Are these contradictions?

[Simiel]

Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any

Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

[mystdancer50]

Genesis 22:1 - TEMPT means o test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test

1. (Piel)
   1. to test, try
   2. to attempt, assay, try
   3. to test, try, prove, tempt

James 1:13 - TEMPT means

1. of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
2. men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
3. by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

Different words, different meanings, no contradictions

 

[mystdancer50]

"It is impossible for God to lie, Heb. 6:18. And, when in scripture he is said to repent, it is not meant of any change of his mind (for he is in one mind, and who can turn him? ) but only of the change of his way. This is a great truth, that with God there is no variableness nor shadow of turning."

Matthew Henry

 

[Starcrash]

Genesis 22:1 - TEMPT means o test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test

1. (Piel)
   1. to test, try
   2. to attempt, assay, try
   3. to test, try, prove, tempt

James 1:13 - TEMPT means

1. of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
2. men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
3. by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

Different words, different meanings, no contradictions

It would appear that "Piel" is not a Hebrew word but rather a type of Hebrew verb. In any case, you ought to cite your assertions about definitions.

If God didn't want ambiguity, then He ought to have acted as an editor to the bible rather than to allow what looks, from an English-speaker's perspective, to be a contradiction.

 

[Starcrash]

Let's be clear about this -- test and tempt aren't mutually-exclusive. You could test someone by tempting them. What God did to Abraham was command him to sin, which most of us would consider "tempting" (to entice... (someone) to do... something that they find to be attractive but know to be wrong...)

 

[crossnote]

Let's be clear about this -- test and tempt aren't mutually-exclusive. You could test someone by tempting them. What God did to Abraham was command him to sin, which most of us would consider "tempting" (to entice... (someone) to do... something that they find to be attractive but know to be wrong...)

Let's see. God commanded Abraham to disobey Him? That's called fuzz-zee logic.

 

[mystdancer50]

It would appear that "Piel" is not a Hebrew word but rather a type of Hebrew verb. In any case, you ought to cite your assertions about definitions.

If God didn't want ambiguity, then He ought to have acted as an editor to the bible rather than to allow what looks, from an English-speaker's perspective, to be a contradiction.

Didn't realize my answers were being assessed by an English teacher. Definitions were taken from the Strong's Concordance. I thought it would be obvious. And, yes, the OT one is Hebrew, since it was written in Hebrew and the NT one is Greek, as it was written in Greek.

 

[Starcrash]

Let's see. God commanded Abraham to disobey Him? That's called fuzz-zee logic.

God commanded Abraham to murder his son. Is that fact in contention? I thought that was well-established. If God also commanded us not to murder, then it's not "fuzz-zee logic" but rather a contradiction. It only becomes fuzzy if you're trying to obscure what the bible says in order to hide the contradiction.

 

[Starcrash]

Didn't realize my answers were being assessed by an English teacher. Definitions were taken from the Strong's Concordance. I thought it would be obvious. And, yes, the OT one is Hebrew, since it was written in Hebrew and the NT one is Greek, as it was written in Greek.

Please don't make fun of me just because I corrected you. I don't know the Hebrew term or its meaning any better than the average person, so I Googled it and came up with that result. I'm no expert, which is why I leaned on the expertise of the citation.

My argument still stands -- even if we grant that the word "tempt" here means "test", the context of the story still makes it a temptation that just also happens to be a test. God commanded Abraham to do something sinful, and I cited an objective definition that backs up my assertion that this would constitute "tempting".

 

[Spokenpassage]

Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any

First verse is about testing. God tests His people. But the second verse is referring to drawing away from morality. God does not tempt one to disobey, God tests one to strengthen their trust in Him.

Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Repent in Exodus means to change a thought. We see this kind of repent with Nineveh in the story of Jonah.

Repent in Numbers refers to a turning away from sin. Since God can't sin, He cannot repent from sin.

 

[crossnote]

God commanded Abraham to murder his son. Is that fact in contention? I thought that was well-established. If God also commanded us not to murder, then it's not "fuzz-zee logic" but rather a contradiction. It only becomes fuzzy if you're trying to obscure what the bible says in order to hide the contradiction.

Sin is defined by transgressing a command. If God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abraham obeyed to the point God commands him to stop, how in fuzzy land can you call that sin?

 

[lookuptoseeJesus]

Why does the author of this thread hate the Bible?
Jesus is God who taook humanity to come down and show us how to be good and trust in him. He gave his life to save you and created you to be in heaven for eternity with him
but the devil who is a vicious murderer who is way smarter to you told you lies about God and you dont know God, and you trust satan who is going to kll you.
That is so sad.

 

[crossnote]

Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any

Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

God tests.
Satan tempts.
Same word in their language but the difference is in the purpose of each.
Satan's purpose in tempting is to cause us to fall, get discouraged, lose faith etc.
God's purpose in testing is to show us the area of our weakness with the result of us denying our self sufficiency and instead trusting Him more.

 

[lookuptoseeJesus]

We shouldn't blame God for crazy men

Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
the real word is PROVE or TEST
Crazy Doctors of theology cant read when they translate.


James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any
REal word is ENTICED TO SIN
monks got this one right.


Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented (HAD PITY) of the evil (PUNISHMENT) which he thought (declared) to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent (avenge): hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Crazy Doctors of theology cant translate correctly, didnt translate it into English correctly

But the origianl language in Bible is perfect.

easy
get a Bible program
click on the word
get the original meaning
its fun

No contradictions in the Bible

when you see an apparent contradiction, then blame it on Babylon scholars in 1611 who were so goofy they kept sunday for church day and believed in eternal burning hell and all that nonsense.

 

[doseofreality]

God tests.
Satan tempts.
Same word in their language but the difference is in the purpose of each.
Satan's purpose in tempting is to cause us to fall, get discouraged, lose faith etc.
God's purpose in testing is to show us the area of our weakness with the result of us denying our self sufficiency and instead trusting Him more.

Is this not a game of semantics and blame shifting?

God is the sovereign all knowing and all powerful being who does all according to his will.
He created Satan and allowed this angel to rebel, thus He continues to allow Satan to tempt and deceive for His own purposes.
So if Satan tempts you, God is not stopping it, therefore He must be wanting you to be tempted by Satan for some purpose.
Thats why it is blame shifting because God must be ultimately responsible right?

I am only using logic preceding from biblical doctrines.

 

[crossnote]

Is this not a game of semantics and blame shifting?

God is the sovereign all knowing and all powerful being who does all according to his will.
He created Satan and allowed this angel to rebel, thus He continues to allow Satan to tempt and deceive for His own purposes.
So if Satan tempts you, God is not stopping it, therefore He must be wanting you to be tempted by Satan for some purpose.
Thats why it is blame shifting because God must be ultimately responsible right?

I am only using logic preceding from biblical doctrines.

The assumption is that God is responsible for another's evil. Each is responsible for their own even if God allows it. God can't be blamed because in the grand scheme of things (ultimately) He works out all things for good to those who trust Him. This way the evil done is also judged..

 

[doseofreality]

The assumption is that God is responsible for another's evil. Each is responsible for their own even if God allows it. God can't be blamed because in the grand scheme of things (ultimately) He works out all things for good to those who trust Him. This way the evil done is also judged..

I agree that one is still responsible for their actions if they have a choice. Yet my point is God still must bear some of the responsibility.

 

[Misty77]

If God didn't want ambiguity, then He ought to have acted as an editor to the bible rather than to allow what looks, from an English-speaker's perspective, to be a contradiction.

The English-speaking reader should understand that the Bible was written in other languages, in other cultures, in other eras of history. To think that from a literary aspect, you should just be able to pick up the book and understand it as easily as when reading The Sorcerer's Stone is fallacious. Words and sentences don't just translate easily from one language to another, especially when you are working from an ancient language to a modern one. Thought patterns are different, as are our frames of reference. That's why many scholars are reticent to endorse only one version of the Bible: because there are many judgment calls to make as words in the original languages don't line up exactly with words in our modern languages.

Just look in the dictionary at how many English words have multiple meanings, generally based on context. Ancient words have multiple meanings, too; but each word won't have the same connotations in both languages. The same is true for idioms and other ideas.

I don't believe that God created confusion; rather, that He wants us to pursue Him, to trust Him even when we run into theological snags. The gospel is the low-hanging fruit that all may freely eat of. To enjoy His deeper truths, we will have to exert more effort. My theology teacher compared to to buried treasure, where much of the enticement is the adventure, not just the prize.

 

[Nick01]

God commanded Abraham to murder his son. Is that fact in contention? I thought that was well-established. If God also commanded us not to murder, then it's not "fuzz-zee logic" but rather a contradiction. It only becomes fuzzy if you're trying to obscure what the bible says in order to hide the contradiction.

The use of the word murder doesn't make anything clearer here. Surely the word murder means nothing if it does not mean an unjustified and unlawful killing. So in order to make the comparison, you would have to argue that the potential killing was unjustified and unlawful, and on what grounds and standards.

Another philosophical question at play is this: given that Abraham did not, in fact, kill Isaac, did he a) actually sin at all, and b) given that he followed all the actions optimally required to result in the death of Isaac, but that outcome still failed to occur, was it EVER actually possible to Abraham to kill Isaac, and therefore sin? Therefore, c) is 'temptation' (or testing) with precisely a zero possibility of resulting in sin actually 'temptation', even at the raw semantic level?

 

[nathan3]

1 Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any

Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1- The word in Hebrew is "Prove" . And there was no evil involved.


The Hebrew word for " prove " is used many places in the Bible, here is one "




Exodus 15:25

King James Version (KJV)

25 And he cried unto the Lord; and the Lord shewed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them,


The Word is -

nâsâh

naw-saw'

A primitive root; to test ; by implication to attempt: - {adventure} {assay} {prove} {tempt} try.


2 - is actually talking evil , which was not done in Genesis 22:1


3- Exodus 32: 14, There is no contradiction here, you just read that God dose not tempt man with evil.

And temptation is not the subject for Exodus 32. Moses is pleading with God, to not wipe out all the people, why, because they worshiped fake gods and committed sins and evil; after all God had done for them. The subject is wiping them all out. So evil in the older style english, is not read in the liniear way we look at the word in modern times.

This is the Hebrew for the word evil :




ra‛ râ‛âh

{rah} raw-aw'

From H7489 ; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - {adversity} {affliction} {bad} {calamity} + displease ({-ure}) {distress} evil ({[-favouredness]} {man} {thing}) + {exceedingly} X {great} grief ({-vous}) {harm} {heavy} hurt ({-ful}) ill ({favoured}) + {mark} {mischief} ({-vous}) {misery} naught ({-ty}) {noisome} + not {please} sad ({-ly}) {sore} {sorrow} {trouble} {vex} wicked ({-ly} {-ness} {one}) worse (-st) {wretchedness} wrong. [Including feminine ra´ ah; as adjective or noun.]

Prime-


râ‛a‛

raw-ah'

A primitive root; properly to spoil (literally by breaking to pieces); figuratively to make (or be ) good for {nothing} that {is} bad ({physically} socially or morally). ( associate selves and show self friendly are by mistake for H7462.): - {afflict} associate selves [by mistake for {H7462]} break ({down} in {pieces}) + {displease} ({be} {bring} do) evil ({doer} {entreat} {man}) show self friendly [by mistake for {H7462]} do {harm} (do) {hurt} (behave {self} deal) {ill} X {indeed} do {mischief} {punish} still {vex} (do) wicked ({doer} {-ly}) be ({deal} do) worse.



So you see, subject is important. This would be more like Calamity rather then how our minds view the word "evil" here.