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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 48 by ttruscott]

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.

Even my parents? So, I, a man, will be in heaven married to my mother and father (among others)?
I thought God frowned on homosexuality?

[sawthelight]

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.

Well that's easy for you to say which is not said 'word for word' or anywhere near close to what you think it says it should mean in the Bible. Basically you are just making up a story not written in the Bible to make your point.

Where does it say in the Bible that "we were all married to each other from the get-go?"

So if I have a wife and some christian says that I'm married to everyone why not congregate with all other women since I'm married to them too according to your logic (now no longer considered adultery to tap one wife and another 10,000 women)?

Hey why not do it with guys as well since we are all married (god against homosexuality). Sounds like fun. Not really. But I guess that must be true since you think the Bible says that.

Where does it say that?

As Riko pointed out - incest?

It's easy to just make up stories to explain something so abstract and eluding. It's hard to get people to believe them with little-to-no corroborating evidence.

Where is the evidence for saying we are all married to one another?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 48 by ttruscott]

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.

Even my parents? So, I, a man, will be in heaven married to my mother and father (among others)?
I thought God frowned on homosexuality?

Are you demented to believe I am suggesting a sexual relationship when it is obvious I am describing a unity based upon a loving, righteous holiness??? May GOD bless you...

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 48 by ttruscott]

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.

Even my parents? So, I, a man, will be in heaven married to my mother and father (among others)?
I thought God frowned on homosexuality?

Are you demented to believe I am suggesting a sexual relationship when it is obvious I am describing a unity based upon a loving, righteous holiness??? May GOD bless you...

No. I was pointing out how people such as yourself misuse language. When people hear the word 'marriage', what is it they think the person means?

[sawthelight]

[Replying to ttruscott]

See. Again.

No effort to bring evidence to make your point but to just question the inquirer even more.

Bring your evidence from the Bible to make your point! Otherwise you just use idle talk!

Idle talk is useless and has no substance in this realm.

You can use it with your secular life and enjoy that, but to convert people to your way of life and to have them submit to it is really laughable with idle talk.

Gave you a chance and you couldn't bring any text to support your case. Gave many christians many chances already.

Christianity is the fraud. Case closed.

"Marriage" is unity of sexes in emotional, spiritual, mental, and physical. Here's the evidence I bring to the table:

Marriage: various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage (dictionary.com)

The word "marriage" has been used to refer to people being married to god in the bible and to people on earth. We also know that the term for marriage, unless otherwise shown - which hasn't been shown by you truscutt - means we are going to have sex with with our bride/groom when married. How else are offspring born?

With you saying that we are all married to one another and to god means we will have sex with one another and with god.

That is what "marriage" means and those are the implications regarding your religion.

Again. Case closed. Christianity is a fraud.

Good luck with marrying everyone.

[1213]

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.

Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
Matthew 13: 32

That says “least�, which can be understood “as of rank or influence�. Why do you choose the meaning smallest in size, when it can also be understood as low in rank?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 55 by 1213]

I am sorry, but how does Jesus endorsing Rome and the God Caesar not take every page of the NT, crumple it up and bury it?

Did he not say to give coins that violate the third commandment, to a false god, Caesar, violating the first commandment?

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars...

and doesn't this statement mock his father, as Caesar gets his tithes, but the God of the Jews gets no alms at all... at least not any physical ones.

Tiberius Caesar doesn't mind you giving your prayers and sins to God, so long as he gets your loyalty and money...

Hail Caesar!
Ie Zeus.

[sawthelight]

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.

Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
Matthew 13: 32

That says “least�, which can be understood “as of rank or influence�. Why do you choose the meaning smallest in size, when it can also be understood as low in rank?

Perhaps you would like to do an interlinear search regarding that verse concerning the mustard seed. It is here which will confirm in the Greek translation (or Hebrew that may apply) that indeed Jesus was talking about the mustard seed being the smallest of "every" seed in the world.

Let's compare Matthew 13:32 word for word in English to Greek:

"Though it is the smallest of all seeds..."

"ὃ μικ�ότε�ον μέν �στιν πάντων τῶν σπε�μάτων..."

Now let's condense the translations needed down to: "smallest of all seeds"

smallest = μικ�ότε�ον = mikroteron

GRK: ὃ μικ�ότε�ον μέν �στιν
NAS: and this is smaller than all
KJV: indeed is the least of all seeds:
INT: which smallest indeed is

of all = πάντων = pant�n

GRK: μέν �στιν πάντων τῶν σπε�μάτων
NAS: is smaller than all [other] seeds,
KJV: is the least of all seeds: but
INT: indeed is of all the seeds

seeds = σπε�μάτων = spermat�n

GRK: πάντων τῶν σπε�μάτων ὅταν δὲ
NAS: than all [other] seeds, but when
KJV: the least of all seeds: but when
INT: of all the seeds when however

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/13-32.htm (source)

Clearly from the Greek translations themselves it shows that Jesus explicitly said that the mustard seed INDEED IS THE SMALLEST OF ALL SEEDS! It's all there! Nothing more was noted nor nothing less was noted, all in Greek!

This is the last I will argue this point about the seeds unless an apologist has a far exceeding better explanation to challenge me. Until then, I will not answer the next apologist who comes in with superficial answers in which he/she did not do his own research to make his assertion. This is becoming redundant now.

Case closed. Christianity is a fraud and Jesus was wrong.

If that doesn't convince you, so be it (amen?). It's your life. Do whatever the hell you wanna do with it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 57 by sawthelight]

However, not a single person in Jesus crowd knew the mustard seed was not the smallest, and since he wasn't talking to a crowd of Amazonian gardeners, his choice of mustard was appropriate.

However, HE WAS talking to a mixed crowd of Jews, Greeks and Romans.

The Jews knew that to even touch the coin the Jesus wanted them to pay would make them unlcean. They knew that to pay a tithe to the God Caesar was to blaspheme against their God. Jesus was an advocate of breaking Commandments 1-3!

Pronouncing Jove.
iove

[sawthelight]

[Replying to post 58 by Willum]

Here are the problems I have with that answer:

First, there is no biblical evidence to support that argument made that the Jews/amazonian gardeners didn't know that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds in the world. Since there is no text of such in the bible to support that argument made, that answer is close to pure speculation. Unreliable and just a story that is as good as made up to justify the gaps missing.

Second, if accounts by secular texts show that people at the time didn't know what a mustard seed was, why would Jesus bring that up to people who had no knowledge? Either way, Jesus still ended up being wrong.

Third, if the accounts by secular texts show that the people only knew of the mustard seed at the time, that still shows that Jesus' claims about the mustard seed are false by saying it is the smallest of all seeds.

So in all instances Jesus is wrong, thus there is no need to keep trying to spin this story off. I just see it as redundant and eluding.

As far as the Ceasar thing goes, I think it was part of Jesus' concept to love the enemy as self even if that person was Ceasar in which Jews payed tribute too. That makes sense I suppose.

That one is hard to say.