Today, most Christian theologians will say that the Bible should not be interpreted literally as many fundamentalists do, but allegorically, with emphasis on morals and parables. That’s fine for the enlightened scholar, but this is certainly not how the Bible is taught. Throughout my first 8 years of Catholic school, the Bible was indeed taught very literally, and what I noticed very early on was the copious contractions to be found.
I can affirm that these many inconsistencies, coupled with the fact that they were ridiculous and taught as fact, led me headlong towards atheism and science, where I now firmly reside. Atheists such as myself may be quick to point out to the literal believer these inconsistencies, but because most of us don’t carry around Bibles or memorize enough of it as to make our points absolutely clear, I think it is more useful as a visual.
Even if you’re a believer, it is still valuable to understand your own holy book. And upon deep inspection, contradictions will prevent a modern, literal understanding, as it contradicts modern morals and concepts of deities.
Before continuing, I should make clear that most respected Christian theologians do not take the more serious contradictions literally.
The graphic below is a creation of Project Reason, a non-profit promoting science and secular values in society, created by author Sam Harris.
The graphic is absolutely huge, so feel free to download it to view all its contradictory goodness in great detail. You can download a poster-sized version here.
Click to Make Massive
It is a simple matter to force contradictions out of context, when bias excludes proper exegesis. Those who find such flaws do so out of presupposition rather than critical analysis, having searched for any verse which confirms beliefs already held.
Very few of the examples exhibit any discrepancy at all, and those points which have apparent discrepancy are often matters of nuance (as in example 2). Many examples pose questions which would not result from a comprehensive understanding in context. In example 1, the biased position assumes that the ‘chief of/among captains’ is a singular position. However, two chiefs with different names and backgrounds are given, so there is no grounds to assume that the two verses refer to one man. Example 2 assumes a contradiction between righteousness through faith and works through faith, but no contradiction is logically inherent; if there is a contradiction, logic would dictate that it must be established through discourse. Example 3 is, again, a question forced from inadequate context. The event in which Abraham has an only son takes place both after having disowned Ishmael (his son by Sarah’s servant), and prior to Sarah’s death; it was after his wife’s death that Abraham took another wife and was given more sons. Example 4 is a reach altogether, it is as simple to assume that Ahimelech had a son named Abiathor who named his own son Ahimelech as it is to assume that the record is flawed. Yet, Ahimelech son of Abiathor is said to have had his own son, Jonathan, so a flaw in the record becomes less likely.
Skipping along to avoid tedium, example 11 assumes that Genesis 2 is contradictory rather than supplemental without providing grounds for the former, or disproof of the former. Example 16 assumes the worst, but the context is insufficient to provide evidence for whether these virgins were kept as slaves, daughters, or wives; any way, adultery is not readily apparent. Example 23 is one which ignores nuance; there is a distinction between one’s desire, and one’s necessary actions. That God desires everyone to repent, and has provided the means to repent and gain eternal life, God must also prepare a place for those who reject him. Further, because of his desire to save all who will come to him, that God has seen fit to shun the wicked who reject repentance and make them examples for those who might yet be saved does not contradict his desire; it is the unrepentant who do so. Example 24, again, excludes a comprehensive understanding; a few chapters before, Jesus says “I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.” (John 12:49-50) which reinforces that, though Jesus had made known to his disciples everything he had heard from the Father, there was still more the Father would tell them later through the Holy Spirit. This is not contradiction, but order. Example 32 ignores the fact that certain apostles went by other names, as people often do. Example 33 ignores the fact that the 4 gospels are necessarily different in perspective, and that differing details are not implicitly contradictions. If one author remembers and records the city-region of the event and another that it was at supper, how do these contradict? If one recalled a different place than where they actually were, but did recall the same message, how is such a contradiction even noteworthy?
41. Answer: a donkey’s colt; it can be supposed that Jesus’ ride also broke-in the colt, in which case the colt would have been tied to its mother for the ride.
42. Yes.
45. Gen 10 states that the descendants had their own tribes and languages, Gen 11 tells how this came about. The events in Genesis 10 necessarily happened over several generations. The first passage in chapter 11 details one short-lived event.
47. As Jesus said, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, more to the point, “in the name of” is about more than just spoken names, but about advocacy. Jewish ritual included baptism in the name of the Father; the disciples were baptized in the name of the Son while he was with them, and finally baptized in the Spirit in Acts 2. Acts 8 shows that the disciples found the Samaritan believers lacking baptism in the final name, having already been baptized in the names of Father and Son. Acts 10 concerns gentiles who had already participated in the Jewish faith, which would include a ritual of purification, or baptism, in the Father; in the same passage cited, prior to the verse cited, the Holy Spirit comes down, so the disciples baptize the gentile believers in the name of Jesus, the Son, to seal the deal. Acts 19 is much the same as the situation in Acts 8; Jewish believers, having already been baptized in the father, were baptized in the name of Jesus, and immediately baptized in the Holy Spirit. There really is no contradiction here.
I haven’t yet found any actual contradictions, just misconceptions.
You seem to be quite advanced in religious apologetics, contorting context to make the Bible inerrant.
The obvious point of the graphic is that for a book supposedly written by the supreme being, it contradicts itself, is morally repugnant, poorly written, and any 10 year old knows more about the universe that it does.
Either this god is lazy, impotent, and a terrible author, or perhaps it was just written by scientifically, morally, and culturally ignorant desert tribesmen a few thousand years ago.
“You seem to be quite advanced in religious apologetics, contorting context to make the Bible inerrant.”
Is this a preconception about all apologia applied to an individual apologian? The accusation of contorting context is unsupported, and the bias is obvious; it is a baseless assertion which in reality does nothing to deflect, defend, or dispute the point of the graphic’s obvious ignorance of context across several examples. I neither asserted nor defined any doctrine of biblical inerrancy, ergo you must have applied to my argument your presuppositions about others, whether or not subconsciously, to relieve the threat of cognitive dissonance. I am not in the habit of parroting, so assumptions will gain no ground.
Whether I would assert the bible’s inerrancy is dependent on your definition of inerrant. Suffice to say I believe God’s word (his actual word, not what we read on paper) is inerrant, but that the inspired authors who recorded his word are not. No other position, to my knowledge, can remain supported upon examination of Christian scripture. Theologians in support of inerrancy would say it is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective. But then, the question remains: in what way is this supposed to be true?
The bible is not a scientific text; it his historical, mythological (i.e. metaphysically symbolic, not fanciful) and meant to impart divine wisdom to mundane minds. The bible is first and foremost concerned with moral and spiritual truth, and how the existence of man and God intersect. Inerrancy cannot be assumed to deal with truth outside of this scope, no matter how often Christians mistakenly assert otherwise. Therefor, the vast majority of the supposed contradictions miss the point of the bible entirely, and criticize only a certain school of thought, extremely recent in regard to history, which, as an opinion, does not affect the original writings, only a certain interpretation of them. Furthermore, the passage which supports any kind of inerrancy provides only for its use in religious and ontological truth; the pages of the bible do not purport its usage in the empirical realm.
God is not the author of the bible. Who supposes the bible is written by God? The authors of the books of the bible do not, only certain misguided groups of Christians do. The key word in the bible is “inspired,” which does not reasonably evoke a sense of inerrancy which transcends language and history to render each instance of the text without flaw of interpretation or loss in translation. Whether omnipotent, omniscient God could in fact write such an inerrant communication is beside the point, because God inspired men to be the authors. If any group of Christians doesn’t understand the implications of this dynamic, the flaw is on their end, not scripture’s.
To that point, only those discrepancies which, if truly self-contradicting, would undermine the reliability of the bible in its intended religious and ontological purpose are worth bringing up, not the pithy little nuances and equivocations.
If the bible is so concerned with moral truth, why is so much of it devoted to immoral actions and the rules that govern these immoral actions? God supports genocide, slavery, sexism, misogyny, racism, etc. in the bible. The bible has nothing moral to say that every other society hasn’t already figured out/a toddler instinctively knows.
For example, most people assume that the 10 commandments is something to behold, yet a third of it is useless and the other parts are something instilled by our social evolution as humans.
“If the bible is so concerned with moral truth, why is so much of it devoted to immoral actions and the rules that govern these immoral actions?”
Care to support this premise? Moral truth is not the bible’s focus, and mere mention of immoral acts does not constitute devotion.
“God supports genocide, slavery, sexism, misogyny, racism, etc. in the bible.”
This is a shallow observation. The fact that the law given by Moses even gave rights to slaves was unprecedented. The law that covered treatment of foreigners was similarly novel. (I could only take a shot in the dark what you mean by racism and genocide.) That God de facto supports any of these things is ridiculous. In the account of the bible, God guided an imperfect people who had imperfect beliefs, call the Mosaic law a moral baby step of its time, and the new law given by Christ takes it a huge step further – a step the priests and pharisees were supposed to have been able to take, but because of corruption never did.
“The bible has nothing moral to say that every other society hasn’t already figured out/a toddler instinctively knows.”
First off, if there is an instinctive, objective moral standard, then the God of the bible would be confirmed as the source of such a law. However, the claim of an instinctive moral law is dubious. Children in our Judeo-Christian culture are taught morality through a long-standing tradition of biblical values; it is these same values that were integral in civil rights and the abolition of slavery, a cause championed by bible-believing Christians, by the way.
“For example, most people assume that the 10 commandments is something to behold, yet a third of it is useless and the other parts are something instilled by our social evolution as humans.”
Instilled, you say. This is contradicted by the wide-spread perpetuation of crime, including murder, theft, and otherwise undue removal of property which have yet to be removed from our social evolution. More significantly, these things are still deeply problematic for society. So, no, this assertion holds no water.
So what of the portions devoted to rules on how to own slaves or the divinely ordered massacre of whole villages?
“First off, if there is an instinctive, objective moral standard, then the God of the bible would be confirmed as the source of such a law.” Prove it. Evolution provides a very convincing (fact-based) description of how our moral sense could have evolved, we even see its precursors in chimps and other highly social animals.
Dubious to you or not, instinctive moral law is psychologically established. Children with no religions teaching show a moral sense before they are five years old. It does not take any deity to be good.
Wow, you came up with an example of where Christians were on the right side of morality. I can play this game too. The church opposes condom use in AIDS-ridden Africa, opposes gay marriage (and considers gay people as “broken” in some way), and has systematically covered up child-rape. All perpetrated by bible-believing Christians, by the way.
There is crime, therefore we have no moral sense? What a bunch of nonsense. So bible-believers never commit crime or murder anyone? A simple survey of any prison would prove you wrong. You can know what is moral and do the opposite, obviously. This in no way contradicts my assertion.
“I haven’t yet found any actual contradictions, just misconceptions.”
evangelical much? I haven’t yet found any biblical scholar who wouldn’t point out at least dozen serious, potential faith-breaking contradictions from the bible, not to mention contradictions between epistles themselves, or epistles and acts, so maybe you SHOULD read some scientific papers instead of christian apologists without education? Even catholic encyclopedia points out very serious contradictions, so they can actually talk about them instead of brushing under the carpet with “oh, didn’t see it!” attitude.
And I’m not talking about stuff like “they hear but not see” vs “they see but not hear” when it comes to Paul’s friends traveling with him. There is funny stuff when it comes to Jesus asking Pharisee about messiah in Matthew 22:41-44. It turns out Jesus was using some weird translation too, not only that, it shows how anti semitic “new testament” is, because such a question as he asked would be literally destroyed by any pharisee knowing his Tanakh. Hebrew bible, true or not, is very primitive theological work while “new testament” is just another (among hundreds of apocryphal texts) fairy tales, completely drown in contradictions.
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/lord-said.html
btw, funny how christians accuse atheists for drawing contradictions out of context while whole christianity is based on few out-of-context lines from jewish bible, lol.
[Today, most Christian theologians will say that the Bible should not be interpreted literally as many fundamentalists do, but allegorically, with emphasis on morals and parables. That’s fine for the enlightened scholar, but this is certainly not how the Bible is taught. Throughout my first 8 years of Catholic school, the Bible was indeed taught very literally,]
That’s very odd, since it’s WASN’T taught literally by Augustine or Aquinas, the two most influential Catholic theologians. Nor by ANY of the medieval scholastics.
Perhaps your 10-year-old self just misunderstood adult things. Ya think?
Thank you for repeating exactly what I have already stated: religious scholars typically do not interpret the bible literally.
However, in many private religious institutions it is taught as literal truth.
Pingback: High Fructose Corn Syrup » Bible Contradictions
After reading the comments back and forth, I think it’s important to state the difference between reality, history, and current context. I’ll demonstrate:
John Harag:
[God is not the author of the bible. Who supposes the bible is written by God? The authors of the books of the bible do not, only certain misguided groups of Christians do.]
This is another “No True Scotsman” argument. It’s funny how easy it is to point to other groups of Christians and say, “Oh they aren’t TRUE Christians because they don’t believe the Bible the way I do.” John refers to “certain misguided groups”, yet fails to recognize how prevalent and influential those groups are in today’s modern society. It’s doesn’t matter if the authors of the Bible knew it wasn’t written by God if the majority of evangelical Christians today teach as though they did. As the author of this blog noted, and (without purposefully plugging my own blog) as I experienced as well, being raised with the belief of Biblical inerrancy is actually quite common and should not be so readily dismissed. I personally know many Christians who would gladly argument vehemently against his position in favor of a divinely-written, infallible, and truly literal interpretation, thinking him the non-Christian for believing otherwise. In fact, I would say that Mr. Harag seems very eloquent and well-spoken, and would probably do better to focus his arguments on such evangelical teachings, as those are far more harmful to his positions than any atheistic “there is no God, therefore the Bible is worthless” argument. Dismissing such important and impactful beliefs that drive much of today’s political atmosphere as a product of those “certain misguided groups” is an ostrich approach to the danger of evangelical teachings of infallibility and literalism. This it the “reality” vs. “current context” problem.
Ignatz:
[That’s very odd, since it’s WASN’T taught literally by Augustine or Aquinas, the two most influential Catholic theologians. Nor by ANY of the medieval scholastics.
Perhaps your 10-year-old self just misunderstood adult things. Ya think?]
Here is the example of the “history” vs. “current context” problem. Perhaps it was this author’s 10-year-old self that misunderstood things? I wonder if Ignatz realizes that his citations for the Bible being taught allegorically were from 1000-1600 years ago. Being honest, let’s not pretend that the Catholic Church’s teachings haven’t changed one iota in that time. It’s fantastic that none of the medieval scholars taught Biblical literalism and also completely irrelevant, given that none of those scholars are still alive and teaching. And what is being taught today, in many different denominations and in many areas of the country, is the idea that the Bible is literally and perfectly the Word of God. I was raised Lutheran and taught that and I know many Catholics raised and taught the same thing. To ignore that reality by citing some precedent long ignored does no one a favor.
The fact remains, as long as it is being taught in churches that the Bible is infallible and should be interpreted literally (evidenced by the number of people who still believe in literal creation in America – 46%), then pointing out the problems inherent with such beliefs is perfect valid and necessary.
Also, is there a way to get that picture in a poster?
You can print out various sized posters yourself here.
Pingback: Was aufrechte Katholiken nicht versäumen sollten. Eine Sammlung von 35 Links · D. Kriesel
Pingback: Bible Contradictions | 1NT3RN3TS
“Throughout my first 8 years of Catholic school, the Bible was indeed taught very literally, and what I noticed very early on was the copious contradictions to be found.
I can affirm that these many inconsistencies, coupled with the fact that they were ridiculous and taught as fact, led me headlong towards atheism and science, where I now firmly reside. ”
Catholic education, probably since the 60’s has been in decadence due to the lack of proper catequetical formation of teachers, and the lack of leadership in the Church to keep Catholic schools and seminaries true to the faith. So without the proper education in theology, philosophy and history, it is no wonder that you, and most Catholics of the last two generations are not able to defend and uphold the beliefs you grew up with.
So if you are truly interested in seeking truth of the existence or not of God and the truth of Christian revelation, you will need to look not in scientific proof – since Science is limited to our understanding of the material world – but in philosophy, theology and reason – that are able to provide an understanding of God and our spiritual nature.
As a start, I recommend that you read “The Devils Delusion” by David Berlinski, and watch Christopher Hitchens debate with William Lane Craig on Does God exist? ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntFLhEeLHHw ). Both of these sources will shed light on the arguments and counter arguments for the existence of God.
From there, I recommend that you check out http://www.churchmilitant.tv who clearly explain the faith without mincing words.
John
Pingback: Why do people believe in Science when the bible is the truth? - Page 2 - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums
Great post.
Oh KYLE HILL, your presentation was immediately shitted upon. Sorry bruh. Also sorry you had to go to a catholic school. Those hypocrites are the number one producers of atheists.