If I was promulgating a holy text to give to my subjects that I had created in my image, the sole eternal vessel of wisdom to be imparted with instructions on how to reach the promised land for all eternity, one would think it would be a priority to refrain from contradictions or misunderstandings of any kind. The Christian god, apparently, didn’t get the memo. The list of contradictions and misstatements in the Bible is extensive. Nonetheless, this paper will try to make sense of them. In so doing, it will also discuss the version of morality presented in the bible as well as the nature of the bible as a historical document.
To begin with the Old Testament, we can immediately find several contradictions even within the same chapter. For example, we see that, in the book of Genesis, it is described that God is “satisfied with his works” (Gen 1:31). However, only a few pages later, we find out that God is in fact “dissatisfied with his works” (Gen 6:6). God, clearly, is having trouble making up his mind. Next, God is described as “dwelling in temples”. But wait, not so fast, we find out later in Acts that God in fact “does not dwell in temples” (2 Chron 7:12,16, Acts 7:48). Confusing to say the least. Similarly, God is described as “dwelling in light”, and alternatively, also “dwelling in darkness” (Tim 6:16, 1 Ps 18:11). God clearly “dwells” in many different places.
Next, God is described at several points in the Old Testament as being “seen and heard”. However, we soon find out that God, in fact is “invisible” and therefore “cannot be seen and heard” (Ex 33:11, John 1:18). In Ezekiel, God is described as being “tired” (Ex 31:17). However, later we find out that, as God is an omnipotent, immortal being he, in fact “cannot tire” (Is 40:28). These alternative descriptions of God are indicative of his nature as described by Christian theology as an inherently conflicting and contradictory entity. As the old metaphor goes, can God create a stone that he cannot lift? If God is an intemporal, all knowing, all powerful being, wouldn’t he be powerful enough to end world hunger, to stop earthquakes, to stop bands from making bad Christian rock remixes of old hymns? Wouldn’t the purpose of free choice be eliminated if God already knew what we were going to do ahead of time? If we only acted in a certain way out of fear of eternal damnation and hellfire? These questions are inherent in the biblical description of the Christian god and in the nature of theological descriptions of reality in general.
Similarly, in other biblical passages discussing the extent of God’s capabilities, we see that in Acts 1, God is described as “knowing the hearts of men” (Acts 1:24). However, in Deuteronomy, it is described that God instead “tries to find out what’s in their heart” (Deut 13:3). Out of both of these options, the latter seems like the superior one. The prospect of a divine dictator seeing into one’s thoughts at all times seems like Big Brother on steroids, and hence, an undesirable outcome, at least for those of us that have read any George Orwell (Dean & Orwell, 2008). Similarly, God is described as “all powerful” and “not all powerful” at various points in the bible (Jer 32:27, Judg 1:19). He is also described as alternatively being everywhere present and not everywhere present, omnipotent and not omnipotent, as unchangeable, and alternatively, changeable (Jer 32:27, Judg 1:19, James 1:17, 1 Sam 2:30,31). Again, the latter seems like the better option in each of these cases. The prospect of a divine totalitarian figure who has the ability to torture one for all eternity if his (very confusing) instructions as not followed to the letter should not be viewed as a desirable outcome by anyone with a functioning cerebrum.
There are also contradictions that apply to the version of morality as described in the bible and the nature of God’s role as the final judge of humanity’s destiny. In the bible, God is meant to be the final arbiter of justice for humanity, deciding how each individual’s fate will be decided, for better or, in many cases, worse. Good thing than, that according to the bible God is “just and impartial” (Rom 2:11). However, this optimism is soon dashed, as readers find there are equivalently many passages that describe God as “unjust and partial” (Ex 20:5). There are also times when God is described as the “author of evil” and “not the author of evil” alternatively (Lam 3:38). Beyond the fact that, once again, the descriptions are wildly inconsistent, the version of morality described in the bible is problematic for a myriad of other reasons as well. We see that God is the final judge as to a given person’s character and their destiny, and there is no form of objective representation in the form of a lawyer, something that is considered basically standard practice in any type of official legal proceeding nowadays. God is, quite literally, the judge, jury, and executioner. But why is this problematic? In his novel God is Not Great, Hitchens describes the version of morality present in the bible, the idea that we as humanity cannot do good without a totalitarian figure, as a form of poison that infects humanity down to the most basic aspects of life (Hitchens, 2017). He points out that, according to an interpretation of reality based on the bible, God is meant to be the main authoritative figure in our lives, dictating how we eat, drink and with whom me may sleep with. We are not meant to question him, simply obey. In fiction and otherwise, absolute forms of morality are rarely portrayed favourably. 1984 is an obvious example that has already been mentioned, but there are many others, including in other science fiction novels, like in V for Vendetta, or even in the realm of fantasy, like The Lord of the Rings. The reality is that many situations are complex and nuanced and require multiple perspectives and the proper amount of time to understand. Yet, God seems to believe we are to abide by his rules to the letter for fear of eternal damnation, again, despite the fact that the instructions themselves are completely inconsistent.
But what about direct moral instruction provided by the Bible? Thus far we have manly discussed depictions of God and his capabilities, but what about specific directions provided to humanity by God regarding human behaviour. In terms of specific instructions regarding morality in the bible, the Ten Commandments, supposedly provided to Moses on Mount Sinai, are the most obvious example. However, there are other parts of the bible that discuss what God considers appropriate moral behaviour as well. As with everything else in the bible, these instructions are wildly contradictory. For example, there are alternative passages that both condone and forbid stealing, lying and killing (James 2:25, Prov 12:22, Ex 32:27, Ex 20:13, Ex 12:35,36, Lev 19:13). The general rule of thumb seems to be, don’t steal, lie or kill anything or anyone unless God’s seems to have decided to allow it in that specific instance. This is best exemplified by the fact that historically, after Moses supposedly received the ten commandments from God, among which is the commandment, “thou shalt not kill”, historical records show that the Israelites subsequently massacred an entire group of Amalekites (1 Samuel 27:8–9). This same phenomena can also be seen in passages discussing marriage and circumcision (Gen 2:18, Cor 7:1, Gen 17:10, Gal 5:2). Furthermore, and more generally, in the modern era, religiosity is positively correlated with armorial behaviour as measured by crime rate across numerous studies (Golubski, 2017). Thus, it appears that God’s instructions have been thoroughly ineffective in providing an effective moral framework and that religiosity and religious instruction is inversely correlated with killing, stealing and other forms of malefaction. Lastly, another important moral issue is the subject of slavery. Once again, one can find Biblical passages that both condone and allow slavery (Lev 25:45,46. Ex 21:16). The issue is obviously that, for those that wish to do so, the bible can easily be used as a justification for such practices. This is best exemplified by American history, where, for over one hundred years, slave owners cited religious texts in the bible as justification for their practice in human trafficking (Rae, 2018). Again, one has to wonder, why would this just and all-knowing God, include so many passages permitting humans to own each another. The reality is that, if they were included in his instructions, he must somehow condone this type of behaviour.
There are also alternative descriptions in terms of the way God himself is personified and described in the bible. At times God is described as “warlike” and “peaceful” alternatively (Ex 15:3, 1 Cor 14:33). He is also alternatively described as “cruel” and “destructive” as well as “kind and merciful” at several different points (Deut 7:16, 1 Chron 16:34). He is also alternatively described as having a “fierce and long lasting” temper as well as a “slow” temper that only endures “for a minute”. (Num 25:4, Ps 30:5). God is also depicted as “tempting” man and “not tempting” man, as “not lying” and as lying by proxy through spirits he commands (2 Sam 24:1, James 1:13). The personification of God in these instances is in direct contrast with the description of God as all-knowing and all loving. Furthermore, for all the descriptions of God as an eternal omnipotent being, he seems oddly preoccupied with the minutia of human affairs, such as when he elects to raise Lazarus from the dead (one of the lesser known of the many resurrections depicted in the bible) or when Jesus turns water into wine. In observing these instances, it’s amazing to think how, once again, this all knowing, all loving God had enough time to help turn water into wine but couldn’t bother providing humanity with the theory of heliocentrism or providing an outline for the discovery of penicillin, preventing the prolonged and excruciating deaths of hundreds of millions of people from what are now considered basic and preventable diseases. Even the prospect of how God supposedly intervened to save humanity begs the question as to why and how, an immortal and intemporal being couldn’t have come up with a better and more convincing strategy to convince humanity of his existence than to stage a crude human sacrifice somewhere in the rural middle east. Why not for example, appear to the Chinese, who had already developed an advanced system of writing and reading at that time? For all the discourse regarding omnipotence and omniscience, God’s ideas consistently lack the creatively of the average modern day fifth grader.
These contradictions also extend to differences in terms of the way Christianity should be practiced. For example, at one point, we find that God “delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices and holy days” (Lev 23:27). However, later on, it is said that God in fact does not “delight in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days” (Ps 50:13,4). Later on, we see that god does not accept “human offerings”. However, this is quickly contradicted by the assertion that he does in fact accept these offerings (Deut 12:30). There are also passages in which God sanctions public prayer and conversely commends public prayer (1 Kings 8:22, Matt 6:5, Luke 18:5, Matt 6:7). Lastly, God both condemns and allows the making of “images” at several different points in the bible (Ex 20:4, Ex 25:18). These distinctions may seem small, but they are important enough that multiple wars have been fought over them. Examples include wars associated with the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation (“Encyclopædia Britannica”, 2024). You’d think it would behove God to have made his instructions clear enough so that those who wanted to follow him would be able to without confusion and without infighting amongst each other. Instead, out of the various wars and instances of violence fought in the name of the Christian religion it is estimated that around 100 to 700 million people have died. Think of all the waste that could have been prevented if this (supposedly omnipotent) God had been clearer with his instructions. We instead confront a stark reality that this supposedly omnipotent, all knowing and all-powerful entity is instead quite prone to err. Or rather could it be, that this book full of contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies was actually written by a group of mammalian primates that are only a few chromosomes away from an ape, and who were struggling to come up with a way to explain the world around them? Which of these propositions seems to be the more likely one?
There are also more specific discrepancies that apply to Christianity as a religious belief system and how it relates to other religions, especially associated with descriptions of the trinity and the role of Jesus. For example Jesus is described as equal with God and not equal with God alternatively at various points in the bible (John 10:30, John 14:28). Jesus is also described as all-powerful and not all-powerful conversely (John 3:35, Mark 6:5). The nature of the trinity is also confused and muddled across the various chapters of the bible, during which at times we are told to consider said trinity as a single entity or a plurality of entities alternatively (Deut 6:4, 1 John 5:7). This is a pretty important distinction, as the role of Jesus is essentially the core differentiating factor between Christianity and the world’s other major monotheisms, and you would have thought God would have made sure to have gotten it right. Doing so would have clarified a lot of discrepancies and again, prevented a lot of conflict. Religious conflicts surrounding the validity of the Christian belief system include but are not limited to, the Crusades and the Inquisition, during which, again, potentially hundreds of millions of people were killed (“The Crusades”, n.d.).
In general, one can see that, depending on which passage of the bible one elects to read, one could arrive at wildly different conclusions on a myriad of different topics, including the nature of God, his capabilities, what God considers moral behaviour and more. Instead of wasting our time analysing these passages of texts to try and figure out what God really meant, perhaps time would be better spent thinking of how this supposedly omnipotent and all-knowing being could be so incompetent as to provide humanity with such a completely non-sensical and contradictory set of instructions. When, the truth is, we would be better off as a species abandoning these falsehoods and claims to the supernatural, instead adopting the scientific and historical method, as espoused by famous authors like Epicurus, Lucretius, Democritus and Thomas Paine, as the material by which we educate ourselves and our children.
References:
“The Crusades: Definition, Religious Wars & Facts - History.” History.Com, A&E Television Networks, www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/crusades. Accessed 29 June 2024.
Dean, Mike, and George Orwell. 1984. Pearson Education, 2008.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 23 June 2024, www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/From-the-schism-to-the-Reformation.
Golubski. “Digitalgeorgetown Home.” DigitalGeorgetown Home, Georgetown University, 1 Jan. 1970, repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/557890.
Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great. Atlantic Books, 2017.
King James Bible. King James Bible. Proquest LLC, 2011.
Rae, Noel. “How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery.” Time, Time, 23 Feb. 2018, time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/.