What is the most fundamental contradiction in the Bible?

Great Debates
201

In fact, most Christians do not believe that the bible is entirely literally true. And those who do believe that do not interpret it as licensing the wholesale slaughter of innocents when they feel like it. In point of fact, anyone who claims to be Christian and advocates genocide is a liar. It’s called a “strawman”, dj. It’s not true just because you say it is.

Right here: “The more I review the literature, the more I think christianity may be in the top 5 most evil things ever, if not number 1.” You’re calling a whole bunch of people “evil” who hold views 180 degrees opposed to the ones that you insist they must hold.

And listen, if you can’t see that Christians do not advocate the murder of infants, then you are a bigot. Reality checked out long ago.

Yeah, that would be true, but you screwed up way back at step 1, where you somehow misattributed “advocates genocide” to “religion”.

So you are at 5.5. It’s worse than I thought.

No, you said quite seriously: “Religion cheapens peoples goodness. Responsible, intelligent, and compassinate people should do all they can to rid it from the world.”

See, you don’t rail against any real problems. But you have indicted a whole bunch of good people there. You sound like Fred Phelps, except your bogeyman is “religion” instead of “queers”. And your protestations “I know some OK Christians” sound as ridiculous as my bigoted uncles claiming there are some “good niggers”.

I agree, the philosophy you’ve invented for Christians is horrible. But wrong. Horrible. But wrong.

202

God cannot operate under a different set of rules from us and be called “good” and “just”. These words have meanings, and if what he does violates these definitions, they cannot apply.
It makes no more sense than if I say that the sky is plaid and justify it by saying that I am using a different definition of “plaid” than you. Saying that maybe your god fixed it so that the poor babies felt no pain and were taken to a better place when he ordered soldiers to hack them to death with swords is nothing more than desparate wishful thinking on your part. It might quiet that pang of guilt you might feel when you read of such religious atrocities, but there is nothing in the Bible that says that this is what really happened.

203

How many times do we have to point out that you’ve misapplied Leviticus and Deuteronomy? It seems that no matter how often we show you the passages in question, you remain deadset in misapplying them.

You also keep forgetting that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to demonstrate that Christ was contradicting the Mosaic law. This means that you must shoulder the burden of proof that she was being tried in compliance with the law. For so long as there’s reason to believe that she wasn’t (and there is an abundance of evidence to that effect), your case remains nebulous at best.

You suggest that the male adulterer had already been tried beforehand. Well then, why did the crowd ask Jesus to pass judgment on the woman alone? Why did they not ask him to pass judgment on them both?

You also suggest that the woman had previously been tried in compliance with the law. Once again though, if that were the case, then why would the crowd be asking Jesus for his judgment? Their true intentions were utterly transparent. Their intent was not to seek a fair and lawful judgment, but to embarrass the Messiah and make him look bad.

True, there is no line which explicitly says “The woman’s trial was illegal” – but come on! Do you seriously suggest this as a compelling argument? A true investigator would examine the circumstances of her so-called trial to determine if it DID comply with the law, and it clearly did not.

204

You keep saying that, dalovindj. You keep saying that the opponents of Israel were killed because of the way they look, and the logic you use is absurd. I’m confident that you know better, and so I can’t help but think that you’re being deliberately disingenuous here.

You attempt to justify this by asking “How can you tell who has these people as parents? What they look like is all they will have in common - genetics.” Do you honestly believe that physical appearance is the only way to identify a tribe? And even if it’s so, how does this prove that they were killed simply because of their looks?

I saw a news report a while back about a group of brothers who were arrested in conjunction with a robbery. These brothers all looked similar – indeed, it wasn’t hard to tell that they were related. Does this mean that they were arrested because of their looks? Or did their looks merely help establish the fact that they were kinfolk?

What if I said that some students flunked out of a high school class, and that they were all Hispanic? Does this mean that they were kicked out because of their ethnicity? Obviously not. In fact, even if one could show that all the Hispanics had flunked out, that still wouldn’t prove that they were the victims of racism. One would have to dig deeper to establish that fact.

And on that note, as we dig deeper into the Old Testament, we see that Israel was not hostile to Gentiles in general. Hoopy Frood already mentioned several such people – Ruth, Naaman, Job, Rahab, Nebuchadnezzar and the Ninevites. I n addition, Joshua 16:10 shows that Canaanites were allowed to continue living in their land, even after they had been conquered by Israel. So clearly, the people who were killed were not judged simply because of appearance, or because they were of gentile origin.

205

The Old Testament texts aren’t explicit in stating their specific offenses. However, archaeology tells us that the Canaanites were worshippers of Baal and other pagan gods. Baal’s cult included such practices as child sacrifice and ritualistic sex, among others. (More details can be found here.

206

Jubilation: Your insistance on “physical appearance” isn’t impressing anyone. Rather it smacks of you deperatly trying to avoid having to justify “God” 's actions in a case where they were clearly unwarranted. The Amalekites may or may not have looked different, but that is besides the point. Since I’m not the one who stated it, I need not be bound to the “physical appearance” claim. So I’ll ask you more directly: do you believe in genocide as a practical solution to every situation?

NewtonMeter: Have you ever seen a wicked baby? Have you even seen an entire race of people, for that matter, who all were totally evil? How about a wicked ox? Is rape a viable supplement to genocide, when something is inconvenient.

If “God” was almighty, surely he could have been more precise, or found a non-genocidal method of solving the “problem” of an indigenous people, versus outsiders.

“God” 's words, and his actions are clearly incosistent.

207

Fair enough. As I said, I am speaking of biblical literalists. Others are a different topic for a different thread. You are off topic here. I never said all christians are biblical literalists.

No, I called the philosophy evil. It is. If you think it’s OK to kill infants as long as god says so - you count as evil to me. Sorry. People who would murder infants (even if they believe it comes from divine command) or support others murdering infants in gods behalf are below dispicable. They are pathetic. Not all christians would defend this - I’m talking about the ones who do.

Biblical literalists do - provided it is ordered by god. :rolleyes:

Again, I am talking about biblical literalists. If you claim that every word in that book is true and perfect, than you support genocide as long as god ordered it. I say there is no justification no matter who you’re god is. Genocide is, was, and always will be evil.

I’m just reading what it says. It says god occaisionaly orders the murder of children. It says god orders the murder of people because of where they live or who their parents are. It says some pretty dispicable things. I don’t have to make any of it up. It truly is disgusting on it’s own. Murdering kids and virgins is written right in with the genocide all nice and neat like.

Also, the deuteronomy bit is about virgins, the bit in the NT is about an adulteress, but they are both related because they both concern stoning (which is what jesus addresses). None of you have proved there is anything wrong with their method of trial. There is no text to support what went on either way. Jesus doesn’t speak about it and neither does the book. I’ve shown it says everything I’ve said, you guys keep talking about stuff that isn’t written. It is not obvious that anything was done in an improper fashion. YOU must prove statements you make, not me. I have proved it says people are to be stoned in the OT, and I have proved that Jesus says only non-sinners should stone people. Contradiction. But it is a minor one compared to the whole issue of a “good” entity commanding armies to slice up babies and children.

DaLovin’ Dj

208

Don’t forget though, it’s dalovindj who brought that up. He claimed that the Amalekites, et al. were killed because of their appearance. It’s only fair to refute that contention.

I think that is patently unfair. dalovindj made a very specific accusation – namely, that Israel’s opponents were killed because of how they look. We are refuting that very specific accusation. Is that not fair?

Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has claimed that refuting dalovindj’s claim is sufficient to justify the actions of Yahweh, as portrayed in the O.T. That topic is certainly worthy of discussion, but it’s a separate topic altogether! The answers to dj’s accusation were not meant to address the issue which you raise, so please desist for criticizing them on that basis.

Shouldn’t we avoid conflating tangentially related issues? Should we not tackle these issues one at a time? We can discuss dalovindj’s specific claim regarding human appearance on its own merits (or lack thereof). This is not meant as a blanket defense of Yahweh’s actions – an altogether separate topic – and NOBODY has claimed that it constitutes such a defense.

209

Sorry, I think i might have misattributed that comment to Jubilation, instead of Thunder.

Anyway, I think the fault is that DJ defined genocide as “killing people for how they look.” Genocide is a lot more than that. Eitherway, I think its a technical issue and barely worth pursuing to this degree. With that said, would you care to answer my questions stated above.

210

What someone mind telling me what crimes/sins/ misdeeds an infant could possibly commit that would justify death by drowning or sword? A valid explanation would eliminate a glaring Biblical contradiction.

211

(1) JThunder, JTC, or anyone else–could you give me an example of what would be a contradiction, inconsistency, or what have you? You don’t have to phrase it in Biblical parlance, although that would be helpful. Because from where I’m sitting, I don’t think you’re going to be able to come up with one, given the seemingly clear-cut nature of the ones you’ve “shot down.”

(2) I’ll re-ask and slightly rephrase Qwertyasdfg’s question, because it’s an interesting one–do you believe in genocide as a practical solution to any non-Biblical situation? IOW, could genocide be justified today, if someone has a mandate from God?

(3) If babies are liberated when they are slaughtered in genocide, can I take it that you’re pro-abortion? That you’re pro-killing-the-first-born-in-every-case? That, so long as a baby has not reached the age where they can “sin,” we might as well set em free?

(4) How did Judas die?

212

I’ll get to your first three questions sometime this weekend, as I have to get up early in the morning. In brief though, you’re confusing godly prerogatives with human prerogatives (e.g. if God deems that an infant should die, that does not mean that we humans have the same authority to make that judgment). As stated at least thrice earlier, this stems from God’s sovereignty and omniscience, and the fact that he gave all beings life to begin with.

As for the manner in which Judas died, that is answered on this site, and on this one.

213

I’m a bit confused. Are we the children of your god, to be cared for and loved, or are we like ants to him, to be destroyed without justification?

As far as the explanations for the “Judas” contradictions go, it seems that we have yet still another mistranslation in a book that does not have mistakes in it. Might I suggest that you send the Bible to a good editor, and not use it for a reference until all of these pesky errors are corrected?

214

JTC, here is a direct quote from the first site you listed, emphasis added: “In his book Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil, he notes that the phrase translated “becoming headlong” (prenes genomenos) is a mere transcription error away from being “becoming swollen” (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas’ body swelling up after hanging for a while.” To me, this is mere conjecture, and doesn’t address the question at all. If one is going to introduce copyist errors as possibilities, then it’s easy to dismiss any and all would-be contradictions! They’re just typoes!

And as far as your second site, the author is going to have me believe one of the following:

(a) Judas bought a field with a cliff in the middle of it (which, I’ll admit, isn’t entirely impossible, given what I know of the geography of the Holy Land). However, the field does have a name, Aceldama, and so it’d be interesting to know if this is true;

(b) He attempted to hang himself, it didn’t work, and so he hurled himself onto some pointy rocks… and the author of Acts simply didn’t mention the former attempt because… why? He didn’t want to embarrass Judas? (Can’t even kill himself properly! What a maroon! Still, that’d be mean to include);

© “Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff.” I can almost picture this in my head. Judas, standing at the edge of a big cliff, finds a tree, shimmies out onto the branch, ties the rope, comically shimmies back to the edge of the cliff, gets on his tiptoes to get the rope, and THEN hangs himself? If the man wanted to kill himself, he sure took a roundabout way to do it!

It’s possible, I suppose, but possible only in the “It’s possible Tom Green could win a Nobel Peace Prize for Freddy Got Fingered” sense of the word.

This is exactly what I am addressing with my Question 1. You (well, not just you, in fairness) have a belief–the Bible is internally consistent. If Judasgate is indicative of the hoops you’re willing to jump through to hold this belief… well, what was it Sherlock Holmes had to say about that? “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Yeah, I know, I’m using a fictional character’s words to address the question of whether the Bible has any fiction in it. Kind of silly, no? But I still think Mr. Holmes has a point.

215

I heartily disagree. To qualify as a typo (or more accurately, a copyist error), one would have to show that the mistake can be attributed to a minor difference in the text – a misspelled word, for example. Obviously, that’s a far cry from saying that ALL discrepancies can be dismissed as typos.

I hardly think that’s a reasonable analogy. His explanation, while not evident on a casual reading, is consistent with the text AND explains some subtle details (e.g. why one Evangelist merely said that Judas went to hang himself, rather than saying he was successful). Also, unlike the accusation that a contradiction occurs, this exegetical exercise pays close attention the details of the Judas accounts. And finally, as we must have stated over a dozen times by now, THE BURDEN OF PROOF rests on the accuser – the one who claims that a contradiction does occur.

FTR, I lean more toward the copyist error explanation, as I think it’s a simpler and more elegant explanation – but that’s neither here nor there.

216

Yet another false dilemma. With all due respect, you seem awfully fond of those things.

The answer is that we are children to be cared for, but we are also to be judged, disciplined and punished as necessary – or even to be condemned, as necessary. Any parent knows that their unconditional love for a child does not preclude punishment or chastisement . In extreme cases, a child may even be banished from the family, if he poses a danger to other family members. Even the government seeks to care for its citizens, and yet must occasionally mete out harsh punishment toward its offenders.

This is getting frustrating, and my patience is wearing thin. Before you hurl these challenges, will you please consider whether you’ve presented all possible options? Perhaps then we can help avoid discussing another false dilemma.

217

The only thing I’m fond of is getting a straight answer to a direct question. What could a child be guilty of that would justify condemnation and a violent death? Why do all sins bring the same pujnishment? Why do you accept any excuse for a glaring contradiction in the Bible, no matter how unfounded, as long as it supports your beliefs?

218

They are ordered to kill entire races. What is race? From Miriam Webster:

Including appearrance (characterisitics) when defining race is standard usage. God orders an entire race killed, he’s talkin about how they look, where they live, and who their parents are. That is part of what defines a race. What else could a group of people called “Amalekites” have in common down to the last child? The truth is nothing. You can never make umbrella statements about the goodness of people based on race - it’s an example of racism. Get it? This is real simple stuff. The god of the literal bible is a racist. Something tells me the racist who wrote that crap down wasn’t in touch with “god” - more like a man who wanted to convince a bunch of people to kill a bunch of other people for barbaric Hitler-esque motivations. It worked. That’s what is so damn evil about that book. In this thread alone Newton Meter offered up four reasons baby killing might not be so bad. What a horrible distortion of morality people will engage in to defend that book.

DaLovin’ Dj

219

As I mentioned earlier, I can buy the judgeing, disciplining and punishing argument…but where does condemnation fit in with any conceivable notion of a “loving God”? Does God truly feel that some Men, whom He created, are beyond redemption?

As for the government, it does not, and never has claimed to, “love” its citizens. It enacts harsh penalties to suit what it deems the greater good, not out of any feeling of “love” towards the people.

**

Perhaps, then, you could define what “love”, in the sense of a “loving God” is. Clearly, there are those here who feel that it does not correspond to the concept that most of us are familiar with. When we are instructed to “love thy neighbor”, it’s a fair guess that smiting isn’t part of the package.

220

(BTW, “evil” in the last few posts kinda morphed into “not Christian”, sorry if I didn’t make that clear. I’m not claiming that that’s what evil really means in all contexts, but that was how I have been using the word.)

Let’s assume that God wanted there to be some Christians and some non-Christians in the world, at least until the second coming, when there would only be Christians.

One of the duties of Christians, at least acording to many interpretations of the Bible, is to prostelytize, to go seek out new converts. They are supposed to convince people that God wants them to bevome Christian. But, according to the assumption above, God wanted some people not to be Christian. Would God put his own people in a logically indefensible position like that?

Put a little more generally, if God is almighty, we have to assume that the world is exactly the way God wanted it. Why then are people who follow God out to change the world, supposedly because the Bible says so? Either they’re using a wrong interpretation of the Bible, or if they’re right, the Bible contradicts itself. If you don’t believe in this interpretation, I’m curious to hear why, if for no other other reason then it should give me some nice ammo the next time someone stops me on the street…