2nd Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
VS.
1st Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
If you find one contradiction in the Bible, you’ve automatically found at least two – since it contradicts the verse that says there are no contradictions. (Strictly speaking, “All scripture” does not refer to the Pauline Epistles, which were not included until much later.)
‘The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy’ (edited by C. Dennis McKinsey, Prometheus Books, 1995) has a complete and very thoroughly researched list of Biblical contradictions. There are over 18 pages of them.
Old Testament. 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah is 22 when he began to reign. 2 Chron 22:2 says he was 42.
New Testament. John 5:22 says “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son”. In John 8:15 and 12:47 Jesus says “I judge no man”.
There are dozens and dozens of examples. The most fundamental? Purely a matter of taste. Someone being both 22 and 42 at the same time is pretty fundamental. But perhaps you think it doesn’t carry much theological significance. Well, Jesus judging or not judging certainly does carry significance.
Here’s another fairly fundamental one. Ex 20:13, “Thou shalt not kill”. Ex £2:27: God tells every man to put his sword by his side and go out frm the gate… and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
I would think the most fundamental contradiction is between the God of Peace and Love and the Angry God.
As ianzin pointed out, many places in the OT God demands that the Iraelites kill their neighbors, directly contradicting the 10 commandments as well as various statements of Jesus.
Another example is I Samuel 15: v.3 “No go and crush Amalek… kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” Saul carries this out, slaughtering the babies and all, but spares the king, Agag, and some of the livestock. God gets very mad about this. Finally Saul “repents” and the prophet Samuel “then butchered Agag before Yahweh”. (Quotes from NJB)
Not true. The ten commandments were not meant as a proscription against, say, capital punishment – which WAS explicitly laid out in the Mosaic law. Nor would it have covered acts of war. This is discussed further at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/law_killing.html .
That’s one of the problems with the usual “A God of love wouldn’t kill” arguments. While this is purportedly a contradiction, this “contradiction” rests on the premise that a truly loving person would only act in tender and gentle ways, to the exclusion of all others. Of course, any parent should know otherwise.
In addition, I daresay that the giver of life — especially one who is credited with omniscience – would have greater latitude in deciding when life should be taken away. It would be wrong to assume that the Creator should have no such latitude, or that humans have the same knowledge and freedom to judge such circumstances.
I should’ve been more clear. God is not the author of confusion. Yet the Bible is confusing (and contradictory). Which means iGod is not the author of the Bible. Except that the Bible says God is the author. Which means it’s confusing, which means…
Thus, I point to this as the granddaddy of Biblical contradictions, though it only works in concert with other putative contradictions.
That would be the old problem of evil objection. Such an argument adds various implicit assumptions to what the Bible says though, as discussed in various articles here.
The best response I’ve ever heard to the problem of evil was an [url-“http://www.str.org/shop/index.htm”]audiotape lecture by philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig. I don’t think it’s available in RealAudio online; however, a similar discussion can be found here.
Furt, what if you decided to consult more than one “authority” on Chaucer, and found that none of the “authorities” could agree with each other on even the meanings of a lot of the words used, when it was written, or who might have written all or parts of it? Would finding the authority that gave you the interpretation that most pleased you be good enough for you? If Chaucer claimed that everything he wrote were factual and you found apparent contradictions in his work, would changing the meanings of some of the words or saying that the part of the story you agreed with was real, while the part you disagreed with must be a parable or “unimportant” to the story sound intellectuallly honest to you?
Hmmm. If I were to point out that the moon was rising over Minas Tirith one hour after sunset at the exact same time as it was setting over Edoras, only a few hundred miles north of west, on the same day, would this mean that there is no good reason to read Tolkien? Or would it simply mean that the author made one error?
Biblical contradictions simply militate against reading the entire collection as though it were sober history and cosmology.
Czarcasm, I respect your criticism. However, may I observe that if you have a pool of respected scholars who concur for the most part what Chaucer meant by most words and phrases he used, while differing on details, and off to one side a society of bizarre Medievalist-wannabes who insist that Chaucer’s work reveals the secret of the Holy Grail and Arthur’s Tomb, who insist on this belief despite debunkings by the scholars, would you be justified in rejecting the scholars’ work because of the Chaucer-Grailists?
You’re going way farther than I was, or care to. I was merely pointing out that finding a book confusing is not evidence that the fault lies with the author. It may be due to me. It may be due to the cultural and temporal distance. And it may be that what I call “confusion” is actually an effect that the author meant to create (cf. some modernist novels). That’s all.
All of the counterarguments (that I read, at least) presuppose that I presuppose the existence of evil. I don’t. (What I was calling evil above was in reference to what the bible calls evil.) I guess if you want to argue that evil is not an object in the bible, that would nullify my argument, but every impression I have is that the purpose of the bible is to destroy evil (or, conversly, to encourage goodness).
(Admittedly, I have this impression more from followers of Christianity than the bible itself, but the belief in evil is so prevelent, along with what I do know about the bible, that it seems like a pretty secure point)
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.”
And then to the twelve? What happened to Judas?
Mark 16:14 “Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.”
Although I do give Paul a bit of latitude here, since he wrote before Mark… and probably well before the 2nd half of Mark was added in.
Hmmm, there are some problems with this one; whether or not the bible is confusing doesn’t sound like something that could be objectively proven, certainly it is complex, but confusing? maybe, maybe not.
Then it doesn’t say that God is the author, it says that all scripture is inspired by God, small but important difference I think; certainly anybody claiming that God actually dictated the Bible word-for-word is in trouble, but I don’t think such a view is held by the majority of believers.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to claim that the Bible is inerrant, I just think that the point you are making takes a little too much for granted.
Well, I was really hoping to hear from David, God of Frogs.
Still, let’s assume that you’re correct… that evil is not some supernatural infectious force. That still doesn’t address the issue at hand; after all, the counterarguments that David mentioned are not contingent on such a description.
So the question remains… do we believe that evil exist? If so, then the objection to these counterarguments is invalid. And if not… well, I’d be really interested in hearing why it doesn’t exist.
(FTR, I believe that Czarcasm’s description of evil is most inaccurate, but that’s not really relevant to the topic at hand.)
BTW, this site has sections listing biblical verses in several categories:
[ul][li]Violence to women[/li][li]Sex[/li][li]Absurdities[/li][li]Intolerance[/li][li]Foul language[/li][li]Cruelty[/li][li]Injustice[/ul][/li]…and more. A thoroughly despicable book, not recommended for children or other civilized beings. But that’s another thread.