Consistency of the Bible?

[KravMagaSelfDefense]

I need some help, I've always thought the Bible was perfect and all that, irrefutable and consistent, but I decided to check out what atheists say about the topic, for the sake of being openminded. I'm seeing "lists of over 700 inconsistencies in the Bible," some of which really got me thinking, i.e. rulers' ages change from book to book, God's nature seems to change as he goes from being all-perfect and compassionate to, frankly, brutal and seemingly unjust, i.e. the dashing of the babies on the rocks in the Old Testament, how is that justified with the loving God we all conceive of? you might say that he wanted the babies to escape the hellish cities before they grew up and became filth-ridden and sinful, but in that case why were they killed in such an agonizing fashion as dashing them on rocks... someone please help.

[Canuckster1127]

Obviously it's not possible to deal specifically with a question that lists 700 discrepancies. I have a degree in Biblical literature. I don't say that to impress but to provide some background.

There are some passages and elements of the Bible that are difficult to reconcile and there are quite a few "errors" cited by atheists and skeptics that are quite easy to answer. Of course, when you're dealing with someone who doesn't want to hear an answer and is simply trying to attack, it won't mean very much to them when you do provide an answer.

As to the Bible being "perfect". There are a lot of ways to take that. I believe the Bible is inspired and reliable to the standards of the time and culture that it was written. There are issues in the scriptures that we have today because, even as some Christians are aware, we don't have any of the original manuscripts. Even if you believe the Bible is "inerrant" (meaning without any errors) most who look seriously at the issue realize that if the originals were inerrant (something that must be taken by faith) we don't have the originals and it's quite apparent that there are limited places where there are simple errors such as an innocent scribal mistake or place where there have been notes written by a scribe about a passage that were late copied as part of the scripture themselves. There's even a very small number of additions that appear to have been purposely inserted by someone who was trying to add to the Scriptures.

Because we have some many different manuscripts going back so many years, it's not very hard to ascertain what the original would have been, but that's a fair sight from being the "perfect" that some of us Christians claim.

To understand the Bible there are times when you have to do some work to understand the original language, or the culture and when you do that, what seems difficult at first glance resolved nicely. There's some cases where different passages say different things and you have to take into account the perspective of the person recounting something. Historical events reporting can be like two people watching a car accident from opposite side of the street. Each one saw the same accident but each saw it from a different angle. Their speaking the truth but they don't reconcile exactly because of that difference in perspective.

There are plenty of sites and books that address many of the issues that are raised as "errors" and some of those seeking to denegrate the Bible don't want to hear it. There are some that are difficult to work through and I'll confess that there are places I take by faith and admit before God and others that I don't have it all figured out.

The real measure of God's revelation isn't the Bible, although the Bible is very important. What the early Church referred to as "the Word of God" wasn't the Bible. It was Jesus Christ and the good news of the Gospel. The Bible is key in showing us this same message and Jesus is the lens by which we understand the Scriptures.

I hope that helps. Ask some questions if you need or if you want to give one example I can walk through with you how to listen and hear some of these elements and not just the shrill voices of those who don't want to be convinced (and hopefully not with the voice of someone who denies that there are any issues.) There's a reasonable middle to find on most questions.

[jlay]

A good read that deals with bible difficulties is Paul Copan's, Is God a Moral Monster?

There is some very good scholarship out there that has helped me. The bible will often use hyperbole. We use it all the time. We might say, "we are going to destroy your team." Are we?

I can't think of the exact reference, but in one place in the bible it talks of totally destroying the enemy. And next it gives instructions on dealing with female prisoners. Well, if they were destroyed, why would you need rules on dealing with survivors?

Every so called inconsistency and difficulty in the bible can be answered. It doesn't mean the answer will satisfy the skeptic.

[Canuckster1127]

Paul's book is on my wish list. He teaches at the university I got my business degree at. Looking forward to it. Frank Viola recommends it highly.

[1over137]

Paul Copan has on his homepage many articles and “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics” is among them.
http://www.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=45

[Steve]

I think the second poster is correct that you will likely find that several of the 700 inconsistencies can be explained somewhat. However there are many that can not be explained and, in my opinion, if only one inconsistency is really an inconsistency, then the bible is not the "word" of a perfect god. Also, his argument about free-thinkers not wanting to listen to excuses for these inconsistencies also goes the other way. Religious people will twist the words into something that they think makes sense. Many religious people are taught that it is wrong to question your faith and denial is a huge part of their belief system. You seem to be openminded enough to at least investigate your own beliefs, but a lot of religious people are not.

Lets just take a small sample and see if our bible scholar can take a crack at a few of them. I'll use NIV since it uses plain English and is easier to understand.

1. Chariots defeat God
In Jeremiah 32:27, Matthew 19:26 and many other places, the bible talks about how nothing is too hard for God and that "with God, all things are possible." Then Judges 1:19 says "The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots."

I'm sure back in the day, Iron chariots were pretty awesome, but today it seems ridiculous that iron chariots would have any part in changing the actions of an army backed by God. Right? This is not taken out of context, I have asked several extremely religious people about this and even their study bibles state that there is no explanation for why chariots defeated God.

2. In Genesis, Jacob says he has seen god face to face, but in John the bible states that nobody has seen God...
Genesis 32:30 - So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
John 1:18 - No one has ever seen God

3. In Acts 1:24, God "know everyone's heart" and in Psalm 139, God can read minds, but in Genesis 22:12, Deuteronomy 8:2 and Deuteronomy 13:3 God tests people "in order to know what was in your heart" and states "Now I know that you fear God" (implying that he didn't know before hand). He knows everyone's heart, but has to test people to find out what's in their heart? That makes no sense.

4. God does not change:
James 1:17 - Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows
Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

...then God changes
Jonah 3:10 - When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened (direct contradiction of the end of the Numbers quote above)

2 Kings 20:1 ..."Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover" ...minutes later... 2 Kings 20:4-5 "I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you"

Genesis 6:6 - The LORD was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Genesis 8:20 - God regrets the flood and says "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood"

5. Does god show favoritism?
Romans 2:11 - For God does not show favoritism
Romans 9:11-13 - Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls - she was told, "The older will serve the younger" Just as it is written "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

6. Does god Lie?
Hebrews 6:18 - it is impossible for God to lie
2 Thessalonians 2:11 - For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
1 Kings 22:23 - So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours.

Wow, I just realized that this website automatically has pop-up windows for sections of the bible. If I had realized that earlier, it would have saved me a lot of typing. Lol.

[jlay]

Steve,

I think it is fine to question these types of things. All apparent contradictions must be studied in their context to see if they are such. First, how many of these did you come up with in your own study, and how many are things you picked up from anti-Christian literature? Have you studied each in context to see if there is a viable explanation?

Example:
...then God changes

Jonah 3:10 - When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened (direct contradiction of the end of the Numbers quote above)

This is not a direct contradiction. Do you know what 'direct contradiction' means? You are proof texting to try and defend what you already want to believe. More below.

2 Kings 20:1 ..."Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover" ...minutes later... 2 Kings 20:4-5 "I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you"

This critique makes a very obvious error. It assumes that the immutability of God is in opposition to His being directly engaged in the human experience. In Jonah, God repenting of His plans to destroy Ninevah did not mean God changed. He was exactly the same. The people of Ninevah changed. God always planned to destroy Ninevah and God always planned to spare them.

The same for Kings; You see you kind of left out some key information. Verse 2 tells us that Hezekiah turned to God in prayer. Thus opening what was already available to him. Both courses were already sovereignly laid out.

You wouldn't put these same conditions on yourself. A teacher always will pass and always will fail a student. The grading standard is set in place. If the student responds correctly he passes. And vice versa. Now if the teacher changed the standard at any time during the test, then you would have a different issue.

Regarding favoritism in the Romans example. You again attempt to put conditions on God you wouldn't even put on yourself. You are assuming that these two verses flow in the same thought. Obviously all of Romans ties together, but each of these sections is not the same. They both communicate something essential about the nature of God. Just like people have areas where they show no favoritism, they also have areas in which they do. Again an example with teachers. Can a teacher have a favorite student, and also show no partiality? Yes. In regards to the grading system, the teacher can grade without partiality. In fact, many test today are administered with student ID numbers and graded with a computer to remove any such thing. But, the teacher could also choose the favorite for a special role, or recognition. In this way the teacher is both partial and impartial. And there is no contradiction.

Regarding lying, it also fails to give credence to the context of what is actually being said or done by God.

Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

God is not like man in these areas. God does not change his mind in the sense that people do. God's mind is always set. That doesn't mean the outcome is set per se. Just as I showed with Jonah. God is the one who sent Jonah. His plans were to either judge Ninevah to destruction, or spare it.

Regarding God sending a spirit of deception. It's a difficulty. It's tough, but it isn't without explanation. Only if you are determined to see it as such. The 2nd Thess verse is all in the reading. God never changes in that He judges unbelief.
In fact, you are essentially verifying the prophetic truth of this verse. You are deluded.

[Katabole]

Steve, in part one of your inconsistencies you said:

I have asked several extremely religious people about this and even their study bibles state that there is no explanation for why chariots defeated God.

The chariots didn't defeat God, they defeated Judah. Yes, God was with Judah but just because He was, did not guarntee that Judah would win. In the book of Genesis, God was with Joseph. But that did not prevent Joseph from being sold into slavery. God was certainly with Jesus but God allowed Jesus to be crucified. You're making a presupposition half way through the story and asking why? In order to understand fully, you need to start at the beginning.

The introduction of iron chariots begins in Deut 20:1 (KJV) and continues in Josh 17:18 (KJV). The Israelites were told they would defeat those with iron chariots. God did not allow Judah to defeat them because it wasn't His will. If you had continued to chapter 4 of Judges, you would read that Israel under the leadership of the judge Deborah defeated the chariots. God claimed they would overcome those in chariots. Joshua told the Israelites they would defeat them. They did. That's why we have chapter 5 in the book of Judges which contains the Song of Deborah. The inconsistency isn't with what is written. The inconsistency arises in the way you applied what is written.

In part two of your inconsistencies you quote John 1:18 (KJV). If you had referred back to the Greek language that John is written in, you would notice that the phrase "has seen/ hath seen" is the Greek word 'Horao'. It means, "with both the eye and the mind." Reading it from the English language would certainly seem like there was a contradiction because Jacob (which you mentioned), Moses and Ezekiel all claim to have seen God. Jacob certainly saw the angel of the Lord but he did not see the mind of God. So when John says, "No one has seen God" he is correct. The only one who has seen both God in His Spirit and understands the mind of God is Christ, which is the part of the verse in John 1:18 (KJV) that you didn't include.

In part three of your inconsistencies you are claiming the Bible says that God is omnipotent and omniscient but that He's not. God's knowing what we will choose is a function of His omnipresence since He is in all places all the time. If He were not, He would not know what choices we were freely going to make. To deny that God is all-knowing, even of the choices we make, is to deny His omnipresence and reduce God's nature to something more like ourselves, which would be a mistake.

There are a number of figures of speech in the Bible and one of those figures is known as an Anthropopatheia or Condescension which ascribes to God what belongs to rational human beings, irrational creatures or inanimate things. Examples can be found in Gen 1:2, Gen 8:21, Psalm 74:11, Jer 2:13 and Hos 11:10. This figure of speech is used to give a deeper meaning than what's written, to illustate and teach truths that God wants the reader to learn. So if the Bible claims, "It never even entered God's mind", Jer 19:5 (KJV) it is utilizing a figure of speech to teach us about God and not saying that God is not all knowing.

God also claims He loves us. Since He is Creator and claims to be a Father, He has the right to test His children since He is the parent. The testing, just like He allowed to happen to Job or to Abraham disciplines us and displays our faith and shows God's righteousness because the Bible claims God is righteous. Again, no contradictions.

Jlay covered your fourth inconsistency admirably.

In your fifth inconsistency, you are claiming that God does not show favoritism but he does? I am an old earth creationist, gap creationist specifically. Therefore I believe Esau and Jacob's souls existed in the age (eon) before this age and that those souls had free will. According to what I understand, there was a rebellion in that age. I happen to believe that Esau was one of those that rebelled against God and Jacob was one of those souls that fought against Satan, in that age and time. So when God quashed the rebellion, instead of destroying Satan, Esau and the children that rebelled, he instead destroyed that age and created this age. He allowed Esau to be born into the flesh as an innocent baby not knowing good or evil, even though he hated Esau for rebelling against him. And what kind of person did Esau turn out to be? A person who couldn't care less about God. He allowed Jacob to be born into the flesh as well because as it says in the verse you quoted, "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Jacob was no better than Esau but because Jacob fought against Satan in that age, God gave Jacob a destiny. Thus why he hated Esau and loved Jacob. No contradiction.

In your sixth inconsistency, you are claiming the Bible says God cannot lie but He suposedly does does and/or will use lies? God will use disciplinary tactics if people reject Him. Why? Because He is righteous and Creator. If the result is them believing a lie as you quoted from Thess because of strong delusion, then they have reaped what they sowed. Gal 6:7 (KJV) Their unbelief, led to them believing a delusion that led to them believing a lie, not God lying to them because as you quoted God cannot lie. Again no contradiction.

I don't know if you're a hit and run poster or a person looking for genuine answers of spiritual truth Steve but if you came here not to get intellectual responses to your questions, you've come to the wrong place. I would kindly suggest that you maybe take a course in theology, philosophy, linguistics or history before resorting to making assumptions regarding a text you do not understand.

[DannyM]

Steve, in part one of your inconsistencies you said:

I have asked several extremely religious people about this and even their study bibles state that there is no explanation for why chariots defeated God.

The chariots didn't defeat God, they defeated Judah. Yes, God was with Judah but just because He was, did not guarntee that Judah would win. In the book of Genesis, God was with Joseph. But that did not prevent Joseph from being sold into slavery. God was certainly with Jesus but God allowed Jesus to be crucified. You're making a presupposition half way through the story and asking why? In order to understand fully, you need to start at the beginning.

The introduction of iron chariots begins in Deut 20:1 (KJV) and continues in Josh 17:18 (KJV). The Israelites were told they would defeat those with iron chariots. God did not allow Judah to defeat them because it wasn't His will. If you had continued to chapter 4 of Judges, you would read that Israel under the leadership of the judge Deborah defeated the chariots. God claimed they would overcome those in chariots. Joshua told the Israelites they would defeat them. They did. That's why we have chapter 5 in the book of Judges which contains the Song of Deborah. The inconsistency isn't with what is written. The inconsistency arises in the way you applied what is written.

In part two of your inconsistencies you quote John 1:18 (KJV). If you had referred back to the Greek language that John is written in, you would notice that the phrase "has seen/ hath seen" is the Greek word 'Horao'. It means, "with both the eye and the mind." Reading it from the English language would certainly seem like there was a contradiction because Jacob (which you mentioned), Moses and Ezekiel all claim to have seen God. Jacob certainly saw the angel of the Lord but he did not see the mind of God. So when John says, "No one has seen God" he is correct. The only one who has seen both God in His Spirit and understands the mind of God is Christ, which is the part of the verse in John 1:18 (KJV) that you didn't include.

In part three of your inconsistencies you are claiming the Bible says that God is omnipotent and omniscient but that He's not. God's knowing what we will choose is a function of His omnipresence since He is in all places all the time. If He were not, He would not know what choices we were freely going to make. To deny that God is all-knowing, even of the choices we make, is to deny His omnipresence and reduce God's nature to something more like ourselves, which would be a mistake.

There are a number of figures of speech in the Bible and one of those figures is known as an Anthropopatheia or Condescension which ascribes to God what belongs to rational human beings, irrational creatures or inanimate things. Examples can be found in Gen 1:2, Gen 8:21, Psalm 74:11, Jer 2:13 and Hos 11:10. This figure of speech is used to give a deeper meaning than what's written, to illustate and teach truths that God wants the reader to learn. So if the Bible claims, "It never even entered God's mind", Jer 19:5 (KJV) it is utilizing a figure of speech to teach us about God and not saying that God is not all knowing.

God also claims He loves us. Since He is Creator and claims to be a Father, He has the right to test His children since He is the parent. The testing, just like He allowed to happen to Job or to Abraham disciplines us and displays our faith and shows God's righteousness because the Bible claims God is righteous. Again, no contradictions.

Jlay covered your fourth inconsistency admirably.

In your fifth inconsistency, you are claiming that God does not show favoritism but he does? I am an old earth creationist, gap creationist specifically. Therefore I believe Esau and Jacob's souls existed in the age (eon) before this age and that those souls had free will. According to what I understand, there was a rebellion in that age. I happen to believe that Esau was one of those that rebelled against God and Jacob was one of those souls that fought against Satan, in that age and time. So when God quashed the rebellion, instead of destroying Satan, Esau and the children that rebelled, he instead destroyed that age and created this age. He allowed Esau to be born into the flesh as an innocent baby not knowing good or evil, even though he hated Esau for rebelling against him. And what kind of person did Esau turn out to be? A person who couldn't care less about God. He allowed Jacob to be born into the flesh as well because as it says in the verse you quoted, "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Jacob was no better than Esau but because Jacob fought against Satan in that age, God gave Jacob a destiny. Thus why he hated Esau and loved Jacob. No contradiction.

In your sixth inconsistency, you are claiming the Bible says God cannot lie but He suposedly does does and/or will use lies? God will use disciplinary tactics if people reject Him. Why? Because He is righteous and Creator. If the result is them believing a lie as you quoted from Thess because of strong delusion, then they have reaped what they sowed. Gal 6:7 (KJV) Their unbelief, led to them believing a delusion that led to them believing a lie, not God lying to them because as you quoted God cannot lie. Again no contradiction.

I don't know if you're a hit and run poster or a person looking for genuine answers of spiritual truth Steve but if you came here not to get intellectual responses to your questions, you've come to the wrong place. I would kindly suggest that you maybe take a course in theology, philosophy, linguistics or history before resorting to making assumptions regarding a text you do not understand.

Lovely

[Reactionary]

Katabole and Jlay, thank you for your very informative answers.

[neo-x]

And again Steve did a 'hit and run'. I don't think he cares or appreciates a bit about the hard work put to answer the objections.

Excellent posts by the way

[Murray]

Oh wow, the mighty steve striked again.

Postes crap, post get's dismantled, but he doesn't care because steve hates facts. Facts hurt his screwed up idiology.

He is like a child, he will say his argument, then scream and yell (in this case run) so he does not have to hear how he is wrong.

Some way to live a life.


And neo, he might no appriciate the nice long thought out posts, but I sure do enjoy reading them, alot of interesting stuff and great points in those dismantlement posts.

[neo-x]

And neo, he might no appriciate the nice long thought out posts, but I sure do enjoy reading them, alot of interesting stuff and great points in those dismantlement posts.

Indeed