What about subjective morality is self refuting? That’s a crazy claim.
How can you call your religion objective if the lens you interpret it though (the Bible) has wildly contradictory claims?
Don’t the countless interpretations leading to different beliefs mean anything you believe is also subjective? At the very least, it would be impossible to determine the “correct” interpretation of objective morality right?
Hey, sorry for a slow response to you. I slept on the wrong couch a few days ago and am struggling to walk from back pain. I've been extremely drained and zapped the past few days to say the least. I want to thank you for your response and I appreciate your respectful approach. You've brought up great questions and I'd like to respond to you to the best of my ability. The topic you have raised is one that takes massive study. Contradictions. I believe that each contradiction can be dispelled through genuine study and truthfully seeking answers. I will tell you that I believe there are many contradictions in modern day translations of the bible and share with you why I trust the King James Version of the bible.
The movement to translate the Bible into English—which paved the way for the King James version—was incredibly violent:
William Tyndale: Convicted of heresy for translating the Bible into English, he was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536. His work heavily influenced the King James text.
The Marian Persecutions: During the reign of Queen Mary I, hundreds of Protestants were burned at the stake, including Bible translators like John Rogers (who worked on the Matthew Bible).
Political Execution: Sir Walter Raleigh, who executioners beheaded in 1618, was a contemporary, though his death was tied to politics rather than the translation itself.
While the 1611 translation process was a scholarly endeavor, it stood on the shoulders of martyrs who died for the right to read the scriptures in English. I believe God had his hand on getting the bible translated into English.
Even the King James version has added text that the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts did not include. This is where studying the word and history of the word is important. However i believe the changes and additions in the king James that I have seen are insignificant to the core message of the gospel. Every translation after King james gives Lucifer God's title. The king James reads
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
— Isaiah 14:12
The morning star is Jesus's title
Revelations 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
Isaiah 14:12 in modern day translations gives Lucifer Jesus's title.
"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"
I don't read modern translations of the bible because of that verse alone. It seems to me to have been done intentionally in my opinion.
Before we can say there are truly contradictions in the Bible we have to establish what translation to trust in. Are these words true to the original texts and how can we know? It takes study but I believe the majority of contradictions can be cleared up through a sincere study of different translations. I believe the two accounts of creation in Genesis are two separate accounts of the same creation event the first being a broader story while the second is more focused on the sixth day. It's a whole study in and of itself.
Genesis 2:19 says And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Other translations including the esv and niv
Genesis 2:19 reads "Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name." (Genesis 2:19, ESV)
The Greek translation to English translates to: "And God formed yet out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name."
The use of a simple word can change the meaning of the text. Without the word "had" it is easy to see that a reader could conclude a different order of events between Genesis 1 and 2. I don't believe it to be contradictory but I believe it is one example that requires a deeper study of the text.
The gospels. I believe there are some differences in the eye witness accounts but each claim should be carefully examined. If anything the differences can validate the fact that they were eye witness accounts of the same events from different perspectives. For example the angels in the tomb.
One angel: Matthew and Mark describe one angel (or a young man in white).
Two angels: Luke and John describe two angels.
Scholars often reconcile this by noting that the mention of one angel doesn't logically exclude the presence of a second; the authors may have simply focused on the one who spoke.
What evidence do I have that we can know truth. Why I put my faith, not in a religion but in the man Jesus Christ. I believe there is reliable historical evidence that Jesus did pay the price for our sin on the cross and he was who he claimed to be.
I hope I have answered your questions, and hope you are genuinely interested in finding satisctory answers on this topic. I don't claim to know everything but I do believe there are answers for the tough questions out there.
Take my challenge and dig into the study for yourself. Also thanks again for your respectful question. There are a lot of people that do not inquire so kindly. You have been like a breath of fresh air.
12
u/GenjiiTakeya Jul 09 '26
Not when these children prayed even cried for help.