The Bible morally contradicts itself

This debate is not about showing a contradiction between the Bible and Con"s logic, so even if Con could show it would be illogical to compare God to a human in an illustration, that wouldn"t show a contradiction in the Bible. He would have to show that one part of the Bible is against comparing God to a human and another part is in favor of it. The fact is that human relationships are used all over the Bible to illustrate what God is like, such as in Matthew 18:21-35 where God is compared to a merciful king. Pro accuses me of "misreading" or "twisting" the Bible without having first shown from the context of the passages in question that his interpretation of it is correct. His idea of God hardening Pharaoh"s heart involves taking away Pharaoh"s free will. He has not shown that this has ever been the Jewish or Christian interpretation over the last few thousand years, but somehow wants us to believe his interpretation of what the text means is correct. He makes me wonder if he ever personally knew the author! Pro says that "becoming innocent by being covered in the blood of christ does not apply to the old testament, because there wasnt even a jesus christ yet. this shows flaw in cons understanding of the bible." So does Pro think he understands the Bible any better than Jews living in the first century who were around when Jesus walked the earth? They were the ones who believed, based on the Old Testament, that Christ would fulfill prophecy by coming and saving them from their sins. Paul was a Jew. He says he was "circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee." (Philippians 3:5) Yet he says "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed." (1 Corinthians 3:5) When he wrote this, the OT was still the Bible from which Jewish Christians like himself got their teachings, for the New Testament canon was not complete. Paul is saying that Christ fulfills what the Passover lamb symbolized. He also says the blood of bulls and goats couldn"t take away sins, it was faith in what they represented that took away sins " faith in the coming Messiah. In Hebrews 10:1-22 he draws his entire argument from the OT. It was this very Old Testament which said that the child who would be born would be God himself. (Isaiah 9:6) John, a Jew, upon seeing Jesus, calls him the Lam of God that takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) So its Pro who doesn"t know his Bible. When God said "Let us make man," (Gen 1:26) it is shown that this was the Father talking to his Son, Jesus. (John 1:1-3, 14) According to John 12:37-43 refers to the vision of Isaiah 6 where the prophet sees Yahweh/Jehovah God, and says "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus" glory and spoke about him." So the Jehovah of the OT is Jesus in the NT. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 says it was Christ who went with Israel in their journey, so Christ is just as much an OT figure as in the NT. This is why Genesis 19:24 mentions two Jehovah"s, because one of them is the pre-incarnate Son. "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven." (ASV) So Pro is ignoring the OT role of Christ in order to make a contradiction appear, but this is based on his lack of understanding the Bible. This is why all those animal sacrifices were offered, because the blood pointed to a greater blood sacrifice that would do what the blood of animals couldn"t truly do " clean from sin. All the OT saints were saved by their faith in Christ, the promised seed of OT Bible prophecy (Gen 3:15; Gal 3:16), so Pro is simply incorrect. Jesus Christ was already in the Old Testament, just under different names, because he was still in spirit form and had not yet been incarnated into a human body. (Micah 2:5; Matt 2:1-6) Pro doesn"t get that God is able to harden someone"s heart without taking away their free will. I have already explained how God was responsible for Pharaoh"s heart being hardened because the miracles he was performing, and the very request that he free his slaves, was insulting to the king who thought of himself as a god. It only made him more upset and stubborn, but how does this show his free will was taken away? Pro says "this alone shows gods pre-determained intent to guide pharaohs decisions, and by doing so god takes away the pharaohs free will." So have you ever had a guide, Pro? Someone guided you through school. Someone raised you and influenced, guided, your thoughts, decisions, behavior. We are all influenced in some way by someone. Does that take away our free will? No! Yes, God made Pharaoh"s heart obstinate, but Pro is ASSUMING WITHOUT PROOF that he did it BY TAKING AWAY PHARAOH"s FREE WILL. Where does the Bible say that God took away his free will? It doesn"t! That"s just Pro"s interpretation. God can use events that will motivate people to make bad choices, but they only make those bad choices because they were already evil to begin with, and God doesn"t owe them anymore enlightenment than he already gave them. God knows the heart, and maybe Pharaoh would never have converted willingly to God"s ways no matter what. Some people just love their own way. But using plagues, or even unnamed events in Pharaoh"s life that make his heart more stubborn doesn"t show his free will has been taken away, it simply shows that God influenced how Pharaoh used his free will! God didn"t have to make the decisions for him! Is there even a part of the Bible that says God DOESN"T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY A PERSON"S FREE WILL? I know of no such verse, and I ask Pro to provide it. God didn"t give the trees and bacteria free will. He is under no obligation, according to Scripture, to create people and things in a way we would like. Scripture says, ""Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but otsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, "What are you making?" Does your work say, "The potter has no hands"? Woe to the one who says to a father, "What have you begotten?" or to a mother, "What have you brought to birth?" "This is what the LORD says" the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands?" (Isa 45:9-11; also Rom 9:17-21) Point: both Old and New Testament teach that God has the right to do as he pleases, and unless Pro shows the verse that says he doesn"t have this right, he has lost this debate. The Bible doesn"t teach that God is even obligated to give us free will. He could make us like the trees if he wants too. So even if Pro could show that God took away Pharaoh"s free will, he would have to show that some other Bible verse says that God doesn"t have the right to do this in order to show a contradiction in the Bible. Pro says "the proceedings for forgivness of sin in the old testament was sacraficing a burnt offering. it is said that if a person unknowingly sins they are able to repent via burnt offering." Wrong again. This was part of the law of Moses, which was given only to the Israelites. Gentiles like the Egyptians were not under this law and could not benefit from it without becoming proselytes, converts to the Jewish faith. (Ps 147:19-20; Deu 5:1-2; Amos 3:2) Actually, many Egyptians left Egypt with Israel. (Exo 12:38) These people joined themselves to the God of Israel. If an Egyptian were to repent and convert, he would then become a proselyte to the Jewish faith, and would no longer be counted as an Egyptian, so I doubt such persons would have experienced the plagues. But even if they did, which part of the Bible does it contradict? Does the Bible ever say that God owes us forgiveness? If the Egyptians had repented, would that take away God's right to send the plagues? Genesis 8:21 and Jeremiah 17:9 say the heart of all men is bad from youth up. The wages of sin if death. (Rom 6:23) God has the right to punish sin.