Whose main polemic is that of charging their adversary, the omniscient, omnipotent, infallible eternal God of the Bible - who knows what all the effects will be of every action, and will make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with both justice and mercy - with immorality (while lacking any commonly held definitive standard for morality), thus effectively presuming omniscience, an irrational presumption.
And since this assertion cannot be sustained in the light of what the Bible tells u about God, anti-theist list accusations of contradictions in the Bible from the well of parroted atheist polemics, which typically example myopic isolationist eisegesis, treating the Bible as if it were a single document of independent statements, and thus typically refusing to consider context, and aspects such as literary forms, grammatical and translational aspects, covenantal distinctions. Etc. or anythings that refutes their allegations, and in which they also often engage in false either/or dichotomies (ignoring any explanation of supposed opposing texts).
And yet, rather than thousands of actual contradictions such as dealt with by multitudes of Christian exegetes, that would negate its authority as a discernible body of wholly God-inspired divine Truth thru its original writers, although placed under the stewardship of man, what we have in its totality is a revelation of complimentary consistency despite yet because of it being 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.) with 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.
Consider some of the contradictions listed on https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions. #1 being
The Sabbath Day “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8
[vs.]
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5
This simply displays ignorance of covenantal differences (please see), which reality invalidates this accusation. For while God's universal (applicable to all at moral creatures ) holy standards are constant, and basic laws that express such are immutable, yet, as in the world overall, there are different classes of laws, and which can expand based upon the principle behind them. Thus in civil law today, under the principal that life is sacred, then we have speed limits. And there are some laws which are peculiar to a certain group of people and at certain times (including sport teams).
In this respect, God not only added expansive moral laws because of transgressions (Galatians 3:19) and due to effects (incest) which previous generations were not under, but as covenanted people, Israel was given many distinctive laws just for them as a distinctive people.
Thus, while God judged/punished pagan nations for disobeying basic moral laws which they themselves once held as being wrong, yet God never did so to any nation for not observing the feast of tabernacles, etc. not even the 7th day sabbath, but for moral abominations which flowed from idolatry. (Romans 1:16-32)
Moreover, God not only provided laws (through Moses) to His covenanted people, but promised a future New Covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34) Which was distinctively stated to be “not according to” the covenant made through Moses.
This prophesied New Covenant was instituted by the atoning death of the Divine incarnated Son of God, (Hebrews 9:16, 17), and under which the literal observance of temple ordinances, dietary laws and liturgical days — (which the New Testament categorizes →) are abrogated. The reason being that unlike basic universal laws (which the New Testament affirms), these were typological laws, shadows of Christ who would come, precursors of what would be fulfilled by and under Christ (thus the cessation of the OT sacrifice and priesthood, and liturgical days, and dietary laws).
And thus, the Romans 14:5 text cited by the atheist accuser is in the content of areas of personal liberty, and therefore more false examples of contradictions could be be added, such as dietary laws. Which would thus render the New Covenant to not be new. Meanwhile, since the alleged contradiction seen here is shared by misled 7th day sabbatarians, then if they were correct, there would be no contradiction according to their attempted explanation.
The next assertion of contradiction is
The Permanence of Earth “… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4
[vs.]
“… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10
This alleged contradiction can only be sustained by insisting the the word (‛ôlâm) translated “for ever” is one that actually means just that, versus one that can refer to a long but not permanent period, while in context it can be used for the eternal.
Ecclesiastes 1:4e does state that, in contrast to the generations of man, the earth remains, and other texts state that it cannot be moved from its position, (Psalm 104:5; Psalm 93:1; Psalm 104:5, Psalm 119:90-91) yet Scripture many times clearly states that the present earth shall be moved, and will not endure as it is. (Psalm 102:24-28, Mat_24:35; 2Pe_3:10-13; 2Pe_3:10) Rev_6:14, 20:11; 21:1)
The answer to this allegation is actually relevant to the preceding one, since it rests upon the premise that “forever” (as many ordinances under Moses were) necessarily means for eternity.
However, while the the Hebrew word translated “for ever” here [ʿôlām] can, mean eternity as in referring to God since His position is that of one who “inhabits eternity [ʿaḏ]” (Isaiah 57:15, which is a different word and which does signify perpetual existence or ever one existed), yet the Hebrew word translated “for ever” here basically means long duration.
And therefore it is used in such non-everlasting contexts such as remembering the days of old, and of places or or people in previous times, (Joshua 24:2; 1 Sam. 27:8) and to permanent slave status, (Exodus 21:5-6)
The next alleged contradiction is,
Seeing God “… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30
[vs.]
“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18
This is another example of isolationist eisegesis and ignorance of Biblical forms of language, thus resulting in a False Dilemma. As in presenting two statements as being in contradiction to each when in fact there is an alternative explanation which resolves the prime facie contradiction.
Which in this case is simply that there is more than one sense to “seeing.” For instance, m seeing a person in a video is not the same as seeing them in real life 3d, which is not the same as seeing then in their glorified bodies when they shall shine as the sun in Heaven. (Matthew 13:43) Neither is seeing the Lord Jesus in a vision, as John states Isaiah did, the same as seeing Him in His incarnation, and neither of which is the same as seeing Him as face to face in glory. (I John 3:2; Revelation 22:4)
Seeing God in all His veiled —versus face to face full glory: (Exodus 33:20-22; cf. Exodus 24:11)
Seeing God in all His unveiled glory: (Revelation 22:3-4; cf. 1 Jn. 3:2)
Seeing God as in a vision revealing His majesty: Isaiah 6:1-6)
Seeing God as in an angel or human form,
Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God! for because I have seen an angel of the Lord face to face.(Judges 6:22)
“the angel of the Lord appeared unto the woman...We shall surely die, because we have seen God.” .(Judges 13:3, 22)
And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day....I have seen God face to face (Genesis 32:25, 30) Seeing God as in actual incarnated sense:
Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. (John 12:44-45 — which is related to Is. 6) Seeing God as in realizing what one was blinded to before. Job 42:5
Thus, to see God in the sense that John 1:8 denies men have (and contextually, John abounds in enigmatic statements and figurative language) is to see Him not simply as Jacob did in wrestling with a being who appeared as a man but as a type of manifestation of God, nor is it to only see God in a vision and somewhat veiled sense, but to see God in realizing both who and what He is in His full revelation. Thus believers will fully see the Lord Jesus in His glory in Heaven and see God (Father, Son and Spirit face to face. (Revelation 22:3-4; cf. 1 Jn. 3:2; cf. 1 Corinthians 13:12)
All for now.
Correct. That is the point of this thread.
It's BS, manipulatable by the programmers or even the user.