Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions

While I work on addressing the inconsistencies you provided, please provide evidence for the Christian concept of a "perfect" God and what is meant by perfect in relation to God.Please provide evidence that to be considered the "word of God" the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

1. It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil:...
It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil:

---

The point of the A&E story in Genesis 2:15-17 has nothing to do with whether it is wrong to be able to tell good from evil. It is a foundational myth written as a just-so story to explain why mankind is the way it is. This story does not contradict what the author of Hebrews said in 5:13-14.

quote:

---

2. While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring:...
Lot was "just". [So much for the bible as a moral compass!]

---

The author of 2 Peter is referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, not what happened afterwards. In Genesis 19, Lot was saved because he was considered righteous before the destruction.

quote:

---

3.God tempts Abraham:...
God never tempts anyone:

---

Do you really think Genesis 22 and James 1 are talking about the same thing?God gave Abraham a command. The test of Abraham was if he followed God's command. A direct test of obedience. The author of James is talking about temptation (enticement) to do things that are wrong, not that God gave them a direct order.

quote:

---

4. Honour your father and mother:...
Jesus says that he has come to divide families; that a man's foes will be those of his own household; that you must hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even your own life to be a disciple:

---

The NT authors are referring to Micah 7:6. It is a sign of the times of the Messiah. Remember the reality of the NT times. Some Jews wanted to battle the Romans and others didn't.Again, this is not a contradiction of the law, but a sign of the times.

quote:

---

5. God prohibits killing:...
God orders killing:

---

Exodus 20:13 is a priestly writing and later than the Exodus 32:27 story.Deuteronomy 7:2 refers to conquering/war. The law of not killing refers to people with the nation of Israel killing each other.

quote:

---

6. Take revenge on your enemies:...
Or perhaps not:

---

Deuteronomy 19:21 is not about revenge, but punishment for lying on the stand.

quote:

---

7. Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him:...

---

Judges is considered an historical book. Judges 4:21 is telling what happened. Judges 5:25-27 is a song about the incident. Songs tend to take poetic license.Take into account the context of the stories and that long periods of time have passed. Understand what is actually happening and what the authors are trying to tell their audience.I see poor cherry picking, but I don't really see true contradictions.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

First of all (in post 7) you agree that they are "inconsistencies", and ask me why the bible shouldn't contain any (I would have thought that the reason would be obvious, if one accepts the bible as the word of a perfect deity); but now you are saying they aren't "contradictions", after all!

---

Actually in Message 7, I said I would be working on the inconsistencies you provided. IOW, I would be working on the verses you deemed to be inconsistent.I also didn't ask you why the Bible shouldn't contain inconsistencies, I asked for you to provide evidence that the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies to be considered the "word of God".In Message 9, you provided a link that supports that some Christians consider God to be perfect, but you didn't tell me what perfect means in relation to God.Who says the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies and be considered the "word of God" besides you?

quote:

---

You seem to be reading the bible in a decidedly non-literal way! Isn't it a guide for the man in the street?

---

I'm looking at the P'shat. Remember what that is?I assume you agree with my assessment of the verses you provided since you didn't provide a counter argument to support your position and have moved on to another verse. This is what I meant about jumping through hoops. You aren't trying to understand the texts as they apply to reality. Religion changes with civilization.

quote:

---

How about the "sabbath"? Guidance from the bible:...
First, no work is to be done on the Sabbath, not even lighting a fire. The commandment is permanent, and death is required for infractions. Later on, Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (after his disciples were criticized for breaking the Sabbath). Paul also chimes in with the insight that the Sabbath commandment was temporary, and to decide for yourself regarding its observance.

---

Exodus 31 is a later priestly writing according to Richard Elliott Friedman, in the book entitled "Who Wrote The Bible?" It deals with his insight on the documentary hypothesis.As I said, religion changes with the culture. That is what you're seeing between the OT and the NT. Before Jesus came on the scene, Jewish reformers attempted to bring Judaism into the "modern age", according to Paul Johnson in his book entitled "A History of the Jews". Like Hillel before him, Jesus brought a more humane and universal notion of Torah interpretation. The spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that everyone gets to rest from their daily grind: men, women, slaves, animals, etc. It wasn't that they should be afraid to move, save a lamb or a neighbor, etc. They were applying common sense to the application of the law. Laws also change with society.Paul preached to the Greeks who weren't under Jewish Law to begin with, so the Sabbath rule had no bearing on them.Now before you flop out some more verses that are centuries apart, please pay attention to the context and the audience.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

If you follow the link, you will see what is meant by perfection in relation to god. It's clearly not a perfect situation if god's word is left open to interpretation by different readers. Is it your opinion that god isn't perfect?

---

Rule #5: Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.I don't debate links.When you say perfect god, what do you mean by perfect in relation to God?I can't answer whether I consider God to be perfect or not until I know what definition you're using for perfect in relation to God. Catch phrases tend to get thrown about without any real meaning behind them. I need to know what meaning you are attaching to these phrases and words.

quote:

---

True. It picks and chooses among the innumerable and diverse advice presented in the bible.

---

You really missed the point concerning inconsistencies. Within the Bible we see change in religion. That's why there are differences in what is said in the OT and the NT. Things change over hundreds of years and the Bible shows that change if you pay attention. The rest of your questions are irrelevant to the discussion.You still haven't shown support for the claim that the Bible cannot be the "word of God" if it contains inconsistencies.What do you think "word of God" means?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

That's why I posted the link to a theist website, which you are refusing to discuss, for some reason.

---

The point of the rule is that you read the article and make the argument in your own words. My debate is with you, not the article.So you're saying a perfect God is without fault or blemish.

quote:

---

What it says, of course. Words originating from god. They should be flawless and indisputable if god is perfect.

---

According to you they must be flawless (without fault or blemish) and unquestionable if God is flawless. The adjective "perfect" describes God, not necessarily what he says or does or inspires. You already know he isn't omnisicent or omnipotent. So what is perfect describing?Why should the writings in the Bible be unquestionable because God is supposedly flawless? How does one relate to the other?I don't have to have a clean house to tell someone how to keep their house clean. They would believe me more if my actions fit my words; but if my advice is sound, the condition of my house is irrelevant.Of course if I gave my advice before the advent of the vacuum cleaner, modern technology may render my advice obsolete. Was I at fault when the advice was first given? No.The writers spoke to their audiences, not to us. When God spoke or inspired people to write, the target audience was a specific group in time, not us today. He's not going to tell a man how to drive a car if all he has is a horse and chariott.That's what's was wrong with your supposed inconsistencies you provided. You didn't take into account what the writers were addressing or allowing mankind to change and grow over time.I feel inconsistencies arise because of current theologies, as opposed to what the authors of the Bible were telling their audiences. Were the author's inconsistent at the time?To answer your earlier question: No, I don't consider God to be perfect, but my defintion of perfect in relation to God means completed or finished. God is always changing as the Bible shows us. The italics are mine. In this verse God's way is sound. What God utters has been tested. This author feels that God's way is sound and doesn't feel it is unreasonable to test the words of God. Now what God has them do thousands of years earlier, may not seem so sound to us today. Current theology may want people to dump their common sense, but I don't see that any words attributed to God supports that.I know I sucked the fun out of plopping a list of supposed inconsistencies out for Christians to justify for you, but I was hoping you would take the time to make a more intelligent argument.So, do you still consider the verses you provided to be inconsistent? You didn't really respond to my explanations.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

This says unequivocally that "god says it's so" via god's word in the bible. It was written in another thread by another christian. I took him at his word (i.e. I believe that what he wrote was true and sincere, in case you are wondering what I mean by that). It appears that your understanding of "the word of god" is at variance with mine and his.

---

That person said it is so for him. That's his rationale for justifying his beliefs. I know who it was written by. He said nothing about God being perfect or that God's word can't be questioned. You seem to be conflating perfect God with word of God.

quote:

---

If they were questionable, then their originator couldn't ever be considered "perfect".

---

Here we go with meaning again. I take indisputable to mean that what is written is certain and no one is allowed to argue or test what is written.How does God being flawless relate to what is written? Flawless means without fault or blemish. How does that relate to what is spoken?

quote:

---

Well, this is a new theology. No other christian I have had any dealings with has thought that god is "always changing". Are you certain about this? Which christian sect believes that god is changing? Your god is, however, always changing - his story.

---

We aren't talking about sects. We talking about the Bible. You can see the change in the writings of the Bible.

quote:

---

Yes, they are obviously inconsistent if you read the plain text, and I thought your explanations were extremely convoluted, and unconvincing because of that.

---

Please show me how they are inconsistent given the responses I gave you.
Show me what I missed in the plain text.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

So, this one is dismissed as a "myth".

---

No, the point of the story is not about whether it is wrong to be able to tell good from evil. If you disagree, show me in the plain text.

quote:

---

Whoever thought he was "righteous" before, was proved wrong soon after.

---

But the author of 2 Peter is making a point concerning Lot's righteousness at the time of the Sodom and Gomorrah event. If you disagree, then show me in the plain text.

quote:

---

I think killing children is wrong. Don't you? God asked Abraham to kill his son. God comes across as a particularly nasty and sadistic psychopath in this jolly little tale.

---

It is irrelevant what you think about killing children. The verses are talking about different types of testing. If you disagree, then show your evidence in the plain text.

quote:

---

Come off it. Honestly, this is ridiculous.

---

If you disagree that the NT authors were referring to Micah 7:6 as a sign of Messianic times, then provide evidence that they meant otherwise.

quote:

---

Poetic license? You'll be saying it's all made up by primitive Bronze-Age people, next.

---

One is narrative and one is a song. Show evidence that a song always matches reality 100%.Now I gave you very polite and detailed explanations in my first response to the inconsistencies, but your responses provided no evidence to support your disagreement. You wanted the science thread, which means you also have to provide evidence for your disagreement. You've shown nothing so far.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

You show me evidence that one is a "myth", and another is a "song". Where's the music?

​

The later example (sabbath commandment) makes it quite clear that the order is permanent, but it is subsequently countermanded by Jesus and Paul.

​

If you truly, honestly don't agree that my examples were inconsistencies, why did you refer to them as such in your first reply?

---

That's what I thought. You found a list of Bible contradictions, but you really don't have any reasoning of your own to sustain your position. You're demanding more evidence, when you haven't even provided counter evidence.So far you haven't shown evidence that the Christian Bible must be free of contradictions and errors to be considered the word of God.You're also unable to seriously address the explanations I gave concerning the supposed inconsistencies you provided. Message 8 & Message 11
You're not even reading the text. Judges 5: And did you miss the talking snake and magic trees in the A&E story?If you're not going to read, why do I need to jump through hoops?I know, you were hoping for apologetics and not real answers that would make you think.When you're ready to discuss these seriously, I'll be available.Edited by purpledawn, : Added A&E thought.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Philosophical theism commonly ascribes to god the attribute of immutable - the idea that god cannot and does not change. Whatever god is like now is the way that god was for all of the past and the way god will be for all of the future. It doesn’t matter what happens elsewhere, god always and inevitably remains the same. But you claim that god changes with time. The only reason why you claim this, is to try to paper over the cracks in the bible.

---

Show evidence that God/Religion does not, cannot, and has not changed. Remember, you're in the science thread; not faith and belief.Show evidence that the simple reading of the verses you supplied actually contradict each other within the context they were written. You haven't even addressed your own examples seriously.I'm not trying to paper over cracks. Actually, I like looking through the cracks to see the reality, but you haven't shown true cracks. You're comparing apples and oranges.Show me that Jesus or Paul said people could/should do their normal daily work on the Sabbath. The fence around the Torah had become burdensome if not ridiculous. Show evidence that Jesus countered the command not to work on the Sabbath, as opposed to teaching people to address the spirit of the law with common sense. Israel was no longer a nation governing itself. They were under Roman rule. Look at the argument Jesus made. Look at what was happening around them.Crosswalk.com and biblos.com are good sources for reading the chapters that surround the verses you provided.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

There's no evidence god even exists, so how can anyone "show evidence" about whether god has changed? I've already shown that "immutability" is a common theme in christianity, and it's what I was taught as a young child, before I grew old enough to see through it all.

---

So you have no evidence that god/religion does not, cannot, and has not changed. All you have is what you were taught as a child. If your contention is that my responses to the verses provided are incorrect due to God's immutability (not capable of or susceptible to change), then you need to provide the evidence that God is not capable of or susceptible to change.

quote:

---

The command was unequivocal, punishable by death, and states explicitly that it is "a perpetual covenant", "for ever". I don't think it could be any clearer than it is. Here's the relevent part again:...
But if you think Jesus and Paul were right to abandon a key tenet of god's word, just because the Romans were hanging around, then that's obviously all OK then.

---

I didn't say the original law wasn't clear. I said: Show evidence that Jesus countered the command not to work on the Sabbath, as opposed to teaching people to address the spirit of the law with common sense. IOW, did Jesus actually rescind the command or just knock down the fence?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Asking for evidence that god has (or hasn't) changed is patently absurd. You might as well ask whether I think Father Christmas has changed. But christianity teaches that god hasn't changed. I won't bother to provide any supporting links, because you have disallowed them.

---

You cried immutability. Therefore you are responsible for providing the evidence that God is not capable of or susceptible to change. I don't disallow supporting links. The rules frown upon only links with no supporting argument in your own words. It doesn't matter what Christianity teaches, there still has to be support for immutability. If you don't have support then you have no argument against what I've provided as explanations to the verses you considered inconsistent other than you disagree.

quote:

---

You are playing with words again. Of course he was countering it, by placing the interests of "man" above any petty rules about "the sabbath". The original command is, however, very explicit and it even stipulates that there are to be no exceptions in the future.

---

I gave you the information you needed to make a reasoned decision. Jesus didn't rescind the law, he knocked over the fence. Paul was talking to Greeks who were not subject to the covenant.BTW, God did make exceptions. Just before the portion you picked, Jesus gave reference to what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? (Mark 2:25-26) The point was it is always lawful to do good and to save life even on the Sabbath. The spirit of the law, not the letter.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

What do you mean by "Jesus didn't rescind the law, he knocked over the fence." It doesn't actually mean anything AFAICT.

---

See Message 27

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I find your arguments extremely weak. Most of them follow the pattern, "The Bible says A to person and situation X, and it says B to person and situation Y. Since A is not the same as B the Bible is inconsistent." This is silly; it ignores the different individuals, situations, cultural contexts, etc in the two different events. These are not inconsistencies at all!

---

Many of the "inconsistencies" I see presented follow this formula. It is very obvious that those presenting these supposed inconsistencies haven't read the surrounding text to understand the point that is being made by the author. Here is another example: Of course they didn't give the whole verse from Romans 14:21.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Your initial arguments in this thread were all about whether god is perfect or not, and asking me for evidence that to be considered the "word of god" the bible cannot contain inconsistencies. May I remind you that the subtitle of this subforum is "Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?" There's an assumption in that subtitle, and also in the original starting quote, that the word of god is inerrant. So what is your opinion about that?

---

The Doctrine of Inerrancy refers to the original manuscripts and is only about 200 years old. Since I seriously doubt you have a copy of any original manuscripts, there's nothing to debate. I would agree that the original manuscripts probably were accurate. There's no way to know. Of course, we have to remember that the Bible was compiled over thousands of years and the originals probably weren't even around when the NT was written. We already know that the NT writings have been altered from their originals. Other books, which I believe are no longer extant, are referenced in the Bible. So we know that information was pulled from other sources than God.I'm not the one who claimed the Bible we have today has to be free of inconsistencies or contradictions to be the word of God, you did.Unfortunately, you haven't shown that the verses you provided are actually inconsistencies or contradictions other than to your own perception.Why do you still feel these verses are contradictions or inconsistencies?
Just because you don't like the way God did what he did, doesn't make it an inconsistency or contradiction.

quote:

---

You seem to want to "have it both ways" in this discussion. In the first place you challenge the very idea that the word of god is inerrant, and then you employ a series of contorted wriggling manoeuvres to try to show that it is inerrant, after all!

---

Actually no wiggling is needed. These were very obviously not contradictions for anyone who takes the time to read the story surrounding the verse and understanding what the author was telling his audience. I'm not trying to show the Bible is inerrant. I'm just showing that the verses you provided aren't contradictions.If you want to show the Bible has contradictions, then show real contradictions that can't be explained by simple understanding of the text.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

So, manslaughter is OK? Along with torture, which isn't outlawed either. Eating various types of prohibited food is worse than torture.

---

Irrelevant! Try addressing the actual arguments and not venting your personal feelings concerning God.

quote:

---

The "inerrant word of god" ought to be inerrant, at least, poetic license or not.

---

The author is writing about an event that happened and a song that was sung concerning the event. You feel it is better for the author to change the song instead of accurately recording it for posterity? If he had done that, then the writing would have actually been inaccurate and not free from error (inerrant). We wouldn't know the difference and you would be happy, but the information would actually be wrong.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz