Are There Contradictions In the Bible?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Yes, I have read it cover to cover many times. I find no contradictions what so ever in scripture. Admittedly there might seem to be contradictions on the surface, but once a person learns about the original languages it was written in, Hebrew, Koinonia Greek and some Aramaic passages, and then learns about the locations, cultures, customs and idiomatic expressions of the time of each book, you will find there are not any contradictions in scripture at all. A bold claim. You say that apparent contraditions will have, essentially, a linguistic explanation?If you would like Dr Adequate, in complete respect... You are not obliged to completely respect me. I do not ask the impossible.[/B][/QUOTE] Sure.[/B][/QUOTE] and even in friendship, I would dialogue with you in a new thread you could start called "Are there contradictions in the Bible?"[/B][/QUOTE] And here is is. We could even discuss the seemingly brutality of God in the old testament and what was really happening. That would be another thread.

I'll just type up the oddities I've noted so far. I'm up to the start of Joshua, so this shouldn't take too long.

[Ryokan]

Errhem... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61747) I was first!!! :D

[c4ts]

Well, there's the New Testament, which contradicts the Old Testament. Then there's the New Testament, which contradicts itself about four times...

[SpencerFW]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Errhem... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61747) I was first!!! :D

The first shall be last, and the last be the first. :p

[Dr Adequate]

That took a lot longer than I thought it would.

OK, let's start. As I said, I've been reading the Bible through, and I have a retentive memory, so I noticed some things which struck me as odd.

So far I'm up to the start of Joshua, so I'll go up to there.

If I number off the queries, and you reply by number, that'll make it nice and clear for everyone.

(1) There seems to be a big discrepancy between the first creation account (from Gen 1:1 - 2:3, which calls God "God") and the second (Gen 2:3 onward) which calls God "the Lord God".

Specifically, the first account has vegetation created before humans, but in the second account (2:5) it specifically says that God made man "when no plant of the field was in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up".

(2) Gen 4:2 says that Cain was "a tiller of the ground". Yet Gen 9:20 tells me that "Noah was the first tiller of the soil".

(3) In Gen 6:3, God decrees that the days of man shall be "one hundred and twenty years". But plenty of people in Genesis are recorded as living much longer than that after God decides this.

(4) In Genesis 6 & 7 there is disagreement over how many of each animal was taken into the Ark. Gen 6:19-20 has two of each kind, as does Gen 7:15, but Gen 7:2-3 (in between them) has seven pairs of some animals and birds.

(5) In Ex 6:2 God states "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [Heb. El Shaddai), but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them".

Compare this with Gen 4:26 : "At that time men began to call upon the name of the LORD"; Gen 5:29 : "Out of the ground which the LORD has cursed..."; Gen 13:4 : "and there Abram called on the name of the LORD"; Gen 15:8 : "But Abram said, "O Lord GOD..." [GOD, like LORD, representing YHWH, but of course the translator couldn't write "O Lord LORD", 'cos that would be silly]; Gen 18:13 : The LORD said to Abraham "Why did Sarah laugh ... is anything too hard for the LORD?""; Gen 22:15 : "And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time, and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD...""; Gen 28:13 : "And behold, the LORD stood above it, and said [to Jacob] "I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac"".

(6) In Ex 32:14, we have: "And God repented of the evil which he thought to do his people". But in Num 23:19 we have "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent / Has he said, and will he not do it? / Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfil it?"

(7) Incidentally, what do you make of the lines "God is not man ... or the son of man"? Doesn't that contradict the whole idea of Christianity?

(8) In Ex 33:11 we have "Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend", but only a few verses on, in Ex 33:20, we have ""But", he said, "you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live."

(9) The version of the Ten Commandments we get in Ex 34:27 onwards don't match the Ten Commandments in Lev 5:7 onwards. They barely have anything in common. And yet it is clearly established that both are talking about the tablets of stone which Moses brought down from the mountain, and both are called "the Ten Commandments".

(10) Lev 3:17 says: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood". So were the apostles right in saying that the dietary laws have been rescinded --- based on one man's dream? Here God says it is a perpetual law for all generations.

(11) In Num 22:16-22 God is angry at Balaam for doing exactly what God told him to do. This is weird.

(12) In Deut 6:13 God commands: "You shall fear the LORD your God, you shall serve him, and [u]swear by his name[/i]. But Jesus specifically says not to do that. So here we have God commanding the Jews to do (as pious) what God will then tell the same nation not to do (as impious). What's going on?

(13) In Deut 24, divorce is provided for. Jesus is against it.

(14) More generally, there seems to be a problem with the idea of the old and new laws, before and after Jesus. Consider:

The explanation for such things as the lifting of the taboo on pork, or the requirement for circumcision, was based on the idea that Jesus had redeemed us from purely ritual observances. However:

* Christians can wear a garment made of different sorts of thread, which the Jews were forbidden

* The Jews were enjoined to swear by God's name --- prohibited for Christians;

* In the old days, God's favorites could have many wives, where Christians have only one.

* They could also own concubines (sex slaves). Not so since Jesus redeemed us from sin, but before then, it was fine by God (the Father).

* A Christian may eat a bacon sandwich, which a Jew could not.

* Jews could get divorced --- Christians become one flesh.

*Christians can eat lobsters, which the Jews were forbidden.

* God (the Father) ordered the Jews to take revenge: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", but God (the Son) tells us to forgive seventy times seven.

* Jews were comanded by God to stone women taken in adultery --- Jesus rebukes them for wishing to do so.

* Under the old law, circumcision is mandatory, but under the new law it is unnecessary --- however, if your eye causes you to sin, you maust pluck it out.

* God (the Father) establishes rules for keeping the Sabbath which God (the Son) then says we can break sometimes --- and Christians show their gratitude for this by ignoring the Sabbath and keeping Sunday holy, which is mentioned nowhere in the Bible at all.

* The old law allows public prayer, but Jesus is against it. (Which doesn't stop Christians from practicing it in buildings called "churches")

* The Old Testament tells us that the thing most pleasing to God is the scent of burning animal flesh, and the New Testament tells us that it is a humble and contrite heart.

In summary: what we see in the Old Testament is the typical primitive god of a primitive people. He likes animal sacrifices; he likes blood poured on his altar; he likes ritual mutilation (circumcision); he encourages genocide (I'll come back when I've read Joshua and Judges carefully); he enforces meaningless taboos (for example, on the interplanting of crops, which is good for the soil); he is capricious, changeable, vain, and extremely literal about his commandments.

The New Testament is so very different. The two sections of the Bible really don't fit together.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Errhem... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61747) I was first!!! :D My questions are much much better than yours, but as I'm in a good mood, I shall forgive your little faux pas. Run along and play, now.

[Beleth]

OK let me try. I'm pretty rusty at this.

(1) Genesis 1 is a high-level view of the first seven days. Genesis 2 focuses on Day 6.

Not all plants are plants of the field. Gen 2:5 is talking about cultivatable plants.

(2) The two Gen 9:20's that I looked up said "Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard." and "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:". No mention of him being the first farmer.

(3) Like who?

(4) The ones that seven pairs were taken on were the clean animals. God tells Noah in 6:19 to take two of everything, and in 7:2 to take seven pairs of certain (clean) animals. 7:15 just says that the animals are going in in pairs, it doesn't say that only two of each are going in.

(5) Ex 6:2 just says "I appeared to these guys but I didn't tell them who I was", not "I appeared to these guys but they had never heard my name before." They knew who God was, but they didn't know that the person who appeared to them was God. He didn't whip out His ID, I guess.

(6) Okay, you got me on this one.

(7) Maybe it's talking about God the Father, who isn't the son of man. It's that whole Trinity weirdness.

(8) Without knowing what the original wording is, I'd say that "face to face" is being used as a figure of speech meaning "in a friendly tone and close to each other". Ex 33:9 says that God appeared as a pillar of cloud, which typically doesn't have what we would call a "face".

(9) It is too late at night for me to apologize for this one. I know there's a flaw in how you are reasing it somewhere but I am too tired to discover it tonight.

(10) Bah, my brain just shut off. I'll try to give this the attention it deserves later.




Arguing for both sides,
I remain,
Beleth.

Edited for typo.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beleth
(1) Not all plants are plants of the field. Gen 2:5 is talking about cultivatable plants. And does "cultivable plants" (a phrase not found in the Bible) include "plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit which is their seed"?(2) The two Gen 9:20's that I looked up said "Then Noah bean farming and planted a vineyard." and "And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:". No mention of him being the first farmer. These were direct quotes from my copy of the Bible (RSV). Whereas I do not believe that the phrase "Noah bean farming" appears in any authorised text.(3) Like who? Feel free to read the Bible from that point onwards. For a particular case, try Gen 11:16 : "When Eber had lived thirty four years, he became the father of Peleg; and Eber lived after the birth of Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and had other sons and daughters."

Four hundred and sixty four is a lot more than one hundred and twenty.(4) The ones that seven pairs were taken on were the clean animals. God tells Noah in 6:19 to take two of everything, and in 7:2 to take seven pairs of certain (clean) animals. 7:15 just says that the animals are going in in pairs, it doesn't say that only two of each are going in. Er ... yes it does. Read it. Look at the quotes provided.(5) Ex 6:2 just says "I appeared to these guys but I didn't tell them who I was", not "I appeared to these guys but they had never heard my name before." They knew who God was, but they didn't know that the person who appeared to them was God. He didn't whip out His ID, I guess. Again, the quotations are from my copy of the Bible, and every time it says LORD or GOD in capitals, the original text says YHWH. The question is, precisely, did they know this name? And the Bible contradicts itself.(6) Okay, you got me on this one.Six out of six so far.(7) Maybe it's talking about God the Father, who isn't the son of man. It's that whole Trinity weirdness. Still. The Bible tells us that God is not a man, is not the son of man, and that the Messiah will be called Immanuel. Along comes a man who is called "the son of man" and whose name is Jesus, and we're meant to believe that he's God and the Messiah?(8) Without knowing what the original wording is, I'd say that "face to face" is being used as a figure of speech meaning "in a friendly tone and close to each other". Ex 33:9 says that God appeared as a pillar of cloud, which typically doesn't have what we would call a "face". Compare this with the texts I've cited. Ex 33:9 is irrelevant: the question is, can Moses see God's face and live?

I too should be interested to see the original wording.(9) It is too late at night for me to apologize for this one. I know there's a flaw in how you are reasing it somewhere but I am too tired to discover it tonight. Did you just wander into the realms of self-parody?(10) Bah, my brain just shut off. It's not that it only just happened, but that you only just noticed.

That leaves (11) - (14) unanswered.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
And does "cultivable plants" (a phrase not found in the Bible) include "plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit which is their seed"?"Of the field" means "cultivatable".

Gen 1:11-12 says nothing about all plants and trees being created; there is no reason to assume that that is what is being said, especially when Gen 2:5 specifically says that plants and shrubs of the field didn't happen until then.

Whereas I do not believe that the phrase "Noah bean farming" appears in any authorised text.So I made a typo. I have since corrected it. Spelling flames are considered poor form, even here.

For a particular case, try Gen 11:16 : "When Eber had lived thirty four years, he became the father of Peleg; and Eber lived after the birth of Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and had other sons and daughters."Thank you.

The Bible I have has a poor apology for this so I will not repeat it.

Er ... yes it does. Read it. Look at the quotes provided.Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

6:19-20 says take two of everything.
7:2 says take two of some things and fourteen of others.
7:15 says that the animals went in in pairs.

6:19 only conflicts with 7:2 if you read it as "only two". Obviously God knew Noah was going to have to make some sacrifices after they landed so He told Noah to take more of the animals Noah would have to sacrifice.

And 7:15 just says that they went in in pairs. It says nothing about how many pairs of each animal went in. Assumedly there was one pair of the unclean animals and seven pairs of the clean ones.

Again, the quotations are from my copy of the Bible, and every time it says LORD or GOD in capitals, the original text says YHWH. The question is, precisely, did they know this name? And the Bible contradicts itself.I know the name "Rick Santorum" but I wouldn't recognize his face. One day Mr. Santorum could come up to me and ask me for change for a twenty without introducing himself. He could then walk away and say "I appeared to Beleth, but by my name 'Rick Santorum' I did not make myself known." I still know the name "Rick Santorum", but since I don't know what he looks like, and since he didn't introduce himself, I didn't know who I gave change for a twenty to.

Six out of six so far.Rather two out of six. That's still a respectable hit rate for you; I wouldn't complain.

Still. The Bible tells us that God is not a man, is not the son of man, and that the Messiah will be called Immanuel. Along comes a man who is called "the son of man" and whose name is Jesus, and we're meant to believe that he's God and the Messiah?The Bible says Jesus will be called Immanuel. It doesn't say that he will be named Immanuel. People called John Wayne "the Duke"; that doesn't mean that that was his name.

And, as I said before, the son-of-man / not-son-of-man stuff is a Trinity weirdness. You may not agree with it, but you can't call it a contradiction.

It's not that it only just happened, but that you only just noticed.You best be smiling when you say that, sir. It's late and I'm prone to typos even when it isn't late.

The Bible has more than its share of contradictions. I'm not arguing that. It's just that some of the ones you mention are due more to misreading of what is being said with an intent to find mistakes. Try reading some of these passages and thinking to yourself "Under what conditions can both these passages be true?" instead of "Under what conditions must one of these passages be false?" You will catch a lot fewer false positives that way.

[Taffer]

Beleth Said:
So I made a typo. I have since corrected it. Spelling flames are considered poor form, even here.

Huh, could have fooled me.

Beleth Said (in response to a post I made):
1) It's spelled "omniscient", with an "s". And "boulder".

But I won't hold it against you ;).

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beleth
"Of the field" means "cultivatable".

Gen 1:11-12 says nothing about all plants and trees being created; there is no reason to assume that that is what is being said, especially when Gen 2:5 specifically says that plants and shrubs of the field didn't happen until then. I'll ask again. Are fruit trees cultivable, or aren't they?Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

6:19-20 says take two of everything.
7:2 says take two of some things and fourteen of others.
7:15 says that the animals went in in pairs.

6:19 only conflicts with 7:2 if you read it as "only two". Which is how "two" is in fact always read.
I know the name "Rick Santorum" but I wouldn't recognize his face. One day Mr. Santorum could come up to me and ask me for change for a twenty without introducing himself. He could then walk away and say "I appeared to Beleth, but by my name 'Rick Santorum' I did not make myself known." I still know the name "Rick Santorum", but since I don't know what he looks like, and since he didn't introduce himself, I didn't know who I gave change for a twenty to. But this little fable has nothing to do with the passages I quoted. God talks to these people. They talk back. He calls himself LORD (YHWH) and this is what they call him. They know him by the name of the LORD.The Bible says Jesus will be called Immanuel. It doesn't say that he will be named Immanuel. As I remember it, it does.And, as I said before, the son-of-man / not-son-of-man stuff is a Trinity weirdness. You may not agree with it, but you can't call it a contradiction. I can, 'cos it is. The fact that it has to do with the Trinity does not magically make it not a contradiction. The bible identifies the son of man as God and says that God is not the son of man.It's just that some of the ones you mention are due more to misreading of what is being said with an intent to find mistakes. I have bad news --- your powers of telepathy are failing you.Try reading some of these passages and thinking to yourself "Under what conditions can both these passages be true?" I did. And when the answer is "under the condition that "two" really means "fourteen"", this is what I call a contradiction.

[pgwenthold]

OK, I looked up the passages that I mentioned in the other thread:

1 Corinthians 13:4 - Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;

Exodus 34:14 - (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),
(or many others)

1 John 4:8 - He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.
(or John 4:16)


We have three statements

1) God is jealous
2) God is love
3) Love is not jealous

They cannot all be true.

[Christian Dude]

Dr Adequate, I promissed Ryokan I would answer his questions by today. I will post them later. I will start with yours next.

- Dude

[Christian Dude]

OK, Dr Adequate, here we go.

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
(1) There seems to be a big discrepancy between the first creation account (from Gen 1:1 - 2:3, which calls God "God") and the second (Gen 2:3 onward) which calls God "the Lord God".

Specifically, the first account has vegetation created before humans, but in the second account (2:5) it specifically says that God made man "when no plant of the field was in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up".
Genesis chapter one is giving us the chronological order of creation. Elohim (the mighty one) is the name used for God in that chapter because it shows God as the creator. In this chapter, there is no relationship with man yet. It is explaining to us the majesty and creative power of God.

In chapter 2, we begin to see the relationship God has with man. YHWH (existent one) said Jehovah or Yahweh, depending on your pronunciation, put before Elohim in chapter two for the name translated LORD God, shows us the change in the priority of what is being communicated now. It is God’s sacred name, the name many scholars call his covenant name. Gen 2:5 is beginning to show us the importance of why God did things. The mention that there was no man to cultivate the ground shows that the primary reason for vegetation will be for man’s food. Verse six is where the vegetation would start to grow now that God has set in motion the vegetation’s irrigation. Verse seven now shows God bringing man into existence. This chapter in not about creation, it is about the beginning of our relationship with God and the very first covenant God makes with man.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
(2) Gen 4:2 says that Cain was "a tiller of the ground". Yet Gen 9:20 tells me that "Noah was the first tiller of the soil".
The NASB, NIV and KJV do not say that Noah was the first tiller of the soil in Gen 9:20. They just say he was a farmer, not the first farmer. They are excellent and very accurate translations, it is not likely that those English versions have it wrong.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
(3) In Gen 6:3, God decrees that the days of man shall be "one hundred and twenty years". But plenty of people in Genesis are recorded as living much longer than that after God decides this.
Yes, your statement is true, some people did live longer than that after God said he would not strive with man forever. Lets look at the whole verse. From the NASB - Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." At this point God is upset, man is becoming very wicked. We have emotions because God has emotions, this is an emotional statement from God. God says he will not strive with us forever. Well he wants to be with us forever. So what does he mean? I think it means that he will not put up with our junk forever. Then he points out we are flesh. In scripture, when we are called flesh or fleshly, it is a reference to our sinful state. Not our skin. So, because of our fallen state, God is going to reduce our life spans from what they originally could have been even after sin entered our lives. We are meant to live forever and Adam and Eve would have never suffered a physical death if they had not sinned. God has chosen not to suffer the sin we would amass in a long life. It also is not an absolute literal cutoff date for our lives. It is a average time we could live. Obviously people do not live exactly a 120 years. Babies die young, kids die, teenagers die. People can die at any age before a 120 years. So the fact that some people lived longer is not a problem either.

That is all I have time for tonight. I will keep going if, even though you might disagree with my explanations, you respect my position and find them worth considering. If you think this is totally absurd and will not give any consideration to my explanations, please let me know so I don’t spend time on this.

- Dude

[Z]

OK, I want to throw this out - to no one in particular - just to see what reaction it gets.

1) God is Omniscient. God knows everything - all that was, all that is, all that will be. God knows every thought and feeling any thinking thing has ever had or will ever have.

2) God created everything. From the vast expanse of the universe, to the tiniest quark. He created angels, man, planets, stars, everything.

3) If an angel turned evil, it was because God designed it to do so. If a man turns evil, it is because God designed it to do so. Consider points one and two, and this is the inescapable conclusion! Points one and two mean that, absolutely, no free will can exist save for God's - and no free will exists whatsoever within God's creation. So if a man is to be damned, it is because it is God's will that he be damned, from the moment God conceived of this man.

4) Based on the above, all good and all evil is of God. So why, then, are we supposed to love God? God, the maker of tragedy and vast misfortune? God, who makes Man prone to evil, makes Man to do evil, then punishes Man for doing the very thing he was made to do?

If I make a wagon, I know it can be used for good or for evil. I trust it will be used for good, because I am not omniscient. But if I make a bomb, I can only make it knowing it will be used for evil. Thus, my will in making the bomb can only be considered slightly less evil than the will of whosoever uses the bomb. This also applies to the Supreme Creator. For all the wonder and beauty of the universe, a Supreme Creator might be worthy of respect; but for all the horror and evil of the same universe, the same Supreme Creator would be worthy only of contempt. Reconciling this view, I think, would be an incredibly difficult thing to do.

Thanks for your patience.

[/derail]

[Ravenwood]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
>Snippage
The NASB, NIV and KJV do not say that Noah was the first tiller of the soil in Gen 9:20. They just say he was a farmer, not the first farmer. They are excellent and very accurate translations, it is not likely that those English versions have it wrong.
>Snippage
- Dude [/B]

I think that you are reaching quite a bit when you say that the KJV is very accurate (I have not read the NIV or NASB) KJV is a terrible translation compared to scholarly translations of the Codex Septagint or Codex Vaticanus, the only forms of the bible older are fragments of paparii or Jewish copies of the OT. I have never understood why direct translations of either are not in widespread use (the Catholic church aside, IIRC they base theirs off of both codexes) As usual,YMMV because both codexes have their problems & at least one translation in the middle ages was so bad that the Vatican issued a codex of errata...

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Dr. A.,

I applaud your efforts here, and I think the bible is filled with contradiction, as any book of this sort would be. For years I’ve been particularly fond that there are two versions of creation (yes, Christian Dude, there are clearly two different versions) and that the 10 Commandments folks in American get all uppity about have no reason to be represented as written on stone tablets (thank Cecil B. DeMille for that). But this is about who first tilled the earth. I use The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) from my old bible as lit class, and in Gen. 4.2 it calls “Cain a tiller of the ground�; but Gen. 9.20 says “Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard.� So maybe that vineyard is the difference.

Oddly, however, even though the editors of the NOAB say that the conflict in the story of Cain and Able “reflects the tension between farmers and semi-nomads, two different ways of life that are symbolized in the two types of offerings,� the note for Gen. 9.20 says “In the new age, Noah was the first to engage in agriculture.� Funny, but I'm pretty sure that farming is a form of agriculture, so it seems that editors working on something as important as the bible can forget things and make contradictions. (Who would have thought it?) Clearly, though, Cain was the first person engaged in agriculture. Unless you want to count Eve’s fruit picking as an agricultural activity.

Hmmm . . . Now that might be interesting. Just a bit of free association here, not meant as a derail, but does anyone know if early Hebrews or others they were associated with had some sort of wild plant/vegetable/fruit god myth? If there was such an early tale, Eve picking the fruit could also be about the death of such a god, and signify a transition from a hunting/gathering society to a more agriculturally based one. That would also connect with conflict in the Cain and Able story. Just a thought.

Oh, one more thing, this about the name of the Lord. Gen. 4.26 states “At that time people began to invoke the name of the Lord.� The note for the this passage clearly points out there is a contradiction: “This tradition traces the worship of the Lord (Yahweh) back to the time of Adam’s grandson (5.3), in contrast to other traditions which claim that the sacred name was introduced in Moses’ time (Ex 3.13-15; 6.2-3).

Keep up the good work, Dr. A.

[Christian Dude]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
OK, I want to throw this out - to no one in particular - just to see what reaction it gets.

1) God is Omniscient. God knows everything - all that was, all that is, all that will be. God knows every thought and feeling any thinking thing has ever had or will ever have.

2) God created everything. From the vast expanse of the universe, to the tiniest quark. He created angels, man, planets, stars, everything.

3) If an angel turned evil, it was because God designed it to do so. If a man turns evil, it is because God designed it to do so. Consider points one and two, and this is the inescapable conclusion! Points one and two mean that, absolutely, no free will can exist save for God's - and no free will exists whatsoever within God's creation. So if a man is to be damned, it is because it is God's will that he be damned, from the moment God conceived of this man.

4) Based on the above, all good and all evil is of God. So why, then, are we supposed to love God? God, the maker of tragedy and vast misfortune? God, who makes Man prone to evil, makes Man to do evil, then punishes Man for doing the very thing he was made to do?

If I make a wagon, I know it can be used for good or for evil. I trust it will be used for good, because I am not omniscient. But if I make a bomb, I can only make it knowing it will be used for evil. Thus, my will in making the bomb can only be considered slightly less evil than the will of whosoever uses the bomb. This also applies to the Supreme Creator. For all the wonder and beauty of the universe, a Supreme Creator might be worthy of respect; but for all the horror and evil of the same universe, the same Supreme Creator would be worthy only of contempt. Reconciling this view, I think, would be an incredibly difficult thing to do.

Thanks for your patience.

[/derail]
Zaayrdragon, I don’t agree with your logic on this. Because the Lord knew ahead of time that some angels and most people would reject him does not mean he designed them to reject him. It is exactly what you refuse to accept; free will. It is Jesus’ love and respect for us that allows us to chose to reject him. He will not interfere with that choice in any way. It may seem strange to you, but that is an act of love, not trying to force angels or people to love him, letting us chose on our own.

Why is making a weapon evil? If governments would not have made weapons in WWII, Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler would have ruled the world and killed many, many millions more than they did. The world would have been under the rule of a very evil and sick man. The use of weapons by the Allied forces is what stopped that from happening. But because the Allied forces used those weapons, did that make the Allied forces evil? No, not in my opinion.

[Z]

Is the Lord all-powerful?

If the Lord is as described, then every evil thing is by the Lord's own design. The logic is infallible. Otherwise, God is either NOT omniscient, NOT omnipotent, or NOT creator of the Universe.

As for your second paragraph, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. In my opinion, making a tool whose only purpose is to hurt or kill is evil, even if only a lesser evil. Yes, ultimately, it may be necessary to defend one's home or nation, to have weapons; but that doesn't make weapons less evil, IMHO.

The point being, if you make a device whose purpose is only to harm others, then you are, by extension, causing that harm to others. God cannot help but make everyone and everything to do exactly what they have always done, unless God is not omniscient; in which case, the problem becomes nicely resolved. As such, if there is evil in the world, it is by God's design; if there is sin, it is by God's will.

You can't toss a stone into a valley and tell it not to fall.

[Ashles]

Dr A your list is, of course, adequate as always.

But here is a slightly longer list of contradictions in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html).

Or if we look at it by book here is a list of well over a thousand contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html).

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Ashles
But here is a slightly longer list of contradictions in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html).

Ah, yes, the stellar Biblical scholarship of the SAB.

In the list of supposed contradictions on whether alcohol is OK (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/alcohol.html), one of their examples is particularly egregious. Numbers 6:3 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/6.html#3) is quoted as if it applied generally, yet its context makes clear that it only applied to those who took the nazirite vow. It also uses verses condemning the abuse of alcohol as examples of verses that are totally against it. (Note on Isaiah 5:22: In the NRSV, its meaning is clearer than in the KJV, reading "Ah, you who are heroes in drinking wine and valiant at mixing drink," which is clearly mocking heavy drinkers.) Notice that the passage that does seem to recommend what might be considered alcohol abuse, Proverbs 31:6-9, applies to those who can hardly do harm even if drunk, while the verses preceding it, Proverbs 31:4-5, condemn alcohol abuse for those who need sober judgment to do their duties. It's a neat trick; the SAB uses the verses focusing on the bad side of alcohol as examples of an absolute prohibition on it, ignoring that these verses never go so far as to condemn drinking altogether, while using the verses that focus on the good side of alcohol as examples of an absolute permission to use it. Very cute, and very dishonest.

The list of supposed contradictions about whether adultery is OK (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/adultery.html) is even worse. The verses listed as supporting that adultery is forbidden are indeed unambiguously against adultery, but the verses supposedly in support of adultery do no such thing! Numbers 31:18 is about taking virgin women that have been captured in a battle as wives or concubines. Not admirable, but not adultery. (Like it or not, polygamy was allowed then.) The verses quoted from the book of Hosea are about Hosea marrying a prostitute in order to act out God's relationship with Israel, which supposedly, like Hosea's wife, had strayed. Again, it's a lot of things, but being in favor of adultery isn't one of them.

More dubious lists:

Supposed Bible contradictions on dancing (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/dancing.html)

Was Paul without guile? (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/guile.html) (Does the SAB's author understand that Paul can be thoroughly sarcastic?)

Supposed contradictions about marriage (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/marriage.html) (Does the SAB's author understand the concept of something being good, even very good, but still being second-best?)

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Ashles
Dr A your list is, of course, adequate as always.

But here is a slightly longer list of contradictions in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html).

Or if we look at it by book here is a list of well over a thousand contradictions (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html). A popular tactic used by IDers to discredit evolution is to use their limited understanding of evolution to come up with arguments by incredulity. They skim an evolution book, cherry-pick what it says, and then pose objections without ever doing any more thorough research into what the answers to their objections really are.

I daresay that what Dr. A is doing to discredit the Bible is exactly what IDers do to discredit evolution.

There have been a lot of books written to explain the difficult and contradictory-at-first-glance passages of the Bible. Without taking the time to read them, one only gets one side of the story... which, when that's all that is used to form a decision, is pretty much the definition of "closed-mindedness."

I maybe assuming something that isn't true. I am assuming Dr. A has never taken the time to read a few apologetics books. But I am assuming that because of what he has said here.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Taffer
Huh, could have fooled me.

But I won't hold it against you ;). I didn't flame you, I enlightened you. I knew what you meant. Dr. A pretended that he couldn't even figure out what I meant, even though I had used the right word only nine words away from the typo.

He played the pedantic fool and I called him on it.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
Genesis chapter one is giving us the chronological order of creation. The trouble is that Genesis 2 seems to contradict this chronology, by setting the creation of man on a dry, rainless, and barren earth. You don't seem to have adressed this.The NASB, NIV and KJV do not say that Noah was the first tiller of the soil in Gen 9:20. They just say he was a farmer, not the first farmer. They are excellent and very accurate translations, it is not likely that those English versions have it wrong. Whereas I have the RSV, which was also translated by excellent scholars. Unlike the KJV, which is not an excellent translation (except in the literary sense).

Still, if the scholars disagree, than I guess we should assume (in the absence of further information) that the correct translation is the one which makes the Bible consistent. It also is not an absolute literal cutoff date for our lives. It is a average time we could live. Obviously people do not live exactly a 120 years. Babies die young, kids die, teenagers die. People can die at any age before a 120 years. But no-one would ever think of reading as denying that people can die young. "My spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years". God is talking about shortening the human lifespan, isn't he? So the fact that some people lived longer is not a problem either. I wouldn't quibble about a few years. But Eber, for example, lives to be 464. That's much larger than 120. Biblical literalism hardly seems compatible with God's words being out by a factor of nearly four.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by jjramsey
Ah, yes, the stellar Biblical scholarship of the SAB.

In the list of supposed contradictions on whether alcohol is OK (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/alcohol.html), one of their examples is particularly egregious. Numbers 6:3 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/6.html#3) is quoted as if it applied generally, yet its context makes clear that it only applied to those who took the nazirite vow. It also uses verses condemning the abuse of alcohol as examples of verses that are totally against it. (Note on Isaiah 5:22: In the NRSV, its meaning is clearer than in the KJV, reading "Ah, you who are heroes in drinking wine and valiant at mixing drink," which is clearly mocking heavy drinkers.) Notice that the passage that does seem to recommend what might be considered alcohol abuse, Proverbs 31:6-9, applies to those who can hardly do harm even if drunk, while the verses preceding it, Proverbs 31:4-5, condemn alcohol abuse for those who need sober judgment to do their duties. It's a neat trick; the SAB uses the verses focusing on the bad side of alcohol as examples of an absolute prohibition on it, ignoring that these verses never go so far as to condemn drinking altogether, while using the verses that focus on the good side of alcohol as examples of an absolute permission to use it. Very cute, and very dishonest.
Well no-one ever said they were all valid.

So that's two of them.

However many of them are clearly contradictory - pointing out two weak ones doesn't make the list invalid.
In fact I would say anyone attempting to claim the Bible has no contradictions would be the dishonest one.

And it's such a pointless thing to say anyway. The Bible was written by people so it is bound to have mistakes and contradictions. It doesn't mean that God isn't real or he didn't inspire them to write it or anything. It just makes those making the claim look silly. The stretches and pretend logic used to paper the cracks is ridiculous. If God wanted the Bible to be perfect it would be perfect and we wouldn't be able to have these discussions.
It isn't perfect and much of it clearly reflects the culture of the time. Why does that cause such issue with some believers?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I'll ask again. Are fruit trees cultivable, or aren't they?And I'll answer again. Not all of them.

As I remember it, it does [say "He will be named Emmanuel"].Perhaps you should look it up instead of relying on your memory.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Beleth
A popular tactic used by IDers to discredit evolution is to use their limited understanding of evolution to come up with arguments by incredulity. They skim an evolution book, cherry-pick what it says, and then pose objections without ever doing any more thorough research into what the answers to their objections really are.

I daresay that what Dr. A is doing to discredit the Bible is exactly what IDers do to discredit evolution.
But the difference is that other facts and evidence can be used to explain more about evolution.
And claims it makes are testable and replicable.

Whereas all the Bible has to back itself up is itself. So if it contains a contradiction it remains a contradiction because there is nothing else to compare it against.

It's hardly "cherry picking" to pick a section out of a book and point out that it contradicts another section of the book.

If a creature was found tomorrow that contradicted what we know about evolution (e.g. a 70 million year old homo sapien fossil) , would it be "cherry picking" to use it to show the inconsistencies of evolutionary theories?

It only takes one fact to demonstrate something is incorrect, and it certainly isn't cherry picking" when you point it out.

It is closed-minded to refuse to admit the potential for error in a cherished theory.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beleth
I maybe assuming something that isn't true. Yes. What's more embarrassing for you is that you're doing it out loud and in public.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beleth
Perhaps you should look it up instead of relying on your memory. Certainly.

"Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Ashles

However many of them are clearly contradictory - pointing out two weak ones doesn't make the list invalid.

I pointed out well more than two. I count about five sets of bogus contradictions so far, two of which I dissected above. Now I'm sure that there are valid contradictions in the rest of the SAB's list, but just by examining those five examples, it is clear that the methodology used by the SAB (if one can dignify it with the name "methodology") is so slanted and intellectually dishonest that to find real contradictions in that list, one has to do a lot of sifting of wheat and chaff.

Originally posted by Ashles
The stretches and pretend logic used to paper the cracks is ridiculous. If God wanted the Bible to be perfect it would be perfect and we wouldn't be able to have these discussions.

Not necessarily. Some things, like the conflicting genealogies in Matthew and Luke, would probably not have existed, but we might still have various imprecisions and differences that could reasonably be harmonized, only to find that there would still be those who insist on woodenly interpreting them as contradictions rather than giving the texts the benefit of the doubt.

On the one hand, one can give the Bible too much of the benefit of the doubt and come up with strained, ad hoc explanations that explain away all the apparent contradictions. This is too lenient. On the other hand, one can press details in the texts far beyond what the authors intended and come up with phantom contradictions that misrepresent the texts. Somewhere in between the two extremes is where one ought to be.

(I might add that the SAB goes beyond mere overpressing of details in some cases and outright misinterprets the texts to come up with false contradictions. Its supposed contradictions on adultery are a good example of this.)

Originally posted by Ashles
It's hardly "cherry picking" to pick a section out of a book and point out that it contradicts another section of the book.

That depends on what sections you pull and their context, and on what you say the sections mean versus what they actually mean. (Notice for example that the SAB misrepresents Bible passages (or "sections," to use your terms) against drunkenness as being against drinking altogether.)

[stamenflicker]

Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself, I am large... I contain multitudes.

"Song of Myself," Walt Whitman

What I can't figure is why it bothers Christains, and I suppose many atheists, that a holy book-- any holy book-- contains contradictions. Contradiction is such a part of the human experience and it leads us full circle into views of ourselves we wouldn't have otherwise. Personally I'm glad the bible contradicts itself. I must admit it was weird to think about at first, and maybe hard to recon with my faith for a bit, but the end result to me has been a deeper appreciation of it. It is evidence of a dynamic and changing interaction between people of faith and their god.

Flick

[FireGarden]

Hi, Flick
What I can't figure is why it bothers Christains, and I suppose many atheists, that a holy book-- any holy book-- contains contradictions. Contradiction is such a part of the human experience and it leads us full circle into views of ourselves we wouldn't have otherwise.
Yes, contradictions can be a very useful literary device. Sometimes it's clear that the author used it on purpose. Like in a comedy episode of the X-files where government agents that are faking alien abductions are abducted by aliens -- the eyewitness reports conflict resulting in hysterical confusion. Can you give us some examples of the contradictions in the bible that you find useful?
Personally I'm glad the bible contradicts itself. [...] It is evidence of a dynamic and changing interaction between people of faith and their god.
Again, specific examples would be nice.

If we were talking about parent/child relationships, then I can see some apparent contradictions in the way my parents used to structure my life and the way they let me live my own life now. But it was always understood that this would be the case, even down to phrases like "When you're older you can ..." etc.

What evidence is there in the bible to indicate that God has always wanted a "changing interaction between people of faith and their god."? Is God growing up or is it humanity? Because I think that all the changes have been instigated by us. (Well I would -- I don't believe he exists.) It is our idea of God that has matured -- hence the contradictions.

[Dr Adequate]

FG and Flick --- This is interesting, but off the subject. Stamenflicker is not, after all, defending Biblical literalism. The idea that the Bible contained this sort of minor contradiction was no problem for me when I was a Christian, and I would never hold it against Christians now. But these problems are a huge objection against the idea that the Bible is the single perfect testimony, without scribal error or deliberate corruption, of one person, namely God, who (by definition) never lies or is in error. (Let alone the nutters who think that the KJV is the One True Translation Into English.)

[FireGarden]

I don't mind moving to another thread. But I'll let Flick decide, since it's his turn to speak.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
(Let alone the nutters who think that the KJV is the One True Translation Into English.)

I once worked with of of them. That was the first time I heard the phrase, "The Living Bible for dead people."

[Ashles]

Originally posted by jjramsey
That depends on what sections you pull and their context, and on what you say the sections mean versus what they actually mean. (Notice for example that the SAB misrepresents Bible passages (or "sections," to use your terms) against drunkenness as being against drinking altogether.)
Well it depends on the extent to which you want to pretend that a sentence means something other than what a sentence actually says. The majority of the contradictions that I have read there appear to be clear contradictions.

It appears you are cherry picking some that (I agree) are certainly questionable and attempting to cast doubt on the whole list.

At the very least it is fair to say that there quite simply are many contradictions in the bible.

The particular motives of the SAB are not relevent if they are nonetheless demonstrating clear contradictions.
Making the SAB sound bad doesn't make the contradictions exist any less.

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Ashles
Well it depends on the extent to which you want to pretend that a sentence means something other than what a sentence actually says.

In the cases I pointed out above, it was the SAB "pretend that a sentence means something other than what a sentence actually says."

[i]Originally posted by Ashles
The majority of the contradictions that I have read there appear to be clear contradictions.

It appears you are cherry picking some that (I agree) are certainly questionable and attempting to cast doubt on the whole list.

I indeed picked out the examples that clearly show a flawed and dishonest methodology. Now that does not mean that all the SAB's supposed contradictions are false. What it does mean is that I have to check out their supposed contradictions carefully to make sure that the SAB isn't playing me in less obvious ways, or as I put it earlier, sift the wheat from the chaff.

Originally posted by Ashles
The particular motives of the SAB are not relevent if they are nonetheless demonstrating clear contradictions.

The motives aren't relevant if the methodology is clean, but if the method for finding contradictions is screwy, that is relevant.

[Dr Adequate]

I was thinking maybe we could come up with something more balanced and accurate than the SAB for the JREF wiki.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I was thinking maybe we could come up with something more balanced and accurate than the SAB for the JREF wiki.
I didn't know this was for the Wiki.

I think the SAB sums up the contradictions nicely.

Anyone who wants to believe the Bible is perfect will never accept a single contradiction, no matter how tortuous the logic they have to use to make it work.

So the only real point of making a list of contradictions is either for amsement or to make people think a little about it.
So the SAB make a huge long list, some of which are clear cut, and some of which are highly dubious.

And it'll work either as amusement or as discussion points.

Trying to create a list that is accepted as definitive is clearly going to be impossible. I honestly don't know how anyone is going to create an "accurate" list of the contradictions in the Bible.
These threads on the subject illustrate that.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ashles
So the SAB make a huge long list, some of which are clear cut, and some of which are highly dubious. The "highly dubious" ones just provide cheap points for literalists. Skeptics should be able to do better. Complete accuracy is impossible, but we could at least dispense with the outright tendentious and the dubious, and have a shorter list consisting only of the best arguments. This would be a lot more useful as a resource.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
The "highly dubious" ones just provide cheap points for literalists. Skeptics should be able to do better. Complete accuracy is impossible, but we could at least dispense with the outright tendentious and the dubious, and have a shorter list consisting only of the best arguments. This would be a lot more useful as a resource.
To be honest that's my slight issue.

Can we in any way consider even the most blatant contradictions in the Bible as a resource in any way? It's not like it could be considered evidence towards anything. Or even useful.

We haven't found a single contradiction that a determined believer can't formulate some form of argument to counter. Of course they are ludicrous arguments, but still it comes down to opinion and can never be more compelling than however someone personally wants to take it.
It's not like evolution versus YE Creationism where there are actual facts to go by.

I assumed all these contradiction threads were either for amusement or to merely stimulate conversation and see what kind of defense could be attempted.

But if it is to generate a list of the most severe contradictions for Wiki then I misunderstood the purpose of the thread and the type of contradiction which we were looking for.

[FireGarden]

If there are literalists going to SAB and walking away thinking that all skeptics are that easy to refute, then we should make a better list.


Why not pick the most clear-cut contradiction? And, before we post it on the JREF wiki, we should post it on Christian bulletin boards, and look it up at Christian apologetic sites. You know, ... A bit of research and development.

And even if we don't find one that everyone agrees is a contradiction, we post the explanations and leave people to decide for themselves. (Which is why I like thread format, rather than wiki format -- but that's something else)

[Kopji]

I'm not sure how productive 'bible contradictions' are. People who want to believe find a way.

There are just better ideas around, and some biblical ideas have led to all kinds of practical problems.

The Genesis passages about everything being created just for man are fairly primitive.

Take The Book Job. A favorite book and good reading, but there is a glaring omission in the text. Why don't any of Job's detractors advocate unbelief? There is the 'curse God and die' stuff, but that is belief.
Hey Job: Why not just stop believing in a God who would play these games?

I've always had trouble with 2 Timothy 3:16, even when a believer.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

There's a nice discussion here:
linky (http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/scriptur.htm)

The basic issue was that it was sort of a nagging logic problem: So this is scripture, and well, it says all scripture is given by inspiration, so this must be inspired.

There's plenty of other stuff. The Bible was not created in a social vacuum. Some passages might not even be of religious origin (like Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, & Ecclesiastes) There are passages being ok with slavery, etc. They just weren't issues.
Not conflicts though.

[c4ts]

I find the SAB amusing, but I don't think of it as a serious reference or anything. If someone likes quoting the Bible out of context all the time, here is a way to poke fun at them (though not one I would always resort to). That's about it.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Kopji
I've always had trouble with 2 Timothy 3:16, even when a believer.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. But of course St Paul doesn't think that his letters are "scripture" --- he's talking about the OT.

[Kopji]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
But of course St Paul doesn't think that his letters are "scripture" --- he's talking about the OT.

More likely not written by Paul at all, but in the 2nd century.
Linky (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html)

This passage is at the heart of modern belief in the need for the Bible to be 'inerrant'.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Christian Dude
The use of weapons by the Allied forces is what stopped that from happening. But because the Allied forces used those weapons, did that make the Allied forces evil? No, not in my opinion.

Doesn't the 10 commandments say "Thou shall not kill"? Where does the commandments list exceptions to that rule?

If it is ok to kill if you have a good reason then I would assume there are exceptions to the other rules as well.

[Darat]

Originally posted by merphie
Doesn't the 10 commandments say "Thou shall not kill"? Where does the commandments list exceptions to that rule?

If it is ok to kill if you have a good reason then I would assume there are exceptions to the other rules as well.

It's normally explained as meaning "Thou shall not murder", however that itself rises some interesting points in interpretation since, as far as I am aware, the commandments do not go to give the definition for "murder".

[merphie]

Originally posted by jjramsey
Numbers 31:18 is about taking virgin women that have been captured in a battle as wives or concubines. Not admirable, but not adultery. (Like it or not, polygamy was allowed then.) The verses quoted from the book of Hosea are about Hosea marrying a prostitute in order to act out God's relationship with Israel, which supposedly, like Hosea's wife, had strayed. Again, it's a lot of things, but being in favor of adultery isn't one of them.


If the bible is the word of god then why isn't polygamy allowed today?

What difference does it make between now and then? If the bible is the word of god and it allows polygamy then we should still be able to practice it today.

Otherwise, the bible is wrong or man is putting himself above god.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Darat
It's normally explained as meaning "Thou shall not murder", however that itself rises some interesting points in interpretation since, as far as I am aware, the commandments do not go to give the definition for "murder".

Agreed. Most versions I have seen around here say "Thou shall not kill" So I use that definition because I was raised with it. That is a contradiction in religion.

If you are a Christian, how can you be sure Islam is not correct? Would you go to hell for following the wrong version? Maybe South Park is right and only Mormons go to heaven?

It really depends on which version of the 10 commandments you are reading. Apparently God is schizophrenic.

"Convert now or fall forever!"