“Truth is not to be in what might vary” (Saint Jerome).

​

As we have already seen in this work, the "Law of Non-contradiction" says that something can not "BE" and "NOT BE" at the same time. In this way, when two affirmations cancel each other out, we call this a "Contradiction" in Logic.

​

For example: It would be contradictory to say that something is "Infinite" and then saying that something "has an end." If something is infinite, it can never have an end; If something has an end, it can never be infinite! It is completely Impossible for something to be finite and infinite at the same time!

​

The Bible is the compilation of a set of books that were written between the years 1 500 BC and 450 BC (Old Testament books) and between 45 AD and 90 AD (New Testament books), totaling a period of nearly 1,600 years.

​

Its original texts were written on parchments in Hebrew and Greek languages. Throughout the centuries, copies were made by hand of the existing copies, and so on, until the printing of the first Bible that occurred only in the year 1455 by Gutenberg. As we know, old stories, when recounted repeatedly, end up receiving new elements that can add, abbreviate or even modify the original story.

​

We remember a phrase that was written by St. Jerome, responsible for the famous translation of the Bible into Latin (Vulgate), at the end of the fourth century, in a letter to the Pope of the time: “Truth is not to be in what might vary” . And really, we cannot admit as true statements which are divergent between each other.

Therefore, great care, discretion, and common sense are required when studying the Bible, for even though the fundamentalists, who interpret it literally, insist on denying it, it does contain innumerable contradictions, which can be easily proved, as we will show below.

 

1. Is God a God of Peace or a God of War?

​

 Peace: 

​

• “The God of peace be with you all. Amen” (Romans 15:33)

• ”He will judge between the nations  and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation,  nor will they train for war anymore.” (Isaíah 2:4)

 

 War:

​

• “The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is his name” (Exodus 15:3)

• Proclaim this among the nations: Prepare for war! Rouse the warriors! Let all the fighting men draw near and attack. Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, “I am strong!”. (Joel 3: 9-10) 

 

Two contradictory situations are presented above: In the first one, God sows peace, causing "swords to be turned into plowshares" and "spears to be turned into pruning hooks". In the second one, God is considered a "warrior", doing exactly the opposite: “Plowshares are to be turned into swords” and "pruning hooks into spears". Now, if God is of peace, he is not a warrior; if he is a warrior, he is not of peace.

​

However, many fundamentalists try to justify these contradictions, by stating that one should analyze each biblical passage according to its context, that is, in some situations God would have to be a "warrior" to combat the enemies of Israel and, in others, He would be a peacemaker.

Such justifications would be admissible if we considered God subject to the inconstancies and imperfections inherent in human beings. However, contextualization is inadmissible if we take into account some elementary concepts about the Divine attributes:

​

• Perfection

​

If God is perfect, He possesses all virtues to an infinite degree! Now, "The infinity of a quality totally excludes the possibility of the existence of a contrary quality that would diminish or annul it". Therefore, God is infinitely peaceful, infinitely good, infinitely loving. There is no way God can be "infinitely peaceful" and at one point become a "warrior", massacring and killing with cruelty. There is no way for God to be "infinitely merciful" and to practicing revenge. If this were so, even for a second, His virtues of benevolence and mercy could no longer be considered infinite, for they would have an end, a limitation.

​

• Immutability

 

It would be impossible to consider God to be infinitely perfect if He were inconstant, and subject to change. The Bible itself affirms the immutability of God: "I the Lord do not change." (Malachi 3: 6); “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.” (James 1.17). Now, if God does not change, how could He at one moment engage directly in wars, slaughtering and sowing death and destruction, and in another becoming the "God of peace"? If this happened, God could be considered inconstant and, therefore, imperfect.

 

Therefore, it is not possible to justify the above contradictions through contextualization, since the Divine attributes are eternal, infinite and immutable, not restricted to a certain period or historical context  or subject to any kind of change or mutation.

 

2. Salvation by works or by faith?

​

 By faith:

​

• "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians  2:8-9) 

 

 By works:

​

• “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone… so faith without deeds is dead. (James  2:24,26)

​

The contradiction in the passages above is more than evident. The first passage says that we are saved "by faith and not by works" or clearly "excludes" the importance of works for salvation. The second passage, however, states that man is justified (saved) not only by faith but also by works, that works are essential to salvation, for "faith without works is dead."

 

So logic shows us that:

• If the first passage is true, the second one is false, that is, only Faith would be necessary for salvation.

• If the second passage is true, the first one is false, because not only would Faith be necessary for salvation, but also the works!

 

3. Does God repent?

​

 No:

​

• “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind” (1 Samuel 15:29)  

• “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind”. (Numbers 23:19)

 

 Yes:

​

• Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened” (Exodus 32:14)

•  “The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled (…) for I regret that I have made them. (Genesis 6:6-7)

•  “…He relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.” (Jonas 3:10)

• “And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel” (1 Samuel  15:35) 

 

In Part I of this work, chapter "Logical Analysis 10: Illogicity of Divine Repentance", it is presented a detailed analysis of this theme, where it is demonstrated, through logic, that the hypothesis that an infinitely perfect God can repent is totally inconsistent.

​

The "Divine repentance" hypothesis would violate two attributes: Perfection and immutability. Being infinitely Perfect, God would never make any mistake; Being immutable, He could never change his mind or repent.

​

But what we specifically question in this chapter is not simply "whether God can repent or not" but, rather, the fact that the Bible in some passages states that "God repents" and in others it states that "God does not repent." It is not possible to reconcile two antagonistic statements in a logical reasoning, so the existence of the contradiction is totally explicit.

​

4. Should children pay for their parents' mistakes?

​

 Yes:

​

• “Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities.” (Isaías 14:21) 

• “for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (Exodus 20:5)

 

 No:

​

• “The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.”  (Ezekiel 18:20)

• “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents (Deuteronomy  24:16)

 

Here we find two different and completely contradictory views, presented in the Biblical text. One of them says that the children "must pay for their parents’ sins" and another that states that the children "should not pay for their parents' sins". As in previous contradictions, according to logic, if the first statement is true, consequently the second, being totally contrary to it, will be false, and vice versa.

​

In the chapter "Logical Analysis 1: Illogicity of Original Sin", in part I of this work, we present  all the argumentation that demonstrates the logical inconsistency of the belief in the “Original Sin”, which goes against the most basic concept of justice that is "giving to each one according to his merit”.

​

A system of justice that would made someone pay for something another person did could never be considered a perfect justice system. If we consider God to be an absolutely perfect Being, then we can deduce that He would never do such an injustice, or we might consider Him to be imperfect.

 

 

5. Can God do evil?

​

 No:

​

• “The Lord is good to all; He has compassion on all he has made.” (Psalms 145:9)

•  “So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to evil, from the Almighty to the wrong. (Job 34:10)

 

Yes:

​

• “ I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)  King James version

• “This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. (Jeremiah 18:11)

 

The first two excerpts state categorically that God is "good to all" and that He "would never do what is evil." The last two excerpts state exactly the opposite: That God "creates evil" and “prepares a disaster”. These are totally antagonistic and contradictory statements.

 

Again, unable to conceal or refute the obvious explicit contradictions in the biblical text, some fundamentalists try to disqualify the meaning of the word "evil." They say that, in this case, it is a "different evil", related to "punishment". But again the "attempts at disqualification" exposes the fragility of such an argument and does not explain the contradiction under analysis.

 

There is no way to "disqualify" the meaning of the word "evil", nor interpret it differently. We can find several words associated with the concept of "evil", such as perverse, insensitive, ferocious, ruthless, cruel, vile, inclement, hateful, bad, damaging, dangerous, harmful, hurtful, injurious, mischievous, pernicious, prejudicial, wicked. Practicing evil means damaging, harming, causing suffering and disgrace. In short, any and all sense that we find for "evil" refers to negative ideas, contrary to "good." Is it possible to associate all this with an infinitely perfect being? Obviously not!

​

As we have seen previously, "The infinity of a quality totally excludes the possibility of the existence of a contrary quality that would diminish or annul it". Therefore, being God infinitely perfect and infinitely good, He cannot have in the slightest degree of evil.

 

6. Does God have compassion?

​

 Yes: 

​

• “The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.” (Psalms 145:9) 

• “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” (James 5:11) 

 

 No: 

​

• “I will smash them one against the other, parents and children alike, declares the Lord. I will allow no pity or mercy or compassion to keep me from destroying them.’ (Jeremiah 13:14) 

• “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Samuel 15:3)

 

The first two excerpts above affirm that God is "good to all" and "full of mercy and compassion". The word “Compassion” means  “The feeling of sorrow or piety caused by the pain, misery or suffering of others, which awakens the will to help and comfort those stricken by misfortune or suffering”.

​

However, the last two passages (Jeremiah 13:14 and 1 Samuel 15:3)  present us with a completely ruthless, vengeful God, capable of the worst atrocities, a God who has no mercy and who, instead of relieving pain and suffering, as a compassionate being would do, does exactly the opposite, that is, inflicts pain and suffering on people. Therefore, the contradiction between the texts is more than explicit.

 

 Conclusion

​

The illogicities presented in this chapter reinforce the position that we must always be careful in analyzing what is real or fictitious within the Bible; what deserves credit or not, so that we are not imprisoned by unsustainable dogmas.

​

Therefore, we must study the Bible, or any other religious book, under the light of reason and discernment, and discard all passages that go against logic and common sense. For example, the passages that show God as a "tyrant", "bloodthirsty" being, capable of ordering, without any demonstration of piety, the massacre of even innocent beings, such as children and animals, really cannot be taken seriously, unless we consider that God is on a level of imperfection similar to humans, which is obviously unacceptable.

​

Thus, in order to have this discernment in the understanding of the Bible, it is necessary for us to see the human interference in it, its "disciplining" character in the historical context of the primitive Jewish people and, most importantly, It is necessary to be free of a Great dogma: That everything written in it was dictated by God Himself and must be interpreted strictly in a literal way. If this were so, we would not find in the Bible a single contradiction!