• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Bible internally consistent?

Heyo

Veteran Member
Never mind whether science and the Bible coincide to you.

Is the Bible internally consistent in your view and please explain your view.

This thread might be featured!
The bible is obviously inconsistent. I base that less on my knowledge of the bible and I'm sure apologists have come up or can come up with explanations to the inconsistencies but what they can't explain (except by the hubris of declaring themselves to be the only ones who have understood the bible) is the plethora of Christian (and Jewish) denominations.
If the bible was consistent, I'd expect at least the majority of Christians to agree on the interpretations. But as they don't I'd say that most of the Christians agree that the bible is inconsistent or at least confusing.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Old.
New.

Science said by humans to humans as a human book writer claiming I hear the speaking voice tell me.

Creation heavens existed as the status self hearing the voice speaking. Heavens transmits records speaking voice.

Science says the light is a constant. Spirit a gas is constantly sacrificed.

Nothing new said science.

Science says gases burning in voiding is not counting.

Human living counts a day in light. Yet light is constant is not counted.

Counts in self human present to claim I experience the day as a living life.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Yet counting days is a cycle circuit of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 to 365
Day counting as the day experience in a cycle of movement a planet existing around the sun.

Life living. An old life is an elderly human. A new life a baby.

Humans living.

Old creation no such status.
New creation no such status.

Natural creation the status.

Jesus died.
Bahuallah died.
Humans die.

Jesus life returned after it disappeared. Just a man human. Name is used as a human status in teaching humans.

Reason two different life disappearances demanifested re manifested.

Various other holy men human leader like maiytreya the same.

Yet died as a human. Just humans.

Events reviewed.

Day the daylight disappeared less radiation. Jesus man body disappears.

Reason female human life cell continuance as a human. Came secondary to support life of man human.

Increased cold asteroid gas bahuallah teaching as man disappeared. Messenger of God stone proof we never came from space.

Less radiation present in two variations. Man human life body disappears.

Proof a human life did suddenly manifest. Human the storyteller who suddenly manifested.

Human not a God whose presence created in creation remains present.

In asteroid release light was present so was all coldest states present.

No human as self evidence present as the man science human theist.

Scientist human how to force material bodies to convert and disappear. Chosen for his reasons. Want to disappear.

Science lied. It never owned the light constant the heavens and void did.

Scientist man counts the idea of a day only living doing the counting.

How much cold makes the day disappear is the comparison between immaculate heavens not a man or baby to the burning gas daylight not a man or a baby.

As the stories are told only via the presence of the heavens existing first.

Man did not exist first as creation. He manifested as first human into creation.

Man's life in DNA proved physical life of cell can disappear.

Man tried to force cell disappearance by opposing life's presence.

The false preaching was man in science as no adult man manifests new life as an adult man. It is by sex.

Book said never give God a name again is still naming God as the book writer.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I know you have hundreds of so called contradictions. I'll give my view of the ones you mentioned.

1. In one part of the Bible, it says god hates jealously. In another part, it says god is a jealous god.

Jealously of what others have and what we do not is not loving but there probably are times when jealously is acceptable, if a spouse is having an affair, jealously sounds appropriate. Similarly with God who showed Israel whom He is and that He is real and saved them from slavery in Egypt and made a covenant with them, He was jealous for His people, the ones He had betrothed to Him when they were out chasing after other gods that were not even real.

2. In one part of the Bible, it says god does not lie. In other parts, it says he put false words into the mouths of prophets and that he sent powerful delusions to deceive people.

We should not be making a habit of being deceitful to others and God does not do that either. Imo however God has been involved in deception and that seems to be part of the way He gets things happening the way He wants them to. That sounds as if there can be times where it would be appropriate for us to be deceitful also.

3. God is said to be perfectly just and perfectly merciful, but mercy is the suspension of justice. This is a logical contradiction.

When God is being just without mercy then the justice is perfect. It is a good thing that God is merciful also.

4. God is said to be all-powerful, but he could not help his people defeat an army because they had "chariots of iron."

God said in Joshua that He would not drive out all the Canaanites at once so that the land does not become a wilderness overrun with wind animals etc and that God would only be with them to drive them out if they remained faithful to the Covenant. These are 2 possible explanations. Eventually Israel did drive them out however but it was usually a struggle and not God stomping all over the enemy.

5. God is said to be all-knowing, but there are multiple places in the Bible where god regrets how events played out, or where he changes his mind.

God knows the future but seems to live in the present to an extent. So in the past He would know that He will be disappointed about something in the future.
God decides on the current state of affairs and is a town or person changes they mind or repents God also changes the actions He said He would do. This happened with Nineveh in the story of Jonah and when God gave Hezekiah 15 more years to live when Hezekiah prayed to Him.

6a. The logical sequence of a god sacrificing himself to himself, to create a loophole in rules that he presides over, is incoherent.

That is a non believer's parody on what God really did in sending His Son. Even if people can't figure out the reason it needed to happen, it was prophesied and could have been seen as a next step that put a halt to the need for animal sacrifice.
But God is good at knowing the loopholes and using them so that everything is worked out to the letter.

6b. From an outsider perspective, the Bible reads like an evolving theology with layers of ad hoc additions over time, in many cases trying to fuse together different interpretations that were popular in the early years. For example, in all of the earliest writings of the New Testament, there is no claim that Jesus is god or the son of god, or that he was bodily resurrected (many stories and religions in that region at the time had non-bodily resurrections of central figures.) The god-is-Jesus claim only comes in the last gospel which was written two to three generations later. The bodily resurrection sections also came later. To me, it seems like an apocalyptic preacher gathered a charismatic following, then unexpectedly was executed, leaving his followers to struggle to frame his death in a way that made sense. "He was the ultimate sacrifice for our sins" then "Oh, and he was the son of god, which made him a really good sacrifice" which conflicted with "No, he was actually god in the flesh" and was harmonized as "He was the son of god AND god at the same time, somehow, so we don't have to have interdenominational fighting about this anymore, ok?" There was an entire early branch of Christianity that thought Yaweh and Jesus were separate gods, but they were wiped out by the other Christians and their writings destroyed.

All the early writings had Jesus as the Son of God (same nature as His Father but He was not His Father) and risen bodily. The earliest preaching of the disciples included a bodily resurrection.
Are you talking about the Arians as Christians who thought Jesus was a separate god?
That was classed as a heresy but the Arians were not wiped out and I don't know about their writings, I imagine it is similar to present day groups such as JWs in their interpretation of the Bible.

7. The notion of hell is very vague in the New Testament, if not inconsistent. Where Jesus supposedly refers to hell in the NT, he is referencing OT scriptures that were not talking about an afterlife. Universalists can point to just as many passages to support the notion that everyone is eventually saved.

Interesting one and we will have to wait and see who is saved and who is not and who is killed and who does not enter the Kingdom and possibly eventually dies because of the sins they keep committing. It's a bit up in the air. Hades in the NT and Sheol in the OT is the place of the dead souls. But these things are more a matter of interpretation than contradictions in the Bible. They will all work themselves out eventually.

8. There is no coherent description of a Satan figure in the Bible. The poems attributed to him are actually polemical criticisms of real historical kings in the Middle East during the OT. Satan only means "adversary" and there are human beings who are referred to as Satan in the Bible merely because they are opposing another protagonist.

Jesus and other parts of the NT put the OT into perspective and identify Satan as a figure in the Bible.
But again that is interpretation and not contradiction.

9. The Bible says "God is not the author of confusion" but there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations, all claiming mutually contradictory paths to salvation, descriptions of god's attributes, claims about what god wants, whether to be baptized and how to be baptized, etc etc.

Different interpretations do not mean contradiction.
But I think the number of different groups is highly over exaggerated and many of them are just similar groups in different places. They all have the basic gospel message however.
This whole thing probably comes down to human nature and the work of Satan to manipulate and make separate and even make it look as if there is division when in fact there is unity as one body.

10. The OT regularly depicts god as one of many other gods, but stronger than these other gods (Henotheism). His priests get in miracle battles with priests of other gods, who can also do miracles but not as well. He commands "you shall have no other gods before me." Words used to describe him can be traced back to a god who was part of pantheons worshipped in earlier times in that region. By contrast, the NT and Christianity recast Yaweh into the triune god of a monothestic faith where there are in fact no other gods.

The truth is that there were no other real gods back in OT times also but there were many idols and false gods. The battles ended up showing that Yahweh was real and the others gods were not and any miracles by the priests were no more than tricks of the priests or even actions of demons in some cases no doubt, but not gods.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Never mind whether science and the Bible coincide to you.

Is the Bible internally consistent in your view and please explain your view.
No, the bible is not internally consistent.

The Tanakh is not internally consistent. For instance ─

─ at the start, God is one of many gods. For example, the Decalogue says "no other gods before me"; it doesn't say, "Ain't no other gods, folks". Not until after the Babylonian captivity does God become the only god.

─ it says, Thou shalt not kill (implicitly excluding war and, I guess, the state). Yet God commands massacres of captives, The sin of Saul is not putting Agag the Amalekite to death promptly after the battle. And so on.

And lots more.

The NT is not internally consistent For instance ─

─ In Mark, Jesus is an ordinary Jew and doesn't become son of God until after his baptism, when God adopts him in the same manner [he] adopted David in Psalm 2:7. He is said not to be descended from David.

─In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is the literal son of God by divine insemination of a virgin, and so has God's Y-chromosome. Both are said, though absurdly, to be descended from David, unless God is also descended from David.

─In Paul and John, Jesus has preexisted in heaven with God, and has created the material universe (notwithstanding Genesis). This puts Jesus in the role of the Gnostic demiurge ('craftsman'). We're not told how he came to earth, implying it was unremarkable; but since he's said to be descended from David, I assume the story would be that his spirit entered into the zygote of an ordinary Jewish couple at the moment of conception.

And lots more.

The Tanakh is not consistent with the NT ─

─ Jesus doesn't fit the description of a Jewish messiah. He's not a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, And he's never been anointed by the Jewish priesthood (which is what 'messiah' means).

─ It's a common claim among Christians that various passages in Isaiah are prophecies of Jesus, not least the Suffering Servant. However, in the Tanakh, the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel, not Jesus. And although the NT uses the Tanakh to model the life of Jesus so he can "fulfill" parts of the Tanakh that have appealed to the NT authors as prophecies, in fact he's never mentioned once in the Tanakh.

─ Which makes perfect sense, seeing that Jesus' church has been the instrument of two thousand years of often murderous antisemitism.

─ And although it's not in the NT, in the 4th century CE Jesus and the Ghost were added to the Godhead to form the Trinity ─ and if there's one thing the God of the Tanakh is not it's triune.

And lots more.




This thread might be featured![/QUOTE]
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
─ at the start, God is one of many gods. For example, the Decalogue says "no other gods before me"; it doesn't say, "Ain't no other gods, folks". Not until after the Babylonian captivity does God become the only god.

There are many idols, false gods and they are the other gods that God was speaking against.

─ it says, Thou shalt not kill (implicitly excluding war and, I guess, the state). Yet God commands massacres of captives, The sin of Saul is not putting Agag the Amalekite to death promptly after the battle. And so on.

As part of the law of the land and how people should live together, killing/murder was wrong.
In a war and where God (their King) was telling them to do things for what He knew were good reasons for their security, that is another different situation.

─ In Mark, Jesus is an ordinary Jew and doesn't become son of God until after his baptism, when God adopts him in the same manner [he] adopted David in Psalm 2:7. He is said not to be descended from David.

Mark did not write of Jesus birth or His pre existence, it does not mean that Mark did not believe them.
Mark does not say Jesus is not descended from David.
Mark does not say that Jesus only became the Son of God because of the baptism as far as I know.

─In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is the literal son of God by divine insemination of a virgin, and so has God's Y-chromosome. Both are said, though absurdly, to be descended from David, unless God is also descended from David.

Mary descended from David.
God could have manipulated chromosomes in some way, but God is the Father of Jesus spirit, the body side came from Mary and whatever God did to manipulate the chromosomes.

─In Paul and John, Jesus has preexisted in heaven with God, and has created the material universe (notwithstanding Genesis). This puts Jesus in the role of the Gnostic demiurge ('craftsman'). We're not told how he came to earth, implying it was unremarkable; but since he's said to be descended from David, I assume the story would be that his spirit entered into the zygote of an ordinary Jewish couple at the moment of conception.

The full story is seen in the reading of it all. If one part does not contain certain details that does not mean that those details did not happen. You are just throwing in your anti Bible bias and anti bible logic and making contradictions where there are none.

The Tanakh is not consistent with the NT ─

─ Jesus doesn't fit the description of a Jewish messiah. He's not a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, And he's never been anointed by the Jewish priesthood (which is what 'messiah' means).

If you believe only what Judaism says about the Messiah in the OT then that is correct but that is rather selective and ignoring what the OT actually says.

─ It's a common claim among Christians that various passages in Isaiah are prophecies of Jesus, not least the Suffering Servant. However, in the Tanakh, the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel, not Jesus. And although the NT uses the Tanakh to model the life of Jesus so he can "fulfill" parts of the Tanakh that have appealed to the NT authors as prophecies, in fact he's never mentioned once in the Tanakh.

That is again bringing your anti Jesus assumptions about how the Gospels were written. That is not contradiction and is just taking the Jewish pov as fact, even though many Jews have seen the suffering servant as Messianic and seen other of the Isaiah prophecies as Messianic.

─ Which makes perfect sense, seeing that Jesus' church has been the instrument of two thousand years of often murderous antisemitism.

Off topic. That is not a contradiction in the Bible.

─ And although it's not in the NT, in the 4th century CE Jesus and the Ghost were added to the Godhead to form the Trinity ─ and if there's one thing the God of the Tanakh is not it's triune.

A more full revelation in the NT gives us a fuller understanding of God. Still monotheistic however and it does not contradict the OT.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There are many idols, false gods and they are the other gods that God was speaking against.
The facts are as I said. You can find references to other gods as such ─

Judges 11:23 So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.​

And see eg Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;23-24, Psalms 82:1, Psalms 86:8, Psalms 95:3, Psalms 135:5.

The technical term for recognizing other gods while claiming yours is the boss god (as here) is 'henotheism'.
As part of the law of the land and how people should live together, killing/murder was wrong.
In a war and where God (their King) was telling them to do things for what He knew were good reasons for their security, that is another different situation.
So the commandment is a typo, and should read, "Thou shalt not kill except when I think it's a good idea," you say?
Mark did not write of Jesus birth or His pre existence, it does not mean that Mark did not believe them.
Yes it does. Mark says Jesus is from an ordinary Jewish family and makes it plain there were no angelic messengers or portents for his birth. He's not the son of God till John washes off his sins and God adopts him.
Mark does not say Jesus is not descended from David.
Mark 12:35-37
Mark does not say that Jesus only became the Son of God because of the baptism as far as I know.
Yes, he does. There's no suggestion Jesus is already son of God until the heavens open.
Mary descended from David.
Matthew's genealogy says it's Joseph's Matthew 1:16. Luke's says it's Joseph's Luke 3:23.
God could have manipulated chromosomes in some way, but God is the Father of Jesus spirit, the body side came from Mary and whatever God did to manipulate the chromosomes.
Mary didn't have a Y-chromosome. Jesus is said to be male, so he did. And in the story, he's son of God who is generally taken to be male.
If you believe only what Judaism says about the Messiah in the OT then that is correct
It's the Jewish bible. If you want to know what it says, read the words. If you want to know what they signify in Judaism, ask your Jewish friends (the real ones). It's not for Christianity to tell Judaism what Judaism's own book means.
That is again bringing your anti Jesus assumptions about how the Gospels were written.
I'm not anti-Jesus. I'm simply in favor of the best available facts. Which you've seen above.
That is not contradiction and is just taking the Jewish pov as fact, even though many Jews have seen the suffering servant as Messianic and seen other of the Isaiah prophecies as Messianic.
Off topic. That is not a contradiction in the Bible.
As I pointed out ─ glad you noticed. It's actually a contradiction within Christianity.
A more full revelation in the NT gives us a fuller understanding of God. Still monotheistic however and it does not contradict the OT.
The Christian churches themselves admit that the Trinity Doctrine is incoherent. In fact it creates three gods, and claiming that it makes only one god is the incoherence.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
The facts are as I said. You can find references to other gods as such ─

Judges 11:23 So the Lord, the God of Israel, dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess.​

And see eg Exodus 15:11, 20:3, Deuteronomy 5:7, Numbers 33:4, Judges 11;23-24, Psalms 82:1, Psalms 86:8, Psalms 95:3, Psalms 135:5.

The technical term for recognizing other gods while claiming yours is the boss god (as here) is 'henotheism'.

The other gods were recognised as being nothing more than idols. It would have been silly to deny that those idols did not exist. Even Jews now and Christians and Muslims recognise that there are other gods but do not see them as real gods. Maybe Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were henotheists.
Deut 32:39‘See now that I, I am He,
And there is no god besides Me
Deut 4:35 To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him

So the commandment is a typo, and should read, "Thou shalt not kill except when I think it's a good idea," you say?

It just needs to be understood in context and the context of the Law did not include war and did not include when God said it was OK, as in executions.

Yes it does. Mark says Jesus is from an ordinary Jewish family and makes it plain there were no angelic messengers or portents for his birth. He's not the son of God till John washes off his sins and God adopts him.
Mark 12:35-37

Mark just does not include the virgin birth or Jesus pre existence and almost starts with the Baptism. However the first few verses have reference to Jesus being the Son of God and maybe even God.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Yahweh,
make his paths straight,’”
I changed LORD to Yahweh to reflect that it is a quote from Isa 40:3 which has Yahweh in it.

Yes, he does. There's no suggestion Jesus is already son of God until the heavens open.
Matthew's genealogy says it's Joseph's Matthew 1:16. Luke's says it's Joseph's Luke 3:23.
Mary didn't have a Y-chromosome. Jesus is said to be male, so he did. And in the story, he's son of God who is generally taken to be male.

Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is the Son of David and of God. (Luke 1:32,33, Matt 16:16, 9:27)

It's the Jewish bible. If you want to know what it says, read the words. If you want to know what they signify in Judaism, ask your Jewish friends (the real ones). It's not for Christianity to tell Judaism what Judaism's own book means.

Jew were followers of Jesus, so Jews are telling us what the Jewish scriptures mean already.

I'm not anti-Jesus. I'm simply in favor of the best available facts. Which you've seen above.

As I said, Jews have seen the suffering servant passage of Isa 52,53 as Messianic. If the majority of Jews have to be right because it is the majority then OK, but that is not logical.

As I pointed out ─ glad you noticed. It's actually a contradiction within Christianity.

Antisemitism shows that the weeds would be with the wheat in the Christian church, so it confirms the New Testament.

The Christian churches themselves admit that the Trinity Doctrine is incoherent. In fact it creates three gods, and claiming that it makes only one god is the incoherence.

It is coherent but is hard to fully comprehend.
Thomas called Jesus "my God" and Jesus agreed.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Hey - those of you who think that the Bible is internally consistent (@robocop (actually) or @Brian2 , maybe?): any of you want to take in Dan Barker's Easter Challenge?

It is - or should be - straightforward: just lay out everything the Bible says in Easter in a single narrative with no contradictions.

More details:

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts.

Leave No Stone Unturned: An Easter Challenge For Christians by Dan Barker (August 2000) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Can you do it?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The other gods were recognised as being nothing more than idols.
As I told you, that was later, after the Babylonian captivity. Up till then Judaism is henotheistic.
Deut 32:39‘See now that I, I am He,
And there is no god besides Me
Deut 4:35 To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him
Excellent point ─ more contradictions in the bible.
Mark just does not include the virgin birth or Jesus pre existence and almost starts with the Baptism. However the first few verses have reference to Jesus being the Son of God and maybe even God.
None of Paul or the authors of Mark or John refer to the virgin birth. If it were part of the legend, it would be too remarkable for anyone portraying Jesus to omit, I would have said, Instead, it very likely comes from the author of Matthew reading Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX, where the Greek translates the Hebrew word 'almah (young woman) as parthenos, virgin. In reality, parthenogenesis in humans is extremely rare and must result in a female infant (for want of that y-chromosome).
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Yes, Mark says Jesus becomes the son of God when adopted after his baptism. It's right at the start of Mark.
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Yahweh,
make his paths straight,’”
The author of Mark supposes that refers to John the Baptist.
Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus is the Son of David and of God. (Luke 1:32,33, Matt 16:16, 9:27)
That's why I cited them as a contradiction.
Jew were followers of Jesus, so Jews are telling us what the Jewish scriptures mean already.
Members of a Jewish cult, not Jews generally. By the time John is written, towards the end of the first century CE, Christianity no longer regards itself as Jewish, which is why the author of John includes passages derogatory of Jews, and quoted by antisemitic folk ever after,
Antisemitism shows that the weeds would be with the wheat in the Christian church, so it confirms the New Testament.
So God, you say, sent a Jewish messiah to create the most powerful and enduring antisemitic movement known? Really? You're serious?
It is coherent but is hard to fully comprehend.
No, as I said, it's officially incoherent, Theologically the churches have placed it in the category "mystery in the strict sense" and a mystery in the strict sense "cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation nor cogently demonstrated by reason once it has been revealed" ─ their words, not mine. There are several more usual words for something that fits that description, such as "a nonsense", "an incoherent concept", and others less polite.
Thomas called Jesus "my God" and Jesus agreed.
No, Jesus did not agree ─ read it again. And every version of Jesus ─ Paul's, Mark's, Matthew's, Luke's and John's expressly denies that he's God and never once claims to be God.
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hey - those of you who think that the Bible is internally consistent (@robocop (actually) or @Brian2 , maybe?): any of you want to take in Dan Barker's Easter Challenge?

It is - or should be - straightforward: just lay out everything the Bible says in Easter in a single narrative with no contradictions.

More details:



Leave No Stone Unturned: An Easter Challenge For Christians by Dan Barker (August 2000) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Can you do it?
The four gospels are meant to disagree because of human error... that's why there were 4, but the idea of using 4 imperfect witnesses is internally consistent.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The four gospels are meant to disagree because of human error...
IOW, the Bible has internal inconsistencies.

that's why there were 4, but the idea of using 4 imperfect witnesses is internally consistent.
Your OP asked if the Bible was internally consistent. Now it seems you're saying that your belief system is internally consistent. Which is it?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I mean, let me whip up a Top Ten list for you?

1. In one part of the Bible, it says god hates jealously. In another part, it says god is a jealous god.

Number 1 of the Top Ten must be glaring :eek: (and, I assume, well researched). Would you mind sharing two pertinent counterposed verses? Thanks.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
IOW, the Bible has internal inconsistencies.


Your OP asked if the Bible was internally consistent. Now it seems you're saying that your belief system is internally consistent. Which is it?
Apparently he views it as a feature. (Of course it's literally true since it's literally inconsistent.)

Makes sense to me.
 

AlexanderG

Active Member
I know you have hundreds of so called contradictions. I'll give my view of the ones you mentioned.



Jealously of what others have and what we do not is not loving but there probably are times when jealously is acceptable, if a spouse is having an affair, jealously sounds appropriate. Similarly with God who showed Israel whom He is and that He is real and saved them from slavery in Egypt and made a covenant with them, He was jealous for His people, the ones He had betrothed to Him when they were out chasing after other gods that were not even real.



We should not be making a habit of being deceitful to others and God does not do that either. Imo however God has been involved in deception and that seems to be part of the way He gets things happening the way He wants them to. That sounds as if there can be times where it would be appropriate for us to be deceitful also.

When God is being just without mercy then the justice is perfect. It is a good thing that God is merciful also.

God said in Joshua that He would not drive out all the Canaanites at once so that the land does not become a wilderness overrun with wind animals etc and that God would only be with them to drive them out if they remained faithful to the Covenant. These are 2 possible explanations. Eventually Israel did drive them out however but it was usually a struggle and not God stomping all over the enemy.

God knows the future but seems to live in the present to an extent. So in the past He would know that He will be disappointed about something in the future.
God decides on the current state of affairs and is a town or person changes they mind or repents God also changes the actions He said He would do. This happened with Nineveh in the story of Jonah and when God gave Hezekiah 15 more years to live when Hezekiah prayed to Him.

That is a non believer's parody on what God really did in sending His Son. Even if people can't figure out the reason it needed to happen, it was prophesied and could have been seen as a next step that put a halt to the need for animal sacrifice.
But God is good at knowing the loopholes and using them so that everything is worked out to the letter.

All the early writings had Jesus as the Son of God (same nature as His Father but He was not His Father) and risen bodily. The earliest preaching of the disciples included a bodily resurrection.
Are you talking about the Arians as Christians who thought Jesus was a separate god?
That was classed as a heresy but the Arians were not wiped out and I don't know about their writings, I imagine it is similar to present day groups such as JWs in their interpretation of the Bible.

Interesting one and we will have to wait and see who is saved and who is not and who is killed and who does not enter the Kingdom and possibly eventually dies because of the sins they keep committing. It's a bit up in the air. Hades in the NT and Sheol in the OT is the place of the dead souls. But these things are more a matter of interpretation than contradictions in the Bible. They will all work themselves out eventually.

Jesus and other parts of the NT put the OT into perspective and identify Satan as a figure in the Bible.
But again that is interpretation and not contradiction.

Different interpretations do not mean contradiction.
But I think the number of different groups is highly over exaggerated and many of them are just similar groups in different places. They all have the basic gospel message however.
This whole thing probably comes down to human nature and the work of Satan to manipulate and make separate and even make it look as if there is division when in fact there is unity as one body.

The truth is that there were no other real gods back in OT times also but there were many idols and false gods. The battles ended up showing that Yahweh was real and the others gods were not and any miracles by the priests were no more than tricks of the priests or even actions of demons in some cases no doubt, but not gods.

This just remarkable to me. Your responses are entirely unconvincing, ad hoc, fallacious, and incoherent. No one who doesn't already believe would be remotely persuaded by this. I wish you could see the cognitive dissonance in your ideas, such as:

"The Bible says X and not X about god's nature, which is a direct logical contradiction. But it's good that god is mostly X and sometimes not X, so there is no contradiction."
(By that logic, I could know god doesn't exist, and you could believe god exists, and there's no contradiction and no reason to proselytize me or anyone else, right?)

"There are mutually contradictory interpretations that logically cannot both be correct, but interpretations aren't contradictions. There is no confusion."
(Ok, we can freely interpret the Bible to be mythology and false, and you can believe it's true, and we can both be Christians.)

"If something looks like a contradiction to us, it's only because our human nature is corrupted and/or Satan is tricking us, so there's no contradiction."
(Maybe everything you believe is true about the Bible is only because of your flawed human reasoning, and it's actually all contradictory and false which you'd realize if not for the Fall of Man?)

"The Bible contains mutually contradictory statements, but only the statement I believe is actually true and definitely not the other one, so the Bible is not inconsistent."
(Ok, well by this logic I can simply believe that I'm right and you're definitely wrong. Where does that leave us?)

Come on, man. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top