The Biblical Contradiction Thread

[Khatru]

As God cannot sin how do you precieve the word 'repent'.

He regretted having  made man... do you not think...
The Son of man...human and a sinner that he needs to repent.

 

Who are you to say what your god can and can't do? Or indeed what he needs?

It's clear enough. In fact, God didn't just repent making man but he also repented having made the animals. Poor animals - what did they ever do?

Want some more?

"And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

Exodus 32:14

"And when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them."

Judges 2:18

"It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night."

1 Samuel 15:11

"And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."

1 Samuel 15:35

"And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing place of Araunah the Jebusite."

2 Samuel 24:16

" Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you."

Jeremiah 26:13

"Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king's mowings.

2 And it came to pass, that when they had made an end of eating the grass of the land, then I said, O Lord God, forgive, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.

3 The Lord repented for this: It shall not be, saith the Lord.

4 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me: and, behold, the Lord God called to contend by fire, and it devoured the great deep, and did eat up a part.

5 Then said I, O Lord God, cease, I beseech thee: by whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small.

6 The Lord repented for this: This also shall not be, saith the Lord God."

Amos 7:1-6

"And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

Jonah 3:10

How can an omnipotent, omniscient entity be sorry for so much?  Looks like your god is pretty careless.

All of the above are lifted from the Bible. If you don't believe what the Bible says it looks like you've got a problem.

Regret and confessing sin is two different things.

Look at the wording and anyone with knowledge of God knows that  the word repent is to feel sorry/regret.
The first was to regret making man.
The second tells you that God does not sin so is not like man who needs to repent.
We all do things for the good of others which we does not always make us feel ok.

The NT scripture says your god doesn't repent.  I note the backflips and somersaults in your attempted apologetics.

[Leonard James]

Committing a crime doesn't necessarily  = doing something wrong.

Also being innocent of a crime doesn't always = being right.

Because laws are written by people and the change ( country to country let alone through time).

Of course now most of us would consider Abraham wrong for thinking of killing his son.

100 years ago homosexuality was considered a crime.

It isn't now.

What is a crime, and what is not, changes.

Even what people think is right changes.

But a crime is something "authorities" decide on.

What the authorities thought in Abrahams day, I'm not sure.

Sassy seems to think it was allowable.

The reason for all the arguing is that "right" and "wrong" don't actually exist outside the human mind, but some humans love to maintain that they do. Because they are human inventions, there are as many moral codes of "right" and "wrong" as there are human opinions.

[Sebastian Toe]

Firstly NO LAW. If Abraham had killed his son he would not have committed a sin so not tempted.
So Abraham was not tempted to do evil.

Why do you think that Cain was punished after killing his brother?

It cannot be because he broke any law as we can see there was

NO LAW.

...and thus he had committed no sin by that act.

 

[Hope]

What in heck's name has assisted suicide got to do with this?

You made out that thinking about something that might be regarded as criminal is criminal.  Sorry if you can't see the relevance of your accusation to my scenario

[Hope]

I don't understand because I need to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective
I don't understand because, unlike you, I'm not a "true Christian"
I don't understand because I'm not a biblical scholar
I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.
I don't understand because it means something other than what it actually says
I don't understand because it's an allegory
I don't understand because my mind is far too feeble to comprehend your god's truth
I don't understand because I've not been filled with the holy spirit

Then of course, we have the "we're not supposed to understand it because God works in mysterious ways"

Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat.  Do you have any independent sources to support the list?

All of the above are used by believers in their efforts to defend the contradiction and error found throughout the Bible. I have no doubt you've used some of them yourself.

As I've said, do you actually have any evidence to support these claims?

In the meantime and while we're waiting, please consider these divine utterances

Do you have evidence that these utterances were made by a divine being?  I've always understood that the Quran was written by a human being without any intervention of a divine being in human form.   Are you telling me that I've been informed wrongly by Muslim friends?   

[Shaker]

(Khatru: I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context).

Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat.  Do you have any independent sources to support the list?

Well here's a start: for some reason I can't link to the actual page of results but I typed the word context into the search thingy with Hope as the author. There are thirty results.

(Khatru: I don't understand because I need to view it from a child's perspective).

A recent effusion of this viewpoint:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg593275#msg593275

I'll go through some more on the list when I have more time.

Do you have evidence that these utterances were made by a divine being?

There's no evidence of divine beings of any kind, only belief in such.

I've always understood that the Quran was written by a human being without any intervention of a divine being in human form.   Are you telling me that I've been informed wrongly by Muslim friends?   

Quite disastrously so - it's standard Islamic belief that the Quran was dictated to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel.

Are you sure these friends of yours are actually Muslim?

[Nearly Sane]

There's no evidence of divine beings of any kind, only belief in such.
Quite disastrously so - it's standard Islamic belief that the Quran was dictated to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel.

Are you sure these friends of yours are actually Muslim?

And is Gabriel a divine being in human form with a big black greyhound dug called Bob? I think you will find not! You probably think that pink unicorns that fart rainbows and squeal 'Neymar ate my fig' are equivalent to orange unicorns that belch the alphabet and sing 'Suarez ate my central defender'?

[Hope]

There's no evidence of divine beings of any kind, only belief in such.

There is remarkably little evidence for anything, Shakes.  Almost everything is to do with belief.  So, your argument is ... ?

Quite disastrously so - it's standard Islamic belief that the Quran was dictated to Muhammed by the angel Gabriel.

Wasn't aware that angels, even Gabriel, are regarded as divine beings.  Heavenly beings, yes, but not divine - so I would suggest that those Muslim frends I know who have said just what you have said, have been telling the truth.

Are you sure these friends of yours are actually Muslim?

Well, they said exactly what you said, but then qualified that by pointing out what I did - that angels aren't divine beings.  I would number imams amongst the group.

[Shaker]

There is remarkably little evidence for anything, Shakes.

Speak for yourself - some knowledge of science would help immensely here.

Almost everything is to do with belief.  So, your argument is ... ?

See above.

Wasn't aware that angels, even Gabriel, are regarded as divine beings.  Heavenly beings, yes, but not divine

What's the difference?

so I would suggest that those Muslim frends I know who have said just what you have said, have been telling the truth.
Well, they said exactly what you said, but then qualified that by pointing out what I did - that angels aren't divine beings.  I would number imams amongst the group.

What's the definitional difference between heavenly and divine being in what passes for your lexicon? The Free Dictionary defines the word divine thusly:

adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est
1.
a. Having the nature of or being a deity.
b. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation.
c. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
2. Superhuman; godlike.
3.
a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto.
b. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.

which means that 1a is out but 1b, 1c and 2 are in.

Webster's College Dictionary actually lists heavenly as a synonym of divine:

adj. -vin•er, -vin•est, adj.
1. of, like, or from a god, esp. the Supreme Being.
2. addressed or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.
3. heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.
4. Informal. extremely good; unusually lovely.
5. being a god; being God.
6. of superhuman or surpassing excellence.
7. Obs. of or pertaining to divinity or theology.

[Hope]

Well here's a start: for some reason I can't link to the actual page of results but I typed the word context into the search thingy with Hope as the author. There are thirty results.

And your argument is ... what?  That context is something that only non-Christians forget to take into account?  Incidentally, 6 or 7 of these 30 mentions aren't even in threads that relate to religion or faith - but politics and current affairs.

[Shaker]

And your argument is ... what?

*sigh* baby steps again, I see ...

Khatru listed various excuses that theists typically trot out to "explain" why the sceptical and the rational don't follow the beliefs of the theists or accept their pseudo-arguments, and/or why the non-theists are deemed to be unable to pass judgement on the numerous flaws, contradictions and other inconsistencies of the Bible. One of those excuses was:

I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.

to which your response was:

Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat.

You claim to be a Christian, and I provided a list of a few dozen instances of where you invoke the perennial get-out clause of 'context.' That's the argument.

Incidentally, 6 or 7 of these 30 mentions aren't even in threads that relate to religion or faith - but politics and current affairs.

... leaving the great majority which do.

[Hope]

Speak for yourself - some knowledge of science would help immensely here.

[And an appreciation that all  science is based on human understanding would also help you to understand that there is remarkably little independent evidence for anything, Shakes.  Or are you telling us that there is a some sort of independent source outside of the human mind that corroborates findings that human beings make?

See above.

Precisely; nothing independent to human beings

What's the difference?

(see below)

What's the definitional difference between heavenly and divine being in what passes for your lexicon?

Rather than just concentrating on 'divine being' and 'heavenly being', I've included 'angel' in my trawl of the Oxford Dictionary.  I generally place this source as more reliable than any other and on a par with the Cambridge Dictionary.

divine (being)
adjective (diviner, divinest)

1 Of or like God or a god:
heroes with divine powers
paintings of shipwrecks being prevented by divine intervention

1.1 Devoted to God; sacred:
divine liturgy

noun

1 dated A cleric or theologian.
2(the Divine) Providence or God.

Clearly, the first of these two does not fit the context of our discussion

heavenly (being)
adjective

1Of heaven; divine:
heavenly Father
2 Of the heavens or sky:
heavenly constellations

Bearing in mind that both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic faiths, and there are hundreds of angels, they can't be deemed to be God, and are consequently, not divine.  They are 'of heaven' yes, but not divine.

To complete the triple:

angel
noun

1 A spiritual being believed to act as an attendant, agent, or messenger of God, conventionally represented in human form with wings and a long robe:

1.1An attendant spirit, especially a benevolent one:

Note that Jesus, as messenger of God isn't represented as having wings and a flowing robe, so he can't have been an angel.

[Hope]

*sigh* baby steps again, I see ...

I've noticed; you really do need to develop from that level.

I don't understand because I took the scripture out of context.

to which your response was:

Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat.

You claim to be a Christian, and I provided a list of a few dozen instances of where you invoke the perennial get-out clause of 'context.' That's the argument.

And I pointed out that in order to understand anything, context is a vital aspect.  I've also pointed out previously, that scientists understand the importance of context - so that this isn't a 'faith-related issue but a purely communicative issue.  That is where my point differs to the argument that Khat was putting.

... leaving the great majority which do.

And your point here ... is?  The oldest example here is 7 months old.  I've used the idea of 'context' in plenty of posts and threads over the past 5 or so years.  Some have had religious/faith contexts, others have had politics and current affairs contexts - possible even some of the other 'General Discussion' topics.

[Shaker]

[And an appreciation that all  science is based on human understanding would also help you to understand that there is remarkably little independent evidence for anything, Shakes.  Or are you telling us that there is a some sort of independent source outside of the human mind that corroborates findings that human beings make?Precisely; nothing independent to human beings

That's right. Science is a human endeavour - what else do you expect?

The way we ascertain the rightness of any findings are the tried and tested (daily) ones - repeatability (sometimes), shareability, anonymous peer review and so forth.

Rather than just concentrating on 'divine being' and 'heavenly being', I've included 'angel' in my trawl of the Oxford Dictionary.

Here we go; the ducking, diving and dodging starts.   

I generally place this source as more reliable than any other and on a par with the Cambridge Dictionary.

That's up to you. It's no concern of mine.

Bearing in mind that both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic faiths, and there are hundreds of angels, they can't be deemed to be God, and are consequently, not divine. They are 'of heaven' yes, but not divine.

Except that some dictionaries treat divine and heavenly as synonymous and I've cited examples of that usage, given that dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive, reflecting actual usage rather than passing comment on what ought or ought not be the case.

[Shaker]

I've noticed; you really do need to develop from that level.

It's not my level as I'm not the one manifestly unable to follow a simple discussion a few posts at a time - you are.

The oldest example here is 7 months old.  I've used the idea of 'context' in plenty of posts and threads over the past 5 or so years.  Some have had religious/faith contexts, others have had politics and current affairs contexts - possible even some of the other 'General Discussion' topics.

... all of which points are irrelevant to the fact that you invoke context when it suits you to do so including in a religious discussion. You opined that you haven't heard of any Christian doing so - well, you must have forgotten that you yourself (purporting to be a Christian) have done it umpteen times.

Which doesn't surprise me one little bit.

[Hope]

... all of which points are irrelevant to the fact that you invoke context when it suits you to do so including in a religious discussion. You opined that you haven't heard of any Christian doing so - well, you must have forgotten that you yourself (purporting to be a Christian) have done it umpteen times.

I don't say, as Khat implies, that people don't understand because "(I) took the scripture out of context".  I simply point out that if people took context into account, as any good debater or student of a field of study should, they might come to a different conclusion to the one they are arguing.  That isn't the same as Khat's rather dismissive reference to context or the lack of it.

[Khatru]

Khat, its perhaps worth, even in the KJV that you use, to compare the construction that the word 'repent' fits into in your two examples.  Genesis 6:6 says '... it repented the Lord ...'; Numbers 23:19 says '... neither the son of man, that he should repent ...'.  Now, what repented in Genesis 6 - it can't have been the Lord, as 'the Lord' is the object of the clause; in Numbers 23, 'he' (the Lord) is the subject of the clause.  That said, its worth noting that the Hebrew word used in Genesis 6 is וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם; the Hebrew word used in Numbers 23 is וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם.  Clearly they are from the same root, but the first seems to be used to refer to regret, the latter to changing one's mind.

Trouble is, there are plenty of other scriptures which inform us that God repented over something.  Do you have to deconstruct every single sentence to get the true meaning?  Surely that's not what's required to interpret the holy scriptures.

I'd also like to point out more generally that one doesn't do scientific research in isolation by, for instance, reading a single document in a single language.  Most scientists will seek out several parallel and comparative documents, and if necessary try to get those that have been originally written in a different language to their mother language re-translated by a native speaker of that language - perhaps a colleague.  The same applies to Biblical studies, and it should be common practice to compare different translations of the material, and - as appropriate - refer to the original languages.

Sure, you can study the Bible by going back to the source language and cross referencing.  That's exactly what a renowned biblical scholar like Bart Ehrman does.  He finds plenty of contradictions.

[Khatru]

Why do you think that Cain was punished after killing his brother?

It cannot be because he broke any law as we can see there was
...and thus he had committed no sin by that act.

This always makes me laugh.

Cain's punishment was to get his stuff and leave home. 

Cain was marked and God announced that anyone who killed Cain would suffer Cain's punishment sevenfold.

So anyone who killed Cain would have to leave home seven times?

 

[Khatru]

Can't say that I've ever heard non-Christians giving any of these reasons, let alone Christians, Khat.  Do you have any independent sources to support the list?
As I've said, do you actually have any evidence to support these claims?

Do you have evidence that these utterances were made by a divine being?  I've always understood that the Quran was written by a human being without any intervention of a divine being in human form.   Are you telling me that I've been informed wrongly by Muslim friends?   

Waaah!!! I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Sassy.

I'm not going to answer this, I'll just hurl insults instead.

Sorry...I was in Sassy mode.

I have my own experience.  Trust me, I've heard most of the items on that list wheeled out as part of Christian reasoning.

The angel Gabriel is pretty divine?

[Hope]

Waaah!!! I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Sassy.

But you were talking to the board as well, and there is nothing in the board rules that says that posters can't respond to points made to an individual or group of posters.

I'm not going to answer this, I'll just hurl insults instead.

Typical response from people who can't make a rsponse to an argument.

The angel Gabriel is pretty divine?

Clearly Islam is unsure of the status of angels in their celestial hierarchy.

[Dicky Underpants]

When I read these threads on meaning treated as if it is a singularity, I want to cry out in my most Barthesian tone 'Did the author die in vain?'

Not quite sure whom you are addressing specifically here, NS. It is certainly true that with many authors, "what goes in may not be what comes out", and the meanings which may be derived from Shakespeare and many other great writers may indeed be multi-layered, with implications for the reader which the writer may not have consciously intended (However, a very great writer may well have deliberately imbued his text with a dense possibility of meanings).
However, when we come to the question of the Bible (in particular), there are certainly very deeply held convictions about the nature of its text which assert that the meanings it contains are completely intentional - since they have been imbedded in the text by God. Sometimes the meaning may be a singularity, but often, following the traditions of the Jewish pesher , continual meanings may be derived from the text, but even here, I think believers would insist that there was no arbitrariness in the process. "God has planted the meanings there - humans must continually use their ingenuity to discover them". Probably the most notorious examples of this in the Christian tradition are the exegeses of Origen. And the most well-known (and laughable) example of this kind of thing is interpreting the message of the Song of Solomon as "The love which exists 'twixt Christ and his Church".

[Dicky Underpants]

I have my own experience.  Trust me, I've heard most of the items on that list wheeled out as part of Christian reasoning.

As have many of us. Hope is just being typically disingenuous (I'm trying to be polite - if he continues in this manner I may be less so).

[Sebastian Toe]

Clearly Islam is unsure of the status of angels in their celestial hierarchy.

Even if that was true, does it really matter in the end as they seem to be clear that angels can only do the bidding of God.
 
And if that is the case then Gabriel is the archangel responsible for revealing the Quran to Muhammad - only on the bidding of God - and that makes it just about as divine as it can get as far as I can see.

[Khatru]

But you were talking to the board as well, and there is nothing in the board rules that says that posters can't respond to points made to an individual or group of posters.
Typical response from people who can't make a rsponse to an argument.

Did you really miss the sarcasm in my post?

I doubt it, hence you being deliberately disingenuous by omitting to quote this part of my post:

Sorry...I was in Sassy mode.

Clearly Islam is unsure of the status of angels in their celestial hierarchy.

Yeah, let's compare that uncertainty to Christianity whose adherents can't even agree on who their god is.

That's religions for you - ever the divinities of doubt.

[Hope]

Did you really miss the sarcasm in my post?

I doubt it, hence you being deliberately disingenuous by omitting to quote this part of my post: ...

I'm afraid that I didn't even associate the comment about Sass with the previous paragraph.  I just thoght that you were doing a bit of Sass-bashing.

Yeah, let's compare that uncertainty to Christianity whose adherents can't even agree on who their god is.

That's religions for you - ever the divinities of doubt.

Who God is for Christians is pretty widely accepted by Christians.  I am fully aware that there are those, even the occasional ones in influential places in the hirarchy, whobelieve other things, but then one has to consider whether one needs to test their claims against Jesus' teaching.  I'm also aware that there are groups who invoke the name of Jesus including, of course, Hindus and Muslims.  Unless you are suggesting that the latter two examples are simply Christians by (a) different name, one has to accept that invoking the name of Jesus isn't all that is required to qualify as a Christian.