Joe, where can I find inconsistencies in the Bible

[CrAz3D]

my friend was going on about how Christianity is the only religion that is perfect.  w/a book written by God through 40 different men.

...I dont have my Bible here to check, but if you(or anyone) could list some passages that are in direct confliction please do so.

ie: In Luke...
9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
22:9 "My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me." (both KJV)

^^^thats just stuff I found online


this is just a list of a few things I'm reading re: this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_and_the_Bible#The_Acts_of_the_Apostles
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart12.html#ref121
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#war_or_peace
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#first_sermon
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#god_seen

[rabbit]

Well, "Thou shalt not kill" and "Moses, go get your posse and kill those assholes" (rough approximations) are pretty direct contradictions, but I don't remember exactly where they are (IIRC both in Exodus).

[Joe]

rabbit, there's a whole thesis paper written on that by some person. I haven't gotten my hands on it, but my pastor pretty much told me "The bible says 'thou shalt not murder'"

And yeah. Thou shalt not murder is one of the ten commandments (I lost track, but it's one of them) and when Moses was commanded to kill a bunch of people, it was because they were sinners (think what God did with Noah and the Ark).

@CrAz3D: I don't have the mental energy to bother looking, but since those are different chapters, I don't doubt that they're different incidents. Also, the first four gospels are known to contradict eachother, as will happen in any event where there are four people doing different things at different times. For example, the book of Judas (non-canonical) says that Judas was following a command from Jesus that he should turn him into the Pharasies in order to complete the plan, whereas Matthew, Mark and John (I'm guessing Luke, but he wasn't an apostle, so whatever) say that Jesus was prophesying, not commanding. But yeah, you get what I mean.

I fail to believe that you can find any inconsistencies in the bible (other than the obvious OT vs NT) that cannot be explained. If you believe the explination or not is a whole other situation, but they can all be explained. I like debating this, so if you can find anything (don't link me to page upon page, actually research them before sending them to me), let me know and I'll try my hand at disproving your point. Also, on amazon.com you can get a bible, shipped, for about a quarter I believe, or you can use (poke).

[rabbit]

The commandment isn't "Thou shalt not kill, unless thy victims are sinners", it's "Thou shalt not kill".

[CrAz3D]

The commandment isn't "Thou shalt not kill, unless thy victims are sinners", it's "Thou shalt not kill".

Thats what I'm getting at too.

Joe, how is it ok for Moses to kill the sinners when there are thing in the Bible like "Thou shalt not kill" & "he who is without sin cast the first stone" (assuming Moses was a real man, I figure he is sinful)?

[Joe]

I stand by what I said in my last post..

[Ergot]

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
transitive verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE <murders French> d : to defeat badly
intransitive verb : to commit murder
synonym see KILL

[CrAz3D]

I stand by what I said in my last post..

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=25&verse=4&version=31&context=verse

...so God is like a god-father & orders hits on people???

[Sidoh]

I stand by what I said in my last post..

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=25&verse=4&version=31&context=verse

...so God is like a god-father & orders hits on people???

*Scratches throat with top side of hand*

Ehhhee...

You mess-ah with mah family, you mess-ah with me.

[CrAz3D]

I stand by what I said in my last post..

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=25&verse=4&version=31&context=verse

...so God is like a god-father & orders hits on people???

*Scratches throat with top side of hand*

Ehhhee...

You messiah with mah family, you messiah with me.

fixed*

[Sidoh]

lol

[Blaze]

(think what God did with Noah and the Ark).

I disagree with the relationship you're proposing; Noah didn't kill the people, god did.

Also, I don't believe Noah's Ark happened at all like the bible describes it.

[Sidoh]

Also, I don't believe Noah's Ark happened at all like the bible describes it.

You've made it clear in the past that you're an atheist, so I don't think many people will find that surprising. 

[Blaze]

Also, I don't believe Noah's Ark happened at all like the bible describes it.

You've made it clear in the past that you're an atheist, so I don't think many people will find that surprising. 

I'm not an atheist, though.  At this point in my life I believe in the possibility that a god exists, but I don't worship any specific one.  All religions are fair game.  (Except Scientology.  That's just bull shit.)

[Sidoh]

I'm not an atheist, though.  At this point in my life I believe in the possibility that a god exists, but I don't worship any specific one.  All religions are fair game.  (Except Scientology.  That's just bull shit.)

I'm pretty sure you said you were earlier...

Yeah, there's a word for that: agnostic, as I suspect you know.

[Blaze]

Yeah, there's a word for that: agnostic, as I suspect you know.

Off google:

Agnosticism asserts no knowledge of gods and therefore concludes there are no reasons to believe in them or not to believe in them. An agnostic follows this credo and differs from the atheist who has developed an active belief that there are no gods. When it comes to the question of existence of deities, an agnostic will respond: I just don't know.

Yes, to some extent.  Along with "I don't know" I'd probably ask the person why they believe in deities, if they do at all.  I'm always interested in learning more about religions, I reserve the right to disbelieve in certain parts of some religions, with full respect, of course. 

[Joe]

For the record, I don't regard the old testament as fact, yet I don't regard it as fiction, either. I personally believe that some parts of it are a metaphor (for example, Noah saving the animals was a precursor to Jesus saving humanity). The books of the prophets, Genesis and Exodus, though, I do regard as fact.

[Sidoh]

For the record, I don't regard the old testament as fact, yet I don't regard it as fiction, either. I personally believe that some parts of it are a metaphor (for example, Noah saving the animals was a precursor to Jesus saving humanity). The books of the prophets, Genesis and Exodus, though, I do regard as fact.

It seems to me that interpreting arbitrary sections of the bible as fiction and others as fact to totally defeat the whole "word of God" idea...

[dark_drake]

I think Joe what Joe was getting at is it's silly to interpret everything in the Bible literally.  The best example I can think of is how the literal interpretation of the bible led to people believing the sun revolved around the earth. The bible is meant to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Basically, a purely literal interpretation of the bible is not a good thing.

Edit: I'm not arguing that any events in the Bible didn't happen. I'm just stating that the bible's stories are meant to demonstrate how we are supposed to live our lives, and some of the things in the bible may not be entirely true in the literal sense.

On a side note, can you imagine how small of a gene pool the animals had to work with after the flood? 

[Sidoh]

I think Joe what Joe was getting at is it's silly to interpret everything in the Bible literally.  The best example I can think of is how the literal translation of the bible led to people believing the sun revolved around the earth. The bible is meant to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Basically, a purely literal interpretation of the bible is not a good thing.

Yes, but how do you decide which parts are meant to be interpreted literally?  It seems like a system riddled with traps to me.

[dark_drake]

Yes, but how do you decide which parts are meant to be interpreted literally?  It seems like a system riddled with traps to me.

Whichever ones haven't been disproven by science seems like a good starting point for me. 

[Sidoh]

Whichever ones haven't been disproven by science seems like a good starting point for me. 

Yes, that's a good answer.  However, it doesn't encompass some of the more profound topics discussed in the bible.  For example, what about heaven and hell are they metaphors?  Was Jesus' crucifixion nothing more than a story meant to be told to represent important moral lessons?

Why can we stop at the things that have been disproven by science?  It seems unfair to those that lived before the knowledge existed.  Plus, how can it be known that we accept something as true merely because we lack the perception to see the "counterexample" or "fallacy?"  One could always pull the "All is possible through God" card.

I realize that this is in every way an opinion, but it's an interesting one to discuss.

[dark_drake]

Yes, that's a good answer.  However, it doesn't encompass some of the more profound topics discussed in the bible.  For example, what about heaven and hell are they metaphors?  Was Jesus' crucifixion nothing more than a story meant to be told to represent important moral lessons?

It's up to each and every person to decide for himself. One's personal salvation is not up to anyone else.

Why can we stop at the things that have been disproven by science?  It seems unfair to those that lived before the knowledge existed. 

I never said we stopped at the things that have been disproven by science. I said it was a good starting point. I'm sure there's more than that, but, again, it's up to each and every person to decide for himself. Also, I don't think it's unfair to the people who lived before the knowledge existed. It's not exactly like they were blaspheming through their ignorance of the physical workings of the world. They went off the best thing they had at the time.

Plus, how can it be known that we accept something as true merely because we lack the perception to see the "counterexample" or "fallacy?"  One could always pull the "All is possible through God" card.

Did you mean: how can it be known whether or not that something we accept as truth is true merely because we lack the perception to see a counterexample? In that case, we just need to have a little faith. 

In the end, this amounts to +1 to my post count. 

[Sidoh]

In the end, this amounts to +1 to my post count. 

Pretty much.

I could go through each thing you said and come up with a reply, but we'd just be running in circles.

[CrAz3D]

For the record, I don't regard the old testament as fact, yet I don't regard it as fiction, either. I personally believe that some parts of it are a metaphor (for example, Noah saving the animals was a precursor to Jesus saving humanity). The books of the prophets, Genesis and Exodus, though, I do regard as fact.

It seems to me that interpreting arbitrary sections of the bible as fiction and others as fact to totally defeat the whole "word of God" idea...

exactly, which is why you cant say the Bible is perfect...because you have to use different interpretations to put things "in context so they dont conflict" (I've been told that when you read the whole Bible that nothing conflicts within the context of the Bible )

[Joe]

@dark_drake: Exactly.

@CrAz3D: No, the bible is perfect. Translations are not. For example, with the kill vs murder thing, I tried to reference the Hebrew. I obviously failed (Yoni was sleeping ), but that's beside the point.

[CrAz3D]

Does the Bible not say Moses was told to kill the sinners?...

[Sidoh]

Killing is murder...

Also, I don't think that language gaps is a universal excuse.  Also, It doesn't make sense to say that in a world teaming with people willing to translate that there would be so many errors of this manner.

[CrAz3D]

Killing is murder...

Also, I don't think that language gaps is a universal excuse.  Also, It doesn't make sense to say that in a world teaming with people willing to translate that there would be so many errors of this manner.

it seems like "thou shalt not murder" & "go kill the sinners, moses" would be hard to lose in translation

[Armin]

Yeah, there's a word for that: agnostic, as I suspect you know.

Off google:

Agnosticism asserts no knowledge of gods and therefore concludes there are no reasons to believe in them or not to believe in them. An agnostic follows this credo and differs from the atheist who has developed an active belief that there are no gods. When it comes to the question of existence of deities, an agnostic will respond: I just don't know.

Yes, to some extent.  Along with "I don't know" I'd probably ask the person why they believe in deities, if they do at all.  I'm always interested in learning more about religions, I reserve the right to disbelieve in certain parts of some religions, with full respect, of course. 

I believe there are certain levels of agnosticism. I also acknowledge both possibilities, God or no God, and consider myself agnostic.

[Joe]

When your run-of-the-mill soldier (IE not Hitler) gets charged with murder for killing someone during a war, let me know. Until then, not ALL killing is murder.

[CrAz3D]

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh.
nice twist.

[Sidoh]

When your run-of-the-mill soldier (IE not Hitler) gets charged with murder for killing someone during a war, let me know. Until then, not ALL killing is murder.

Who says that what man considers murder is truly murder?  That's a whole bunch of BS.

Just because those soldiers weren't prosecuted doesn't mean that they aren't murderers.

[topaz~]

Many contradictions exist in the Bible, the most exemplary being the conflicts between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the Lord God is a vengeful God who strikes down sinners and evildoers, who gives free rein to his chosen people to slaughter the many peoples of Canaan, and who destroys his own followers for acts of disrespect. Then, in the New Testament, he sends his own son to be crucified in order to deliver his followers from the consequences of sin. How can these signals be understood? Why does the Lord God not make his will and intent clear?

In this day and age, many see Islam as the religion of murders and terrorists, of those who kill our children and brothers and our sisters, as a result of provocation that is not easily understood. A startling contrast can be found, however, in Christianity. Christians are kind people who evangelize without the use of force, who are charitable, who spend their time serving others without seeking payment or compensation. However, Islam and Christianity are not so different.

Once you examine the sacred texts of the Bible and the Koran, the contrast fades. Should you examine the Koran, you will find that Muslims are given the right to murder unbelievers, to commit unspeakable atrocities in the name of Allah, and suffer no consequences. This is known as Shari'a, or Islamic law.

Yet the Bible is similarly violent and intolerant - here are but a few examples:

God massacres 70,000 innocents because of a census (1 Chronicles, chapter 21)
Names homosexuality as an abomination (Leviticus 18:12)
Allows his chosen people to destroy, pillage, and loot sixty cities, and leave no survivors (Deuteronomy, chapter 3)
Permits you to deliver your daughter into slavery (Exodus, chapter 21)
Freedom to kill believers of other religions (Exodus 22:20, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Freedom to kill every person in a town should there be a believer of another religion (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
Freedom to put individuals who work on the sabbath to death (Exodus 31:12-15)

Jesus spreads a message of kindness, love, and salvation -- and in the same instant, God the Father promotes such acts. Is this not the ultimate inconsistency in the Bible? Perhaps Christians should instead disregard more than two thirds of their holy text (the Old Testament) to better suit the twenty first century, where such primal and barbaric acts do not belong.

[leet_muffin]

HOLY BUMP!

Anyway, there's a Skeptic's Bible out there. It's filled with all the problems of the Bible.

[iago]

HOLY BUMP!

True, but it was bumped with valuable information so it's ok.

[topaz~]

HOLY BUMP!

True, but it was bumped with valuable information so it's ok.

Sorry about the bump. 

[leet_muffin]

HOLY BUMP!

True, but it was bumped with valuable information so it's ok.

Sorry about the bump. 

It's cool, it was a holy bump.  =)

I really don't see the problem with bumping, I was just wondering where the fuck I was when this thread was made.

[Newby]

Many contradictions exist in the Bible, the most exemplary being the conflicts between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the Lord God is a vengeful God who strikes down sinners and evildoers, who gives free rein to his chosen people to slaughter the many peoples of Canaan, and who destroys his own followers for acts of disrespect. Then, in the New Testament, he sends his own son to be crucified in order to deliver his followers from the consequences of sin.

There's a bash.org quote about this... kinda:

Seppukakke: You know, in the Old Testament, God was full of Wroth and Vengeance. You did bad stuff, he rained brimstone down on your ungrateful ass or harrassed your people with 7 plagues.
Seppukakke: In the New Testament, its like he has turned over a new leaf, you don't hear some much of the nasty things he did to his people (because if you believe in it, everyone on earth is his creation)
Seppukakke: You know what happened around the time between the New Testament and the Old Testament?
Seppukakke: He got laid.

(Holy bump!)