What is your tablet for discrediting the Bible?

[sawthelight]

The Bible should stand alone as truthful without any error to be deemed as the true word of God. However, what happens when just one error in the Bible is found? Does it take just one error or is more of them required to discredit the Bible? How about having 8 solid errors to rock your faith?

One error may seem inconsequential but it still would deem God in error and the Bible as fallible and finite. But to add insult to injury when 8 blatant errors show up, it is safe to discard the Bible as nothing more than the sole concocting of human beings.

What is your tablet of Biblical errors that you find contradictory and have caused you to dismiss the Bible as a fallacy? What debates did you have that included these tablets of errors you had with Christian theists that left you disenchanted or in utter disappointment?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is my list of debates with theists that came to an unsatisfactory conclusion:

1) The marriage parable [Matthew 22:30 VS. Revelation 21:9, Ephesians 5:25-27].
Jesus says no marriage will occur in heaven yet the Lamb (a.k.a Jesus) is standing with his bride in heaven after the Day of Judgement. No marriage is supposed to occur in heaven.

2) The mustard seed parable [Matthew 13:31-32].
Jesus claims as a fact that the Mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in the Bible. Yet we know the Orchid seed is smaller than the Mustard seed. Jesus failed to be correct.

3) Faith VS. Deeds [Romans 2:6-10, Galatians 2:15-16 VS. James 2:14-24].
The Bible contradicts when Paul says ONLY FAITH allows a believer into heaven when James says that faith AND WORKS together earns salvation. Both contradict.

4) The Law is to be upheld. The Law is abolished [Matthew 5:17 VS. Ephesian 2:15].
Jesus came NOT TO abolish the Law but to uphold it. Paul says that the Law HAS BEEN ABOLISHED. Two opposing doctrines.

5) The Trinity is polytheism rather than monotheism [1 John 5:7-8 VS. John 14:28].
Somehow the Trinity is supposed to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all equal as one. Yet Jesus says "the Father is greater than I". Indication of unequal standings.

6) God is against God [Luke 4:5-7 & Revelations 11:16-18].
God gives away all authority on earth to Satan his enemy. He is also the suspect who killed his angels for destroying earth. A house divided against itself will not stand.

7) Children punished for sin of parents VS. The children no longer punished for parent's sin [Deuteronomy 5:9 VS. Ezekiel 18:1-30].
Shows that God has a changing nature.

8) God has a supposed unchanging nature [Hebrews 6:17].
Point # 7 indicates a change of nature. Being a distant and indifferent God in the OT to becoming a more approachable and accessible God in NT is a change of nature.


-----------------------------------------

These 8 points I bring up show blatant forgeries, contradictions, and errors that indicate that the God of Israel is nothing but an indecisive, inconsistent, charlatan who professes the supposed truth to the right way.

The word "right" however is synonymous with the words honest, legitimate, proper, and appropriate (Thesaurus.com).

The 8 points I listed above show me that the God of Israel is anything but "right." He is sporadic with his decrees which cost the lives of people for mistakes that God has made. God is not taking responsibility for the action he takes. The blame is shifted unto his creation who have no clue when things go awry.

This sounds a lot like big business being bailed out in US when they commit fraud on an international scale which results in tax payers paying for the mistakes of big business. How is that right at all? This example illustrates the God of Israel.

This allows me to leave Christianity with confidence and be certain of the choice I made as right. Writing out a list like this helps me compile my thoughts better to know why I left rather than have it all jumbled in my head. This is my tablet if you will.

What are your reasons for being disenchanted with Christianity? Can you make a list?

[sawthelight]

Why would you need "enlightenment" on the point? You have already committed yourself to saying he wasn't always speaking in absolute terms, so naturally I presume you know what him speaking in absolute terms would look like.

Oh this is such a cop-out. You insist that Jesus was not speaking in absolutes but you refuse to support your claim?

okay, and if he was speaking in absolute terms (about seeds) then he would be speaking about what....?

You are stretching this out far more than it needs to be. Instead of asking me leading question, just give an answer.

Did Jesus speak in absolute terms in Matthew 13:31-32? Yes or no? If not, please support your claim.

All you're doing at this point is trying to make it sound like you're right by being condescending. Except that you're the only one here who actually thinks you're right. So please, I ask again, enlighten me... what does it mean to speak in absolutes and how was Jesus not speaking in absolutes in Matthew 13:31-32?

JW has not even answered my post# 35. He cant give an answer.

He has evaded your question to go after me but now he is evading me.

It just tells you in the end how unsatisfactory Christian answers are when trying to explain the Bible. Thus a good reason not to adhere to it but to disregard it.

[Willum]

[Replying to sawthelight]

It will occur - how can you doubt it!
And Jesus will be in the form of a lamb.

Like Zan and Jana, or Hathor.

What's not to understand - no metaphor, Jesus will be a lamb.
Ask the Holy Spirit, she will confirm this!

[sawthelight]

I see Christians use logic to support their idea that the god of Israel exists. They use vocabulary definitions, linguistic tools, grammar, and facts to try and make logical sense for god.

So too then should logic (vocabulary definitions, linguistic tools, grammar, and facts) be used to object god's existence. Hence these tablets on this thread and in other places.

It's only fair. However we see that when we use the same logic Christians use to make a case, the Bible actually makes no sense at all. Logically it is nothing but pure contradiction and flimsy stories.

The next logical step is to put the Bible on the shelf where it belongs.

Unless it's all about faith only. And we all know that isn't logical at all.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by sawthelight]

Thank you for pointing those out.

Here is a list of 492 contradictions in the Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html

Here is a list of 1321 cruelties in the Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Here is a list of 236 failed prophecies in the Bible: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Thank you for point those out.

Heres is an explananation of contradictions in the bible
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... the-bible/

Here is an article as to so-called alleged "cruelties" in the bible
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... p20130501/

Here is a list of fulfilled prophecies in the bible
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... fulfilled/

[Justin108]

Why would you need "enlightenment" on the point? You have already committed yourself to saying he wasn't always speaking in absolute terms, so naturally I presume you know what him speaking in absolute terms would look like.

Oh this is such a cop-out. You insist that Jesus was not speaking in absolutes but you refuse to support your claim?

okay, and if he was speaking in absolute terms (about seeds) then he would be speaking about what....?

You are stretching this out far more than it needs to be. Instead of asking me leading question, just give an answer.

Did Jesus speak in absolute terms in Matthew 13:31-32? Yes or no? If not, please support your claim.

All you're doing at this point is trying to make it sound like you're right by being condescending. Except that you're the only one here who actually thinks you're right. So please, I ask again, enlighten me... what does it mean to speak in absolutes and how was Jesus not speaking in absolutes in Matthew 13:31-32?

[sawthelight]

Why would you need "enlightenment" on the point? You have already committed yourself to saying he wasn't always speaking in absolute terms, so naturally I presume you know what him speaking in absolute terms would look like.

Oh this is such a cop-out. You insist that Jesus was not speaking in absolutes but you refuse to support your claim?

okay, and if he was speaking in absolute terms (about seeds) then he would be speaking about what....?

You are stretching this out far more than it needs to be. Instead of asking me leading question, just give an answer.

Did Jesus speak in absolute terms in Matthew 13:31-32? Yes or no? If not, please support your claim.

All you're doing at this point is trying to make it sound like you're right by being condescending. Except that you're the only one here who actually thinks you're right. So please, I ask again, enlighten me... what does it mean to speak in absolutes and how was Jesus not speaking in absolutes in Matthew 13:31-32?

That's the 3rd time you've asked this question and JW has repeatedly dodged it. He doesn't mind answering other peoples' questions though as long as the answer remains superficial.

It shows that even simple problems in Christianity cannot be solved in a simple manner. The parables Jesus uses is a simple form of story telling. The instructions that God of the OT gives are simple orders. Everything about the Bible is simple really - that is the theme. Yet JW cannot answer a simple question about his religion?

What does that say about Christianity? that is should remain superficial to be the truth?

[Compassionist]

Why would you need "enlightenment" on the point? You have already committed yourself to saying he wasn't always speaking in absolute terms, so naturally I presume you know what him speaking in absolute terms would look like.

Oh this is such a cop-out. You insist that Jesus was not speaking in absolutes but you refuse to support your claim?

okay, and if he was speaking in absolute terms (about seeds) then he would be speaking about what....?

You are stretching this out far more than it needs to be. Instead of asking me leading question, just give an answer.

Did Jesus speak in absolute terms in Matthew 13:31-32? Yes or no? If not, please support your claim.

All you're doing at this point is trying to make it sound like you're right by being condescending. Except that you're the only one here who actually thinks you're right. So please, I ask again, enlighten me... what does it mean to speak in absolutes and how was Jesus not speaking in absolutes in Matthew 13:31-32?

That's the 3rd time you've asked this question and JW has repeatedly dodged it. He doesn't mind answering other peoples' questions though as long as the answer remains superficial.

It shows that even simple problems in Christianity cannot be solved in a simple manner. The parables Jesus uses is a simple form of story telling. The instructions that God of the OT gives are simple orders. Everything about the Bible is simple really - that is the theme. Yet JW cannot answer a simple question about his religion?

What does that say about Christianity? that is should remain superficial to be the truth?

You have made excellent points. I totally agree with you.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by JehovahsWitness]

JW is absolutely right, why go for something that can be interpreted, or mis-understood, or mis-copied when you can quote Jesus himself to discredit the the Bible!

So, we all know that when Romans conquered a nation, they brought their gods with them, and erected shrines.

What you may not know is that Caesar Augustus was one of those gods, and his son Tiberius claimed demi-god status.

Rome was referred to as a Majesty, ruled by the God Jove. So Rome was a divine monarchy, ruled through the blessing of the Gods, through divine and semi-devise figure's, of which one of these was Caesar Tiberius, and the other was Caesar Augustus.

Now imagine some gentile asks you if you should pay a tithe to Rome. You ask,"how much?" and he shows you a coin that claims Tiberius is the son of the God Augustus. A graven image of a false god!

As the Son of the true God, it is your duty to denounce that false god, and purify yourself for even having touched an unclean coin, representing a falsely-divine monarchy.

But what does Jesus, allegedly do?
Probably not a few hundred yards from the temple (Temple Mount?) devoted to Jove and containing the false idols of the God Augustus and his son Tiberius, he possibly gestures towards the temple of Augustus and says:

Render to the God Caesar, what Caesars wants, and render to the God ?Theos?, what he wants.

AND we have in Romans 13 that you should obey the pagan monarchy of Rome, because it was established by Theos.

Ah, well.

[ttruscott]

1)[/b] The marriage parable [Matthew 22:30 VS. Revelation 21:9, Ephesians 5:25-27].
Jesus says no marriage will occur in heaven yet the Lamb (a.k.a Jesus) is standing with his bride in heaven after the Day of Judgement. No marriage is supposed to occur in heaven.

The Wedding of the Bride to the Lamb STARTS the heavenly state. We don't marry in heaven because everyone is already married to everyone else.

2) The mustard seed parable [Matthew 13:31-32].
Jesus claims as a fact that the Mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in the Bible. Yet we know the Orchid seed is smaller than the Mustard seed. Jesus failed to be correct.

Are orchids know in Israel? Anyway, the plant referred to here is obviously not the same as our modern mustard. Similarity in nomenclature ≠ a same identity.

Strongs 4615: sinapi: mustard (a plant)
Short Definition: mustard
Definition: mustard (probably the shrub, not the herb).

4615 sínapi – a mustard plant ("tree"), always used in connection with its seed (the smallest of all Palestinian seeds in common use).

[The mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds that a Palestinian farmer would sow in his field. A mustard plant reaches a height of three meters (about ten feet). This is a huge plant when fully matured and bears very tiny seeds.]

3) Faith VS. Deeds [Romans 2:6-10, Galatians 2:15-16 VS. James 2:14-24].
The Bible contradicts when Paul says ONLY FAITH allows a believer into heaven when James says that faith AND WORKS together earns salvation. Both contradict.

James does not say works earns salvation in the least - He says works prove faith and faith without works is dead, not saving faith at all.

4) The Law is to be upheld. The Law is abolished [Matthew 5:17 VS. Ephesian 2:15].
Jesus came NOT TO abolish the Law but to uphold it. Paul says that the Law HAS BEEN ABOLISHED. Two opposing doctrines.

The law was abolished only at His death, not before. After His death we live by the faith, not the law.

5) The Trinity is polytheism rather than monotheism [1 John 5:7-8 VS. John 14:28].
Somehow the Trinity is supposed to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all equal as one. Yet Jesus says "the Father is greater than I". Indication of unequal standings.

YHWH is ONE, Echad. The UNITY of a married couple is ONE FLESH though they stay two. Compare Deuteronomy 6:4“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! with Gen 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. One is the same word and means the same thing - a UNITY!

Christ was only lesser while incarnate on earth as human.

6) God is against God [Luke 4:5-7 & Revelations 11:16-18].
God gives away all authority on earth to Satan his enemy. A house divided against itself will not stand.

Wowser... Satan has no authority at all and he lies about that! Read Job chapter 1...

He is also the suspect who killed his angels for destroying earth.

The unreferenced pronouns make this statement open to too many directions to be meaningful.

7) Children punished for sin of parents VS. The children no longer punished for parent's sin [Deuteronomy 5:9 VS. Ezekiel 18:1-30].
Shows that God has a changing nature.

Deuteronomy 5:9 I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me... does not refer to bringing the judgement of HIS wrath upon those who hate HIM but to the fact that the evil HE allows them to do will cause a ripple effect of retribution within the sinner's family and from his neighbours that will follow the family for even 4 generations...think of the Hatfields and McCoys. Deut refers to earthly tribulations and punishments and Ezekiel refers to the final wrath of GOD of the judgement day. Of course they are different.

8) God has a supposed unchanging nature [Hebrews 6:17].
Point # 7 indicates a change of nature. Being a distant and indifferent God in the OT to becoming a more approachable and accessible God in NT is a change of nature.

HE is unchanging in HIS nature while HE interacts as a live person does in HIS relationships with people. HE stays perfectly true to HIMself while HE puts cultures through events that have the purpose of teaching HIS sinful elect to trust HIM and repent. Jeremiah 10:10 But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. and living things are not static but are creative and adaptive so whatever you think unchanging means, it is wrong in this context.

These 8 points I bring up show blatant forgeries, contradictions, and errors that indicate that the God of Israel is nothing but an indecisive, inconsistent, charlatan who professes the supposed truth to the right way.

These quotes show nothing but a repetition of tired atheist ideation.

[rant deleted]

[sawthelight]

Why would you need "enlightenment" on the point? You have already committed yourself to saying he wasn't always speaking in absolute terms, so naturally I presume you know what him speaking in absolute terms would look like.

Oh this is such a cop-out. You insist that Jesus was not speaking in absolutes but you refuse to support your claim?

okay, and if he was speaking in absolute terms (about seeds) then he would be speaking about what....?

You are stretching this out far more than it needs to be. Instead of asking me leading question, just give an answer.

Did Jesus speak in absolute terms in Matthew 13:31-32? Yes or no? If not, please support your claim.

All you're doing at this point is trying to make it sound like you're right by being condescending. Except that you're the only one here who actually thinks you're right. So please, I ask again, enlighten me... what does it mean to speak in absolutes and how was Jesus not speaking in absolutes in Matthew 13:31-32?

That's the 3rd time you've asked this question and JW has repeatedly dodged it. He doesn't mind answering other peoples' questions though as long as the answer remains superficial.

It shows that even simple problems in Christianity cannot be solved in a simple manner. The parables Jesus uses is a simple form of story telling. The instructions that God of the OT gives are simple orders. Everything about the Bible is simple really - that is the theme. Yet JW cannot answer a simple question about his religion?

What does that say about Christianity? that is should remain superficial to be the truth?

You have made excellent points. I totally agree with you.

Thanks Compassionist.

Yeah also it should raise red flags if a believer cannot answer a simple question 3 times but dodges them in order to set up an irrelevant explanation to justify Christianity.

There is no reason for even the believer to continue preaching the message if he/she cannot explain such a simple question. Unless money is the motive to get the message out. That I could understand.

So the answer cannot be explained, isn't simple, and has to be circumvented to justify Christianity. Even a blind man could make sense of that.

Run. for. the. hills!

XD