T Nation

Bible Contradictions


This thread is for all those who feel that there are contradictions in the Bible. If you would like them addressed, please post them here. I will address them to the best of my abilities, and i encourage other Christians to also contribute as well.


When Jesus said this, was he in the Fortress of Solitude or Mesopotamia?


Castle grayskull.


Any contradiction can be rationalized to the point of convincing yourself it really isn't a contradiction. So why bother?


Just like any lawyer can argue both sides of a case, depending on who is paying the bill.


who cares about the bible


The very idea of original sin. How is it that we are responsible for the sins of our past relatives and therefore need to be saved by Christ? Would this idea not be considered archaic and perverse in any other setting? ex - Punishing someone for a crime their Grandpa committed.

Why does God need to come to earth reincarnate and have himself crucified to forgive our sins? Could he have not just forgiven us? Is there "honor" in being sacrificed when you choose to be? How do you sacrifice yourself to appease yourself?

The flood - How do you justify killing everybody on earth minus one single family? Surely all the newborn babies weren't guilty of committing such crimes as to deserve death....

How do you justify killing all the first born sons because a pharaoh wont do as you please? Not to mention plaguing everyone else with horrendous epidemics. Surely not every single Egyptian was deserving of this.

Can you explain to me the occurrence of natural disasters from the perspective of an omnipotent god?

I realize these are not so much conflicts WITHIN the bible but more so things in the bible that I believe conflict with modern morality.


I really hope you don't take the route of "well I just don't know the answer to that", this is what my mom does. Basically you begin the search WITH THE CONCLUSION and if something doesn't jive with that conclusion then you " just haven't found the answer yet". Nothing will make you question your faith as no objection can be raised that you will seriously look at. If there is evidence contrary to what you believe you assume the evidence is being misinterpreted and "you haven't found the answer"- The complete opposite of rational thinking.

Science = Evidence -> Conclusion
Faith = Conclusion -> Evidence


How did Lucifer rebel against God if angels are defined as not possessing free will?


They are not defined that way. They have free will just like man.


unfortunately very true to reality.


I won't take this conversation farther than this, but your statement that I quoted is a substantial reason why you think those events are conflicting. Truth is truth, and that includes morality. There is no such thing as "modern" morality, at least in my eyes. But that is for the Atheism-O-Phobia thread.


Greek Philosophy has your answer, actually. At least in the Catholic Church.

Angels at the time of their creation were given a choice of loving or hating God. Those that loved God stayed angels, those that choose to hate God were caste down with Satan.


I tried to to bring some of these questions up in another thread, but no one could answer them.

Please prove that Mary was a virgin. Seriously.

Explain why you can't go to heaven if you have your penis cut off (and in John Bobbit's case, since it was re-attached does that count?). Deuteronomy 23:1

Here are a few translations:

New International Version (©1984)
No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

English Standard Version (©2001)
â??No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the LORD.

King James Bible
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American King James Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

American Standard Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Jehovah.

Bible in Basic English
No man whose private parts have been wounded or cut off may come into the meeting of the Lord's people.

Douay-Rheims Bible
An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
He that is a eunuch, whether he have been crushed or cut, shall not come into the congregation of Jehovah.

English Revised Version
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD.

Webster's Bible Translation
He that is wounded or mutilated in his secrets, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

World English Bible
He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.

Young's Literal Translation
'One wounded, bruised, or cut in the member doth not enter into the assembly of Jehovah;

Let's start with those two, and if we actually get a dialog going, then I'll post a few more - hell, we can go chapter by chapter.


Now he's done it!!!!! LOL!!! Forbes my good man, this may wind up being a major contributing factor in your embracing transcendental Christian epistemology. Hope yer armored up for this one brother.

BTW, I am absolutely not laughing AT you at all. Don't take it that way.


How about that flaming sword guarding the tree of eternal life "from every way"? How come THAT hasnt been found now that we can see 100% of the earth?




Could you clarify this a bit?

I agree with you that "truth is truth" and this includes morality ; There IS right and wrong when it comes to morality. When I use the term "modern morality" I mean the morality that is typically seen as correct today - IMO In the past many more people might have been able to rationalize punishing descendants of criminals.

So I guess i'm saying this - There is such thing as "moral" and it does not change with time - What people PERCEIVE to be moral can though obviously change over time. I think that IN GENERAL we have today (last 200 years) moved toward a closer "truth" concerning morality. This is why I implicitly associated todays morality with the "true" morality.

Does this make sense?


This is a fallacy if you consider the two as mutually exclusive. Faith can also = evidence -> conclusion. I really don't want anything to do with this thread, I just want to point that out.

1) Evidence for a belief does not have to be empirical--there are many things that cannot be empirically defined. Many philosophies fall into this category--evidence can be logical or rational argumentation, which is what an exceedingly large chunk of the field of philosophy amounts to. Nobody would say that the field of philosophy is inherently irrational or lacks evidence, although one might say that certain individual philosophies are. Yet the field of philosophy is not largely driven by empirical evidence in the scientific/empiricist sense.

2) A self-evident example of why not all faith is irrational OR without evidence is seen in every day events. Sitting in a chair, starting a car, standing on a ladder. You buy a new wood step ladder from a carpenter down the street. Now, you have a certain amount of faith that the man knew what he was doing and made the ladder out of quality materials and made it correctly, and that it will support your weight. You didn't do any tests on it. You didn't measure it's support qualities independently. YOu just believe it's going to hold.

Now, you can say that these two examples are worlds apart from what this thread is about--namely religious faith. And I would agree. But the important point is the fact you cannot logically argue against faith itself, because everyone uses it in some capacity. You can only argue degrees of faith and what constitutes an unwarranted or irrational position of faith or what constitutes enough evidence for rational faith.