AbsolutPauer Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Hi y'all. I've been in the process of "debating" with a pastor friend of mine for the past couple of months about Biblical inerrancy. I've offered a few examples of what I consider to be Biblical errors, including the failed prophecy of Ezekiel regarding Nebuchadnezzar and Egypt, the Jehu/Jezreel nonsense, and various instances of God "lying." Since discussing the failed prophecy of Ezekiel, he refuses to talk anymore about historical contradictions and wants to focus only on the internal coherency of the Bible. This is most likely because he simply could not refute the evidence I presented, which to him isn't a problem because he believes we "don't have all the evidence yet." He is still "looking into" the Jehu/Jezreel stuff, and he argued well about some points of the passages on God's dishonesty, so I'm not really interested in pursuing that one any more. My question is, are there any contradictions internal to the Bible itself that you have found particularly effective when debating with Christians? Have you come across anything that no amount of convoluted "reasoning" can overcome? Have you come across anything that stopped a clever Christian dead in their tracks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Check out the stuff here there's LOTS: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/don...rgan/intro.html Paying particular attention to this for your Pastor playing verbal twister to explain away those inconsistencies..... While Biblicists are capable of offering some sort of explanation for nearly any biblical problem that can be uncovered, such explanations should be unnecessary. The point is not whether some explanation can be conceived, but rather that a perfect and loving God certainly could, should, and would do a much better job of it were he to have anything to do with the writing of a book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Since discussing the failed prophecy of Ezekiel, he refuses to talk anymore about historical contradictions and wants to focus only on the internal coherency of the Bible. Whoa Hoss! Shit, I fell for it too....and I'm not even the one talking to this guy. What's this? Historical contradictions involving the bible are supposed to be "okay"? Or somehow "unrelated"? This guy is trying to distract you from the fact that the historical contradictions are IN and PART OF the book that is supposed to be infallible! Even ONE tiny contradiction, or unfulfilled prophesy invalidated the WHOLE book in terms of inerrancy! A single mistake in the WHOLE things exposes the bible as NOT being the word or intention of god. Bats are listed as birds in that book.....god knew they weren't......but this being allowed this error into the book? Are you kidding me? Your pastor is trying to nitpick about the "quality" or "type" of the contradiction......uh uh! It don't work that way! All you need is ONE error to cast justified skepticism on the whole book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 This is just my favorite contradiction, and I don't know if it's the most effective, since I don't debate much about the contradictions with Christians. But I just like this one, because it is so obviously conflicting. Should you love your parents and wife/husband or should you hate them? Luk 14:26 KJVA If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Mat 19:19 KJVA Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Eph 6:1-3 KJVA Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. (2) Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) (3) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. Eph 5:25-28 KJVA Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (26) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (27) That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (28) So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. Of course the explanation you'd hear is that Jesus didn't mean really "hate", but he was just making a statement how much more one is supposed to love him compared to the family. (Maybe it should have been an explanation by Jezombie in Luke? God forgot to explain himself? He didn't know people would get confused and start hating their parents in accordance with his words?) I find the conflict amusing anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Since discussing the failed prophecy of Ezekiel, he refuses to talk anymore about historical contradictions and wants to focus only on the internal coherency of the Bible. ..... My question is, are there any contradictions internal to the Bible itself that you have found particularly effective when debating with Christians? Have you come across anything that no amount of convoluted "reasoning" can overcome? Have you come across anything that stopped a clever Christian dead in their tracks? Yes, a good one would be to discuss about the status of God's everlasting and perfect laws of the OT? The NT clearly contradicts OT on this one. If he says they still remain, then that contradicts Paul, if he says no that contradicts OT?If he tries to say that some will remain some will not , once again you can ask him proof from OT? This is a sure winner What Is The Status Of God's Law? Turning Christianity Into A Word Of God Three Elements In Doctrine Creation Debate About the law - 1 Debate About the law - 2 Debate About the law - 3 Check out all the debates about regarding the status of the law. The good thing about the above site it contains every known apologetic answer and there is also a counter a rebuttal too. Another thing would be talk that the Genealogies shows that Jesus was not the Jewish messiah. Goto the Colloseum section and check out the my post and the links that I have given. That is another of a sure winner. Enjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 I love reading about these inconsistencies....it's interesting to see two groups of people (my group and apologists) come together and argue about the context, semantics, and meaning of the passages in the bible. I used to do that, but found that it wasn't conducive to destruction of Christianity as a rational philosophy/religion. There are Christians who don't adhere to biblical inerrancy...and yet still believe in God, and are still Christians (True or not is irrelevant in this case), so I prefer to attack the existence of God itself in respect to the Christian idea....something I'm much better at attacking and much more interested in. However...one thing that I think is inconsistent with internally with the bible is just in Genesis, and centers around Adam being created without knowledge of good or evil, yet is somehow supposed to be aware that disobeying God is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 Yes, Adam and the knowledge of good and evil, and yet know it was wrong to eat the fruit. Is a very good inconsistency in the Bible, plus it's in the first chapters. Perfect way to start the debate with a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asuryan Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 My question is, are there any contradictions internal to the Bible itself that you have found particularly effective when debating with Christians? Genesis contradictions are my favourite, because it is often too hard for the average christian to tell you that you must contextualize the sentences you have picked (and of course, the right context is ALWAYS the one the christians deems right...) GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later. GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark. GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark. I cutpasted this from whiteboxingkitty... oops. White raven's website for convenience. I like these ones best because it is easy for a christian to argue about the "real" meaning of words like "truth" "life" "hate" "Love" "righteous", but it is much more difficult for a christian to argue about the "real" meaning of words like "Before" "after" "two" and "seven". If a christian tells you that the word "before" really means "after", to try and make those genesis verses match, then you can look at him and point to him that he just said that in the bible some words really mean their contrary, so are you allowed to point at that "god is love" and say that "god is hate"? Or "god is righteous" and say that "god is unjust"? Same thing for the verses about noah and the ark. Two means Two. Seven means Seven. If the christian tries to tell you that the real meaning of Seven is Two, you can snicker and say "Seven is Two? Are you even listening to yourself?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl-777 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Here’s a couple of my favorite biblical self-contradictions: "....for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved"...VERSUS...And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live.." The four different deaths of Saul are a spectacular quadruple self-contradiction in the “divinely inspired” "inerrant" "word" of "perfect" biblegod. Saul falls on his own sword: Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. Or…….was Saul was actually killed by an Amelekite? 8 And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. 9 He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me. 10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord. H-m-m – that doesn’t seem to be it either....this says Saul was actually killed by the Phillistines! And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabeshgilead, which had stolen them from the street of Bethshan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa. Actually, the first three aren't really correct…it looks like biblegod did it himself: 13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; 14 And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse. Of course, there are many more than what have already been posted here….but, as fundies will tell us…it’s all “true” anyway…………….. K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 How about this one? Jesus is expounding scripture to the Pharisees in Mark 2:26. He talks about when David eats the bread of the presence when Abiathar is the high priest. Jesus gets it wrong. Ahimelech was high priest at that time. Abiathar is his son and doesn't show up until later in 1 Samuel. or this - from the book "Did Jesus Exist" by Wells "The most telling moment in the gospels, however, is when Mark has Jesus quote from the Old Testament in his arguments against the pharisees. Nothing surprising about this - except that Jesus quotes from the mistranslated Greek version of the Old Testament, which suits his purpose precisely, not from the original Hebrew, which says something quite different and unhelpful to his argument. That Jesus the Jew should quote a Greek mistranslation of Jewish Holy Scripture to impress orthodox Jewish Pharisees is simply unthinkable. It does make sense, however, if the whole incident were made up by one of the hundreds of thousands of Greek-speaking Jews who no longer spoke their native tongue and could not read their scriptures untranslated, hence attributing to Jesus their own misunderstandings" The verses being referred to are Mark 7:1-23. Or This Romans 3:10 and following: "As it is written, None is righteous, no, not one. No one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." and, Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." VS. Luke 1:5: "In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord." Job 1:1 "In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 That Jesus the Jew should quote a Greek mistranslation of Jewish Holy Scripture to impress orthodox Jewish Pharisees is simply unthinkable. It does make sense, however, if the whole incident were made up by one of the hundreds of thousands of Greek-speaking Jews who no longer spoke their native tongue and could not read their scriptures untranslated, hence attributing to Jesus their own misunderstandings" And it's unthinkable that this supposed "God" being the "author" of the scriptures didn't know better. Job 1:1 "In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil." And see how God rewards those who are righteous. Probably safer not to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Romans 3:10 and following: "As it is written, None is righteous, no, not one. No one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." and, Romans 3:23: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Then I suppose that would include Moses, Joshua, and all the hebrew who lived before Jesus. So right they are in hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Because tithes are such a solid teaching for pastors (most of them) and because they use Melchizedek to validate their tithe teaching against, I love to ask them who Melchizedek was. Let’s turn to Hebrews 7: Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time. What? The Bible clearly tell us that Jesus had a mother at least, so how does this make him like the son of God? Makes you wonder which son the writer of Hebrews were talking about. And Melchizedek seems like more of a “God” than Jesus, based on the description above. But, you know your friend best, and you will have to gauge where he is at, and what topics particularly interests him. Chances are good that you will find something in that vein that is highly contentious. Try and determine what is the biggest “evidence” for him that God exist, and then go after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 ...are there any contradictions internal to the Bible itself that you have found particularly effective when debating with Christians? Nothing is really "effective" when debating with fundies - whenever they are confronted with something that to them must not be true, the standard fundy problem-solving strategy (denial) kicks in. But just for fun... ...I found it particular amusing, personally, to silence and shock the braindead with the fact that they don't know the ten commandments. Read Exodus 34 and you'll see that the nice cuddly "thou shalt not murder" et al are... well... outdated. The real, "final" commandments read just a little bit "different"... ...but see for yourself. And have fun slapping this nasty little fact across the next fundy face you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artur Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Artur, I just typed a whole post out to explain that one too (which I've now deleted as it just said the same as yours.) Not only is it inconsistent with the prophecy, it also contradicts MK 11:7, LK 19:35, JN 12:14 too as well as being hard to visualise hiw Jesus could have ridden on both a baby foal and its mother into Jerusalam as Matthew describes. It has always seemed one of the best evidences of tampering with the text to fit a prophecy that I have seen to and is hard for Christians to explain away, as the prophecy quoted is so misunderstood by the author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artur Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Without going into too much detail, the most powerful contradiction for me (aside from all the impossible stuff) is that Jesus is broken from the necessary line of male progenetors that would otherwise make him Messiah. Thus, by virtue of being born from a virgin, he is automatically disqualified from messiahship. Oopsie, Christians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thirstforknowledge Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hi y'all. I've been in the process of "debating" with a pastor friend of mine for the past couple of months about Biblical inerrancy. I've offered a few examples of what I consider to be Biblical errors, including the failed prophecy of Ezekiel regarding Nebuchadnezzar and Egypt, the Jehu/Jezreel nonsense, and various instances of God "lying." Since discussing the failed prophecy of Ezekiel, he refuses to talk anymore about historical contradictions and wants to focus only on the internal coherency of the Bible. This is most likely because he simply could not refute the evidence I presented, which to him isn't a problem because he believes we "don't have all the evidence yet." He is still "looking into" the Jehu/Jezreel stuff, and he argued well about some points of the passages on God's dishonesty, so I'm not really interested in pursuing that one any more. My question is, are there any contradictions internal to the Bible itself that you have found particularly effective when debating with Christians? Have you come across anything that no amount of convoluted "reasoning" can overcome? Have you come across anything that stopped a clever Christian dead in their tracks? He's not a very good preacher then. Understanding the bible is mostly done through interpretation. If people read what was actually there, they'd seriously be confused as shit. I have yet to see a contradiction that is at all effective. No matter what, it can be interpreted in any way to fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Understanding the bible is mostly done through interpretation. If people read what was actually there, they'd seriously be confused as shit. I have yet to see a contradiction that is at all effective. No matter what, it can be interpreted in any way to fit. That, unfortunately, is all too true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 True, but confusion is the author of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Very good, Mr. Solo. I likes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Ever seen the movie Mystery Men? It's like the dude, Sphinx or whatever (it was a while ago), turned all the phrases like: "Your fear will overcome you, unless you overcome your fear." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 My favorite is where God Says "You shall not kill" but then just a little while later orders the israelites to kill all the inhabitants of the "promised land" including women children and even livestock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts