• anonymous said on Aug 27, 2007....

  I went on google searched for Bible + contradictions and got 1 trillion hits.

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 27, 2007....

  Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
         in the image of God he created him;
         male and female he created them.
   
  Genesis 2:20 &21  So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
   
  That would be one of them.  You could argue the Ten Commandments vs the number of times that God told the Isrealites to slaughter a given group of people. 
   
  Most of the time though when people say the Bible is filled with contradictions they are speaking of the changes between the OT and the NT and those aren't contradictions, they are updates.

• anonymous said on Aug 27, 2007....

  what about dinosaurs

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 27, 2007....

  What about? 

• skymir said on Aug 28, 2007....

  @ Sr

  Ja there are a many problems with geneses, but I would love to see something more concrete. With the quotes in question: in theory that could be resolved by confused (past) tenses occurring in the translation or just as a poetic function. there is so much that could be said about the semantics issue of kill vs. murder vs. smite ect. ! With genesis I always feel almost deceived when I read the implication that plants came before stars, including the sun! but that sort of issue is more in line with the “dinosaurs” comment addressed below.

   

  @ anon(s)

  hmmm I got 1.3 million, but my interest is in what people around here have to say. And in regards to dinosaurs, your missing the point. Contradictions within the bible are exponentially more powerful then these supposed contradictions between the bible and fashionable natural history.

   

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 28, 2007....

  No it isn't.  When God created the plants they didn't need the sun. Which strictly speaking there are deep sea plants that infact don't need the sun though that obviously isn't what they were talking about.  Those are conflicts of science vs religion.  The double acount of the creation directly contradicts the origins of woman and is important.  If she was created at the same time as man from the same materials then that would make Biblical documentation for women's equality.  If she was instead created from our rib for our pleasure then she exists merely to please us and should either leave the religion or get in their proper place.
   
  Kill vs murder vs smite (which is an arguable mistranslation at best) would be a mis translation, not a contradiction.  The dinosaurs really means nothing to anybody.  I showed you the biggest glaring contradition.  The rest of them are primarily differences between the New Testament and what Jesus taught vs the Old Testament and what all the old prophets taught.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Forgive me Renaud, but I don't see the contradiction in the Genesis verses. God created man and woman in His own image, and the woman being formed from the man's rib does not change that, if that's what you're saying. Adam came first, and he had no suitable helper, so God created woman.
  
  As for plants and the sun, God said "let there be light" before the sun and stars were brought to existence. We don't know where that light came from, but the fact is sufficient light for plant life did exist  before the sun and moon and stars did. It's chronologically proven by reading the Creation Account in Genesis.
  
  The dinosaurs...well, I would assert that the Flood destroyed all but a few, and young dinosaurs (aka not full grown) would fit on a vessel of the Ark's magnitude. I'd imagine Noah and his family would not want to settle next to larger creatures (just as we don't build condos next to the African jungle, teeming with wild, powerful animals), and extreme elemental after-effects of the Flood (an ice age, creationists suggest) would kill off a great deal of animals unable to acclimate to the harsh conditions. There's a slight possibility that dinosaurs still exist in remote locations on Earth, but it's very slight.
  
  The thing with the Bible is that if someone has even a slight grudge against it for ANY reason, many things will look like a contradiction. I would think that most of the cited contradictions in those million or so hits on the "bible" + "contradiction" search could be explained adequately by many Christians.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2007....

  How does creating two beings simotaneously and then later creating one of them a second time not contradict?  I'm sorry lid, you are rationalizing.  Though I don't mind the Lillith myth which seems to appropriately fill the gap without too much hassle.  It really doesn't much matter as the entire thing is a myth and Genesis is filled with the most fantastic and not true parts of the Bible period but it is a contradiction.  That said I did defend that most of what people call contradictions are not.
   
  As for dinosaurs either the ark story is true and they should have been on the ark or the ark story is false in one or more ways.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Renaud, you are wrong. Your example of a contradiction, really isn't one. The reason this is is because Genesis 2 is a more detailed account of what is explained in Genesis 1.
  
  Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
         in the image of God he created him;
         male and female he created them.
  
  None of that suggests they were created simultaneously. You assumed that.
  
  Genesis 2:20 &21  So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
  
  So God did create both man and woman - woman did not evolve from man, and man did not put together his own "suitable helper." Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1; it elaborates upon the Creation account.
  
  So you see, I can debunk the contradiction not by rationalizing, but by quoting the Bible itself. It's held up against its detractors long after they went the way of the dodo, and will continue to do so. In the Genesis 1 & 2 case we just settled, this post has yet to see a valid contradiction in the Bible.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2007....

  That's a whatever moment.  It mentions their creation at the same time with no separation in time.  It's one verse.  If the second mention was simply a more detailed version why does it only cover one thing rather than other things?  More than that you are pulling an atheist move here by taking things out of context.
   
  If you continue reading Genesis 1 to it's completion (verses 28-31) man and woman created on the 6th day.  In Genesis 2 however picks up on the seventh day, again creating man (which is problematic all on its own) and recreating woman.  That is a difference of TIME not just a difference of order or a level of detail.  Day 6 and Day 7 must be separate entities or else why refer to them as such?
   
  Also it's held up by a combination of things.  1.  Atheists haven't spent enough time screaming, but that will come.  2.  When backed into a corner many Christians adopt the Mom, anonymous, shiningstar defense of it's figurative not literal which is pretty much an unbeatable argument.  It's linked to the since you can't disprove God he must be real which is the stupidest argument ever.  Deists the world round understand the utter rediculousness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster but they look at there own FSM and say well since mine is older by about four thousand years give or take mines right! 

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Renaud, you gotta put the claws away or this will be a party of one. You've probably been much more "hot under the collar" than this, but if you can't listen to my explaining of what the Bible says as an adult, you risk not being talked to as one. If you don't like being told you're wrong, try some humility rather than hostility. "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble."
  
  It seems man and woman were created on the sixth day, and then the beginning of the 2nd chapter says this, verses 1-3:
  
  "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
  
  Then God  blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made."
  
  So at  this point, everything's created, and the first seven days of existence on Earth is accounted for.
  
  Then, chapter 2, verse 4, begins the more detailed account I spoke of, Renaud.
  
  The Genesis 1:27 verse simply says that God creates male and female. It is the sixth day. Genesis says God created them on the sixth day, but Genesis 2 explains HOW. It's clear as day. They do not contradict.
  
  Renaud, I understand your frustration with people switching to "The Bible is figurative, then!" That's the easy way out for people who don't know enough about the Bible to defend it. I know there are literal points to the Bible, and metaphorical points in it (parables, comparisons, stories told by biblical characters), but I take it all as truth. It is the inspired Word of God from the Holy Spirit, and it can endure a typo or a less-than-stellar translation (King James comes to mind, but it's not terrible), because it's human error.
  
  To be completely honest with you, the most glaring contradiction I've found in the Bible appears to be the birth year and age of a king in the Old Testament. It's funny that some will claim that makes the whole Bible shaky, if it has one date that doesn't seem to line up, but nobody discounts an entire history textbook if they spell Napoleon's name wrong on page 247.
  
  As far as "since you can't disprove God, He DOES exist" argument, you're right, it is ridiculous, and shouldn't be the basis for anyone's faith. Personally, I don't think anyone will ever disprove God. There will always be faithful believers on this Earth who uphold Jesus Christ as savior.
  
  Thank you for defending against some of the supposed contradictions you've heard of in the past, Renaud. I must tell you that the Genesis verses we've spoken on are not a contradiction, and I showed that without even changing the words or it's meaning. I think you're right about the Genesis 1:27 verse appearing to speak of man's and woman's creation simultaneously, but I believe that's because it happened on the same day - the sixth day. It's less of a stretch to say they were created on the same day, than it is to say it happened at the exact same moment, or that it happened twice. Reading chapter one all the way through will reveal that, and chapter 2 elaborates on it.
  
  
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Oh the claws are partially out .  I see your logic, I think it's badly flawed but at least your logic is close to right.
   
  I personally think that it is silly to call the Bible into question over a date.  It's not like the dating system back then coincides or has been continuous either.  I mean your point is good about the name spelling but I think this is even simpler than that.   I mean when I talk about Bible dating I don't strictly stick to six thousand years.  I usually humor it upto say ten two twenty thousand years.
   
  Also I try to keep the claws in with you cus I like you but honestly at some point the claws are requirement for my world view.  I do believe that bad/misinformed/ignorant/liars for your sake please choose the least offensive term because I'm making a point not deriding you triumph when the rest of us don't take the appropriate actions.
   
  On Soulcast I think it is safe to say that along with Silverwhisper and bloc I am one of the most respected atheists/evolutionist on this site.  I would say that behind Truthsayer (hell that man makes ME want to believe) yourself and muckpar are likely the most respected Christian minds on this site.  The fact that you continue to civily converse with Shining grants him credibility.  Somebody with your level of intelect, your level of faith, your level of understanding speaks to him as if his point of view had merit give his point of view merit. 

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 31, 2007....

  All in all, we're not that far apart on stuff, Renaud. I wouldn't assume to know the exact age of the Earth, but I'm much more a young Earth creationist  than anything else.
  
  I'd like to ask how you think my logic is badly flawed, though. In what way? Concerning my view of the Bible? Concerning shining?
  
  I must also ask, what makes the "claws" a requirement in your worldview? More to the point, what else could I say to shining in your opinion? I seek to respect her even if what she believes has no consistency or serious basis other than the  amalgamation of a dozen different religious and secular ideas. Would you have me cuss her out, tell her she's wrong about everything that comes out of her mouth? Or at the very least get passionately angry and put her in her place?
  
  So all that goes to say, what about my demeanor, civility, or logic is flawed in your eyes? I'm asking so that you can say what you mean, what you alluded to in your last post. I continue to hold that love and respect for another will speak out more likely than reaming them a new one, but I assure you I've also called people out on stuff at the same time.
  
  In shining's case, I have reason to believe from her own words that growing up in the Bible Belt gave her a hypocritical view of Christianity, and so she found some out-there ideas about Jesus and God (or Jehovah, in her case) and speaks of the Masters - a group that sounds more like the Justice League than a PGA tournament. None of her claims about Jehovah are supported by the Bible, and just about everything she says about Jesus takes Him and His words out of context in some way.
  
  If I do not provide a loving alternative to false teachings that lie about my Savior, or other beliefs that suggest my faith is delusional, then I give the bystanders no reason to believe Jesus really IS the way. If I sling mud or get pissed, I fit right in with the worst exchanges. I am called to be set apart, and to be a positive example, and though that might be faulty to you in some way (you know, like me being too nice), I can see where you're coming from, but I know shining and others will listen to me more if I respect them and disagree, rather than disagree and question their intelligence gruffly.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 31, 2007....

  Maybe not mudslinging though we all know I'm not above mudslinging, I actually love a true brawl.  The fact of the matter is that sometimes it is required to call people and call them adamantly on their shit.  Not lovingly just no.  Parents spank their children and while the act may be done out of love the act itself isn't really loving.  It is a means to an end, a necessary evil if you will. 
   
  In Shining's case she's never going to listen to you, surely you know this.  Just like I know that bloc will never listen on certain social and political things, neither will you, neither will I.  We both sorta hope that if we say the right combination of words the other will have that Eureka moment and everything that makes so much sense to us will be clear to the other as well.  Reality as we both know is contrary to our hopes. 
   
  The reason I pointed out the level of respect that you carry is because while you are inteligent and articulate surely you realize that many on yourside are not, certainly not to the degree that you are.  (The same holds true for my side)  When they see discussions like this they form opinions.  It's politics.  George Bush didn't come to California to convince us to vote Republican.  It wasn't going to happen.  Gore didn't spend much time in Texas convincing them to vote Democrat.  It's a waste of breath.  Bush and gore didn't preach to the choir, they stayed out of sure win California and Texas.  They went after the hearts and minds of the millions and millions in the middle because those are the people listening and thinking about this from as close to an objective stance as possible. 
   

• skymir said on Sep 04, 2007....

  Wow, I am honored to be hosting such a debate. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to really get in to it now. I will be back later.

  Thanks

• lidstrom82 said on Sep 04, 2007....

  I really agree with all of that, Renaud. Thanks for explaining that in a really effective, awesome way. What I believe (because the Bible explains it and I've seen it) is that the Word of God doesn't return void - it incites reaction outwardly or inwardly. That means I should be quoting the Bible much more than I do, because otherwise you're totally right - it's just me trying to find that right combination of words. Thank you for reminding me. It's not my words that's going to give that Eureka moment, but love and respect certainly doesn't hurt. I find it more enlightening (not in the Buddhist sense, heh) to find out why people believe what they do in order to see what their lives have been like, to know them better. If I take the time to listen, the effect reciprocates - unless the other person is very much opposed. And you're right about preaching to the choir - it makes common sense that you can't convince someone else of something culturally, morally, philosophically, or diametrically opposed to what they stand for. Nobody likes being told they're wrong, especially if they're convinced they're right. But God didn't call me (or other Christians, even if they appear less respectful or eloquent than I) to leave people alone to make up beliefs or to trash Him. I'll let bible verses do the "spanking" so to speak - in that way, it's not a necessary evil - it's breaking a person's pride so they realize God is Lord over their lives, and it there to help them. I really believe the Bible's words will rise above any great sermon or post we can create.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2007....

  You're well worth the time spent explaining things to lid.  I try my best to break things down when I haven't explained them to your satisfaction.  I'm not great at Bible quoting so I tend to avoid it in most cases not to mention more often than not Im not defending the Bible.
   
  That said I'm glad I helped you along your path.  Good luck I figure we'll cross swords again soon enough so I've no solid reason not to let you go in peace today.

• lidstrom82 said on Sep 04, 2007....

  haha! Well that's good

• skymir said on Nov 23, 2007....

  I wonder if this will catch any ones eye or if I should start a new entry about these passages. I think I have found the kind of contradiction I am looking for. In this passage set as I understand it Gd gives Moses a command that is in direct violation to an older (and very important) command. It doesn’t strike me as the kind of update passage that can explain differences between the OT and NT. Well here you are, submitted for your approval:

   

  The book of Numbers 21:4 through 10 a little story about Gd punishing the whiner of the Jews. Not that unusual (have you read it yet? If not go do so this is important) but for Gd instructions for dispelling his wrath. Under Gds orders “and Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man when beheld the serpent of brass, he lived ( NUM 21:9).”

   

  This is a problem because of exdious 20:4 the express forbiddance of making a likeness of anything on earth in water or in heaven. So what do ya think how can this be resolved?

• SeanRenaud said on Nov 24, 2007....

  You know I am atheist right?  That I will gladdly tear the bible to shreds just to prove a point?
   
  3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
   
  :4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

     5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

  Obviously he's not telling people not to make rocking horses.  He's talking about the Golden Calf that is Baal. 

  Numbers 214And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.

     5And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.

  Is obviously talking about punishing ungrateful children.  God is a tyrant, make no mistake about that.  That doesn't make for a contradiction though.

  Taken out of context anything can be made to say anything you have to read what comes before and comes after it.  Usually reading the entire chapter that you find in question will clear up any problems that you have.

   

  The reality is that the Bible really isn't filled with contradictions and science doesn't reverse every one of it's beliefs every decade.

• lidstrom82 said on Nov 24, 2007....

  This brings up an interesting question about the nature of God: who do we think He should be? He's given us the Bible, basically an instruction manual of how to live life, and I think most people scrutinize it more than take it at face value.
  
  Renaud, you mentioned you regard God as a tyrant. Many would agree with you, many would also disagree. Both sides will quote the Bible to support their points. Here's the catch: the more you believe the Bible is God's Word, the more it will actually be to you. If one merely regards it as fiction, they've limited the effectiveness of what the Bible's words are to them. If someone decides it has no value, and it akin to a fairy tale, then its nature as God's Word is ruled out, and it is really a closed book to that person. To put a finer point on it, if someone thinks the God of the Bible is a tyrant for whatever reason, the self-fulfilling prophecy continues - if you believe God is a tyrant, that's all He'll ever be to you...and in the whole scheme of things, that could be simply wrong.
  
  Which brings us back to the original thought: Is God a tyrant? A loving Father? A bully? A personal Santa Claus or a genie? A mean old clockmaker that sits back and watches us suffer? You'd be surprised at how many people think of God negatively because they misinterpreted bad things in their life - "any bad thing is God's fault, because if He didn't cause that bad thing, He sure has the power to prevent it, and He didn't." Consider that other people did bad things to you. People just like you who have a capacity to screw up bad from time to time. You can't expect to have God create us with free will, then blame Him when your fellow man freely chose to screw you over. It's a bit like blaming Timex because you didn't read the directions for your watch and therefore set the time wrong, thereby being late to all sorts of important things.
  
  If someone considers that the Bible instructs us in all manners of life, it can answer tough questions that most people pore over. Imagine what God thinks if the Bible clearly explains why we're here and why we exist, and yet the great philosophers and thinkers of recorded history have been spinning their wheels trying to determine the meaning of life. The answer is there! It's just that it's not good enough for some of us.
  
  What could God do better as our creator? Give us easier lives? If we don't listen to Him in the Bible, or spend time praying to Him - how can we expect to understand our OWN lives? If we spend no time having a relationship with Him - doing the same things that we'd do to maintain a friendship with our best friend, for example - who are we to decide how God is or isn't? Plainly, humanity, for the most part, doesn't know what it's talking about when it comes to God. Renaud clearly established that if people want to find contradictions enough, they'll find them in anything. If the Bible doesn't have any contradictions, then it's safe to regard it as an important text to live by. I get that, and it makes sense. However, we'd to better to trust that it IS God's Word, and have an open mind with it. For most people that works better than analyzing it in all sorts of ways.
  
  The Bible is most effective to those who have entrusted their hearts and minds to it, because God has crafted the words. Which ones will we be? Those who will take a step and believe the Bible is what it says it is? Those who sit on the fence and never take the time to answer that question for ourselves? Or those who dismiss it and therefore relegate it to a closed book in their lives?

• skymir said on Nov 24, 2007....

  Ok… “And Moses made a serpent of brass” under Gds orders. That is in fact a direct contradiction to “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

   

  Gd told him to make a likeness of something that was in the earth.. are you saying that Gd did not mean for that commandment to be taken literally? Because that also makes for issues.  

   

   

  am I just mistaken about this apparent contradiction? I don’t see what it has to do with Gd tyranny, motivations are anything else. It is simply 2 mutually inconsistent orders. This is significant right?

   

  I don’t see how the law of Gd can stand as perfect if it is not taken literally.

• lidstrom82 said on Nov 26, 2007....

  Good questions, skymir. Yes, the law of God is meant to be taken literally. However, it is impossible for any human being to follow it perfectly, because we ourselves are not perfect. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. Doesn't that sound unfair of God to expect us to follow His law, which is impossible to do without failing (sinning) once, for which we get punished with death? Talk about a bum rap.
  
  My answer is this: when it comes to taking care of us - His children, God sometimes bends His own rules to save our lives. Keep in mind, God told Moses to fashion that serpent staff. Moses did not do so on his own. God allowed Moses to do so to save the lives of those who had been poisoned. God punished them, but He gave them a means of healing. Thus, God broke His own rules for their benefit.
  
  Another example is Jesus Christ. The reason He came to us as the savior of mankind was to provide forgiveness and grace to those who fell into a habit of breaking God's law - in other words, everyone.
  
  So skymir, I think the law was (and is) important to keep. But when it comes to forgiving someone and being compassionate, sometimes we need to erase a person's offenses and give them a second chance, rather than condemn them outright. God understood that, and despite His people grumbling and whining and ignoring Him, He was willing to save them regardless of what the law said. In all, God can transcend His own rules if it is for our good.

Comment on "is the bible is full of contradictions?"

Currently tagged	Bible god religion contradiction atheist biblical contradictions google (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously