Could someone please name all that they know, i need to know for an arguement i had with a friend.
Someone will probably be along to post a link to a page with a whole list. Be advised that not all of the ones you’ll find in those lists are equally valid. In the meantime:
There are basically two creation stories in Genesis 1-2, which don’t really agree on any of the details (story one, which is basically found in Genesis 1, but includes the first three verses of Genesis 2, is the one with the seven days of creation; story two, which continues on in subsequent chapters, is the Garden of Eden story, with Adam and Eve).
In many translations, Gen. 2:19 (“And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof”) would appear to contradict Gen. 1:20-23 (“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven…And the evening and the morning were the fifth day”) and Gen. 1:26-31 (“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…And the evening and the morning were the sixth day”) since the Genesis 1 passages assign the creation of man after the creation of the birds (and probably after the creation of the other land animals as well), whereas the Genesis 2 passage seems to put the creation of birds and beasts after the creation of man. Note that the New International Version avoids this problem somewhat by shifting tenses: “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name” (emphasis added). I’m no Hebrew scholar, so I don’t know if the KJV or the NIV is more faithful to the original Hebrew; I will note that my New English Bible, a pretty scholarly-looking translation from Oxford University Press, agrees with the KJV’s verb tenses here. Even in the NIV’s version, there are problems. In the NIV Genesis 2:4-7 ("…When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens–and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up…the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being") still contradicts Genesis 1:11-13 (“Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” …And there was evening, and there was morning–the third day.”) in terms of the sequence of events.
Note that even conservative Christians (and Jews) differ in how literally to take the creation accounts; these contradictions will mostly be a problem for those who insist on the most literal, 7-day, 24-hour, “Adam and Eve and the talking snake were all real people” interpretation of things.
Moving on to the New Testament, the genealogies given for Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 (both given through the line of Jesus’ father, even though both Gospels also insist on the Virgin Birth) vary wildly, to the extent that they can’t even agree on who Jesus’ paternal grandfather (or step-grandfather) is: Matthew gives his name as Jacob, while Luke gives it as Heli. The most common apologetic claim is that the genealogy in Luke is really the genealogy of Mary, but there’s no textual support for this claim.
As prophisied by MEBuckner, I am posting a link to a list of 300:
Have a look at the context of those examples in the big list, a lot of them are just tiny snippets that appear to contradict (OK, shoot me for saying that), anyone can find ‘apparent’ contradictions in the bible, it takes harder work to find valid contradictions.
For example, I could find the word ‘yes’ in the bible and find the word ‘no’ somewhere else, see I found a contradiction, oops, no I didn’t, however, there are some like the genealogy one which are valid, but I think you’ll find that most christians can argue their way around most of them, especially if you’re presenting examples that you didn’t find for yourself.
It’s also worth wondering whether the friendship is more important than the argument.
Though I can’t speak for the site itself, this site offers links to several sites which disprove biblical “contradictions”.
though as a member of the straight dope message board i wonder no more…
This reminds me of my favorite Bible quote:
“He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord” – Deuteronomy 23:1
sucks huh?
it’s followed by:
“No bastard shall enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” – Deuteronomy 23:2
which would seem to contradict:
“The son shall not suffer the iniquity of the father…the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” – Ezekial 18:20
but of course there are those talented weasels and their flaming swords of truth… my advice is to not even bother… their skulls are too thick
Here’s a non-nitpicky example off the top of my head:
- “God gave man free will.”
- “God hardened Pharoah’s heart against Moses’ pleas to free the Hebrews.”
A personal favorite of mine.
Traditional Jewish answer: God was restoring Pharoah’s free will.
Suppose Tommy Thug meets Nick Niceguy in the street and says “Give me your wallet.” Nick has free will to give his wallet or not. Now, suppose Tommy Thug hits Nick and repeats his demand. Nick again refuses. Tommy then continues to pound on Nick and after each blow demands his wallet. After enough blows, Nick finally yields. However, his giving the wallet can hardly be said to be of his own free will. He simply gave it to avoid getting beaten up further.
The same applies here. God hardening Pharoah’s heart was simply allowing him to ignore the effects of the plauges and allow him to make a free decision on whether or not to free the Jews.
Zev Steinhardt
Would it not have been smarter to soften his heart instead and forgo all the plagues? I mean, had he softened instead of hardening then Moses would not have to keep bugging God for one plague after the other. Sort of makes Moses look like a very poor negotiator.
Actually, Moses never asked God for the plauges (nor did he ask for Pharoah’s heart to be hardened). They were God’s idea…
Zev Steinhardt
Tough break for Jesus kid, eh?
Oh come now, I’ve watched Charleton Heston demand that Yul Brinner let his people go multiple times every year. You can’t tell me he didn’t attempt to negotiate on at least several occasions through that entire plague fiasco.
< I am so going to get it for using the Ten Commandments movie as a cite! 
>
Actually, Quicksilver, you’re right. He did that while trying to rescue the Israelites from the Apes. When they did escape the apes, they had no food to eat, so he prayed to God for Soylent Green.
Zev Steinhardt
I think Zev’s responses have demonstrated exactly what Kaje meant when he refered to the “talented weasels and their flaming swords of truth.” Believing that having one’s heart hardened by God is a restoration of free will, not a deprivation of such, is akin to arguing that love=hate. Oh, wait, Biblicists argue that one as well! You see, when Jesus told people to hate their own families, he really only meant for them to love them less that they love him.
Let’s also ask ourselves why God hardened Pharaoh’s heart:
So that he can perform miracles (Ex. 7:3)
To give the Israelites something to tell their grandchildren about (Ex. 10:2)
To gain glory for himself (Ex. 14:4)
These are all excellent reasons to kill millions of innocent children and animals.
I’d be interested in seeing what the standard response is to other divine imposed cardioscleroses. Dt. 2:30 relates how Sihon, king of Heshbon, refused to let the Israelites pass through, because God had hardened his heart. God did this so that the Israelites could massacre the Heshbonites, killing men, women, and children, leaving no survivors. IIRC, Chaim argued that God’s hardening of Sihon’s heart was only the method by which a long overdue act of justice could be carried out. That is, the Heshbonites were so evil and corrupting that their entire society needed to be wiped out, and God’s hardening of Sihon’s heart simply allowed the necessary genocide to finally be enacted.
While I think that most believers are intractable in their positions, you might want to work in broader brushstrokes, arguing for multiple traditions in the Bible, rather than the standard verse x contradicts verse y type of stuff. For example, there is ample evidence that the Old Testament encompasses many divergent ideas and histories, rather than being a unified story from beginning to end. You may check out my website for examples of such evidence:
Here
are
some
essays.
While I’ve only gotten around to writing about the Old Testament, the New Testament also has numerous contradictory ideas which are generally ignored by believers. Luke denies the concept of vicarious atonement of sins through Jesus’ death, instead interpreting the resurrection as a divine rectification of a grave injustice. Certain epistles are written in response to others (James vs. the Pauline epistles). And John presents a radically different Jesus than any of the Synoptics, which should lead any intellectually honest Christian to ask him/herself how two disciples of Jesus–John and Matthew–could reach such different conclusions about the nature of his message and details of his ministry.
I think that approaching the Bible in terms of scholarly analysis, rather than the standard “X contradicts Y, so there!” style is probably your best bet. You’ll have much more success if you show that the story of Noah is a composite of two earlier stories that were later edited together, instead of simply pointing out that Gen. 6:20 contradicts Gen. 7:2 without comment, or proving that the flood was impossible for whatever reason.
I’ve never tried it but it’s got to be better than gefilte fish or matzo. 
- Shalom.
**Moses: **Let My people go!
**Pharoah: **Err…OK then
**Moses: **Let my pe… what did you say?
So… God sends plagues to persuade Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, then blocks Pharaoh’s natural reactions to the plagues so that his decision is not influenced by them? Mighty confusing (almighty, even).
Which reminds me of one of my favorite biblical contradictions, the kingpin them of all:
1st Corinthians 14:33 “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace…” contradicts, well, every other contradiction you can think of! (Taking for granted the assumption that God is in fact the author of every scriptural statement, as 2nd Timothy 3:16 asserts.)
As Robert Ingersoll once said, Suppose the Devil got his hands on the Bible at some point and inserted passages. Could we tell which parts had been maliciously written, and which were truly inspired? Is it possible that the Devil wrote “Love your neighbors as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) and God is responsible for “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18)?
Yeah, just what freaking difference does it make who Joseph’s ancestors were when he wasn’t really Jesus’s father?
From Zev:
Too bad for those few Egyptians who may have actually wanted to see the Hebrews freed, and too bad for the children and new-born infants who could not be blamed for the Hebrews’ bondage. But they were all forced to suffer the plagues just the same.
Try using Dreamworks’ The Prince of Egypt if you want more blasphemy – there, Pharoah is actually a sympathetic guy, someone who’s torn between being a strong leader who’ll stand up to Moses and being a nice guy who’ll free the Hebrews.
…and then God hardens his heart and makes him into a bastich…
This thread is starting to remind me of Quarterflash.