Bible contradiction help need and why I shouldn’t believe?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Lion IRC: No one is talking about historical newspapers. Quit fogging and answer the frigging question. THEY ARE BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS AND ASSERTING THAT THEY ARE NOT IS SIMPLY A DISPLAY OF IGNORANCE.
New King James Version
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple
Exodus 20:12: "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." Psalm 127:3: "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward." ... Proverbs 1:8-9: "Listen, my son, to your father's instruction and do not forsake your mother's teaching
The women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples (Matthew 28:8).
When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others (Luke 24:9).
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (Mark 16:8)
No one has ever seen God (1 John 4:12).
No man has seen or can see [God] (1 Timothy 6:16).
The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day (Genesis 18:1).
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend (Exodus 33:11).
@Lion IRC (Haven't read the other replies yet)
"I find that it's nothing more than ambiguity in the text which gives rise to most
of the alleged 'contradictions'."
Clearly a book wrote in the word of god should have no ambiguity in it.
"That very SAME ambiguity likewise affords me equally the ability to harmonize those supposed contradictions"
It appears that you haven't read many of the other replies earlier on which shows the bible contradicting the itself.
Anyway what contradictions are you talking about that are able to be harmonized by ambiguity? Just interested
There are outright contradictions, many of them. Its absurdly dishonest to pretend this amounts to no more than ambiguity. However even were this disingenuous claim true, how on earth can ambiguity lead you to certainty, that's equally absurd.
Its epistemologically impossible to be 100% certain about anything, but the degree to which we can ascertain a claims validity is directly proportional to the amount of objective evidence that can be demonstrated to support it.
There is a single shred of objective evidence that any deity exists, or to support any supernatural claims in the bible, and that is axiomatic or theists and apologists would be presenting it right from the start of every debate, instead we get the same flawed rhetoric and fallacious arguments that ad nauseam, with the promise of "evidence" trumpeted from the off, but never ever appearing.
However please demonstrate the best objective evidence you have for any deity?
I'll bet a years wages you haven't any.
In the meantime here is a link to the Nyarlathotep provided to a YouTube video listing outright contradictions in the bible, no opinions, and no ambiguity, just the contradicting passages.
@ Lion IRC
"That very SAME ambiguity likewise affords me equally the ability to harmonize those supposed contradictions - and do so with sufficient confidence that my certainty and trust in the bible remains intact."
Would you sign a large contract, for example a mortgage, that was as full as ambiguities as the bible?
@Algebe “I would find ambiguity troubling in a legal document or the owner manual of my car, yet you seem to find it acceptable in your handbook for life and the afterlife.”
When there is ambiguity in these forms of manuals/contracts the “judge” will always favour the recipient. It is up to the contractor to ensure clarity. If it is lacking, favour always falls to the contractee. Terms have to be clear.
But, then again, that’s the way imperfect humans deal with one another - we’ve yet to rise to the great intelligence imparted by The One who can inspire such nonsense. (eye rolling)
Welcome to Atheist Republic Italianish.
From your posts, you gave an interpretation, and even stated that the bible needs to have passages taken into context. The thing is, the bible is a multiple choice book, one can select whatever feel-good passages they want, and ignore others.
When I left organized religion, I still searched for something spiritual. In the end I decided to read the bible as it was intended. As it was intended? Isn't this book supposed to be the word of god and divinely inspired? Then I approached this bible as any book, without any preconceived notions of interpretations, it was as if I found it on a barren beach. The bible should reveal itself in all of it's brilliance and love. All by itself, without any others pitching in.
Read the bible this way, like a book.
And you will quickly realize this is one really f--ked up book.
i See how there’s contexts that agree and within context some disagree..
it was hard to understand why LOVE itself would kill someone and let them die in hell til this day even, without forgiveness as a result of more death.
Believers can easily state that death of an innocent child/infant or a pregnant woman was justified there of in the name of righteous judgement.. i for one hate that I was without giving approval.. created into a curse that would leave me to perish forever.. simply because I was born.. and get this that I was chosen to live in a paradise where I was taught I forget that people would be perishing eternally and somehow that I was special.. and chosen for eternal life while others who weren’t as lucky to not be chosen. Even as a Christian I hated that everyone couldn’t go to heaven.. while I’m suffering under the whim of diseases for a purpose that I had no knowledge of while I also get the freedom to be a
Self imposed martyr who couldn’t love himself fully because I had to Love a God who somewhat seemed to neglect me and teach me the hard lessons of life without comfort or felt compassion.. yet Christ died for me.. the unfailing love of God died for Me so
I didn’t have to burn eternally for something I didn’t even do when eve took the fruit of the tree..
as well as the fact that I would sometimes talk to
God about my issues and not get so much as a
Response, I generally felt like
He was distant and angry and that my life had meaning because of my suffering and that one day i would fulfill a purpose that probably wouldn’t fulfill me.. I don’t want to explain all that I went through.. I can, and will of
but the loss was great and I don’t see how God
To make up for it.
"but the loss was great and I don’t see how God
To make up for it."
What makes you think god gives a shit? Remember, this god is one spiteful and homicidal maniac, who wiped out humanity (with the exception of one BIG boat) with a horrific flood.
According to the bible, this god created mankind so they could worship (and do some massive ass-kissing) in heaven. Mankind to god is just a breeding farm, where the most compliant go onto heaven, and the rest of humanity is tossed into the garbage pile.
I had felt a great loss. And I went through a grieving process. I lost years I spent “putting God first”; lost family and friends because I couldn’t believe anymore; anger that I was raised in lies by those who “loved” me; angry that a whole organization of people were still believing the nonsense and trying to convert others...
Past the grief and anger comes freedom and responsibility. A high level of appreciation for life and loved ones. Wonder and endless curiosity to really learn how “we” humans have gotten “here” to this point - and, for myself, a desire to leave this earth a little better than I found it.
Oh, just wanted to add - and a purpose. You get to decide “life’s meaning” and your “purpose”. In other words, just be your best “you”.
Hi, welcome to the forum.
There are many relatively minor problems with the Bible, like the two versions of the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis which can be explained historically, and things like contradictions which can be assumed to be copy and translations issues amongst other things. These are problems but there is one problem that suggests profound errors in the very cornerstone of the Christian faith.
Look up "Paul the false apostle" online and you will find hundreds of sites that disclose an extremely strong case against Paul's claims to being the divinely appointed 13th apostle to the Gentiles.
Biblical scholars have long suspected that the modern version Christianity is largely based on Paul's misrepresentations of the teachings of Jesus and the support of later Gentile anit- semites.
Books outlining and detailing the suspicion of Paul's claims have been written over the past 2000 years since his death.
Nearly all the material used against him comes from his own writings. Interestingly there are also passages written in later books of the NT that suggest in veiled terms that Paul was a deceiver, 'a wolf in sheep's clothing'. Paul was a member of the clan of Dan whose avatar was the wolf. He was under suspicion even before he died and long before the NT was even compiled.
The upshot is whether Christianity is really "Paulism" and that Paulism is a heresy. The point has been made that in declaring to be the apostle in charge of the Gentiles, Paul's distortion of Jesus's adherence to Mosaic Law provided the basis for a ready-made religious reason for the severing the 'new heresy' from Judaism, which also prepared the ground for the continuing violent anti-semitism of history.
The question of whether or not the tales in the Old Testament taken from the Torah are true is another story.
edited a word
I have noticed most older long books that are heavily edited, translated, plagiarized etc, tend to have a lot of contradictions.
But the fact they cant even get the word "day" correct? In the start of genesis? If there was ever a concept that was universally understood by everyone, a simple 3 letter word (in english, usually short in any language) to.. be used grossly incorrectly. (Not incorrectly based on the knowledge base at the time.) But horribly -hilariously?- wrong now. 6 days + a day of Rest?? When some of those "days" there was no sun/light yet?
It makes for a terrible argument when you want to turn around and accuse atheist of:
The body of work of various religious text make for a very tenuous ground to build a case that its atheist generating contradictions because they are "taking it to literal" or are not "interpreting it right."
These holy books are supposed to be communication from some great and powerful entity. I see none of that. I see a bunch of bronze age religious people, writing, editing, translating stuff. Of which all of them are long turned to dust. And zero accountability to reality.
THE BIBLE: Is a collection of books written over a period of 2000 years. It has been altered by every Christian faith that ever used it. OF COURSE IT HAS CONTRADICTIONS. The gospels can't even agree on who Jesus was. No one agrees with Paul. You have to be blind and ignorant to miss the many mixed messages contained in the 27 books of the New Testament. THE BIBLE is an ANTHOLOGY, a collection of books, and not A BOOK.
Presenting two (or more) different numbers to describe the same amount of objects, IS a contradiction. It is perhaps the simplest form of a contradiction. I don't know what else to say without being insulting.
Robert Menzies was Prime Minister of Australia from 1949 to 1966
Robert Menzies was Prime Minister of Australia from 1931 to 1941
A clear contradiction, right? Copyists error?
Maybe there were two men named Robert Menzies?
Who can say? It was such a long time ago.
It seems you don't know what a contradiction is.
Um...I was being facetious.
Sorry you missed that.
@ Lion IRC
Again, presenting two (or more) different numbers to describe the same amount of objects, IS a contradiction.
It might be very easy to explain this type of contradiction (typo, copying error, translation error, etc). You might even argue it is trivial contradiction, and I might be even agree with that; but it is still a contradiction. Therefore, we can be sure that ---at most--- only one of those numbers can be true. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this suggests to me that you are not serious.
I agree that presenting two different numbers to describe the same amount of objects, IS a contradiction. And if that's what I thought was going on in the bible, I would certainly call that a contradiction.
So we agree on the definition of the word contradiction.
But I don't need to agree that everything you (mistakenly) label a 'contradiction' is necessarily a contradiction.
(I said it, therefore it must be right? LOL)
(You either agree with me or you arent interested in "serious" discussion LOL LOL) No thats not gonna work either.
So are you agreeing that the Bible contains a (perhaps easy to explain) contradiction regarding the number of horsemen David capture in his victory over king Hadadezer?
No, I'm saying that there were two different counts taken at two different times.
...like the number of years Robert Menzies was Prime Minister of Australia.
Well that sure sounds like the same event to me; in fact, that is why I choose this event (because it has a contradiction involving numbers from clearly the same event).
/e In fact, the NIV says 7,000 for both, but in the footnotes mentions this discrepancy between 1,700 and 7000. It is clearly the same event.
Sure. But that wouldn't be a "contradiction" either. That would be a typo.
That would be like saying
"...oh, yeah, sorry. Did I write 1,700? I meant 7,000. I mean, DUH! So basic"
A contradiction (unlike a typo) would entail the writers of both versions of events insisting that the other was wrong.
If Jill says Bob has 3 cats, and Joe means to say that Bob has 3 cats, but accidentally says 4 cats; that is a contradiction. It is easy to explain how this contradiction came into being, but it is still a contradiction. We still know, and can prove by contradiction that at least one of them is wrong.
The Bible is well known to contain many of these simple "typo style" (for lack of a better phrase) contradictions. Which isn't surprising considering the technology used to produce and reproduce the writings that comprise the Bible. Human make mistakes (often with numbers), big deal.
What is problematic is your refusal to acknowledge the existence of these kinds of simple contradictions in the Bible.
Nonsense, a contradiction doesn't require any opinion beyond the two claims, they just have to contradict each other.
For example if the bible claims no one has ever seen god, then claims several men have seen god, that is an obvious and unequivocal contradiction.
Sadly I am all too familiar with the kind of desperate rationalisations employing tortured semantics that theists are prepared to produce and indulge in order to preserve their core beliefs no matter what the cost in denying facts, and outraging reason.
The original point is usually lost along the way of course. Which is that far from reading like an infallible message, from a deity with limitless power and knowledge, it reads precisely like it was cobbled together fallible evolved humans, whose anachronistic views reflect unequivocally and precisely the ignorance and prejudice of that epoch.
It is reasonable to doubt the initial claim of the bible's divine provenance under the circumstances, coupled with the inability of any theist to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, it's a no brainer for any remotely objective person.
So your claim to believe the polar opposite, and claim obvious ambiguity indicates absolute certainty of its divine provenance, to you, is a certain indication that you value the a priori belief over objectivity or the truth.
Are you retracting that claim?
The Catholic Encyclopedia describes a similar situation:
Are these contradictions trivial? I think so. I don't think they fundamentally damage the messages of the texts; they are just stupid human mistakes. But they are real: they do exist. Which is why you look like a lunatic when you say they don't.
If you think 700 = 1,700 = 7,000, then you are not serious. If you think 700 ≠ 1,700 ≠ 7,000; then we have found a (perhaps trivial) contradiction. So which is it?
@ion IRC: Damn you are great at non-sequiturs. Do you even know what you are doing?
When I learned of context and other believers understanding even sometimes the contradictions can look to be justified. However the two genealogies are evidence of a contradiction that can’t be justified.
The one in Matthew and the one in luke.
If we’re to start from King David, one has King Solomon as his son, while the other has Nathan. Both leading to Joseph, when in fact Jesus wasn’t even related to Joseph by blood because Mary being his virgin mother meant that only God was his father.
The Bible both states that Jesus is David’s descendant by the flesh, yet He himself denies that he is.
You can’t find something like this in an infallible book haha.
You cant make that argument from the actual text can you?
I mean...you know...with citations/quotes.
The text makes it quite clear that Joseph was only "the supposed father of Jesus". (Luke 3:23)
It amazes me that in this woke age of SSM, where having two 'dads' is thought of as something akin to a Hallmark Greeting card motif, that we have bible skeptics who cannot grasp the idea of Jesus' genealogy in secular terms.
His father in-law, (Joachin) and His adoptive father. (Joseph)
His adoptive father's biological father. (Jacob) And His adoptive father's father-in-law (Heli)
I certainly cannot grasp Jesus's genealogy, especially in secular terms.
You do realize there are many other books with just as much "validity" as which ever book/religion you subscribe to. That have VERY different stories for who jesus's father is. Or even if jesus was ever born/died at all? How do you reconcile one book's or religions telling of jesus's "genealogy." To another? You can't say "because my book is right and there's is wrong" because you have nothing to back your argument over theirs.
Since nothing in any religion can be verified, it's all just one persons opinion versus another, out of any person (real or imagined) that I know of, the genealogy of jesus is probably the most confusing. And it is that way to me because I do not subscribe to your particular religion/god idea, and then exclude any opposing ideas, not because of evidenced reasons, but simply because you choose to ignore the rest, probably because that is what is most convenient to you.