There are no Contradictions in the Bible

1. Genocide The children and infants of the Amalekites were innocent. The women were probably innocent as well and they got a fate worse than death. This was a genocide. Killing every last Amalekite so they become extinct is not 'eye for an eye. ' Israelis were clearly not 100% wiped out. Revenge is getting even, Not getting more than was taken from you. On top of that, Revenge would be against the people who slaughtered them. Not against those who didn't. If I kill someone, My wife and my daughters are not imprisoned or killed because of it. No one would call them guilty of my crime. No one would seek to genocide my entire family if I kill one of theirs and claim that is proper revenge, Or that it isn't murdering innocents. If your God wanted revenge killing to be justified, Seems like it'd be pretty simple for him to add that to the commandments. Maybe commandments shouldn't be one-liners but a bit more specific. Your answer to this contradiction is unsatisfactory. You must explain to me how the women deserved to be raped repeatedly and kept as sex slaves before they were killed. Why their children and infants were complicit in that act. You must also answer why God had not made Revenge Killing justified in the Commandments, And why God wouldn't simply take revenge for them. Perhaps you could also explain how the cattle of Amalek were also complicit in this action. 2. Pharaoh's Free Will What does it matter at all if the Pharaoh wouldn't give in the first few plagues? The contradiction is that God made us with free will and won't violate that. That doing so would be to enslave us and make us his toys rather than his children. He violated the Pharaoh's free will and commit a genocide of the firstborn of Egypt for it. Your justification for this is that "God wanted to make sure men feared God! " If God was known to exist no one would be afraid of anything else. No one would have cause to fear anything else even back in those times had he chosen to make himself known among the majority of the world instead of isolate himself to the illiterate ancient middle east. Fear of God is not justification for God to go against his word and violate the free will he gave to men. This contradiction also goes unanswered. 3. Child of God It is hotly debated even among Christians it seems and no one really gives the same answer. It's things like this that make it hard to take religions seriously. Some Christians view these things as three separate entities, Some view 2, Some view just a single being. None of you are very specific about the matter. You largely ignored my point in that there were plenty of people raised from the dead around this time in the Bible. It seems strange that we associate Jesus as the 'son of god' when as you quoted immediately after you asked, The bible refers to us as 'children of god. ' Even if we are made this after we accept Jesus, That would still make us his children afterwards and no different if Jesus is said to be the Son of God. So in your view, Jesus is the Son of God, And he is God simultaneously. Why then did the concept of Jesus need to exist at all? Did God believe he could not be loved himself? Frankly, You ignored the question of resurrection and why that proves Jesus is who he claims to be. Exorcising demons is no different, Many were said to have done so. Priests still claim to do so to this day. Miracles have been 'confirmed' from many who were said to be 'saints. ' Miracles then don't prove Jesus is who he claimed to be. What is left? Walking on water or turning water to wine? What exactly confirms for you that Jesus was the son of god and not a charlatan? My contention in this section was to point out that there is apparently nothing special about the resurrection. This has been left unanswered as well. To conclude, I have plenty more contradictions, But it seems you need to clarify and/or actually answer these first. I submit to the readers you have not. You have "answered" them by stating several things without evidence. It seems if you leave even one unsolved in part you have conceded the debate. You seek to put words into God's mouth by trying to personally redefine or clarify the words he wrote in his commandments. If God told me 'thou shalt not kill' I would be afraid of stepping on bugs lest I kill a bug, Much less try to justify killing infants or children. Much less raping women before killing them. I would think the Israelis might ask for a bit of clarification on this, And would think it'd be clear enough it needed to be clarified for them to take note of it in their book. You say that "The Pharaoh hardened his heart first! " even though the Bible has stated God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. You state that "Catholic teaching is not true" and then go on as if you don't have to prove that point. Who is the true Scotsman, Pro? May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht