How Does The Bible Contradict Itself?

1. 65

   WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

   Zarm, hello and welcome to the conversation.  Thanks for your contribution.
   
   I'm sorry for two things:
   1. That you would be so easily swayed when deciding to "toss out" everything I've said.
   2. That you would take wikipedia as such an authoritative source.
   
   I should remind you (and others) that wiki is a great starting point for research, but it shouldn't be the end-all.  There's a reason why wikipedia isn't an acceptable "source" in higher education circles- and that's because it's easily edited.  Again, a great tool, but it shouldn't be an end-all.
   
   Mark- good point. Plagues in history have certainly wreaked havoc on the world population.
   
   But enough to knock off some of those zeros?
   
   I mean if evolution were true and humankind were alive and reproducing for that many thousands of years, how could our world population be so "small" today?
   
   Let me take a stab at some math here...I'll even shave the numbers to help your cause:
   Humans have been reproducing since 30,000 BC.  We started out with two humans (I'm making this up as I go here- do evolutionists really believe only two humans eventually evolved?).
   
   Let's pretend those two humans each had three kids and from that point forward all human couples had an average of four kids.  Additionally, a "generation" is 40 years.  Let's also pretend no one has any problems with these figures!
   
   So it would look like this:
   1st generation- 2
   2nd generation- 6
   
   and when you get to the 20th generation, in theory the world population would be over 2 billion people.
   
   Yes, world plagues and epidemics will hinder those numbers, but think about it...that's just talking about getting to the 20th generation.  If humans had been around for 30,000 years (a low figure, remember), we're talking 750 generations, not just 20!
   
   My calculator doesn't go that high, I dunno maybe yours does

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Jeromeoposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I guess if you, start with the death of [Able] then factor in all the wars pre-flood.  Then start over again, with the eight people left after the flood, the fact that Nimrod use to hunt down his fellow man, and we do not know haw many he killed. 
      
      Then add in the Holocost, all the people who died in the First and Second World Wars, and the  numbers of people killed by crime and other mishaps, you will be able to calculate, roughly 6 Billion. 
      
      It seems as though where your caluclator stops, the laws of providence have provided a count that can not be denied.
      
      The real mind blower here is the fact that man's in-humanity to man has caused the death of most of those people you can't count on your calculator.
      
      Not  the best argument for contradictions fuzzy math.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Jeromeoposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I guess if you, start with the death of [Able] then factor in all the wars pre-flood.  Then start over again, with the eight people left after the flood, the fact that Nimrod use to hunt down his fellow man, and we do not know haw many he killed. 
      
      Then add in the Holocost, all the people who died in the First and Second World Wars, and the  numbers of people killed by crime and other mishaps, you will be able to calculate, roughly 6 Billion. 
      
      It seems as though where your caluclator stops, the laws of providence have provided a count that can not be denied.
      
      The real mind blower here is the fact that man's in-humanity to man has caused the death of most of those people you can't count on your calculator.
      
      Not  the best argument for contradictions fuzzy math.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      WC - I really think I would be wasting my time explaining why your population model makes no sense whatsoever You have already decided, based on what you read in a 2,000 year old book, and are trying to make the facts fit the belief.
      
      I very much enjoy arguing with you and admire your persistence, but I will just say a few things, and leave you some links to resources on population dynamics.
      
      Of course biologists do not believe that only 2 homo sapiens evolved and then we started from there - that is an extremely childish way of approaching the subject. The only people who might believe this sort of thing are.....
      
      A few things that can limit population growth, some times pretty drastically:
      
      Disease
      Ice Ages and other drastic climate changes
      Floods
      
      But more importantly, lack of resources. i.e. food - Human population has only exploded in the type of terms you are talking about in the last few years thanks to farming methods and mechanical devices that allow us to over use the resources we have at our disposal. The end is nigh ! Eventually they will run out and we will see how well your population model works when there is not enough food to go around.
      
      These are some links to a few resources on population growth. Just remember - we are animals, and for much of our short history, lived under the same rules as all the other animals. Lack of food = drop in population.
      
      But - by your divine population model, you would think that the rats would have taken over the world by now, although, perhaps they have, and no one has noticed?
      
      http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/cpb/research … esses/gpdd
      http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/endspcs.htm
      http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … ions2.html

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Paragliderposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Don't joke about that one. All around this city the corporation put down short triangular section concrete pipes that say RAT POISON on the side. The rules of Natural Selection guarantee that this will favour the emergence of a race of super-rats that can read!

         replyreport
2. 65

   WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

   haha okay weird...the pages malfunctioned and you can't go past page 12.  Well hopefully people will see my responses here...
   
   edit: it works now! Magic!

   replyreport
3. 71

   Inspirepubposted 15 years ago

   Wedding Consultant, you failed to take into account infant mortality.
   
   Before the advent of antibiotics, in the early 1900s, 50% of all children died before reaching the age of 8. Two of my daughters have had illnesses (cellulitis, scarlet fever) that would have killed them before antibiotics were invented.
   
   In primitive tribes today, out of reach of modern medicine, this mortality rate can be as high as 50% dying before reaching one year of age, and another 50% of those survivors (25% of the original cohort) dying between age 1 and age 5, leaving just 1 in 4 with any chance of reproducing.
   
   Those who die before reproducing don't count in your model, because they aren't "there" by the time the next generation comes along.
   
   Jenny

   replyreport
4. 86

   Marisa Wrightposted 15 years ago

   Jenny, you are right, and I had that graphically demonstrated when I lived in Africa only twenty years ago.  People there were living in primitive conditions, but there were a number of clinics around the country, staffed by aid workers and qualified western doctors, dispensing modern medicine.
   
   In spite of that, anyone over 45 was regarded as "elderly" because not many people made it to that age.  Measles, polio and diphtheria took a terrible toll of children.  That's why it's so hard to get women in developing countries to practice birth control - even with a large family, there's a chance they'll have no children to look after them in their old age.  If they limit their family, what will they do if none survive?

   replyreport
5. 65

   WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

   Okay we've had some great responses here...I'll try to sum up my thoughts and responses.
   
   Exactly my point.  I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with your evolutionary model.  I was saying that starting at 30,000 BC there were two humans.  I'm attempting to establish a indisputable "starting point" for evolutionists.
   
   But if you want to be more literal, let's go with what your resource says (this resource):
   
   At the end of a severe ice age, about 65,000 years ago, it has been argued that there were only about 10,000 individuals who managed to make it through the tough times. By 50,000 years ago, as a result of good climates and fortuitous migrations, the survivors had precipitated population mini-explosions all around the planet (2).
   
   So let's set 50,000 BC as a starting point and let's pretend the survivors of the 65K BC ice age had precipitated mini-explosions of population around the planet.
   
   Now let's take into consideration what Jenny has said:
   
   
   Valid point.  So valid, in fact, that let's knock of several zeros to our previous number:
   
   10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
   000,000,000,000 give or take a few zeros...
   
   I'm just having fun with this- this is by no means scientific, but you'll notice I was pretty generous in the "slashing" of the zeros there.
   
   Regardless, thus far I've heard Jenny and Mark point out these two theories as to why the population isn't 10^1000000000000000000000000000000 etc.  These points are:
   
   *Diseases
   *Ice Ages and other drastic climate changes
   *Floods (hey, so many cultures have a flood narrative in their history books- maybe there's some truth to this one
   *Lack of modern medicine
   
   -I'll even toss a few more in from your resource here-
   
   *hurricanes
   *forest fires
   *droughts
   
   And I'll respond by saying a few things...
   
   These are all certainly pretty devastating and have caused many deaths over the years.  I found it interesting, however, that there was no mention of severe world-wide disasters after 50K BC in any of the three resources you posted.  Now, I could have missed it...that's entirely possible, but from what I read I didn't see ANY severe disasters occurring post 50,000 BC.  And maybe you'll bring something to my attention that happened in more recent "history"...please feel free to do so.
   
   Also, as far as modern medicine is concerned, let us not discount the fact that new diseases have been discovered in recent history.  I would say AIDS could be a good example of this.  One could argue that, "Oh it's been around it just hasn't been discovered," but that is disregarding recorded history which has no record of observable symptoms inherent in one suffering from AIDS.
   
   So yes, it's a good point in that modern medicine has come a long way to save lives and cure diseases, but we cannot, in good faith, disregard the notion that some of our modern diseases were non-existent in the past.
   
   I'm still waiting for a solid explanation of how the world population isn't 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000+ according to the evolutionary model which believes that humans were living and reproducing in large pockets of population around the world at 50,000 BC

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      LOL - you have been given several. You are basing this figure on the fallacy that the population has been growing at a given rate that is not sustainable. And never was. This that you see currently, and by that I mean the last few thousand years - is not a sustainable rate. And even during this time, there have been massive drops - which set the whole thing back quite considerably.
      
      Before "civilization," humans were just another animal species whose populations rose and fell with the ready availability (or not) of resources.
      
      We live in an "Eco system." We are part of a great big system that will eventually cull our numbers the same way it culls all the other animal species. I know your book says we have dominion over all the other species, and can do to them what we wish - but there are some that disagree with that particular idea
      
      You cannot extrapolate population size using a false premise in this way.
      
      I know you think that a white brother and sister couple can produce a black child by mating, but no matter which way you try and see it, this cannot work.
      
      If you genuinely want to see the way population has grown over the last few years, your government has a historical estimate here:
      
      http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
      
      And if you want a detailed report from the UN, it is downloadable here:
      
      http://www.un.org/esa/population/public … 0final.pdf
      
      I do have a couple of fun questions for you also. As you seem to believe that a man built a 450 foot-long, 45-foot-tall boat by hand and two of all the land animals in existence at that time made a some what difficult-to-manage trip to get aboard this boat. (Long swim from Australia)
      
      I will stick with Australia actually. Having made this arduous swim from Australia, did the Kangaroos just decide, "Sod it, we only want to live in Australia, let's swim back there and not breed anywhere else." Or did Noah drop them off on the way past?
      
      Or were there Kangaroos all over the earth at that time, and it was just a short trip for them?
      
      Is there a mention of Kangaroos in the bible that will blow this question out of the water?
      
      And was it salt water or fresh water this flood?
      
      Enquiring minds want to know

      replyreport
6. 65

   WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

   haha
   
   Well much like my uber-long post, your post has a NUMBER of things I'd like to respond to, but at this rate I should be contacting a copyright lawyer and publishing it into a book...
   
   Let me re-read it and decide which things I should respond to

   replyreport
7. 65

   WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

   Sorry, my efforts were slowed down by Zoe and lunch!
   
   I would disagree with that interpretation of Scripture.  Yes in Genesis 1:26 God explains that humans, "have dominion over" fish, birds, animals, etc.  However, that doesn't mean we can, "do to them whatever we wish" as you have said.  I would argue (as I think you would, too) that we have done a great deal of damage to the earth, especially as of late.
   
   Nope there's no mention of kangaroos in the Bible.  Is that troublesome to you?  Is it hard to accept that the writers of the Bible didn't concern themselves with every scientific, biological, chronological, ecological, (and so on) detail?
   
   You said that Noah took (emphasis added)
   
   We need to remember that the number of species within a particular kingdom (animal, plant, insect) wasn't the same number we have today.  We didn't have every breed of dog and cat 2,000 years ago.  Well, neither did we have every breed of other animals.
   
   So, in an effort to kill two birds with one stone, this explanation helps answer your question regarding how Noah got that many animals into a boat and how, "a white brother and a white sister" produced the different races we have today.  But I wouldn't say they were white as they weren't European or North American; they were Middle Eastern...
   
   If you'd like to read up on some of my sources, here are some places you can go:
   how did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark
   How did animals spread over the earth after the flood (this has specific reference to your magical swimming Auzzie friends)
   
   And Mark, maybe you're seeing those articles and becoming disgusted, appalled, and frustrated at the fallacies presented there.  That's excellent!  Now you know how I feel when I read a pro-evolution website!
   
   Oh and you can't count us even on the whole "not liking the resource" thing as I'm not a fan of wikipedia!
   
   I did like your discussion about the world population, though.  So, if I'm not mistaken, according to your resources (and thus your beliefs and thus the evolutionary model), at around 10,000 BC there was an "agricultural revolution" which led to a population spike.  This spike (apparently) boosted humans out of the natural culling that had occurred since 50,000 BC, if not temporarily.
   
   Unfortunately for us, the notion that the world population began growing around 10,000 BC fits pretty well within the creation model...

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      LOL they are not my resources. They are just a few places that claim to have an idea of the way population grows. I don't think you are being deliberately obtuse here, but as far as being appalled, disgusted and horrified at the sources you quoted - I am.
      
      And I understand you to mean, "valid scientific studies and theories with a wealth of measurable data behind them"  when you say, "pro-evolution websites."
      
      As far as belief goes - No, my belief that evolution is a currently occurring and ongoing process that has being going on for millions of years does not rest on these studies.
      
      The interesting thing as far as I am concerned is you are saying it as though there are two differing, equally valid scientific bodies here with equal weight behind the two theories, and it is just a question of which scientific camp you choose to believe. The two theories being:
      
      1. Mankind evolved over millions of years to the state we are today, and there is a wealth of scientific evidence to back this up.
      
      2. A man, with the help of his 4 sons, built a 450-foot-long boat by hand and managed to collect two of every species of land-going animal on the planet in that boat and saved them from destruction when a 40 day flood happened, which he was forewarned of by god.  Except the dinosaurs - which weren't good enough - they got left behind and were turned into fossils that look like they are millions of years old by the process of rusting. Which every one know needs water to happen.
      
      Despite the fact that you seem hell-bent on not answering my questions, I will ask another one:
      
      How long do you think it would take you and four of your fittest carpenter friends to cut down enough trees, trim them into pieces that would fit together as a boat, weather the wood so that it was waterproofed, and then build a 450-foot-long, 45-foot-high boat? By hand. With hand made hand tools. God hadn't invented electricity then.
      
      A rough guess is fine

      replyreport
8. 0

   sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

   anyone seen Misha? 
   
   
   MISHA WHERE ARE YOU?????

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Misha is AWOL - moving house.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         thanks

         replyreport
9. 65

   WeddingConsultantposted 15 years ago

   Wow, Mark, I wouldn't say I have been "hell-bent" to avoid your questions.  Would say that I have been, or is this just another knowl-ism to evoke a response?
   
   Here are some reasons why I haven't addressed ALL your questions:
   1. TIME
   2. With posts as long as yours, it is virtually impossible to address every point brought up
   3. I have chosen to discuss questions that I have felt have been KEY rather than focusing on every question asked
   
   So, lest you forget, here are some questions of yours I HAVE answered:
   
   Now from another thread...
   
   
   And so on and so forth...
   
   So please, don't assume that I don't have strong, Biblically-based (and scientifically based) answers to your challenges simply because I haven't answered all your questions/concerns.  You know what the say happens when you ASS*U*ME...
   
   And to finish, I think this sums up your approach to my answers:
   
   And my reaction to that was:
   
   
   At this point, regardless of whether or not you again accuse me of dodging questions, I'm going to ask you a (somewhat rhetorical) question.
   
   If I were to sit here and explain the truths of the Bible to you in a scientific, logical way, would you accept it?  I'm not asking if you'd "convert" or "believe" or "renounce atheism."  Rather, would you begin accepting the responses I've given?
   
   And your answer to that is: NO.  How do I know that's your answer?  Because the questions of yours that I have already addressed you have not liked, you have accused me of avoiding, you have accused me of distracting you from the main point, etc.
   
   I don't think you have a problem with me.  If so, I would have taken things personally and left the thread.  Besides, it's not in my nature to back down if you hadn't already noticed
   
   I think (know?) you have a problem with my responses as they don't seem to "make sense" to you.  I expect as much to occur, but I will say a word of caution: they might never make sense to you.  Why?  Because you have chose to reject the Bible and the Lord.  And that's okay with me- everyone has a choice.
   
   But please realize this: should you keep asking me questions as they relate to the Bible, I am going to keep responding to you in ways that are respectful to and cognizant of the Scriptures.  And since that is the nature of my responses to you, you will continue to not accept them and/or get frustrated at them.
   
   My thoughts on the topic, as a Christian, are that it is not my job to convince you that God exists, that He loves you and that He desires to have a personal relationship with you.  And as much as I can discuss these seemingly contradictory passages in the Bible with you, you will never understand unless the Holy Spirit does a deep work in your life.
   
   Boy does the Holy Spirit have His work cut out for Him!
   
   But I want you to know I'm praying for you
   
   So do you want me to continue to explain things to you in ways that don't make sense to you since the Holy Spirit hasn't opened the "eyes of your heart?"  Or shall we agree to disagree?  I'm interested in discussing different passages in the Bible that are troublesome or that have caused conflict, but that don't have to do with evolution as that horse has been beaten stiff.
   
   And on that note, if you want to continue in that direction, I would encourage you to not continue getting your topics from websites such as this one.  Rather, find a passage in the Bible that you yourself have read that doesn't make sense to you and come to the table with an open mindset.
   
   If you can do this, I would love to bounce things back and forth with you.  I enjoy intellectual stimulation, but as I said before, evolution v creation has been beaten stiff.  Let's pick fresh, interesting topics that are troublesome to us.

   replyreport
10. 59

    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    lol
    
    WC - rather than have a  huge long quote, I will just make a response here.
    
    I do not have problem with you personally - Other wise this conversation would have been finished some time ago. I enjoy winding you up to see how far you will go. Energizer bunny as far as I can tell
    
    I do, on the other hand have a problem with either you, or some of these resources you quote claiming this as "scientific evidence," that proves the bible is true. This is not the case - the information and theories put forward are not science.
    
    It seems to me that you and other like you are twisting and adding spin to this to make it seem as though there is a scientific basis for the bible. This is also not the case. I find this very odd. The only reason I can see for doing this is to attempt to persuade people that these "scientific," theories behind the proof of the bible.
    
    This is called lying and I find it reprehensible. A sin in your terms.
    
    There are only two options here:
    
    1. The people pushing this as science genuinely believe this is science. In which case they need to be educated as to what actually constitutes science.
    
    2. They are well aware that it is not science and they are deliberately pushing this to children and deliberately mis-informing them. Not acceptable.
    
    I genuinely have no ill-feeling towards you personally, but I do wish to help you "see the light," as far as the science behind the matter goes.
    
    You see, unlike myself, it would seem that your belief in the bible is based on certain pieces of "science," that you feel proves your case.
    
    As far as quoting other sources for the bible, I do not have a copy to hand and when I need a quote, I type in whatever portion I can remember and take it from the site that has in ready-to-go. some of which are atheist sites, some of which are christian sites. I can't be bothered to try remembering the passages exactly.
    
    But, I promise you I have read the entire bible, and none of it makes any sense. Particularly if you try to take it literally. Not because of the theory of evolution either. I came to the conclusion it was all rubbish long before I discovered the writings of Charles Darwin.
    
    As to answering ALL my questions. No I don't expect you top answer them all, but I do feel as though you tend to avoid a few key ones. But as we are still discussing Noah, and I have read that and it doesn't make any sense perhaps we could take a look at a few un-answered ones:
    
    
    
    I realize this is a big question. And although this horse has been beaten stiff, this seems to be one of the areas that for you, confirm your belief in the bible as the word of god, but for me prove it is not to be taken literally.
    
    This website you quoted:
    
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … om=aignews
    
    I haven't been here before but I have seen a similar argument else where. Basically what they are saying is that rather than take all the different varieties of animals, only two dogs were needed, small dogs, that then bred and produced all the wide variety of dog-like animals that we see today. From two dogs in the middle east, all the pure bred dogs in all the world came from these two. Dingos in Australia, Hyenas in Africa, wolves in North America, etc etc etc.
    
    This makes no sense to me. None whatsoever. Whether or not I have any scientific knowledge as to how different breeds of dog come about. Which I don't; barely a clue.
    
    Not even going to discuss the dinosaurs on the ark
    
    I mean seriously, how did dogs cross the oceans if this is the case? Or Kangaroos. And if Kangaroos did cross from the middle east to Australia, why is there no9 evidence of them having been anywhere else? And why did they go to Australia only? And weren't they there to start with and made the trip to get on the ark? lol
    
    And what did these two dogs eat when they first disembarked from the ark? They could not have eaten any of the other animals because that would have meant the other animals died out lol
    
    I mean the other site you quoted is even suggesting there was an ice age after the flood that wiped out traces of this lol
    
    They should be shot
    
    I don't expect you to answer all these questions, but I would be keen to know how long you think it would take you and 4 friends to build a seaworthy 1.5 million cubic feet boat by hand from scratch. (Your source)
    
    And I don't see this as evolution vs creation. I have said before i do not think evolution proves the bible wrong, but this one bugged me since I first read it
    
    Now your other argument is far harder to argue against. But the science? Please...... I mean this:
    
    
    
    Not only would I accept it, I would embrace it with open arms. But the problem is, you cannot do this. Are not doing this. I know you "believe" this is science and logic you are using, but it isn't.
    
    
    Already too long stopping now.

    replyreport
11. 60

    Derrikposted 15 years ago

    Mark, I read some of your comments on this topic.  Very interesting.  And Jewels, I never meant any offense.  Is my interpretation better than anyone else?  Well, how do we learn?  I think my car is faster than yours, you think yours is faster.  The only way to find out is to race!  In other words, I can explain, according to the context and circumstances, why I believe in a certain interpretation.  If you can explain your interpretation, and why, and show errors in my interpretation or errors in my understanding of the customs of the day, whatever insights I may have misunderstood that results in my wrong interpretation, I am all for it.  I am man.  More accurately, I am 18 year old gamer in man's busted 37 year old body.  I certainly have issues!  And I certainly am not a scholar, and am capable of blundering.  Did I blunder?  How so??

    replyreport
12. 0

    Zarm Nefilinposted 15 years ago

    Everyone is picking and choosing with the Bible, picking and choosing which holes to go through and which holes to come out.  Then picking which holes to go through and come out again.
    
    It's like an ant making it's way through a few thousand year old slice of swiss cheese.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       LOL, and they get confussed when something is placed in the way. 

       replyreport
13. 60

    qwarkposted 14 years ago

    Jeromeo:
    Ask about the "contradictions" on google.
    There are pages and pages of 'em.
    Why do you ask about them?
    There is nothing credible written in biblical scripture.
    Maybe ya just like "faery" tales?
    If so, try "Grimm." Easier to read and wild and wonderful stories. Try it, you'll like it.
    Wait! I forgot "Harry Potter!" Now those are wonderful stories loaded with "wizards," witches, magic and dastardly plots.
    Alot more fun than the corrupted tales in the bible....:-)

    replyreport
14. 59

    Jeramiposted 14 years ago

    When I don't have to work every day I might read a little more For now I'll just go to bed and sleep on it.
       Good night  quark

    replyreport
    1. 60

       qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       g'nite Jerami...:-)

       replyreport
15. 80

    earnestshubposted 14 years ago

    Frequently and with great regularity is the answer!

    replyreport
16. 59

    marinealways24posted 14 years ago

    The bible contradicts free mind and free will. How much more does a person need?

    replyreport
17. 49

    leadguitarist_101posted 14 years ago

    To put it very plainly, the matter in question is this. Why did an all powerful, omniscient being allow his one message to mankind to be blatantly "open to interpretation", and yet dictate that all men must follow the book precisely to enter into the gates of heaven? This, in itself is a contradiction. Think about it, 2,000 years ago, this made sense to people, but since then, there have been over 38,000 different denominations of Christianity that have claimed to be on the right path, that's 38,000 different interpretations of the bible, 38,000 different groups who believe they are on the right path to heaven. Now that means:
    
    1.)37,999 denominations are wrong, which would mean God really messed up in making our "instructions to life" interpretive, cause that automatically damns 37,999 groups of x amount of people to hell.
    
    2.) God meant for the bible to be interpretive, which directly implies that there are, in fact, literally thousands of ways to get to heaven, because that is the outcome of interpretive meaning. The only problem with this is that it violates the Bible itself, for when you interpret the bible, you are in fact, taking your personal interpretation from it. But the bible say the bible must be taken as a whole, otherwise it is not the true word of god. So how can God expect you to get the direct meaning of the bible, if your interpretation is based off of the place you live, your age, your ethnicity, and a hundred other factors, therefore automatically differentiationg your opinion from anothers? So to argue that the bible is meant for interpretation is, in fact, a contradiction in itself.
    
    3.)The Bible, was in fact, written by man, which accounts for contradiction by showing the bible was meant only to give advice and life lessons to people 2000 years ago, based on the state of their lives at the present age. So to try and apply this to the modern era in itself causes all the contradictions we see.
    
    
    EXAMPLE
    
    The bible consists of two parts, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. The Old testament defends things like slavery, sexism, murder ( Exodus 12:43, Exodus 21:1, Leviticus 20, Exodus 21), and the New Testament says these things are bad, and in other areas say that they are neither bad nor good. But according to the bible, it states that being impartial to something like slavery is just as bad being for it! So the bible violates itself by being impartial to slavery, as well as at the same time saying it is bad and acceptable. If the Bible is to be taken as a whole in order to go to heaven, that would require us to follow both the Old and New testaments equally.  How can one both be for slavery, against it, and for it? this would violate the words of Christ himself.
    
    
    Side note, has anyone realized how eerie close the stories of Joseph and Jesus are, as well as God's blunder of putting a tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden when he suppossedly knew full well that they would eat of the tree of knowledge, therefore violating gods very first rule? But note that God gets angry when they do this. Why? he knew it would happen, so why get mad about something you knew and suppossedly wanted to happen. And why would you put a tree of IMMORTALITY in a garden with people you dont want to eat from it and then end up having to protect it with a flaming sword? And why did God confuse mans languages at the tower of babble and state it was necessary to keep them from achieving anything they desired? That sounds like fear to me, cause if God just didnt want them to build a tower, why did hes fail a million times in the modern era to stop us, considering our skyscrapers? I can't be because he didnt want them to get hurt, considering he was planning to send a worldwide flood to kill everybody in a few hundred years, as well as he doesnt seem to care the people arent getting the bible right, cause if he did, HE WOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! But he doesnt, for some reason, yet we blame that all on the devil, even though God knows all and allows him to fuck up his plan. So i think that kinda implies that God from the beginning doesnt have a problem with sending people to hell, it's all apparently a part of his plan.

    replyreport