Contradictions,inconsistencies and absurdities within the bible.

[ANDY-J2]

The bible is littered with so many inconsistencies,contradictions and downright absurdities that no rational human being could ever seriously argue that it has been in any way divinely inspired.Christians of course glibly argue that there are no contradictions whatsoever within the bible but the evidence is overwhelming-contradictions and absurdities are everywhere within both the old and new testaments.Below are a very few obvious inconsistencies.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said,
I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

So if Jesus is one with his father how can his father be greater than him?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and
with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that in-
creaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
So which is it?Is wisdom a good thing or a bad thing?

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of
their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor
fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the chil-
dren, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers:
every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
A clear and unambiguous contradiction.

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing
that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to
leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his
kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after
his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four
feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
So how many feet do insects have?

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see
the sun.

So when was the last time you saw a melted snail?



The above are only a small percentage of the countless absurdities and contradictions contained within holy scripture.Now I already know in advance the facile and ill thought out arguments which the Christians will use to try and "explain" the absurdities within their bible.For example they will argue that a scribe has made an error in transcription and I wouldn't argue with that very clear admission that the bible contains errors,and if therefore,as Christians concede the bible is flawed,why the hell should I believe that it contains a divine revelation?Why should I regard it differently from any other book?

[Sharp_Kid]

Just one thing, and I don't mean to sound rude, but, if there were mistakes made by scribes and translators, and if the original text of the bible was guided by Gods own hand, why were the subsequent translations not guided by Gods hand too?
Did God get bored of his little game?
Did He decide that perhaps he'd packaged the message wrong and didn't want anything to do with it's further propagation throughout the world?
Or did he perhaps decide that he wanted to put these little errors in here and there to test peoples faith?

These questions must bhe answered.

[HollyElise]

Very interesting post, Andy!

I took several religious courses in college and I vaguely recall a course where among other things we discussed the authors of the bible and what was known and not known about them. I wish it were more clear in my memory. We used the Oxford Bible too which has extensive footnotes about translation irregularities.

This may sound like an illogical argument, but i'm not sure it follows that the Bible was not divinely inspired because it obviously contradicts and is flawed. To me, perfection is an overrated value and i think it is an assumption that if it flowed from God it would have to be perfect in the conventional sense. If God created man, well, WOOPS! That's the first goof-up. Ha ha.

But something i find as interesting is the apocrypha and the story of the gnostic gospels. Clearly, the Bible is a collection, and this is confirmed by historians. What was chosen for the collection appears to have been somewhat politically motivated.

[Monco]

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
The above are only a small percentage of the countless absurdities and contradictions contained within holy scripture.Now I already know in advance the facile and ill thought out arguments which the Christians will use to try and "explain" the absurdities within their bible.For example they will argue that a scribe has made an error in transcription and I wouldn't argue with that very clear admission that the bible contains errors,and if therefore,as Christians concede the bible is flawed,why the hell should I believe that it contains a divine revelation?Why should I regard it differently from any other book?

Something I saw on the telly not that long ago regarding the commandment "Thou shall not kill". I forget exactly what it was in relation to, but a scholar of Biblical Hebrew said that the English translation was not totally accurate, and that "thou shall not murder" would be a more accurate translation. I think it was actually regarding army chaplains and the Iraq war, and was it ok for soldiers to kill in wars (though it doesn't seem to have worried many people over the centuries!).

But I don't think many people do realise the difficulties of taking an ancient language and trying to recreate its meaning in a modern language. Indeed some people seem to think God was an English speaker.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

From Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties by Dr. Gleason Archer, a graduate of Harvard, member of the Massachusetts Bar, and speaker of over 30 languages:

"As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself--or else by objective archeological information. The deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record; and no properly trained evangelical scholar has anything to fear from the hostile arguments and challenges of humanistic rationalists or detractors of any and every persuasion."

Now before starting off, remember that the standard approach to criticism of any historical document has been, since Aristotle's time, to give the benefit of the doubt to the document under consideration. As Coleridge put it, "When we meet an apparent error in a good author, we are to presume ourselves ignorant of his understanding, until we are certain that we understand his ignorance." So, even if you don't find the explanations for the contradictions in the bible completely satisfactory, if they are plausible and they make sense within the context of the passage, they have to be accepted.

Here are the standard guidelines for resolving biblical difficulties:

1. The unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable.
2. Fallible interpretations do not mean fallible revalation.
3. Understand the context of the passage.
4. Interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones.
5. Don't base teaching on obscure passages.
6. The Bible is a human book with human characteristics.(i.e. expressions of speech (such as when Jesus used exaggeration) should not always be taken literally, then pitted against another portion of Scripture)
7. Just becaue a report is incomplete does not mean that it is false.
8. New Testament citations of the Old Testament need not always be exact.
9. The Bible does not necessarily approve of all it records.
10. The Bible uses non-technical, everyday language (i.e. it uses observational language, like saying "the sun rose" and "the sun set" instead of saying "the earth spun so that the portion on which I was standing began to face the sun.")
11. The Bible may use round numbers as well as exact numbers.
12. Note when the Bible uses different literary devices.
13. An error in a copy does not equate to an error in the original.
14. General statements don't necessarily mean universal promises. (i.e. when Proverbs 16:7 affirms that "when a man's ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies be at peace with him" it is stating something that is generally true, but not true in every instance (martyrs come to mind))
15. Later revalation supercedes previous revalation. (i.e. Matthew 5:39 (turn the other cheek) can not be cited as contradicting Leviticus 24:20 (an eye for an eye) because the newer law was intended to replace the older law, as Jesus made clear in Matthew 5:38)

The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell

Number 3 is by far the most important. In about 75% of cases, understanding the context of the passages cited as contradictory suffices for reconciling them. In Psalms 14:1 the Bible says "There is no God." Of course, the context of this phrase is "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Theja elaborated on number 9 a while ago.

Originally posted by Theja
God did not instruct or endorse Cain killing his brother Abel. God did not endorse the drunkenness of Noah, the sins of Sodom, the adultery of David, etc. These are only a few examples. But God allowed them to be recorded in the Bible to distinguish sin and righteousness, good and evil, etc. Most of them took place in the context of real events/history.

The Bible records lies, and it records false teachings (ex.- the Golden Calf, numerous quotations of things Satan said, etc). This does not mean that the Bible approves of them. On the contrary, from the context of these passages it is clear that the Bible strongly dissaproves. Therefore these passages should not be cited as contradicting something God or Jesus said. Of course they are contradictory! One is true and one is false!

Andy and Sharpkid have stated that Christians and Jews are not entitled to principle number 13. They call it a tacit admission that the Bible is fallible. Theja has already written a satisfactory rebuttal.

Originally posted by Theja
Yes, there were a few numerical discrepancies due to scribal mistake. The Hebrew uses alphabets to indicate numbers and in some cases a slight twist or shortening of an alphabet can vary the number into hundreds. Which is what happened in those instances.

The Dead Sea Scrolls put to shame those who were questioning the accuracy of the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, we have hundreds of manuscripts to fall back on.

The few discrepancies in the Bible did not in the least degree compromise the doctrines and prophecies of the Bible. In other words, those discrepancies are inconsequential and negligible.

Indeed, a missing zero in the book of Samuel does not compromise the overall integrity of the Bible. The book has been transmitted through the ages to near perfect accuracy. That only a few tiny mistakes in transcription have been made over thousands of years is incredible.

Orthodox Christians do not maintain that the Bible we have today is letter for letter perfect. We maintain that the originals were perfect and that the flaws that have come about in transcription are small and inconsequential.

And now, I start debunking.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
In Genesis 10:5, 20, 31 we learn that

"From these the coastland peoples spread. These are the sons of Japheth in their lands, each with his own language, by their families, in their nations ... These are the sons of Ham, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations ... These are the sons of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations."

However in Genesis 11:1 we learn that

"Now the whole earth had one language and few words. And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there." (Genesis 11:1)

Now, the author (or redactor, if you ascribe to the JEDP myth) of Genesis would have to have been retarded to have left two blatantly contradictory statements right next to each other. So, we can safely assume that there is an explanation. And there is.

Andy, you are falsely assuming chronological order. As you can see by the story of The Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, God's intent was for man to spread out across the earth and use different languages. Instead, man decided to be lazy, stay in one place, and speak one language. So, God had to "confuse the tongues", and scatter humanity across the world Himself. Genesis 10 records the nations and languages that He created.

That much of what Genesis 10 records precedes the events of Genesis 11 is made clear by the text itself. See Gen 10:10-11. It says that Nimrod's kingdom was originally in Babel, in the land of Shinar. Then, later[/i] he went forth into Assyria.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Jesus baptised - John 3:22.
Jesus did not baptise - John 4:2.

Originally posted by Theja
Concerning John 3:22, it really does not say that Jesus baptized, implying that the disciples did the baptizing -- and this view is corroborated by the very verse you quoted in John 4:2. Why try to twist John into saying something he did not say? Also no one in the entire scripture claimed he was baptized by Jesus Himself.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
No one is righteous - Rom 3:10.
There are righteous - James 5:16.

Originally posted by Theja
None Righteous -- Romans 3:10. Reading further the same book, you will find that sinners are made RIGHTEOUS by trusting in Christ (Romans 5:1 and 8:1). Get it?

As for James 5:16, he is referring to Christians (made RIGHTEOUS already) to pray for others. Get it?

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come
again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said,
I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

So if Jesus is one with his father how can his father be greater than him?

That depends what you mean by "one." If "one" means "the same person," then the two passages are indeed contradictory. However, Jesus repeatedly makes it clear that He is a distinct being from His Father. By "one" He means that He and the Father are enjoined in an extraordinarily close union. When Jesus says that they are one, He is saying it in a similar sense as when a husband says to his wife, "we are one."

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that in-
creaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
So which is it?Is wisdom a good thing or a bad thing?

You are misinterpreting Solomon. He never says that wisdom is a bad thing. He says that wisdom often brings greif. Surely you can't argue that being wise is often a less comfortable position then one of blissfull ignorance?

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of
their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor
fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the chil-
dren, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers:
every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
A clear and unambiguous contradiction.

I'll get back to you on that one.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing
that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to
leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his
kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after
his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four
feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
So how many feet do insects have?

Don't be pedantic. The Bible is here using idiomatic, non-scientific language.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see
the sun.

So when was the last time you saw a melted snail?

Again, don't be pedantic. It's a figure of speech. To answer your question, I'm told snails melt if you pour salt on them, though I've never observed this firsthand.

Originally posted by ANDY-J2
Now I already know in advance the facile and ill thought out arguments which the Christians will use to try and "explain" the absurdities within their bible.For example they will argue that a scribe has made an error in transcription and I wouldn't argue with that very clear admission that the bible contains errors,and if therefore,as Christians concede the bible is flawed,why the hell should I believe that it contains a divine revelation?Why should I regard it differently from any other book?

The modern Bible contains errors, not the original. But the flaws are tiny and do not compromise the integrity of the revalation.

[emballantine]

Fear_nam_Beanntan: Just wondering...have you read the original copy of the bible?

I have to say I do not understand how Christians can say not to take the bible literally when you are criticizing it, yet will quote it literally when they are using it to persecute others.

To not take it out of context when criticizing, yet use pieces of it out of context when criticizing others.

In fact while comparing the original scripture to any "current" version of the bible. One must admit that the entire bible is out of context, since it has become very evident over the last century that the Roman Catholic church went through and picked and chose as it saw fit. Offering up many edits, as well as simply eliminating books that did not fit their political needs.

And for TomSawyer: I have seen you use several times in argument the idea that God and Jesus cannot be seperated. That they are one. I ask you 1) what specific denomination are you? and 2) have you studied every single Christian faith?

You make these broad sweeping statements for all of Christianity, yet there are certain Christian faiths that do not consider God and Jesus to be as one as you claim them to be. God is the father and Jesus is the son. They are not always considered to be one and the same.

[Sharp_Kid]

Originally posted by Fear_nam_Beanntan
[b]Andy and Sharpkid have stated that Christians and Jews are not entitled to principle number 13. They call it a tacit admission that the Bible is fallible.[b]

Um, no.
I made sure not to do that.
I simply asked a few light hearted questions and put a nice little swing on it for those devoted christians to play with.

My belief is that the teachings of Jesus Christ were very useful, and I believe that if everyone lived their life by the ten commandments and Jesus' further ellaborations on those commandments, the world would be a much nicer place.

I also believe that it really doesn't matter about the specific structure or text of the Bible, as long as it's teachings are put to good use in the right context.

I have no desire to heap scorne on any religious text, and do not believe that I did so in my original post.

I thank you.

PS. TomSawyer, Buddhism rocks.