“The God of the
Old Testament[read: Jews] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully . . . ” [Cf. Lennox- Dawkins debate, here. For a quick initial response to this sort of rhetoric, cf. CARM here and JPH of Tektonics here, here, here and here. Also cf. Vox Day's short book length critique of the new Atheists in a free to download format here. (Available from Amazon here.)]
If the arguments you use to try to discredit the Bible, God and Christians would be out of order and unacceptable if addressed directly and explicitly to Jews, such an argument, by simple fairness, is also out of order and unacceptable if directed at Christians.
CARM first page on Bible Difficulties, here
Apologetics Index opening page on Bible Contradictions, here
Answering Islam's Bible Contradictions page (with a Muslim focus) here
R A Torrey's classic short work on Bible Difficulties is online as a PDF here
Philip and Cherian have a paper analysing the subject here
Geisler and Howe give a general approach here
Countering Bible Contradictions, here
Bible Difficulties: resources to defeat the skeptics and critics, which has a helpful guide and onward links to reference sites and books etc., here
(One of the sources this last lists is Tekton's Encyclopedia Apologetica search page, here. OT issues are addressed here, and NT ones here. The so-called enc of Bible errancy is addressed here. While I am at it, the Evil Bible site is answered here.)
The Bible Query page has a major index and reference here
1: just how evolutionary materialist atheism is inescapably self-contradictory and necessarily false.
2: just how it is inescapably amoral and so cannot ground OUGHT in a foundational IS, so it undermines rights and justice.
3: how a step by step analysis of credible worldview options leads to the conclusion that generic ethical theism is the soundest worldview option.
4: how the specific, Judaeo-Christian worldview and tradition is grounded in the historic evidence that undergirds the gospel as truth that brings us hope for redemption and transformation under God.
5: just how destructive and willfully, slanderously unfair is the attempt to smear Bible-believing, gospel-teaching Christian disciples with the false accusation that we are in effect the same as Al Qaeda's terrorists, would-be theocratic tyrants and general menaces to liberty, progress and democracy.
2 Peter 3:15And consider that the long-suffering of our Lord [[e]His slowness in avenging wrongs and judging the world] is salvation ([f]that which is conducive to the soul's safety), even as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the spiritual insight given him,Let us pay heed to such wise counsels. END
16Speaking of this as he does in all of his letters. There are some things in those [epistles of Paul] that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to their own [g]utter destruction, just as [they distort and misinterpret] the rest of the Scriptures.
17Let me warn you therefore, beloved, that knowing these things beforehand, you should be on your guard, lest you be carried away by the error of lawless and wicked [persons and] fall from your own [present] firm condition [your own steadfastness of mind].
18But grow in grace (undeserved favor, spiritual strength) and [h]recognition and knowledge and understanding of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (the Messiah). To Him [be] glory (honor, majesty, and splendor) both now and to the day of eternity. Amen (so be it)! [AMP]
F/N: Slight updates and added links, to Mon Dec 12.
F/N 2: discovered a defect in a link, replaced.
Zech 12: 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit[a] of grace and supplication. They will look on[b] me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son . . .. . . I trust, therefore, that this critic will be willing to respond to the One who stands on that Mount, even if he has been "pierced" with nail-prints in his hand (even as Thomas responded in the upper Room), and has been as well the Suffering Servant of Isa 53 (and the one with 500+ eyewitnesses to his resurrection of 1 Cor 15:1 - 11). In short, a disagreement on theological matters hardly constitutes hatred of a people, but the unjust, jaundiced, superciliously denigratory and dismissive characterisation of the God of Israel we find in Dr Dawkins' remarks as cited above raises serious questions about the implication of his words for both Christians and Jews; which is what was highlighted above.
14:1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.
2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it . . .
3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle. 4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south . . .
F/N 4: I believe also, I need to note here, on an objection made by the same objector to this post at UD.
He began by trying to defend radical relativism in morality, then when I pointed out that the cultural form of such would have no basis for condemning actions of people under the Nazi German regime, he objected that "As someone of Jewish upbringing, I think you’ve said something very hurtful and stupid. What Hitler did, however was in fact legal. He made it so, and many “moral” institutions either helped out or looked the other way . . . "
In The law Above the Law, John Warwick Montgomery describes [the Nazi] argument: “The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and they therefore ought not rightly be condemned | because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors” (emphasis added).4
But the tribunal did not accept this justification. In the words of Robert H. Jackson, chief counsel for the United States at the trials, the issue was not one of power — the victor judging the vanquished — but one of higher moral law. “The tribunal rises above the provincial and the transient,” he said, “and seeks guidance not only from International Law, but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence, which are assumptions of civilization . . . . ” 5 [Beckwith, Francis, and Koukl, Greg, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, Baker (2005 printing) pp. 50 - 51; Judge Jackson's words emphasised. HT, Google Books.]