Does anyone know of a link that has rebuttals for the commonly cited Bible inconsistencies/contradictions? I suck at google and I was unable to find any rebuttals. Not just 10-20 answers, but an entire list of answers to each allegation. I'm only giving this link to show there are alot of alleged inconsistencies, I realize nobody is going to personally answer all of them. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
God put lots of jokes in the bible, that you won't get if you don't get God's sense of humor, which atheists don't (they are part of God's sense of humor- a living joke).
I like Kharakov's answer. Frankly it is the best I've heard. Usually you heard all kinds of BS like "Well gee, God works in mysterious ways" or "What contradictions?, There are no contradictions" you know, the usual crap. Kharakov's answer can't really be gainsayed except with a "no, it isn't a joke". It is sophistry at its finest, always a thing to be appreciated. My answer is as follows. A disclaimer: my answer is regarding the OT only. The new testament does not have the same kind of problems that the OT has and so should not be treated similarly. I do not claim this as a definite reply to all of the bibical inconsistancies. In fact I do not claim that it can solve even one specific instance. It is merely a more useful way of looking at the bible. Most of the problems arise when one compares passages from one book of the OT with those from another. The OT books were written over a period of probably 1,500 years by greatly different people in greatly different circumstances. The laws handed down (whether by God or man) were intended to address the problems being faced by the Hebrew people at the time. Laws that made sense in the days of Moses may no longer have been useful in the days of Isiah. If God exists he must certainly be intellignet enough to realize that different people, different problems, different time peroids and such require different laws and different attitudes. Contradictions, or apparent contradictions, appear when people attempt to take all of the OT laws and apply them at the same time. We should not do that, it's stupid. Again, I do not claim that this solves all of the contradictions but I do believe that it clears up a great many of them. p.s. If this isn't baiting then nothing is. You want a list of rebuttals to every single contradiction in the Bible? Come on man, ask some well though out in depth questions instead of this stuff. This one was one step better than saying. "nee-ner-nee-ner-nee-ner your book is stupid"
According to some scholars Dueteronamy was written during the hebrew reformation (mid 7th cent bce) during the reign of King Josiah, not by--or during the time of --Moses as judeo-christian tradition claims. They (the authors) claimed to have "found" this "lost|" book of law and attributed the authorship to Moses to give it clout. If you study the history of the old testament you see alot of this kind of thing; Daniel was written about 130 bce. during the reign of the Maccabees, not during the Babylonian exile. Which makes it's prophetical portions actually a recount of recent events at that point. Bearing in mind of course that history itself is mostly just a collection of random facts constructed into a thesis, usually by someone with an agenda, just like any other religion. At one point in the gospels Jesus is quoted as saying to the pharasees "You've replaced the laws of God with the traditions of men". I think there's a good chance he was speaking of the Old Testament as a whole.
There are many, And I won't bother going through all of them. But if you want I can tackle at least 10 of them for you.
Well, hold em up here. First off, we have to establish some ground rules. Belief in the Bible is a strange thing. What one person holds as faith is not that of another. Some take the Bible as a historical document written by men and basically try to understand the intent in historical context and accept that some passages erase/enhance/upgrade others e.g. eating pork and shellfish. Some take it as the Divine Word spoken DIRECTLY BY GOD in Greek, or worse, in English. No joke. I lived in Memphis for a while and spoke with a cute ancient languages student who said someone in her class was incensed that they'd be reading the New Testament in demotic Greek - after all, it was written in English so why should she have to read a translation of it? And she wasn't kidding. So, someone who believes it to be the divinely inspired Word is going to have different problems, different apologetics and different solutions to the problems than the person who believes the Bible to be a historical document open to interpretation. Any real tackling of apologetics is going to crank someone off, deeply. Because if you take the tack "hey, pal, this bit was written by an earlier prophet and this a later one, so discard the earlier" or argue semantics or translation you're going to cheese off the "no, Jesus wrote this and therefore THERE IS NO ERROR" crowd. And vice versa. "What do you mean, XYZ? It's clear that..." etc. So realistically speaking you have to establish first what the speaker believes, and work it from that angle. Personally I think God wants us searching, not having the answer, and so I am out of this equation.
There are several takes you can have to the notion that there are inconsistencies in the Bible. 1) The Bible is useless. If it lies about (detail) then it also can technically be lying about everything else, and therefore no more valid than the Koran, Baghavad-Gita, etc. and therefore any circular argument in which the BOOK is presented is null and void. The Marquis de Sade basically came to this conclusion, but so have many upstanding and moral atheists. 2) Kharakov's and my idea - if I understand him right, and please, if I'm wrong elaborate- that God actually wants you looking for Him and not assuming you've found Him. Sort of like how the real valid benefit of weightlifting is picking up the weight and putting it back down again - the exertion of the lifting - not the end result (the barbell moved) and therefore the true benefit is looking into the crystal pool and seeing in yourself what you believe. 3) There is no contradiction. There is no contradiction. There is no contradiction. WHY? BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BURN IN HELL YOU ARE A LIBERAL AND UGLY AND TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG YOU FREAK etc.
"p.s. If this isn't baiting then nothing is. You want a list of rebuttals to every single contradiction in the Bible? Come on man, ask some well though out in depth questions instead of this stuff. This one was one step better than saying. "nee-ner-nee-ner-nee-ner your book is stupid"" Yeah because while attempting to learn about the world religions, asking about errors in a so called infallible book is SOOOOOOO crazy. Even some liberal Christians are telling me the Bible is without error. I need an entire list because if even ONE error cannot be explained away at the very least this tells me the Bible isn't inerrant. I didn't ask (in fact I explicitly said I didn't expect a hand written list) for someone to sit down and write out a 2 hour long rebuttal to each alleged(I even used the word alleged to be polite!) inconsistency, but instead asked for a link to a rebuttal. You keep accusing me of baiting, when all I'm asking are questions. Your attitude turns me off from Christianity more than the brimstone and fire southern baptists. "Don't ask legitimate questions!" "But I was just wondering why..." "Stop BAITING" "No see, I just don't understand why in math 2...." "STOP BAITING" Ridiculous.
Well, it is a joke. I mean, God can't seriously hold a creation responsible for what it does, God is responsible for everything. The whole knowledge of good and evil thing is basically you gotta realise when God is serious and when God is joking. Fundamentalists take everything God says seriously.... then again, you have to realise that God made them the way they are as a joke, just like atheists, agnostics, or me. Nobody is immune from divine humor. Nobody. Jesus got fuckin' crucified, for christ's sake! Gotta go to the airport...
Since nobody seems to answer me, I'll just go right ahead... OK...let's start: 1. "GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. (Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)" Genesis 1:31 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 6:5-6 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. OK, this one's a total fluke at trying to prove that it's a contradiction. First of all, humans have free will. God loves his creation, but he couldn't bear to see all the sin that was going on, and seeing all those people go to hell. He was displeased with his creation because of his 0 sin tolerance back then. So he distroyed them, that this wouldn't continue. God doesn't control one's free will. Now that we've got that one done, They're cutting out a major point here: The Fall. After the fall, which Adam and Eve caused, sin first came on this Earth. And peace was corrupted ( and yes, this obviously affected the animals as well because the Garden of Eden was THE Paradise righteous Jews would 'return' to aftter their Death back then. And there's no pain in Paradise ) Adam and Eve were spiritually at their max, they walked with God every single day. Meaning they were also very intelligent. Because God is. (he created you, man! ) Then the fall came and that changed the whole world, because now humanity had a sinful nature, and they weren't as perfect as they once were, they weren't as good as they once were. And on that day described in Genesis 6 sin met it's peak, and God certainly was displeased. OK, Next: "GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit. GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years." 2. Genesis 2:17 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 5:5 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died OK, so much for an Atheist to understand spiritual stuff. Adam DID die that day, but why did it say that he continued to live? Adam's Death by the fall was Spiritual death.Spiritual , not physical. His Spirit died (as well as that of his descendants'). S-P-I-R-I-T-U-A-L death. He didn't die physicly, but his Spiritualy. *sigh* next: 3. "GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil. HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil." Hebrews 5:13-14 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. It's supposed to contradict: Genesis 2:15-17 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 3:4-6 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. let's put it like this: Genesis: Adam eats the fruit from that tree... Oooops, there goes all mankind, there goes the World, many of my decendants are going to hell because I ate that fruit. Uhhh...shouldn't have done that. Hebrews: Some guy couldn't tell wrong from right (because now there was wrong 'cuz of what Adam did), and he runs into a tree, because he wasn't wise. Ouch. Now if he would've been wise he'd know that he could have gone around it. There's only one link: BECAUSE we now know sin we can sin, and we must know the difference between good and evil that we won't. Back then it was the stupidest thing that Adam and Eve could have to find out: 'What is Evil'. That was the only evil back then, to find out. Now we know what evil is, so now we have to differentiate it from good. Simply put: If Those two didn't eat from the tree there'd be no evil we'd have to know of. So that is not a contradiction, it's more like a domino effect.... now to the forth one on my list: 4. "GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's. 2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike" So: Genesis 4:4-5 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. is supposed to contradict: 2 Chronicles 19:7 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 7Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. Acts 10:34 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: Romans 2:11 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 11For there is no respect of persons with God. ?? God loved both. Abel and Cain. The message here is not that one's judged by gifts, but that one doesn't receive salvation through works, but through God's grace. There's no contradiction whatsoever, when included with the context. so you might as well strike that out. Next: 5. "GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is. PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view." Genesis 4:9 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 9And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? I won't even bother posting the other verses, for the above is just what they said. That God sees all, and that nothings hidden from Him. now.... Where does it say in Genesis that God didn't know where Abel (not Able) was? He knew it. it's interesting that this was cut off right here: ...Am I my brother's keeper? While Ignoring the sentence right after it: 10And He said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. He knew where he was. He was just trying to Get Abel's attention to this issue. So we might as well strike this off, no? Number 6: "GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son." Genesis 16:15 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 15And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. Genesis 21:1-3 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Genesis 21 1And the LORD visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as he had spoken. 2For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. 3And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac. Galatians 4:22 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. These verses are to contradict: Hebrews 11:17 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) 17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and He that had received the promises offered up His only begotten son, True, he DID have two sons, But Esau was dead then. And it was Abraham's 'only begotten son' because he was the last one left, it's to show symbolism between God's sacrifice of his only begotten son, and Abraham's 'only' (begotten) son. That was simple. Next: 7. "2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) reigned three months. 2CH 36:9 He reigned three months and ten days." OK...so it wasn't 3 months, but 3 months and 10 days. Ah ha, Got it. 8. "IS 3:13 God stands to judge. JL 3:12 He sits to judge." Another one like that... Stands doesn't always literally mean stand, When one says to 'stand tall', it doesn't always mean that they're supposed to literally do it. right? 9. "MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph. LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary." Luke 1:27-28 . 28 And having come in, the angel said to her,"Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!" NKJV Matthew 1:20-21 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." NKJV Yes, contradiction, that's why they were in two different places, with two different settings. no? 10. "MT 12:5 Jesus says that the law (OT) states that the priests profane the Sabbath but are blameless. (No such statement is found in the OT." Leviticus 16:29-34 29 "This shall be a statute forever for you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you. 30 For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. 31 It is a sabbath of solemn rest for you, and you shall afflict your souls. It is a statute forever. 32 And the priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as priest in his father's place, shall make atonement, and put on the linen clothes, the holy garments; 33 then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tabernacle of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly. 34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year." And he did as the LORD commanded Moses. NKJV They brake the Sabbath by doing work, but are blameless because the Lord orders them to do work. Therefore they 'profane' it.
