Bible Contradictions

April 27, 2010 in Christianity, Religion | by James Onen

Too many!

Plenty more here.

29 comments

April 28, 2010 at 10:49 am

Ritah

This really cracked me up! But anyway, I wonder how many Christians have actually bothered to do their research as to what their “holy text” says. I certainly did, that’s why I’m an atheist.

June 23, 2012 at 1:42 pm

Johnny Ely.

Hi, Could someone please give me a phone number or email address for Freethought Kampala please. My email is jelysky@yahoo.com

May 6, 2010 at 6:21 pm

Dominic

Fatboy, your comments and research abt witchcraft are intersting. I agree there’s a thin line between Christianity and witchraft.

Here is my argument:

Both obviously believe in a higher power and i contend with the fact advance by mi friend Emma that Christianity is an utter exhibition of western culture deliberately sold to Africa as religion.

Do you know that most of the hallmarks of Catholicism is purely Roman culture (pagan culture) and the Pentecostalism is typical American Culture?

How about about witchcraft is truely a reflection of African culture and belief?

It is appaling when you discover a catechist who after attending mass on sunday morning, goes to visit a witchdoctor’s shrine to seek for devine intervention from the spirits to heal his sick child back home! This is hypocrisy of the highest order!

May 6, 2010 at 6:26 pm

Dominic

Hey fatboy, i had forgotten one thing: one of these days i am going to quit believe in the all this hypocrisy advanced by the so called clergy. i now prefer in believing in Art. It is not hypocrtic and noncorfimist.

May 7, 2010 at 3:08 pm

James Onen

You believe in ‘art’? what do you mean?

May 6, 2010 at 9:05 pm

ALFRED

Fat Boy,I love your wit but please tread carefully when it comes to issues of God.Never Mock God for Heavens sake

May 6, 2010 at 9:45 pm

James Onen

Hi Alfred,

How can I mock something I don’t believe exists? Can I mock Spider-Man too? Please realise that not everyone shares your beliefs.

You are a Christian, right?

Well, try and read what I’ve written on Islam and hell. Once you do, you’ll realise that unless you can prove that Islam is false you are also headed to hell (assuming it exists) – that is, if Islam is true.

There are many religions in this world, afterall. How do you know yours is the correct one?

May 7, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Komagi

…there is an overwhelming presumption among xtians that theirs is the only true religion…I wonder why that is?

May 7, 2010 at 2:37 pm

Keith

James, you know which religion is true and which one isn’t by studying what they say at the very beginning in their holy texts.

May 7, 2010 at 3:01 pm

James Onen

…and I haven’t found any of them to be persuasive, Keith.

Muslims think their ‘holy book’ is the truth. Jews think theirs is the truth. So do Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.. every adherent of every religion thinks his or her ‘holy book’ is true while all the others are false.

I don’t think any ‘holy book’ is true. The Bible, for one, is full of contradictions – and that is the point of the brilliant video above.

May 7, 2010 at 2:45 pm

Keith

As for Ritah, just because your research led you to not believe. Doesn’t mean Christians who believe never made any research on their holy text. By assuming so, you are jumping to conclusions.

May 7, 2010 at 3:04 pm

James Onen

We all used our own reasoning to arrive at our own conclusions. We have studied the bible, and do not find it credible.

May 7, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Keith

James, a lot of those so called contradictions the person thought he was pointing out are not contradictions at all. It some times all to easy to poke fun at such thing while totally misinterpreting what those statements said.

A good example of that was when he talked of works. He tried to make it seem like Jesus said follow the 10 commandments ,then went on and said only by faith will you get to heaven. Which is a total misrepresentation of what Jesus actually said.

Secondly, what others tell you about their holy books shouldn’t matter James. what should matter is what those books tell you, that coincide with what science tells you. For example’ In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”. One can look at that statement using science with out even bringing God into the picture

i.e
a. Were the stars and all other things in the universe in existence before earth was made?

b. The universe is believed by scientists to have ‘spontaneously created itself from nothing”. the creationist view of the bible stems from the belief that God sprung from ‘nothing” and created the universe ”out of nothing”.

etc.

Now, bearing in mind those who wrote the words of the bible did so ages ago, long before Darwin discovered evolution, the earth was found to actually be round and the big bang theory become common knowledge. How come that first statement doesn’t not at all contradict anything we know from science. The only thing different is the claim of God really being there. Either the writer was a certified genius, the luckiest hoaxer of all time or something else is going on.

May 7, 2010 at 5:10 pm

James Onen

This is not a very strong argument, and I hear it a lot, Keith – where some one finds a few things in an ancient book that somehow correlates with what has been corroborated by science ages later, and then concludes that the ancient text was somehow divinely inspired.

Let me begin with a small exposition on human anthropology.

Throughout history human beings from all over the world have investigated nature and have reached a variety of different conclusions and perceptions on how the world works. Sometimes, they got it right, and sometimes they got it wrong.

Ancient civilizations invented writing, mathematics, agriculture, fabrics, music, etc.. alot of these ideas and many more have been with the human race for tens of thousands of years.

Just because the bible describes something that corroborates what we know to be true today from nature and science, it does not mean that the bible knows more science, it simply means that the writers of the various books of the bible were knowledgeable scribes, and were familiar with the generally accepted facts about nature at that time.

Comparison 1: Trigonometry

OK. Trigonometry didn’t exist in this world until it was introduced by the ancient Egyptians. Read below from wikipedia:

Trigonometry was developed for use in sailing as a navigation method used with astronomy.[1] The origins of trigonometry can be traced to the civilizations of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley (India), more than 4000 years ago.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometry#History)

So now, since trigonometry existed EVEN BEFORE the Hebrew bible came to be written, should we conclude that the Egyptian gods of Horus and Osiris are responsible for revealing the secrets of trigonometry to the ancients? Of course I’m sure you’ll say no.

Comparison 2: Mathematics – Fractions, Algebra, Quadratic and Cubic Equations

From Wikipedia:

The earliest evidence of written mathematics dates back to the ancient Sumerians, who built the earliest civilization in Mesopotamia. They developed a complex system of metrology from 3000 BC. From around 2500 BC onwards, the Sumerians wrote multiplication tables on clay tablets and dealt with geometrical exercises and division problems. The earliest traces of the Babylonian numerals also date back to this period.[10]

The majority of recovered clay tablets date from 1800 to 1600 BC, and cover topics which include fractions, algebra, quadratic and cubic equations, and the calculation of Pythagorean triples (see Plimpton 322).[11] The tablets also include multiplication tables, trigonometry tables and methods for solving linear and quadratic equations. The Babylonian tablet YBC 7289 gives an approximation to √2 accurate to five decimal places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mathematics

Again here we see another case of advances in human knowledge predating the existence of the Hebrew Bible. Don’t we still apply rules of fractions, algebra, and square roots even to this day? Should we then worship the Sumerian gods for giving the ancients divine revelation of the secrets of Mathematics? Of course not.

You also are making the assumption that whoever wrote the bible did it in isolation without being influenced by the surrounding cultures. Don’t forget, the location of Palestine put the ancient Hebrews at the crossroads between several great civilizations, such as Egypt, Assyria, Persia and Babylon where there were great advances being made in the sciences and mathematics.

Try looking into the history of the bible, and its dating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

May 7, 2010 at 4:02 pm

Keith

Furthermore, just like you James, I used my own reasoning and drew my own conclusions to arrive at a different conclusion to the one you got.

@ Komagi: On the contrary. There is no religion that believes in a god or god like figures that doesn’t have people fronting the presumption that their religion is the only true one. Which is all down to man being a naturally intolerant creature. Rather than down to the religions themselves.

Many religions teach peace and tolerance, yet their believers tend go out of their way to wage war on those who don’t believe in what they do, by choosing to follow only that which supports their intolerant view points.

May 7, 2010 at 5:16 pm

James Onen

Keith,

You said:

“Furthermore, just like you James, I used my own reasoning and drew my own conclusions to arrive at a different conclusion to the one you got.”

That’s great. It’s also great to have divergent views, coz by debating we can learn alot more than we already know.

The important thing is that, at all times, we must strive to be as thorough as we can in the evaluation of evidence. If you feel you have done so, then I’m happy for you. I did the same, and I found that the bible just didn’t make sense. Its your typical ‘holy book’ like hundreds of others in existence. I don’t believe in any of them.

May 7, 2010 at 6:53 pm

James Onen

Keith,

You said: “James, a lot of those so called contradictions the person thought he was pointing out are not contradictions at all. It some times all to easy to poke fun at such thing while totally misinterpreting what those statements said.”

Here are some factual contradictions:

2 Samuel 8:4 vs.1 Chronicles 18:4 – How many horsemen?
2 Sam. 24:9 vs. 1 Chronicles 21:5 – How many men of Israel capable of military service?
1 Kings 9:23 vs. 2 Chronicles 8:10 – How many officials were in charge?
1 Kings 7:26 vs. 2 Chronicles 4:5 – How many baths?
1 Kings 5:16 vs. 2 Chronicles 2:18 – How many overseers?
2 Kings 8:26 vs. 2 Chronicles 22:2 – How old was Ahaziah?
2 Kings 24:8 vs. 2 Chronicles 36:9 – How old was Jehoiachin?
2 Kings 25:8 vs. Jeremiah. 52:12 – On which day of the fifth month?

Some people prefer to call them ‘errors’, but hey, its up to you.

Then you said: “Secondly, what others tell you about their holy books shouldn’t matter James. what should matter is what those books tell you, that coincide with what science tells you. For example’ In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”. One can look at that statement using science with out even bringing God into the picture”

I think I answered this in my earlier response to you (above)

You then gave the example:

“a. Were the stars and all other things in the universe in existence before earth was made?”

According to Genesis the earth was made before the Sun and other stars. We know this is not true, from modern astronomy and cosmology.

May 7, 2010 at 6:38 pm

Keith

James, you and I both know by the time the Biblical text were written there was no proper knowledge of how the universe was actually formed. There were also no scholars or ancient scientists sitting around discussing the initial state of planet earth and the like. I find it improbable for somebody, existing in the time when people still knew the earth to be flat, and the sun to be revolving around the earth, to come up with a story that the Earth was as created after the universe and the like. For even in ancient Egypt, as far advanced as they were in knowledge, the did not posse such knowledge.

As I said earlier. This fella had to have either been the luckiest hoaxer ever, a genius ahead of his time, or must have discovered something else/ got help form else where to be able to do that. Even if we eliminate God from the equation, the fella had to have got help from else where to get that knowledge. The best we can do mostly do is decide for our selves what and from where it was.

May 7, 2010 at 7:19 pm

James Onen

Keith,

You said: “James, you and I both know by the time the Biblical text were written there was no proper knowledge of how the universe was actually formed. There were also no scholars or ancient scientists sitting around discussing the initial state of planet earth and the like. I find it improbable for somebody, existing in the time when people still knew the earth to be flat, and the sun to be revolving around the earth, to come up with a story that the Earth was as created after the universe and the like. For even in ancient Egypt, as far advanced as they were in knowledge, the did not posse such knowledge.”

1. EVEN NOW we have no knowledge of how the universe was fully formed. The big bang theory address on an expansion of space and time, but does not address where matter and energy came from, or if it ‘came from’ anywhere at all. It is still a mystery. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang)

2. The notion, or idea, of there having been ‘nothing’ in the beginning is kind of intuitively ‘apparent’. As creatures whose brains are primed to detect agency in the things we observe, even a caveman (whose brain was sufficiently developed) would be able to ponder questions like ‘where did this come from’?

I really don’t know why you think just because the bible alludes to there being ‘nothing’ in the beginning, and then ‘something’ you think this somehow shows the bible was years ahead of its time.

Consider this – even BEFORE the bible was written several ‘creation myths’ of other cultures were in existence that are compatible with a ‘nothing-to-something’ creation scenario. They include the Greek creation myths, the Babylonian creation myths, Hindu myths, and so forth. Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

All of these ancient texts of other cultures can be ‘contextually interpreted’ with proper ‘exegetical analysis’ to make them seem ‘consistent’ with the findings of modern science. In simple English we call this rationalisation, and we don’t buy it.

Oh, and guess what? Creationists say the earth, and the entire universe, is no more than 6,000 years old, and there was a global flood that destroyed every human being save for 8 members of Noah’s family back in 2350 BCE. We know from science that this is not true.

You said:”As I said earlier. This fella had to have either been the luckiest hoaxer ever, a genius ahead of his time, or must have discovered something else/ got help form else where to be able to do that. Even if we eliminate God from the equation, the fella had to have got help from else where to get that knowledge.”

I really think you need to start thinking outside the box.

You said: “The best we can do mostly do is decide for our selves what and from where it was.””

I would say we shouldn’t jump to hasty conclusions, which, in my opinion, is what you are doing.

May 7, 2010 at 10:08 pm

Keith

James, I haven’t jumped to any hasty conclusion. You have. For starters, You lumped all the nothing to something creationist theories together. When they are in fact all very different. Just because they have similarities doesn’t make them the same thing. That’s a weak assumption to make.

Secondly, it’s laughable to even suggest the cave man could ponder on such ideas. If he could he would have stopped being a cave man far quicker than he did. To even suggest he could is rationalizing. I don’t buy that at all.

Lastly, I’ve never bought the idea that the great flood happened in 2350 BCE. However I have other reasons to believe why it’s possible a world wide flood took place at some point in the Earth’s history. That are not even in the bible.

May 8, 2010 at 10:55 am

James Onen

Keith,

You said: “James, I haven’t jumped to any hasty conclusion. You have. For starters, You lumped all the nothing to something creationist theories together. When they are in fact all very different. Just because they have similarities doesn’t make them the same thing. That’s a weak assumption to make.”

The nuances of my argument seemed to have escaped you completely, Keith. I was offering a direct response a point you were trying to make, where you thought that BECAUSE some of what the bible says (regarding origins of the universe) seemed to have some resemblance to what we have come to learn from cosmology, it had to have been divinely inspired. You added:

“Either the writer was a certified genius, the luckiest hoaxer of all time or something else is going on.”

Did you actually read the various creation stories (some of which even pre-date the bible) of other cultures? These stories can also be ‘interpreted’ to make it appear as if they are consistent with what we know from modern science. That was the point I was trying to make, and one that undermines your claim that the bible had to be divinely inspired. You have not addressed this problem.

Rather than overlook this fact, if you really wish to address my point then you have to show that it is impossible to derive a model of creation from these non-biblical texts that appears consistent with what we know today from science. (Just as Christians often claim about the bible, remember that ancient texts ALSO contain metaphors which are open to interpretation.)

Unless you do this, my point still stands.

You said: “Secondly, it’s laughable to even suggest the cave man could ponder on such ideas. If he could he would have stopped being a cave man far quicker”

Don’t just assert it, Keith – demonstrate why this cannot be possible. It’s also not laughable at all, and I don’t know if that is your way of evading the point. If you knew a bit about the history of religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion, I don’t think you’d be making such bold claims. Evidence shows homosapiens began pondering the ‘big questions’ more than 30,000 years ago – while they were still living in caves.

You said:”Lastly, I’ve never bought the idea that the great flood happened in 2350 BCE. However I have other reasons to believe why it’s possible a world wide flood took place at some point in the Earth’s history. That are not even in the bible.”

So you not a bible inerrantist. That’s a good start! 🙂 Most Christians believe Noah’s GLOBAL flood was an actual historical event. Talk to these people, Keith. Educate them.

May 7, 2010 at 11:26 pm

Keith

Now in repsonse yo your earlier post:

1. Factual contradictions always happen with witness accounts. Those books where you got those factual errors from were taken from witness accounts. I have no problem with factual contradictions. They were not what I was referring too as inaccurate portrayals of what Jesus actually said. .

2. The so called contradictions I took exception to, were those of theological standing. When the video maker was trying to show that Jesus said allegedly one thing and allegedly meant another. In the cases he was poking fun at he totally missed the point of what was said and found something that was never there.

A case in point was when he talked about a man being justified by works + faith to attain the salvation to enter into heaven. That was not true at all.

May 8, 2010 at 11:10 am

James Onen

Keith,

You said:”1. Factual contradictions always happen with witness accounts. Those books where you got those factual errors from were taken from witness accounts. I have no problem with factual contradictions. They were not what I was referring too as inaccurate portrayals of what Jesus actually said. .”

Well, those factual contradictions EXIST and you have conceded them. You may not have a problem with them, but it does undermine any claim to infallibility or inerrancy of the bible.

You said: “2. The so called contradictions I took exception to, were those of theological standing. When the video maker was trying to show that Jesus said allegedly one thing and allegedly meant another. In the cases he was poking fun at he totally missed the point of what was said and found something that was never there.”

Well, well.. as I’m sure you’re aware, ‘interpretation’ is a highly subjective affair. Jesus did contradict himself. It is believers who want to deny this fact because of an obvious vested interest in insisting that this is so. The fact that ‘interpretation’ is subjective is given more credence by the fact that there exists over 30,000 different Christian denominations. Christian sects constantly squabble over “what Jesus really meant” and disagree over many things – with each one believing THEIR interpretation is correct, and the others’ is wrong.

Now as a by-stander to all this internal squabbling, to me it is clear that there are contradictions. I think this video does a fantastic job of pointing them out.

You said: “A case in point was when he talked about a man being justified by works + faith to attain the salvation to enter into heaven. That was not true at all.”

Yeah, but that’s what YOU think. There are many Christians who would see things differently. Have you ever heard of Calvinists, or the doctrine of predestination? There, works don’t mean SHIT. Now I think you see the problem. Theology is all subjective.

As a non-believer, I usually just sit back and amuse myself by watching all the internal never-ending squabbling among believers.

May 8, 2010 at 2:06 pm

Keith

Thanks for the good response:

I shall respond to a few things myself:

1. The bible is a document that is said to contain the word of God. However, many Christians and others have not only taken what was the actual word of God which was given to his prophets and the like, they’ve also added to it things like the book of Judges, Kings 1 and 2, Samuel 1 and 2 and the like to it. When such books are mere narratives of thing that happened in those times written by normal human beings, prone to error. Just like the factual contradictions in chronicles and Kings. Any existence of those does not suddenly negate the supposed infallibility of the word of God that is written in the biblical text. For they are not the same things.

2. Interpretation is subjective its true. But it should never be abused to suit ones own prejudices like is so often the case. People will always debate about what was actually meant. The fact is though there will always be a right answer and a wrong answer regardless. Answers that can only be got to by not allowing personal prejudices to control one’s process for reaching a conclusion of the real meaning intended. The moment personal prejudices are allowed to cloud judgment the always end up with squabbles or plain tragedy like the Spanish inquisition, the Klu Klux Klan, religious based racism and and the Crusade time persecution of Jews by the church.

I also don’t buy this idea that debate is stirred up due to contradictions. It’s like suggesting debate exists in philosophy because it is one big contradiction. Nothing could be further form the truth. No matter what subjective mater you come across, there will always be a right way to approach it and a wrong way. Sadly, too many people often choose the wrong way. That’s how you will come across many people claiming they believe in a certain holy text, yet doing the opposite of what it tells them to do.

May 9, 2010 at 5:06 pm

James Onen

Hi Keith,

You said: “However, many Christians and others have not only taken what was the actual word of God which was given to his prophets and the like, they’ve also added to it things like the book of Judges, Kings 1 and 2, Samuel 1 and 2 and the like to it. When such books are mere narratives of thing that happened in those times written by normal human beings, prone to error.”

So now you have the task of establishing objective criteria with which we can distinguish between ‘mere narratives’ and the ‘actual word of God’ (whatever that means). Are not the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc.. also “mere narratives of things that happened in those times written by normal human beings”? Are not the gospels also “narratives written by mere human beings”, and prone to error? As it turns out THEY are narratives written by human beings and THAT’S why errors occur – but not only that, they are to be expected. The same same be said for religious texts of any tradition.

How, besides the fallacy of special pleading will one arrive at the fact that certain texts are ‘written by mere humans’ and others are ‘the word of God’? I don’t think you can, and thus your criteria will be arbitrary. Besides whatever you think IS the ‘word of God’ was WRITTEN by humans anyway, right? You’re objection makes little sense.

You said: “Just like the factual contradictions in chronicles and Kings. Any existence of those does not suddenly negate the supposed infallibility of the word of God that is written in the biblical text. For they are not the same things.”

Infallible means: “incapable of failure or error”. Since you have conceded that there are errors in certain books of the bible, then you have conceded that the bible is not infallible.

My claim was that the bible was not infallible. You seem to agree with this, but are making a rather weird and convoluted point by suggesting certain parts of the bible are “NOT” God’s word, while others are? Strange to hear this coming from a Christian! It is a highly unusual Christian viewpoint that you have.

You said: “The moment personal prejudices are allowed to cloud judgement the always end up with squabbles or plain tragedy like the Spanish inquisition, the Klu Klux Klan, religious based racism and and the Crusade time persecution of Jews by the church.”

I agree – and in Uganda the prejudices are at astronomical proportions. I am glad you are doing what you can to reach out to your brethren, especially with regard to their homophobia. It is simply appalling the degree to which they will vilify sexual minorities. Religious fundamentalism is wrecking this society. I hope you will talk to them about charismatic pastors and their quackery.

You said: “I also don’t buy this idea that debate is stirred up due to contradictions. It’s like suggesting debate exists in philosophy because it is one big contradiction. Nothing could be further form the truth.”

Oh really? I find your objection is highly problematic, for 2 reasons.

First of all, philosophy and other academic disciplines to not claim infallibility, inerrancy, nor they do not claim to hold absolute truth. They also don’t claim to be divinely inspired. Philosophy and other human academic endeavours is continuously evolving, prone to improvement once new and better ideas come along that explain things better, and old redundant ideas are discarded in favour of new practical ones. Above all, their ideas are testable.

If you want to reduce theology to an academic pursuit similar to philosophy then be my guest. Just know that once you do so, you immediately undermine the claim that the scriptures are absolute truth. Even the existence of ‘God’ and the resurrection of Jesus would have to be reduced to being mere hypotheses, and open to question, and any results from any studies will have to be treated as provisional, just like scientific theories are. Are you sure you want Christianity to go down that road? Maybe you do.

It will honestly be interesting to attend a sermon where the pastor one day said, “oh, by the way Jesus being the son of ‘God’ is a tentative claim, and not absolute truth” This would certainly have to be the case, if I were to grant you your argument, and follow it to its logical conclusion.

Secondly, let’s not forget that Christians believe in a ‘God’ who intends to send people to hell for eternity, if they fail to fulfil certain obligations, or believing certain biblical claims they way they were intended to be understood. If there is so much disagreement about what the texts mean, it means that MANY believing Christians will inadvertently end up in hell because of misinterpretation of the scriptures, even when they were sincere in their efforts to do what ‘God’ required of them. Who is to say YOUR understanding of scripture is the correct one?

My own view is that theology is quite useless, as it makes no testable predictions with which any of the ideas it bring forth can be verified.

You said: “No matter what subjective mater you come across, there will always be a right way to approach it and a wrong way. Sadly, too many people often choose the wrong way. That’s how you will come across many people claiming they believe in a certain holy text, yet doing the opposite of what it tells them to do.”

So in Christianity (or Christian theology), HOW does one arrive at the conclusion that one is right and the other is wrong other than it just being personal opinion?

At least with science, one can conduct experiments. With philosophy, the strength of an argument can be tested by checking whether the premises are valid, or not. So in science and philosophy, some objective criteria can be established to test hypotheses, theories and ideas. What criteria does religion offer? Revelation? Prayers? Speaking in tongues?

When you see theologians of different denominations and religions in debate, you find that they mostly just past each other without making any headway.

May 12, 2010 at 2:06 pm

Keith

James,

First of all, My objection only makes no sense to you because fail to distinguish between two things. Narrative and quotation. For example, If I was to quote you right now, I’m less likely to go off tangent, than if I was just sitted nearby observing you write and gather your information for your reply. That is what separates books like Kings of Samuel from other books like those of Isaiah. Books like that of Samuel are mostly just historical narrative. A couple of times they quote the entity known as God but that’s it! They are no different from picking up a history book that has a a few factual errors. Unlike a common history book however, no one has bothered to remove those errors. There as raw as when the text was first written. It make little sense to you because like many Christians you mistakenly take every inch of the bible to be as the acclaimed word of God. When, if analyzed properly, it most certainly isn’t .Whether you believe God is there or not.

Secondly, you cannot evolve the truth James. Something is either true or it isn’t! I don’t buy the idea it’s merely a point of view. If it was we’d have no real concept of right and wrong. We have that because truth can’t be changed. Hence, as humans we spend all our lives trying to get to the truth. Trying to explain the truth to ourselves so that it makes sense, interpreting what we see and learn as we live our lives. Just because one or two groups of people can see something differently. Doesn’t mean it’s because of a contradiction. Such debates don’t arise from contradiction but from differing understanding. Like the proverbial story of the blind men touching the elephant. However how they are handled is most important. To get to the truth one must reduce all personal prejudice to a minimum. It’s a the same when analyzing a text like the bible or tackling religious theology. There is a right way to analyze the theology it touches and a wrong way. Because the wrong way of interpreting such things always leads to problems and almost always treads a path contrary to what the founder of the faith being practiced taught.

The founder of the christian faith for example never taught intolerance. He taught love the sinner and hate the sin. He taught people to not judge others as they themselves were sinless, amongst other things. If you want to know if a person who claims to follow him is doing so correctly, you judge them by the standard the founder set. It’s that simple! You know a proper Budhist because he follows the teachings of Buddha to the letter. Same as a proper Muslim. Hence a Christian should be no different. For me you can’t call a person a christian if he doesn’t do what Jesus told him. Just like you would be wrong to call someone an atheist if he replaced god with Scientism.

Lastly the principles of philosophy also apply very much to religion. The notion that only prayer, revelation or speaking in tongues lead to understanding of religion or that they are the only things that count in religion is simply laughable. Every religion under the sun except those of extreme cults (akin to the Nazis under Hitler), have one thing in common: The principle of free will. Free will requires a person to feed it with data for them to process and understand what they believe. Whenever religion has made the mistake of only reverting to prayer, or like in the deep dark past of the church, taking the Priest’s word for it, when it came to the bible, the results were disasters like the crusade time persecution of Jews and the Spanish inquisition.

Bottom line religion is not supposed to be blind belief. But it becomes that when people don’t take the time to study and understand fully that which they actually believe in. When that happens it becomes one of the most destructive and misleading forces known to this planet.

May 13, 2010 at 4:04 pm

James Onen

Hi Keith,

You said: First of all, My objection only makes no sense to you because fail to distinguish between two things. Narrative and quotation. For example, If I was to quote you right now, I’m less likely to go off tangent, than if I was just sitted nearby observing you write and gather your information for your reply.”

There’s a reason why the distinction you propose is invalid, Keith. Whether one is reporting an EVENT, or reporting what someone SAID, one is still prone to making mistakes in presenting an accurate account. This should be obvious.

In either case (narrative OR quotation), the bias of the writer, his carelessness, memory failure and other factors will impact how accurately he is able to recount the event, or speech. There really is no difference.

You said: “That is what separates books like Kings of Samuel from other books like those of Isaiah. Books like that of Samuel are mostly just historical narrative. A couple of times they quote the entity known as God but that’s it! They are no different from picking up a history book that has a a few factual errors.”

Your assumption that books like Kings and Samuel are ‘different’ from other books of the bible on the basis of one being ‘historical narrative’ and another being ‘quotation’ is unjustified. The gospel writers also ‘narrate’ what are believed by Christians to be historical events (whatever the source of their information may have been) and ALSO quote what they believe to be the words of the people involved in the events described. They’re all the same in this regard.

I am going to call you out on special pleading for this one, Keith. The distinction you are trying to create here is invalid.

You said: “Unlike a common history book however, no one has bothered to remove those errors. There as raw as when the text was first written.”

Yes, but you see, I’M NOT THE ONE claiming that the bible is inerrant and infallible. Fundamentalist Christians are. So since we both agree that the bible is neither inerrant nor infallible, can we move on?

You said: “It make little sense to you because like many Christians you mistakenly take every inch of the bible to be as the acclaimed word of God. When, if analyzed properly, it most certainly isn’t .Whether you believe God is there or not.”

Indeed you are a true heretic. I can’t believe a Christian is actually saying this! Your views are extremely unique (which I don’t fault you for, by the way). So if parts of the bible are the word of God, and others aren’t – how do we know which parts are and aren’t, and who decides? Again to an ordinary Christian, your suggestion would be considered heretical. By the way, ‘word of God’ isn’t ONLY intended as the words God ‘spoke’. It is also intended to apply to the rest of the text (narrative or otherwise) which is believed to be inspired by God’s Holy Spirit. The bible, in its entirety, is believed to be God’s revelation to mankind – hence ‘word of God’. This is basic theology, I think. Isn’t it?

You said: “Secondly, you cannot evolve the truth James. Something is either true or it isn’t! I don’t buy the idea it’s merely a point of view. If it was we’d have no real concept of right and wrong. We have that because truth can’t be changed. Hence, as humans we spend all our lives trying to get to the truth. Trying to explain the truth to ourselves so that it makes sense, interpreting what we see and learn as we live our lives.”

Why ‘interpretation’ boils down to a ‘point of view’ is because neither you, nor any Christian scholar, has outlined what, if any, objective criteria exists that can be used to establish what interpretation of scripture can be considered true or false (especially once you allow for metaphoric language and the belief in the existence of evil spirits that mislead people). For example, YOU claim that some parts of the bible are God’s word, and others are not. The majority of Christians would disagree with you, as well as most theologians, who hold the bible to be inerrant and infallible. So who is right? You, or them? You say there can be only one truth – so which is it? Are YOU right, or are THEY right?

If you were to ask me, my answer would be simple –BOTH of you are wrong, and the simple truth is that the bible is nothing more than man-made, man-inspired religious literature.

You said: “Just because one or two groups of people can see something differently. Doesn’t mean it’s because of a contradiction. Such debates don’t arise from contradiction but from differing understanding. Like the proverbial story of the blind men touching the elephant. However how they are handled is most important. To get to the truth one must reduce all personal prejudice to a minimum. It’s a the same when analyzing a text like the bible or tackling religious theology. There is a right way to analyze the theology it touches and a wrong way. Because the wrong way of interpreting such things always leads to problems and almost always treads a path contrary to what the founder of the faith being practiced taught.”

AGAIN I ask, how do you know YOUR interpretation is the ‘true’ one? By what objective criteria have you established how any interpretation of scripture can be considered true or false (especially once you allow for metaphoric language and evil spirits that deceive people)?

You said: “The founder of the christian faith for example never taught intolerance. He taught love the sinner and hate the sin. He taught people to not judge others as they themselves were sinless, amongst other things. If you want to know if a person who claims to follow him is doing so correctly, you judge them by the standard the founder set. It’s that simple!”

Is it really that simple? In Luke 14:26 Jesus said: ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.’

According to you, if I want to know whether you who claims to follow Jesus is doing so correctly, I should judge you by the standard the founder set, right? So do you hate your family, Keith?

Just know that if you try to invoke the “context” card to get out of this one, then you’ve proved me right. It IS all about interpretation in the end, and this interpretation is a subjective affair. Thus you cannot accuse others of ‘interpreting scripture their own way’, yet in order to explain why you don’t hate your family as Jesus CLEARLY said you should, you’re also going to interpret the scripture your own way.

People tend to cherry pick what scripture they choose to follow, don’t they? And it all boils down to subjective interpretation.

You said: “You know a proper Budhist because he follows the teachings of Buddha to the letter. Same as a proper Muslim. Hence a Christian should be no different. For me you can’t call a person a christian if he doesn’t do what Jesus told him.”

As we have seen, it all comes down to interpretation, so following religious rules to the letter, in and of itself is not sufficient. Since I suspect you love your family, clearly, you too are not following the teachings of Jesus (Luke 14:26) TO THE LETTER.

You said: “Lastly the principles of philosophy also apply very much to religion. The notion that only prayer, revelation or speaking in tongues lead to understanding of religion or that they are the only things that count in religion is simply laughable.”

Indeed it is laughable – and I’m trying my best not to laugh at the fact that I am yet to see what objective criteria by which one can distinguish between true and false religious doctrines, in a field where use of metaphor is applicable, and ALSO, within a belief system (such as Christianity) that accommodates the existence of evil spirits who are believed to deceive and mislead human beings.

You said: “Every religion under the sun except those of extreme cults (akin to the Nazis under Hitler), have one thing in common: The principle of free will. Free will requires a person to feed it with data for them to process and understand what they believe. Whenever religion has made the mistake of only reverting to prayer, or like in the deep dark past of the church, taking the Priest’s word for it, when it came to the bible, the results were disasters like the crusade time persecution of Jews and the Spanish inquisition.”

In my view it is secularism that saved western Christianity from the Dark Ages. At some point, men felt brave enough to start thinking ‘outside’ the prevailing religious paradigm of the day. The more enlightened they became they started to realize that every person has good in them, and that we have certain common values and interests. These ideas began to get discussed over time, and they found themselves refining their understanding of fellow man and how to treat him. People soon began to look at religious texts and interpreted them through the lens of their new found understanding of humanity. It has been a slow, gradual, but progressive process. So while at one time Christians felt it very OK to keep slaves (because many bible passages clearly okayed slavery), over time they began to realize that slavery was wrong. Of course, they erroneously gave credit to religion for ‘showing them the light’ when in fact this ‘light’ (if we can call it that) came to them through self reflection, discussion, new discoveries and debate.

As we can see clearly today, societies that are LEAST religious on this planet are among the most tolerant, and strangely the reverse is true for the most religious. This says a lot. Morality comes not from religion, but from reason, deliberation, and exchange of ideas for a better understanding of others.

That is the way forward.

You said: “Bottom line religion is not supposed to be blind belief. But it becomes that when people don’t take the time to study and understand fully that which they actually believe in. When that happens it becomes one of the most destructive and misleading forces known to this planet.”

Indeed, blind and unquestioning adherence to any creed, dogma or ideology is usually a recipe for disaster.

May 12, 2010 at 2:09 pm

Keith

That is how religious fundamentalism was born. A total perversion of what religion is supposed to be.

May 13, 2010 at 4:41 pm

James Onen

I think religious fundamentalism was born out of, and is sustained by, the usefulness of religion as a tool for justifying people’s personal and cultural prejudices. Since religious texts bear the stamp of a deity, prejudices can generally flourish without inviting scrutiny and are shielded from criticism. The more intense one’s prejudices are, the greater the fundamentalism.

I mean, hasn’t it always bothered you that the most repressive and intolerant societies (not governments, but societies) are usually the most pious? In America the pious South went to WAR for the right to keep slaves. They also were the MOST resistant to racial desegregation in the 1960’s. All these southerners called themselves devout Christians, and today these states comprise what is called the ‘Bible Belt’ of USA. These pious believers are also the most homophobic, and are the ones fighting for the right to bear arms.

The Bible Belt also happens to be populated by the least educated Americans. An interesting correlation emerges here. In my previous response to you, I argued that tolerance was born out of reason, discussion, debate, openness to new discoveries. The correlation is as follows: the LESS educated (or less knowledgeable) you are, the more likely you are to be intolerant, and prejudiced, and the MORE educated you are the less likely you are to be intolerant and prejudiced.

Religion thus comes in as a useful tool for these people to defend their prejudices against criticism. They will select bible verses that support their prejudices (and lucky for them the bible has more than enough of those kinds of verses) and adopt a strict literal interpretation of those verses and argue that those are the infallible words of a perfect ‘God’. No amount of reason will persuade them to change their bronze-age views.

Bible Contradictions

Freethought Kampala

Info

Find us on Facebook

Blog Stats

Freethought Kampala Archives

Blog Post Series

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Favourite Posts

Archives

Categories

Featured Authors

E-MAIL US

search FK

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED SITES/BLOGS

African Freethought Blogs

Asian Freethought Blogs/Sites

Recommended Podcasts

Email Subscription

The Out Campaign

29 comments

Leave a reply to Keith Cancel reply

Bible Contradictions

Share:

Related

Freethought Kampala

Info

Find us on Facebook

Blog Stats

Freethought Kampala Archives

Blog Post Series

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Favourite Posts

Archives

Categories

Featured Authors

E-MAIL US

search FK

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED SITES/BLOGS

African Freethought Blogs

Asian Freethought Blogs/Sites

Recommended Podcasts

Email Subscription

The Out Campaign

29 comments

Leave a reply to Keith Cancel reply