Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
K9Buck

Biblical contradictions?

290 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Habitat
4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I don't necessarily believe this, but I understand the premise 

My question is, where is the contradiction? 

Greedy, thieving drunks wont pass the character test for admission into the new earth  :)

 If the y truly believed in christ, they would follow his template and live like him 

That's the nature of belief.

Not just claiming belief, but believing so much, that your actions fit your  beliefs.

A person who chooses those qualities CANNOT be a true believer in christ. 

 

That seeming (to the OP) contradiction, appears to revolve around the interpretation of "believe in". People who dreaded the Nazis certainly "believed in" the existence of Hitler, but the true followers of Hitler believed in, as in had faith in, the value of what he said and did, and acted according to it. I have heard people say all that is necessary, is to "believe" in the risen Christ, just like I believe I saw a rocket take off. Seems absurd to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
8 hours ago, Essan said:

Since I have free will, that means I can do anything I want :P

Of course it is your choice. That is why the consequences are on you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You dont require knowledge of good and evil when you have been given just ONE prohibition by your god/creator (In the narrative) 

It is a question of obedience/disobedience not knowledge The point  (as always in these examples) is  that god knows better than humans and when we disobey god, bad things happen. 

They were given the rule and told what would happen if they disobeyed it . You dont need any knowledge or even much intelligence to obey a simple rule like that. 

It’s interesting that you chose to discus the Garden of Eden but you didn’t say anything about biblical contradictions, which is what this thread is about.

You know what I find contradictory about the Creation story of Genesis?

Eve was originally not part of the plan.  She was added as an afterthought.  So much so, that the text states that God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, whereupon God took flesh and bone from his body and created Eve, the first woman found in the biblical text, and later claimed to be the mother of all living.

Anyway, what I find contradictory about that is that the text is stating that God created the universe.....the heavens and the earth, and that obvious takes an infinite amount of skill and capability.  So, to be wise and powerful enough to create this entire vast and marvelous universe, but know going in that the first man would need a mate, is.....well it’s nonsense isn’t it?

Theres no way that God could be smart enough to make the universe but not know the man of flesh would need a woman to mate with.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Can't remember where I read it, but I think there is a line in the bible that say that god can say no to anyone. No matter how devout and righteous. Kinda like, "You were good, but you know, I just don't want you in heaven." It's a lose-lose situation.

and yet the opposite is also explained 

Because  of christ's removal of the stain of original sin EVERY human is now eligible for eternal life  (clothed in pure white raiments.)   It is  a free gift for us all.  

In christian theology, whether we make it or not is down to us; how we live, and what we do to confess and make good our  almost inevitable human sins, like hurting another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 minute ago, Guyver said:

It’s interesting that you chose to discus the Garden of Eden but you didn’t say anything about biblical contradictions, which is what this thread is about.

You know what I find contradictory about the Creation story of Genesis?

Eve was originally not part of the plan.  She was added as an afterthought.  So much so, that the text states that God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, whereupon God took flesh and bone from his body and created Eve, the first woman found in the biblical text, and later claimed to be the mother of all living.

Anyway, what I find contradictory about that is that the text is stating that God created the universe.....the heavens and the earth, and that obvious takes an infinite amount of skill and capability.  So, to be wise and powerful enough to create this entire vast and marvelous universe, but know going in that the first man would need a mate, is.....well it’s nonsense isn’t it?

Theres no way that God could be smart enough to make the universe but not know the man of flesh would need a woman to mate with.

While hunters and gatherers are more equal, pastoralist and agrarian societies tend to be patriarchal due to the economies of them.

Hence it is to be expected that genesis is patriarchal .However eve (or sex)  is never blamed in genesis for the temptation of adam.

That's a later misogynist,  sexually repressed, interpretation by catholicism 

 I Interpret it differently. To the writers, god always knew adam would need a mate ,to be fruitful and multiply, but the chronological order of all things in genesis is significant.

Man was created first and eve second, and to  the writers this represented  the natural order of society. Man first. woman second  That theme continues throughout (most ) of the bible.

  In other creation myths, a woman is created first, or both are created simultaneously, reflecting the writer's cultural perspective.  This sometimes recognises a woman's significant role in birth /creation  of life and propagation /nurturing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

While hunters and gatherers are more equal, pastoralist and agrarian societies tend to be patriarchal due to the economies of them.

Hence it is to be expected that genesis is patriarchal .However eve (or sex)  is never blamed in genesis for the temptation of adam.

That's a later misogynist,  sexually repressed, interpretation by catholicism 

 I Interpret it differently. To the writers, god always knew adam would need a mate ,to be fruitful and multiply, but the chronological order of all things in genesis is significant.

Man was created first and eve second, and to  the writers this represented  the natural order of society. Man first. woman second  That theme continues throughout (most ) of the bible.

  In other creation myths, a woman is created first, or both are created simultaneously, reflecting the writer's cultural perspective.  This sometimes recognises a woman's significant role in birth /creation  of life and propagation /nurturing.  

I don’t really see how any of that is applicable to this conversation.  Why did you even bother to say anything?  Did you just need to hear yourself say something?

Sigh.

Nevermind Mr Walker.  You obviously are not very knowledgeable about biblical contradictions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
8 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I don’t really see how any of that is applicable to this conversation.  Why did you even bother to say anything?  Did you just need to hear yourself say something?

Sigh.

Nevermind Mr Walker.  You obviously are not very knowledgeable about biblical contradictions.

Sorry I can see it even if you cannot.

it goes directly to how and why the bible was written It's purpose in the writer's eyes their understanding  and interpretation of their world and god's relationship  with them,  and why there are apparent (or real )contradictions

For example the writers were not stupid but were culturally biased.

Thus they would never have believed god meant to create ONLY man (or they would not have written in the order to be fruitful and multiply) but the y might have believed that, in the pecking order of creation man came first and woman second :) 

Where a reader sees an apparent contradiction  it probably does not exist, in that it did not exist in the writer's narrative; or his readers(or listeners in a preliterate society)  would have recognised and been critical of it. Only we, after millennia of cultural shift dont "get" what was clear to the writers and their readers 

There are some real contradictions in the bible because there are so many writers, over so much time, with so many personal conceptions of god.

One of the biggies for me is that some writers clearly state that god is omnipotent omniscient etc., yet the narratives of others clearly show that the y do NOT see god in that way.  He is open to persuasion to changing his mind, to considering new evidences etc. 

In general, while the bible is just a book, one must deconstruct and relate to it as one would with any text,  using the same skills and critical analysis and application  but particularly trying to understand the writers, and thus what they were narrating from their minds/understandings 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
27 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I don’t really see how any of that is applicable to this conversation.  Why did you even bother to say anything?  Did you just need to hear yourself say something?

Sigh.

Nevermind Mr Walker.  You obviously are not very knowledgeable about biblical contradictions.

a briefer answer There IS no contradiction because  god (the writers)  always intended to create a helpmate for adam and  to propagate the species. The writers however placed eve later because of their cultural biases.

In other  creation myths from more equal societies,  from around the world, writers made the first person a woman or had them created together  The description of eve is not that she was an afterthought, but defines the writer's  perspective on the role of all women. ie subordinate  to men, helpmates rather than full partners. and breeders 

By the new testament this had changed a bit for the better,  but then the ealry church began denigrating women and using the bible to do so 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
50 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

a briefer answer There IS no contradiction because  god (the writers)  always intended to create a helpmate for adam and  to propagate the species. The writers however placed eve later because of their cultural biases.

In other  creation myths from more equal societies,  from around the world, writers made the first person a woman or had them created together  The description of eve is not that she was an afterthought, but defines the writer's  perspective on the role of all women. ie subordinate  to men, helpmates rather than full partners. and breeders 

By the new testament this had changed a bit for the better,  but then the ealry church began denigrating women and using the bible to do so 

OK, well that makes more sense but still evades the obvious point to a degree.  But whatever, in terms of pure biblical text the point I made was contradictory.  But, that’s not all of it, that’s only one part of it.

My point is repeated just a bit later when the Bible states that God discovered that he was sorry he made man and repented of it.  To repent is a whole other discussion about what that means, but God was sorry he made man and decided he must kill everything.  So he did.....but....Noah found grace in his eyes....so he didn’t.  He didn’t actually kill everything after all, he just killed most everything and decided to let it run again.

That makes it seem like God didn’t know what he was doing, and I find that contradictory to the nature of the universe.

In any event, I suspect the OP is more interested in hearing about textual contradictions and so that’s I will contribute here over time.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

For gawd's sake, the OT has sent more people bonkers than substance abuse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

The first Bible contradiction that I remember finding as a devout Christian who believed in “studying to show one’s self approved” came from the biblical accounts of David’s sin in numbering Israel.  First, I did the math and found there was a discrepancy between Kings and Chronicals of the number of men counted.

Then, the most glaring contradiction in the entire Bible about who was the cause of the numbering.  I will address that point in detail tomorrow when time permits if no one else discusses it.  Yet, I remember that at that time I had been prejudiced by Christian explanation of the contradiction that God used Satan to accomplish his will.  At the time, I couldn’t see how contradictory that belief was.....because I didn’t consider that causing someone else to do evil is actually evil.  That is what Charles Manson did in the Helter Skelter murders.  

So anyway, I will provide scriptural backup for these points when time permits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, Guyver said:

OK, well that makes more sense but still evades the obvious point to a degree.  But whatever, in terms of pure biblical text the point I made was contradictory.  But, that’s not all of it, that’s only one part of it.

My point is repeated just a bit later when the Bible states that God discovered that he was sorry he made man and repented of it.  To repent is a whole other discussion about what that means, but God was sorry he made man and decided he must kill everything.  So he did.....but....Noah found grace in his eyes....so he didn’t.  He didn’t actually kill everything after all, he just killed most everything and decided to let it run again.

That makes it seem like God didn’t know what he was doing, and I find that contradictory to the nature of the universe.

In any event, I suspect the OP is more interested in hearing about textual contradictions and so that’s I will contribute here over time.  

Excellent 

That was one of the writers from  whose perspective god was NOT all knowing /all powerful 

He took a risk,made a mistake and considered a couple of options on how to repair the damage.

Just as a human would do 

Because the writer is writing from a human perspective and humans still existed then, for that writer god must have decided to give humans a second chance,  using breeding stock he hoped and believed was without sin

Turned out he got it wrong, AGAIN  :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K9Buck
9 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I'm not exactly in a mood to get into an argument with anyone. But I want to ask, What exactly is the take-away you have gotten with Christianity? Pro's/Con's etc. Just curious.

My takeaway from the word of Jesus is that what he promoted is a correct way for man to live.  The idea of living forever in perfect health in paradise sounds good to me. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey
14 hours ago, Guyver said:

Crikey, post #26 was intended for you.

If you mean this one where you said- "In the gospels, Jesus claims to have their backs, as you said.  But, in the Revelation, there is a different type of Jesus who is judgmental and angry.  Here Jesus claims that if a person is "lukewarm" instead of hot or cold, they will be rejected as vomit. Does this seem contradictory to you?"

I thought I'd already answered it with the "Gatecrashers" video?

To recap, Jesus wants GOOD STRONG MATES who think he's the bees knees, so there ain't no way wishy-washy types will get past the bouncer on the pearlies, there's no contradiction there.

I mean, if you were a big Barry Manilow fan who only liked Elvis a little bit, the bouncer at an Elvis convention would say "On yer bike, you ain't coming in here!"

bouncerzia34.png~original

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
On 2/4/2020 at 8:39 AM, Essan said:


Good analogy - plenty of people have written books about Elvis.  Do they all agree with one another on every detail?   No ....    Doesn't mean he didn't exist. 

But does it mean he really was The King?  :unsure2:

 

Uh huh.

Some things are obvious. :lol:

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
8 hours ago, Crikey said:

If you mean this one where you said- "In the gospels, Jesus claims to have their backs, as you said.  But, in the Revelation, there is a different type of Jesus who is judgmental and angry.  Here Jesus claims that if a person is "lukewarm" instead of hot or cold, they will be rejected as vomit. Does this seem contradictory to you?"

I thought I'd already answered it with the "Gatecrashers" video?

To recap, Jesus wants GOOD STRONG MATES who think he's the bees knees, so there ain't no way wishy-washy types will get past the bouncer on the pearlies, there's no contradiction there.

I mean, if you were a big Barry Manilow fan who only liked Elvis a little bit, the bouncer at an Elvis convention would say "On yer bike, you ain't coming in here!"

bouncerzia34.png~original

 

 

OK....thanks.  That was a funny post.  I don't think it makes much sense because it seems to me that Jesus should love all people, kinda like he loves all the little children.  You know that Jesus is smart enough to understand that some people are mentally retarded or physically disabled and that wouldn't make them strong mates right?  Do you think Jesus loves the weak mates too.....or will he just toss those poor unfortunates into the Lake of Fire?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Anyway.....back to the topic of biblical contradictions, I said I would post some when time permitted.  As I said before, the first one I found had to do with King Davids sin in numbering Israel.  The accounts are found in the books of 2 Samuel chapter 24, and 1 Chronicles chapter 21.  Here we find King David commanding that a number of the current population be provided to him from his military commanders.  

In Chronicles the number was 1,100,000 fighting men from Israel and 470,000 for a total of 1,570,000 fighting men.  

In 2 Samuel the number provided was 800,000 from Israel and 500,000 from Judah for a total of 1,300,000 fighting men.  

That is a difference of 270,000 men.  So, the biblical contradiction is found in the reported number of fighting men.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
5 minutes ago, Guyver said:

OK....thanks.  That was a funny post.  I don't think it makes much sense because it seems to me that Jesus should love all people, kinda like he loves all the little children.  You know that Jesus is smart enough to understand that some people are mentally retarded or physically disabled and that wouldn't make them strong mates right?  Do you think Jesus loves the weak mates too.....or will he just toss those poor unfortunates into the Lake of Fire?

 

Guyv,

It's about love. Love for Jesus. Love for doing as he did. To love all like he loves all. With a fatherly love. 

Fatherly love is how he loves us. It's different than brotherly love. Loving your neighbor as yourself. Fatherly love is greater than brotherly love. 

And this is what's either weak or strong. Love for Jesus.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

The next biblical contradiction that I would offer is what I consider to be the worst one in the entire bible.  It also has to do with David's sin in numbering Israel.  This time the contradiction has to do with the question of who caused David to sin.  The bible gives two different people (or beings) as being responsible for it.  The first being is God, and the second being is Satan.  The reason I find this so problematic is that it seems to me that the bible should be able to understand the difference between God and Satan.

2 Samuel 24:1 - " Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

1 Chronicles 21:1 - "Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
54 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Guyv,

It's about love. Love for Jesus. Love for doing as he did. To love all like he loves all. With a fatherly love. 

Fatherly love is how he loves us. It's different than brotherly love. Loving your neighbor as yourself. Fatherly love is greater than brotherly love. 

And this is what's either weak or strong. Love for Jesus.

 

 

Sounds like an arrogant narcissist to me.  I find extreme cognitive dissonance with how you describe Jesus, both in this post and the one about Jesus only wanting "strong mates".  You seem to be creating contradictions to me.  Either Jesus loves everyone or he picks and chooses.  Is he god or is he gods son sent to "save us all"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey
1 hour ago, Guyver said:

OK....thanks.  That was a funny post.  I don't think it makes much sense because it seems to me that Jesus should love all people, kinda like he loves all the little children.  You know that Jesus is smart enough to understand that some people are mentally retarded or physically disabled and that wouldn't make them strong mates right?  Do you think Jesus loves the weak mates too.....or will he just toss those poor unfortunates into the Lake of Fire?

1- Jesus said:- "Whoever rejects me rejects God"......"Whoever's ashamed of me and my words, I'll be ashamed of him" (Luke 10:16,Mark 8:38 ) so there ain't no way hozay Jesus-rejecters get through the pearlies or it'd be a case of "oops there goes the neighbourhood".

2- All kids are born innocent and bound for the pearlies, even mentally/physically handicapped ones; I used to work for the Scope charity and their natural innocence gives them a head start over the rest of us, though atheist Dawkins might not agree-

rel-Dawks-downs.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

Sounds like an arrogant narcissist to me.  I find extreme cognitive dissonance with how you describe Jesus, both in this post and the one about Jesus only wanting "strong mates".  You seem to be creating contradictions to me.  Either Jesus loves everyone or he picks and chooses.  Is he god or is he gods son sent to "save us all"?

 

You seem to be misunderstanding. 

Of course Jesus loves everyone. Unconditionally like good fathers and mothers always do. :D

But that doesn't mean all the children will love their parents likewise in return.

God cannot make a person love him, if they don't want to, and salvation, is the result of love. Unconditional love for God. The same type of love Jesus has for all of us.

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

You seem to be misunderstanding. 

Of course Jesus loves everyone. Unconditionally like good fathers and mothers always do. :D

But that doesn't mean all the children will love their parents likewise in return.

God cannot make a person love him, if they don't want to, and salvation, is the result of love. Unconditional love for God. The same type of love Jesus has for all of us.

 

 

So, the condition is that the child loves the parent or is lost?  That seems to be what you are saying, but that comment about Jesus doesn't want "weak" mates, also contradicts you claiming Jesus loves everyone unconditionally.  And which is it, is Jesus god or is Jesus the son of god separate from god like you claim we are?

Edited by Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will do
2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

So, the condition is that the child loves the parent or is lost?  That seems to be what you are saying, but that comment about Jesus doesn't want "weak" mates, also contradicts you claiming Jesus loves everyone unconditionally.  And which is it, is Jesus god or is Jesus the son of god separate from god like you claim we are?

 

Unless willed otherwise, long term or short term, nothing is seperate from God. ;)

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
18 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Unless willed otherwise, long term or short term, nothing is seperate from God. ;)

 

 

If that is true then how can some people not be allowed into the kingdom of heaven?  I think that is what you are talking about, right?  If someone chooses not to love Jesus they can't get into heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.