Evil: That which is morally wrong.
As for investigating alleged Biblical contradictions, I’ve found the following web sites to be useful:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net
http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html
http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties.htm
Mostly, I’ve used the first two sources, as I think they are more thorough. The Tektonics web site can be difficult to wade through, due to the depth of its material, but I found it to be worthwhile.
If you believe that eating pork is morally wrong, and I believe it isn’t, is it:
a. absolutely evil?
b. relatively evil?
c. a mere difference of opinion and not evil at all?
Let’s suppose that there are absolutely evil acts, such as the killing of innocents without provocation. Whould you say that anyone who commits this act is evil? If so then it cannot be true, as the Bible asserts, that we are to try to become “God-like” in our actions, because it is recorded over and over in the Bible of his direct and indirect actions involving the murder of innocents.
I think that it is important to realize that many “mistakes” in the Bible are simply translational errors. The OT was originally written in Hebrew. The NT was in Greek. Subsequently, books from both of these were canonized into one Bible, as we now know it, more or less. And, as with any translation from one language into another, some of the fundamental meanings inherent to the original language were lost. This presents a problem when examining things literally in English, or any other unoriginal language. For instance, there is a verse that states that the meek shall inherit the earth. In French, that same verse says that the debonair shall inherit it.
Also, certain errors might occur from version to version. In fact, the King James version, which might be seen by some as the most accurate, is full of translational inaccuracies. Newer versions have less of them, but, as stated above, certain language barriers still exist.
Another thing to consider is the fact that as the Bible was inspired by God the ominicient, humans, who have limited understanding, cannot be expected to comprehend the full meaning of the Bible in its entirety. Instead, it is reasonable to say that many so-called contradictions are no more than petty human misunderstandings. To augment this, I noticed that in one particular site that listed contradictions, a verse was taken entirely out of context to support a certain point. One must be careful not to do this, lest they make foolish generalizations that are really not true.
And finally, I must rest by saying that God’s word is a moral foundation, not a tool to destroy evil. Our understanding of it changes every time we read it, and it is our interpretation of the Bible that makes it true or not true.
So either the Bible is full of contradictions, or it’s full of mistakes, or it’s written for some other species because we simple humans are not capable of understanding it?
It seems to be one of the fundamental contradictions of the bible is this. On one hand, God declared he created evil (Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38) and used evil (Jeremiah 18:11, Ezekiel 20:25,26). On the other hand, the impression of this god is supposedly to be good. So what gives?
The defense of such bible contradictions generally rests on creative interpretations of it. Czarcasm hit it right on the head, though. The criticism of said interpretations do not rest on any established set of rules but on a desire to explain away the contradictions. Thus, various apologists and/or theologicians could have contradictions among themselves.
Furthermore, IIRC, bible scholars indicate that the bible should be taken literally unless indicated internally otherwise. For example, if the bible decribes a parable that Jesus told, it is an internal indication of not taking that section at face value. On the other hand, when the bible speaks of an account where Jesus cursed a fig tree, we need to take that as literal.
Polycarp wrote:
Well, it could mean that the moon orbits Middle Earth really really fast…
Can we stipulate that there is a difference between collective ownership and government ownership? After all, I’m one of the collective owners of Microsoft, and I have the stock certificates to prove it. Collective <> State owned.
No, wait, it couldn’t. You said “at the exact same time.” Hmmm …
Aha! What if Middle Earth is really really small? Say, less than a thousand miles in circumference?
Crap. While I stand by the above statement, it seems to be pretty irrelevant to the above discussion. Posting in the wrong thread again. Move along, nothing to see here, move along…
But isn’t this God’s own fault? According to the Bible, He scrambled everyone’s language after the Babel Incident:
One would think He might have thought things through a bit more, if He really wanted His word spread in an accurate manner.
So, we have an apparent paradox. I believe I have proven logically that God (as described in the bible) cannot exist, while the people in the links Jubilation provided, since they seem to be the main source of counterargument at the moment, also seem to have proven that God must exist. So, to resolve the paradox, we must look at the relative strengths of each argument.
My original argument asks a question (can God get rid of evil), and with either a yes or a no answer, it disproves God’s existance. Possible flaws in the argument (that I can think of) are in either the yes or the no answer not disproving His existence, or in there being an answer to the question besides yes and no. It’s a fairly short and concise logical progression, and as far as I can tell each step holds up.
The arguements in the links, while diverse, all assume the existence of evil and then go from there to prove that God must exist (or at least to neutralize arguements that he can’t). The possible flaw I see in those arguments is in that initial assumtion. (There might be others that would allow for the existence of evil too, but we only need one to render the argument invalid).
So we have established that the assumtions of the counterargument are debatable (regardless of who eventually wins the debate), if for no other reason than the fact that we have been debating it, while there has yet to be a chink in the armor of my original assertion. So it is pointless to keep on debating the existence of evil until someone shows me any possible flaws in my original assertion. If someone manages to break my arguement down to the point where it’s debatable, then the two arguements are on equal footing and we’ll actually have to duke it out to see who wins. But until that happens, any arguments on the existence of evil, while interesting perhaps, aren’t necessary. (and I personally have doubts that will happen, but I invite any attempts)
What about in Deuteronomy? The bible dictates that wives who are not virgins on their wedding nights (proven by whether or not they bleed on the sheets) should be taken to the center of the town and stoned by the elders. Same for insolent sons.
Then Jesus comes along and says “Let he who is without sin throw the first stone” or some such thing. So only non-sinners can throw stones at people who have sex before marriage? I thought the elders were supposed to stone people as per tough guys demands.
The whole tone of OT vs NT is so different that it’s almost like two different myths. Either way you end up with a cruel ugly god who likes to punish others for things he caused and then take credit for “saving” you, but only if you worship him like a sheep. What a dick.
DaLovin’ Dj
dalovindj, can you please reproduce the specific passages to which you are referring? That way, we can examine their specific contents, in their specific contents, as any true scholar should.
Clearly, while references to “some such thing” may suffice for off-the-cuff conversation, they do not lend themselves adequately to scholarly investigation.
Sorry, I used to have a bible - but I threw it out with the rest of the trash years ago. Know a good online place to review the passages? If so, I’ll pull the line out later.
DaLovin Dj
There are quite a few contradictions surrounding the details of the resurrection.
Mark:
Three women went on Sunday morning to “anoint” Jesus’ body with spices
They wonder who will roll the stone away from the tomb (didn’t plan ahead)
But the stone is already rolled away
An angel is sitting in the tomb, but the women don’t realize he’s an angel, they think he’s just a young man
The young man tells them Jesus has risen and instructs them to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee
The women tell no one anything because they are too scared
Jesus has to reappear to Mary Magdeline, then to two other people, and finally to the Eleven before they believe he has risen, despite having listened to him for the last three years and supposedly expecting that this would come to pass
Matthew
Two women go to the tomb on Sunday morning
The tomb was supposed to have been sealed by Jewish authorities and has soldiers guard it (because evidently the authorities had more faith in Jesus’ resurrection than the disciples)
An earthquake cannot move the stone from the tomb, but an angel of the lord does
He is sitting on the stone and the soldiers are terrified to be in the presence of an angel
The angel tells the women Jesus has risen and instructs them to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee
The women take off excitedly to tell the disciples
Jesus meets the women on the way and reiterates that the disciples are to meet him in Galilee
Luke
An unspecified number of women go to the tomb on Sunday morning
The stone is rolled away
The women enter the tomb but it is empty
Then two angels suddenly appear
They tell the women Jesus has risen
The women tell the disciples but they don’t believe the women.
Peter checks the tomb out himself but is still clueless. Jesus appear to the Eleven in Jerusalem.
John
Mary Mageline goes to the tomb alone
The stone is rolled away
The tomb is empty
Mary goes to Simon Peter and tells him the body is gone
Simon Peter and another disciple (John?) race to the tomb but it is empty
Confused, the disciples go home.
Jesus appears to Mary, but she doesn’t recognize him at first. A week later he appears to the Twelve.
If you were on trial, would you want these people to be witnesses for your defense? Not a one of them seems to be able to agree on the most basic of details (how many women? How many angels? Were there soldiers or not? To whom did Jesus appear and where?), so how much credibility should they be given?
Gr8Kat, these alleged contradictions are discussed at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/apol_index.html#contr_resurrection . These difficulties are easily resolved by a careful examination of the text.
As I’ve said many times before, we need to be very, very careful about what we consider to be a “contradiction.” A true contradiction is one which says both “X” and “Not X.” All too often though, people dwell on open-ended questions or textual difficulties, and these quickly label these as outright contradictions.
BTW, Gr8Kat, I’d appreciate it if you could type in the specific textual references which support your breakdown of these perceived contradiction. As I reminded dalovindj, it’s important to substantiate our claims with detailed and specific references. That way, we can see if the Bible truly says what you claim it says.
For example, there is no indication that the disciples actually understood that Christ would return from the dead. Hence, there is no contradiction in their being surprised at his resurrection.
Well, I think it’s clear that the overwhelming majority of people believe that evil exists in the world (September 11th, anyone?). We can all name a number of acts – genocide, rape, torture, and more – that reasonable people would deem to be evil. In fact, many skeptics use this point (misguidedly, IMO) as an argument against God.
In that light, I think the burden of extraordinary proof would rest on the person who claims that there is NO evil in the world. (That is, evil as implicitly defined by the arguments presented – namely, acts of moral wrongdoing.)