Why do some atheists claim that there are contradictions in the Bible without having read the entire text themselves? Updated just now
Why” Because as overall shown below, the ONLY way that they can claim thousands of actual contradictions (such as dealt with by multitudes of Christian exegetesis) is overall thru ignoring and or neglecting context (immediate and extended), sense, forms of speech, literary genre and other normal interpretive principles.
The alleged contradictions below by AmericanAtheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions - set forth as conclusive reasons to reject the Bible - example such neglect or ignorance. As with:
certain covenantal distinctions regarding the Sabbath;
and of grammatical aspects as regards the earth remaining “forever”;
and of the different senses in which one can "see God" ;
and in a book with recorded strange stories (versus laws of God) that human sacrifice to God took place contrary to God's command ;
and egregiously ignoring context and the actual text in confusing Israel not being able to drive out enemies, with God - who commanded them to do so and chastened them for not doing so -;
and again of covenantal distinctions as well as the fuller meaning of retribution vs. non-retaliation;
as well as regards the requirement of circumcision;
and of the principle of laws being expanded as necessary, as with incest;
and of how a promise of overall favor of God to the obedient does not disallow testings for a time, as with Job, as well as the purpose of this;
and of the context (natural man vs. spiritual realm) of Solomon's conflicting conclusions ;
and confusing the effects of actions by fore-bearers vs. actual judicial punishments (or rewards) upon descendants because of actions;
and that of the contextual (in the light of teachings at issue) meaning of temptation intended to induce one to sin, and of formation of testing of character;
and the relative sense of "hate" in choices versus honoring;
and as with #10 (my numbering), that of the differentiation btwn the natural realm verses the spiritual as in cited statements by Job, who expressed both (14).
Since Quora has a word limit in answers then I had to place analysis of the last attempt, “The End of the World” in a comment. Which actually is a difficult objection since it deals with prophecy, but which allegation of provable contradiction fails since it examples ignorance of the term "day of the Lord," and of the reality of precursors before the final full-fulfillment, and the context of the statement at issue.
1. The Sabbath Day: Keep the Sabbath Day vs, “One man esteemeth one day above anothe…Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5
This alleged contradiction juxtaposes ceremonial laws under the Old Covenant and that of the promised New Covenant, and ignores covenantal distinctions which the New Testament (NT) teaches.
In which literal observance of a certain class of laws issued under Moses for Israel (yes, there are different classes) regarding meat, drink, holydays, the new moon, the sabbath days,” (Colossians 2:16) of "days, and months, and times, and years," (Galatians 4:10) and “of ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary,” (Hebrews 9:1) “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:10) are abrogated under the prophesied (Jer. 31:31–34) New Covenant.
Which was instituted by the death of the testator (Hebrews 9:16, 17) and is distinctly “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." (Hebrews 8:9)
Which abrogation stands in contrast to the repeated affirmation and reinforcement in the NT of basic universal laws (applicable to all peoples at all times) which nations where judges for not obeying. (Leviticus 18:27)
Thus not only is eating all legitimate food sanctioned, (Romans 14:14; 1 Timothy 4:3-5) but while all the commands of the 10 commandments are repeated/reiterated under the New Covenant, the law regarding the Sabbath nowhere is, while the only specific day that the NT church (as a distinct assembly) is recorded as having met together is the first day,
which is when the risen Lord Jesus met with His disciples multiple times.
2. The Permanence of Earth: … the earth abideth for ever”- Ecclesiastes 1:4 vs. “shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10
This ignorantly imagines the word (‛ôlâm) translated “for ever” is one that actually only can mean that, versus one that can refer to a long but not permanent period, as Hebrew word translated “for ever” here (H5769 - ʿôlām - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)) basically means long duration. (Exodus 21:5-6) ]
3. Seeing God: No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18 vs. … I have seen God face to face, and my life is spared.” -Genesis 32:30)
This absurdity of a contradiction ignores context and the scope of the meaning of “seeing.” (Exodus 33:20-22; cf. Exodus 24:11; Isaiah 6:1-6; John 12:44-45; Job 42:5; Judges 13:3, 22; 1 Corinthians 13:12; Revelation 22:3-4; cf. 1 Jn. 3:2)
4. Human Sacrifice: “… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech,…” — Leviticus 18:21 vs. “whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me,…I will offer it up for a burnt offering” — Judges 11:30-31 .
This conclusion of a contradiction fails on multiple counts:
presumes that human sacrifice to God (vs. false god) by the willing (the daughter affirmed this vow was to be carried out) is actually unconditionally forbidden;
presumes victory signified Divine affirmation of a rash (what was Jephthah thinking would come thru his door to greet him?), volitional vow to do what is presumably unconditionally forbidden, versus being a presumptuous and unnecessary vow and a lesson against making such;
presumes that Jephthah was required to perform a vow even though it was forbidden by God (as is presumed), even though according to the principle taught in Numbers 30:3–6, 13,14, if the superior authority disallows the vow (or has), then the requirement is null. But, consistent with the culture Jephthah was raised and ruled in, he would likely be ignorant of this.
presumes literal offering must be meant, which is nowhere affirmed elsewhere, versus total dedication as a perpetual virgin in service to God is meant, and to be childless was typically of great distress to women (“Give me children, or else I die:” Genesis 30:1)
presumes and that the book of Judges - with its many very “unusual” (understatement) accounts in the context of a habitually unfaithful people, of spiritual and moral decline and divine chastisement, and thus by calls for mercy and followed by rescue through certain problematic leaders, and concluding with “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25) - is sufficient to understand the meaning and presumed sanction of this vow.
5. The Power of God: “… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26 vs. The LORD was with Judah; and he [not in the original language, but signifies Judah] drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
This ignores that it was not the Lord who could not drive out enemies but Israel due to unfaithfulness, and thus God chastened them for this failure, while using these residual foes to test Israel as to whether they would follow the Lord in the face of allurement to idolatry. (See Judges 3:1–4; Joshua 7:11, 12)
6. Personal Injury: …tooth for tooth…stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25 vs. “…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39
Per usual,, this ignores context, in which Exodus 21:23-25 refers to judicial punishments (“as the judges” determine), and which is also a restriction of punishment (not two for one) while the Lord Jesus is referring to personal retaliation, and as the Lord who would magnify the Law (Isaiah 42:21) the Christ expanded the restriction on justice to non-retaliation. Conversely, the allowance of divorce was restricted. (Matthew 5:31,32)
7. Circumcision: Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10 vs. “…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2
Displays more ignorance, of both covenantal distinctions (Col. 2:16, 27; Hebrews 8:9, 10; Hebrews 9:9, 8) as well as context.
Circumcision was added as part of the distinctive laws of the covenant made under Moses, which God promised would lead to a New Covenant, (Jer. 31:31–34 in which literal observance to the class of typological laws was abrogated, (Colossians 2:16, Hebrews 9:10), but not their intent. (Romans 8:4)
In the second case, circumcision as a religious rite signifies reverting to their former faith. (Galatians 5:2)
8. Incest: “Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22 vs. And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. (Genesis 20:11-12)
More ignorance.
First, laws against incest were not given by Moses until some 500 years after Abraham, who could not be breaking a law that did not exist. Which is because laws were not made arbitrarily, but (as in history overall) as warranted by their purpose. And since the negative effects of the Fall of man were progressive, then there was no health need to forbid incest, which was nowhere forbidden until the institution of the law (and covenant of it) under Moses.
And since man lived hundreds of years, kin could be of substantially different in age, thus reducing social closeness which might be a factor.
Second, the terms “sister” and “brother” are used with wide latitude in the Bible, and as stated here,
considering the age to which Abraham lived (75: Gen. 25:7), it is possible that he married only a granddaughter on his father’s side, or even a niece or grand niece.
9. Trusting God: “A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD…” — Proverbs 12:2 vs. the case of Job the case of Job. “commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan.”
A manifestation of multiple examples of ignorance.
First, This was no “petty pet with satan” but that of exposing for posterity the character of Lucifer, who is revealed from the beginning as selfishly lusting for God’s position and prestige, (Isaiah 14:12–14) and whose premise is that God is not worthy of such, but that Job was devoted to Him only because of what God gave Job. And whom satan hoped to induce to blame/curse/forsake God, and most likely end his trial prematurely by committing suicide (which is what his wife likely was suggesting.
Second, while Job was an upright faithful man, his character was not without defects, and which trials in life reveal, whether via affliction, adversity or affluence. And God promises that before ultimate blessing, the faithful will endure trials. “Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all.” (Psalms 34:19)
Third, contrary to the devil’s goal, Job prevailed, with protestations as to “why,” which God answered via a multitude of rhetorical questions, revealing that God know exactly what Job was going through, and that God He was doing. And in the end, “A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD…” (Proverbs 12:2) was exactly what Job realized. Job 42:10–17.
Therefore, rather than this account being one “a petty bet,” God is revealing for posterity both the character of Lucifer as well as Job, and of trials of suffering, and that of the omniscient omnipotent God, whose eye is even on the sparrow. And who knows all, not only all that we do and why, but what we are going thru, and what all the effects will be, and how to make them work out for what is good, in both justice and in mercy in the end.
And thus, Job, as a good man, did indeed “obtain favor of the Lord,” both before as well as after his trial, meaning that, contrary to the atheist, there simply is no contradiction, but that of another false dilemma.
10. The Holy Lifestyle: “Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart…” — Ecclesiastes 9:7 vs. “…they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not…” — 1 Corinthians 7:30
Once again the crass ignorance of the atheist is on display, which is mainly that of ignorance of context but that of the Bible as well. For there was more explicit contrast that could be cited in seeking to assert a contradiction, such as.
“Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun” - Ecclesiastes 8:15) vs. “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.” (James 4:9)
But of course, that assertion would be that of ignorance of literary forms, in which, as in parts of recorded history such as the actions of the Levite towards his concubine wife in Judges 19, not all that is recorded is teaching how man is to act - unlike the giving of commands, in context - and neither are all the recorded reasonings of man.
Thus alleged contradiction here is that of the ignoring context. In which the first text (Ecclesiastes 9:7 ) is that of Solomon, as part of his experiment, expressing the reasoning and conclusions of the selfish natural man under the premise that this life is all there is.
In contrast is his conclusion:
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13,14)
And the counter text of the atheist, “they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not…” — 1 Corinthians 7:30 is speaking, with some hyperbole, like a coach with minutes left in the game - “the time is short” (I suspect that, perhaps unknown to him, the most immediate application Paul was warning of was the soon-coming tumultuous 70AD event in Judea).
Meanwhile, “Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart…” is consistent with “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.” (Acts 2:46)
But which would not be the case as a careless lifestyle, as if this life and one’s own self is what mattered most, as per Solomon’s reasoning under that selfish premise.
Thus, in context, there simply is no actual contradiction.
11. Punishing Crime: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 vs. “I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
This assertion also examples ignorance, that of grammar and of context.
The first text in full states, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.’ (Ezekiel 18:20)
Which is one of the most repeated/reiterated one in the Old testament, (Dt 24:16; 2Kings 14:6; 2Kings 22:18-20; 2Chron 25:4; Jer 31:29, 30) flowing from “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.’ (Deuteronomy 24:16) ,
And in every instance it is referring to children not being judicially punished (put to death/die) as if guilty of the sins of their father. Instead, “every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
In the second text we first have the reality of the collateral and generational effects of disobedience that are experienced under the system God established. In which, man, being given the ability to make moral choices, is thus enabled to realize consequences which affect more than himself. And indeed, every single choice we make results in ripple effects, for evil and or good, varying in scope and degree.
Thus, while negative choices of the disobedient are “visited” upon others, esp. those closest to the actor, so also, “And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” (Exo 20:6)
Thus, the sense in which the children suffer due to the actions of parents and others is not that of children being judged and punished for what their fathers did, and which repeated statements ar against, but the reality is that sins have a residual, if decreasing, effect under the system God ordained. Of choices and consequences, positive and negative, and, and blessings and punishments.
However, another aspect relative to this is that of a form of unmeritted tribal favor collectively shown to decendants of Abraham due to God’s promise to him, but which favor also renders one more accountable, in judgment, and in which the system described above is yet operative.
Let me add to this something else that atheists often charge God with, which is that of God being “jealous,” as if needing worship for His ego, which, as with many other moral arguments they try to make against God, they see as wrong since they actually morally agree with the Bible on many things. Such as that selfishly seeking devotion is wrong.
However, God needs nothing, (Acts 17:25) and what He actually “gets” from man is mostly morally grievous, which He endures one who knows the end from the beginning and how to make all such to ultimately work out for what is Good, while to make an omniscient, omnipotent unfailing perfect Being your “God” - your ultimate source of security, object of spiritual affection and allegiance - is what is right and beneficial for man, since all created things are finite, fallible and ultimately will fail.
And in the Bible “jealousy” as by the God of Israel which entered into a covenant with Him is not the same as “envy,” for the former is a claim based upon what is rightfully due, whereas envy is a desire for what belongs to another. A coach can be jealous the devotion a player with much potential gives to wasteful activities, but to be envious of his popularity would be wrong. And as God needs nothing, and is not driven by an ego that they needs devotion, then His claim to faithfulness is actually what is only right and beneficial to man. In a word, benevolent.
12. Temptation: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” — James 1:13 vs. “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis 22:1
Which allegation of contradiction fails to consider the sense in which “temptation” can take place, and the meaning of the word, and how this is revealed in others parts of the Bible. In context, it is the use of temptation and the reason why it can work to bring one to sin that is in view, in which “every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (James 1:14-15)
Thus, temptation can induce one to sin, yet the actual cause is that of one’s own lust and yielding to it . But life itself a test of character as it includes facing situations in which one can be tempted to morally compromise (which can include leaving home for college, and or a position of responsibility at work, as well as facing combat in the military, etc.), yet this does not mean that the person placing a person in that environment is seeking to bring that person to compromise, but is can be to see if one is worthy of responsibility.
And the word translated “tempt” (nāsâ) is the same word most often translated “prove” in the Bible, as in the chastisement of Israel in failing to drive out the nations that God commanded Israel to do (which atheists actually imagine means God could not!), this God stated, “I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died: That through them I may prove [nāsâ] Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not.” (Jdg 2:21-22)
Which was NOT that of God actually intending to seduce Israel to sin out of lust, but to manifest to them and posterity whether or not they would be faithful in the face of temptation. A test of character, which we all can daily face.
For while antitheists irrationally rail against God for allowing evil and suffering, this is one of the consequences of enabling and allowing man (and angels) to make choices, which have consequences. However choice is meaningless unless there are alternatives to choose btwn. Thus a “perfect being” is not an infallible robot, or spouse, but one who has the capability to make choices which can render him/her morally imperfect.
A perfect spouse in this sense would be able to choose to be unfaithful. Enter Lucifer, who without any need, merit, or request, selfishly presumed to elevate himself to God’s position, (Isaiah 14:12-14) and in turn, Lucifer provides the basic alternative for man to faithfulness to God.
And thus, as see in Judges 2:21-22 and many other places, God “tempted” as meaning allowing temptation as a test of character.
And while this is usually thru allowing evil to tempt people, yet God can also try the heart of persons in commanding a person to do something. In the case of Abraham referred to in the atheist’s counter verse, this was that of “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. “ (Genesis 22:2)
Which itself I am sure atheists imagine as being contrary to “Thou shalt not kill,” (Exodus 20:13) though the word for “kill” is that of murder,” and refers to commands for man, who, not being the creator and giver of life, and being ignorant of what all the single and collective effects of every action and inactions will be, nor able to ultimately make them work out for what is Good, with both justice as well as mercy, has no right to even terminate his own life nor unjustly, unlawfully take that of another.
Moreover, in context, the child (estimated to be btwn 12 and 25 was one whose conception was miraculous, and which Abraham was able to obey this command since he thus believed that God was able to raise up his slain son, which was required in order for God to keep His promise to Abraham to provide innumerable descendants thru him.
And yet, Abraham’s willingness to obey God in this being manifest, God intervened to prevent it, manifesting to Abraham himself and to posterity his exceptional character of this “father of faith.” And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. (Genesis 22:11-12)
(Of course, I am sure atheists imagine this to be a contradiction of God’s omniscience, even though there actually is no “I” before “ know” in the original, and denotes what has been revealed). In contrast is the meaning of the statement in the counter verse of the atheist, that “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” — James 1:13, which in context is “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (James 1:13-15)
And lust can be that of revenge, but as was told the first murderer, “And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” (Genesis 4:6-7)
Thus in such a case it is lust which lead to sin causes one to be vulnerable to deception, while an condemned agent of such refers to one actually intending to seduce a person to sin, as the devil sought to bring Eve to do, which is not the intent of God when a person is faced with temptation, but that of manifesting character.
Even in the case of Pharaohs heart being hardened by God, (Exodus 4:21) that was actually by God doing such supernatural acts that would have moved a rational man to admit this was of God and submit, but as with the Pharisees when faced with the merciful miraculous of Christ, in reprobation Pharaoh hardened his own heart. (Exodus 8:15) Likewise, we ourselves can harden the hearts of others by telling them what they do not want to hear.
But then we have the case of just war, in which the victim of unjust aggression man can use deception in order to thwart an enemy for the just purpose of defeat of evil, if not to knowingly sin but to deceive. Which is not what James 1:13 is addressing, but applies to God employing agents acting according to their nature in order to justly punish lying evil men. (1 Kings 22:19–24) Those who choose deception will receive the same, while those who follow the revelation God gives will be provided with more of the same. (John 12:35, 36; cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:7–12)
13. Family Relationships: “Honor thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus 20:12 vs. “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26
Again, context is king, as well as grammar. The first command relates to honor of parents, which flows from honor of the Creator, God, who also requires honor of those in authority, basically due to their office, (Exodus 22:28; Mt. 23:2; 1 Peter 2:17) yet which is not opposed to warranted reproof of occupiers of such office by genuine men of God. (Exodus 7:16) In the second case the word “hate” is comparative, as in meaning choosing one over the other, and in Biblical language then extremes of one over another were used. Thus,by way of effect, He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace. (Proverbs 11:12)
He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding. (Proverbs 15:32)
Likewise, , the “hate” in the text at issue extends to one’s own life: “If any man come to me, and hate not…his own life also,” he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
Which does not mean caring for one’s own life, as no man overall “hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” (Ephesians 5:29)
Yet consistent with such Biblical usage as cited, when it comes to choices then to choose the Lord’s call to service for His kingdom is “hate” his life in this world as not being in that service, likewise it would be to “hate” parents if the opposed the same.
Likewise, a soldier in classic boot camp was essentially told that his supreme loyalty, dedication, and service was to the Marine CO and service, which was under the premise that such was necessary to save parents and family. And the Lord’s last act was to enlist care for His mother as concerns the flesh, though He had reminded her that His own ultimate overriding allegiance was to His heavenly Father. (Luke 2:49; John 2:4)
14. Resurrection of the Dead: “…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. ” — Job 7:9 vs. “…the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth….” — John 5:28-29
Which, akin to objection #11, fails to consider the context, as to whether the source is expressing his own reasoning as Solomon was in much of Ecclesiastics, and or whether one is expressing Truth as limited to one realm due to a partial degree of revelation, versus that of speaking/writing Divine Truth as from God like a prophet or a law giver as Moses. Which the context of statements would reveal, and in this case is that of expressing Truth as limited to one realm due to a partial degree of revelation.
In which Job is enduring a perplexing trial, that of a good man with a loathsome debilitating disease, and protesting by expressing the finite temporary reality of man - which pertains to this life: As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more. (Job 7:9-10)
Which expression of common knowledge is true as regards this life, in which the dead (aside the temporary status of resuscitation miracles) do not come back to resume their life as before.
What Job was ignorant of what the physical reign the Messiah on earth, with believers in super-natural bodies as that of the resurrected Christ, which is not that which Job describes, or could. Thus the contradiction is not between two Truths, as one is limited to this life and knowledge from it.
However, as Job later affirms, "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." (Job 19:25-27)
And as said, since Quora states that my answer is too long, I will add the rest of my responses to American Atheists, Inc., in a comment, by the grace of God.
Note that while the Bible provides a complimentary and pregoressive revelation of God, and of man, and of obedience, and the provision of salvation, and of eternity, it is also an approx. 800,000 word book of 66 books, consisting of multiple literary forms and of expression, penned over about 1600 years thru about 40 different persons, and translated from manuscripts (mainly from 2 languages), besides imagining that changes in spelling, sentence structure between multitudes of manuscripts, and translator’s preferences, which attackers of the Bible also count as actual “contradictions.”
Such also seek to negate its authority by typically engaging in superficial careless isolationist eisegesis, imagining actual contradictions that sound consideration reveal to be specious at best, while there are only a minute percentage of the Bible that apologists (the word means to give an explanation) typically attribute to copyist mistakes among existing manuscripts.
And yet which are doctrinally insignificant (unless one holds that every word in every existing manuscript copies must be unchanged in any way, and in every translation - and only word for word types as the KJV should be the first source) and the main message and meaning of texts being overall readily present to honest seekers of God, and or if needed, which further examination provides (the free E-sword and or The Word software can help in, as well as here), with comparative analysis, following interpretive principles.
Footnotes
[2] Genesis 20:12—If incest is condemned, why did Abraham marry his sister?
· Apr 7
15.1. The End of the World: “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. ” — Matthew 16:28 vs. history.
Ignorance of or carelessness regarding original language. The Greek word for "some" (tis) - an enclitic indefinite pronoun - most often is translated (KJV) "certain," 104 times (as in Mat 9:3), and "one" 34 times (as in Mat 12:47) and as "man" including "a certain man" and some man" 45 times, and is not definitively plural. In addition, their is no word in the Greek for "they" in the verse, which was added by the translators.
Thus, the promise can easily refer to John, who did indeed see the Lord coming in His kingdom in the astounding vision while left to die on the island of Patmos:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. (Revelation 19:11-15)
15.2. “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ” — Luke 21:32-33 vs. history.
Finally a case with some legitimate weight. Prophecy is not like a newspaper report but is most like a vision, in which events are described but can describe different time frames, and which can see precursors of a final fulfillment. They key word here is "This" as in "This generation" of the previous verse, "when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." (Luke 21:31)
The question then is, "what things," which is preceded and by "many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near," and of "wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by." (Luke 21:8, 9)
Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. (Luke 21:10-11)
So all these would be what "this generation" would see. Yet in addition,
But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. (Luke 21:12-17)
Which so far is a lot for the present generation and to see in perhaps the next 50 or so years, though to some degree the second part of the first century did. However, the next verse specifically applies to the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem, yet as a precursor of the final fulfillment: And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-24)
The last sentence. "led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" does not correspond to a return of Christ in 70 AD but awaits a future realization.
"Over the next 1,900 years, Jerusalem would change hands at least eight different times in continual cycle of war and conquest. In the end of the 7th century, Muslim conquers built the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, where it remains to this day. The words of Yeshua had become a stark reality: Jerusalem was trodden by the Gentiles." (Jerusalem 70 AD: Not One Stone Left upon Another - Hope for Israel)
After the destruction of the temple in 70AD, in partial fulfillment of answer to the first of 2 questions asked of Jesus by His disciples, ( Mt 24:3; Mr 13:3,4; Luke 21:7) then or the next 1,900 the Jewish people would be scattered into the four corners of the earth, until a progressive regathering. (Deuteronomy 32:26; Isaiah 11:12)
And which "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" and future events after that point is the era the proceeding section belongs to:
And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Luke 21:25-33)
It is this culminating description which "when ye see these things come to pass" includes, and which simply has not been realized. And this "generation" can refer to the people group that see these culminating things. Likewise, a type of generation, as in "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Mat 12:39)
15.3: “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our
salvation
nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at
hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put
on the armour of light.” — Romans
13:11-12
“Be
ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord
draweth nigh.” — James
5:8
“Little
children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist
shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that
it is the last time.” — 1
John 2:18
“But
the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch
unto prayer.” — 1
Peter 4:7
vs.
history.
This also requires knowledge of Biblical themes and words. The "the day is at hand" refers to "the day of the Lord" which flows from in the Old Testament (24 times), usually prophetically, concerning which in prophecy there are precursors to a yet final fulfillment. For instance, prophecies (Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) that concern 2nd century B.C. Antiochus Epiphanes saw substantial realization in that time, yet not fully, and Jesus Himself foretold that the Abomination of Desolation would yet come. (Matthew 24:15–16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20–21) which Epiphanes was a precursor of.
Precursors of various prophecies of the day of the Lord can include Assyria conquering the Northern Kingdom of Israel 722 BC, and the Babylonian army defeating Egypt in 605 BC, and when the Babylonian army conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC, when the Babylonians destroyed Edom in 583 BC
This does not change the fact that the cited texts indicate imminent realization, and in preterism (often held by Calvinist "Reformed") Christians hold that this day of the Lord and fulfillment of the prophetic texts referred to above, being a day of judgment, referred to the calamitous end of the Jewish world in 70AD, with them no longer having any homeland, but scattered into the four sections of the earth,as foretold, which is followed by an epoch of time before the final judgement.
As a "futurist" I do not hold to 70AD being the final fulfill-ment, but affirm that "it is the last time [age/times]," "the end of all things is at hand" "The night is far spent, the day is at hand," "the coming of the Lord draweth nigh," "our salvation is nearer than when we believed" expresses a terminal state of the present time as a expectation of soon realization of the day of the Lord and deliverance thereof. And this did see "the end of" temple Judaism, as the temple and Levitical genealogical records were destroyed, and with validation of priests, and their homeland. However, despite profound judgment it did not see the realization of the day of the Lord and His literal coming, but that of more persecution and yet exponential growth.
Yet, the church was also told,
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)
And which the book of Revelation more fully describes, and which the profound judgment of 70AD did not fulfill (for instance, see "no more" in Revelation 18:14, 21-23), but once again the destruction of the temple and events proceeding from it were yet another partial fulfillment as a precursor.
However, these conditions could have occurred, and can in short order. Therefore, I will posit that what is expressed is not that of a promise of the Lord's return in the lifetime of the immediate hearers, but a desired waiting expectation by them. Yet Scriptural prophecy is also written for all generations, each of which in every age after 40AD could also express this "salvation is nearer than when we believed" expectation. For at any time the conditions necessary for Lord's return can be realized in relative short order.
In conclusion, this last (#15 as I number them) is indeed challenging, and I am not immersed in end time prophecy as much as others, but I do not see this expectation of imminent return of the Lord as being a promise to the first generation, but that of prophecy contingent upon accompanying events taking place, and written to all generations, and with "soon" being applicable to all age since, for it literally can and believers are to be ready.
Many more alleged contradictions are dealt with by multitudes of Christian exegetes.
Overall, what is exampled in such is that of atheists carelessly treating the Bible as it was all - or least wherever they imagine they have found a actual contradiction - to be understood by a prima facie reading by as subjects who are quite ignorant of it, ignoring context, grammatical aspects, etc., in a document of almost 800,000 words, from about 40 different writers of various occupations, covering two basic covenants, and using two languages (with a third being very limited), and many literary genres (including Law, History, Wisdom, Poetry, Epistles, Prophecy, etc.) and (as with communication in a literary society) employs multitude figures of speech including euphemism, circumlocution, metaphor, allegory, allusion hyperbole, understatement, idiom, sarcasm, personification, pun, simile, synecdoche, etc.), within a vast number of contexts, and compiled over a period of approx. 1600 years while covering vast expanses of time (and existing in thousands of manuscripts of copies of copies of varying qualities)
And yet, despite such a vast wealth of material and manuscripts (which provides much for antitheists to assert contradictions of), the Bible provide an amazingly cohesive, complementary message (in context, and other normal interpretive principles), most importantly that of a salvation by the one true holy omniscient, omnipotent, infallible eternal being, who gave us both good things and good laws.
Which good things and good laws we have abused and broken, with consequences. For rather than perfect robots, man was provided with the ability to make choices (and moral choices reveals character, and what a man wants), with alternatives to choose between, good or evil. And thereby affecting others, varying in scope and degree with immediate and ripple effects in this life, in which no man is an island unto himself. In addition to these are judicial judgments, and which, as eternal beings, man will also realize in the afterlife.
For rather than removing choice, or making man without any moral sense, or allowing unrestrained evil (so the whole world becomes a N. Korea), or preventing every deleterious effect of which, and or without an infinity to worship His unseen creator (unique among earthly creations) and to do what His right, then God gave men a moral sense, (Romans 2) while allowing with much long-suffering the abuse of His creation, with all its immediate and collateral effects. If not without final reckoning judgments (plural), and with punishment relative to accountability.
Which God allows as being the only omniscient, omnipotent, infallible eternal being - who knows what all the effects will be of every action, and will make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with justice as well as mercy, in contrast to mere finite, fallible, and failing man or any created being, who are not fit to serve as man's ultimate god.
In the light of which man is in need of a salvation, which only God could provide. And which He did, at His own expense, sparing not His own Son to save sinners - even though God has no need of anything from man. (Acts 17:25) And which Son Himself choose to become the prophesied scapegoat and perfect atonement for man. Taking upon flesh and doing every thing Right, and then taking responsibility for every thing we have done wrong, and paying the price for our forgiveness with His own sinless shed blood, dying for us as our sin-bearer. IS. 53)
And having done all in that regard ("It is finished" - Jn. 19:30). He arose and appeared to many, then ascended back to His Father in Heaven, but as mankind's present savior and future judge. (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18)
Thus the response of man is what is required, to decide before God who sees all, knows all, and what you did and do and why, to honestly come before Him in repentance, and asking the risen Lord Jesus to save you, a sinner, and thus follow Him.
For The redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account.
And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and which is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb. 12:22, 23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39)
