|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 10, 2017 20:33:45 GMT
As Karl Aksel posted in another thread: Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsistencies; I have thought about this before. Is there a book already in existence that does this? My generalized inconsistency that I mention from time to time, to illustrate my unbelief, is this: "The Ten Commandments" tell us 'thou shalt not kill', yet a few chapters later, god says, "Go into Canaan and kill everyone in it'. How does that work? It generally stops the conversation, which was my goal. It gives me a chance to change the subject or walk away. The only place I really discuss religion is this forum, where no one is capable of showing up at my doorstep to take me out and drown me as a witch.  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 10, 2017 21:33:52 GMT
As Karl Aksel posted in another thread: Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsistencies; I have thought about this before. Is there a book already in existence that does this? My generalized inconsistency that I mention from time to time, to illustrate my unbelief, is this: "The Ten Commandments" tell us 'thou shalt not kill', yet a few chapters later, god says, "Go into Canaan and kill everyone in it'. How does that work? It generally stops the conversation, which was my goal. It gives me a chance to change the subject or walk away. The only place I really discuss religion is this forum, where no one is capable of showing up at my doorstep to take me out and drown me as a witch. This is the problem with inconsistencies.
They are not universally inconsistent.
I know for a fact that the ten commandments thing has been easily explained over and over again and because it doesn't match up with the person wrongly calling it an inconsistency, then they give themselves a point. I don't believe for one second the conversation is stopped on the basis of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 10, 2017 21:58:08 GMT
As Karl Aksel posted in another thread: Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsistencies; I have thought about this before. Is there a book already in existence that does this? My generalized inconsistency that I mention from time to time, to illustrate my unbelief, is this: "The Ten Commandments" tell us 'thou shalt not kill', yet a few chapters later, god says, "Go into Canaan and kill everyone in it'. How does that work? It generally stops the conversation, which was my goal. It gives me a chance to change the subject or walk away. The only place I really discuss religion is this forum, where no one is capable of showing up at my doorstep to take me out and drown me as a witch. I think I've heard the explanation that in the orginal language the word used for the 10 commandments was more like "murder" than "kill". Unlike some Christian apologetics, this seems reasonable to me (at least from a consistency standpoint). |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 10, 2017 22:13:15 GMT
As Karl Aksel posted in another thread: Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsistencies; I have thought about this before. Is there a book already in existence that does this? My generalized inconsistency that I mention from time to time, to illustrate my unbelief, is this: "The Ten Commandments" tell us 'thou shalt not kill', yet a few chapters later, god says, "Go into Canaan and kill everyone in it'. How does that work? It generally stops the conversation, which was my goal. It gives me a chance to change the subject or walk away. The only place I really discuss religion is this forum, where no one is capable of showing up at my doorstep to take me out and drown me as a witch. Actually the commandment in Exodus 20:13 is more accurately rendered "thou shalt not murder", and most English translation bibles render it that way. The phrase "thou shalt not kill" comes from a poor and archaic translation that was popularized by the King James Version. When you correct for the erroneous translation, there is no actual contradiction. The definition of murder is the unjust or unlawful intentional killing of a person (or persons) by another. Capital punishment, war/combat, and self defense are all legal forms of killing, and not considered "murder". New International Version "You shall not murder. New Living Translation "You must not murder. English Standard Version “You shall not murder. New American Standard Bible "You shall not murder. King James Bible Thou shalt not kill. Holman Christian Standard Bible Do not murder. International Standard Version "You are not to commit murder. NET Bible "You shall not murder. GOD'S WORD® Translation "Never murder. JPS Tanakh 1917 Thou shalt not murder. New American Standard 1977 “You shall not murder. Jubilee Bible 2000 Thou shalt not murder. King James 2000 Bible You shall not kill. American King James Version You shall not kill. American Standard Version Thou shalt not kill. Douay-Rheims Bible Thou shalt not kill. Darby Bible Translation Thou shalt not kill. English Revised Version Thou shalt do no murder. Webster's Bible Translation Thou shalt not kill. World English Bible "You shall not murder. Young's Literal Translation 'Thou dost not murder. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 11, 2017 0:29:14 GMT
As Karl Aksel posted in another thread: Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsistencies; I have thought about this before. Is there a book already in existence that does this? My generalized inconsistency that I mention from time to time, to illustrate my unbelief, is this: "The Ten Commandments" tell us 'thou shalt not kill', yet a few chapters later, god says, "Go into Canaan and kill everyone in it'. How does that work? It generally stops the conversation, which was my goal. It gives me a chance to change the subject or walk away. The only place I really discuss religion is this forum, where no one is capable of showing up at my doorstep to take me out and drown me as a witch. I think I've heard the explanation that in the orginal language the word used for the 10 commandments was more like "murder" than "kill". Unlike some Christian apologetics, this seems reasonable to me (at least from a consistency standpoint). I am familiar with that explanation, though I still don't understand why god wanted the Canaanites killed (not murdered). I know there is a bunch more inconsistencies; perhaps I'm hoping in vain that other atheists know some of them. My original reason for becoming atheist had nothing to do with the inconsistencies of the bible, so I am not well versed, as it were. I was just curious as to what others had noticed. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 11, 2017 4:41:24 GMT
If you want actual, doctrinal contradictions, try "saved by faith" vs "saved by works"
Romans 10:11-13 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Directly contradicts:
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Or...
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Directly contradicts:
James 2:14, 17 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Or...
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Directly contradicts:
Romans 2:6-7 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 11, 2017 10:04:07 GMT
Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsistencies; I have thought about this before. Is there a book already in existence that does this?
OK then let's start with: 1 Timothy 4:4: "For everything created by God is good."
But then we read : "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." [Isiah 45:7] No wonder that God looked back on creation and specifically saw His recent handiwork as just 'very good', rather than the perfection He could have made!
The special pleading for this passage is normally that the 'evil' here is to be understood as natural evil such as diseases or disasters (or, even more weaselly, just the milder 'misfortune') rather than the evil created by the misuse of freewill in man. But even this leaves a supposedly all-good God having to explain His deliberate creation of childhood cancers, say. Although if one reads the passage critically, it is clear that just as the opposite of 'light' is 'darkness', the opposite of 'peace' is not 'earthquakes' but more obviously 'war'.
Not only that, and to add insult to injury for the afflicted, Rev 4:8 tells us that God takes pleasure in all things - presumably including the evil ones - that He has created: "for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created "
But then we also learn in Psalm 5:4 that: "for You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. "
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 11:23:24 GMT
Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsistencies; I have thought about this before. Is there a book already in existence that does this?
OK then let's start with: 1 Timothy 4:4: "For everything created by God is good."
But then we read : "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." [Isiah 45:7] No wonder that God looked back on creation and specifically saw His recent handiwork as just 'very good', rather than the perfection He could have made!
The special pleading for this passage is normally that the 'evil' here is to be understood as natural evil such as diseases or disasters (or, even more weaselly, just the milder 'misfortune') rather than the evil created by the misuse of freewill in man. But even this leaves a supposedly all-good God having to explain His deliberate creation of childhood cancers, say. Although if one reads the passage critically, it is clear that just as the opposite of 'light' is 'darkness', the opposite of 'peace' is not 'earthquakes' but more obviously 'war'.
Not only that, and to add insult to injury for the afflicted, Rev 4:8 tells us that God takes pleasure in all things - presumably including the evil ones - that He has created: "for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created "
But then we also learn in Psalm 5:4 that: "for You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. "
These are so goofy. People whining about inconsistencies create the inconsistency by ignoring context. Now of course, there's no way to actually directly links the points to these two verses since there is none and I can't imagine that is something people are interested in. However, I will help you with the indirect consistency and will help you with prophecy if you ask nicely.  Both things represent good things to people who God cares about. However, the main point remains that it is not a mark of intelligence to say something is an inconsistency when one is too ignorant to realize there are distinct stories and themes in the Bible rather than just a collection of words to gripe about. The thing I really wish is people who whine about inconsistency would simply research stuff just a little bit. From what i gather, they don't even realize the Bible wasn't written in English... |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 11:34:56 GMT
captainbryceRomans is specifically discussing the dispute between Gentiles and jews in what it takes to become Christian. You should love that verse since it helps clear the way for circumcisions to not be a requirement of Christianity. Matthew 7 clearly shows that just because one says they are a believer in no way means they are a believer based on their actions. this means that it is consistent with Romans which is specifically addressing believers.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 11, 2017 12:23:37 GMT
7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord do all these things But you haven't even bothered to offer a refutation through convincing exegesis lol, just quoting chunks of surrounding verse hoping for the best, doesn't really cut it ... So anyway then: has your God created 'disaster' ('Evil' in most other Bibles, one notes, your selection is significant), or not, in "the context"? He clearly must be responsible for something, since it is thought worth the mentioning and it doesn't sound very beneficial. Is 'disaster', as your edition of the Bible has it, ever really 'good'? A yes or no will do. Or, conversely, are you here suggesting that not everything God created is good after all, if we in fact look at "the context"? You need to jump one way or another.
Translation: even with all the special pleading and cut 'n' paste verse padding, I cannot explain the inconsistencies pointed out and I hope people won't be interested in this.
The verses quoted are clear and explicit - and obviously don't chime with each other. You can present them in as much surrounding text as you like but there is only one way to read the offending lines.
Condescension noted. As is the implication that you just need more time to work explaining things away. Admitting to having created evil (or disaster) and then the asserting that all things created by your God are good,, it may be noted, is hardly a 'prophecy' since such things are addressed as if they have already happened. i.e. We don't read "I will create evil" or "God will come to see all things He created as good." And the personal disaster of childhood cancer, say, or the deaths of thousands of the devout in a tidal wave, can be represented as 'good thing' by asserting... So I ask again - is "disaster" commonly seen as a good thing? And does God say He creates it (natural evil) or not? The passages are clear. So, incidentally, is the suggestion that one is not intelligent to point such obvious things out. Attacking the messenger not the message is not impressive. More condescension noted. But thanks for taking the time, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 11, 2017 14:22:16 GMT
Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsistencies; I have thought about this before. Is there a book already in existence that does this?
OK then let's start with: 1 Timothy 4:4: "For everything created by God is good."
But then we read : "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." [Isiah 45:7] No wonder that God looked back on creation and specifically saw His recent handiwork as just 'very good', rather than the perfection He could have made!
The special pleading for this passage is normally that the 'evil' here is to be understood as natural evil such as diseases or disasters (or, even more weaselly, just the milder 'misfortune') rather than the evil created by the misuse of freewill in man. But even this leaves a supposedly all-good God having to explain His deliberate creation of childhood cancers, say. Although if one reads the passage critically, it is clear that just as the opposite of 'light' is 'darkness', the opposite of 'peace' is not 'earthquakes' but more obviously 'war'.
Not only that, and to add insult to injury for the afflicted, Rev 4:8 tells us that God takes pleasure in all things - presumably including the evil ones - that He has created: "for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created "
But then we also learn in Psalm 5:4 that: "for You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. "
That is a really good example, and explained well - thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 11, 2017 14:51:39 GMT
I think I've heard the explanation that in the orginal language the word used for the 10 commandments was more like "murder" than "kill". Unlike some Christian apologetics, this seems reasonable to me (at least from a consistency standpoint). I am familiar with that explanation, though I still don't understand why god wanted the Canaanites killed (not murdered). I know there is a bunch more inconsistencies; perhaps I'm hoping in vain that other atheists know some of them. My original reason for becoming atheist had nothing to do with the inconsistencies of the bible, so I am not well versed, as it were. I was just curious as to what others had noticed. Same here. It wasn't the internal inconsistencies so much as the disconnect between the Bible and the real world that did it for me. One particular whopper stands out for me: God stopping the sun and moon while Joshua held up his arms to give the Israelites more time to achieve victory over their enemies in battle. I'm sure there are many internal inconsistencies or contradictions. Like this: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 14:55:00 GMT
Pointing out the inconsist ancies Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsist encies You're welcome.  More on point... my signature- bibviz.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 11, 2017 16:41:24 GMT
Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsistencies; I have thought about this before. Is there a book already in existence that does this?
OK then let's start with: 1 Timothy 4:4: "For everything created by God is good."
But then we read : "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." [Isiah 45:7] No wonder that God looked back on creation and specifically saw His recent handiwork as just 'very good', rather than the perfection He could have made!
The special pleading for this passage is normally that the 'evil' here is to be understood as natural evil such as diseases or disasters (or, even more weaselly, just the milder 'misfortune') rather than the evil created by the misuse of freewill in man. But even this leaves a supposedly all-good God having to explain His deliberate creation of childhood cancers, say. Although if one reads the passage critically, it is clear that just as the opposite of 'light' is 'darkness', the opposite of 'peace' is not 'earthquakes' but more obviously 'war'. Childhood cancers are also explained in Christian theology as being a result of the fall of man from grace (being genetically corrupted by sin, and therefore death). The passage in Isaiah 45 does not imply that it is referring to "opposites". Which Revelation 4:8 are you reading?  Revelation 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,’ who was, and is, and is to come.” |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 11, 2017 16:43:48 GMT
OK then let's start with: 1 Timothy 4:4: "For everything created by God is good."
But then we read : "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." [Isiah 45:7] No wonder that God looked back on creation and specifically saw His recent handiwork as just 'very good', rather than the perfection He could have made!
The special pleading for this passage is normally that the 'evil' here is to be understood as natural evil such as diseases or disasters (or, even more weaselly, just the milder 'misfortune') rather than the evil created by the misuse of freewill in man. But even this leaves a supposedly all-good God having to explain His deliberate creation of childhood cancers, say. Although if one reads the passage critically, it is clear that just as the opposite of 'light' is 'darkness', the opposite of 'peace' is not 'earthquakes' but more obviously 'war'.
Not only that, and to add insult to injury for the afflicted, Rev 4:8 tells us that God takes pleasure in all things - presumably including the evil ones - that He has created: "for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created "
But then we also learn in Psalm 5:4 that: "for You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with You. "
That is a really good example, and explained well - thanks! No, actually it's not (for aforementioned reasons). Mine was actually a much better example. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Aug 11, 2017 17:12:21 GMT
"But what about my FIRST set of kids?!?!"
--- Job.
Inconsistency threads always turn into "Let me tell you why there are no inconsistencies because here's how we've decided to interpret them to make them less inconsistent" threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 11, 2017 19:56:52 GMT
The whole works vs. faith controversy is one of the bigger disagreements between Protestant and Catholic theology. Both positions are supported by the Bible. This is a contradiction, but as usual, one gets around it via interpretations. And in this case, the disagreement isn't as big as either Protestants or Catholics make it out to be:
Catholics believe both faith and works matter - but of course they aren't going to accept that doing the right thing for the wrong reasons - eg. to boast - is going to net you brownie points. After all, as with everything else, it's the thought that counts.
Protestants, on the other hand, believe that faith is all-important. But, they also believe that a person of true faith will be inspired by the Holy Spirit to do good works, and I don't think Catholics would disagree.. In other words, one's faith is reflected in one's works. So having faith but not doing good works would be a contradiction in terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 11, 2017 22:25:15 GMT
Pointing out the inconsist ancies Perhaps we could post some of those contradictions and inconsist encies You're welcome. Thanks; you are a pretty good proofreader; clearly I am getting rusty! |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 11, 2017 22:33:51 GMT
I am familiar with that explanation, though I still don't understand why god wanted the Canaanites killed (not murdered). I know there is a bunch more inconsistencies; perhaps I'm hoping in vain that other atheists know some of them. My original reason for becoming atheist had nothing to do with the inconsistencies of the bible, so I am not well versed, as it were. I was just curious as to what others had noticed. Same here. It wasn't the internal inconsistencies so much as the disconnect between the Bible and the real world that did it for me. One particular whopper stands out for me: God stopping the sun and moon while Joshua held up his arms to give the Israelites more time to achieve victory over their enemies in battle. I'm sure there are many internal inconsistencies or contradictions. Like this: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.htmlThanks for the link! |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Aug 11, 2017 22:37:20 GMT
"But what about my FIRST set of kids?!?!" --- Job. Inconsistency threads always turn into "Let me tell you why there are no inconsistencies because here's how we've decided to interpret them to make them less inconsistent" threads. Upon viewing this thread without being logged in, I see your point. |
|
