God simply spoke and there was light. This shows the awesome power of God. God only needed to speak and the light appeared. God has the power to merely speak and all things obey his voice. This new light that God created was not the light from the Sun or moon or even the stars. This light was the essence of the existence of light itself. Here the word for light is "or" meaning the existence or creation of light (Origin of Light)

        Genesis 2:8-9 does not describe the creation of trees but the creation of the garden of Eden for Adam to live in. In it God planted many trees, among them the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.

        Genesis 2:19 does not describe the creation of birds (which came out of the seas). Rather, God made one more of each kind of creature from the ground directly before Adam, so that he could name them. It was a second creative act, this one later in the day and only in the garden, that familiarized Adam with all of the kinds of animals he was to rule over.

See above.

        Here you need to distinguish between being ceremonially unclean and sinning? I make my son wash his hands after playing in the sandbox. Does that make him disobedient to play there? A woman with an issue of blood was also said to be unclean, just a couple of chapters later. Does that make her sinful?

        God was pleased to give man a free will. He is not pleased when man uses that to rebel.

        Moses wrote (actually collected 10 eye witness accounts and edited) Genesis and used the name for God that was revealed to him.

        There is physical death (the separation of the soul from the body) and spiritual death (the separation of the soul from God). In a physical sense, Adam BEGAN to die that day. In a spiritual sense, which God consistently uses thereafter (see Ephesians 2:1 and John 8:51) Adam died immediately; that is, his sin separated him from his Creator the instant he ate the fruit.

        Your interpretation of Genesis 2 is totally messed up. Their sin was disobedience (doing evil) not wanting to know something.

        God DOES treat all alike. Those that offer improper sacrifices (like Cain) are rejected. If Abel had offered a bloodless sacrifice, he would have been rejected too.

        God gave Cain a chance to come clean. I ASK my boy if he took a cookie that I watched him snitch for the same reason.

        God hates sin and evil and God loves goodness. So what is the problem? His holiness means He must execute a just penalty for sin. God's love provides a means of forgiveness in Christ for all who will avail themselves. There is no contradiction here.

        God took on a form to speak with Cain (much like Moses at the burning bush or Abraham at his tent). Cain walked away from his encounter with God.

        Some of Adam's descendants were giants. Some of Noah's descendants were giants. Some giants have lived in recent history. So what?

        God never changes. His actions towards us change as WE change (much as the sun changes when I put on my shades).

       If seven of *some* are taken, than two of *each* kind ARE taken. There is no contradiction. A contradiction would require that two of some kind NOT be taken!

        This is at least a reasonable objection...oft-refuted, but reasonable. God is totally, completely spotlessly righteous. He alone is perfectly holy. When men are described as "righteous," it is always in a comparative way (i.e. Job 2:3 "there is none like him on the earth"). Men can only become guiltless before the bar of the Almighty by being pardoned through the blood of Christ.

        It is reiterating the event with a specific dating scheme in Noah's life.

        God did not sow discord (contention). He confused the languages. BTW, there are a lot of things that God does that He forbids man to do. So what? That is only reasonable.

        This is taken out of context. God is not the author of confusion IN THE CHURCH.

        Cainan was left out of Genesis. It is also possible that it was purposefully left out of this genealogy. While this would appear unusual, there are a few kings left out in Matthew 1:8. It also appears that in the Jewish tradition, the designation "son" was somewhat flexible. There are multiple instances in the scripture where a grandson is called a son or a son in law is called a son.

        This is a decent point since it appears contradictory on the surface. However, Terah could have STARTED bearing at age 70 (following the pattern of the genealogy in which the childless years are mentioned first) and Abram could have been born last when Terah was 130. This is not unreasonable since Abram himself bore children later than that. (Genesis 17:17 indicates he was ten years older than Sarah. Genesis 23:1 says Sarah died at 127. Genesis 25:1-2 tells us that Abraham was still bearing children with his subsequent wife several years later.) Furthermore, Abraham's brother got married, had Lot, and died ALL before Abram got married. So Abram's brother, Haran, would have been MUCH older.

        The amazing thing is that these verses resolve your confusion themselves! No one has seen God in all his glory. In Exodus, God hid Moses from seeing his face. Isaiah, John, and others saw a vision of God. God takes on a form (like a burning bush to Moses or a whirlwind to Job) before conversing with man.

        Genesis 10 is a genealogy that covers centuries. It includes the period before Babel when there was one language (described in chapter 11) and continues well after Babel detailing the divisions of languages that resulted from Babel.

        The passage in Hebrews is being chopping off mid-thought to create a contradiction. "He that received the promise offered up his only begotten son of whom it was said..." God had promised Isaac. Abraham got Ishmael outside of God's will.

What is this supposed to mean?

Let's look at the verse in which the Scoffer claims the contradiction sits:

This is an observation that I made in reading this page. Notice the Word of God states "the LORD was with Judah," not "the LORD was fighting along side Judah against the inhabitants of the valley." While reading this page, I've seen that this particular Scoffer often takes things out of context and omits valuable information in his/her postings. This seems to be another case.

I did not find in my Bible that the LORD was fighting along side Judah, but instead that the LORD was with Judah. All through scripture it is made clear that trials, tribulation, persecution and other things strengthen our relationship with God. We learn to depend on Him. God never promised that life would be easy, to my knowledge, He only promised he would never leave us. And He never has. I have experienced many trials in my life. I've "won some and lost some," but the LORD has never left me. He's with me through thick and thin (Hebrews 13:5), victory and defeat. I am sure this is the case with Judah as well. NO CONTRADICTION!

        You are comparing the longevity of a covenant with its potency (apples and oranges). Circumcision is an everlasting covenant. But it is of no value in taking away sin. It never saved anybody.

        Abraham was in possession of plenty of Canaan when he died. But you miss the point of the verse. The promised was to be fulfilled in Abraham AND his seed. One of the most amazingly fulfilled prophecies is the rebirth of the nation of Israel in their ancestral homeland.

        So what? Good people can do wrong things. Besides, the laws you cite were not given till long after Abraham had died. Ex post facto laws.

        God went down to check out Sodom to give Abraham a chance to intercede for it, and to demonstrate the wickedness of the Sodomites; not because he was unable to check it out from heaven.

        Remember whenever "righteous" is used of man, it is comparative. Good people are not always perfect. If your ONLY flaw was getting drunk for a couple of nights, I would say that you were pretty righteous too.

        Note Hebrews 11:17. A better translation of the Greek "peirazo" is "tried" (or proved, tested). God examines us much like a master teacher...to demonstrate our faith (or lack thereof) and to mature us. James uses it in this sense earlier in the chapter (James 1:2-3). There is a very different Greek used in verse 13. "Peirasmos" means "a solicitation to do evil." It is based on our lusts or on Satanic seductions.

        Once again a contradiction is create by messing up the sentence. The point is not that there is anything wrong with eating certain meats or drinking wine. The problem is doing things needlessly that offend a Christian brother.

        The Oriental tradition of changing names was to signify a watershed in someone's life. It was an official change. The point is NOT that God forbids everybody from calling him Jacob (in fact he is called Jacob just 4 verses later); rather the idea is that he would no longer be KNOWN as "deceiver" (Jacob) but as "God's fighter" (Israel).

        Take the time to read the passage carefully and you might just answer your own question. Genesis 36:12 adds Amalek (born by a concubine) to the list started in verse 11. You just plain miss Gatam and Amalek in Genesis 36:16. Later in the passage (perhaps adopted as a son) Timnah is added as a duke (Genesis 36:40). Therefore Genesis 36 matches Chronicles perfectly

        This is not a contradiction. It is a change. Some have postulated this change was because of the idolatry that was started in Dan, which eventually caused Israel to be judged and to go into bondage.

        The sepulchre was a cave. (Note Genesis 23:6-9 where the original story is told.) Machpelah is the region that became Shechem. Again from the original story, we see that Abraham bought it from the sons of Hamor, specifically from Ephron who lived among them and had the field with the sepulchre. When Jacob returned to his ancestral homeland (Genesis 33:17-19) he found that children of Hamor had conquered and inhabited the region. He repurchased the field from Shechem's dad, Hamor.

        Many OT figures had two names. This was particularly common in the ancient traditions when one was leaving one clan to join another nation (Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, etc.). Jethro was a Midianite. Likely he was given a Hebrew name when he joined the Israelites.

        First, the rules of warfare are, and have always been distinct from the rules in society (shooting down an enemy plane is morally different from shooting my wife amidst an argument). Secondly, God made these laws for man, not for himself. He can take (or command to be taken) whatever He wants, anytime He wants. He is God.
[since this same objection is repeated below ad nauseum, I will only say "dittos" from now on]

        Sickness, disease, suffering, and death are a result of sin and man's rebellion against God. God in justice judged the world. God in love provides a means of salvation so that we can live in bliss with Him. Perhaps YOU do not think that this is "loving" enough for you. But you are not a HOLY God who has been offended by sin.

        You first premise is wrong. The murrain was on the cattle and the horses (Exodus 9:3). No doubt many of them died. However, verse six states that all the cattle died. It does not include the horses, asses, camels etc.

        God does not say He needed the blood to SEE WHICH house was occupied by Israelites. He promised that WHEN He saw the blood, he would pass by that house (including, no doubt, some believing Egyptians).

        This is height of absurdity. First of all, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms at the time of I Kings 20. Secondly, the context is that king Ahab was besieged in Samaria (capital of the northern kingdom), and therefore could only count everybody in the city. Thirdly, he was counting ALL the children of Israel available for battle (verse 14).

        God is characterized by both. So was Ronald Reagan.

        Just because Exodus 20 does not mention angels does not mean they played no role. Nowhere does it say he did not use an intermediary. (Note that the ten commandments in stone were said to be literally etched by God's finger.)

        Yet again you stop mid-sentence, wrest it out of context, and manufacture a contradiction. Read before and after in Exodus 20. God was not forbidding someone from whittling or doing sculpture work! He is talking about making up a god, then engraving it, and then worshipping it.

        You are confusing at least three different concepts. When a NATION had become so corrupt that God was going to completely wipe it out (Isaiah 14) obviously all, young and old, would suffer this judgment. Under the law of Moses, God (not society) would punish a HOUSEHOLD to the third and fourth generation for the parent's sins. Perhaps this was a result of the way households were structured and the collective way decisions were carried out. Ezekiel 18:1-3 indicates that the SOCIETAL RULE was to be changed so that children would not die for the parent's sin. This is not a contradiction. It is an attempt to change something that should not have been going on in Israeli society (Deuteronomy 24:16).

        The disciples did not do work. They violated the Pharisees guidelines. Christ fulfilled the law, and the ceremonial portions stopped being in effect at his death. This is the change Paul references in Galatians 3:24-25. It is not a contradiction.

        You can still honor someone that you hate. So there is no contradiction even if one ignorantly believes Christ is saying we are to dislike our parents. However, the English word hate poorly captures the comparative nature of what Christ said. When considered next to our love for God, our love for our parents (and even ourselves) should dim to nothing in comparison.

        Hosea did not commit adultery (his wife had but not him). Where is the contradiction?

        Please! How can Christ be more clear? He plainly is changing the law to initiate the age of grace in which we now live. READ the whole passage.

        God made a promise to bring the nation of Israel into Canaan. He took them up to the edge and (with a couple of exceptions) they rebelled and decided not to go in. Therefore God fulfilled his promise in the next generation. God never promised that EVERY individual that left Egypt would get to Canaan. Many died for various reasons in the wilderness. Even Moses did not make it in.

        God PERMITS evil spirits and evil men to do much harm. That does not mean he is untruthful or condones their actions.

        Since when have you become concerned about context? God's patience is long, but it has limits. After several miracles in which Pharoah hardened his heart, God hardened Pharoah's heart so that he COULD not repent (Exodus 10:1-2). The context clearly indicates that these people had ample opportunity to repent; yet they had chosen the lie of Satan (vs 9) over the truth of God (vs 10 and vs 12). Therefore, in vs 11 God gives them over to a life of delusion. This is not God lying to them or deceiving them. It is God permanently sealing the fate that THEY decided upon.

        There are two senses in which evil is used in the KJV. One involves a moral failure on the part of someone. The other is a misfortune that befalls someone. God causes the second to happen, but not the first. Some have argued that God did wrong to even create the potential of evil. However, it is not possible to make light shine without there being darkness. Similarly, it is not possible for God to have created "good" without the potential for "evil." To do otherwise would have been to create an amoral robotic machinery with no will.

        You once again confuse multiple issues. God judges sin. As Exodus 34 states, the consequences do not stop just because the sin is forgiven (see also II Samuel 12:13-14). God knows everything and never forgets the way we do. Yet, once sins are forgiven, He chooses to never again bring it up to be used against the sinner.

        The second issue is the difference between the way sin was treated under the law. It was never wiped out and required annual sacrifices as a memorial of this limitation. Sin was merely covered temporarily by the sacrifice of blood, awaiting the coming perfect sacrifice that would wash away all sin. Jeremiah speaks prophetically of this time. (Read the beginning of the chapter.) It was fulfilled in Christ. This difference is highlighted as Hebrews 10:3 is contrasted with Hebrews 10:17.

        Neither Jesus or Paul discuss eating fat or blood. Christ was making the point that you do not get sinful inside by eating with dirty hands. Sin starts in the mind and works out. Paul was combating legalists and Judaizers that delighted in an ascetic lifestyle, adding a lot of unnecessary man-made laws as a means of being more righteous.

        One is a heart attitude (love) and the other is the practical follow through of it (self-sacrifice). Both go hand-in-hand.

        Bad chief priest! So what? (He did far worse than that in seeking to kill Christ.)

        In the ceremonial law instituted in the economy of Israel, God made interest on loans illegal. In telling the parable of this austere lord, Christ never indicates whether charging interest is right or wrong. However, the era of the ceremonial law ended (and with it the prohibition on charging interest) after Christ.

Let's look at the two verses more carefully:

This "contradiction" is a clear and precise example of how desperate Scoffers are to make the Word of God look like anything less than Divinely-inspired material. Any rational person would clearly understand that both of these passages are relating to specific instances by both entities. God has indeed smote some people throughout history, and Satan has also smote some people. It's important to state that neither of the two passages claim that ALL SICKNESS is from God, nor does it state that ALL SICKNESS is from Satan. NO CONTRADICTION!

        See above. In the OT, forgiven sins were merely *covered* by a blood sacrifice in anticipation of being taken away when Christ died.

        Read the passages! 23,000 died in ONE DAY. 24,000 died in the entire plague. So 1,000 died later, no contradiction.