Biblical Contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter K_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

K_C

Guest
There seems to be a great error in the bible which equates the Lord with Satan:

“Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel.”
(I Chronicles 21:1)

“And the anger of the Lord was enkindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” (II Samuel 24:1)

Can someone please explain this seeming contradiction?
 
K C:
There seems to be a great error in the bible which equates the Lord with Satan:

“Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel.”
(I Chronicles 21:1)

“And the anger of the Lord was enkindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah.’” (II Samuel 24:1)

Can someone please explain this seeming contradiction?
Click to expand...
Not quite. 🙂 Rather, there is a great error in your (or whoever interpreted these verses) interpretation.

In the first verse cited the author of I Chronicles tells us that Satan tempted David to number the children of Israel, which was against God’s will, who wanted Israel to trust in Him (God) alone and not in their numbers.

The second verse cited does not say that God tempted David. Rather it states that God incited David, because he was angry with Israel. IOW, God let David do what David had already wanted to do, even though it would turn out badly for Israel. God was showing them that their lack of faith in Him would be the cause of their downfall. It’s the equivalent of us saying to one of our children, “Go ahead and climb to the top of the tree, but don’t come crying to me if you get hurt.”

Satan and God are not the same people in these verses from difference OT books merely because God acted against Israel. He sometimes did act against Israel when Israel had rejected Him as they had done here.
 
The second verse cited does not say that God tempted David. Rather it states that God incited David, because he was angry with Israel. IOW, God let David do what David had already wanted to do, even though it would turn out badly for Israel. God was showing them that their lack of faith in Him would be the cause of their downfall. It’s the equivalent of us saying to one of our children, “Go ahead and climb to the top of the tree, but don’t come crying to me if you get hurt.”

Satan and God are not the same people in these verses from difference OT books merely because God acted against Israel. He sometimes did act against Israel when Israel had rejected Him as they had done here.

You are correct. It does say incited. See Webster’s Dictionary:

"incite: to put in motion: to move to action: stir up: spur on: urge on"

The problem here is that the exact same story is told in these two books with the exact same verb (incited) describing action attributed first to Satan and then to God. It is not “merely because God acted against Israel” which equates the subjects of the sentences, but the fact that the very same story is being described, in the same exact way. How could it be true that BOTH Satan AND God “incited”, i.e. urged David to call for a census? I think that common sense would lead one to say that the second statement is an error. However, we believe the bible to be free of error, so how does one explain this apparent error?

Someone else did bring this to my attention and I would like to hear the CHURCH’S OFFICIAL explanation - if there is one. This same person claims that the bible is rife with apparent contradictions and that, therefore, he rejects its authenticity. I am doing my best to defend scriptures and my faith but points such as this make it difficult to do so.
 
Have you thought about asking a Rabbi about this question, in particular on Orthodox one who is well regarded? Jews obviously have a special focus on the Tanakh, and have been dealing with it since long before the Catholic Church was brought into existence by God. I am certain that this “contradiction” has been addressed by them, most likely even before the time of Christ.

I’m not saying this to discourage you from understanding Catholic answers to these questions, but rather to seek advice from true experts on the matter. Even St. Thomas Aquinas studied Rabbi Maimonides in order to better understand the Faith, and St. Jerome consulted with the Rabbis of his time in order to understand and translate the Latin Vulgate’s Old Testament.

When it comes to matters shared by Jews and Catholics (as this matter would seem to be), the Orthodox Jewish perspective can often be invaluable!

Peace and God bless!
 
There are really four passages in play here:

2 Samuel 24
1Once again GOD’s anger blazed out against Israel. He tested David by telling him, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.” 2So David gave orders to Joab and the army officers under him, “Canvass all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and get a count of the population. I want to know the number.”

1 Chronicles 21
1Now Satan entered the scene and seduced David into taking a census of Israel. 2David gave orders to Joab and the army officers under him, “Canvass all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and get a count of the population. I want to know the number.”

James 1:13 Let no man, being tempted, say, I am tempted of God. For God cannot be tempted by evil things, and himself tempts no one.

Job 1:12 And Jehovah said to Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy hand; only upon himself put not forth thy hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of Jehovah.

In short, God permitted David to be tested, Satan seduced David. James tells us plainly that God does not tempt one to do evil. In the book of Job ( first two chapters ) we are told that God allowed, used Satan to test Job. Bottom line, God used Satan to test, not tempt David.
 
Also, If Daniel kissed Kathy and John kissed Kathy does not equal Daniel being John. If you look, God and Satan used different words in speaking to David.

😉
 
Daniel Marsh:
Also, If Daniel kissed Kathy and John kissed Kathy does not equal Daniel being John. If you look, God and Satan used different words in speaking to David.
Click to expand...
Better analogy:
If I’m the head of a toy making company, and one of my designers, Stan, wants to make a new action figure based on…let’s say…King David. I tell Stan that I will allow him to draw it up and put it into production (which he does). Who made the toy?

I made the toy, because I permitted Stan to use company time and resources to produce the toy. Through the legal doctrine of respondeat superior I could be held liable for any design defects which prove harmful.

Stan made the toy, because it was his idea, his effort, and his work which brought the toy into being. Labor theory agrees.

Both of us could be said to have “made” the toy.

Here, it’s analogous. If God permits Satan (not Stan) to do what Satan wants, both could be said to have “incited” David.

The same thing can be seen in Job 1:8-13 and John 13:25-27 (explained in Acts 4:27-28). This is the case, despite the fact that God doesn’t ‘tempt’ anyone (Jas 1:13) - just as Daniel Marsh has stated.

Make sense?

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Hi RyanL, I like, can we make it a car that does not run? hint: Found On Road Dead. 😉
 
Thanks so much, Daniel and Ryan, for the great clarification! I will use your responses to refute this argument.

May I ask for further help? Here is the next statement I am trying to answer:

**David disobeys God by taking a census of the ****people, and ****God decides to punish an army of **innocent bystanders rather than punishing David only:
“Either three years’ famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel…” (I Chronicles 21:12)

“So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel** seventy thousand men.”** (I Chronicles 21:14)_________________________________________________

I am also confronted with many, many passages from the OT where God demands, for various reasons, the wholesale slaughter of other peoples or nations - including women and infants - and the apparent contradiction with the mercy displayed by the Son in the NT.

I must say, too, that I have always felt confused as to why God would condemn, not only the sinner but also, “descendants, to the fourth and fifth generations”, i.e. innocent offspring. Can either of you help with these confusing messages about the apparently blood-thirsty God, the Father, and the apparent contradiction to the mercy of His Son?
 
“David disobeys God by taking a census of the people, and God decides to punish an army of innocent bystanders rather than punishing David only:”

David was comander and chief, so it makes perfect sense that God would take it out on his army. If God were to kill David directly then David would not have had the opporturnity to repent. Also, the line of the Messiah would be through David.

Today, President Bush sent troops into battle to fight terrorism. In future textbooks it will say that Bush fought terrorist during his administration.

Basically, it is simply an argument from who is in charge.

David’s reputation was that of a warrior, thus a defeat would get to David.

When a King disobeyed God, God took it out on the whole nation.

When Pharoh hardened his heart, God sent plagues on all of Egypt. It is simply authority.
 
You may want to look at a book called The Problem of War in the Old Testament by Peter C. Craigie

Basically, the Jesus of the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament.

When Jesus returns, he is going to kick butt, read Revelations, the plagues there. Jesus getting angery and booting all the money changers out of the temple.

A great article from a Jewish perspective on balancing war and peace in personal life is:

Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition
Michael J. Broyde1

Broyde follows the teachings of Jesus in the personal peace type way, and yet explains war from a Jewish perspective.
Introduction
Click to expand...
Grounds for Starting War
Jewish Law’s View of Secular Nations at War
A Jewish Nation Starting a War
Summary
Click to expand...
Battlefield Ethics
Type of war
Seeking Peace Prior to Starting War
The Civilian, the Siege and Standard of Conduct
A Note on Nuclear War and Jewish Law
Click to expand...
Summary
Fighting on the Same Team: Ethics within the Army
Peace Treaties
Click to expand...
Pacifism and Quietism
Individual Pacifism
Societal Pacifism
Quietism
Conclusion
Click to expand...
jlaw.com/Articles/war1.html

Basically, God is in charge, he gave the Land to Isreal, God lead them into battle. Whole nations that were a temptation for them to turn their back on God towards false gods were wiped out.
 
K C:

Sometimes the meaning suffers in the translation. The ancient Greeks had many meanings for one word and I’m sure the scribes must have scratched their heads just as we do.

Not to detract from your thread, here I feel is another contradiction I found that makes your point.

I was reading EX 4,21 “…I will make him obstinate,…”

This peaked my interest, so I checked the footnote for more detail. (The footnote is meant to explain further references in this Book where the same wording is used ie: 14,17 etc.)
Code: 
     4,21. Make him obstinate: literally, "harden his heart" God permitted Pharoah to be stubborn in his opposition to the departure of the Israelites.
This to me didn’t seem to be a reasonable explaination. We are not reading of God’s permission, but an action of God. If God desired something to occur, He would use the grammatical unambiguous “Subject/Cause/Action” logical format. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, I looked elsewhere for context where cause due to His will should render a footnote similar for consistantcy.
Code: 
     We find what we want in Lev 10,3,  "I will manifest my sacredness;...."                  

     10,3 I will manifest my sacredness: the presence of God is so sacred that it strikes dead those who approach him without proper holiness.
The Author accepts what is said literally here. “Subject/Cause/Action” is clearly the rule to his logic. I investigated further back, and went to Septuagint 3c, b.c. ( A. Rahlfs) LXX for it’s reference on Ex 4,21. Strangely enough we have a conflict. It reads “I will harden…”, the ancient Greek
(see thumbnail below)…
Code: 
       (K.C. here I inserted the graphic greek rendition)

     Here the Hebrew to Greek translators set down Our Lord's exact word,......harden.
It could be that our footnote author in his zeal, misquoting God for our sake seemed to be the proper thing to do, then went on to footnote the misquote. Another reason could be his attempt to circumvent the “free will” issue this utterance invokes. It could also be due to corruption through the biblical stages ie: codex,etc. Who knows for sure.

I conclude from this that one cannot rely on a valid interpretation from the NAB as regards to OT, let alone rely on the footnotes. And that is not an easy conclusion on my part as it has served my family faithfully for 30 years. We can be assured the Hebrew translation of the Pentateuch to Septuagint is almost accurate, as this work would have been commenced at about the same time the last Book, Malachi, was written.

What is required for a family bible are accurate utterances of all participants in the Books, with appropriate footnotes based on the those sayings. It is bad enough trying to understand complexities and contexts, than to add to it the errors of New World scribes.

I apologize if my pic doesn’t show properly as I did my best drawing it out. I need a proper unicode font for it’s textual display.)

(Not sure if these reference links work anymore.}
Code: 
     [unbound.biola.edu/](http://unbound.biola.edu/)

     [gnte.org/scriptorium/rangefour.htm](http://www.gnte.org/scriptorium/rangefour.htm)
K.C. One comes away with the feeling the scribes could have done a better job had they put their heads togeather as a single project, rather than to approportion each is own.

Andy
 
Daniel Marsh said:
“David disobeys God by taking a census of the people, and God decides to punish an army of innocent bystanders rather than punishing David only:”

David was comander and chief, so it makes perfect sense that God would take it out on his army. If God were to kill David directly then David would not have had the opporturnity to repent. Also, the line of the Messiah would be through David.

Today, President Bush sent troops into battle to fight terrorism. In future textbooks it will say that Bush fought terrorist during his administration.

Basically, it is simply an argument from who is in charge.

David’s reputation was that of a warrior, thus a defeat would get to David.

When a King disobeyed God, God took it out on the whole nation.

When Pharoh hardened his heart, God sent plagues on all of Egypt. It is simply authority.
Click to expand...

Hmmm…sorry, but I can’t concede your point on this one. Are you really saying that the dead soldiers don’t really matter? Because that IS how it appears to be from God’s perspective…that only DAVID mattered! But, if this is so, God must “play favorites”, and I know the Church does not teach this.

Can you really think that David’s “defeat would get to” him nearly as much as death would “get to” his followers? The real question is here, of course, one of God’s sense of JUSTICE. Since the army was sworn to obey David (and probably LOVED him as well), how could it be just for God to destroy THEM rather than punish David in some other, personal, way for his sin?

I’m sorry, but your argument just doesn’t ring true. As for the Jewish “laws of war”, I’m not really interested as it is GOD’S actions which seem unreasonable here, not the army’s.

Also, Ryan, thank you for your considerable effort in your post, but I found it a bit confusing. Furthermore, my interest in footnotes is not piqued at this moment, nor in the comparisons of translations. The fact remains…either we can believe in what the bible says (with proper Church authority support) or we cannot. If one cannot understand/defend the apparent contradictions in the texts of the OT, then how can we explain our belief in those of the NT? As I said, I also prefer the old Douay-Rheims, yet the language is often vague. Many modern translations are often questionable. However, these seemingly conflicting texts seem to hold throughout them. God still “incites” David or “hardens his heart” and then slays thousands of others for David’s sin.
 
Hi KC, I am sticking with the authority of the King on this one.

David sinned.
David repented.
God gave David three choices of disasters, famine or war.
David choose the disasters which David saw as the lesser of evils so to speak.

So, it is the authority of the King because of his sin.

There is another story in the scriptures where a man hid some money or an idol from a conquered people in his tent and God brought death on many in the camp. God sometimes judges harshily.

God is in charge.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Hi KC, I am sticking with the authority of the King on this one.

David sinned.
David repented.
God gave David three choices of disasters, famine or war.
David choose the disasters which David saw as the lesser of evils so to speak.

So, it is the authority of the King because of his sin.

There is another story in the scriptures where a man hid some money or an idol from a conquered people in his tent and God brought death on many in the camp. God sometimes judges harshily.

God is in charge.
Click to expand...
THAT is beyond doubt…mine, at least. However, how does one answer an apostate who maintains that the OT describes a terribly unmerciful, vengeful God in various conflicting stories and that this is the basis for the apostacy?? How can we justify, as Christians, our belief and loyalty to a God who seems unjust in His punishments? Further, God gives us our intellect, our power to reason rather than simply act out our instinctive emotions. Yet, when we question His actions because they seem unfair, His only answer seems to be “how DARE you question me?” (see JOB). God CREATED our inquisitive natures. This seems to be the greatest contradiction of all!
 
David did choose the way, where he expected God to show some mercy and the text says God showed mercy. Part of the bigger picture is in the next chapter God does not want David to build the temple because of blood on Davids’ hands.
 
Hi KC, what is the deeper issue, big picture of what’s happening with you?
 
Romans 9
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”* 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ "[j]

27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”

29It is just as Isaiah said previously:
“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”[l]

Israel’s Unbelief
30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” 33As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”

It all boils down to, our arms are too short to box with God.*
 
KC, whatever the bigger issue is, get involved with a faith community and work through it, otherwise whatever it is, is going to eat you alive. Check out a book called the Psychology of Atheistism by Paul Vitz.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top