|
|
If the complexity of design in the universe argues for a creator, then how can God, who is more complex, not be created?
We must tackle two issues here: first how we categorize things, and how we define those categories.
The first issue raised is one of category. In the entire realm of existence there are only two types of things: created things and non-created things. Those are the only two types of things that can exist. When we look at man-made objects surrounding us, we see created things. We know they had a beginning, because we've seen them in production, or we have read about their manufacture, etc. These things are easy to classify.
Other things, like those that are found in nature, are also created things. We sometimes understand the processes that began their formation, but we also base that conclusion on the fact that they're following the law of entropy. Things are decaying, eroding, or dying. We can understand that they had a beginning because left to themselves they will deteriorate into something less than what they started. Now, this is not to say that everything that is eternal is not created, but only anything that is not eternal must be a created thing by definition.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, the most upsetting admission of the modern era is when science had proven the universe is running down. This led to Big Bang models and others, but the conclusion that could not be avoided (though they tried very hard through expansion and contraction models, etc.) is that the universe had a beginning, and therefore is a created thing. This admission is huge to those trying to prove the universe doesn't need God to exist!
Now we can look at the other category, the non-created things. One would expect something that had no beginning to not be constrained to time as we measure it. In fact, most scientists know that time is tied to the universe as a dimension like length, or height, or width (this is why physicists refer to matters as happening in space-time). This idea means that time is a created thing also. A non-created thing would have to exist outside time altogether! We would then expect that non-created thing to never change because, being outside time, it is the same at its beginning, its middle, and its end. A non-created thing must necessarily be eternal. This leads to our next question.
If something is created, who or what created it?
If the universe is created, and left to itself it will run down, then who put it together in the first place? We know it shows intelligence, design, and balance. It is logical to look at the evidence and argue for the existence of a creator. If the universe is a thing, and it is a created thing, then it had to come from something else. A thing cannot come from no-thing. That would be a logical contradiction. A state of being “A” couldn’t come from an anti-“A”. Since the state of being anti-“A” entails a negation of any “A” (none of “A” can be around for anti-“A” to be true), it doesn’t make sense to claim that the very thing negated would spring forth from its negator.
So, if the created thing must come from something else, then it must come from something that exists prior to it. If we look at all the created things as a whole, they must come from a non-created thing. That is the only logical option open to us!
So far we have made a lot of head way. We know the universe is a created thing. We know that it must come from something else. We know that some type of non-created thing must exist in order to have created things exist. We also know that this non-created thing must be unchanging and outside of time. That is a lot. What we haven't done is label that non-created thing. We call that which is non-created, that which fashioned our existence, "God". We would expect, then, for that non-created thing to be more complex and more intelligent than the thing He created. It is logical, and it is consistent with the way we see the universe ordered.
The part that is truly amazing is that the Bible reflects this idea completely. The Bible shows God as being outside of time (ref. 2 Peter 3:8, Isaiah 43:13, etc.) and as a non-created being bringing creation forth (ref. John 1:3). It alludes to the universe expanding (Isaiah 42:5, Jeremiah 10:12), and the fact that God can see all of time at one moment (Isaiah 46:10). The idea of God not just having an infinite amount of time, but being outside time altogether is unique to the Bible. No other religious book makes such a claim.
To me, the whole idea of God showing us in His word that He is the Creator, not a creation reinforces my faith. Because modern science is just now getting to the place where we can start to appreciate what it means to be eternal, it demonstrates that we hold to an intelligent faith.
|
Discrepancies and Contradictions?
God is satisfied with his works (Gen. 1:31) compared toGod is dissatisfied with his works. (Gen 6:6)
This is an obvious case of both/and, for something occurred after Gen 1:31 and before Gen 6:6, namely, the Fall. Evil entered creation as a result of man's volition. One can argue the theological implications elsewhere, as the only relevant point is that this is not an obvious contradiction. When God created, all was good. After man rebelled, God grieved.
God dwells in chosen temples (2 Chr. 7:12, 16) compared to God dwells not in temples (Acts 7:48).
Where's the contradiction here. The claim that "my eyes and heart will always be there" appears to mean nothing more to me than the fact that the LORD would pay special attention to the temple and have a special affinity for it; the LORD would reveal Himself to His people through the temple. Stephen's speech in Acts merely highlights the transcendence of God. Put simply, if you put these together you arrive at the following truth - God is transcendent, yet He reveals Himself where He will.
God dwells in light (1 Tim 6:16) compared to God dwells in darkness (1 Kings 8:12; Ps. 18:11, and 97:2)
These are metaphors and it would seem unwise to take such language too literally when describing God. But what could such seemingly contradictory metaphors convey? Note that in both cases there is the theme of the unsearchableness of God. That is, the light is unapproachable and the darkness is thick and covers a secret place. Thus, these verses could actually be teaching the same thing - simply that God is unapproachable.
One could also note that Paul's account is quite optimistic following from a consideration of Christ. Prior to the Incarnation, there was indeed a certain darkness associated with the hidden God. But the eyes of the blind have been opened!
Or it could be said that the verses in 1 Kings and Psalms need be nothing more than a description of God perceived through the memory of His interation with His people described in Exodus19:9.
God is seen and heard (Gen. 3:9, 10, 32:30; Ex 24:9-11, 33:11, 23; Isa 6:1) compared to God is invisible and cannot be heard (Ex 33:20; John 5:37 and 1 Tim. 6:16)
Theses “contradictions" are easily resolved if one accepts the Trinitarian view of God. Allow me to repost a reply which addressed a similar point, and in doing so, resolves this contradiction....
In a previous post, someone attempts to discredit the deity of Christ by appealing to John 1:18.
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)
He notes:
"If no man has seen God, then logically Jesus was not God, since there is no secular record of an outbreak of sightlessness in Judea in Jesus' time".
How shall the Christian respond? Well, let's consider the statement that "No man hath seen God." Consider the following verses from the Old Testament (OT):
Sarai says "You are the God who sees me," for she said,
"I have now seen the One who sees me" (Gen 16:13)
"So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen 32:30)
"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel." (Ex 24: 9-10)
"they saw God" (Ex 24:11)
"We have seen God!" (Judges 13:22) Now while this person's logic seems to rule out that Jesus was God, it also means that the Bible contains a very significant contradiction. If no one has seen God, how is it that Sarai, Jacob, Moses et al, and Monoah and his wife are said to have seen God?
Actually, this is a problem only for those who deny the deity of Christ while claiming to follow the teachings of the Bible. Let's look again at John 1:18:
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who is at the Father's side, has made him known."
I think it is clear that John is speaking of the Father as the one who has not been seen. To paraphrase it, "No one has ever seen God, but the Son, who is at His side, has made Him known". This interpretation not only seems to follow naturally from this verse, but is also quite consistent with the Logos doctrine taught in John 1. Recall, it is the Logos who mediates between God and man, and who reveals God to man. Jesus would later say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." Prior to the Incarnation of the Son, no one had seen the Father, for it is through the Son that the Father is revealed.
So for the Trinitarian, there is no Bible contradiction. No one ever saw God the Father, and what Sarai, Jacob, Moses, etc saw was God the Son. This can be seen from many perspectives, but let's simply consider one from Isaiah 6. Isaiah "saw the Lord" (v 1). Seraphs were praising the "Lord Almighty" (v 3). Isaiah is overwhelmed and responds, "Woe to me, I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips [this rules him out as the servant in Isaiah 53], and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty" (v 5). Later, we read:
"Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (vs. 8).
Again, the plurality of God is implied. Isaiah asks God to send him, and then God gave him a message to preach.
Now it's time to jump to John 12:37-41. John claims that the peoples failure to believe in Jesus was a fulfillment of these teachings Isaiah received from the Lord in Isaiah 6. Then note verse 41.
"Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him".
Here is a clear example where John equates Jesus with the Lord Almighty seen by Isaiah! This all fits together beautifully. Isaiah sees the Lord Almighty, yet he sees Jesus' glory. Jesus speaks as a plural being (who will go for US). It is the Son who is seen, not the Father.
Thus, John 1:18 does not mean that Jesus was not God, it only means He is not the Father. This verse presents no problems for the Trinitarian, and in fact, when studied, serves as a great launching point for finding Christ in the OT. Prior to the Logos dwelling amongst us and revealing the Father to us, no one had seen the Father. But because of the Incarnation, we can now cry, "Abba, Father" (Romans 8:15) and "Our Father who art in heaven"! Those who see the Son can see the Father.
God is tired and rests (Ex 31:17) compared to God is never tired and never rests (Isa. 40:28)
According to Haley, and many others, the term "rested and was refreshed' is simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation and took delight in surveying the work.
God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things (Job 34:21, 22; Prov 15:3; and Ps. 139:7-10) compared to God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things (Gen. 3:8, 11:5 and 18:20-21)
How could one hide from God? Why does God need to ask this question?
First, what Adam and Eve could have hid from is merely the visible and special manifestation of the Lord. As for God's seeming ignorance, anyone with children can recognize the utility of such questions. If a child is known to have broken a lamp, it is better to question the child than to simply accuse her. The former approach enables the child to take an active role in her wrong-doing, and allows for her to apologize.
Note that God asked several questions:
"Where are you?....Who told you that you were naked?....Have you eaten of the fruit of the tree?"
Note the response. Instead of begging for mercy and confessing their sins, both the man and woman justified themselves and sought to put the blame on another. So typically human! By asking these questions, God enabled the man and woman to either freely repent or to firmly establish their sinfulness. Thus, while the critic thinks these are questions demonstrating ignorance, such an interpretation can be easily dismissed in light of the above considerations. What of the others?
"But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that men were building." (Gen 11:5)
"The LORD said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sins so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." (Gen 18:20-21) These look like common human notions of someone coming down to check out what is going on. And perhaps, that's how the writer of these accounts understood God. But perhaps there is also another layer to the account. Obviously, it teaches God's transcendence. But it also demonstrates God's interest. He is not an aloof sky-god. And he doesn't watch from afar. He gets right down into human history.
But there is more. Maimonides once noted that just as the word 'ascend', when applied to the mind, implies noble and elevated objects, the word 'descend' implies turning one's mind to things of lowly and unworthy character. Thus, God is not "coming down" in a physical sense, but in a "mental" sense, where he turns his attention to the sinful activity of men and invokes judgment. Of course, it is hard to describe God in human language, but I think the above account is not unreasonable.
Since these supposed contradictions depend on a particular interpretation which is (or at the very least may be) in error, no contradiction has been established.
|
God knows the hearts of men (Acts 1:24 and Ps. 139:2, 3) compared to God tries men to find out what is in their heart (Gen. 22:12; Deut 8:2, 13:3)
We'll assume that God knows the hearts of men, so let us determine if the above three verses are necessarily contradictions.
Could it be that these three instances simply serve to reveal and verify to man that which is already known by God? Anyone who has ever had a college chemistry course can probably relate to the following. A chemistry professor comes into class, and says, "I will now add acetic acid to this compound to see what happens." The professor already knows what will happen! After the experiment, he might even add, "I now know that such and such results will occur after adding the acid." Here he is simply putting himself in the place of the class, and speaking for them.
What the three verses could be showing is that once again, God is not some aloof sky-god who merely dictates. Instead, he relates. By asking questions, by claiming to have found something, he relates and allows man to play an active, not passive, role in the relationship. For example, Abraham now knew that God knew his heart. And he also knew God's knowledge was true in light of the 'test' that he just went through.
In this supposed contradiction, along with the one immediately prior, the critic perceives ignorance on the part of God because of a belief that an omniscient God ought to dictate. Why can't an omniscient God refrain from dictating, and simply relate in a way which intimately involves humanity?
God is all powerful (Jer 32:27 and Matt. 19:26) compared to God is not all powerful (Judg 1:19)
This is obviously not a contradiction. John Baskette notes that the critic is "reading the verse as saying that the LORD ... he ... could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley." He adds: "This is an egregiously bad misreading of the text. The 'he' is Judah! not the LORD. That should be obvious to even the most obtuse objector."
God is unchangeable (Num 23:19; Ezek 24:14; Mal 3:6 and James 1:17) compared to God is changeable (Gen 6:6; Ex 33:1, 3, 14, 17; 1 Sam 2:30, 31; 2 Kings 20:1, 4, 5, 6 and Jonah 3:10)
Once again, these purported contradictions all presuppose some platonic-type sky god. Christianity has always believed that God is a God who relates and who is personal. And whenever there is a personal relationship, there is a dynamic. And dynamics can involve both immutability and change. Whenever you have a personal dynamic, when one person changes, the other responds in a way which reflects this change. But all is not relative. If God's essence is immutable, then He is the standard by which such change is understood.
For example, imagine you are in a field standing next to a tree. As you walk around the tree, you may end up north of the tree (and the tree is south of you). If you continue walking, such a relative relationship changes, so that you might find yourself south of the tree (and the tree is north of you). In the same way, our behavior towards God is like walking around the tree. Depending upon what we do, God is in a different relationship with us.
Let's consider a better analogy. A man and a wife are in a happy marriage. The man commits adultery, and the wife becomes unhappy. Has the wife changed in a significant manner? Not really. Her change is a function of what her husband did, and reflects the immutability of her belief that infidelity is wrong.
In the purported contradictions, we have a set of Scriptures which speak of God's essence - it is unchangeable. The other set deal with God's relationships with men (they don't abstractly speak of God's essence). Thus, as the above analogies show, there need be no contradiction.
God is just and impartial (Gen 18:25; Deut 32:4; Ps 92:15 Ezek 18:25 and Rom 2:11) compared to God is unjust and partial (Gen. 9:25, 18:24, 25; Ex 20:5; Deut 32:4; Ps 92:15; Ezek 18:25; Matt 13:12; Rom 2:11, and 9:11-13)
"So he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." (Gen 9:25) Here, one must read a contradiction into the teachings as it is unclear whether Noah's curse would make God "unrighteous."
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers in the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me." (Ex 20:5) The following verse notes that loving-kindness extends to thousands of generations of those who love God. This leads me to believe this verse is hyperbolic and thus difficult to make into a contradiction. For example, is God really unrighteous for bestowing blessings for a thousand generations, yet visiting iniquity for ONLY three or four generations? The thrust seems to run in the other direction. Whether or not one views this as "unrighteous" is a function of their ethics, and thus the "contradiction" is read into the scripture. (BTW, I would note, however, that sinful behavior is often transmitted in families. For example, the son of an alcoholic is often an alcoholic himself.)
MaryAnna responds to another related "contradiction" which is also relevant here:
Are children punished for the sins of the parents?
Exo. 20:5 tells us that God is to be feared, as He has the ability to visit the sins of the fathers on the children.
Ezek. 18:20 tells us this will not happen if the children repent and turn away from the ways of their fathers. Not a contradiction.
"for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." [Rom 9:11-13] Again, I view that "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" as a hyperbole which indicates that God simply favored Esau. This is not a clear case of unrighteousness.
"For whoever has, to him shall more be given, and he shall have in abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken from him." [Mt 13:12] I view this as a proverbial way of saying that he who improves upon the gifts that he receives will receive more, but he who does not improve upon them (i.e., neglects or takes them for granted) shall have them removed. I find this the very opposite of unrighteousness.
God is the author of evil (Lam 3:38; Jer 18:11; Is 45:7; Ez 20:25 and (Amos 3:6)compared to God is not the author of evil (1 Cor 14:33; Deut 32:4 and James 1:13)
Now in Deut 32:4, we read that God is just. None of the above verses teach that God is unjust. Paul is speaking about God in the context of Church gatherings - that in such gatherings, God is a God of peace, not confusion. None of the above verses speak of such Church gatherings. James teaches that God does not tempt anyone with evil. None of the above verses teach that God tempts with evil. (Ez 20:25 is best understood in light of Romans 1). Thus, no obvious contradictions in this set.
God gives freely to those who ask (James 1:5 and Luke 11:10) compared to God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving them (John 12:40; Josh 11:20 and Is 63:17)
Joshua 11:20 says nothing about some asking, and God refusing to give. Is 63:17 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. John 12:40 says nothing about someone asking, and God refusing to give. In these three verses, it is mentioned that God "hardened the hearts" of someone. If someone never asked, and will never truly ask, it is not a contradiction to harden one's heart, yet give to those who DO ask.
God is to be found by those who seek him (Matt 7:8 and Prov 8:17)compared to
God is not to be found by those who seek him (Prov 1:28)
"Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they shall not find me." (Pr 1:28)
Here, the context has been ignored. First of all, it is wisdom which is speaking. Those who laugh, scoff, and refuse wisdom are not going to magically find it when calamity strikes. If one wishes to identify wisdom with God, the same principle holds - those who scoff, reject, and laugh at God are not going to find God when calamity strikes. After all, if they look, they look through the filters of selfishness (i.e., "save my butt"). Instead of calling on God or looking for God, they should be repenting. But those who live a life of scorning God are not those who repent when disaster strikes. Thus, no contradiction.
|
God is warlike (Ex 15:3 and Is 51:15) compared to God is peaceful (Rom 15:33 and 1 Cor 14:33)
"The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name." [Ex 15:3]
(Is 51:15 has nothing to do with war)
"The God of peace be with you all. Amen" [Rom 15:33]
"For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace." [1 Cor 14:33]
It seems clear that God reveals Himself as a God of Battles in much of the OT. So what of these NT teachings? This "contradiction" is premised on equivocation, where the NT references to peace are interpreted to be the antonym of war, when this is obviously not the case. In Romans, Paul seems to be speaking of peace in a subjective, existential sense -- a relationship with God brings a sense of peace. In Corinthians, Paul is speaking about the activity of Church congregations -- they should be orderly and peaceful, not full of confusion and contention. No obvious contradiction here.
God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious (Jer 13:14; Deut 7:16; 1 Sam 15:2,3 and 1 Sam 6:19)compared to God is kind, merciful, and good (James 5:11; Lam 3:33; 1 Chron 16:34; Ezek 18:32; Ps 145:9; 1 Tim 2:4; 1 John 4:16 and Ps 25:8)
The first set of scriptures say nothing about God being cruel (this is a subjective call). They deal simply and bluntly with God's judgment. Thus, we have a both/and situation here. Yes, God is merciful and full of compassion. Yet, those who reject his mercy and compassion will find that His judgment in unrelenting and ferocious -- that is His nature.
God's anger is fierce and endures long (Num 32:13,25:4 and Jer 17:4) compared to
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute (Ps 103:8 and Ps 30:5)
The verse in Numbers and Jeremiah do not teach some general truth that "God's anger is fierce and endures long." This is the critic's personal interpretation. In Jeremiah, in RESPONSE to Judah's great sin, God's anger is kindled (which itself, implies that it is slow to occur) and will "burn forever." I view this as a hyperbole (like "walking a thousand miles"). Put simply, God's anger against Judah would endure long. In Num 32, God's anger burned against Israel because of their sin and he made them wander in the desert 40 years. In Num 25, we read that God had Moses slay those who sought to contaminate the Jews with pagan ideals in order that his fierce anger may turn away from Israel. Since there is no contradiction between a fierce anger, and an anger slow to rise, this is an irrelevant verse.
So let's focus on duration. Above, we saw that God's anger lasted long (in human terms) in SPECIFIC cases as the RESULT of sinful behavior. What of the Psalms? First, let's keep in mind that we have now entered the territory of another genre - poetry. As such, it's going to be hard to make an unequivocal contradiction. Anyway, in Ps 103, we simply note that God is slow to anger. Nothing in Jer or Num contradicts this. In Ps 30:5, it appears as if David is speaking from his personal experience with God in saying that God's anger lasts only a moment. And what is a 'moment' in poetical terms anyway? And could this teaching be yet one more proverbial way of saying that God is far more gracious than angry? That is, when all is said and done, what is revealed is a God who is slow to anger, quick to forgive, yet who can indeed demonstrate a fierce anger when provoked by great or ubiquitous sin. I see no obvious contradiction here.
God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days (Ex 29:18,36; Lev 1:9, 23:27)compared to God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days (Jer 6:20, 7:22; Ps 50:13,4 and Is 1:13,11,12)
The first set of Scriptures explains where God institutes sacrifices, etc., among Israel. Nothing in the second set contradicts this. In Jer 7:22, we read, "I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices," The author of this supposed contradiction conveniently left out the next verse: " but I gave them this command: "Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people." This is obviously not a disapproval of burnt offerings, but a disapproval on emphasizing such offerings to the exclusion of obedience in all areas. Jer 6:20 speaks of the incense in Sheba, hardly contradicting the first set. The verse in Psalms is lifted out of context, as the LORD clearly says, "I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices." (Ps 50:8). The verses in Isaiah are also lifted out of context. God rebukes the people for the sacrifices because they represent religious hypocrisy. Is 1:15-17 clearly demonstrate this.
God accepts human sacrifices (2 Sam 21:8,9,14; Gen 22:2 and Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39) compared to God forbids human sacrifice (Deut 12:30,31)
The account in Gen 22:2 has been the subject of a great wealth of religious speculation, but the fact remains that Isaac was not sacrificed. The account in 2 Sam is misnamed as a "human sacrifice." It looks far more like an execution carried out by the Gibeonites because Saul had previously persecuted them. The verses in Judges do not obviously indicate that Jephthah offered his daughter as a "human sacrifice" and if He did, there is no indication that God "accepted it." No contradictions here.
God tempts men (Gen 22:1; 2 Sam 24:1; Jer 20:7 and Matt 6:13) compared to God tempts no man (James 1:13)
Gen 22 refers to testing; 2 Sam says nothing about God tempting; In Jer 20, the prophet Jeremiah is simply complaining. Just because in a moment of desperation, he accuses God of deceiving him, does not mean that God DID deceive him. Mt 6:13 is part of the Lord's prayer, "lead us not into temptation." The prayer simply inquires of God that helps us keep our distance from temptation (hardly an example of God tempting men!). The only possible hope of a contradiction in this set is to equate testing with temptation. But is testing identical to tempting? For example, let's say God wants to test someone's honesty and puts them in a room with a lost wallet. Is this tempting? I think not. To truly tempt, God would have to whisper, "Pick it up, keep it, no one will know, etc." No clear contradictions here.
God cannot lie (Heb 6:18)compared to God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive (2 Thes 2:11; 1 Kings 22:23 and Ezek 14:9)
In this case, we need not even consider the scriptures. As "sending forth lying spirits" is not the same as actually lying yourself.
But, MaryAnna White notes:
1 Kings 22:21-22 Lying spirit - Here, of course, God does not lie directly nor approve of nor sanction man's lying. One could argue that all that happens on earth is permitted by God - He could stop it if He saw fit. He even permitted Satan to cause Job to suffer - a much more interesting case. But that does not mean that He is the source of all such things. They just afford Him opportunities, as here, to accomplish what He is after. As they are useful to Him, He permits them to continue for a season. Like Judas. Eventually, those instruments no longer useful, all such spirits and men will be judged by being cast into the eternal lake of fire. That is neither approval nor sanction, but merely proof of God's sovereignty. --MAW
The basic point is that by allowing the spirit to lie, God is not Himself lying. After all, God allows us all to lie, but He is not a liar for allowing us to lie.
Because of man's wickedness God destroys him (Gen 6:5,7) compared to Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him (Gen 8:21)
This is only a contradiction because the critic interprets it as so. Does Genesis 8:21 say that God will not destroy man because he is wicked? Not really. For God says that he will never again curse the ground, even though man's heart is evil (NIV). Furthermore, cursing the ground does not necessarily mean the same thing as destroying man, now does it?
God's attributes are revealed in his works (Rom 1:20)compared to God's attributes cannot be discovered (Job 11:7 and Is 40:28)
Romans 1:20 simply notes that Creation points to the Creator - a divine being of great power. Job 11:7 points out that we can never fully grasp the divine, it does NOT say that God cannot be inferred from nature. Is 40:28 notes that we can never hope to fully scrutinize the understanding of God. None of this is contradictory.
There is but one God (Deut 6:4)compared to There is a plurality of gods (Gen 1:26, 3:22, 18:1-3 and 1 John 5:7)
This, of course, would lead us to a discussion of the Trinity, something that is beyond the scope of this article. Trinitarian theology is a classic example of "both/and" thinking. Besides, what of Deut 6:4?
Deut. 6:4 reads, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."
Now it is important to note that the Hebrew word used for 'one' is NOT yahid, which denotes absolute singularity elsewhere in the OT. Instead, Moses chose the Hebrew word ehad, which signifies unity and oneness in plurality. This word is used in Gen 2:24 where Adam and Eve are instructed to become "one flesh". It's also found in Numbers 13:23, where the Hebrew spies returned with a "single cluster" of grapes. So Deut 6:4 actually supports the concept of the Trinity, by noting that God is "oneness in plurality" (composite unity). The same word which describes the oneness of a marriage relationship is also used to describe God's essence!
See also our section on the Trinity for more on this.
Robbery commanded [Ex 3:21,22 / Ex 12:35,36]
Robbery forbidden [Lev 19:13 / Ex 20:15]
It's not at all obvious that you can refer to the instances in Ex 3, 12 as "robbery." When African-Americans demand recompensation for their history of slavery, are they demanding to rob white people? Thus, these are not obvious examples of God commanding robbery. Besides, in Ex. 3 and 12, the Israelites asked the Egyptians for goods.
|
Robbery commanded (Ex 3:21,22, and Ex 12:35,36)compared to Robbery forbidden (Lev 19:13 and Ex 20:15)
It's not at all obvious that you can refer to the instances in Ex 3, 12 as "robbery." When African-Americans demand recompensation for their history of slavery, are they demanding to rob white people? Thus, these are not obvious examples of God commanding robbery. Besides, in Ex. 3 and 12, the Israelites asked the Egyptians for goods.
Lying approved and sanctioned (Josh 2:4-6; James 2:25; Ex 1:18-20 and 1 Kings 22:21,22) compared to Lying forbidden (Ex 20:16; Prov 12:22 and Rev 21:8)
Rev speaks of all liars being cast into the lake of fire. Since the first set of scriptures do not say otherwise, we can dismiss this one. Proverbs speaks of lying as an abomination. Since the first set of scriptures do not say lying is not an abomination, we can dismiss this one. The verse in Ex is one of the Ten Commandments.
It's not obvious to me that lying is approved of in the above situations. Concerning Rahab (Josh 2:4-6), James says, "the harlot was justified by works, when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way" (James 2:25). Her act of saving the lives of these men is what is approved of. The same goes for Ex 1, where the midwives refuse to kill the male infants which were birthed. As for 1 King 22:21-22, once again it is unclear if lying is truly approved of. According to one Bible scholar:
"The whole declaration of Micaiah...is a figurative and poetical description of a vision that he had seen. Putting aside its rhetorical drapery, the gist of the whole passage is that God for judicial purposes suffered Ahab to be fatally deceived."
Another scholar says:
"Because Ahab had abandoned the Lord his God and hardened his own heart, God allowed his ruin by the very instrument Ahab had sought to prostitute for his own purposes, namely, prophecy. God used the false declarations of the false prophets that Ahab was so enamored with as his instruments of judgment."
Since it is unclear that God truly approves of lying in this case, the contradiction is not established.
Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned (2 Kings 14:7,3) compared to Hatred to the Edomite forbidden (Deut 23:7)
The account in Deut indeed forbids hatred against the Edomite. Does the account in 2 Kings sanction it? Not at all. It merely mentions that Amaziah slew many Edomites. And while hatred can be part of warfare, it need not be. And since the account in 2 Kings doesn't even mention hatred of the Edomites, this is obviously a concocted contradiction.
Killing commanded (Ex 32:27) compared to Killing forbidden (Ex 20:13)
Ex 20:13 reads, "You shall not murder." Not all killing is murder.
The blood-shedder must die (Gen 9:5,6)compared to The blood-shedder must not die (Gen 4:15)
Gen 4:15 makes no such generalization. It is specific to Cain. This is an example where the critic takes an incident and transforms it into an absolute principle. Besides, the covenant in Gen 9 was made with Noah, who existed much later than did Cain.
The making of images forbidden (Ex 20:4)compared to The making of images commanded (Ex 25:18,20)
Ex 20:4 states than one should not make idols and bow down and worship them. The cherubims in Ex 25 are not idols, nor were they worshipped.
Slavery and oppression ordained (Gen 9:25; Lev 25:45,46 and Joel 3:8) compared to
Slavery and oppression forbidden (Is 58:6; Ex 22:21; Ex 21:16 and Matt 23:10)
Slavery and oppression (two different things in the Bible)
Gen. 9:25 Canaan is punished, sentenced to be a bondsman. (slave) This is a punishment by God upon Ham through the mouth of his father Noah for his rebellious insubordination and disregard for God's authority on earth at that time - his father. He could have been killed for this, but instead he was merely told that some of his descendents would be slaves. This is not a condoning of oppression, but a prophecy that such a judgment would indeed be carried out. (Ones who died for rebellion include Korah and Absalom; Miriam was judged with a case of leprosy for a few days.) This verse says nothing to those who would be the slave owners as to whether their action is condoned or not.
Lev. 25:45 It's ok to buy a stranger for a bondsman/woman if someone sells him/her to you, as long as it's not a fellow Israelite.
Joel 3:8 God punishes Tyre (?) by selling the people to the Israelites as slaves and then selling them to the Sabeans.
Still no mention of condoning oppression.
Isa. 58:6 mentions a particular fast to Jehovah as a breaking of every yoke. Surely that cannot refer to (include) the yoke on the oxen, so there is some limitation to which yokes are broken. Some yokes are forbidden - i.e. yoking a fellow Israelite- and are undoubtedly included. The case of a foreign slave could be argued either way and hence this verse is not a clear contradiction of any of the above.
Exod. 22:21 Not permitted to vex or oppress strangers. Does not say, not permitted to buy them.
Exod. 21:16 Not permitted to steal and sell people. Does not say, not permitted to buy and sell them.
Matt. 23:10 is irrelevant. It says, "Neither be called instructors, because One is your Instructor, the Christ." (RV). Footnote: "Or, guides, teachers, directors." This section is talking about how we address fellow believers. It earlier says to call no one "father." Obviously it is talking here about differentiating among believers by bestowing titles of honor. These titles should be reserved for God alone, not bestowed on men. But our physical father is still our father, our school teachers are still our teachers, and our masters, if we are slaves, are still our masters and are to be called such if they so demand. The President is still the President, etc. We are admonished in the Bible to show honor to those in authority over us in our families, in the government, etc. --MAW
Gen 9:25 has Noah stating that Canaan will be the servant of Japheth. This does not necessarily read as the ordination of "slavery and oppression" by God. The verses in Lev refer to a mild form of servitude. Joel simply threatens captivity as a punishment for sin. None of these verses unequivocally ordain "slavery and oppression."
On the other hand, the verses in Isaiah and Exodus do forbid truly oppressive behavior. The verse in Mt. is irrelevant to this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
