A List of Biblical Contradictions, by Jim Meritt [Archive I]

-DM-

October 22, 2002, 09:48 AM

Thank you for your feedback regarding A List of Biblical Contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html) by Jim Meritt. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. In the meantime, a few comments.

I disagree that there would be anything logical about pulling Meritt's list of contradictions. In fact, to pull them on the basis that you think they are petty, that they can be attributed to translation errors, and that no modern day religions support a literal interpretation of the Bible as perfect would, in my opinion, be anything but logical.

Whether contradictions are petty or significant is at least somewhat a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that some of those contradictions are quite significant. Further, Meritt's list is not exhaustive; there are many more contradictions which could have been listed, thus your comment, "'they scowered [sic] the book for errors, and this is all they found?" is a kind of straw man which seems to involve an invalid assumption that no others could be found.

You are wrong that these contradictions can be attributed to translation errors. The oldest and most reliable manuscripts are used in the better translations and the translators are generally experts in their field, experts who are Christians or Jews themselves. If it were proper to do so, they would undoubtedly rid the Bible of these kinds of contradictions through translation.

Nor does reading down the list with a Christian perspective inevitably mean that "it is easy enough to see that the arguments are BS." For example, I began to notice those kinds of biblical problems while I was a Christian myself and those problems prompted further investigation, a thorough investigation of the foundations of Christianity and the reliability of the Bible, an investigation that led to my renunciation of the Christian belief-system as untrue and not worthy of belief.

And finally, you are wrong that there are "no modern day religions which support a literal interpretation of the bible as 'perfect.'" There are plenty of fundamentalist Christian Bible churches around, churches which hold that the Bible in its original form was the perfect, inerrant, and plenary Word of God. From that presupposition, every effort is made to rectify any "apparent problem" with whatever ad hoc how-it-might-have-been argument that an apologist can come up with. Those same churches also teach that the Bible is to be interpreted literally wherever it is possible to do so, i.e., where it is not obvious that it is meant to be taken otherwise; of course, there is always some disagreement on what is meant to be taken literally or otherwise, even amongst devout fundamentalists.

--

My opinion is that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could not possibly have made such a mess of it had "He" anything to do with the inspiration of a book such as the Bible. After all, such a god could easily see to it that the copyists and translators got it right as well.

-Don-

P.S. Jim Meritt responds to the effect that, if someone has some new facts, he would be interested in what they have to say, but inasmuch as there is nothing new here--"old opinions are old opinions"--he is uninterested. I cannot say that I blame him.

Mike(ATL)

October 21, 2003, 07:58 PM

If I show those who run this site or the original author why the biblical contradictions in the Infidel Library are not contradictions will they be removed? Just want to make sure I'm not talking to a wall were I to put some work into it. If they were to be removed or atleast have a link to the other side of the argument there I would find it to be worth my while to take those on one at a time. The few that I have looked at have been simple matters of translation and context.

-DM-

October 21, 2003, 08:15 PM

First, the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10) requires that you provide the title of the article and the name of the author. You provided neither. Without that information it is not possible to answer your questions with the same degree of accuracy as would otherwise be possible.

On the other hand, if I were the author of the article, and if you could conclusively demonstrate that some of the alleged contradictions were, in fact, not contradictions, then I would either remove those alleged contradictions or correct them. If all of the alleged contradictions were conclusively proved to be bogus, then I would want the article to come down. However, depending on which article you have in mind, the author may either be unavailable--or even deceased. Those factors could and likely would have a bearing on what was done about the alleged errors in the article.

Keep in mind, however, that it is not sufficient to provide ad hoc, how-it-might-have-been scenarios or "explanations" to resolve alleged contradictions. You need to conclusively prove the author's error(s) and/or to demonstrate why it is that your interpretation should be taken as correct.

With those considerations in mind, you are welcome to begin. Perhaps you should start with your best shot at just a few alleged contradictions so that you and/or the author don't waste time and/or effort on a fruitless endeavor.

Regards,
-DM-

Mike(ATL)

October 21, 2003, 10:09 PM

Ok, for example:

from "A List of Biblical Contradictions" by Jim Merritt:

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
First of all the context: "The LORD is good to all" is from a Psalm of praise written by David. David here is praising God for characteristics he has observed. The passage here from Jeremiah is a warning to Israel and Judah that he will not show pity to them for their wickedness.

What does the "good" in "good to all" mean? That God treats everyone whether sinning against him or not "good?" No, of course not. See what David says in that very same Psalm:

PSA 145:20 The LORD keeps all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy.

God never denies this about Himself, by His nature he must punish sin without some kind of sacrifice. In fact when He passes in front of Moses He described himself in this way

EXO 34:6-7 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

OK, I believe I have shown that these verses labeled as a contradiction do not contradict each other. Definitely not to the point where you can use it to say the bible is errant. Therefore it should be removed from the article. If you disagree, show me where I am wrong. Thanks

-DM-

October 22, 2003, 01:11 AM

Thank you for providing the title of the article, A List of Biblical Contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html), by Jim Meritt (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/index.shtml). Assuming that the e-mail address shown is still good, the author has been notified of your feedback in order to give him a chance to respond for himself. If we do not hear from him within a reasonable period of time (or if the e-mail bounces), then someone else will respond. You might therefore want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post.

-DM-

[Edited to fix links. -DM-]

Jim Meritt

October 22, 2003, 11:47 AM

My only response is that it is a textual contradiction within the document listed.

I find it interesting that people SIMULTANEOUSLY (1) use outside guidance to override what is written and (2) declare that the referenced document is THE ultimate guide. Pick one.

If you disagree with the original document, please feel free to comment on that. But using outside documentation to resolve contradictions in the referenced document (aka "the Bible") is invalid in context.

Please feel free to absolve yourself.

Mike(ATL)

October 22, 2003, 01:51 PM

Jim, thanks for the response.

I assume the "people" you are referring to is myself and I assume the "outside guidance" you are referring to is the context I spoke of concerning the referenced verses. You cannot read the "original document" just by itself without realizing who wrote it and who the author is writing to. That would be like reading the Declaration of Independence without knowing who wrote it and who it was written to, you wouldn't know what was going on.

That said, in this particular case even knowing context outside of what is said in those chapters is not necessary. As I demonstrated in my first post, from the rest of that Psalm 145 the author clearly states that God punishes wickedness.

Maybe you just did not look into the surrounding text which is understandable considering the size of your list. I don't think it's asking too much to remove that one "contradiction" from your list. I should warn you though that if you are willing to do that I intend to go through the rest of your list and demonstrate how they are also not contradictions. You can certainly have other reasons to believe that the Bible is not believable or whatever it is you believe but this particular said contradiction is not one of them.

-DM-

October 23, 2003, 12:10 AM

Mike(ATL):

Jim Meritt told me that he doesn't really care to address the same thing over and over again. What I propose, therefore, is to offer my own take on this one alleged contradiction, then move this topic to the Biblical Criticism & History (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=60) forum in order to facilitate open discussion. Inasmuch as you are a registered user, you can take part in any ensuing discussion there.

--

You were to show why "the biblical contradictions in the Infidel Library are not contradictions."

There are several articles in the Library which mention biblical contradictions, of course, but you later identified A List of Biblical Contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html), by Jim Meritt (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/index.shtml) as what you had in mind. I then suggested, "you should start with your best shot at just a few alleged contradictions so that you and/or the author don't waste time and/or effort on a fruitless endeavor." You chose the following one [alleged] contradiction--which I would assume represented your very best shot at fulfilling your challenge--to begin your apologetic effort:

From "A List of Biblical Contradictions" by Jim Merritt:

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.You then provided context from PSA 145:20, "The LORD keeps all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy," as well as unsubstantiated assertions (what Jim Meritt might label as "outside guidance") regarding the alleged nature of "God."

Given the variations in translation of these verses from Hebrew to English, given the resulting uncertainty regarding the precise intended meaning of those verses, and given the fact that there are several possible meanings of the word 'contradiction,' what is and is not a contradiction is, to at least some extent, in the eye of the beholder.

American Heritage Dictionary:
contradiction
1. a. The act of contradicting. b. The state of being contradicted.
2. A denial.
3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.
4. Something that contains contradictory elements.

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
contradiction
1 act or an instance of contradicting
2 a: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something
b: a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>
3 a: logical incongruity
b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another--

So, have you demonstrated that the alleged contradiction between PSA 145:9 and JER 13:14 is NOT a contradiction, that there is no inconsistency? No, not in my opinion--not even close. Why? Because there is what seems to me to be a glaring inconsistency between these two statements--and the fact that "the Lord" would punish the wicked does not resolve that inconsistency:

1) The Lord is good to all.
2) I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

However, if you want to believe that the fact that the Lord will allegedly destroy the wicked--including, apparently, all the inhabitants of Israel and/or Judah, parents and children alike--somehow absolves him from showing any pity, excuses him from showing any mercy, that is OK with me, but I don't buy it. After all, it would be quite possible to "destroy the wicked" and still show pity, compassion, and mercy--especially to the children, not all of whom would necessarily be considered wicked.

Further, if we do take the context of the Bible as a whole, it becomes readily apparent to me that your apologetics cannot possibly explain the inconsistency (a term which I prefer to "contradiction") between PSA 145:9 and the despicable behavior attributed to "the Lord" with regard to Job.

--

Now a few comments with regard to two of your other assertions:

Posted by Mike(ATL):
You cannot read the "original document" just by itself without realizing who wrote it and who the author is writing to.I disagree that this is the case, but if it were the case that we needed to know who wrote the original individual documents which now make up the Bible in order to understand the Bible, we would be in real trouble given that the authors of many of the documents are unknown and given that many of the documents which have traditionally been attributed to one author are actually the work of multiple authors, redactors, and editors. As an example, the preamble to the Book of Psalms in the New Oxford Annotated Bible says this: "The tradition that David wrote all the psalms is much later than the book itself. Interior evidence shows that the Psalter is the product of many minds during many centuries."

Posted by Mike(ATL):
EXO 34:6-7 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." [Emphasis added.]I'm glad that you mentioned this passage. I don't see this as an example of "the Lord" being "good to all" or demonstrating "his tender mercies ... over all his works." This reprehensible behavior attributed to "the Lord" reminds me of yet another such example, 2KI 2:23-24, where forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at "a man of God."

-DM-

Mike(ATL)

October 23, 2003, 06:35 PM

Thanks for the well thought out (which is more than I can say for Merritt) reply DM, let's deal with the first said contradiction before we start talking about who wrote what and talking about what happened with Job and the bears mauling children.

The reason I picked that contradiction was because it was the first one on the list of the first article I saw, not because I thought it would be the easiest. When I say something isn't a contradiction I mean it is not a contradiction to the point where it shows that the bible is errant.

I did not bring up Psalms 145:20 just to show that God would punish the wicked. I brought up that verse to show that when you read the rest of the Psalm you can see that David (or whoever) was not trying to tell us that God is nice to all people at all times. If he meant that he thought God was nice to everyone he would not have said soon after that God punishes the wicked. So can we agree at least that this is not a case of one author thinking one thing about God and another author thinking another? Therefore this is not an inconsistency where conflicting accounts are given but what is believed to be an inconsistency in the nature of God.

A better verse to demonstrate this "contradiction" would be the verse I gave where God describes himself to Solomon

EXO 34:6-7 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

How could a compassionate God take the sins of the fathers out on his kids? Even this would not be biblical errancy though since the contradiction exists in one verse. God fully admits this about himself and it's just a matter of understanding why.

My original intention of bringing this up though was to demonstrate that the original two verses do not demonstrate the errancy of the Bible. Before I go on to address the apparent contradiction in God's nature can we agree that the original verses are not a contradiction that can be used as evidence to demonstrate the errancy of the bible?

Wayne Delia

October 24, 2003, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
My original intention of bringing this up though was to demonstrate that the original two verses do not demonstrate the errancy of the Bible. Before I go on to address the apparent contradiction in God's nature can we agree that the original verses are not a contradiction that can be used as evidence to demonstrate the errancy of the bible? No, of course not. The first verse asserts that "the Lord is good to all," while the second verse apparently rationalizes the reasons why the Lord isn't good to all. If Psalm 145:9 was not a contradiction of Psalm 145:20 or Jeremiah 13:14, it would read something like this: "The LORD is good to all, except the wicked: and his tender mercies are over all his works, except when He is punishing the wicked." One immediate problem, of course, is that sweetness-and-light verses like Psalm 145:9 (as is) are used to "sell" Christianity as a loving, tolerant religion, and once the convert has bought in, nasty verses such as Psalm 145:20 or Jeremiah 13:14 represent the "fine print" of the "bait-and-switch" false advertising.

WMD

GakuseiDon

October 24, 2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Wayne Delia
No, of course not. The first verse asserts that "the Lord is good to all," while the second verse apparently rationalizes the reasons why the Lord isn't good to all. If Psalm 145:9 was not a contradiction of Psalm 145:20 or Jeremiah 13:14, it would read something like this: "The LORD is good to all, except the wicked: and his tender mercies are over all his works, except when He is punishing the wicked."But isn't that the meaning behind that Psalm anyway, if taken as a whole?

Alan N

October 24, 2003, 08:18 AM

Just taking Psalm 145 by itself should present a problem for any reader. It reads like Habakkuk in reverse. "God, your the greatest, most powerful, bestest God ever. You provide every living thing what it needs. Your most tender mercies are bestowed on everything. Your wonderful and gracious and so on and so on. You destroy the wicked." What!? This floors me. Apart from the textual criticism that others might employ, I would only ask that you read this as you might read a letter to you from a son. "Dad, I love you, you know that, right? You're the bestest father ever....so on...you will destroy your wicked children" What!?

This polarity to me reads as self preservation. I.E. I'm protected because I love God despite his obvious wrath in the world. I'm protected as long as I extoll His virtues. I'm protected because I'm not wicked. I'm not wicked because I love God and extoll his virtues". Somewhat dubious to me. Just like Habakkuk..."why do you do what you do God? Why do you allow invaders to destroy. Why do you allow the violence and wickedness ...you will take me to heights unknown on feet like deer's feet" WHAT!?

-DM-

October 24, 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
I did not bring up Psalms 145:20 just to show that God would punish the wicked. I brought up that verse to show that when you read the rest of the Psalm you can see that David (or whoever) was not trying to tell us that God is nice to all people at all times. If he meant that he thought God was nice to everyone he would not have said soon after that God punishes the wicked.Punishment of the wicked by an omnipotent, compassionate, merciful, and loving "God" would nevertheless involve pity, compassion, and mercy. Thus, no matter how you slice it, dashing whole nations of people, including children who would not yet have reached an age of accountability, "one against another even the fathers and the sons together"--showing no pity and no mercy--simply does not jibe so far as I am concerned with the statement "The Lord is good to all."

So can we agree at least that this is not a case of one author thinking one thing about God and another author thinking another?No, you certainly have not ruled out that possibility.

Therefore this is not an inconsistency where conflicting accounts are given but what is believed to be an inconsistency in the nature of God.So far as I am concerned, it is an obvious inconsistency, albeit perhaps a rather minor inconsistency considering some of the more glaring inconsistencies throughout the Bible.

My original intention of bringing this up though was to demonstrate that the original two verses do not demonstrate the errancy of the Bible.The original two verses demonstrate one of the thousands of inconsistencies in the Bible, inconsistencies which to some extent explain the 20,000+ "Christian" denominations, each with its minor and/or major doctrinal differences based on which parts of the Bible they emphasize and/or how they interpret key biblical verses.

Before I go on to address the apparent contradiction in God's nature can we agree that the original verses are not a contradiction that can be used as evidence to demonstrate the errancy of the bible?They are inconsistencies. What those inconsistencies demonstrate is somewhat open to interpretation. To me, they demonstrate that the Bible cannot be the word of a perfect, omnipotent and loving "God." Such a "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it had "He" anything to do with the inspiration of a book. So far as I am concerned, therefore, attempting to explain the nature of "God" on the basis of what the Bible says is something like attempting to explain the nature of Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster, on the basis of what the Weekly World News (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/) tabloid has to say.

-DM-

-DM-

October 24, 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
But isn't that the meaning behind that Psalm anyway, if taken as a whole?In my opinion, a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and loving "God" could have, should have, and would have been sufficiently concerned about possible misunderstandings to see to it that problems such as this did not exist; qualifying statements could be, should be, and would be included right with the statement "The Lord is good to all," just as Wayne Delia suggested.

-DM-

GakuseiDon

October 24, 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by -DM-
In my opinion, a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and loving "God" could have, should have, and would have been sufficiently concerned about possible misunderstandings to see to it that problems such as this did not exist; qualifying statements could be, should be, and would be included right with the statement "The Lord is good to all," just as Wayne Delia suggested.

-DM- But my point is, the qualifying statement IS right there, just later on in the Psalm. So anyone reading the whole Psalm would not misunderstand. DM, after you read the Psalm, do YOU understand anything other than that the Psalm, taken as a whole, says "God is good to all, except the wicked"?

I'm a Christian, but not an inerrantist. Still, as Mike said, anyone reading the Bible wouldn't have a problem with that particular passage. Taking half a sentence out of its context - no wonder there is misunderstanding! But I don't think you can blame this one on God.

As someone said, there is nothing that omniscience can set up, that deliberate ignorance cannot overcome.

Mike, I think you can see how you will fare. I agree with you here. But, just as there are apologists who use any excuse to explain away a contradiction, there are contradictionists who use any excuse to set one up. You can't win with either. That's why I don't argue much on contradictions (pro or con) anymore.

Rodynus

October 24, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
A better verse to demonstrate this "contradiction" would be the verse I gave where God describes himself to Solomon

EXO 34:6-7 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
Fair enough, but a better verse than the Psalm to demonstrate the contradiction is found here:

Ezekiel 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

and here

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

It is difficult to reconcile Ezekiel with Exodus, but I'm sure not impossible. I look forward to your attempt.

Mike(ATL)

October 24, 2003, 10:54 PM

DM, the point that God should see how this could be misconstrued and should have designed His book better is ludicrous and distracting to the only point I am trying to make at the moment. It is impossible to ask that a text of this length, dealing with so many different situations, describing so many accounts, be so uniform that you could not take 5 words out of context and compare them to another 5 words in a completely different place in a completely different situation and always have a completely consistent message.

I try to be a nice reasonable guy so I'm sorry for the tone but there is just no reasoning with you people (at least in this thread so far), you will defend your man here to the death. It could not be more plainly obvious that both authors are talking about the same God. You keep moving the argument back to the nature of God that you find contradicting. You claim to be open to reason and discussion but here we clearly have an instance where you will just not hear anything of it. You demand that we (Christians) accept all of your arguments without a second thought but on the smallest most insignificant detail you will not concede any error on your part. For the purpose of continuing the discussion (and only for that) here I am not saying the Bible doesn't contradict itself in other places, I am not saying that the merciful yet punishing God makes sense, all I am saying is that those two original verses are not an example of biblical errancy because when taken in context the message is not contradicting.

I refuse to continue this discussion until you will concede this clearly obvious and very very small point. There is no purpose in discussing with someone who is not open to something as indisputable as this. I can clearly see that I will get the same response no matter what so it would be a waste of my time and yours.

-DM-

October 24, 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
But my point is, the qualifying statement IS right there, just later on in the Psalm.Yes, I understood your point. Do you understand the point that a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and concerned "God" could have, should have, and would have precluded this particular problem by putting the qualifying phrases right in the very sentence with the original assertion?

So anyone reading the whole Psalm would not misunderstand. DM, after you read the Psalm, do YOU understand anything other than that the Psalm, taken as a whole, says "God is good to all, except the wicked"?Nowhere in this Psalm does it say that "God" is not good to all or, more specifically, that "He" is not merciful to the wicked. As a matter of fact, it says in verse 8 that the Lord IS merciful. The fact that verse 20 says that the Lord will destroy "all the wicked" does not preclude his being merciful in doing so. That is obviously inconsistent with Jeremiah 13:14.

I'm a Christian, but not an inerrantist. Still, as Mike said, anyone reading the Bible wouldn't have a problem with that particular passage.Remember, it isn't just that particular passage that we are, or were, talking about. It is that particular passage in relation to Jeremiah 13:14. The fact that Psalm 145 talks about destroying the wicked does not begin to explain his allegedly stated withholding of mercy in doing so in Jeremiah 13:14, nor does it explain the destruction of children.

Taking half a sentence out of its context - no wonder there is misunderstanding!Taking a Bible verse or series of verses out of context with the rest of the Bible--no wonder you don't see the inconsistencies!

But I don't think you can blame this one on God.Like it or not, the buck stops with this allegedly perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate, merciful, benevolent "God." Such a "God" certainly could have, should have, and would have done a better job of any book that "He" inspired.

As someone said, there is nothing that omniscience can set up, that deliberate ignorance cannot overcome.There is nothing that nonperfect, nonomniscient, nonomnipotent human writers could write in the name of an allegedly perfect, omniscient, omnipotent "God" that apologists wouldn't attempt to explain, failing to see what should be obvious. (And I say that as a former born-again, Bible-believing, evangelical Christian who studied the Bible for years and years, having been personally discipled by his pastor, before he began to see problems that could not be readily explained away.)

Mike, I think you can see how you will fare. I agree with you here.Neither of you will fare well here if you see no inconsistency at all between Psalm 145 and Jeremiah 13:14.

But, just as there are apologists who use any excuse to explain away a contradiction, there are contradictionists who use any excuse to set one up. You can't win with either. That's why I don't argue much on contradictions (pro or con) anymore.Note that I don't call any of these so-called contradictions "contradictions." I call them inconsistencies, and although this particular one is a relatively minor inconsistency, it is nevertheless an inconsistency--one of thousands, many of which are far more serious and which are indicative of the noninspiration of the Bible by any perfect being. And I don't need to set them up: they pop out at me. In fact, in the beginning, I would have liked not to have noticed any at all.

-DM-

conkermaniac

October 25, 2003, 02:40 AM

I will admit that I am not qualified to participate in this discussion, but what I personally don't understand is how the psalm itself is not a contradiction.

Psalm 145:17
The Lord is righteous in all his ways and loving toward all he has made. <-- period

Psalm 145:20
The Lord watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy.

Is that not a contradiction by itself? The author is making two distinct statements that do not agree with one another. It's like saying: "I have always been a straight-A student. Except in 8th grade, when I got a B, I am a straight-A student."

GakuseiDon

October 25, 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by -DM-
Yes, I understood your point. Do you understand the point that a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and concerned "God" could have, should have, and would have precluded this particular problem by putting the qualifying phrases right in the very sentence with the original assertion?

Frankly, I think that's a ridiculous position to take. The whole Bible shows God as someone who rewards the faithful and punishes the wicked. Has anyone misunderstood this? Is there anyone who thinks that God doesn't reward the faithful and punish the wicked, based on that Psalm and Jeremiah? Anyone at all? Show me that, and I'll concede you have a point. If you can't show me that, then your point is moot.

worldling

October 25, 2003, 06:19 AM

Conkermaniac is right. Like him, I am not particularly qualified, but it seems plain to me that the statement:
"God is good to all"
is demonstrably false. End of argument.

Bob K

October 25, 2003, 06:42 AM

For evaluating holy books we need standards.

See http://www.bobkwebsite.com/stndrdsholybks.html

#7 applies herein:

7. The gods should inspire/etc. the writing of holy books in a simple form comprehensible to all people of all cultures/ethnic groups [so any translations would have the exact meaning] so that any possibility of having to be a scholar of ethnic literary devices as a qualification for who should be able to read accurately and effectively holy books is eliminated--so normal people [nonscholars] would be qualified to read the holy books, not just priests/scholars.

emur

October 25, 2003, 08:01 AM

GakuseiDon

October 25, 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by emur
You agree then that God is not good to all.

Mel
Yep. He is certainly not good to those who remain wicked. In fact, as that Psalm, as well as the rest of Bible consistently points out, He punishes them. Have you heard any differently?

Remember, the Psalms are poems, not theological positions. Anyway, taken in context:

Ps 145:8 The Lord is gracious and full of compassion. Slow to anger and great in mercy.
9 The Lord is good to all; And His tender mercies are over all His works.

So, He is slow to anger and offers mercy to all who repent. That is open to all, so you could say He is "good to all" by offering this to all. But He punishes those who never repent.

Wayne Delia

October 25, 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
DM, the point that God should see how this could be misconstrued and should have designed His book better is ludicrous and distracting to the only point I am trying to make at the moment. How is it ludicrous? If God is unable to ensure no contradictions or misunderstandings, then He is not omnipotent. Otherwise, if he chooses to allow contradictions or misunderstandings, it's pointless to blame anyone for arriving at what you consider incorrect conclusions, such as you are doing with Don. It is impossible to ask that a text of this length, dealing with so many different situations, describing so many accounts, be so uniform that you could not take 5 words out of context and compare them to another 5 words in a completely different place in a completely different situation and always have a completely consistent message.Oh. Well, so much for omnipotence, then. For that matter, God wouldn't even need a book that had to be translated at all - He could simply provide a sufficient level of understanding into everyone's minds, while still allowing for free will choices to reject that understanding. Since He doesn't, it's His own damn fault if the message is not properly communicated.I try to be a nice reasonable guy so I'm sorry for the tone but there is just no reasoning with you people (at least in this thread so far), you will defend your man here to the death."Our man"? To whom are you referring? Would you defend "your man" (Jesus) to the death, whatever that implies, and if so, wouldn't the same criticism apply to you? It could not be more plainly obvious that both authors are talking about the same God. That's not under debate. What is under debate is that the two authors are describing the same God in mutually contradictory terms. You keep moving the argument back to the nature of God that you find contradicting.That's not unreasonable, considering that's the main point of the debate. You claim to be open to reason and discussion but here we clearly have an instance where you will just not hear anything of it.We haven't heard anything at all that was logically reasoned, free from special pleading, and persuasive. You demand that we (Christians) accept all of your arguments without a second thought... We did? I didn't, and I am unaware of anyone who actually made that claim. Don Morgan certainly didn't. Who were you thinking of, and where's a reference to that particular claim? ...but on the smallest most insignificant detail you will not concede any error on your part. An error in even a single insignificant detail is sufficient to refute the claim of Biblical errancy. You haven't demonstrated any errors on our part. For the purpose of continuing the discussion (and only for that) here I am not saying the Bible doesn't contradict itself in other places, I am not saying that the merciful yet punishing God makes sense, all I am saying is that those two original verses are not an example of biblical errancy because when taken in context the message is not contradicting. Apparently, what you mean by "taken in context" is that the statements mean more than what they actually say. But any restrictive conditions not specifically mentioned do not apply. Thus, "The Lord is good to all" contradicts "The Lord punishes the wicked," if what was meant in the first verse was "The Lord is good to all, except the wicked." I refuse to continue this discussion until you will concede this clearly obvious and very very small point. There is no purpose in discussing with someone who is not open to something as indisputable as this. I can clearly see that I will get the same response no matter what so it would be a waste of my time and yours. But in doing so, you've lost the debate, because you are unable to do exactly the same thing you're demanding that others do for you - to examine their arguments and admit errors. You're making a big one you are unable to admit.

WMD

Jaelum

October 25, 2003, 03:13 PM

I am an atheist and at one time studied the Bible a good bit, and I must say that I would caution against using this in a list of Biblical contradictions.

First of all, a psalm is one complete thought on a subject. It really isn't fair to take part of one and then hold it against a later part of the psalm that clarifies the position.

But the better argument against it (and this covers the juxtaposition with the Jeremiah verse as well) is how one defines "good". If you uphold your promises, and mete out reward and punishment fairly, is this not an aspect of being "good"? A respected judge or parent does this, and is appreciated for it. We don't say that the judge is not good when she hands down a very stiff penalty for a premeditated crime - she would be "not good" if she did not do so!

So, that God is "good" to all, even though he destroys the wicked who do not worship him is not necessarily a *contradiction*. Of course we would argue that this is not a "complete" or "moral" use of the word "good", but if one believes that there is a God who has issued these edicts (the supposed audience of the missive), then it would be "good" that He keeps his promises.

There are many better examples of outright contradictions to be found (such as Ez 18:20 and Deut 24:16, as pointed out by Rodynus above). Watering down the list with a target like this weakens the stance and builds a straw man for the opposition to attack, in my humble opinion.

Doctor X

October 25, 2003, 04:08 PM

Indeed.

There are far more disturbing contradiction to explain.

--J.D.

emur

October 25, 2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Yep. He is certainly not good to those who remain wicked. In fact, as that Psalm, as well as the rest of Bible consistently points out, He punishes them. Have you heard any differently?

Remember, the Psalms are poems, not theological positions. Anyway, taken in context:

Ps 145:8 The Lord is gracious and full of compassion. Slow to anger and great in mercy.
9 The Lord is good to all; And His tender mercies are over all His works.

So, He is slow to anger and offers mercy to all who repent. That is open to all, so you could say He is "good to all" by offering this to all. But He punishes those who never repent.

I believe the psalmist is expressing his feelings toward God as a personal recipient of God's goodness. As one who is not an inerrantist, I believe that the psalmist is exaggerating God's goodness in his praise. It's quite the human thing to do.

When it comes to the overall OT, God is hardly good to all. For example, those Amalekite children and infants who were slaughtered at God's command (1 Samuel 15) certainly had no choice. God was not good to them. Thus, on the point of God's goodness to all, the psalmist is wrong.

Mel

Doctor X

October 25, 2003, 05:33 PM

emur:

We have had some fun reading some explanations of that little event. No disrespect to the posters who did attempt the impossible, but we have also had some interesting explanations of the bears that mauled 40+ children for pissing off Elisha!

Why do people prefer the ridiculous rather than a more rational approach--with the "bears" it is a counterpoint to what happens to the men who treat Elisha well just before. To preserve a belief, some will grab on to even the ridiculous rather than admit they have been duped.

Most of us have been duped. Look at those who voted for Gore [Stop that.--Ed.] Most of us Strawmen started with some belief in religion, and, if American or English . . . most of us were some form of Christian or Jewish . . . though there is a "Zoroastrian Mafia" about you need to be careful of. . . .

Some of us found recognizing contradictions very disturbing. Others found it interesting if not refreshing. Not everyone can just drop a belief system willingly.

--J.D.

Cretinist

October 25, 2003, 06:42 PM

I agree with GakuseiDon that there is no real contradiction in Psalms 145. However, the idea that God is merciful is still contradicted by countless examples in the Bible. God orders the destruction of infants, personally kills David's infant child, etc, etc.

GakuseiDon

October 25, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Jaelum
I am an atheist and at one time studied the Bible a good bit, and I must say that I would caution against using this in a list of Biblical contradictions.

First of all, a psalm is one complete thought on a subject. It really isn't fair to take part of one and then hold it against a later part of the psalm that clarifies the position.

But the better argument against it (and this covers the juxtaposition with the Jeremiah verse as well) is how one defines "good". If you uphold your promises, and mete out reward and punishment fairly, is this not an aspect of being "good"? A respected judge or parent does this, and is appreciated for it. We don't say that the judge is not good when she hands down a very stiff penalty for a premeditated crime - she would be "not good" if she did not do so!

So, that God is "good" to all, even though he destroys the wicked who do not worship him is not necessarily a *contradiction*. Of course we would argue that this is not a "complete" or "moral" use of the word "good", but if one believes that there is a God who has issued these edicts (the supposed audience of the missive), then it would be "good" that He keeps his promises.

There are many better examples of outright contradictions to be found (such as Ez 18:20 and Deut 24:16, as pointed out by Rodynus above). Watering down the list with a target like this weakens the stance and builds a straw man for the opposition to attack, in my humble opinion.

Excellent post, Jaelum. I agree completely. There are indeed much better contradictions. (Peter's denial and the rooster's crowing once or twice springs to mind). A legalistic interpretation of half a sentence in Psalms, besides being intellectually dishonest (IMHO) is not going to convince an inerrantist of errancy.

GakuseiDon

October 25, 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
We have had some fun reading some explanations of that little event. No disrespect to the posters who did attempt the impossible, but we have also had some interesting explanations of the bears that mauled 40+ children for pissing off Elisha!

Why do people prefer the ridiculous rather than a more rational approach--with the "bears" it is a counterpoint to what happens to the men who treat Elisha well just before. To preserve a belief, some will grab on to even the ridiculous rather than admit they have been duped.

Most of us have been duped. Look at those who voted for Gore [Stop that.--Ed.] Most of us Strawmen started with some belief in religion, and, if American or English . . . most of us were some form of Christian or Jewish . . . though there is a "Zoroastrian Mafia" about you need to be careful of. . . .

Some of us found recognizing contradictions very disturbing. Others found it interesting if not refreshing. Not everyone can just drop a belief system willingly.[/B]
Fair points, Doc. But I'm sure you'll agree that this cuts both ways, i.e. there are some who will go to extraordinary lengths to try to concoct a contradiction (I'm thinking SAB here).

I wonder if it is possible to develop a methodology such that both apologists and contradictionists can disinterestedly discuss passages in the Bible? Or do our blinders make this impossible?

Secular Pinoy

October 25, 2003, 08:09 PM

No disrespect meant also, but, wasn't that certain poster who defended the Elisha and the bears story... you, GakuseiDon?

I agree with you, though, about the Skeptics' Annotated Bible. They use the KJV bible exclusively, which is a bit annoying, as more reliable translations have shown that several of the "contradictions" simply aren't. Perhaps they need a "fair and balanced"(tm) editor to clean up their lists. We should strive for quality, not quantity.

Doctor X

October 25, 2003, 09:39 PM

GakuseiDon::

But I'm sure you'll agree that this cuts both ways, i.e. there are some who will go to extraordinary lengths to try to concoct a contradiction (I'm thinking SAB here).

It does. I do not use the SAB--no slight to it--but I heard "good" and "bad" regarding it--going nuts trying to make everything a contradiction. Secular Pinoy notes its use of the KJV. This is a problem for scholarship, of course, but the SAB is really, in my mind, a "popular" work. Most people encounter the KJV and quote the KJV--even on these pages. Sometimes it is not that bad of a translation. However, as one mentor put it, we have to recognize the influence of the KJV--"it ain't a god if he don't smite thee!"

The "best" example of "the other side" was a book I wish I bought at a "magic" store in, of all places, Salem, Massachusetts. This guy was convinced that YHWH was REALLY Satan--even 666=YHWH somehow--and the various biblical authors all knew it! This was some grand conspiracy to make us worship Satan when we really should all be atheists.

Okay. . . .

The critical gymnastics would make a Young Earth Creationist seem positively scientific.

I wonder if it is possible to develop a methodology such that both apologists and contradictionists can disinterestedly discuss passages in the Bible? Or do our blinders make this impossible?

Tough question . . . can one ever be completely subjective? I have seen people try--critics who are practicing Christians and Jews discuss the history of violence and sacrifice in the OT and NT, for example. Most of the scholars I have had the fortune to meet are "deistic" at best, consider the texts range between myth and historical fiction, but--and I think this is important--their intention is not to "find contradictions."

Certainly, if the only reason one reads anyone's scripture is to "prove it wrong" methinks they have better things to do. Why learn the languages and all of that? When I look at a text I am interested in what it meant to the author(s), what it was intended to mean to his audience, and how meaning shifted. The same mentor expressed it by stating that their are few multi-authorship books in the world's literature that argue with itself!

--J.D.

-DM-

October 26, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Frankly, I think that's a ridiculous position to take. The whole Bible shows God as someone who rewards the faithful and punishes the wicked. Has anyone misunderstood this? Is there anyone who thinks that God doesn't reward the faithful and punish the wicked, based on that Psalm and Jeremiah? Anyone at all? Show me that, and I'll concede you have a point. If you can't show me that, then your point is moot.Were I perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, and concerned about not misleading people, and were I writing a book (or inspiring a book) about myself, I would preclude problems such as Jim Meritt thought he saw (perhaps as a result of not reading the whole Psalm) by putting the qualifying words right with the "good" statement, where they belong. Further, even though I might destroy the wicked, I would nevertheless do so as mercifully as possible; certainly I would not claim to be merciful at one time and then at another time assert that I would show no mercy. I don't think that there is anything ridiculous about that, but if you do, so be it.

-DM-

-DM-

October 26, 2003, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
. . . It is impossible to ask that a text of this length, dealing with so many different situations, describing so many accounts, be so uniform that you could not take 5 words out of context and compare them to another 5 words in a completely different place in a completely different situation and always have a completely consistent message.A perfect "God" would not claim to be a merciful "God" and then later assert that "he" was going to show no mercy. The message certainly could be consistent: "I am a merciful God. Although I will destroy the wicked, I will do so mercifully. I will take care to spare children below the age of accountability. [Etc.]" An omnipotent "God" would have no difficulty seeing to it that this inconsistency did not exist in a work that he inspired. Your statement, if true, would deny the perfection and/or the omnipotence of "God."

I try to be a nice reasonable guy so I'm sorry for the tone but there is just no reasoning with you people (at least in this thread so far),If that is what you believe, then you are mistaken. There has been a lot of reasoning going on, on both sides of this issue. The question is which reasoning is more reasonable.

you will defend your man here to the death.I do not defend the man. In fact, I have said that this is a minor inconsistency (rather than what I would term a contradiction). I do defend that there is an obvious inconsistency here. A merciful "God" would not boast about showing no mercy.

It could not be more plainly obvious that both authors are talking about the same God. You keep moving the argument back to the nature of God that you find contradicting.I have said that there is an inconsistency here. A merciful "God" is not one who would show no mercy.

You claim to be open to reason and discussion but here we clearly have an instance where you will just not hear anything of it.The accusation does not fit. Remember, I was once on your side of the fence. I am open to what you are saying, but you apparently cannot see what seems quite obvious to me. A merciful "God" is not one who would show no mercy--even when destroying the wicked.

You demand that we (Christians) accept all of your arguments without a second thoughtYou misrepresent my position. I demand no such thing.

but on the smallest most insignificant detail you will not concede any error on your part.There has to be an error to concede before one is justified in conceding an error.

For the purpose of continuing the discussion (and only for that) here I am not saying the Bible doesn't contradict itself in other places, I am not saying that the merciful yet punishing God makes sense, all I am saying is that those two original verses are not an example of biblical errancy because when taken in context the message is not contradicting.I have known all along what you were saying. I say that those two passages are inconsistent with each other. A merciful and punishing "God" should be able to destroy the wicked and nevertheless do so mercifully; a merciful "God" would not assert that he would show no mercy in doing so. That should be obvious to you and anyone else reading those two passages.

I refuse to continue this discussion until you will concede this clearly obvious and very very small point. There is no purpose in discussing with someone who is not open to something as indisputable as this.You won't discuss until we concede a point which you have not made, yet you accuse me/us of not being open. That is a strange way of being open.

I can clearly see that I will get the same response no matter what so it would be a waste of my time and yours.I don't consider it a waste of time. On occasion, some believers who have come here and who have argued at length have eventually seen the point that was being made. My point is that what is and isn't a contradiction (remember, I prefer "inconsistency") is to some extent dependent on one's frame of reference and on the definition one has in mind of "contradiction." If one takes the liberal definition of contradiction, namely that two inconsistent statements are involved, then I say that "merciful God" vs. "show no mercy" are inconsistent, regardless of the circumstances. If you do not, so be it, but please realize that this is not a question of error, but of point of view and definition. However, if you want to take your ball and go home because you are not making any headway in attempting to convince me/us of your point of view, that is OK with me.

-DM-

Mike(ATL)

October 27, 2003, 04:48 PM

Jaelum, that's a very good point. It does indeed weaken his case to have something like this labeled a contradiction. Anyone that knows the bible can open his list, look at the verses, and dismiss them without much investigation. Those who organize that library are misleading their readers by having so many articles like this, presented as an abundance of evidence that the Bible contradicts itself and is therefore unreliable. Why not narrow it down to the most irrefutable claims? If you are so confident that you are right, then give us that and don't waste our time with candy like this.

DM, even though you didn't say it for some reason, it seems we agree that these two verses are not contradicting by the definition I was using. Both authors give a consistent message, your problem is that the message they are both giving is self-contradicting. A merciful God that doesn't show mercy.

So thank you, I can see that most of you do not agree that these two verses are an example of biblical errancy to the point where two authors are describing a different God. I think we can now concentrate on a merciful God with recorded instances where he shows no mercy. Since this does in a way relate to the original two verses let's continue in this thread.

So how can God claim to be compassionate, merciful, and loving but destroy the wicked without mercy, destroy a city that includes innocent children, and have bears maul some kids just for mocking someone?

I'm sorry for the length of this post, I tried to keep it short but the nature of the question requires a lot of explanation. Let's start by investigating the nature of God using the verse I referred to earlier where He describes Himself to Solomon.

Exodus 34:6-7
Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
Here God describes Himself with all of these good terms but then says that He will not leave the guilty unpunished. First note that the word "merciful" is not among the descriptors here. I've been looking and I cannot find a place Pre-Christ where God ever claims that he is merciful. Only in the Psalms is He described with that word, merciful (PSA 65:15, 145:8). This of course means that God is merciful, Jesus even described Him as such (Luke 6:36). Perhaps (my theory) God never made that direct claim about himself because that could be taken to mean that he must show mercy to everyone. To show mercy means to not give the punishment deserved. God certainly says we deserve punishment and punishes as such before the new covenant. Something about the nature of God cannot leave sin unpunished. He never denies this about himself, although we love Him we're also to have a reverent fear of Him (Deut 6:13). He punishes sin because sin deserves it. He created a perfect sinless world and we corrupted it.

That said, God can describe himself as he does in this passage from Exodus because he also displays those traits. For someone who hates sin as much as he does, it is remarkable that he can also be slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness, that we can even exist in his perfect creation, we who constantly forsake him and hate him and everything he does or says. He provided a way through sacrifices and other means of atonement before Christ that man could exist in His world. And He of course provided the perfect blameless sacrifice of Christ. He often allowed the prophets to intercede on behalf of their disobedient people. Although we sin against him, God loves us and wants to be compassionate and gracious towards us, so much to the point that inspired the beautiful Psalms of David (or whoever) that often go on and on about these characteristics of God. In that light the different verses in Psalm 145 are not conflicting at all.

Psalms 145:9, 17, 20
(9) The LORD is good to all,
And His mercies are over all His works.
(17) The LORD is righteous in all His ways
And kind in all His deeds.
(20) The LORD keeps all who love Him,
But all the wicked He will destroy.
David (or whoever) is praising God for keeping those who love Him and destroying the wicked. It's a praise of the power of God and that despite the fact that he must punish the wicked, he keeps those who love Him. I hope that this helps clarify the nature of God. To me, knowing this helps put everything else into perspective. If something seems unclear or incorrect please point it out. With this in mind, let's investigate the particular cases pointed out where God does not show mercy.

Jeremiah 13:14
"I will dash them against each other, both the fathers and the sons together," declares the LORD. "I will not show pity nor be sorry nor have compassion so as not to destroy them."
First let me make it clear that I am not the expert on this book that other people are. There are probably Christians on this forum more qualified than myself to detail exactly what was going on here. I have read the book though and am pretty familiar with the history so I can give you a pretty good idea of what's happening here. That said, let's make it clear that this particular passage is what God wants to do to Israel and Judah because of their wickedness. God gives his reason just before this passage and throughout the book of Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 13:9-10
Thus says the LORD, 'Just so will I destroy the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. 'This wicked people, who refuse to listen to My words, who walk in the stubbornness of their hearts and have gone after other gods to serve them and to bow down to them, let them be just like this waistband which is totally worthless.

God was telling his prophet Jeremiah what He would do to His people because of their wicked ways. However Jeremiah pleads with God on behalf of his people to not turn his back on them. God of course never actually destroyed all of Israel and Judah since His people still exist today. However he did rain down some pretty serious punishment, especially to those who did not even listen to Jeremiah. I recommend reading the whole book of Jeremiah, it's very interesting to see how God and His prophet interacted and the weight His prophet's words carried with God.

That said however, God had every right to do this to His people and this would have happened had Jeremiah not interceded on their behalf. DM mentions that since He was threatening to destroy all of Israel and Judah that this would include children who had not yet reached the age of accountability. All that God specifies here is that He would be destroying "both their fathers and their sons together." So we're not sure if that's the case. He said he was punishing people for their worshipping other Gods and for turning against him. So here it would seem that he is punishing those accountable.

God does specify a little more who would be affected later on.

Jeremiah 18:21
So give their children over to famine;
hand them over to the power of the sword.
Let their wives be made childless and widows;
let their men be put to death,
their young men slain by the sword in battle.

Even if it is just the men old enough to fight that will be destroyed, certainly the widows and the other youngest children will be affected by losing their loved ones. There's another issue here, a people group sinned against God but their infant children hadn't, yet they would certainly be punished if not killed here. No one is blameless in the sight of God. We are connected to our forefathers more than we realize. Adam and Eve sinned, we inherit the world they created. We are accountable for our own actions and we can also hurt those around us. It is the nature of the world, our sin affects more than just us. I think the common misconception is that God is responsible for punishment of sin. Israel and Judah are the ones that sinned against God, God never changes, he always punishes sin, they knew this. Their sin brought about what was going to happen. The responsibility is often pushed back to God with the argument that God created us with the ability to chose sin, He knew sin would come about, He knew the circumstances would unfold that these people would turn against God, therefore He is responsible for the suffering brought about by their sin. If you want to get into that I guess we can. Let me just say that from our perspective we have free will, we choose to sin, we know the consequences, we do x and y happens, we are responsible.

I hope this clears that passage up a little. It is definitely a complex issue and reason for much deeper investigation. I think this goes far enough to explain how this is not an errant conflict in the nature of God though.

The classic passage was also brought up about Elisha sicking bears on some kids

2 Kings 2:23-24
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!" When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.
This is popular with those trying to show how unfair and cruel God is because it seems like an over-reaction. It's hard to investigate any further because it's such a short account. We don't know how old the boys were. We don't know the circumstances surrounding what happened. We don't know if Elisha was in physical danger. All we know is that forty-two boys were mocking a prophet of God, Elisha cursed them in the name of God and God either killed them or injured them using two bears. What we do know is that God punishes the wicked, these boys were punished, they must have deserved it.

Again, sorry for the length of the post, I felt this was an instance that merited it though. I hope this clarifies how God can both be good to all of mankind and destroy the wicked.

beastmaster

October 27, 2003, 05:22 PM

Mike,

You appear to have established that

(1) Sometimes god is good to the good (the LORD is righteous)
(2) Sometimes god is good to the bad (the LORD is merciful, good to all, slow to anger)
(3) Sometimes god is bad to the good (Job)
(4) Sometimes god is bad to the bad (destroy the wicked)

Well, that conveniently covers all the bases, doesn't it?

I spose that if I am good sometimes and bad other times, then I can expect some good and some bad to happen to me. Or something.

God's mysterious ways end up resembling more the simple truism: "Shit happens (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63492)!"

Surely it's no contradiction to say god is sometimes this and sometimes that. But we're growing none wiser.

Mike(ATL)

October 28, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by beastmaster
Surely it's no contradiction to say god is sometimes this and sometimes that. But we're growing none wiser.
True true, but knowing that God is sometimes this and sometimes that (and He has that right) I don't see how these two verses are a contradiction. They just display different parts of the character of God.

Doctor X

October 28, 2003, 07:13 PM

Mike(ALT):

What we do know is that God punishes the wicked, these boys were punished, they must have deserved it.

"We" do not know this at all . . . it is your claim that "they must have deserved it." No textual evidence for that exists, and what the text states demonstrates otherwise.

Compared to the preceeding passages, where the men treat the prophet nicely and receive a sewage treatment plant, this becomes a hyperbolic lesson. Nevertheless, it does not frame Big Daddy in a just or merciful light--nor is that the concern of the writer.

"We" also know that he does not punish the wicked he punishes the innocent. Note well the whole contradiction between the Deuteronomistic and Chronicler's David and the Census story. Whether you wish to believe the Chronicler's apology by bringing in Satan or not, the point remains a whole lot of innocent people get squished for David's "crime."

Similarly, Exodus loves killing Egyptians. Whenever the Pharaoh figures "hey, maybe keeping these slaves around is a bad thing," YHWH "hardens his heart."

Leave aside the historical evidence against the Exodus. Leave aside the ridiculousness of a king having seen his people blasted a number of times persuing the slaves . . . and the slaves forsaking their savior every page!--"Okay . . . he killed their first born . . . destroyed their army . . . but what has he done for us LATELY?"--this is a "set-up" story of "our god was better than theirs!"

The writers of the time were not interested in a just and merciful god.

--J.D.

Hawkingfan

October 28, 2003, 07:47 PM

Mike (ATL):

How do you account for the large number of infant fatalities as caused by drowning them in the flood?

And it really does not seem fair to destroy the entire world (excluding Noah's family) for their wickedness during the flood whenever god had planned on sending Christ to die for their sins at a later time. And it is unfair to those who drowned to give other sinners today a chance at forgiveness through Christ (and to refrain from drowning them). If he was planning on forgiving those who died in the flood at a later time, then it was cruel, unnecessary, and arbitrary to kill them.

Mike(ATL)

October 28, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X
The writers of the time were not interested in a just and merciful god.
This is an unfair and over generalizing statement and only partially correct. Name an instance where an author is showing God to be unjust. There are passages such as the bears thing where no explanation is given, but the author is certainly not giving the account of an unjust God. I'm sorry but your interpretation alone of whether something is just or not is of no consequence. There can be instances (such as the loss of a loved one) that seem very unjust to us at the time but in the big picture could have positive consequences. We just don't know, that's why we're not God and shouldn't want to be. However, as I said, there are instances where God chooses to show no mercy. He's not ashamed of that nor trying to hide it. So some accounts given are indeed not interested in showing a merciful God.

Note that this "big picture" argument applies to many of the counterexamples given. The immediate suffering is unfortunate and it pains us and God, but God has a larger plan panning out. We can only guess about His plan or lack thereof. Without trusting God we can look at all of these individual circumstances and say maybe he could've accomplished the same thing without any suffering, but we don't know, we only guess, and we don't know how it affected anything else in the world down the timeline. We are not all knowing, it's not our responsibility.

Another point, without suffering, how would we know what it means to be blessed? You can't have one without the other, this is the nature of the world.

Sensei Meela

October 29, 2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
This is an unfair and over generalizing statement and only partially correct. Name an instance where an author is showing God to be unjust. There are passages such as the bears thing where no explanation is given, but the author is certainly not giving the account of an unjust God.Ha! Justice requires explanation. What, 'God punishes the wicked'? So it's terribly wicked to call the faithful 'bald'? Mockery, you say, is wicked? Cute. However, as I said, there are instances where God chooses to show no mercy. He's not ashamed of that nor trying to hide it. So some accounts given are indeed not interested in showing a merciful God.Er, you sure? Seems to me a God who professess to be 'good to all' and whose 'mercy is all over [his] works' would not betray this portrayal, even infrequently.

Note that this "big picture" argument applies to many of the counterexamples given. The immediate suffering is unfortunate and it pains us and God, but God has a larger plan panning out. We can only guess about His plan or lack thereof.Then your 'guess' that He's working everything out in our favor, and with 'good' (not 'evil') intentions, is nothing more than wishful thinking. It's just like that poor sod who is a Chicago Cubs fan (read: me) saying, 'No wait, you'll see, this is the year...all those years we loved them when they sucked are gonna finally pay off'.
Another point, without suffering, how would we know what it means to be blessed? You can't have one without the other, this is the nature of the world. The God cannot do what is logically impossible...like exist outside the universe, act before time, create a married bachelor or let the Cubs win a World Series...

Asha'man

October 29, 2003, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
Note that this "big picture" argument applies to many of the counterexamples given.

Do you not even know what the Big Picture of the OT is?

The Jews thought they had a really kick-ass tribal God, the cream of the crop. However, they were trying to farm a desert, had lots of hostile neighbors, and life generally sucked. They had to explain this general contradiction.

Their solution: our ancestors must have made a deal with God, and we failed to keep up our side of the bargain. Therefore, God was perfectly justified in not doing all the things he should have been doing (given his duty as tribal God).

They were living out the Problem of Evil, and needed a mental escape for the obvious conclusion that God was powerless because he didn�t exist.

Now, re-read the whole thing with that in mind, and see how everything changes. :)

gregor

October 29, 2003, 07:41 AM

I must assume that people's brains are wired differently (or sculpted differently) when it comes to reasoning about religion.

Mike states the two standard positions that fundamentalists cite in response to the "problem of evil." Those are: (i) the "they must've deserved it, . . . cause it happened to them" position and (ii) the "we're not smart enough to know God's plan" position.

Obviously, my brain is not wired (or possibly trained) to even understand these positions. I'm not saying my brain is better, just different.

Doctor X

October 29, 2003, 08:18 AM

Mike(ALT):

This is an unfair and over generalizing statement and only partially correct. Name an instance where an author is showing God to be unjust.

Just one? Au contraire [He knows no French.--Ed.] . . . .

YHWH demanding the sacrifice of children.
YHWH demanding the slaughter of every woman, child, and infant.
YHWH admitting he made "bad laws" so people would follow them and then he could punish them.
Every time Pharaoh decides to let the slaves go, YHWH makes him change his mind.
This guy named Job.
Et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum

Quod erat demonstrandum.

There are passages such as the bears thing where no explanation is given, but the author is certainly not giving the account of an unjust God.

Ipse dixit which is ironic since the passage cited is an ipse facto case of injustice . . . unless you wish to argue that mauling children is a justifiable response for taunting--let me know, Halloween is just around the corner.

I'm sorry but your interpretation alone of whether something is just or not is of no consequence.

It seems to prove more reliable than yours. Of course, I generally do not advocate child sacrifice and mass murder . . . unless they do not finish their vegetables.

Launches in to an apology for suffering which is not relevant to the original question. For a discussion on the justice of suffering, I refer the poster and Noble Readership to the threads devoted to the subject. To date, the poster has not responded to the question in said threads.

Note that this "big picture" argument applies to many of the counterexamples given.

Ipse dixit and incorrect. "BIG" or "little" does not matter, for genocide is genocide.

Further apology for Unjust Suffering follows which does not, unfortunately, make any of the cases cited just.

As noted in other threads, the fact that Unjust Suffering exists leads us to a Non-Existent, Evil, Incompetent, Irrelevant, or Some Combination of the later three deity.

Now to return to the point of the thread, the authors did not feel this a major point of contention--a deity committing injustice.

Why else would they have him declare he created evil?

--J.D.

Mike(ATL)

October 29, 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
Ipse dixit and incorrect. "BIG" or "little" does not matter, for genocide is genocide.Big picture, big picture, big picture. We do not have the perspective God does. I don't want to get into every little thing here.

The big difference here is that I start knowing that God knows what he's doing, you start knowing He's a tyrant, I'm not going to convince you, I'll let what I've already written speak for itself. Your responses here indicate you just aren't hearing what I am saying about the nature of God.

Doctor X

October 29, 2003, 10:22 AM

Big picture, [Snip!--Ed.] We do not have the perspective God does.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam and it rather does not excuse Big Daddy . . . genocide is genocide no matter whether you use a closeup or wide-angle shot.

I don't want to get into every little thing here.

You are attempting to diminish cases of mass slaughter. These are not "little things" at all.

. . . I start knowing that God knows what he's doing, . . .

If you consider the biblical texts historical then you just contradicted yourself. You asked for examples of an author portraying Big Daddy as unjust. I have replied with a more than one specific example. If these are historical, than "knows what he's doing" makes him Evil. Indeed, he even "repents" of his "evil" in one passage. He admits committing evil in another. Thus:

. . . you start knowing He's a tyrant, . . .

cannot be different from your perspective unless you wish to concede that the texts are myths.

I'll let what I've already written speak for itself.

Yet, what you have "already written" speaks for my argument.

Your responses here indicate you just aren't hearing what I am saying about the nature of God.

Ipse dixit bordering on Poisoning the Well, nevertheless, incorrect. I have rather read what you wrote.

Let us review the catechism. . . .

You asked for:

. . . an instance where an author is showing God to be unjust.

and I replied with more than one.

You then tried to brush this aside with appeals to ignorance and some "big picture" which, in some manner unexplained by you, justifies the mass-slaughter of infants.

I am afraid you will have to do better than that.

Now, you can simply deny the implications, but that remains your error and not one you can expect others on a debate board to share.

Either you accept the stories and just that--stories--which leaves you accepting my original contention that the authors had little problem with an unjust deity--or you accept that Big Daddy is unjust.

--J.D.

-DM-

October 29, 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
Big picture, big picture, big picture. We do not have the perspective God does. I don't want to get into every little thing here.

The big difference here is that I start knowing that God knows what he's doing, you start knowing He's a tyrant, I'm not going to convince you, I'll let what I've already written speak for itself. Your responses here indicate you just aren't hearing what I am saying about the nature of God. . . . and your responses here indicate that your reasoning is off--way off.

If "we" (which includes you) do not have the perspective that "God" does, then it is useless for you to attempt to explain "God" to us--as you think you have done, it is useless for you to think that you "start knowing that 'God' knows what he's doing," and it is silly (in my opinion) for you to pick "God" over another god to worship.

-Don-

Doctor X

October 29, 2003, 10:50 AM

Come on, -DM- you are merely one post away from "6666" which is like . . . more sixier than the Number of the Beast!

Anyways, Mike(ALT) you will have a bit of a problem arguing theology on a Biblical Criticism and History forum. This may seem counterintuitive, but recognize that what you believe is not what "they" believed "way back when" as different texts were written. To throw some Strawscholars about, most accept that at some point child sacrifice was a part of the YHWH cult. Neat! That is a part of history. At some point it not only was rejected, it was written against--why else would a writter feel the need to have YHWH explain it?

Similarly, if you believe F. M. Cross, "YHWH" is the "causitive imperfect form of the Proto-Cananite-Hebrew verb 'to be'"--of course!--as was originally a part of a larger "god-title" for El--examples: "god that makes the mountain." At some point YHWH becomes a separate deity--either a renaming of Baal--which means "lord"--and/or El or a branching off on his own--gets syncretized with elements of these gods and Bablyonian gods--ala the Flood Myth--and . . . voila! . . . becomes a national deity.

At some point, he may have had a formal consort--Asherah--though depictions of the two together are really non-existent. Somewhere, the consort . . . who may have been more of a "manefestation" of a power . . . gets supressed.

Now, I think I can wager you do not worship one of those earlier--but historically "real" deities! I keep trying to go back to the earlier manefestations, but the Zoning Commission will not let me build a tophet [Stop that!--Ed.]. Fine and dandy; however, what you believe now has nothing to do with the history of "what" "they" believed during the various "thens" in history.

"What" and "when" impacts on the texts. In some cases, frankly, the texts wish to change the "what." None of them probably expected to be collected in the same volume found in hotel rooms across this Great Nation. . . .

Syncretism--the blending of aspect of religions--was not as scary a prospect it seems now. Reinterpreting deities was a more common practice--new king, new religion. Assyrians conquer you . . . your deities are really "their" deities now. Thus, it probably did not disturb a post-exilic Chronicler to alter the responsibility for causing King David to commit evil in a pre-exilic text--if you believe most dating for the Deuteronomistic History.

Thus, frankly, what you personally believe will not have any weight in discussions on these pages unless you draw it from the texts and back that up from the texts. This does not mean you cannot believe what you want . . . you just cannot expect the authors of the texts to agree with you.

--J.D.

October 29, 2003, 09:01 PM

Mike(ATL):

Your arguments seem to run along the lines of:

God said He was just in the Bible.

God does many things in the Bible that don't seem just to us.

But these are not contradictions because those things were just.

They had to be because God is just.

I know this because He said He was in the Bible.

Answerer

October 30, 2003, 02:46 AM

I guess I could safely guess that God could be lying all along, since I know nothing about God's magnificent plan and his characters and the fact that no one else in this world had this knowledge as well.

Well, if God lies, then the bible will surely hold no evidence to prove otherwise, especially since it is just a tool to accomplish God's plan.

Therefore, no one in this world can prove my guess to be absolutely wrong one unless he think he is God, Himself. :cool: :cool:

Steven Carr

October 30, 2003, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)

Note that this "big picture" argument applies to many of the counterexamples given. The immediate suffering is unfortunate and it pains us and God, but God has a larger plan panning out. We can only guess about His plan or lack thereof.

He's fattenening us up for his one-eyed, one-toothed, green space alien friends, that the Simpsons writers are on the track of and trying to tell us about.

Mike(ATL)

October 30, 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by K
Mike(ATL):

Your arguments seem to run along the lines of:

God said He was just in the Bible.

God does many things in the Bible that don't seem just to us.

But these are not contradictions because those things were just.

They had to be because God is just.

I know this because He said He was in the Bible.
I thought we were talking about Bible contradictions here, isn't the Bible a good source? There are no other ways to talk about the nature of God then from what we know in the Bible. I can't have any conversation with you about what God reveals about himself in the Bible without using the Bible.

Authors in the Bible and God himself quoted in the Bible say God is just. Those very same authors then give accounts of things that could be interpretted in different ways. Isn't it fair to say that these same authors find God to be just from what they observed? Yet some of us here see those same things and say God is not just. Well it's a judgement call, you can form your own opinion. I choose to side with the consistent message of the Bible.

-DM-

October 30, 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Answerer
I guess I could safely guess that God could be lying all along....--

1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets.

JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word.

2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them).

Thus:
1) If God deceives anyone at all, and if the Bible is "the word of God," then the Bible cannot be trusted.
2) If the Bible is NOT "the word of God," then it cannot be trusted.
3) Therefore, the Bible cannot be trusted whether it is or is not "the word of God."

--

Note, however, that the Bible also says:

PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true.

... which carries no weight, however, given that the Bible cannot be trusted based on the aforementioned verses.

--

All of this reminds me of one of my favorite biblical flaws:

TS 1:12 The testimony of a Cretan to the effect that Cretans
are always liars is accepted by the author of Titus as being
true.

Hmmnn. If Cretans are "always" liars, and if this is said by a Cretan, "one of their own prophets," where does that leave us in terms of the truth of the statement? If he were telling the truth, then Cretans are not "always liars." If he is telling a lie, then some Cretans must sometimes tell the truth.

--

Ah yes, the Bible is truly an incredibly marvelous book.

-Don-

-DM-

October 30, 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
I choose to side with the consistent message of the Bible. It seems to me that your choice goes much farther than that: you choose to believe that the message is always consistent when it is not, just as some Muslims choose to believe that the message of the Qur'an is always consistent when it is not.

Myself, I once believed the Bible to be the word of God, taking the word of Bible-study teachers, my minister, and others I trusted for it. I always said that I would one day look into it in more depth. When I began to notice the kinds of biblical problems that I now notice, I did look into it in more depth. In fact, I read literally hundreds of books on both sides of the fence. The result: I couldn't possibly choose to believe that the Bible presents a consistent message unless I were to completely abandon my intellect.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, cognitive dissonance is just not my cup of tea.

-Don-

Doctor X

October 30, 2003, 06:24 PM

Mike(ALT):

I thought we were talking about Bible contradictions here, isn't the Bible a good source?

Yes.

There are no other ways to talk about the nature of God then from what we know in the Bible.

No. This only holds if you believe the Bible reveals the nature of a deity. If you do, then you are stuck with accepting an unjust, if not evil, deity based on the passages from the Bible.

K is correct in his assessment--you declare him just because of the Bible, but when the Bible demonstrates he is not then you declare it must be anyways because he has to be just. 'Tis a rather viscious circle.

It is hard to separate theology from a discussion on Biblical Criticism & History, of course; however, I suggest you consider attempting it. What you personally believe does not have to depend on a text. The texts exist independent of what you want them to say.

--J.D.

October 30, 2003, 06:55 PM

Mike(ATL):

The Bible is exactly where to look. However, the Bible says God is just. You were shown several examples where God acts unjustly. You can't claim those aren't contradictions because God must have had some extra-Biblical reason for doing it. And it's really ridiculous to assert that you know there must be an extra-Biblical reason for the behavior because the Bible claims that God is just.

Here's a little demonstration.

I always treat all people with courtesy and respect. I taunt and ridicule people with physical deformities and mental handicaps.

It would be absurd to say that there is no contradiction in the previous two sentences simply because I claimed that I treated people with respect and therefore must have a respectful reason for taunting those that I taunt. There is clearly a contradiction. It's just like the contradiction when the Bible calls just and then proceeds to describe His behavior - behavior which we could only label 'unjust'.

[QUOTE]Authors in the Bible and God himself quoted in the Bible say God is just. Those very same authors then give accounts of things that could be interpretted in different ways. Isn't it fair to say that these same authors find God to be just from what they observed? Yet some of us here see those same things and say God is not just. Well it's a judgement call, you can form your own opinion. I choose to side with the consistent message of the Bible.

You can't 'choose' to make a contradiction disappear simply by assuming apriori that there is no contradiction.

Authors of the Bible called God 'just' in some parts. In other parts, they described some of His unjust actions. That's a contradiction. It's dishonest to say that it isn't a contradiction because the authors MUST have known what they were talking about when they called Him just. A contradiction is a contradiction.

Doctor X

October 30, 2003, 07:03 PM

. . . and in some passages they have him declare himself injust.

Again, the writers did not have the problem "we" seem to have today with a very anthropomorphic entity--with the vices of man, including a terrible temper. Even Junior speaks of a Big Daddy who has such a temper--watch out, you let your light go out, you end up in the cold . . . with teeth gnashing--that you just have to "deal with."

--J.D.

Tod

October 30, 2003, 09:51 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctor X
No disrespect to the posters who did attempt the impossible, but we have also had some interesting explanations of the bears that mauled 40+ children for pissing off Elisha!

When the original Godless Zone message board was operating (not to be confused with the current "Godless Zone," assuming you may have heard of either, please), I recall one Christian whose explanation for this problem included "mad poisoned bears." In fairness to the poster, this was his last ditch effort after more traditional explanations (such as the ones given in the instance you refer to) had been exhausted. Anyway...

I believe in his scenario, the bear attacks were a coincidence, and their particularly vicious attack on so many people was fueled by the bears having drank poisoned water spoken of in verse 19. This poisoned water caused the bears to enter a rabid, "mad" state where they were roaming around horrifically attacking everybody they encountered. Somehow, these super bears managed to attack 40+ kids simultaneously, because apparently the kids were all frozen with fear or some crap. YHWH nor Elisha had anything to with it, and Elisha's "curse" was a cursing in the modern sense of "cussing," the equivalent of saying "damn brats" basically.

It was truly one of the more interesting and entertaining apologetics attempts I'd ever seen.

The "mad poisoned bears" incident became the biggest embarrassment for the guy after that. He was ribbed about it endlessly Encouragingly, however, when I encountered this guy a couple of years later, he claimed he was now an atheist, and his stay at the Godless Zone had been the primary cause of his lose of faith. There is hope.

Of course I still had to poke fun of him and remind him of the "mad poisoned bears" scenario.

Mike(ATL)

October 30, 2003, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by K
The Bible is exactly where to look. However, the Bible says God is just. You were shown several examples where God acts unjustly. You can't claim those aren't contradictions because God must have had some extra-Biblical reason for doing it. And it's really ridiculous to assert that you know there must be an extra-Biblical reason for the behavior because the Bible claims that God is just.

It's just like the contradiction when the Bible calls just and then proceeds to describe His behavior - behavior which we could only label 'unjust'.

You can't 'choose' to make a contradiction disappear simply by assuming apriori that there is no contradiction.

Authors of the Bible called God 'just' in some parts. In other parts, they described some of His unjust actions. That's a contradiction. It's dishonest to say that it isn't a contradiction because the authors MUST have known what they were talking about when they called Him just. A contradiction is a contradiction.
I appreciate the attempt but it's like I never wrote anything at all explaining why those things were not necessarily unjust. My only argument was not, "well the Bible says God is just." The bears, we don't know the circumstances, we don't know if the only thing those kids did was call Elisha a baldy so we can't assume that it is an example of God being unjust. To assume that the actions of a God who knows how everything plays out in the world are unjust is extremely difficult if not impossible. Cases where infants are killed in the crossfire so to speak are tragic (as any death is) but not necessarily unjust because God knows how things would play out if He didn't intervene. We are in no position to deem the actions of all-knowing, almighty God unjust. Does this sound familiar? It should, I've said this already but apparently no one is listening or no one cares. I'm getting the feeling you read part of what I say and stereotype me with an easier argument to ignore.

And congrats DM, even though this doesn't have much (if anything) to do with the original two verses it irks me enough that I can't put it off for another day. I hope this doesn't become the multiple-issues-at-once kind of thread that I can't keep up with but alas I sometimes cannot resist.

DM:
1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets.

JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word.

2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them).
Let me just quickly explain why all the examples given do not show that God is lying to people

1 Kings 22:21-23
"Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.' Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you."
Explanation: Those prophets are not prophets speaking on behalf of God, they are false prophets and their allegiance is to the king. And God did not lie to them but sent an angel who apparently came up with the plan on his own. It looks like the angel was influencing the false prophets to send the king into battle to die for going against God.

2 Chronicles 18:22
Explanation: is the same event described in 1 Kings 22:23

Jeremiah 4:10
Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Surely You have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, 'You will have peace'; whereas a sword touches the throat."
Explanation: God explains that this account was from false prophets here:
Jeremiah 14:13-14
But, "Ah, Lord GOD!" I said, "Look, the prophets are telling them, 'You will not see the sword nor will you have famine, but I will give you lasting peace in this place.'" Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.

Jeremiah 20:7
O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived;
You have overcome me and prevailed.
I have become a laughingstock all day long;
Everyone mocks me.
Explanation: Here Jeremiah is very weary of his cross to bear. His message of God punishing Israel is not well received and he is enduring heavy persecution. When he said the Lord is deceiving him he is complaining that God is using him too much. Just read the rest of the chapter, it's quite obvious. Here's one excerpt
Jeremiah 20:11
But the LORD is with me like a dread champion;
Therefore my persecutors will stumble and not prevail.
They will be utterly ashamed, because they have failed,
With an everlasting disgrace that will not be forgotten.

Ezekiel 14:9
"But if the prophet is prevailed upon to speak a word, it is I, the LORD, who have prevailed upon that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel."
Explanation: Why would you chose this verse to show that God is lying to his own prophets? Do you mean that God is stretching out his hand against them. Either way, he is not against his prophet but against idolaters, you can see what he's talking about by reading what comes just before this verse.
Ezekiel 14:7
"For anyone of the house of Israel or of the immigrants who stay in Israel who separates himself from Me, sets up his idols in his heart, puts right before his face the stumbling block of his iniquity, and then comes to the prophet to inquire of Me for himself, I the LORD will be brought to answer him in My own person."

Jeremiah 8:8
"How can you say, 'We are wise,
And the law of the LORD is with us'?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
Has made it into a lie.
Explanation: This is talking about how God's people are not obeying God. They are making the law they write a lie because they are not heeding the law. Again, just look at the surrounding text.
Jeremiah 8:9
"The wise men are put to shame,
They are dismayed and caught;
Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD,
And what kind of wisdom do they have?

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
Explanation: Hmm, "for this reason," maybe we should investigate this reason. These are people who delight in wickedness and have already rejected the truth. God is merely sending a "deluding influence" so they will believe the false teachings of the anti-christ described earlier in the chapter. He is not tricking them into sinning so He can judge them.
2 Thessalonians 2:10
and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

Now tell me DM why I should ever take another word you say seriously. Just by looking at the context of those verses I was easily able to see that they are not saying God lies to people. Next time you give me evidence like this I will just assume it is false because you have given me false evidence in the past. Give me a break, please don't waste my time again. I would like to be open to what you have to say but forgive me if I'm not after this display.

Panamon777

October 31, 2003, 01:16 AM

OP: In my uneducated, illiterate opinion, it is in fact good for the wicked to be punished. A good parent is one who rewards good behavior and castigates bad behavior; God is (allegedly) the perfect parent. I just thought that needed mentioning.

The bears: I will quote Norman Geisler, from The Case for Faith. Trade pback ed., p. 173. (Not y'all's favorite book, I'm sure, but it's what I got. Rebuke him or me, I don't care.)

Unfortunately, the King James Version has a misleading translation there. Scholars have established that the original Hebrew is best translated as "young men." The NIV renders the word "youths." As best we can tell, this was a violent mob of dangerous teenagers, comparable to a modern street gang. The life of the prophet was in danger by the sheer number of them - if 42 were mauled, who knows how many were threatening him in total?"
So, you say, as does author Lee Strobel, They were just making fun of his baldness!
When you understand the context, you'll see that this was much more serious than that. Commentators have noted that their taunts were intended to challenge Elishah's claim to be a prophet. Essentially, they were saying, "If you're a man of God, why don't you go up to Heaven like the prophet Elijah did?" Apparently, they were mocking the earlier work of God in taking Elijah to Heaven. They were contemptuous in their disbelief of what God had done through both of these prophets.

And their remarks about Elisha being bald were most likely a reference to the fact that lepers in those days shaved their heads. So they were assailing Elisha - a man of dignity and authority as a prophet of God - as a detestable and despicable outcast. They were casting a slur on not only his character, but on God's, since he was God's representative.
Geisler goes on to say that God sent the bears almost as a warning to the people to repent and turn to God, which, had it been heeded, might have prevented that later fall of Samaria. Additionally, the Hebrew word used to describe these youths - I myself do not know any Hebrew at all - is the same word used to describe men in the army. So it can then be assumed that these men were of a soldierly age, I guess.

I'm not 1% as well read as the major debaters on this board, but I wanted to throw that out there.

Cheers,
Evan

DrJim

October 31, 2003, 10:50 AM

2 Kings 2:23 uses the word N'R to refer to the mockers. This may be youths, servants, etc. Anyone of relatively juniour or inferior status (but not as insulting as in English when a boss etc. calls a worker "boy"). It could be soldiers, a teen-age street gang etc.
The very next word verse has very clear indication that the N'RIM were of a young age: N'R is qualified by the adjective QTN, or "small" or "young". so "Small/young lads". Even used alone, however, N'R can "Baby"!

Exodus 2:6 (Baby Moses found in the river)
When she opened it she saw the child (YLD, see below); and lo, the babe (N'R) was crying. She took pity on him and said, "This is one of the Hebrews' children (YLD)."

Now, notice how N'R and YLD are used to refer to baby Moses.
Back to 2 Kings 2:23. There only N'R appears. In v. 24, however, one N'R is NOT used. The bears maul 42 YLD, which is very frequently used of children and infants. In fact, in verbal form, it is refer to childbirths or to fathering a child (see Gen. 4:1 for the verb). The noun as "child" can also be found in 1 Samuel 1:2
"He had two wives: the name of one was Hannah and the
name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children." YLD also refers to babies in Exodus 1:17

"But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of
Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys (i.e. newborn boys) live."

YLD might be "young men" as in 1 Kings 12:8
"But he forsook the counsel of the elders which they had given him, and consulted with the young men who grew up with him and served him."

Here, however, it is actually in a context in which Solomon's boyhood friends are mentioned, so, even though these "YLDIM" are now grown, one should not take this particular use of the term as determinitive of how it is used in 2 Kings 2 given the weight of evidence from other attestations. This is especially so given the adjective attached to N'R.

I think Norman Geisler, The Case for Faith, who you quote as saying, "Unfortunately, the King James Version has a misleading translation there. Scholars have established that the original Hebrew is best translated as "young men." is not being completely upfront about it. "Young men" is interpretative, not literal. He has no real basis for accusation of error. Who are these scholars who insist on "Young Men"? I suspect they are concerned with protecting the text from the sort of allegations of injustice that are being presented in this thread (as Geisler himself is doing).

There is NO clear reason why N'R and YLD must refer to men. New American Bible has "young lads", Revised Standard has "small boys". I think the wording of the passage and the use of the words in other contexts supports thier translations rather well.

JRLinville

-DM-

October 31, 2003, 11:55 AM

DrJim:

My compliments on your excellent analysis of the situation with regard to 2KI 2:23.

Even without an analysis such as yours to go by, it should be remembered that Bible translators of the more trustworthy versions are generally composed of committees of experts in the languages involved and, not only that, they are often Jews and/or Christians (depending on whether we are talking about the Old Testament or the New Testament). We are much better served by trusting them then we are by trusting the likes of apologists such as Geisler who will do almost anything to attempt to save the Bible even from deserved criticism. (THAT, by the way, is one of the things that I found most disturbing when I, myself, was a Christian. It seemed to me that people whom I had trusted turned out to have been telling half truths, withholding information, selecting information, etc., in order to paint a picture which would support traditional apologetic teaching.)

With regard to 2KI 2:23, it should be noted that many translations make an actual point of emphasizing the relatively young age of the "mockers"--and correctly so, in my opinion:

KJV "little children"
ASV "young lads"
YLT "little youths" (this is a literal translation)
DNT "little boys"
RSV "small boys"
NASB "young lads"

We should probably trust the translators rather than apologists.

Originally posted by DrJim:
I think Norman Geisler, The Case for Faith, who you quote as saying, "Unfortunately, the King James Version has a misleading translation there. Scholars have established that the original Hebrew is best translated as "young men." is not being completely upfront about it.It is worse than that. Presumably the Christian "God," were "he" to exist, would want his earthly representatives to be completely honest and forthright. With regard to that standard, Geisler fails miserably.

The Disciple's Study Bible is a bit more honest about it, although once again we see the effort to speculate away an acknowledged problem:

Disciple's Study Bible:
2 KINGS 2:23-25
Miracle, Judgment--This brief description of judgment on the disrespectful young lads appears unduly harsh. Perhaps there is more to the story than meets the eye. In any event the bears came out of the woods after Elisha had cursed the lads �in the name of the LORD.� Most miracles are redemptive in nature.-Don-