Inconsistencies in the Bible?

[Norm d'Plume]

I was wondering if someone could explain to me their views on the inconsistencies in the Bible. Specifically, how could a loving God commit the attrocities documented in the Old Testament? Genocide with the Great Flood. Laws for stoning people to death. Ordering the slaughter of innocent men, women, children, and babies. Condemning people to eternal torment. No loving human being would commit any of these acts, yet the Lord does so.

It is for these reasons that I have a hard time believing the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The Old Testament, in particular, is something I believe a people would write to explain away the attrocities they committed against other humans: God was with them, they prevailed in war, so that made it alright. The Romans worshipped gods and, when all was well, they thanked the gods, and when disaster struck, it was punishment from the gods. How is the God of the Old Testament any different?

Thanks.
Norm

 

[branchofthevine]

Nice usage of words to dictate your point, like using 'loving God' to highlight God's love, but it also does well to minimize everything else that God is, and then this loving God commits "atrocities, genocide, slaughter", things that no loving human would ever do (using loving again to highlight the inconsistency). It's very nicely put together, and it sounds like you've already made up your mind on the issue. If you keep approaching this question from this perspective, you'll never come up with an answer that satisfies because you've already determined the answer, that God cannot be loving because otherwise how could he ordain or order such mass destruction and death?

In truth this perspective is so simplistic, it reduces everything in the Old Testament narratives to a very simple and bare-bones state. However, that does a great disservice to the narrative flow of the Torah and the history narratives because it basically cuts out every Biblical aspect to it. If you let the text speak for itself the narrative unfolds in a very beautiful way.

Just some highlights for example Gen 1:27
"God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." (also, just a thought, how could God do things that no loving human would ever do if humanity is fashion after the image of God? And what about the humans who do commit atrocities? Are they just the truest image of God, or has there been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line)

Gen 12:1
“Get out of your country, From your family And from your father’s house, To a land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

It is interesting the statement of intention that all the families of the earth will be blessed, in Abraham. This promise is given again only, it is all the nations of the earth will be blessed in your seed. This promise is given to his sons Isaac, and to Jacob. This is the linchpin of the entire narrative of Israel, that culminates in Jesus.

Exodus 34:6-7
And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness (chesed) and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

This is the only place were God declares his own nature and character, and notice the attributes, his grace, patience (long-suffering), and overflowing in what is called chesed (mostly translated mercy or goodness by really means something like steadfast covenant faithfulness), and truth, he keeps mercy for thousands (is meant thousands of generations), and forgives sin and iniquity, but doesn't let the wicked go free, but punished them accordingly.

These are just some verses that really open up the world of the Old Testament in its width, and depth that a surface level judgement of God's nature and character just absolutely misses (in such a beautiful fashion too).

So, to answer you, if you read the narrative of the Old Testament (roughly Genesis through 2 Kings), you will find the answer to these 'inconsistencies' within the pages of the Scriptures themselves as you interact with them.

 

[Norm d'Plume]

I haven't made up my mind at all. I'm struggling to reconcile my view of a loving God (that's what I believe Him to be) vs. the version of Him protrayed in parts of the Old and even New Testaments. I've read much of the Bible and find most of it very inspiritional, as you point out. But there seem to be two very different versions of God in it. Admittedly, I judge the supposedly violent God by the standard of a loving human being, since that's my best frame of reference of what a loving God is. The God I believe in is greater than the best of us. The supposedly violent God is not, IMO. I'm looking to others to see how they reconcile these differences.

 

[RDKirk]

I was wondering if someone could explain to me their views on the inconsistencies in the Bible. Specifically, how could a loving God commit the attrocities documented in the Old Testament? Genocide with the Great Flood. Laws for stoning people to death. Ordering the slaughter of innocent men, women, children, and babies. Condemning people to eternal torment. No loving human being would commit any of these acts, yet the Lord does so.

It is for these reasons that I have a hard time believing the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The Old Testament, in particular, is something I believe a people would write to explain away the attrocities they committed against other humans: God was with them, they prevailed in war, so that made it alright. The Romans worshipped gods and, when all was well, they thanked the gods, and when disaster struck, it was punishment from the gods. How is the God of the Old Testament any different?

Thanks.
Norm

Interestingly, people had difficulty with that at least as early as 140 BC, leading to the Marcion heresy.

I suspect the problem is that limited men had genuine experiences with an unlimited God, and they could only express them from their limited perspective with their limited communication skills.

We know that Bronze Age humans could not even express the color blue. What else could they not express? They believed everything, good or bad, was the direct hand of God, so if they won a battle, God must have decreed it to be won exactly as it was won. If they lost a battle, somehow there was something they did to turn God's hand against them.

That does not mean God was not using them, it does not mean God was not engaged with them, it does not mean those things did not happen to them, and it does not mean that the events were not the path to Jesus. It means their interpretation of events might be questionable, and even Paul himself questioned at least one interpretation.

I mentioned the Marcion heresy. In the early second century Bishop Marcion concluded that the OT God and the God portrayed in the "memoirs of the apostles" and related by their elders who had actually known the apostles must not be the same god. He proposed throwing away the OT entirely (as well as the gospels that depended to heavily on it).

It was his "two god" theology that caused him to be declared the first heretic of the Church...but the response of the Church to the suggestion of eliminating the OT was a fairly tepid, "Without the old, we would not have the path to the new." IOW, it was as history of the faith--rather than instruction for current living--that the second century Church saw use for the OT.

 

[Norm d'Plume]

Interestingly, people had difficulty with that at least as early as 140 BC, leading to the Marcion heresy.

I suspect the problem is that limited men had genuine experiences with an unlimited God, and they could only express them from their limited perspective with their limited communication skills.

We know that Bronze Age humans could not even express the color blue. What else could they not express? They believed everything, good or bad, was the direct hand of God, so if they won a battle, God must have decreed it to be won exactly as it was won. If they lost a battle, somehow there was something they did to turn God's hand against them.

That does not mean God was not using them, it does not mean God was not engaged with them, it does not mean those things did not happen to them, and it does not mean that the events were not the path to Jesus. It means their interpretation of events might be questionable, and even Paul himself questioned at least one interpretation.

I mentioned the Marcion heresy. In the early second century Bishop Marcion concluded that the OT God and the God portrayed in the "memoirs of the apostles" and related by their elders who had actually known the apostles must not be the same god. He proposed throwing away the OT entirely (as well as the gospels that depended to heavily on it).

It was his "two god" theology that caused him to be declared the first heretic of the Church...but the response of the Church to the suggestion of eliminating the OT was a fairly tepid, "Without the old, we would not have the path to the new." IOW, it was as history of the faith--rather than instruction for current living--that the second century Church saw use for the OT.

A very informative post. Thank you.

 

[Soyeong]

God is a God of love, but He is also just. Why do you look at times of God's forbearing judgement as examples of His love?

 

[Sketcher]

I was wondering if someone could explain to me their views on the inconsistencies in the Bible. Specifically, how could a loving God commit the attrocities documented in the Old Testament? Genocide with the Great Flood. Laws for stoning people to death.

To limit/punish evil. Should evil not be limited or punished?

Ordering the slaughter of innocent men, women, children, and babies.

Which innocent men, women, children, and babies did he order the slaughter of?

Condemning people to eternal torment.

That's not really in the Old Testament. That wasn't revealed until the New Testament. In any case, it deserves answering. Imagine a bitter cold winter landscape. There is one large fire, but you choose to hate the fire and keep your distance. By consequence, you will be very cold. It is such with God and happiness and comfort. He will not force people who despise him to be with him. If they don't want fellowship with him, they don't have to have it. God has given people a grace period, this life on Earth. He has not fully withdrawn from the world, so we still have some comfort, even enough to taint with vice. And during this time, we may repent of our sins, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness and salvation, and live more like he wanted us to live in the first place. One day, that will all be over. Those who didn't choose to be with God according to the path that he laid out won't be with him. They'll be cast out from his presence. If someone doesn't want to be in God's light, then that person can be out in the darkness. Just know that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth there.

No loving human being would commit any of these acts, yet the Lord does so.

To claim this is to assume that no one who ever stoned anyone to death or ordered that anyone be stoned to death could be a loving person. Are you sure you want to make that claim? That absolutely no one who participated in stoning a murderer or an adulterer to death could have been a loving person? That such a person did not love his family, did not love his community, and did not love any foreigners?

 

[SkyWriting]

I was wondering if someone could explain to me their views on the inconsistencies in the Bible.

There are none. Every basic characteristic of God is covered from multiple angles
,multiple people, and multiple "publishing dates" spread over 1000's of years.

The solution to perceived problems and the understanding requires faith first.

 

[ken777]

Specifically, how could a loving God commit the attrocities documented in the Old Testament?

I think it is important to remember that the God who created the universe and all life is the only One who can be the Judge. He is omnipotent and omniscient (all knowing) so He is able to pass judgment on even children because He sees whether each one would accept or reject the Truth.

.

 

[KWCrazy]

I was wondering if someone could explain to me their views on the inconsistencies in the Bible...

I can sum your entire post in one sentence. "I don't understand God."

You are not alone in this. Nobody completely understands God because our minds cannot grasp perfection and holiness. God loves us and wants us to love Him as well. Our history, however, is one of rebellion. Adam and Eve wanted to know good from evil. That came at a cost. Evil causes a separation from God, and the wages of sin are death. When they defied God, Adam and Eve brought the sentence of death to mankind because of our sinful nature.

So given that the consequence of sin is death, it should come as no surprise that everyone who lived more than 150 years ago is now dead. When the world was completely corrupt except for one family, God wiped the slate clean and started over. That was their choice. They chose to sin.

The enemies of the Israelites could have chosen to peacefully co-exist, but the followers of God are always hated by the followers of evil and the Israelites were always surrounded by enemies. Under such circumstances they survived by making their enemies fear them. The needed laws, of course, and the population couldn't support long prison incarcerations, so the penalty for many crimes was death by whatever means they had available. There was a shortage of lethal injection drugs, so they opted to use stones. It was a great deterrent as well. Severe penalties discourage crime and protect the innocent.

It would take a lifetime to completely understand the Scriptures. Fortunately, this Sunday you can go here parts of it explained by a studies expert at your local church. See, God already provided you the way to get your questions answered.

 

[VegasGeorge]

I believe that God of the Old Testament, and God of the New Testament are one (or three) in the same. God created us in His own image, that is, He created us with intelligence and free will. He gave us instructions, and turned us loose. We screwed up. In Old Testament times God was trying to straighten us out with punishments such as, floods, plagues, famines, raining fire, etc. Nothing He did worked for more than a short time. So, as a last resort, He sent Jesus to live among us, and teach us by example and with God's own Words. And, it was a sink or swim, do or die proposition. Believe in Him, and have eternal life, or not. Then God left it up to us. No more direct interventions in the affairs of men. Those who will open their hearts and minds to Christ's message will be saved, and the all the others will not. It's God's tough love. And, it has been since the beginning. Only His method has changed.

I do believe that God operates within the lives of His faithful followers. I believe in His mercy and miracles in our individual lives. But I do not expect God to rain fire on the Supreme Court, or open the San Andreas Fault to swallow up Hollywood, California. In Old Testament times, yes, that might well have happened. But today, salvation or damnation is left entirely up to us. In a sense, God has traded the stick for the carrot. Now it's just a question of how smart the donkey is.

 

[Norm d'Plume]

Those who will open their hearts and minds to Christ's message will be saved, and all the others will not.

What happens to the billions of people who have never even heard of Christ (e.g., China, India, etc.)? I find it hard to believe that God will simply abandon them.

Thanks.
Norm

 

[Resha Caner]

What happens to the billions of people who have never even heard of Christ (e.g., China, India, etc.)? I find it hard to believe that God will simply abandon them.

How do you know they have no knowlege of Christ?

 

[ken777]

What happens to the billions of people who have never even heard of Christ (e.g., China, India, etc.)? I find it hard to believe that God will simply abandon them.

Thanks.
Norm

So do I. There are indications in the Bible that God judges them by their conscience.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another [Romans 2:14-15]​

 

[lesliedellow]

I was wondering if someone could explain to me their views on the inconsistencies in the Bible. Specifically, how could a loving God commit the attrocities documented in the Old Testament? Genocide with the Great Flood. Laws for stoning people to death. Ordering the slaughter of innocent men, women, children, and babies. Condemning people to eternal torment. No loving human being would commit any of these acts, yet the Lord does so.

The problem with modern evangelical Christianity is that it talks an awful lot about God's love, but not at all about God's wrath.That says an awful lot about the consumerist society we live in, and the kind of consumer friendly God they want. They want a god (lower case g) who is the very dream of a salesman selling religion - and specifically selling Christianity. But, as you say, in the Bible God's wrath is just as much on display as his love.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are none. Every basic characteristic of God is covered from multiple angles
,multiple people, and multiple "publishing dates" spread over 1000's of years.

The solution to perceived problems and the understanding requires faith first.

I would like to correct myself. There are some glaring inconsistencies between various
sources that seem to tell entirely different versions of the same events. I believe the
reason for these differences is that different authors choose not to rehash the the same
material either because they have nothing to add, or because they were not witness to
the same events. Or is may be because they did not have access to the same witnesses.

In any case, differing versions usually add credibility to a story, not detract from it.

 

[Dialogist]

Inconsistencies in the Christian writings that eventually became the New Testament were well known and accepted by the Church Fathers.

Consider for example this introduction by John Chrysostom (Constantinople, 4th century):

And why can it have been, that when there were so many disciples, two write only from among the apostles, and two from among their followers? (For one that was a disciple of Paul, and another ofPeter, together with Matthew and John, wrote the Gospels.) It was because they did nothing for vainglory, but all things for use.

What then? Was not one evangelist sufficient to tell all? One indeed was sufficient; but if there be four that write, not at the same times, nor in the same places, neither after having met together, and conversed one with another, and then they speak all things as it were out of one mouth, this becomes a very great demonstration of the truth.

But the contrary, it may be said, has come to pass, for in many places they are convicted of discordance. Nay, this very thing is a very great evidence of their truth. For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together, and had written what they wrote by some human compact; because such entire agreement as this comes not of simplicity. But now even that discordance which seems to exist in little matters delivers them from all suspicion, and speaks clearly in behalf of thecharacter of the writers.

But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothinginjures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we willendeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He has given commandments tending to salvation, that He has brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the samesubstance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.

And if among the miracles they have not all of them mentioned all, but one these, the other those, let not this trouble you. For if on the one hand one had spoken of all, the number of the rest would have been superfluous; and if again all had written fresh things, and different one from another, the proof of their agreement would not have been manifest. For this cause they have both treated of many in common, and each of them has also received and declared something of his own; that, on the one hand, he might not seem superfluous, and cast on the heap to no purpose; on the other, he might make our test of the truth of their affirmations perfect.

 

[SkyWriting]

For if they had agreed in all things exactly even to time, and place, and to the very words, none of our enemies would have believed but that they had met together,

I agree with the whole of his comments, but his logic in not complete. If two writers cover the same encounter with Jesus in their writings, using the exact same quotes, it could be because
they colluded to create the story
one wrote it first and the second agreed with his version
one wrote it first and the second wasn't there
or each remembers it the same
or each interviewed the same witnesses
or each interviewed witnesses with the same story
or each interviewed witnesses who tell their stories under the above conditions.

History is all faith in the historian. Not logic or even inference.

 

[SkyWriting]

Inconsistencies in the Christian writings that eventually became the New Testament were well known and accepted by the Church Fathers.

It is difficult to believe any scripture was not scrutinized before publication.

 

[Dialogist]

I don't think he was trying to construct a detailed logical argument. I think he was just trying to point out that if the Gospel accounts showed no disagreements whatsoever then people would be much more likely to believe that they were contrived.