# What is the most fundamental contradiction in the Bible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2002, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529 "2002-04-19T15:12:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Newton\_meter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/57b2e6/32.png) [@Newton\_meter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Newton_meter)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/101 "2002-04-23T14:58:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > **Could “…studying the text properly.” happen to mean “not be willing to accept that there are contradictions in the Bible to the extent that _any_ explanation, no matter how how farfetched or convoluted, will be gladly accepted.”?** It could. > [@](#): > > **Either the Bible is supposed to be a straightforward account meant to be read _and understood_ by all, or it is not and should be tossed in the trash with any other badly plotted-out manuscript.** Those are really the only two choices? Let me suggest two others. Parts of the bible are true and parts are not. Or, the true nature of reality contains contradictions. There is a real, and I think unavoidable, philosophical flaw in any argument to reject the bible based on contradictions it contains. The argument contains the following essentials: the bible contains contradictions; since reality does not permit contradictions, the bible cannot accurately describe reality; therefore, the bible ought to be rejected. This misses two points, one minor and one major. First, there is no automatic reason to suppose that a particular contradictory account is in general less accurate than _any_ non-contradictory account. Contradiction in and of itself is not a cause for rejection. Second, rejection is contingent on reality not allowing a contradiction. I don’t think that question is yet settled satisfactorily. Relativity tells us that there are no priveleged reference frames. An object can be (for instance) _both_ contracting along its direction of motion and not contracting in that direction. Quantum physics suggests that a particle can both be in a particular position and not be in that same position. Again, I won’t claim that this is the _true_ nature of reality; but the question is certainly not settled. It might be the case that reality is pervasively contradictory. You cannot compel rejection of the bible, unless you also insist on rejection or non-standard (i.e. kooky) interpretation of the last 100 years of science. Besides the philosophical fallacy, there are also three particular logical fallacies often committed. Two are avoidable, the third is problematic. First, there is a misunderstanding of logical conjunction. If the bible is validly interpreted as a conjunction of propositions, each of which has a logical truth value independent of the others (required for the program of rejection by contradiction), then the entire conjunction fails if any of the propositions is shown to be false. If we adopt classical logic, then the law of non-contradiction holds, and a contradiction implies at least one falsehood. Thus, a biblical contradiction causes us to reject the entire bible. The flaw is in the interpretation of “entire”. We are _not_ logically committed to reject every single thing in the bible. The falsehood of a conjunct does not compel rejection of any other proposition that happens to be related only by the conjunction. That is, if I claim “God exists AND God does not exist AND St. Paul is the capital of Minnesota”, you are not required to reject “St. Paul is the capital of Minnesota”. There is no automatic reason to suppose that falsehood of a proposition pollutes other propositions. The only reason is when, as you’ve done above, you insist that it be the case. It is quite reasonable to simply accept all the non-contradictory propositions in the bible, and one half of every pair of contradictions. That is still logically valid. In fact, that is exactly (part of) what we do when we say “I don’t accept the bible as entirely literally true”. Second, there is a misunderstanding of logical implication. If the bible is validly interpreted as drawing conclusions (how we ought to live) based on premises (propositions contained in the bible), and we find a false premise due to a contradiction (or any other reason), then we ought to reject the conclusions. Logic doesn’t say anything of the sort. If we find a false premise, we are not _compelled_ to accept the conclusions, but there is also no compulsion to reject them. If I claim: “if George was born in Minnesota, then he is a US citizen”, and you demonstrate that George was born in California, you are not required to conclude that he is not a US citizen. There is no logical sense that a contradiction in the bible should cause me to (for instance) stop believing in God, stop praying, or stop attending church. Finally, and quite damning, are the very consequences of an insistence on non-contradiction. The intuition is that we ought to reject contradictions because they are, in some way, _offensive_ to logic (I have already argued that they are not offensive to the structure of reality). The reason that classical logic requires non-contradiction is due to the (classical) entailment relation, where certain sets of propositions imply other sets of propositions. In this relation, a contradiction implies _everything_. Thus, if we want to reject anything at all (which we probably can agree on), then we _must_ reject all contradictions. It is this sense that the bible is a contradictory theory that is supposed to cause us to reject it. To be concrete, suppose we have two statements: A = “thou shalt not kill” ~A = “whoever strikes someone so that he dies must surely be put to death” And we claim that one is the logical negation of the other. Then, any theory containing both these statements can be used to derive anything, and must be rejected as a theory. However, non-contradiction carries with it the law of the excluded middle. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle are equivalent: you must either accept both of them or reject both of them. A very weak case can be made for accepting the law of the excluded middle and rejecting non-contradiction. The opposite (accepting non-contradiction, rejecting excluded middle) leads to a contradiction itself, and you cannot both accept non-contradiction and a contradiction. Anyway, insistence on non-contradiction requires insistence on excluded middles. That is, in the example above, it _must_ be the case that either A or ~A is true. You cannot insist on rejection of the bible on these grounds, without being forced to insist on the validity of exactly half of each pair of contradictory statements in the bible. And I don’t think you want to do that. You have two choices. You can insist that the two statements above (for instance) are somehow _not_ a pair of a proposition and its negation. That is what we do when we “interpret” the bible. For instance, when we see “thou shall not kill”, followed in the next chapter by a list of times when you should “put [someone] to death”, we should ask if “killing” and “putting to death” are really the same thing, or if one of them is an exception to the rule of the other, or if there is some deontic reading (as things we “ought” to do but are sometimes “required” to violate). Or, you can insist on some third possibility to A and ~A (like “God does not exist”, or “God never said either of those”). That is, you can reject the law of the excluded middle and thereby accept contradictions. You can reject classical logic (and I think you should, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the world), which has two consequences. The appearance of contradictions in the bible no longer compels _anything_. We can tolerate the contradiction. It just might be the case that God embodies a paradox, or commands us to do contradictory things (he’s pretty demanding 🙂 ). And, we are no longer forced into your false choices (“accept _this_ interpretation of the bible, or reject the entire thing”). I guess I’m just stunned at the philosophical program of discrediting the bible. Until we have established that the world is straightforward and meant ot be understood by all, we cannot reject the bible on those grounds as “inaccurate”. Perhaps its accuracy comes at this expense. This idea is the intellectual older brother of fundamentalism. Both insist, at their core, that the bible can only be “all or nothing”, and that any contradiction is fatal. Consistency is not all its cracked up to be. And a foolish consistency is just that: foolish. If you’re interested in pursuing the hobgoblin of little minds, then there you have it. If you’re interested in truth, you have to be more sophisticated. kg m²/s² ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/102 "2002-04-23T15:28:40Z")
Bravo, **Newton Meter**. I think that because some part of the Great Unwashed urge on us that the Bible is in some way the literally true, verbatim inspired Word of God, and such a statement flies in the face of virtually every fact we know, does **not** require rejecting it as total garbage. There are some meaningful and valuable insights into human nature to be gained from just reading it as literature. For those of us who believe in a God who **tries** to communicate a way of living to humanity and used the human authors as vehicles to try to get this across (and in consequence had His intent besmirched with things like a genocidal Israelite commander claiming that He commanded that all of some given group among the enemies of Israel be killed, man, woman and child), it gives, _intelligently read_, an insight into God’s purpose – but one has to be careful to keep the context straight to do this. ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/103 "2002-04-23T15:49:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David, God of Frogs \* > \*\* > > because, if God is claiming to be able to do everything, time shouldn’t be a concern - he should be able to get it done right now, or actually he should have never even started the world with evil. \*\* “Time shouldn’t be a concern” is not equivalent to “getting it done right now.” If time isn’t a concern, then it seems to me that that should mean God can do what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants. Our opinion on whether it’s taking too long don’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![Scupper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Scupper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scupper)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/104 "2002-04-23T16:26:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zev\_steinhardt \* > \*\* > > No, I’m afarid you are wrong. You are the victim of a bad translation. > > The verse in question, in the original Hebrew, reads _lo tirtzach_. This means do not murder. Murder (as opposed to killing) is killing without valid reason. I can kill someone in self defense – but it’s not murder. “Do not kill” would be _lo taharog_ in Hebrew. > \*\* Why is it never translated that way except in footnotes? > [@](#): > > \*\* > In any event, it should be obvious that if a general rule is stated, and then another specific rule comes along which contradicts the general rule, that the specific rule is an exception to the general rule. > \*\* Thou shalt not kill. Except when thou shalt. Is there not a contradiction when God tells his people that they should not kill, then gives them specific exceptions, but He Himself repeatedly kills people who haven’t met those exceptions? Or are we to believe that, for instance, every single man, woman, and child in the world outside of Noah’s immediate family met one or more of His criteria for execution? God repeatedly kills children, or condones, endorses or allows the killing. Most toddlers I know aren’t capable of meeting any of the criteria for execution except that God doesn’t happen to like their people. Heck, the book of Joshua alone features several cities being “annihilated,” leaving no survivors. What’s the excuse? “God was really moody back in the day?” I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to why people still include the Old Testament in their Bible when they have to make excuses for the God described therein. Flat contradictions? God Loves Everybody but destroys cities. God Loves Everybody but kills children. God Hates Evil but allows it to exist, blaming humans for temptations He creates. If he’s so concerned about Free Will, how does that explain His making it more tempting to do Evil? How does it explain His allowing the Devil to tempt people? ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/105 "2002-04-23T16:41:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scupper \* > \*\* > > Why is it never translated that way except in footnotes? > > \*\* It’s translated as “You shall not murder” in the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New King James Version, the Amplified Bible, and “Do not murder” in the New Living Translation. See [http://www.bible.com](http://www.bible.com) ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/106 "2002-04-23T16:46:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scupper \* > \*\* > Is there not a contradiction when God tells his people that they should not kill, then gives them specific exceptions, but He Himself repeatedly kills people who haven’t met those exceptions? Or are we to believe that, for instance, every single man, woman, and child in the world outside of Noah’s immediate family met one or more of His criteria for execution? \*\* So what you’re saying is that God should be living by the same rules that he lays down for man. Would you also argue that parents should live by the same rules they lay down for their children? ---
**Author:** ![Scupper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Scupper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scupper)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/107 "2002-04-23T16:51:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidw \* > \*\* > > It’s translated as “You shall not murder” in the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New King James Version, the Amplified Bible, and “Do not murder” in the New Living Translation. See [http://www.bible.com](http://www.bible.com) \*\* I stand corrected on that point. I should have said something more to the effect of “Why have I never seen it translated that way except in footnotes?” But don’t allow my error there to prevent you from explaining why it’s OK for God and His people to murder and then immortalize it in their holiest book. In the long run, if it says “Thou shalt not murder,” then gives the specifics of what constitutes legitimate killing, it is more damning to the book as a whole, as a vast number of murders are perpetuated by God and his people. God hardened Pharoah’s heart, no? And then killed all the firstborn of Egypt because of that selfsame heart-hardening? Murder. ---
**Author:** ![Scupper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Scupper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scupper)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/108 "2002-04-23T16:54:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by davidw \* > \*\* > > So what you’re saying is that God should be living by the same rules that he lays down for man. Would you also argue that parents should live by the same rules they lay down for their children? \*\* When lives are at stake? Yes, I think that’s reasonable. Father: You should not murder people. Son: Can I go over to Joey’s house? Father: No, I’m going to kill Joey because his dad made me angry. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/109 "2002-04-23T17:12:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scupper \* > **But don’t allow my error there to prevent you from explaining why it’s OK for God and His people to murder and then immortalize it in their holiest book.** I think it’s safe to say that the original giver of life should have more freedom to determine when life should be taken away… especially when that person is omniscient and has more knowledge of the circumstances than any mortal can claim. > [@](#): > > \*\*God hardened Pharoah’s heart, no? And then killed all the firstborn of Egypt because of that selfsame heart-hardening? Murder. \*\* Not quite. Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart, several times beforehand. As for the final hardening, see [this analysis of the text](http://www.rationalchristianity.net/pharaoh.html). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/110 "2002-04-23T17:27:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Czarcasm \* > \*\*Either the Bible is supposed to be a straightforward account meant to be read _and understood_ by all, or it is not and should be tossed in the trash with any other badly plotted-out manuscript. \*\* Why should we claim that those are the only options? I think the fallacy of the excluded middle applies here. What if the Bible is a text which requires some effort in order to understand… diligent and prayerful study, with close attention to detail? Or what if it is deliberately vague on some matters that are not imperative (e.g. fine points of end-times eschatology)? The Bible does warn people to be vigilant about Christ’s return, so it’s reasonable that some matters won’t be perfectly clear until after then. As seen in this very thread, much of the miscomprehension regarding the Bible has been due to incomplete and careless readings of the text. Such mistakes are virtually inevitable, especially when people set out with the intent of finding errors. I think it’s unfair to expect the Biblical authors to water down their text, simply to accomodate the lowest denominator. ---
**Author:** ![Gr8Kat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gr8kat/32/18668_2.png) [@Gr8Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gr8Kat)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/111 "2002-04-23T19:54:49Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally posted by Gr8Kat > > > > So let’s try this one on for size: > > > > Children are held accountable for the sins of the father […] > > > > Children are NOT held accountable for the sins of the father > > Are you genuinely interested in an answer? Then please read [http://www.rationalchristianity.net/punish\_sons.htm](http://www.rationalchristianity.net/punish_sons.htm) Yes, I’m genuinely interested in the answer. However, I’m disappointed that the link did not provide it. “When parents do wrong or experience punishment on earth, their children share the ill effects - if a parent is put in jail, their children are adversely affected; if a parent is abusive or negligent, their children suffer. This sort of thing occurs in many places in the Bible. For instance, Achan and his family died as a result of his disobeying God (Joshua 7). However, while children often shared the earthly punishment of their parents, they would not be punished for their parents’ sins in the afterlife. Ezekiel 18 makes it clear that the real guilt belongs to the person who sinned, not their family.” A. This makes God sound like a jerk. He punishes the parents with no regard to how it will effect the children, but he’s not _really_ punishing the children. They’re just “collateral damage.” B. However, Exodus 34:7 makes it sound like he is deliberately punishing the children. “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children **for the sin of the fathers** to the third and fourth generation.” C. “In other words, the true distinction is between life on earth and the afterlife. People do not receive precisely what they deserve while they are on earth; they are affected by the actions of those around them, and thus can be said to be punished (i.e. experience suffering) for their relatives’ wrongs.” However, 2 Kings 14 makes it clear that Amaziah believes the statement to pertain to this life on Earth. Allow me to reiterate verses 5 and 6: > [@](#): > > After the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, [Amaziah] executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.” So God himself says he will punish the fathers _and_ the children unto the third and fourth generations because the guilty will not go unpunished, thus implying the children and children’s children are also guilty. God does not say, “I’ll punish the fathers and their innocent kids, grandkids, and great grandkids will just have to deal with the fallout.” But the Law says that children are not to be killed for their fathers’ sins because they are _not_ guilty. Finally, as Scupper and Czarcasm have pointed out, God often commanded the Israelites to go in and destroy entire villages, including children, infants, and the unborn. (_See_ Numbers 31:17; 1 Samuel 15:2, 3; 1 Samuel 22:19; Isaiah 13:16, 18.) These children’s only “sin” was being conceived by parents who were not Israelites, yet they had to pay for that with their lives. God punished the children for their fathers’ beliefs. Therefore, God definitely delivers a conflicting, contradictary message. ---
**Author:** ![Scupper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Scupper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scupper)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/112 "2002-04-23T20:42:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\* > I think it’s safe to say that the original giver of life should have more freedom to determine when life should be taken away… especially when that person is omniscient and has more knowledge of the circumstances than any mortal can claim. > \*\* I think it makes him a hypocrite. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Not quite. Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart, several times beforehand. As for the final hardening, see [this analysis of the text](http://www.rationalchristianity.net/pharaoh.html). \*\* Okay. > [@](#): > > * * * > > Then the LORD said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD.”\* > > In other words, Pharaoh’s hardening his heart is considered to be the same as God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. I take this to mean that Pharaoh did the actual hardening, as we see it - he decided on his own to not listen to God and let the Israelites go. But God knew in advance what Pharaoh would do in any given situation, and deliberately placed Pharaoh in this situation (i.e. God decided that Pharaoh would be born at the time and place that he was and thus placed him in this position of power). (See Exodus 9:13-16.) Thus God brought about the situation, namely that Moses would encounter a pharaoh whose heart was hardened against God, though Pharaoh hardened his heart of his own free will.\*\* Um, this isn’t an analysis, this is an opinion. “I take this to mean…” doesn’t mean anything to me other than this person doesn’t like what it actually says. Even as an opinion, it’s a weak defense of God’s actions in this case. He even says “God brought about the situation,” which _I_ take to mean “caused the whole problem in the first place.” “I have hardened his heart,” is not vague. Trying to say God didn’t mean what he said is a bit of a dodge. ---
**Author:** ![Scupper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Scupper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scupper)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/113 "2002-04-23T20:44:05Z")
Please note that the third quote on the post above was not from the same author as the first two. It is from the link provided by JThunder. Sorry for any confusion. ---
**Author:** ![David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David\_God\_of\_Frogs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_God_of_Frogs)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/114 "2002-04-23T21:06:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _orignally posted by Davidw_ > “Time shouldn’t be a concern” is not equivalent to “getting it done right now.” If time isn’t a concern, then it seems to me that that should mean God can do what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants. Our opinion on whether it’s taking too long don’t matter. I should clarify, I’m not saying that God’s taking to long by my standards, but rather that God is taking too long **by his own standards.** I get the distinct impression from the Bible that evil is bad and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible. (which, of course, for an omnipotent being is right this instant.) ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/115 "2002-04-23T21:47:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scupper \* > God hardened Pharoah’s heart, no? And then killed all the firstborn of Egypt because of that selfsame heart-hardening? Murder. No, he didn’t. I believe the phrase “God hardened Pharoh’s heart” and related phrases are errors in the text. But then I’m a Mormon, and most people ignore what I say anyway. 🙂 If you care about the LDS interpretation, see [Scriptures](http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/4/21#21) vs. [Scriptures](http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/4/21d#21d). See [Scriptures](http://scriptures.lds.org/bdj/jsphsmth) for what “JST” means. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/116 "2002-04-23T21:53:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scupper \* > When lives are at stake? Yes, I think that’s reasonable. > > Father: You should not murder people. > Son: Can I go over to Joey’s house? > Father: No, I’m going to kill Joey because his dad made me angry. I’m afraid that’s not a valid comparison. If you’re going to accept the premise of the existence of the Christian God (I’m not familiar enough with Judaism to properly represent it, so I’m sticking to what I know), then you must accept the afterlife. Hence death is not the ultimate end, and is not as severe as it would be if there were no afterlife. Jesus quite clearly indicated that [wickedness was worse than death](http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/16/26#26). ---
**Author:** ![Gr8Kat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gr8kat/32/18668_2.png) [@Gr8Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gr8Kat)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2002, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/117 "2002-04-24T00:10:40Z")
> [@](#): > > As seen in this very thread, much of the miscomprehension regarding the Bible has been due to incomplete and careless readings of the text. Such mistakes are virtually inevitable, especially when people set out with the intent of finding errors. I think it’s unfair to expect the Biblical authors to water down their text, simply to accomodate the lowest denominator. Lowest common denominator? Isn’t the word of God supposed to be for everyone? Jesus spoke in parables to make his message easier for the “lowest common denominator” to understand. But that’s beside the point. The Bible is supposed to be the word of God. It is supposed by many to be “inerrant” and “perfect.” They go so far as to insist that it should be in the classroom along side, or in place of, science books because it is so inerrant and perfect. But it is clearly not. It was written by dozens of different people over several centuries. These writers all write from their own point of view. They have their own agendas to push and they all have their own take on history. And sometimes these views conflict with each other. Check this out: Everyone knows David killed Goliath, right? However, 2 Samuel 21:19 states, “In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.” Elhanan killed Goliath? Oopsy daisy! Some Bible scholars give a scholarly reason for this flub: Elhanan killed Goliath. But, when a person becomes king, often things they did not do are attributed to them to make them sound bigger and better than they were. In this case, the editor of 2 Samuel overlooked this reference to Elhanan when he was replacing his name with David’s. BUT, 1 Chronicles 20:5 calls Elhanan the son of Jair _and_ says he killed Lahmi, the _brother_ of Goliath. So, does 1 Chronicles 20:5 contradict 2 Samuel 21:19? Does 2 Samuel 21:19 contradict every other passage in the Bible that says David killed Goliath? Does this or does this not reflect that these passages were written or edited by someone with a political agenda? Therefore, does this or does this not affect how we should view the rest of the Bible? Are we really reading the word of God or are we instead reading what some king, politician, prophet, poet, etc., wanted the word of God to be? After all, even Jesus claimed in Matthew 19 that Moses told the Israelites they were permitted to divorce “because your hearts were hard,” but that wasn’t “the way from the beginning.” I’ve heard Christian apologists claim this means Moses told the Israelites the opposite of what God intended because he (Moses) didn’t think they could meet God’s impossibly high standard. In other words, God commanded X but Moses told them Y and that’s what got put in the Bible. So if we accept that individual writers let their views color the word of God, then… call it throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but how can we accept any of it as the pure, perfect, inerrant word of God? How can we be sure that any of it represents what God wanted? God says he’s not the author of confusion, yet these contradictions _do_ cause confusion and division. As for “setting out with the intent of finding error,” some of these examples have troubled me since I was a child. It disturbed me that the Christmas and Easter stories couldn’t be read the same way twice. It disturbs me to this day when people hurl Bible verses at each other as weapons. Christians are also very good at pulling verses out of context to fit their purposes, and it disturbs me when people go back and forth fighting, each person using conflicting verses to back up their positions. It disturbs me that people use the Bible as justification to discriminate against homosexuals, and in the past used it as justification to enslave blacks. Are these peoples’ actions the Bible’s fault for not being written to accommodate the “lowest common denominator”? The pastors’ fault for not being able to explain the Bible to the “lowest common denominator”? Or the individuals’ fault for being the "lo ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2002, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/118 "2002-04-24T00:11:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*What if the Bible is a text which requires some effort in order to understand… diligent and prayerful study, with close attention to detail? \*\* What if scholars from around the world try to “translate” the Bible through diligent and prayerful study, but still come up with completely different ideas on which parts are fact and which are parable? You surely are not making the claim that those who believe differently from you about what the Bible actually says are not studying and praying as diligently as you. ---
**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2002, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/119 "2002-04-24T00:44:26Z")
My personal favorites: God is “merciful.” Yet he helps and promotes the slaughter of Amalakites, Egyptian first borns, and denizens of Jerusalem, and dozens of other atrocities. I Samuel 15:3 > [@](#): > > “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, childrem and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” Exodus 12:12 > [@](#): > > “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn–both men and animals–and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD.” Numbers 31:17 > [@](#): > > “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” Ezekiel, 9:4 - 9:6 > [@](#): > > “Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem…let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women…” I fail to see how anyone (even the most interpretive Christians) can explain away these Hitlerish(to coin the term, maybe) orders. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2002, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/120 "2002-04-24T01:30:16Z")
**Qwertyasdfg** : You left out the ordained genocide of **Joshua 10:40** : > [@](#): > > So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, **just as the Lord , the God of Israel, had commanded.** (NIV translation, emphasis mine) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529.md?page=7)