Problems with the Bible

[gorgon]

Hello all,

 

Stef had stickied a good post about problems/contradictions in the Christian Bible and I can't find it (I think it was infidels.org or something along those lines - an offsite link).  Does anyone have the link or some resources that can help me?  Thank you!

[Boss]

He recently did a video titled "The Christian's Burden of Proof"

[csekavec]

The 'classic' page of bible contradictions is here:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

 

And this one a bit more updated:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

 

I'm sure there is more out there. I don't know if either of those is what was linked prior.

[ShadowWhoWalks]

Anything specific? Internal contradiction within text? Internal contradiction between text and church teaching (which is largely irrelevant to the teaching of bible and Jesus)? Logical problems within church teaching? The academia consensus that the bible is unauthentic?

[Jer]

Anything specific? Internal contradiction within text? Internal contradiction between text and church teaching (which is largely irrelevant to the teaching of bible and Jesus)? Logical problems within church teaching? The academia consensus that the bible is unauthentic?

evilbible.com also has much of what you seek

[whirlingmerc]

I know of no unresolvable apparent contradiction in the Bible.   I know quite a few atheists consider slam dunks.   Perhaps you could pick a few as example?

[tfwoods3]

As someone who strongly wants the Bible to be true, I can list a few of my personal debates in my head over my lifetime.

 

1. If God knows everything past and future, the day he created Satan, an angel at the time as the story goes, he knew that at some point Satan would turn on him and take 1/3 of all his angels with him. It's kinda like having a son and knowing without a doubt that when he turns age 20 he is going to go ballistic and drive a van with half your kids off a cliff. Up until that day you act like nothing is wrong and just wait till it happens.

 

The way I explain it: Satan is just a metaphor for an event that had to happen, he represents everything wrong in us and our freedom to choose good or evil without anyone forcing our hand.

 

2. If Satan knows what the bible says, and the bible says he is going to do a list of things in the end times (like mark of the beast) and then be defeated, why would Satan go along with that list, why not do something completely different?

 

3. Why doesn't God just reveal himself to us so there is no longer a question if he is real or not?

 

The way I explain it: Part of the reason we can be forgiven is because we are ignorant. If you knew the complete truth and then still went out and sinned anyway, how could you be forgiven then? Maybe this is why angels cannot be forgiven. Jesus said on the cross, "forgive them, for they know not what they do."

[neeeel]

I know of no unresolvable apparent contradiction in the Bible.   I know quite a few atheists consider slam dunks.   Perhaps you could pick a few as example?

 

the fact that god made us the way we are, and then punishes us for being the way we are, is a pretty hefty one for me ( no, I dont care or accept that "free will" is a rebuttal to this)

[whirlingmerc]

Yes and no....

 

No first

God made man good and man fell.   A good but broken creation 

 

Yes

As fallen people our choices are limited by a fallen broken nature

 

Grace does break out of that and we are remade

 

http://www.slideshare.net/insight#views/63015274/%3Frange%3D3m

[dsayers]

Yes and no....

 

No first

God made man good and man fell.   A good but broken creation 

Wait, isn't God all knowing AND all powerful? Mutual exclusivity aside, that means (as neeeel pointed out) that God mad man to fall. God broke man. God created Satan.

 

I forget where it was, but I remember Stef going on this awesome diatrabe about how if the story of the Christian God were true, HE would be the evil one. Things like don't eat from the tree of knowledge. Why, so we don't learn you're psychotic? Do what I say or I'll burn you for eternity? Yeah, that's rational.

[tfwoods3]

Wait, isn't God all knowing AND all powerful? Mutual exclusivity aside, that means (as neeel pointed out) that God mad man to fall. God broke man. God created Satan.

 

I forget where it was, but I remember Stef going on this awesome diatrabe about how if the story of the Christian God were true, HE would be the evil one. Things like don't eat from the tree of knowledge. Why, so we don't learn you're psychotic? Do what I say or I'll burn you for eternity? Yeah, that's rational.

I'm no expert on this, but if God (of the Bible) is real, then there must be reasons for it. And I am not going to state the following like I am right, just ideas.  

 

Don't eat from the tree of knowledge = stay like children = stay innocent.  The smarter we get, the more we rely on science, the state, powers other than God, and with power comes corruption. I don't know if you watched Stranger Things on Netflix, but the contrast between the kids and the adults were striking to me. All the adults had been corrupted in one way or another while the kids were innocent, even in their mistakes. Look how smart we are now, and look how hooked we are on technology. Look how we are able to destroy ourselves now.

 

There are tribes out there even today who have gotten by on no technology, basic learning and all that. Maybe that was the way he wanted us to stay. 

 

Or it could all be crap, and in that case, nothing really matters, we could blow ourselves up tomorrow and be dust in the wind the day after that and the universe will no longer have a witness of its existence. 

[dsayers]

Don't eat from the tree of knowledge = stay like children = stay innocent.  The smarter we get, the more we rely on science, the state, powers other than God, and with power comes corruption.

This is avoiding the challenge. Science would in this scenario be understanding His creation. This would only be problematic if His creation were sinister.

 

Why would God be threatened by power he could wish away?

 

If corruption were possible, it would be by His design. If this is problematic, why include it in the system?

 

Why make a tree of knowledge if nobody should have it? It goes right back to neeeel's challenge all over again.

 

 

look how hooked we are on technology. Look how we are able to destroy ourselves now.

 

There are tribes out there even today who have gotten by on no technology

You need to define technology. Picking up a rock and using it to inflict more damage than you can with your body in order to have more to eat is a form of technology. Many inferior lifeforms utilize technology to enhance their survival. You cannot accurately claim that there are tribes of humans with no technology, nor that our ability to destroy ourselves is dependent on technology.

[neeeel]

Yes and no....

 

No first

God made man good and man fell. A good but broken creation

 

Yes

As fallen people our choices are limited by a fallen broken nature

 

Grace does break out of that and we are remade

 

http://www.slideshare.net/insight#views/63015274/%3Frange%3D3m

 

Doesn't make sense. God made man good but by some mechanism that we never quite know, man somehow "becomes bad"? Come on, you need to do better than that. Gods creation became corrupted, but how,if God is all powerful and all knowing?

 

You can't just say "man fell" and think that is an explanation for anything

I'm no expert on this, but if God (of the Bible) is real, then there must be reasons for it. And I am not going to state the following like I am right, just ideas.

 

Don't eat from the tree of knowledge = stay like children = stay innocent. The smarter we get, the more we rely on science, the state, powers other than God, and with power comes corruption. I don't know if you watched Stranger Things on Netflix, but the contrast between the kids and the adults were striking to me. All the adults had been corrupted in one way or another while the kids were innocent, even in their mistakes. Look how smart we are now, and look how hooked we are on technology. Look how we are able to destroy ourselves now.

 

There are tribes out there even today who have gotten by on no technology, basic learning and all that. Maybe that was the way he wanted us to stay.

 

Or it could all be crap, and in that case, nothing really matters, we could blow ourselves up tomorrow and be dust in the wind the day after that and the universe will no longer have a witness of its existence.

 

I have noticed that a lot of people do this, come up with some plausible explanation, and then use that as "proof" for the thing you are supporting. What ifs and maybes add absolutely nothing to the discussion, without evidence to back up your theories. It's just "cool story bro" otherwise.

I'm no expert on this, but if God (of the Bible) is real, then there must be reasons for it. And I am not going to state the following like I am right, just ideas.

 

Don't eat from the tree of knowledge = stay like children = stay innocent. The smarter we get, the more we rely on science, the state, powers other than God, and with power comes corruption. I don't know if you watched Stranger Things on Netflix, but the contrast between the kids and the adults were striking to me. All the adults had been corrupted in one way or another while the kids were innocent, even in their mistakes. Look how smart we are now, and look how hooked we are on technology. Look how we are able to destroy ourselves now.

 

There are tribes out there even today who have gotten by on no technology, basic learning and all that. Maybe that was the way he wanted us to stay.

 

Or it could all be crap, and in that case, nothing really matters, we could blow ourselves up tomorrow and be dust in the wind the day after that and the universe will no longer have a witness of its existence.

 

I have noticed people doing this quite a lot, come up with some plausible explanation and then use that explan to support the thing they are advocating for. But you have to realise that what ifs and maybes add absolutely nothing to the discussion without evidence to back up your theories.

 

Anyone can come up with some plausible idea to explain something, doesn't mean it's true

[rosencrantz]

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down about a whole day.

 

You really believe in a heliocentric world where god can stop the sun and the moon from moving?

[junglecat]

The Taoist Farmer 道人

近塞上之人有善術者，馬無故亡而入胡，人皆弔之 。其父曰：「此何遽不為福乎！」
Among the people who lived close to the border, there was a man who led a righteous life. Without reason, his horse escaped, and fled into barbarian territory. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said : "what makes you think this is not a good thing?"

居數月，其馬將胡駿馬而歸，人皆賀之。其父曰：「此何遽不能為禍乎！」
Several months later, his horse returned, accompanied by a superb barbarian stallion. Everyone congratulated him. But the old man said: "what makes you think this is cannot be a bad thing?"

家富良馬，其子好騎，墮而折其髀，人皆弔之。其父曰：「此何遽不為福乎！」
The family was richer from a good horse, his son enjoyed riding it. He fell and broke his hip. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said: "what makes you think this is not a good thing!"

居一年，胡人大入塞，丁壯者引弦而戰，近塞之人，死者十九，此獨以跛之故，父子相保
One year later, a large party of barbarians entered the border. All the valid men drew their bows and went to battle. From the people living around the border, nine out of ten died. But just because he was lame, the old man and his son were both spared.

故福之為禍，禍之為福，化不可極，深不可測也。
Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity can never be fathomed.



The story in Genesis is much like this Taoist story.  God instructs man not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree can be thought of as a series of events, choices, and consequences. The Taoist farmer is faced with the same choice. For him, to ‘eat the fruit’ is to decide what is ultimately good and bad. Wisdom is knowing these changes never reach an end and can never be fathomed. Therefore to ‘eat the fruit’ leads to death, philosophically speaking.



"Information is not knowledge,

Knowledge is not wisdom,
Wisdom is not truth,
Truth is not beauty,
Beauty is not love,
Love is not music
and Music is THE BEST"

-Frank Zappa

[neeeel]

The Taoist Farmer 道人

 

近塞上之人有善術者，馬無故亡而入胡，人皆弔之 。其父曰：「此何遽不為福乎！」

Among the people who lived close to the border, there was a man who led a righteous life. Without reason, his horse escaped, and fled into barbarian territory. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said : "what makes you think this is not a good thing?"

 

居數月，其馬將胡駿馬而歸，人皆賀之。其父曰：「此何遽不能為禍乎！」

Several months later, his horse returned, accompanied by a superb barbarian stallion. Everyone congratulated him. But the old man said: "what makes you think this is cannot be a bad thing?"

 

家富良馬，其子好騎，墮而折其髀，人皆弔之。其父曰：「此何遽不為福乎！」

The family was richer from a good horse, his son enjoyed riding it. He fell and broke his hip. Everyone pitied him, but the old man said: "what makes you think this is not a good thing!"

 

居一年，胡人大入塞，丁壯者引弦而戰，近塞之人，死者十九，此獨以跛之故，父子相保

One year later, a large party of barbarians entered the border. All the valid men drew their bows and went to battle. From the people living around the border, nine out of ten died. But just because he was lame, the old man and his son were both spared.

 

故福之為禍，禍之為福，化不可極，深不可測也。

Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity can never be fathomed.

 

 

 

The story in Genesis is much like this Taoist story. God instructs man not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree can be thought of as a series of events, choices, and consequences. The Taoist farmer is faced with the same choice. For him, to ‘eat the fruit’ is to decide what is ultimately good and bad. Wisdom is knowing these changes never reach an end and can never be fathomed. Therefore to ‘eat the fruit’ leads to death, philosophically speaking.

 

 

 

"Information is not knowledge,

 

Knowledge is not wisdom,

Wisdom is not truth,

Truth is not beauty,

Beauty is not love,

Love is not music

and Music is THE BEST"

 

-Frank Zappa

 

Right,and to not eat the fruit is to decide what is ultimately good or bad. You totally misunderstood the Taoist story and then shoehorned it into your Christian narrative in a way that makes no sense

[junglecat]

Right,and to not eat the fruit is to decide what is ultimately good or bad. You totally misunderstood the Taoist story and then shoehorned it into your Christian narrative in a way that makes no sense

For the Taoist farmer to "eat the fruit" would be for him to agree with the townspeople.  It sounds like you are saying the opposite. Is that true or am I reading you wrong? Can you clarify your position?

[neeeel]

For the Taoist farmer to "eat the fruit" would be for him to agree with the townspeople.  It sounds like you are saying the opposite. Is that true or am I reading you wrong? Can you clarify your position?

 

We can never know whats ultimately good or bad according to the story , but you are claiming that we know that its ultimately good to not eat the fruit, .

 

Its a contradiction.

 

You are using a story about how we cant know if something is good or not, to prove that an action is ultimately for the good

[junglecat]

We can never know whats ultimately good or bad according to the story , but you are claiming that we know that its ultimately good to not eat the fruit, .

 

Its a contradiction.

 

You are using a story about how we cant know if something is good or not, to prove that an action is ultimately for the good

That's very funny and ironic! I've been lectured over and over again how atheism is not a belief in anything- and rightly so! You are actually saying that "not eating the fruit" is an action.  I've heard about C.S. Lewis that when the gun of his argument misfired he would pistol whip his opponent. Thanks for the illustration.

[neeeel]

That's very funny and ironic! I've been lectured over and over again how atheism is not a belief in anything- and rightly so! You are actually saying that "not eating the fruit" is an action.  I've heard about C.S. Lewis that when the gun of his argument misfired he would pistol whip his opponent. Thanks for the illustration.

 

no idea what this is, but unsurprisingly its not an answer to my critisism

 

 

Edit to add: belief is not the same as action.

And yes, atheism is the non belief in a god. You could claim, as some do that strong atheism is a belief, the belief in the non existence of god. But saying "I dont believe you" is not a belief

[junglecat]

no idea what this is, but unsurprisingly its not an answer to my critisism

 

 

Edit to add: belief is not the same as action.

And yes, atheism is the non belief in a god. You could claim, as some do that strong atheism is a belief, the belief in the non existence of god. But saying "I dont believe you" is not a belief

You are wonderful and I applaud you!

 

Question:  When the writer of "The Taoist Farmer" wrote,

 

"Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity can never be fathomed."

 

was he suggesting that wisdom was in the townspeople's reaction to the series of events or in the farmer's response?

[Will Torbald]

I know of no unresolvable apparent contradiction in the Bible. I know quite a few atheists consider slam dunks. Perhaps you could pick a few as example?

Fiction is infinitely interpretable. It's useless to debate theologians since everything is invented and the rules don't matter.

[dsayers]

You are actually saying that "not eating the fruit" is an action.

I didn't get that that is what he was saying. Either way, this is a falsehood. X != -X is one of the first principles. Inaction can never be action.

 

A moment's consideration will reveal this pretty clearly when you consider all of the actions you're NOT engaging in right now.

[neeeel]

You are wonderful and I applaud you!

 

Question:  When the writer of "The Taoist Farmer" wrote,

 

"Thence, good fortune turns into bad fortune, and bad fortune turns into good fortune. These changes never reach an end, their complexity can never be fathomed."

 

was he suggesting that wisdom was in the townspeople's reaction to the series of events or in the farmer's response?

 

you are missing the point entirely

 

you are pointing to a story that says we can never know whether an action or outcome is good or bad

 

And then comparing that story to one where theres an outcome that you class as good ( and one outcome is bad)

 

ITs a contradiction

[junglecat]

you are missing the point entirely

 

you are pointing to a story that says we can never know whether an action or outcome is good or bad

 

And then comparing that story to one where theres an outcome that you class as good ( and one outcome is bad)

 

ITs a contradiction

It’s not a contradiction. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God command man not to eat from.  It’s a contradiction to think that God is saying it is ‘good’ to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil- or that it’s ‘evil’ to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God says do not eat the fruit because you will die.  Maybe you are assuming death is equivalent to evil?

[neeeel]

It’s not a contradiction. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God command man not to eat from. It’s a contradiction to think that God is saying it is ‘good’ to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil- or that it’s ‘evil’ to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God says do not eat the fruit because you will die. Maybe you are assuming death is equivalent to evil?

 

You keep missing the point.

 

YOU are using a story who's point is that we can never know whether some action or event is a positive or negative thing, to highlight that eating the fruit was a bad thing. I really don't get how you are not seeing this

[neeeel]

It’s not a contradiction. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God command man not to eat from. It’s a contradiction to think that God is saying it is ‘good’ to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil- or that it’s ‘evil’ to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God says do not eat the fruit because you will die. Maybe you are assuming death is equivalent to evil?

 

You keep missing the point.

 

YOU are using a story who's point is that we can never know whether some action or event is a positive or negative thing, to highlight that eating the fruit was a bad thing. I really don't get how you are not seeing this

[neeeel]

It’s not a contradiction. It’s the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that God command man not to eat from.  It’s a contradiction to think that God is saying it is ‘good’ to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil- or that it’s ‘evil’ to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God says do not eat the fruit because you will die.  Maybe you are assuming death is equivalent to evil?

 

 

You are totally missing the point. I am finding it hard to comprehend how, since I have now repeated it two or three times

 

again:-

 

The story says we never know if an outcome will be good or bad

You are using this story, and then claiming that we know that the outcome of something will be bad.

[junglecat]

You are totally missing the point. I am finding it hard to comprehend how, since I have now repeated it two or three times

 

again:-

 

The story says we never know if an outcome will be good or bad

You are using this story, and then claiming that we know that the outcome of something will be bad.

Do you or don't you equate evil with death? How do you define these terms as they relate to both stories?

 

Yes, the Taoist story's point is that we can never know the ultimate outcome of any chain of events. The Genesis story is saying the same thing, albeit in positive terms. God clearly says, "don't eat the fruit. it will lead to death"   If the farmer follows the crowd and variously mourns and rejoices at each link in the chain/tree, he is lead into a philosophical death. He cuts himself off from the fluidity of outcomes by committing to any particular event as being good or bad.  

[neeeel]

Do you or don't you equate evil with death? How do you define these terms as they relate to both stories?

 

Yes, the Taoist story's point is that we can never know the ultimate outcome of any chain of events. The Genesis story is saying the same thing, albeit in positive terms. God clearly says, "don't eat the fruit. it will lead to death"   If the farmer follows the crowd and variously mourns and rejoices at each link in the chain/tree, he is lead into a philosophical death. He cuts himself off from the fluidity of outcomes by committing to any particular event as being good or bad.  

 

Its irrelevant to my point whether I equate evil with death  (I dont, but its irrelevant)

 

You are equating death as a bad outcome, I never mentioned evil. As I keep saying, its not about the story, or the genesis story, its about how you are relating the two with a logical contradiction

[junglecat]

Its irrelevant to my point whether I equate evil with death  (I dont, but its irrelevant)

 

You are equating death as a bad outcome, I never mentioned evil. As I keep saying, its not about the story, or the genesis story, its about how you are relating the two with a logical contradiction

Think about the townspeople who are saying alternately "good fortune" and "bad fortune".  In what way can we say that either of their conclusions are a "bad outcome"? They aren't. They are either good or bad.  The same applies to Genesis. I really don't understand how you can say the stories don't matter. I would never say that the "death" that results from eating the "fruit" in both stories is equal to one choice, to one half of the tree. It's the tree of good and evil. This is, ironically, the sticking point for you. As a strict rationalist, you can't see the Genesis story as anything but a black and white issue. There is no possibility of a view that paradigmatically transcends man's sense of good and evil.  You don't have a problem with the Taoist story because it does not state explicitly that making the relative choice between good and evil leads to a philosophical death.  But I can predict your reply. There is really no point in continuing the debate as it will only frustrate both of us. May I suggest we drop it and leave it open to others to chime in. Maybe they can shed a new light on the topic.

[whirlingmerc]

I think death is more the result of sin and evil....    not loving and not glorifying God is the real evil.  ...  human behavior like not loving your eighbor is a visible effect of that underlier.     

[junglecat]

I think death is more the result of sin and evil....    not loving and not glorifying God is the real evil.  ...  human behavior like not loving your eighbor is a visible effect of that underlier.     

How would you define sin as it relates to the Genesis story?

[shirgall]

not loving and not glorifying God is the real evil.  ...  

 

That's a horrible thought, since there's no rational basis to choose among mutually exclusive alternative gods.

[dsayers]

Think about

When somebody responds to a challenge like this, they are deflecting out of bias confirmation. Thank you for being so forthcoming with your lack of integrity and closed-mindedness.