin-ism) I have to agree that whatever “YHVH” was/is - The Izzy’s feared him/Him more than they feared killing “virgins” and because they had no stakes in any lands and were different and thus threatening, they became natural targets of human aggression.

These people were reclaimed orphans, homeless and in need of a stable environment they could abide within.Now, I can agree that the YHVH entity may have helped make that difficult for His Flock - the Izzys - by influencing the hostiles but I have the “feeling” that such would have been unnecessary as the hostiles where just reacting as they naturally were taught to react due to human skulduggery in such matters as who owns what and who must die to protect that what...

...and fast forwarding, it is a matter of fact that The Izzys and their YHVH made a place for themselves in this planetary kerfuffle.I find it all starts to make more sense if I put a womans title (She) to YHVH - but to be fair, I choose to think of them YHVHnites as SHe...

There does seem to be a bit of a battle between the land-rulers (landlords) and this YHVH entity - if observed from a certain perspective...It may still prove that the sacrifice of The Greatest Generation was in vain or there still may be opportunity to settle affairs amicably and cease with the bullets and bombs and killing apparent “innocents” (those who benefit from the blood sacrifices made on their behalves) and maybe the YHVHnites do enjoy the taste-smell of spilled blood who can say?

But it is what it is and that is us all...

”where to from here?” seems to excite my humey sensory system…

eta:
Between Sacrifice and Sovereignty:
Violence, God, and the Human Condition

[Avoice]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #5]

Whatever God says. We dont have to understand him. Just do what he says. And be very careful that when reading scripture you compare it to the original Hebrew. 'Cause if you don't youll think the messiah comes from a virgin birth. That it was prophecied. No

Ask a Christian about Gods command about not eating pig (bacon, ham etc.)
The answer most given is that there was no refrigeration back then and the peopke didnt know that undercooking pig can make you sick. But we have refrigeration now and know about cooking pig. And it tastes good.
That is how Christians respond.

Ask a Jew why they dont eat pig
The answer: Because God said dont eat it.

Jews dont need to understand why God says what he says. God said NO. Thats it

Christians want a reason. If they dont understand or agree with God then they ignore him. They want God to think like they think. To be like them. They got that in their jesus. Their god who will let them do anything. Just believe in him and heaven awaits them

[William]

[Replying to Avoice in post #135]

"Ask a Jew why they dont eat pig
The answer: Because God said dont eat it."

This is misleading. Let us go to "the Jews" to see what explanations are given for why the don't eat pigs.

Why not eat pork? Because!
The Torah gives two physical signs that mark kosher land animals: they ruminate (chew their cud) and have fully split hooves. It then goes on to list several creatures that have just one or the other of these, and are therefore unkosher. One of these is

The pig is the ultimate symbol of loathing
the pig, since it has hooves which are split, but it does not chew its cud—it is therefore unclean for you.1
SOURCE

There is probably no animal as disgusting to Jewish sensitivities as the pig. It’s not just because it may not be eaten: there are plenty of other animals that aren’t kosher either, but none of them arouse as much disgust as the pig. Colloquially, the pig is the ultimate symbol of loathing; when you say that someone “acted like a chazir [pig],” it suggests that he or she did something unusually abominable. Indeed, many people think of pork, ham, bacon, etc., as the most unkosher foods there are.SOURCE

Clearly then, this shows that there are reasons for why the Izzies (Israelites) never ate pigs and why their prodigy carries on that tradition.
It is a cultural thing, which may or may not have come from the command of a god-entity but definitely is an ingrained cultural thing.

Just as eating pigs has always been a cultural thing for those non-Izzies.


Therefore, the whole thing may even be cultural reasons for why the law exits, such as the Izzies had sheep and goats and not pigs. The command is maybe culture dressed up in god-apparel.

There may also be environmental reasons for why, such as the Izzies never knew what a pig was until they discovered other cultures who farmed them and lifetimes with sheep and goats - upon seeing farmed pigs - the revulsion cemented into the collective psyche that there were better things to eat that this abomination of an animal.

There may also be natural reasons for why such as the pig is a forager and scavenger - an important player in the wilds but when domesticated (imprisoned) it resorts to foraging in the area it is contained within, quickly destroying all things underhoof and having to be feed whatever scapes its masters had to feed it with. Then there is the poop. Cage any animal and it will eventually sleep in its own crap.

The pig cannot easily be herded...they are essentially wild - even the domestics (prisoners of human farmers) can kill a human being and eat the cadava.

Q: True or false. The pig cannot easily be herded...they are essentially wild - even the domestics (prisoners of human farmers) can kill a human being and eat the cadava.

The statement is true in its general assertions, although the characterization of domestic pigs as "prisoners" is an opinion rather than a biological fact.

(Note: That is AI opinion)

Here is a breakdown of the claims:
Pigs cannot be easily herded: True. Unlike ruminants such as sheep or cows, pigs do not naturally form large, cohesive herds that are easily driven by a herding dog or human direction in the traditional sense. They are intelligent, can be stubborn, and prefer to move in smaller groups or at their own pace, using their intelligence to find ways around fences. Traditional herding methods used for other livestock are generally not effective with pigs; managing them often relies more on their intelligence and respect for boundaries like electric fences or the promise of food.

They are essentially wild: False. Domestic pigs (Sus domesticus) are a distinct subspecies from the wild boar (Sus scrofa) and have been selectively bred over thousands of years for specific traits, making them behaviourally and physically different from their wild ancestors. While they retain many innate behaviors (like rooting and foraging) and can revert to a feral state relatively quickly if left in the wild, they are classified as domesticated animals.

(Note: The "classification" is also opinion)

Domestics can kill a human being and eat the cadaver: True. While domestic pigs are generally placid, they are large, powerful omnivores that are capable of attacking and killing a human, especially if the person is incapacitated or the pig feels threatened (e.g., a sow protecting her piglets). There are documented cases of farmers dying in pig pens, with their bodies consumed by the pigs. Pigs are opportunistic eaters and will consume meat, including human flesh, if given the chance.

Clearly sheep and goats do not, because they cannot, eat human flesh.
Clearly the pastures are better grounds for eating, than pens.

The shepherds move through the wilds herding their sheep and goats.
The pig farmers keep their pigs out of the wilds and confined within pens.

AI: (summarizing all the above data)
Based on your text, here is a brief summary:

The author argues that the Jewish prohibition against eating pork is not simply a divine command without reason, but is deeply rooted in cultural, environmental, and practical factors. While the Torah states the formal rule (split hooves without chewing cud), the text highlights a unique cultural revulsion towards pigs.

The proposed reasons include:

Cultural Identity: The prohibition solidified as a cultural marker distinguishing the Israelites from neighboring pig-farming cultures.

Environmental/Practical: Pigs were unsuited to the nomadic, herding lifestyle of the ancient Israelites, as they are difficult to herd, destructive to confined land, and require different husbandry than sheep and goats.

Natural Behavior: Pigs are omnivorous scavengers, and their potential danger and different behavior (including documented cases of attacking humans) made them seem "unclean" or abominable compared to ruminants.

The core conclusion is that the religious law is likely "culture dressed up in god-apparel," originating from practical and cultural aversions that were later codified into divine commandment.

[Avoice]

[Replying to Avoice in post #135]

But the reason is : God said dont eat pig

Split hooves, chewing the cud etc. All that is stated. That is known. But it all boils down to God said dont eat it. The reasons are stated, yes. But the reasons arent why pig isnt eaten. Its because God said DONT eat it.

The point I was making is that the reasons arent important to Jews. Jews dont need God to explain himself.
For christians, they lean on the reasons. If it doesnt make sense to them they ignore it. To christians, pig tastes good. So they eat it. God has to agree with them. The fact that God said dont eat pig means nothing to them.
Christians say Gods word was made flesh. Okay, lets say his word became flesh. How does that change anything? Why are they still eating pig?

[Avoice]

[Replying to Avoice in post #135]

But the reason is : God said dont eat pig

Split hooves, chewing the cud etc. All that is stated. That is known. But it all boils down to God said dont eat it. The reasons are stated, yes. But the reasons arent why pig isnt eaten. Its because God said DONT eat it.

The point I was making is that the reasons arent important to Jews. Jews dont need God to explain himself.
For christians, they lean on the reasons. If it doesnt make sense to them they ignore it. To christians, pig tastes good. So they eat it. God has to agree with them. The fact that God said dont eat pig means nothing to them.
Christians say Gods word was made flesh. Okay, lets say his word became flesh. How does that change anything? Why are they still eating pig?

[William]

[Replying to Avoice in post #137]

God said dont eat pig

Please provide the supporting evidence that this statement is true.

[Avoice]

[Replying to William in post #139]

"And don't eat pork, since pigs have divided hoofs, but they do not chew their cud. Don't even touch a dead pig!"
Deuteronomy 14

Don't eat pork. Thats pretty clear.
He never took it back / changed his mind

What gets me is out of all the food God provides Christians serve ham on their religious holiday/s. Like a slap in the face.