Browse By

What's Your Favorite Biblical Contradiction?

I’ve been having a conversation with someone named Jacob who considers Irregular Times to be his missionary ground. As part of his efforts, he has cut and pasted in claims you can find verbatim on a number of Christian proselytization websites, Got Questions? being a typical one. Here’s part of the text Jacob pasted in:

One of the first internal evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word is seen in its unity. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words which God moved men to record. (I am preparing myself for the onslaught of supposed contradictions…)

If Jacob has had had long experience being informed about the multiple inconsistencies and contradictions of the Bible, then I wondered aloud why he would still use the idea of its “Unity” as a pillar of his faith. Then I asked, “Do you affirm or deny that the contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible exist?” Jacob retorted:

I do not think they exist. I think I can answer any one that you throw out there, and we have already determined that I am not all that smart, so if I can pull it down the supposed contradiction isnt very strong… I have made it beyond clear that I think the Bible is the innarent Word of God

In the name of a little counter-missionary work, let’s reiterate Jacob’s statements:

* One piece of evidence that the Bible is God’s Word is its unity; it contains no inconsistencies or contradictions.
* The Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
* Jacob can answer any biblical inconsistency or contradiction thrown out there.

He’s made a very strong claim here, and it’s necessary that he do so in order to prevent any questioning of the Bible on the basis of its “unity.” If the Bible contains any inconsistencies or contradictions, then it isn’t inerrant any more. If the Bible contains even one inconsistency or contradiction, then it is errant, which means either that God is flawed or that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God. Either conclusion leads one to question the Bible as a source of authority, and it’s pretty clear Jacob would like to avoid that.

So here’s the challenge Jacob has laid down at our feet, people:

Name your favorite Biblical contradiction or inconsistency, and Jacob will convince us that it isn’t a contradiction or inconsistency after all.

Will Jacob live up to his end of the bargain? If he can demonstrate that every single apparent flaw in the Bible isn’t actually a flaw, then he successfully defends one basis of his faith. If he cannot or does not explain away even one Biblical inconsistency or contradiction, then there is no reason for Jacob to be claiming that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

It’s your turn, readers: Name your favorite Biblical contradiction or inconsistency, and let the challenge begin!

77 thoughts on “What's Your Favorite Biblical Contradiction?”

  1. Fruktata says:

    A goodie for me has been the covenant God is supposed to make after the flood with Noah, to never kill off masses of humanity again by drowning them in a flood. Then, in the book of Matthew, Chapter 24, Verse 37, it’s announced that God is going to destroy whole bunches of people again in a time soon to come. And how? “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

    Some covenant. Looks like you can’t trust God in the slightest.

    1. Jacob says:

      We get to start with one of my favorites…

      First lets look at what actually happened with Noah and what the promise was, then we will turn to Matthew 24:37 and see what this is saying. When the ark had landed and Noah and his family left the ark God promised not to destroy all of man kind with a global catastrophe by flood again. This is stated in Gen 9:11 and God makes it clear that he will not destroy the Earth by flood. At no point does he promise to withhold ALL future judgment on mankind. This promise an “everlasting” one. In 2 Peter 3:3-10 we see that the final judgment (the one refered to in Matt 24:37) is one of fire. So, there are our first 2 pieces to this. God claims to never destroy the Earth again by flood and the Earth will be destroyed by fire at a point in the future and be returned to its pre fallen state.

      So, how does our verse fit in with this? A quick cherry picker glance would seem to find a flaw in the Bible but a tiny bit deeper probe will show that not to be the case. First, if we back up one verse we see, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only” the disciples wanted to know exactly when Gods Kingdom was returning and this was the lesson they got, only the Father knows. Jesus then moves on to our verse in question and drives the point home. He says just like in Noahs time before the flood people where eating and drinking and being preoccupied with other things when judgment fell suddenly. They had recieved warnings from Noah and his preaching and the simple fact that he was building and ark but they were too conerned with their everyday lives to care. That is until judgment struck and swept them off of there feet unexpectedly. This pont is repeated several times over the next few lines in “Son of the man is coming at an hour you do not expect” and “the master of that servent will come on a day when he is not looking for him and an hour that he is not aware of”. This is a call for believers to be ready at all times. To live as if He may be coming tomorow and to warn as many as who will listen that judgement will come when it is least expected. Fruktata, you can also move back to the book of Revelation where all of the final judgments are revieled. There is some debate over what some of them might look like (for example, locusts or helicoptors… I lean towards locusts) but there is no possible way any of them can be even remotely stretched into a global flood. Global fire yes, flood no.

  2. Fruktata says:

    Oh, and what does it mean when someone declares something to be “innarent”? That’s making an error in saying something won’t have any errors. Not too reliable.

    1. Jacob says:

      You are right. I am a bad speller. But from a Biblical ground the inerrancy (spelled right I think) is never in question and never a point of contradiction. If you are going to let my spelling and grammer stop you please dont read any of my posts. They are FULL of bad English. Dont expect any true publishings from me.

      BTW: Jim, this is a much better way of doing it than my idea. This will be fun for all of us I think. I do find the “he has cut and pasted in claims you can find verbatim on a number of Christian proselytization websites, Got Questions? being a typical one” to be a bit below the belt. That was a single mistake that I admitted and apologized for. I did not mean to make that look like it was mine and was simply trying to answer a question between tasks at work. I apologize again and please keep in mind that my flaws are not Scriptures flaws.

      1. Fruktata says:

        Jacob, I don’t think you understand.

        If you can’t even judge whether spelling is in error with reliability, then what makes you think that you have a reasonable basis to declare that errors in the Bible can’t even be questioned?

        1. Jacob says:

          Dont take my word for it. Do your own research. Actually, plase do your own. People much smarter than I have addressed all of this

      2. Jim says:

        Well, you DID cut and paste the claims. And you CAN find these words verbatim on a number of proselytization websites. You HAVE been copying others’ thoughts. The difference is that since you came above board and admitted it, I no longer am claiming that you’re passing the words off as your own.

  3. ReMarker says:

    Sorry to preempt any commenters or Jacob but this website ( ) may help both, people posting their biblical contradictions awa Jacob in debunking the contradictions.

    The Biblecal contradictions that are bothersome to me are the ones that discribe events that defy the “laws of nature”. Any explaination requires believing God defies his own laws.

    The latter may be true, but I don’t believe it.

    1. Jacob says:

      The Biblecal contradictions that are bothersome to me are the ones that discribe events that defy the “laws of nature”.

      Thats not a contradiction. The Bible claims that God created all things and is ruler over all of the Earth. The later part of Job shows us that he has power over all of the elements. God writes the “laws of nature”. They dont apply to him

      1. Fruktata says:

        Jacob, that means that God is unnatural. Haven’t you been opposing human behaviors because they’re unnatural? Why does God get a pass from you?

        1. Jacob says:

          No, it means God is the creator of nature, He is the author of everything. Why do you think you stand as an equal?

          1. Fruktata says:

            Jacob, if nature is created, it’s not natural. It’s artificial.

          2. Jacob says:

            You might want to set down and let someone else have a shot. You are grasping at straws and we are only like 4 questions into this… You are not helping the cause of the Athiest on this one. I know there are a lot better questions ouyt there. Please look to Alvin for an example of a true question. That one had some meat on it and was enjoyable

          3. Fruktata says:

            I guess you can’t deal with the contradiction. It looks like you can’t answer the question.

            Was this question not in your cut-and-paste manual of How To Talk To An Atheist?

          4. Jacob says:

            Where are you seeing a contradiction. There is one between the words you use and what is in scipture but the contradiction is not contained is scripture. If the book of Fruktata ever gets in the canon we will have problems. Until then, your posts dont count as scripture, so the words you use dont count as possible contradictions to scripture. Same applies to me. Come on man! At least go to a cookie cutter athiest site and find something real.

  4. Tamahome Jenkins says:

    Thou shalt not kill. It’s in the 2nd book of the Bible. People continue to kill in God’s name for the next 64 books.

    1. Jacob says:

      This one is harder and most of the problem comes from the fact that there are 7 different Hebrew words for killing and they all have different meaning. The word used in Exodus 20:13 is “ratsach” (actually its a symbol but I dont know it and if I didnt I wouldnt know how to type it…) which is used for intentianal killing without a cause unless it is stated otherwise. It is also seen in Ex 21:12-14 that accidental death was not part of this. The word used in that case is “nakah”. We also know that according to the Bible it is OK to defend one self from Esther 8:10-11. We have already covered the flood, and that is God and His judgement so we can keep that seperate. People being told to kill by God in the OT are many. In fact the move into the promised land has the Israel people killing of entire groups of people. For example Canaan. People in that city were so wicked that they burned there sons and daughters as part of worship to thier Gods. The people were Sodom and Gomorrah wicked. We also see during this time that God did not allow all to be killed. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah again. Look at the Harlet (her name escapes me now). The people that are killed and sancationed by God are acts of judement on wicked people. Of course, there are Acts where people work outside of the will of God and are punished for it. There is bad murder in the Bible as well. I am open to specific exampes that you guys and gals would like some help with. Narrowing down OT events isnt my strong point so when you post these please but where they can be found or give as much info as possible to help me find where in the Scripture you are looking. ‘That one time when Israel killed those people’ wont get me very far 😉

      1. Jim says:

        Jacob says, “The people that are killed and sanctioned by God are acts of judgement on wicked people.”

        That’s a very strong claim to make, and you need to make it in order to justify your “ratsach.” But you don’t have solid backing. But I don’t buy it. To provide just one example, Numbers 31:

        “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

        Are you telling me that every male among the little ones is wicked and deserves to be killed? Are you telling me that all the women children are wicked and deserve to be brought home as sex booty?

        Now, from a strictly Biblical point of view I’ll give you a pass on the sex booty, since your “moral” God does not declare a commandment against taking sex slaves. Indeed, since you know your Bible you know that your “moral” God actually declares commandments approving of slavery.

        But when it comes to the male children, right here in Numbers (and if you “disprove” this one I’ll talk about others) you seem to have God, who so recently issued a blanket commandment against unjust killing, saying, “Oh, what the hey: go right ahead and kill the little baby boys.”

        If you tell me that this is a “just killing,” then how can you with a straight face continue to tell me that the killing of embryos with no cognitive capacity is unjust? And if you can’t tell me that this is a “just killing,” then you have right here a big whopping biblical contradiction.

        1. Jacob says:

          This is actually an easy claim to make. The title of this isnt “Who is God to you?” We are looking for Biblical contradictions. Whether you like God or believe in Him is an entirely different thing which would be for another blog. I understand how you like to stay on subject here so we wont digress too much. If you look at who God is according to the Bible there is not contradiction. God commanded judgment upon this group of people. He ordered the group to be wiped out because they were responsible for corrupting Israel at Peor 25:1-8. Had the Israelites decided to just start killing you would have ground to stand upon for contradictions. Since this was God ordered judgment it doesnt hold. Once again, whether you like it or not is an entirely different story and of no relevance when looking for contradictions

          1. Jim says:

            Just to clarify: it is my understanding that you’ve said the “just killing” of babies is OK, even though the babies were not responsible for corrupting Israel. Is that a correct understanding of your statement?

          2. Jim says:

            And to ask for another clarification: you seem to me to be arguing that if God asks people to kill other people, that makes it a just killing because God decides what is just, and if he decides it is, then it is. Is that a fair understanding of your statement?

          3. Jacob says:

            Still working on first clarification (has nothing to do with contraditions though… Jim, you are the first to ask people to stay on topic 😉 )

            As to your second clarification, yes. God is perfectly just

          4. Jim says:

            Well, that’s a pretty authoritarian view of the universe. I have an upcoming post to deal with the ramifications of that.

            It’s also, to return to contradictions, a trivial way to “deal” with contradictions. God has contradicted himself unless you think it’s OK to kill babies for your God. In one place, he lays down a commandment, “thou shalt not kill.” Fine, amend it to “unjustly kill.” Now in Numbers he says, “hey, go and kill all the babies.” You have to either say that it is unjust to kill babies, in which case God is contradicting himself, or you have to believe that it is OK to kill babies.

            You have chosen the second option: it is OK to kill babies… because some voice from the clouds tells people to do so. Mkay there, fella. I think you kinda sorta lose your voice of authoritay on the abortion front.

            Me, I don’t think it’s just to kill babies for the sins of their parents. I think your God has contradicted himself. I think your God is wrong. I think your God is one sick puppy. Why follow such a sick and twisted creep?

  5. Tom says:

    Joseph Campbell points out in his book Power of Myth that all the world’s religions have mythical aspects, many of which are the same. These myths are used to teach morality, by and large.

    So if you believe in myth there’ll always be contradictions and “ways out” of any supposed ones, according to religious proponents.

    i’m in the “we have no idea what’s going on” camp and that includes God, the universal “master plan”, predictions (even though i make a lot of them – and always hope i’m wrong), and “life after death”. To put it plainly: people don’t know shit about this stuff.

    One of my favorite songs is on an old David Crosby recording called If I Could Only Remember My Name and is called Laughing. It starts out with:
    I thought I met a man, who said he knew a man who knew what was going on . . I was mistaken . . .

    Give it a listen some time.

  6. ReMarker says:

    Good job Jacob. I can see you faithfully adhere to the tried and true techniques of Bible “contradiction rebuttal” as described in the website I linked to in my other comment.

    You see, I believe religious “contradictions” has nothing to do with God or what God does. It has to do with the “reasons” mere mortals apply to God’s actions, as many are described in the writings of the Bible and other “religious” books. Any discriptions of events that defy the “laws of nature” are suspect to me.

    Good luck with being correct in your appraisal of what God wants. Your “eternal life” may depend on it. As for my “eternal life”, I may be screwed because I have no idea what God wants and I will not believe the reasons for God’s actions given by people that think the earth is flat (Bible contributers).

    1. Jacob says:

      Funny you should bring up the world is flat thing. Read Isaiah 40:22. This was thousands of years before science caught up with the idea of a round Earth

      1. Jacob says:

        “The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BCE in ancient Greek philosophy.[1] It remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BCE”

        People were afraid to fall off the Earth as recent has 1400’s. I think it was Magellian who was the first to sail around the world and many didnt expect him to return

        1. ReMarker says:

          Exactly and the “spherical earth proponents” were, many times, killed in the name of God by mortals that thought they knew what God wanted. Thanks, you have made my point very well.

          1. Jacob says:

            Weird, because I have no idea where that came from or what exactly you are talking about… hmmm

          2. ReMarker says:

            Let me help. Jesus is a good example of what can happen to mortals that defy a “mortal decided” consensus. They can be killed. For Jesus’s sake, I hope your “Bible supported” interpretation of what God wants is correct. I believe Jesus was a good person and therefore qualifies for “possible” Godly benefits, with or without the Bible. But I also believe, had he not pissed off the self-rightious “I am rich and powerful therefore God wants me to be rich and powerful” (typical of the “C. Streeters”) crowd, he may have lived longer.

            The bigger point: It’s not about what is in the Bible or other religious texts or whether there are conflicts in a mortal generated document. It’s about being a good person and doing things in ways that avoid doing damage to God’s other children. Or, at least, that’s what I believe God would want.

          3. Jacob says:

            jeus cant be a good person with “possible” Godly benefits who just made some people angry. He walked around for threes years telling everyone that He was God. Good person can not fit. Either he is God are He is a big fat crazy liar who is worse then worse. He would have had to been copletly insane to claim the things he did up until his death on a cross. the last thing we can say is that Jesus was a good person. As C.S. Lewis states, ‘He didnt leave us with that possibility’.

            As far as being a “good person” please define what a good person looks like. How good is good enough?

          4. ReMarker says:

            Oh please Jacob. One of the main reasons people that find themselves in positions of influence give as the reason is, “God wants it to be or it won’t be”. I’m sure Jesus was no different than most others in influential positions in those days (and some in these days). Thank God most of us have more knowledge than our brothers and sisters of yesteryear and have actions toward others that are more benevolent.

            I defined “good person” in my post before this one, but I quote myself for your benefit, np.

            Good people are people that do “things in ways that avoid doing damage to God’s other children.”

          5. Jacob says:

            Wow, I cant believe I made a typo on the name Jesus… I apologize…

          6. Jacob says:

            Had Jesus said God wants it or it wont be ans stopped that would have made a possible point for you. No, Jesus said I AM GOD. He said that He was the only way for salvation.

            We are incrediably off point here

          7. Fruktata says:

            To who do you apologize? I didn’t see Jesus come back from the dead to object.

      2. Fruktata says:

        Oooooh. You just made your own contradiction, Jacob. You’re suggesting that the Bible was written by people with limited, errant, knowledge. But before, you’re suggesting that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Which is it, Jacob?

        1. Jacob says:

          Wow, you guys are reaching. Please explain what I said to make you think that. I pointed out that they had knowledge beyond the people around them…

          1. Fruktata says:

            So, you can’t provide an answer then, right, Jacob?

          2. Jacob says:

            I still dont think I understand what the question is. I say ‘look, these people knew things that they shouldnt have know’ and you say ‘You’re suggesting that the Bible was written by people with limited, errant, knowledge. But before, you’re suggesting that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Which is it, Jacob’. Where is the discnnect happening??? The people of the day strongly believed that the Earth was flat. Isaiah should not have known that the Earth was round, but that is what he wrote. So I think I was just driving home the point that these people did not write the Bible. The author was working through them

  7. Kevin says:

    ha ha ha you sure are funny….

    “The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BCE in ancient Greek philosophy.[1] It remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BCE when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given.” – wiki.

    Isaiah was probably born in Jerusalem about 760 B.C. so you don’t know what you are talking about.

    I re-read “The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine from time to time. Great takedown of the bible with lots of details. Shows that the “prophets” were actually travelling musicians and magicians performing in sort of a circus. Then they started permanent schools of lying and achieved cult status.

    THis is a great site for conflicts in the bible.

  8. Alvin says:

    Jacob, Matthew, mark, and Luke all say that Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover and that the last supper was on the eve of Passover. John says that the last supper was the day before the eve of Passover and that the crucifiction was on the eve of Passover. So which one is it? They can’t both be right.

  9. Jacob says:

    Alvin, this is awesome! That is probably the deepest I have seen an athiest dig to ask a question..

    This is an exert from John Macarthur. I am reading and typing so spelling and grammer errors are mine and not his

    The answer lies in a difference among the Jews in the way the reckoned the beginning and ending of days. from Josephus, the Mishna, and other ancient Jewish sources we learn that the Jews in northern Palestine calculated days from sunrise to sunrise. That area included the region of Galilee, where Jesus and all of the disciples, except Judas, had grown up. Apparently most, if not all, of the Pharisees used that system of reckoning. But Jews in the southern part, which centered in Jerusalem, calculated days from sunset to sunset. because all of the priests necessarily lived in or near Jerusalem, as did most of the Sadducees, those groups followed the southern scheme.

    That variation doubtlessly caused confussion at times, but it also had some practical benefits. During Passover time, for instance, it allowed for the feast to be celebrated legitmatily on two adjoining days, thereby permitting the temple sacrificies to be made over a period of 4 hours rather than two…

    So… both are right. Once again, good question Alvin

  10. Mark says:

    Both Matthew (1:6-16) and Luke (3:23-38) list Jesus’ ancestry. Both name King David as Jesus’ ancestor, but they completely disagree as to the lineage between David and Jesus. Matthew states that Jesus is a 26th generation descendant of David’s son Solomon, while Luke states that Jesus is a 41st generation descendant from David’s son, Nathan. There are no names in common on the two lists between David and Joseph, Jesus’ father. They don’t even agree on who Joseph’s father (Jesus’ grandfather) was. Matthew claims he was named Jacob and Luke says his name was Heli.

  11. Jacob says:

    I have seen this was one recently, cant remember where… hmm… anyways.

    You are making a huge assumption in this contradiction. First Lukes moves backward from Jesus to Adam. Matthews moves forward from Abraham to Joseph. They differ drastically. You will see this is easily reconciled, Luke’s is Mary’s lineage and Matthews is Josephs. The royal line comes through Jesus legal father and His physical descent from David comes through His mothers. Luke contains no women in the lineage. This is different then Matthews (even excludeds Mary)

    1. Mark says:

      It makes no difference that Matthew moves forward from Abraham to Joseph and Luke moves backwards from Jesus to Adam.

      Luke specifically says (3:23) “Jesus … being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli”

      Matthew says ((1:16) “… Jacob, the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born”.

      There is no indication whatsoever that Luke is establishing Mary’s lineage. Luke never states who was the father of Mary. Please quote me a bible passage that supports your contention that Luke is establishing Mary’s lineage.

      1. Jim says:

        Jacob, you haven’t answered Mark’s Biblical contradiction, and you said you would.

  12. ReMarker says:

    This has been an entertaining exchange. Thanks Jim for the topic and thanks Jacob for your participation.

    Jacob, I applaud people with strong convictions, however the contradictions that exists between “fact based” information v the Islam/Judaism/Buddhism/Christianity/Hinduism/Jainism supernatural(“I know who God is and what He wants”) information, among people with strong convictions, always troubles me.

    Under any circumstances, the individual mortal is ultimately the decider of the value applied to spiritual information, in general, and relative to his/her interpretation, much good and/or evil is possible.

    Other interesting discussions can be had debating hmm, “God’s” intent as described in various, supposedly, “God sanctioned” Biblical scriptures, ie. Jesus saying I AM GOD (as you pointed out), Jesus looking different after his resurrection (John 20:14), etc.

    In conclusion, I believe many mortal interpretations of religious writings may lend themselves to the circumstance, as is Biblically warned in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (King James Version) 14.And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15.Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

    With that in mind, recognizing I am a mere mortal, I choose to avoid making judgements about who God is and what God wants, concentrate on dealing with life as it is here and now, and work hard to avoid doing damage to my brothers and sisters.

    May the force be with you.

    PS Jacob, people that may not believe as you do may not be atheists.

  13. kebos says:

    i just want to say there is no doubt a lot of confusion in this world on what god wants.considering all the religions and beliefs of people and each one thinking they are right.looks to me god wants just that, can anyone take the words of people from many centuries ago and consider it without any errors and correct.the people of these times were far more ignorant of the world around them and superstitions were more common than today.if someone wrote a new book for the bible today,not that anyone would actually let it be part of the bible or any other religous text,how many would follow it and believe it the word of god?not many i think but people can believe the text from centuries ago that has been translated many times to fit our much of the real word got through the translation if it did happen to be god inspired and not just some people writing their own ideas down or writing current events.if god wanted us to know what he wants he could have given us his own book and not the book of mans writings and translations.he supposedly gave the ten commandments to man,why not more info?if he really wants to convince the world then make an appearance every couple of centuries to keep us all in check instead of in a state of confusion.doesnt seem to much to ask for a supreme being to do.

  14. Greg R. says:

    Salvation is the most central doctrine of Christianity, yet the authors of the New Testament could not even agree on how salvation was achieved.

    The synoptic gospels claim that salvation is achieved through good works and righteous living.
    The Gospel of John claims that acceptance of Jesus as your savior is all that’s required.
    Paul claims that it is predetermined who is saved, and there is nothing you can do to change that.

    1. Jim says:

      Jacob, it’s been two weeks since Greg posted his contradiction, and you haven’t answered it.

  15. Alvin says:

    This is not a question. More of a comment. The books of the bible were chosen and actually voted on by human beings. These people decided what books are canon and what isn’t. Everyone knows that human beings are prone to corruption and lying. If there s a God, then he should certainly know this. So if he wants us to worship him then let him show himself to the entire world clearly with a clear sign. Let the entire world hear his voice simultaneusly instead f sending so called prophets who may or may not be liars. Until that happens then we have no reason to believe in him.

    1. Jacob says:

      Alvin, have you studied how the canon came to be? Its actually an amazing story…

  16. Alvin says:

    yes the council of nicea pcked which books should go into the new testament. There were other gospels such as the gospel of Thomas which were discarded. On what basis was this done? What authority did men like Origen and Constantine have to say what is the word of God? Were these men prophets? Did God speak to them?

    1. Jacob says:
  17. Jim says:

    Jacob, why aren’t you following through?

    1. Jacob says:

      I have not been home enough to take care of this in the past few weeks. I am logging on from work. I will get to them. I stated from the very begining that this wouldnt be a zippy thing…

      1. F.G. Fitzer says:

        Clearly, God doesn’t want you to refute the Biblical inconsistencies.

        1. Jacob says:

          Call it what you will. I have 4 kids a full time + job and am a full time masters student. Irregular times gets the leftovers…

  18. Jim says:

    In Matthew 5:14-16 Jesus says, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”

    In Matthew 6:1-6 Jesus says, “Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

    And later, in Matthew 6:17-18, Jesus similarly declares, “But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.”

    So which is it, if the Bible is inerrant and without contradiction as you say, Jacob? Are Christians supposed to let others see their good works and piety, or to hide their good works and piety?

    1. Jacob says:

      You are running two seperate things together. One deals with humility. The Scribes and Pharasees were people who wanted everyone to see how holy they were. This isnt a holy contest. jesus was saying if you are doing this all for show they you are doing it wrong. You dont do things for people, you do them for God. Your first verse on the other hand pretty much states, Why the bleep would someone know how to have eternal life and not share it. Tell everyone about how this works so that all may have hope. This is only a contradiction when you force it to be so. I will get to the real questions that are yet to be answered this weekend

      1. Jim says:

        No, the Jesus character is clearly talking about “good works” in Matthew 5, not about people sharing a message. The Jesus character contradicts himself by saying in Matthew 6 that good works should be done in secret.

        I’m not forcing anything. I’m quoting. There’s still a contradiction here.

        Even IF you were right about Matthew 5 and “good works” really meant sharing religiosity, in Matthew 6 Jesus tells his followers to cut the public piety act and do their religious displays in private. That would be another contradiction.

        1. Jacob says:

          I hope two years have helped you to understand this. You are completly wrong.

          These are two seperate issues.

          1. Jim Cook says:

            “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works”
            “Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men.”

            is still pretty clearly a contradiction to me.

            Even if your interpretation of “good works” as a public display of religiosity is accurate for Matthew 5, there would still be a contradiction, because in Matthew 6 Jesus asks people NOT to make a public display of religiosity, which would again be a contradiction.

            Two years doesn’t change the words.

  19. Andre W says:

    I will simply post bible verses, I will not enter my own imput but instead will let the bible speak for itself.
    Genesis 6:4 – There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

    Genesis 6:17 – And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

    Numbers 13:33 – And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
    Genesis 6:19 – You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

    Genesis 7:2-4 – Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
    Now, these aren’t contradictions but things of which I do not agree with.
    Numbers 31:15-17 – 15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    Numbers 31:32-33 – 32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

    God is saying it is ok to rape women? And also to kill children?
    Now, your answer for this cannot be that the women and children were unjust, as it clearly states that they were. My argument is that because the women were virgins, they were allowed to live; so because they were virgins were they less unjust than the other women who were murdered?

    1. ReMarker says:

      Some flood info is here, link:

      A massive volcano eruption approx 71k years ago caused a massive ice age. Find comprehensive information at this link:

      The “volcanic winter” probably is the event that caused the flood many religions report as “God’s will”, as refered to in the info from the first link. The time lines correspond.

    2. Jacob says:

      Let’s start with the animals on the ark. God gives a general rule to bring a male and a female on to the ark for preservation of species. That’s pretty easy to see. He then gives specific instructions on how many clean animals to bring. These would be animals used in sacrifice, which we later see Noah doing. If Noah only had 2 each of all animals he would not be able to present a sacrifice to the Lord. Imagine if I told you to make clothes for a trip to New York for 7 days and I said, “make sure to bring only one set of clothing for each day” and I followed it up with “and bring a swim suit and a pair of dress clothes”. This would not be a contradiction; it would be a separate set of instructions that would fall on top of the general rule.

      As for the giant, I will research this tonight. From what I read this ties back to how the Hebrew words are used. I will need to look further tonight before I can comment.

      Yes, babies and women were killed. It is brutal but also just. Just like if God were to wipe us all out now he would be just in doing so. I am not sure though if this is a question or if you just are pointing out history

      1. Jim Cook says:

        But Jacob, you’ve just tipped the scales with “one set of clothing,” which can include various sorts of numbers of different kinds of clothing within it, including “swim suit” and “dress clothes.” “Bring two of all living creatures” is not the same as “seven of every kind of clean animal.” They’re different commands. Of course, if God were sloppy, or if the Bible were sloppy, then this wouldn’t really be a problem… we’d just chalk it up to God not really meaning what He said, or a scribe inaccurately writing down what God said. But I don’t think (correct me if I’m wrong) you’re willing to say that God or the Bible is sloppy. So there is a contradiction.

        1. Jacob says:

          No, there are two seperate things going on. One, a general command for animals. Two, a seperate command for clean animals.

          1. Jim Cook says:

            An unclean animal is a kind of animal. They are not separate entities.

            “Everybody bring two people to the party. Everybody bring four women to the party.” These are inconsistent, contradictory statements because women are a kind of person. For the same reason, the God character telling Noah to bring two animals to the Ark, and then telling Noah to bring seven unclean animals to the Ark, is inconsistent and contradictory.

            Now maybe God meant something else but he stated himself poorly, in which case God is sloppy (and again, tell me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you want to believe in a sloppy God). Or maybe God explained himself perfectly well, and the people who wrote the Bible just did so in a sloppy fashion (and again, tell me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you favor that option). Or maybe it’s all made up (which you also don’t want to believe). But you just can’t say those phrases are consistent with one another. They’re contradictory in a very basic dictionary-definition sort of way:

            Random House Dictionary: “contradiction”: “a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.”

            These two statements are logically incongruous according to the terms of mathematical and categorical logic.

          2. Jacob says:

            I think the better option is you are grasping at straws. This seems pretty straightforward to me

          3. Jim says:

            Contradiction is a matter of logic. Would you explain my logical error, please?

  20. Andrew W says:

    My apoligies on the typo’s. And to clearify about the first passage, Moses wrote Genesis, or at least helped, and in Numbers God is talking to Moses, just to get the order correct, Moses came after Noah. So there are giants after the flood, even though every living thing (babies included) were killed.
    Also on a side note, the Quaran and many other books have a flood story almost the exact same as the one in Genesis. Some even predate the Genesis flood.

    I wait eagerly for your answer, because I would love to have this cleared up.

    1. Jacob says:

      Actually, my thought is that a world wide flood being talked about by multiple religions and multiple groups completly seperated from one another actually helps to prove the event did take place

  21. Jim says:

    Jacob earlier laid down his smack that Biblical contradictions do not exist and “I think I can answer any one that you throw out there.”

    Now he appears to have given up. His missionary work isn’t going so well.

    1. Jacob says:

      No, Jake just stopped hanging around IT for a while do to some pretty signifcant life events. When he returned he had completly fogotten about this.

  22. Jim Cook says:

    In 1 Samuel 16, Jesse is described as having eight sons.
    In 1 Chronicles 2, Jesse is described as having seven sons.

    1. Jacob says:

      Both texts are no doubt correct. It is most likely that one of Jesse’s sons died before making any significant impact during David’s reign—thus being of no account to the chronicler.

      You will note that 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 does not state that Jesse only ever had seven sons. It simply names seven of his sons (including David) and two of his daughters.

      If one of Jesse’s sons had died before being married, or without having had any children of his own, or without having ever done anything particularly noteworthy, it would not be unusual for his name to be omitted from the written record in 1 Chronicles. Even today it is often common practice (except in formal genealogical registers) to refer to only the surviving children.

      this was copied and pasted from

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!