guy_683930

Loomis-

I thought of that after I finished posting, but it would require one to make a distinction between Yahweh and El, something totally unacceptable to most Christians except people like Marcion.

-Guy

Joan of Bark

And seems to contradict Jesus' claim that "Whatever you ask for in prayer, you will receive". I suppose Christians would claim those who do not receive what they asked for did not really believe. This argument is, of course, bulletproof.

James Brown

A contradiction that intriques me is the death of Judas.

Matthew 27 says that Judas was so filled with remorse for betraying Jesus that he threw the thirty pieces of silver into the temple and immediately hung himself. The chief priests took the money and invested it in local real estate.

Acts 1 says that Judas kept the money for himself and used it to become a landowner. "There he fell headlong" and disemboweled himself.

In the past, some skeptics have argued that the contradiction lies in Judas' death. One passage says he hung himself, another says he fell and gutted himself. Apologists rejoin that this no contradiction, but that it's two sides of the same coin. They say that while Judas was hanging himself, the rope broke and he fell to his death. (You can almost hear them blow out their cheeks in relief having dodged this bullet.)

Of course, this two-sided coin argument misses the point. The contradiction is not in Judas' death, but in his life. Matthew says he was filled with remorse, gave the money back, and died by suicide. Acts says nothing about Judas' emotional state, and that he kept the money for himself and died by accident.

Another related contradiction is why the field where Judas died is called the Field of Blood. According to Matthew, the chief priests claimed they couldn't keep the money returned from Judas because it was blood money. So they bought a plot of land with it and buried foreigners in it; thus it is called Field of Blood.

In Acts, we are told that "everyone in Jerusalem" heard about Judas' bloody accidental death on his own land, and thereafter called it the Field of Blood, supposedly because of Judas' reputation for back-stabbing. A just death for an unjust man, they might have claimed, therefore everything he owned has a stigma attached.

The only agreement between these two passages is that A) the money was used to buy land, B) Judas died on it, and C) the land was called the Field of Blood. Everything else--the suicide, the actual purchasers of the property, the method of Judas' death--are blatant contradictions, all crammed into just nine verses.

aa5874

Can only one be an atheist, or go to heaven?

Diogenes the Cynic

Your first argument does not represent an atheist argument against the existence of God but only against the purported inerrancy of the Bible.

Your second argument is made by no atheist I've ever heard.

Joan of Bark

My favourite contradiction is this one:

"For he that is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:40)
"For he that is not against you is for you." (Luke 9:50)
Both of these verses were spoken by Jesus to the disciples. But then in Luke 11:23 ...
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."

Ok, JC, which is it? If I am neutral, am I for you, or against you? The only explanation the apologists can come up with would be that I cannot be neutral; I'm either for or against. But then why would Jesus bother to make such obvious either/or statements?

Faithful

Let's take a look at evilbible.com. I notice that these Biblical contradictions were obtained from internet newsgroups. It really makes you wonder how much reliable theological knowledge they have about the Bible and what is their true agenda for compiling such a list??

First of all, we have to realize that God reigned with tough love in the Old Testament and frequently had to resort to wrath. In the New Testament much changed with the coming of Jesus. Therefore, the scriptures will reflect that difference. I'm sure a lot of these scriptures are taken out of context and every one could probably be refuted. God is not the author of confusion - there are just confused interpretations.

3.God dwells in light
1 Tim. 6:1616 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

In the following scripture we see that dark clouds surrounded him as he came down to conquer David's enemies. That doesn't mean that he dwells in darkness. Notice he is light himself.

3.God dwells in darkness
Psalm 18:11-13 He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him— the dark rain clouds of the sky. Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced, with hailstones and bolts of lightning. The LORD thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded.

"The glory of God appearing in a cloud may signify, 1. The darkness of that dispensation, in comparison with the light of the gospel. 2. The darkness of our present state, in comparison with the sight of God, which will be the happiness of heaven, where the Divine glory is unveiled."


64. John the Baptist was Elias Matt 11:14

Matthew 11:13,14 For before John came, all the teachings of the Scriptures looked forward to this present time. And if you are willing to accept what I say, he is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come.Anyone who is willing to hear should listen and understand!

(Notice it says "before John came all the teachings." It alludes to the fact that they are expecting the prophet Elijah to return.

64 John the Baptist was not Elias John 1:21

John 1:19-21This was the testimony of John when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Temple assistants[ from Jerusalem to ask John whether he claimed to be the Messiah. He flatly denied it. "I am not the Messiah," he said. "Well then, who are you?" they asked. "Are you Elijah?" "No," he replied. "Are you the Prophet?" "No."

This is almost a repeat performance of Matthew 11:14 . The Jews thought that Elijah would once again come back to earth to prepare the way for Jesus. John the Baptist didn't say he was Elijah in Matt. 11.. Luke 1:17 He will be a man with the spirit and power of Elijah, the prophet of old. He will precede the coming of the Lord, preparing the people for his arrival. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and he will change disobedient minds to accept godly wisdom."

(This man is John the Baptist, not Elijah.)


69. The infant Christ was taken into Egypt Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23

Matthew 2:13 After the wise men were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up and flee to Egypt with the child and his mother," the angel said. "Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is going to try to kill the child." That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother, and they stayed there until Herod's death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: "I called my Son out of Egypt."

69. The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt Luke 2:22, 39

Luke 2:22-24 Then it was time for the purification offering, as required by the law of Moses after the birth of a child; so his parents took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. The law of the Lord says, "If a woman's first child is a boy, he must be dedicated to the Lord."

(These are two different events. Luke 2 happened eight days after Jesus was born when they took him to the temple in Jerusalem to have him circumcised and dedicated to God.
Luke 2: 21Eight days later, when the baby was circumcised, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel even before he was conceived.)

70. Christ was tempted in the wilderness Mark 1:12,13 Immediately the Holy Spirit compelled Jesus to go into the wilderness. He was there for forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was out among the wild animals, and angels took care of him.

70.Christ was not tempted in the wilderness
John 2:1,2 The next day Jesus' mother was a guest at a wedding celebration in the village of Cana in Galilee. Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the celebration.

(I don't get the point of quoting the above scripture. Matthew, Mark and Luke gave an account of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness. John didn't - that doesn't mean it didn't happen??)

GenesisNemesis

Any more you'd like to present that aren't contradictions? :notworthy:

Sven

Gee, and I just wondered how much reliable thelogical knowledge someone with the main interests "shopping/chatting on phone" has. :Cheeky:

True agenda? Perhaps making fun of people who still think that there are inerrant books around?

"tough love"? That's certainly an understatement for genocid! Apparently the inquisition was also "tough love"? Or the countless murders in Rwanda in your god's name?
And please tell me why an omnipotent being "had" no other choice.

So far, I've found no Christian who explained why Jesus not simply came directly after Adam and Eve (supposedly) did wrong. Would have saved billions of people from hell.

"could probable" does not help to defend inerrancy, you know.

Well, your bible certainly says so:
2 Thessalonians 2:11 "For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion [...]"

Funny that every Christian says this about the interpretations of other Christians, don't you think?

[snip bad examples - there are certainly more obvious contradictions in the bible]

Sorry, I don't understand. Could you please give a chronology?

This does mean that either Matthew, Mark and Luke or John are clueless. The first three say that immediately after his baptism, Jesus went into the wilderness for 40 days. John, on the other hand, offers a complete narrative what happened on the next days after meething the baptist.

Your choice.

Jack the Bodiless

And I am sure that you are mistaken. Indeed, your tactic here is familiar: cherry-picking a handful of alleged contradictions that you believe you CAN refute, and then imagining that this allows you to dismiss all the dozens (hundreds?) that you have chosen to ignore.

An "inerrant" Bible would have to contain NO errors, anywhere within it. It is not sufficient to merely say "here's a verse that looks OK if you squint a little, therefore there are no problems anywhere else".
The infant Christ could not have been taken into Egypt "until Herod's death", because Luke's Jesus wasn't born until at least a decade after Herod died (i.e. Luke's Jesus is at least a decade older than Matthew's Jesus). Also, there is no prophecy that Jesus would be "called out of Egypt" anyhow: Matthew ripped an OT verse out of context (it actually refers to the Exodus).