Inconsistencies in the Bible?

[lismore]

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

The Canaanites sacrificed babies to their god, Molech. God told them to stop. They wouldn't. God loves the babies.

 

[Verv]

I consider myself a very serious & conservative Christian, and perhaps the part where I come off as slightly liberal is that I feel that much of the Old Testament is inspired by God but, unlike the words of Christ recorded in the New Testament, it is not the words of God and thus has sometimes been fused with interpretations and inconsistencies with the overarching narrative of Christianity.

I do not ever mean to sound like a person who is backing away from teh conservative, hard, true Fatih; it is merely that I feel that the OT, in all of its details, is not necessarily 100% correct.

I am also inclined to think that some of the events of the OT have been recorded along with the word of God to, in fact, justify them. There are a few specific examples I can think of.

But I also emphasize: the OT times take place on the rugged foothills of Israel, 3,000 years ago; things like slavery and brutal warfare are just stark realities that are impossible to avoid. the message of Christ would have been impossible to work in those times, and thus it was not promulgated until the cradle of the Roman Empire could become its backdrop.

 

[Norm d'Plume]

I tend to agree, and yet we have Matthew 5:17-18: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Was Jesus speaking about the whole Torah, or just parts of it that made sense to believers in a given age? It seems to be the former.

 

[Verv]

I tend to agree, and yet we have Matthew 5:17-18: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Was Jesus speaking about the whole Torah, or just parts of it that made sense to believers in a given age? It seems to be the former.

I believe that by the 'Law' He literally meant the Ten Commandments, and by the Ten Commandments He really just meant the natural summary of those laws.

Matthew 7:12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I am curiosu as to why you would think it would be the totality of the Old Tesetament as what Christ was teaching, even when He was overturnign things and consistently talking about the necessity of emphasizing the Spirit of the Law ?

I do not mean to sound combative. I just have my position that I believe si right.

 

[JoeP222w]

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

First, you need to examine your presuppositions, which appear to be:
- That there are "inconsistencies" in the Bible.
- God has committed "atrocities".
- That there are "innocent" people out there.
- That God does not have the autonomous free will to do with His creation as He chooses.
- That you have the moral right to judge God.

I submit that these are false presuppositions.

There are no "inconsistencies" in the Bible. There are "apparent" inconsistencies, but they do not hold up to examination, research and a humble heart of the reader. When there appears to be an error, it is the reader's responsibility to first examine themselves, to see if they have made false assumption.

God has no committed "atrocities". He is God, the Creator, of all things. And being so, He has the sovereign right to do with His creation as He sees fit and no one can say He is doing wrong. God also has the sovereign right to set the standard by which He will measure His creation. Because He is perfect, His standard is Himself.

God executed divine justice against wicked and sinful people. The word of God says that there are none that are good, no one is innocent, not one. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Because of Adam, sin was brought into this world. And even babies are born in sin. A toddler never has to be taught how to lie.

 

[JoeP222w]

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

God sends people to Hell for their sin (violating His perfect Law) to satisfy His perfect justice, not for their lack of knowledge of Christ.

The book of Romans says that no one will have an excuse to rejecting the truth of God.

 

[Eatay]

If you look at the Old Testament, God commanded to stone people who commit adultery (Leviticus 20:10). And adultery is wrong, of course, but it doesn't warrant death. Would you stone your spouse if they slept with someone else? Many Christians make the point that that law is in the Old Testament, but how does that make any of it okay? Isn't morality objective? If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), then why are his laws not? Why is it okay for Jews 3,000+ years ago to stone adulterers, but a sin if we do?

I know Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7), but obviously the Jews of Moses' time weren't without sin (Romans 3:23), so why didn't God tell them the same thing back then, especially when the people of Jesus' time were still under Old Testament law? That's where it's inconsistent. You could say it's God showing his wrath and justice against sin in the Old Testament, and then showing his mercy through Jesus, but by saying that, you would have to say that God thinking that adulterers deserve to die is justified, and you could say that it is, because sin brings forth death (James 1:15), but you'd need to say that about all of the other death penalty laws too, like stoning people who break the sabbath (Exodus 31:14). Can anyone honestly say that choosing to work on a day you're supposed to rest, means that you should die, in any time period? They were punished for doing work instead of doing nothing all day. And isn't it unfair that we're now allowed to do things like that easily nowadays, when others had to die for doing the same things because of the time and place they were born in?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

If you look at the Old Testament, God commanded to stone people who commit adultery (Leviticus 20:10). And adultery is wrong, of course, but it doesn't warrant death. Would you stone your spouse if they slept with someone else? Many Christians make the point that that law is in the Old Testament, but how does that make any of it okay? Isn't morality objective? If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), then why are his laws not? Why is it okay for Jews 3,000+ years ago to stone adulterers, but a sin if we do?

I know Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7), but obviously the Jews of Moses' time weren't without sin (Romans 3:23), so why didn't God tell them the same thing back then, especially when the people of Jesus' time were still under Old Testament law? That's where it's inconsistent. You could say it's God showing his wrath and justice against sin in the Old Testament, and then showing his mercy through Jesus, but by saying that, you would have to say that God thinking that adulterers deserve to die is justified, and you could say that it is, because sin brings forth death (James 1:15), but you'd need to say that about all of the other death penalty laws too, like stoning people who break the sabbath (Exodus 31:14). Can anyone honestly say that choosing to work on a day you're supposed to rest, means that you should die, in any time period? They were punished for doing work instead of doing nothing all day. And isn't it unfair that we're now allowed to do things like that easily nowadays, when others had to die for doing the same things because of the time and place they were born in?

God never promised that life would be fair. He did promise that sin would lead to death, however.

 

[Eatay]

God never promised that life would be fair. He did promise that sin would lead to death, however.

I know the Bible says those things. I don't have a problem with life being unfair, but it should just be because of people being unfair, and not include the way God decided to complete his plan, which was the unfairness I was referring to.

And I don't have a problem with sin leading to death, just what is considered sinful. Which goes back to the point that the Biblical God was unfair to punish some people for one thing in ancient Israel, while later it isn't bad at all.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I know the Bible says those things. I don't have a problem with life being unfair, but it should just be because of people being unfair, and not include the way God decided to complete his plan, which was the unfairness I was referring to.

And I don't have a problem with sin leading to death, just what is considered sinful. Which goes back to the point that the Biblical God was unfair to punish some people for one thing in ancient Israel, while later it isn't bad at all.

The Law given to Israel was given to point them to Christ their savior. The whole point was that the laws were hard to keep, and Jesus came to bring rest. The nation of Israel was given the Law to demonstrate how no man can be justified by it, because even the great king David sinned.

Romans 5:20
The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

 

[Eatay]

The Law given to Israel was given to point them to Christ their savior. The whole point was that the laws were hard to keep, and Jesus came to bring rest. The nation of Israel was given the Law to demonstrate how no man can be justified by it, because even the great king David sinned.

Romans 5:20
The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

I partly mentioned that when I mentioned how some people say it's God showing his wrath and justice against sin in the Old Testament, and then showing his mercy through Jesus. And you're clearly right Biblically. But the point I'm making is that the laws/regulations of the Old Testament don't have to be unfair in the context of the New Testament (I'll explain that in a second) to reveal that man cannot save themselves. And the point I added to that is that the whole process of revealing the need for a savior (The law/Old Testament), and sending the savior (The Gospel/New Testament) is unfair to the people who were under the law, because they, by law, had to be put to death for things that are okay for us to do now, just because we were born into a time where we're under the new covenant. Like, if a law was passed that a certain crime warranted a death penalty, and sometime later it was repealed, it would be clear that the people who lived under that law were screwed over. It's not bad that God would give people an opportunity to be saved from damnation, but the way the Bible explains how he went about it isn't fair to everyone, and that isn't how a just God would go about things.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

It's not bad that God would give people an opportunity to be saved from damnation, but the way the Bible explains how he did it isn't fair to everyone, and that isn't how a just God would go about things.

First of all, God would have been just to end the human race with Adam and Eve. Since human beings are sinners, the only thing they really deserve is death, yet God in His grace chose to have His Son Jesus die on the cross for them.

Was it fair of God to flood the world but save only Noah and his family? Was it fair for Him to give His promises to Jacob the liar and not Esau the firstborn? Was it fair for Him to make Himself specially known to Israel and not other nations? Again, fairness is no guarantee; in fact, grace is unfair by definition.

 

[lesliedellow]

First of all, God would have been just to end the human race with Adam and Eve. Since human beings are sinners, the only thing they really deserve is death, yet God in His grace chose to have His Son Jesus die on the cross for them.

Was it fair of God to flood the world but save only Noah and his family? Was it fair for Him to give His promises to Jacob the liar and not Esau the firstborn? Was it fair for Him to make Himself specially known to Israel and not other nations? Again, fairness is no guarantee; in fact, grace is unfair by definition.

Quite so. I suppose it is understandable if atheists and agnostics miss the point, but even professing Christians seem nowadays to get the idea that they are the lord and judge of God.

 

[Eatay]

First of all, God would have been just to end the human race with Adam and Eve. Since human beings are sinners, the only thing they really deserve is death, yet God in His grace chose to have His Son Jesus die on the cross for them.

Was it fair of God to flood the world but save only Noah and his family? Was it fair for Him to give His promises to Jacob the liar and not Esau the firstborn? Was it fair for Him to make Himself specially known to Israel and not other nations? Again, fairness is no guarantee; in fact, grace is unfair by definition.

I understand that human beings deserve death because of their sin, but I don't think that some of the things that qualify as sin in the Bible, are good rules. I mentioned that killing people that work on the sabbath is ridiculous to do in any time period. If you shouldn't be killed for doing it now, then no one should. And I understand that grace is unfair by definition, but why does God have to be unfair to others to allow some people to receive his grace? If God is omnipotent, he easily could have created a system where Jews living under the Old Testament aren't screwed over compared to people living under the New Testament, because of the law changes. If he could do that, and didn't, then I don't see how God could be all-good or impartial.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

If he could do that, and didn't, then I don't see how God could be all-good or impartial.

Exactly, you just don't see it. You, being a fallible sinner, have no right to judge God's plan; you are called to have faith in Him. If you would rather believe that there is no God or that there is but he or it is unknowable then that is your own choice.

Romans 9:18-21
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

 

[Eatay]

Exactly, you just don't see it. You, being a fallible sinner, have no right to judge God's plan; you are called to have faith in Him. If you would rather believe that there is no God or that there is but he or it is unknowable then that is your own choice.

Romans 9:18-21
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

That really sounds like a cop-out to me. If I ask any skeptical question about the Biblical God's morality, why would God's answer be, that he can do whatever he wants because he is God (Like the verse you quoted), and to just believe him ("You, being a fallible sinner, have no right to judge God's plan; you are called to have faith in Him.")? It doesn't make sense when it's just stating that God can do whatever he wants, which is true, but it doesn't explain why the things he did are acceptable. If there really is an explanation as to how God's plan is completely just (God would obviously have one), then why didn't God lay out why the things that he did are just in an understandable way, instead of just saying "Don't question me because I'm God."? Why can't we question God if God has an answer? The answer to that is that the author of Romans (Paul) has no answer, so "God" doesn't either. Your answer to the point I'm making right now could just be that I'm not one to question God in the first place, but that would just bring me to repeat this same point. And if your answer would bring me to repeat myself, your answer wouldn't have addressed my point in the first place.

The answer that the creation cannot judge the creator only works for people who already are Christians, as a reason to not doubt God, because they are viewing the point from within Christianity, but to give that answer to a non-believer wouldn't work, because from the outside looking in, it looks like a cop-out. So if whether or not someone thinks the argument is valid is subjective to someone's pre-existing views, instead of the logic of the argument itself, the argument is completely useless as an explanation to give to a non-believer, making it a bad answer to the point I made, and a bad answer for a Christians to give themselves. If you're going to say that I just don't see it (how the Biblical God can be all-good and impartial because of the way he went about his plan), are you implying that you do see it? If you do, do you know of any way that you could explain it to me in a way that you don't already have to believe the Bible to accept that the point is true?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

That really sounds like a cop-out to me. If I ask any skeptical question about the Biblical God's morality, why would God's answer be, that he can do whatever he wants because he is God (Like the verse you quoted), and to just believe him ("You, being a fallible sinner, have no right to judge God's plan; you are called to have faith in Him.")? It doesn't make sense when it's just stating that God can do whatever he wants, which is true, but it doesn't explain why the things he did are acceptable. If there really is an explanation as to how God's plan is completely just (God would obviously have one), then why didn't God lay out why the things that he did are just in an understandable way, instead of just saying "Don't question me because I'm God."? Why can't we question God if God has an answer? The answer to that is that the author of Romans (Paul) has no answer, so "God" doesn't either. Your answer to the point I'm making right now could just be that I'm not one to question God in the first place, but that would just bring me to repeat this same point. And if your answer would bring me to repeat myself, your answer wouldn't have addressed my point in the first place.

The answer that the creation cannot judge the creator only works for people who already are Christians, as a reason to not doubt God, because they are viewing the point from within Christianity, but to give that answer to a non-believer wouldn't work, because from the outside looking in, it looks like a cop-out. So if whether or not someone thinks the argument is valid is subjective to someone's pre-existing views, instead of the logic of the argument itself, the argument is completely useless as an explanation to give to a non-believer, making it a bad answer to the point I made, and a bad answer for a Christians to give themselves. If you're going to say that I just don't see it (how the Biblical God can be all-good and impartial because of the way he went about his plan), are you implying that you do see it? If you do, do you know of any way that you could explain it to me in a way that you don't already have to believe the Bible to accept that the point is true?

I have already laid out for you an answer, but you didn't accept it because it was unjust in your estimation. If you think God's plan is unjust, then I can't help you. We are certainly allowed to ask God questions, but we should never doubt His character just because we lack understanding, because that would be a lack of faith in Him. To you it makes no difference, because you have not committed yourself to Him in any way. I know I can't really convince you that Jesus is the savior or that the Bible is true, but it is what I believe and I have already given you an answer to your question.

 

[Eatay]

I have already laid out for you an answer, but you didn't accept it because it was unjust in your estimation. If you think God's plan is unjust, then I can't help you. We are certainly allowed to ask God questions, but we should never doubt His character just because we lack understanding, because that would be a lack of faith in Him. To you it makes no difference, because you have not committed yourself to Him in any way. I know I can't really convince you that Jesus is the savior or that the Bible is true, but it is what I believe and I have already given you an answer to your question.

If one is not committed to God, and looks at the Bible and discerns it with basic logic, they would have plenty of reasons to doubt that the Biblical God exists, and I mentioned some of them. Do you think the things I mentioned are logically valid reasons to doubt the Bible? If you don't, why don't you think they're logically valid?

If I don't have initial faith, at that point there is no "we should never doubt His character just because we lack understanding, because that would be a lack of faith in Him.", because since there is no initial faith, you can't just stop doubting everything, and if there is no initial faith, you're not going to say that those doubts are because of a lack of understanding. Saying that one shouldn't question God is only a good answer to give to someone who already believes the Bible and has faith in Jesus, which I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with using that as an answer to my question, because the answer is only helpful from a Christian's perspective, and it doesn't answer anything for me. Do you agree with that?

 

[Sketcher]

If you look at the Old Testament, God commanded to stone people who commit adultery (Leviticus 20:10). And adultery is wrong, of course, but it doesn't warrant death. Would you stone your spouse if they slept with someone else? Many Christians make the point that that law is in the Old Testament, but how does that make any of it okay? Isn't morality objective? If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), then why are his laws not? Why is it okay for Jews 3,000+ years ago to stone adulterers, but a sin if we do?

It wouldn't be if the law was justly prosecuted and enforced.

I know Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7), but obviously the Jews of Moses' time weren't without sin (Romans 3:23), so why didn't God tell them the same thing back then, especially when the people of Jesus' time were still under Old Testament law? That's where it's inconsistent.

No, Jesus was speaking to the specific circumstance in front of him, when for whatever reason, the adulteress's partner in crime was not brought before him with her. Meaning they either broke the law by killing him before bringing him to be judged (unlikely), or by permitting him to escape (possibly even setting it up, since they were also trying to trap Jesus). In this interaction is a powerful lesson we can use in our day-to-day, but it is not an absolute abrogation of the death penalty for adultery or anything else. If he were abrogating the death penalty for adultery, he would have said not to stone her, rather than to let the one without sin cast the first stone (and thus he would have fallen into their trap).

but you'd need to say that about all of the other death penalty laws too, like stoning people who break the sabbath (Exodus 31:14). Can anyone honestly say that choosing to work on a day you're supposed to rest, means that you should die, in any time period? They were punished for doing work instead of doing nothing all day. And isn't it unfair that we're now allowed to do things like that easily nowadays, when others had to die for doing the same things because of the time and place they were born in?

Old Testament Jews did, according to the Old Testament. Being as the Jews teach that the Sabbath was never for Gentiles and I am a Gentile, I have no reason to be concerned about this.

 

[Eatay]

It wouldn't be if the law was justly prosecuted and enforced.

Is this in response to "Why is it okay for Jews 3,000+ years ago to stone adulterers, but a sin if we do?"?

No, Jesus was speaking to the specific circumstance in front of him, when for whatever reason, the adulteress's partner in crime was not brought before him with her. Meaning they either broke the law by killing him before bringing him to be judged (unlikely), or by permitting him to escape (possibly even setting it up, since they were also trying to trap Jesus). In this interaction is a powerful lesson we can use in our day-to-day, but it is not an absolute abrogation of the death penalty for adultery or anything else. If he were abrogating the death penalty for adultery, he would have said not to stone her, rather than to let the one without sin cast the first stone (and thus he would have fallen into their trap).

I like your answer here, it explains the scenario well, and I can see how I wasn't completely right. But if Jesus did not abrogate the death penalty, then is it still applicable today?

Old Testament Jews did, according to the Old Testament. Being as the Jews teach that the Sabbath was never for Gentiles and I am a Gentile, I have no reason to be concerned about this.

Even if you don't have to be concerned for it, others still do. It doesn't answer how it's good of God to let Gentiles off the hook for things Jews had to die for doing.