I understand what you mean regarding the difference between the old and new testaments. According to the book of Matthew, Jesus “fulfilled” some prior Old Testament laws so that people no longer needed to continuously follow them. But, it is very vague as to what is “fulfilled” and what is not “fulfilled.” Plus, there are also numerous contradictions in the New Testament. There is no question that the Bible is filled with contradiction and vagueness, leaving it open to a lot of interpretation.

Yes, I understand that if you kill, you are brought before the law and that does not contradict the bible. I also understand that it is okay to kill for, say, self-defense and that does not contradict the bible either. But that is not what I was referring to. I was actually referring to some morally questionable parts of the bible where it states that people should be killed for some fairly minor crimes.

Also, I never tried to disprove God. I even wrote in the article that my arguments do not disprove the existence of God, they only question His existence.

You would be surprised at how much the Bible contradicts archeological evidence. That is how the school of Biblical minimalism came about, which treats the Bible as purely fiction and not an accurate historical account. Since the twentieth century, there were increasing contradictions between the findings of Syro-Palestinian archeology and the Bible. Stories from the Old Testament such as Moses’s exodus from Egypt either contradicted archeological evidence or were not supported by archeological evidence. Earlier stories, such as Adam and Eve and the great flood, were already long abandoned by historians and archeologists. I wouldn’t say that the Bible has no historical value, but I would be cautious in trying to use it as a book of history. I view it more as a work of historical fiction, like Luo Guanzhong’s Romance of Three Kingdoms.

Word of advice to you: the more respectful you are, the more seriously you will be taken by others. Be more like Tom C.