Whacked Bible Contradictions: 5

November 5, 2009 at 4:15 pm 30 comments

“If there be any mistake in the Bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.”  —  John Wesley   (July 24, 1776)

Just one John? I think I found a few… hundred.

Now do y’all remember from Sunday school what Judas did with his thirty pieces of silver? If you’re not sure, that’s OK, ’cause neither is the Holy Spirit who inspired the authors of Holy Writ. Judas may have
Thrown the reward money into the temple.
Matthew 27:5 — “After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself.”
OR
Bought a field with the money.
Acts 1:18 — “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong.”

Oh. That’s a contradiction, not a falsehood? Ah. Well then how about this.

Do badgers chew cud? The Bible says, “Yeah.” … twice
Leviticus 11:6 — “The coney [hyrax or rock badger], though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.”
Deuteronomy 14:6-7 – “You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney [hyrax or rock badger]. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.”)

Would it be different if Jesus made the mistake or contradiction?  OK. How about these two from the same Bible book?
John 8:14 — “Jesus answered and said unto them, though I bear record [marturia] of myself, yet my record [marturia] IS TRUE.”
John 5:31 — “If I bear witness [marturia] of myself, my witness [marturia] IS NOT TRUE.”
(Marturia means “bear witness” or “testify”, and it’s the same word used in both verses above.)

Want another ‘in the same book’ contradiction by the late JC?
Matthew 5:16 — “let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”
Matthew 6:1 — “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heave.”

And now for the big contest; see if you can guess:

Is it God, or is it Satan, or is it BibleGodDevil?
(or maybe it’s ManBearPig.)
II Samuel 24:1 says that the Lord incited David to take a census of Israel.
I Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan incited David to take a census of Israel.
Which do you think it was?

In I Samuel 16:14, we read that “an evil spirit from the Lord” troubled King Saul.
Wow. God sends evil spirits. Would anyone really want to worship a God who sends evil spirits to trouble people? Would you like it if he sent one of his evil spirits to trouble you?

Do you believe that God creates evil, as the Bible states?
Isaiah 45:7 — “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” If you believe this, why do you worship Him?

Sounds like “God” has a massive, cosmic case of the worst bipolar disorder ever.

- LeoPardus

Entry filed under: LeoPardus. Tags: , , .

Whacked Bible Contradictions: 4 Whacked Bible Contradictions: 6

30 Comments Add your own

  • 1. HeIsSailing  |  November 5, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    Where did the reward money go?

    That reminds me of an old article that I wrote, which shows just how convoluted that contradiction really is, and the lengths apologists will go to try and reconcile it.

    LINK

  • 2. Lucian  |  November 5, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    The answer to the last two is simple: Satan does not attack us as much as he would wish to, but only to the extent that God allows him to, as we see, for instance, in the book of Job.

  • 3. Joshua  |  November 5, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    “The answer to the last two is simple”

    Soo…. I’m let off the hook if I use my kid to perform evil deeds on my behalf?

  • 4. Lucian  |  November 5, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    Not on Your behalf. You tempt them with the good, and the world will tempt them with the bad; but ultimately it is them that will have to choose between the two options.

  • 5. Joshua  |  November 5, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    Goodness, my apologies. I tossed that ball a little high… went right over your head.

    I am little confused as to why you didn’t bother looking for the ball and threw this back instead?!?

    Here, you can have your herring back. They don’t live long out of water.

  • 6. Joshua  |  November 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    The Judas contradiction is actually deeper still. The passage which supposedly “prophesied” the thirty pieces of silver has, you guessed it!, nothing to do with its application to Judas.

    For the sake of being accurate, we have too little information about the badger “contradiction” to make a case – in my opinion. After all, the animal referred to could be a relative of another animal, or could be an animal that went extinct, or could be an animal we will never, ever know. So maybe there was some sort of hyrax animal that chewed its cud in some manner. Seems like the larger point is that this is completely useless information for a divinely inspired book – a contradiction in and of itself. Why do we need to know that a particular animal we will never be able to identify chewed its cud and this was important information for an ancient society to properly follow God?

    Jesus’ two statements are not exactly a contradiction. From my reading, one is used in a legal sense, the other in a literal sense.

    “If just I, Josh, say things about myself, that means that what I say is true.” (On assumption that I am perfectly trustworthy.)

    “If just I, Josh, say things about myself, that means that what I say may not be true.” (On assumption that it takes witnesses to validate my statements.)

    However, that only brings up the next question… that Jesus says the Father is the other witness. Right. How in the world can we validate that.

    The final contradiction is extremely good.

  • 7. Jim C.  |  November 5, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    Doesn’t everyone know the problems are caused by words taken out of context, or mistranslated,, or some such thing. And what the heck the Alice in Wonderland principle applies in any case.

  • 8. Joshua  |  November 5, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    Jim, your comment is destined to be somewhat self-fulfilling. I wonder what the term is for that.

  • 9. Lucian  |  November 5, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    Right. How in the world can we validate that.

    By the signs and wonders that He wrought through Him.

  • 10. Joshua  |  November 5, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    By the signs and wonders that He wrought through Him.

    Right. How in the world can we validate that.

  • 11. Lucian  |  November 5, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    ?

  • 12. HeIsSailing  |  November 5, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Joshua:
    Right. How in the world can we validate that.

    Earlier today, I asked Lucian for his methodology for reconciling a glaring contradiction – Lucian appealed to church tradition.

    “signs and wonders that He wrought through Him” can only be validated by – guess what – the same thing. Tradition. Truth is somehow gained by adhering to ancient legends and texts.

    So if I may summarize this question to you, Lucian, how do you determine the validity of church tradition? Again, I ask you, what method are you using to determine the validity of your traditions and your claims? Why should we believe a word of it?

  • 13. Lucian  |  November 5, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    HelsSailing,

    All that I wanted to say was that the manner in which the Father bore witness to Jesus was by working wondrous signs and miracles through Him: that’s what Christ meant when He said those words, and the two passages cited in no way contradict eachother.

    As for tradition, I think that it’s only common-sense that clarifications as to the meaning of a passage from a sacred text belonging to a certain religion should be addressed to, and answered by, the members of that specific religion. (Unless You think that the Bible wrote itself, or that its writers had no clue as to what the things they themselves wrote meant, or that they did, but they didn’t tell anyone, and took the secret with them to the grave…)

  • 14. J.J.E.  |  November 5, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Lucian,

    All that _I_ wanted to say was that the manner in which the Allah bore witness to Muhammad was by working wondrous signs and miracles through Him: that’s what Muhammad meant when He said those words, and no two passages in the Qur’an contradict each other.

    As for the hadith, I think that it’s only common-sense that clarifications as to the meaning of a passage from a sacred text belonging to a certain religion should be addressed to, and answered by, the members of that specific religion. (Unless You think that the Qur’an wrote itself, or that its writers had no clue as to what the things they themselves wrote meant, or that they did, but they didn’t tell anyone, and took the secret with them to the grave…)

  • 15. Lucian  |  November 5, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    I perfectly agree: that’s why you never see me writing stupidities about presumable “Qur’an contradictions” on my blog. An if by any chance I’ll ever stumble upon something that might appear to be one, the first thing I’ll do is consult a devout Muslim or an imam and listen to his answers with genuine interest and curiosity.

  • 16. Joshua  |  November 5, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Appealing to church tradition is probably better than appealing to personal revelation, personal experience, or ones subjective interpretation of Scripture. At least there will be more consistency and no sudden radical changes in perspective that could be extremely harmful.

    That said, tradition is a poor way to assess truth… and I’m sure Lucian knows that.

  • 17. LeoPardus  |  November 5, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    tradition is a poor way to assess truth… and I’m sure Lucian knows that.

    Actually no. In the EOC, tradition is extremely important and respected. It’s nearly impossible to appreciate the mindset without ever having been in it. Tradition represents or implies consistency and the test of time.

  • 18. Jeffrey  |  November 6, 2009 at 12:18 am

    So Satan = God. Next to Romans 9, that’s the strongest biblical support for Calvinism that I’ve ever read…

  • 19. Lucian  |  November 6, 2009 at 12:21 am

    That said, tradition is a poor way to assess truth… and I’m sure Lucian knows that.

    … if we would be talking about science, for instance, then yes; but in other cases such as this, this particular statement is complete nonsense, since no-one can actually tell You what the meaning of a passage from a religious book is, other than the guys who wrote it, and who belong to the same religion to which the book also belongs.

    (I’m pretty sure that if You’ll find an odd statement in the Qur’an, or in the Pali Canon for that matter, You’ll become genuinely curious and ask an imam or a buddhist monk to shed some light for You on that one, and to explain You what Mohamed or the Buddha meant there; but not so in the case of Christianity and the Bible — now, why IS that !? Hmmm?).

    Furthermore, I’ve also offered a link to a book filled with Bible-verses which shows, from Scripture, why we believe what we believe (so it’s not like tradition is broken apart from the sacred texts themselves).

    -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
    I also don’t understand Josh’s question: the people which Christ was addressing in thjose passages knew that the Father witnessed to Jesus because Christ wrought miracles (that’s why He was able to make such a statement about God witnessing on behalf of Him).

  • 20. Joshua  |  November 6, 2009 at 12:39 am

    Tradition represents or implies consistency and the test of time.

    Which ones?

  • 21. J.J.E.  |  November 6, 2009 at 1:30 am

    Tradition represents or implies consistency and the test of time.

    Only in a meta-narrative sense. Yes, if you look at a long line of narratives, the emerging story about them all can be consistent passing from one to another. But that’s no different than the Iliad and the Odyssey Aesop’s fable or Fairy Tales (literally, not facetiously) or any other tradition. So, yes, it is “true” that the tortoise beat the hare insofar as tradition points to a relatively consistent consensus of that “fact”. But was there ever anthropomorphic animals that engaged in a race? And did a tortoise in fact reach the finishing point earlier than a hare?

    Clearly not. Of course, that story was meant to teach a certain perspective and to influence culture. If you want to cast religion in that light, fine go ahead. I’ll put Christ on the same level as Achilles or Odysseus and Paul on the same level as Aesop. And I’ll put the sermon on the mount or Jesus’ parables on the same level as any other narrative used to make points. But any higher claim to truth is unsupported rubbish.

  • 22. mikespeir  |  November 6, 2009 at 8:20 am

    I despair of the efficacy of this kind of conversation. There seems to be no degree of obviousness that one can’t rationalize one’s way around.

  • 23. Joshua  |  November 6, 2009 at 10:23 am

    mikespier,

    You have to feel your way between the lines to get to the heart of the matter… I recommend studying the historical-grammatical context of this conversation and I am sure you will be able to find ways to make it applicable to 21st century life.

    Goodness, where’s my coffee… I have some programming to do…

  • 24. mikespeir  |  November 6, 2009 at 11:25 am

    Oh, believe me, I have, Joshua. But so often that kind of thing is used as a red herring, a distraction, or as a means of adding yet more needless complexity to the discussion. Confuse and conquer!

  • 25. kolorowanki  |  November 6, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    Very interesting this blog and articles.Best regards all

  • 26. cag  |  November 6, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    “In the beginning god made the heaven and the earth”. That is as far as I need to read in the bible to see that it is a pack of lies. The authors may not have known they were lies as they could have been as deluded as Lucian and the rest of the religious who base their belief on the bible. The other religions of the world have different lies but they are lies none-the-less.

    To the christian believers, do you really believe that the earth is the center of the universe? That is what your “holy” book claims in the first ten words as above.

  • 27. Mikie  |  November 16, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    Lucian-You say if you found any falsehoods or lies in the Qur’ an you would consult a devout Muslim. But did you consult a devout Christian when you found these supposed lies? If so did you give them the same respect you would have given the Muslim?

    cag- I don’t see how the first ten words of genesis leads you to conclude that the Bible claims the earth is in the center of the universe. Or are you saying Christians are completely ignorant because a hypothesis now seems to tell us we were just accidents and have no real purpose in life.

    As for evidence that God exists, I will never convince anyone who does not want to hear that He does. There will never be enough evidence for that individual. But I will tell you this one thing that you may or may not want to hear. In February of this year I was diagnosed with stage five ureter reflux or end stage kidney failure. I was immediately put on hemodialysis in the ICU. After many weeks I was trained to do home dialysis and was able to leave the hospital. Five months later I got a transplant. That is unheard of. I was out of the hospital in four days. That is unheard of.
    I was only sick for a few days before I was diagnosed. With my numbers the way they were my doctors did not understand how I was still alive. If I have gone a few more days without treatment I could have had a stroke or a heart attack. I am under 18 years old.
    It is only by God grace that I am still here and able to serve him with the rest of my life. People all over the world prayed and are praying for me and I am beyond grateful.
    This may seem like just a jumble of good time and luck to you but it is not. I am alive and that is only by His grace.

    I’m very glad I ran into this site. Though some of you may just want me to buzz off. I’m sorry you feel that way. But good conversation can come from anywhere.

  • 28. Mikie  |  November 16, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    Even from a kid.

  • 29. Ubi Dubium  |  November 17, 2009 at 9:37 am

    Hold on. You are alive now, only by god’s grace? What about the human beings who worked their butts off to keep you alive? What about the people who invented the hemodialysis machine that kept you going? What about the doctors who pioneered transplant surgery, and those that developed the anti-rejection medication? What about the person who gave you your kidney? Where is the gratitude to them?

    If your god exists, he apparently let you come down with kidney failure in the first place. It was the efforts of human beings that saved you. Think about who should really get your thanks.

  • 30. LeoPardus  |  November 17, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Mikie:

    Ubi said it dude. You have assigned credit completely incorrectly. THINK man. If you’d been around 50 years ago and had your condition, you’d just be dead now. The ONLY reason you aren’t dead is thanks to all the people Ubi mentioned. So why the flying fuck are you crediting an invisible being who has permitted untold 1000’s to die of the very same condition before you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,011,614 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 201 other followers