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.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #185]

Only for those that reject the righteous judgment of the perfect One…

No.

Moral language must remain intelligible for anyone who uses it---including believers

Correct. Only for those that have and use morality. Not by God, nor by me.

The only believers that do use morality and the language thereof, are believers in their own God and Christ, not the Bible God and Jesus Christ the righteous.

At least you're openly declaring your moral enmity against His righteousness, and not using your morality in His name.

Rev 3:15
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

The rest of your arguments of God's righteousness in terms of your morality, is old stuff, that I no longer argue about.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #201]

Correct. Only for those that have and use morality. Not by God, nor by me.

But you are using moral language.

You use terms like:

• Righteous
• Wicked
• Evil
• Judgment
• Obedience
• Rebellion
• Truth

Those are evaluative terms. They distinguish between what ought and ought not to be done.

If you truly did not use moral language, you could not meaningfully condemn “moral enmity,” nor praise “righteousness.”

The distinction itself presupposes intelligibility.

The only believers that do use morality… are believers in their own God…

Labeling disagreement as “enmity” does not answer the argument.

The question is not whether someone is loyal or disloyal.

The question is whether words like “righteous” have content that can be understood.

If righteousness has no moral content accessible to human cognition, then calling someone “righteous” or “unrighteous” communicates nothing evaluative.

If it does have content, then moral reasoning is not automatically illegitimate.

At least you're openly declaring your moral enmity against His righteousness…

Disagreeing about moral coherence is not enmity.

If someone examines whether a claim about justice is consistent, that is analysis — not rebellion.

To equate critique with hostility is to redefine inquiry as opposition.

That move shuts down discussion rather than addressing it.

The rest of your arguments… is old stuff, that I no longer argue about.

That is your prerogative.

But declining to engage does not resolve the conceptual tension.

The tension remains:

• If divine righteousness is intelligible, then moral language has content and can be discussed.
• If divine righteousness is unintelligible, then calling it “righteous” is not an ethical claim but a declaration of allegiance.

You have consistently affirmed that divine righteousness is not moral.

If so, then moral critique cannot apply — but neither can moral praise.

That is the logical consequence.

No one is asking you to submit divine righteousness to human supremacy.

The question is simply this:

Does “righteous” mean anything we can understand?

If yes, then discussion is possible.

If no, then the term functions as a badge of loyalty, not as an ethical descriptor.

That is the unresolved issue — whether you choose to argue it further or not.

[RBD]

NO OTHER BOOK on earth… has an Author declaring Himself perfectly righteous with perfect judgment…

The Quran does.

False. You know as much about the Koran as you do the Bible. Only enough to think you know something.

Quote Allah ever saying, He is the perfect God with eternal righteousness, and declaring all His commandments to be always righteous and true.

“He is Allah, the Creator, the Inventor of all things, the Bestower of forms. To Him belong the Best Names. All that is in the heavens and the earth glorify Him. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise” And the "Perfection of beauty".

This is the tasbeeh of glory to Allah, which is nothing more than what some men on earth have said about themselves in the height of their power.

And is what the Bible God said of Lucifer, whom He created perfect in all his ways.

Eze 28:12
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty... Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.


Lucifer was a created perfect being in beauty, holiness, and wisdom, which is the same that Allah says of himself. Allah's only claim to fame, is claiming to be the same as the created anointed angel Lucifer.

And yet, even with the open ears and ready hands of the scholar Muhammed, Allah still couldn't bring himself to declare himself the Almighty and Perfect God of heaven and earth. You see, even the fallen angel knows his boundary from God with men on earth.

The same with Allah trying to claim a name of glory, and cannot allow himself to have a name above Jesus Christ, whose gospel Muhammed heard and rejected:

Phl 2:9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

"Allah, may He be exalted, calls Himself by names which reflect many attributes of perfection,"


Lucifer also has several names, which he claims are attributes of perfection: The Devil, The Dragon, and Satan.

2Co 11:13
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Even if that were granted (which is impossible as your claim is false), the conclusion does not follow.

Declaring oneself perfectly righteous does not establish that one is. Uniqueness of claim ≠ truth of claim. A declaration of perfection does not demonstrate possession of perfection. Otherwise, any text could secure authority by boldly claiming it.

Now, after making a false argument against a factual statement, you depart from any sense of the argument, and fall back to your old bromides.

The argument is that since the Bible God is the only Author on earth, to ever call Himself that uncreated perfect God of all righteousness, and true judgment, then there is none other among men to look to, in order to believe Him.

The most Allah says of himself is the same said of Lucifer by creation, that he is all-wise, perfect in his ways, and perfection of beauty.

It's only when Lucifer said those things of himself by pride, that he fell from the grace of the the Bible Creator and God, and began to lie to men of himself as being God, the same as Allah to Mohammed.

And yes, Mohammed was well read with the Bible, and knew it enough to try an ape the true God, and only ended upon showing his own Allah to be no better in creation than Lucifer. And Muhammed never declares the rules of Allah are perfectly righteous at all times, but only apes the law of Moses in his own personally twisted way.

[Avoice]

[Replying to Tcg in post #168]


Im not avoiding your question. I just dont frequent this site often.

My answer to your question is yes.

I was going to ask you a question but the chances of me returning to this site in the near future are slim at best. So Im not going to waste your time answering my question when I wont read it

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #203]

Quote Allah ever saying He is the perfect God with eternal righteousness, and declaring all His commandments to be always righteous and true.

The Qur’an repeatedly attributes perfection, justice, wisdom, and absolute truth to Allah. Whether one accepts those claims is another matter — but the claim that no other text makes them is factually incorrect.

Examples:

• “Allah — there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of existence.” (2:255)
• “His is the dominion of the heavens and the earth… He has power over all things.” (57:2)
• “Indeed, Allah is not unjust to the people at all.” (10:44)
• “Your Lord is not unjust to His servants.” (41:46)
• “The word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words.” (6:115)
• “Indeed, Allah commands justice, excellence, and giving to relatives, and forbids immorality and oppression.” (16:90)
• “He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the Superior.” (59:23)
• “Say: He is Allah, One. Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born.” (112:1–3)
• “Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.” (4:17)
• “Indeed, Allah is ever, over all things, Competent.” (2:20)

These verses explicitly describe:

• Divine uniqueness
• Absolute authority
• Perfect justice
• Immutable truth
• Moral command
• Eternal sovereignty

One may reject them — but it cannot be claimed they do not exist. According to the Quran, Jesus is not the Son of God because: “Say: He is Allah, One. Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born.” (112:1–3). "and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.1 Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him." - 4:157, The Quran. This verse clearly states that Jesus was not crucified. It also states that Jesus was a messenger of Allah, not the Son of God.

So your assertion that the Bible is uniquely the only book where God declares Himself perfectly righteous and just is false.

Even if that were granted… uniqueness proves it must be from the true God.

Even if — hypothetically — the Bible uniquely declared divine perfection, that would not logically establish its truth.

A declaration of perfection does not demonstrate possession of perfection.

Otherwise:

• Any text could assert infallibility.
• Any prophet could claim ultimate authority.
• Any revelation could validate itself by boldness.

Uniqueness of claim ≠ truth of claim.

Lucifer was created perfect… which is the same Allah says of himself.

This argument assumes the biblical narrative of Lucifer is already historically and metaphysically correct.

But that is the very claim under dispute.

You cannot use one text’s internal cosmology to invalidate another tradition’s theology without presupposing the first text is true.

That is circular reasoning.

Muhammad only aped the law of Moses…

Religious traditions in the Near East share:

• Common Abrahamic roots
• Overlapping prophetic figures
• Cultural continuity

Similarity does not prove counterfeit.

Christianity shares large portions of the Hebrew Bible. That does not make Christianity a counterfeit Judaism.

Shared themes are historically expected.

More importantly:

The original philosophical issue remains untouched.

Even if one text uniquely claimed:

• Perfect righteousness
• Perfect law
• Perfect judgment

That claim must still be evaluated.

Declaring perfection is not the same as demonstrating perfection.

If divine righteousness is meaningful, then it must be intelligible.

If it is intelligible, then it is open to discussion.

If it is not intelligible, then calling it “righteous” communicates allegiance, not moral content.

The epistemic problem remains exactly where it began.

And bold declarations — whether biblical or Qur’anic — do not resolve it by assertion alone. You are yet to prove the existence of the Biblical God and souls with actual evidence. All you do is assert various claims, but you have proven nothing.

[Tcg]

If God tells you to do something, is it the right thing to do simply because he commanded it?

Tcg

If He is the righteous and true holy God and Creator of all things, then of course, yes.

So, would you agree that any command of God found in the Bible should be followed without question?


Tcg

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #168]


Im not avoiding your question. I just dont frequent this site often.

My answer to your question is yes.

I was going to ask you a question but the chances of me returning to this site in the near future are slim at best. So Im not going to waste your time answering my question when I wont read it

Then your answer is of no value if you aren't willing to defend it.


Tcg

[RBD]

Many philosophical systems are internally coherent without being divinely authored.

Consistency is a necessary condition for perfection — not a sufficient one.

One author being consistent with himself is standard.

Bible consistency is uniquely important, because it's with a couple dozen writers, spanning a over a thousand years, from different locations and backgrounds.

That is not possible with imperfect men, unless guided by one perfect Hand, or they themselves are demigods of perfect ability.

This is exactly why Bible inerrancy is so important to Bible believability, as being the one Book of the perfect and true God by many writers of His own personal choosing.

And the fact that so many have tried to find error in the Bible, proves the importance of inerrancy to the writers' claim of being guided by that one Perfect Spirit of truth:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

If this were not the case, then you wouldn't have spent so much time trying to argue a contradiction in the Bible, by a meaningless argument that is DOA.

All you've proven ad nauseum, is that the righteousness of the Bible God is not your morality, and your morality is not the Bible God's righteousness.

They would be proven liars in one obvious way: THEY declare their writings are from the one true and eternal LORD God Almighty.

This reasoning is circular.

It proceeds as follows:

1. The authors claim divine inspiration.
2. Therefore, if the text is perfect, they must be truthful.
3. Therefore, the text is divinely inspired.

Standard false representation.

If the text is perfect, then the writers must be truthful. If they say their one God guided them in all writing, then they at least can be believed, if not must be believed.

If they are lying about their inspiration, which is written in the text, then the text is fraudulent. The only circular argument here is:
1. The writers are lying about divine inspiration.
2. Therefore, The text is false.
3. Therefore, the text is not divinely inspired.

No one can consent to the inerrancy of the writings altogether, and then call the authors liars about who guided them. Therefore, inerrancy of all the texts together is all important to their claims.

Therefore, those who do not want to believe the writers' testimony, only seek to find fault with the text. Which is the only reason you're here with a meaningless accusation against it.

Now all you have to say for yourself is, it doesn't matter anyway.

A person can sincerely claim divine inspiration and be mistaken.

Standard lip service of dishonest people, who don't want to accuse the writers of lying. And yet you accuse them of being murderously evil by justifying their God, that you say is murderously evil according to your own grave-bound morality.

Which is a dysfunctional argument in the first place: you claim your morality is the truth, without need of vote, and yet then acknowledge it is as imperfect and flawed as you are.

The perfectly righteousness judge flawed morality. The imperfect does not judge the perfect.

[Avoice]

[Replying to Tcg in post #207]

How dare you say my answer has no value.

Your question was answered. It was a YES or NO question. You didn't ask for a reason. I don't respond to phantom questions. How can I? I can't answer what isn't asked.

You got the answer you requested. Now its not good enough. Should I be inclined to give my reason you are likely to say it has no value and expect me to answer another phantom question.

Your question was answered

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #208]

Bible consistency is uniquely important, because it's with a couple dozen writers, spanning over a thousand years… That is not possible with imperfect men, unless guided by one perfect Hand…

That conclusion does not follow.

Long-term thematic continuity does not require divine authorship.

There are several natural explanations:

• Later writers building upon earlier traditions
• Redaction and editorial harmonization
• Shared theological frameworks
• Canon formation processes selecting compatible texts

Large intellectual traditions can maintain coherence across centuries without requiring supernatural coordination.

For example:

• Rabbinic Judaism
• Islamic jurisprudence
• Aristotelian philosophy
• Confucian tradition

Continuity does not imply infallibility.

If the text is perfect, then the writers must be truthful.

Yes — but that shifts the issue.

The question is whether the text is perfect.

You are arguing:

1. If the text is perfect, the writers are truthful.
2. The writers claim divine inspiration.
3. Therefore, they can be believed.

But the premise “the text is perfect” is what must be demonstrated.

It cannot be assumed.

Otherwise the reasoning becomes:

• The text is perfect because it says it is inspired.
• It is inspired because it is perfect.

That is circular.

No one can consent to the inerrancy of the writings altogether, and then call the authors liars.

Correct.

But critics do not begin by granting inerrancy.

The issue is precisely whether inerrancy is justified.

You cannot require acceptance of inerrancy before debate, because that is the point under dispute.

If they are lying about their inspiration… then the text is fraudulent.

There is a third possibility:

They may have been sincere but mistaken.

Human beings can genuinely believe they are inspired without deception.

Rejecting inspiration does not automatically imply accusing authors of deliberate fraud. However, deliberate fraud is also possible.

So many have tried to find error in the Bible, which proves the importance of inerrancy…

That proves only that the claim of inerrancy is strong and controversial.

It does not prove that the claim is true.

Extraordinary claims invite scrutiny.

That is not hostility — it is proportional examination.

The Bible is full of scientific and historical errors. It is also full of self-contradictions. It is a deeply flawed book written by ignorant people. The Biblical God is an incoherent concept and is imaginary and evil.

You claim your morality is truth… and yet admit it is flawed.

Recognizing fallibility does not negate truth-seeking.

In science, mathematics, and philosophy, we accept that human reasoning is fallible — yet we still engage in inquiry.

Acknowledging imperfection strengthens intellectual integrity.

Declaring oneself beyond evaluation removes the possibility of correction entirely.

The imperfect does not judge the perfect.

That depends on whether perfection has been established.

If perfection is assumed, then critique is dismissed.

If perfection is demonstrated, then critique fails naturally.

The issue is not whether perfection can be judged.

The issue is whether the claim of perfection has been substantiated.

The central matter remains:

• Internal consistency is necessary but not sufficient for divine authorship.
• Claims of inspiration require justification beyond self-assertion.
• Rejecting inerrancy does not require accusing authors of malicious fraud.
• Declaring perfection does not establish it.

If divine perfection is true, it will withstand examination.

If it cannot be examined, it is insulated — not proven.

That is the philosophical issue at stake.