Why does God give contradictory commands in the Bible?

[Compassionist]

The Bible presents a serious moral contradiction. In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), God explicitly says:

“Thou shalt not kill” (or more accurately in Hebrew, *lo tirtsach* — “you shall not murder”).

Yet, throughout the very same scriptures, this same God commands genocides and mass killings. For example:

Deuteronomy 20:16–17:

“You shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them — the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

1 Samuel 15:3:

“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Numbers 31:17–18:

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”

If “murder” means intentionally taking a human life, then these divine commands directly violate the very moral law God is said to have given.

Apologists often respond in one of three ways:

1. “Killing in war isn’t murder.”
But these passages go far beyond war — they include killing infants and non-combatants. Calling it “warfare” doesn’t make it morally right, especially when commanded by an allegedly all-good being.

2. “Those people were wicked and deserved it.”
But collective punishment of entire populations, including children, contradicts basic moral justice — even within the Bible itself. Ezekiel 18:20 says:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father.”
So how can innocent children deserve death for their ancestors’ actions?

3. “God’s morality is beyond human understanding.”
This argument essentially abandons moral reasoning. If God’s morality can justify genocide, then anything — slavery, rape, torture — could be justified as “God’s higher purpose.” That makes morality arbitrary and destroys the very meaning of good and evil.

In short:
If the command “Thou shalt not murder” is absolute, then the genocidal commands are immoral.
If the genocidal commands are moral because God gave them, then “Thou shalt not murder” has no fixed moral meaning.

Either way, the Bible presents a contradiction that cannot be ethically reconciled without abandoning either moral consistency or divine goodness.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #212]

It proves men writing long before you, already answered you.

No.

It proves that ancient writers asserted a position.

An assertion made earlier in history does not automatically resolve a philosophical question.

Age ≠ epistemic authority.

The issue under discussion is whether the claim is coherent and justified — not whether it was written down long ago.

Since human morality is imperfect, it follows that it is meaningless to perfect righteousness.

That does not follow.

Imperfect tools can meaningfully approximate truth.

Human perception is imperfect — yet it tracks reality effectively enough to survive and reproduce for 315,000 years.

Human reasoning is imperfect — yet it produced mathematics and science.

Imperfect ≠ meaningless and ineffective.

If human moral awareness were entirely meaningless relative to divine righteousness, then humans could not meaningfully:

• Recognize wrongdoing
• Repent
• Obey
• Understand commands

Meaningful obedience presupposes meaningful comprehension.

Divine righteousness does not contradict itself because it is not coherent to undivine morality.

That response sidesteps the issue.

The question is not whether divine righteousness is coherent to a “moralist.”

The question is whether claims about divine righteousness are internally coherent.

Appealing to the moral deficiency of the critic does not address the logical structure of the claim itself.

If the Bible appears to contradict itself, not if others are contradicting the Bible.

Agreed — apparent contradictions must be textual.

But whether a contradiction exists is determined by analysis of the text.

It cannot be dismissed simply by asserting that critics are morally flawed.

The presence or absence of contradiction is a logical matter, not a moral one.

The argument is that the Bible God is not perfectly righteous because flawed moralists contradict His righteousness.

No.

The argument is that specific actions attributed to God may appear inconsistent with other divine commands or with stated divine attributes.

That is a coherence question.

It does not depend on claiming moral supremacy.

It depends on analyzing whether claims align.

Your morality is truth… and yet you admit it is imperfect.

Recognizing fallibility does not negate the possibility of truth.

In science, we accept that theories are provisional — yet we still call some conclusions true based on evidence.

Truth is not invalidated by fallibility.

Absolute certainty is not required for meaningful reasoning.

Fallibility ends in the grave.

Mortality does not determine the truth-value of propositions.

If a mathematician dies, 2+2 still equals 4.

If a moral agent dies, the logical status of moral claims does not automatically vanish.

Duration does not determine validity.

Accusing others of injustice is condemnation, not evaluation.

Evaluation and condemnation are related but distinct.

To say “This action appears unjust” is an evaluative claim.

It can be defended or revised.

Condemnation without argument would be dogmatic.

But argumentation is precisely what is occurring.

Job 38 proves your morality is not everlasting.

Job 38 emphasizes human limitation relative to divine knowledge and power.

It does not logically establish that divine actions are morally coherent.

Power and knowledge are not identical to moral perfection.

Appeals to grandeur do not resolve coherence questions.

You accuse the Bible God of evil because your morality contradicts Him.

The issue is not personal contradiction.

The issue is whether divine commands and divine character claims align coherently.

If a text claims God is perfectly just, then examining whether described actions align with justice is not usurpation.

It is analysis of internal consistency.

Perfect righteousness cannot be argued by imperfect morality.

If that were true, then no human could meaningfully understand or affirm divine righteousness.

Understanding requires cognitive engagement.

If cognition is wholly invalid relative to divine righteousness, then affirmation becomes unintelligible as well.

You cannot both:

• Deny the legitimacy of human moral reasoning
• Affirm meaningful human recognition of divine righteousness

The central issues remain:

1. Ancient assertion does not equal proof.
2. Imperfect reasoning can still be meaningful.
3. Mortality does not invalidate truth.
4. Appeals to divine authority do not automatically resolve coherence questions.
5. Declaring critique invalid does not demonstrate it is logically unsound.

If divine righteousness is coherent and true, it will withstand examination.

If it cannot be examined except by declaring critics morally defective, then the claim is insulated rather than demonstrated.

That is the philosophical point at stake.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #213]

Correct. Only for those that have and use morality. Not by God, nor by me.

You continue to deny using moral language, yet you consistently employ evaluative categories:

• Righteous
• Wicked
• Evil
• Judgment
• Obedience
• Rebellion
• Truth
• Enmity

These are not neutral descriptors. They distinguish between what ought and ought not to be done.

If those distinctions are not moral in any sense accessible to human understanding, then they cease to function meaningfully in discourse.

You cannot condemn “evil” or praise “righteousness” without relying on intelligible evaluative content.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
4. That the Bible righteousness must include flawed morality.

No one has argued that divine righteousness must include flawed morality.

The argument is different:

If divine righteousness is communicable to humans, then it must be intelligible to humans.

Intelligibility does not imply equivalence.

It simply means that when words like “righteous” are used, they refer to something conceptually graspable.

Without that, exhortation and praise lose meaning.

These things I'll no longer waste time arguing with:
7. That accusing and condemning of evil, is only evaluating coherence.

There is a difference between:

• Asserting “You are evil” dogmatically
• Arguing “This action appears inconsistent with stated principles”

The latter is coherence analysis.

Examining whether a claimed attribute aligns with described actions is not rebellion.

It is logical evaluation.

To classify all critique as hostility avoids the substance of the question.

That's a big duh, Spock.

Then we agree on the logical consequence.

If divine righteousness is explicitly non-moral and beyond moral categories, then:

• It cannot be morally praised.
• It cannot be morally defended.
• It cannot be morally critiqued.

It becomes a declaration of allegiance to authority.

That is a coherent theological stance.

But it means the debate is no longer about ethics.

It is about submission.

The core issue remains simple and unchanged:

If “righteous” has intelligible content, then moral reasoning is relevant.

If it has no intelligible content, then calling God “righteous” communicates loyalty, not ethical evaluation.

Dismissing the discussion does not dissolve that distinction.

It simply affirms it.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #215]

Allah never speaks of himself having perfect justice nor eternal truth…

This is factually incorrect.

The Qur’an contains direct divine speech in the first person throughout (e.g., “Indeed, I am Allah…” in 20:14).

It also explicitly attributes justice and truth to Allah:

• “Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me.” (Qur’an 20:14)
• “The word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice.” (6:115)
• “Allah does not wrong anyone even to the weight of an atom.” (4:40)
• “Indeed, Allah commands justice…” (16:90)

You may reject these claims — but denying that they exist is simply inaccurate.

No other book ever has an author speaking of himself the same as the Bible God.

This is special pleading.

You are defining “speaks of himself” in a way that only the Bible qualifies.

The Qur’an repeatedly presents Allah speaking in the first person and declaring divine uniqueness, sovereignty, and justice.

When the Qur’an does this, you dismiss it as “Muhammad speaking.”

When the Bible does this, you treat it as God speaking.

That is applying two different standards to structurally similar phenomena.

That is special pleading. It shows your bias and inconsistency.

Muhammad only claims inspiration by an angel… which proves it has nothing to do with the Bible God.

That argument presupposes the truth of Galatians.

You are using one text’s internal prohibition to invalidate another tradition’s revelation.

But that assumes the first text is already authoritative.

If a Muslim quoted Qur’an 3:85 (“Whoever desires a religion other than Islam…”) to invalidate Christianity, you would reject that reasoning as circular.

The structure is identical.

Allah never says one of his names is above all names like Jesus.

The Qur’an does not use the same Christological language as Philippians.

But difference in theology does not establish counterfeit origin.

Otherwise, Christianity itself would be counterfeit Judaism for diverging from Jewish theology.

Difference ≠ falsity.

If the Bible uniquely declares perfect righteousness, then there is none other among men to look to.

Even if uniqueness were granted (it is not), the conclusion still would not follow.

A unique claim does not establish its truth.

If someone uniquely claims:

“I alone am infallible,”

that claim still requires demonstration.

Uniqueness of assertion ≠ verification of assertion.

Why doesn’t Allah simply say, ‘I am Allah the Almighty eternal God’?

He does:

• “Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me.” (20:14)
• “He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity.” (59:22–24)
• “Say: He is Allah, One.” (112:1)

The structure parallels biblical declarations of uniqueness.

Your objection rests not on absence of claim, but on theological disagreement.

It proves Muhammad was speaking of Allah the same as the Bible speaks of Lucifer.

This is another instance of special pleading.

You are importing the biblical narrative of Lucifer and assuming its historical truth in order to reinterpret Islam.

But that presupposes the very conclusion in dispute.

It is circular.

Similarity does not prove counterfeit. Not authentic proves counterfeit.

But “not authentic” has not been demonstrated.

You are assuming the authenticity of one tradition (i.e. Christianity) and the falsity of another (i.e. Islam) without independent criteria.

If the standard is:

• First-person divine speech
• Claims of uniqueness
• Claims of justice
• Claims of sovereignty

Then the Qur’an qualifies.

If the standard is:

• Must affirm Trinity
• Must affirm incarnation
• Must affirm crucifixion

Then you are defining authenticity by prior Christian doctrine.

That is theological preference, not neutral evaluation using evidence and logic.

These things I’ll no longer waste time arguing with: That perfect righteousness can be argued by imperfect morality.

This is another form of insulation.

If “imperfect morality” cannot even examine claims about perfection, then no human can meaningfully affirm divine righteousness either.

Understanding requires cognition.

If cognition is disqualified, affirmation becomes empty repetition.

The Bible must prove the negative in order to be believed as true.

No.

The claim “The Bible is inerrant” is a positive claim.

Positive claims require support.

Rejecting inerrancy does not require proving every line false.

It requires showing the claim of perfection is not sufficiently justified.

The burden of proof lies with the claim of perfection, not with critics.

The core issue remains:

1. You apply one standard to the Bible and another to the Qur’an.
2. You treat biblical divine speech as genuine and Qur’anic divine speech as merely human assertion.
3. You assume biblical authority to invalidate other traditions.
4. You define authenticity by prior theological commitment.

That is special pleading.

If divine perfection is to be established, it must be done without privileging one text’s internal claims while dismissing structurally similar claims elsewhere.

Otherwise the argument is not neutral evaluation.

It is prior commitment defended by asymmetric standards.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #218]

It's statistically impossible to do so for so many people over so many years from so many different places.

This is an assertion, not a demonstration.

You have not provided any statistical model, probability calculation, or defined metric of “consistency.”

Large literary traditions maintaining thematic continuity over centuries is not statistically impossible. It is historically common when:

• Later writers build upon earlier texts
• Traditions preserve core narratives
• Communities curate and canonize compatible works

The existence of long-term thematic coherence does not logically require divine authorship.

It requires cultural continuity.

Unproven Bible revisionism by purposed fault finders.

Redaction, canon formation, and editorial processes are not “fault finding.”

They are well-documented historical processes in textual scholarship across traditions — Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and secular.

Dismissing scholarship by labeling it “revisionism” does not refute it.

It avoids engaging it.

Statistical probabilities at least demand believability.

Again, no statistical demonstration has been offered.

Even if improbability were shown, improbability does not equal divine causation.

Many unlikely events occur naturally without invoking supernatural agency.

To argue:

1. This is unlikely.
2. Therefore God.

…is an argument from improbability, not proof.

If the text is perfect, then the writers must be truthful.

This is conditional reasoning.

But the key premise remains:

The text is perfect.

That premise must be established independently.

It cannot be assumed or inferred from the writers’ claims.

That the Bible must prove the negative, in order to be believed as true.

The claim “The Bible is inerrant” is a positive claim.

Positive claims require justification.

Rejecting inerrancy does not require proving every sentence false.

It requires demonstrating that the claim of perfection has not been sufficiently established.

The burden of proof lies with the claim of perfection.

False accusations of error proven false by the text preserves inerrant believability.

If specific alleged contradictions are resolved, that strengthens a defense.

But absence of demonstrated contradiction is not identical to proof of perfection.

Lack of disproof ≠ proof.

Otherwise, any unfalsified claim would automatically be true.

They may have been sincere but mistaken — lip service.

Sincerity and error are not mutually exclusive.

Across history, many sincere religious leaders have held mutually contradictory beliefs.

Recognizing that possibility is not dishonesty.

It is epistemic humility.

Strong search for error finds none, therefore claim is true.

That only holds if:

1. The search has been exhaustive.
2. The evaluation criteria are agreed upon.
3. The standards of evidence are consistent.

Those conditions are rarely met in contested religious debates.

The Bible is full of errors… is hostility.

Calling a text flawed is not hostility.

It is a claim. Please see: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html for a list of the many flaws in the Bible.

Hostility would be personal attack.

Critique of ideas is not equivalent to animus toward persons.

In science and mathematics there is no error.

Science is provisional and self-correcting.

Scientific models are revised.

Mathematical proofs are refined.

Both disciplines openly acknowledge fallibility.

They do not declare themselves beyond evaluation.

Declaring oneself beyond evaluation removes correction entirely.

This is precisely the epistemic issue.

If a claim is placed beyond evaluation, then:

• It cannot be tested.
• It cannot be corrected.
• It cannot be meaningfully defended.

Declaring perfection while refusing examination is not demonstration.

It is insulation.

You believe your flawed morality is incorrectible.

No.

Recognizing fallibility is the opposite of claiming infallibility.

The position presented has consistently been:

• Human reasoning is fallible.
• Therefore claims should remain open to examination.

That stance rejects supremacy.

It embraces revisability.

The central philosophical issue remains:

1. Long-term textual coherence does not logically entail divine authorship.
2. Positive claims of perfection require justification.
3. Absence of disproof is not proof.
4. Insulating a claim from critique does not establish its truth.
5. Fallibility does not eliminate meaningful reasoning.

Declaring a text perfect does not make it perfect.

Demonstration, not repetition, establishes credibility.

That is the epistemic standard applied consistently across disciplines — including religion.