Contradictions in the Bible

[Grace Seeker]

You can't get with it my friend,even your shell game can't save you this time
1-
In order to understand the new testament passages under discussion we need to go back to the old testament original prophecy regarding Elijah:

According to the Old Testament book of II Kings, Elijah the Prophet had ascended "into heaven" in a "chariot of fire." (see: chapter 2) This spectacular event supposedly happened about 850 years before Christ. Later, in about 450 BC, Malachi prophesied that this same Elijah, who had ascended into heaven, was also going to return from heaven to herald the coming of the Messiah:

.... Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5

The Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day were well aware of the 'return of Elijah' prophecy. At one time the rabbis had asked Jesus' disciples to explain how Jesus could possibly have been the Messiah when it was obvious that Elijah had not returned from heaven yet.

The Apostles couldn't answer this question, so they asked Jesus:

"Why do the Jewish leaders insist Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?"
Jesus answered by first affirming that this question was valid and that this prophecy indeed was true. He said:
"They are right. Elijah must come and set everything in order..."
But then, to everyone's surprise, Jesus explained:
"In fact, he [Elijah] already has come, but he wasn't recognized, and was badly mistreated by many... Then the disciples realized he was speaking of John the Baptist."-Matthew 17:10-13 (LIVING BIBLE-CATHOLIC EDITION) (this account can also be found in: Mark 9:11-13)
Clearly, Jesus taught that this was a true prophecy. Jesus agreed that Elijah indeed "must return before the Messiah comes." But then, to the surprise to everyone there, Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of this prophecy.

How, could John possibly have been the return of Elijah? Malachi didn't say anything about Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way. Neither does he say that some other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah. Instead, Malachi clearly says that Elijah himself was going to return. That's not a difficult concept to visualize. Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire. And he's going to come back. Visibly. Physically. In the flesh.

One of the strongest testimonies that John is not Elijah is on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5). Elijah and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist. One must either concede that they are 2 different people or that John the Baptist turned back into Elijah. To claim that Elijah is John the Baptist is to teach reincarnation. The premise is that a spirit in a former body comes back to be born in another body. At the very least, it is transmigration. The Bible has never taught this. In II Kings 2:1, we find Elijah taken bodily into Heaven. For one to enter Heaven they must be transformed (1 Cor. 15:50-54), changed to an immortal body, a body which is no longer subject to death since corruptible flesh cannot enter into Heaven. If Elijah came back as John the Baptist, and was killed, this would be impossible according to Scripture. For one who has had a changed body to be equipped for Heaven, does not turn back to mortality. If we look at it more carefully in II Kings 2:11 Elijah never experienced physical death so for him to come back in another body means he reincarnated not only in Spirit but in body too, and the Bible never teaches either one of these. Elijah did not die, so the Scripture is not talking about his reincarnation as John the Baptist (2 Kings 2:1,11).The Bible teaches resurrection, a totally different concept.

2-
OT Misquotations -- (1) MATT. 3:3 ("For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias (Isaiah--Ed.), saying, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight") is an inaccurate translation of Isa. 40:3 RSV ("A voice cries: In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God"). Nothing is said in Isaiah about one crying in the wilderness.

3-

Malachi 4:5-6.Behold, I will asend you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the of fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

it very interesting that John the Baptist, who apparently was standing in for a preoccupied Elijah, was supposed to have been trying to reconcile families as stipulated in Malachi 4:5-6. Yet, there is not one reference to John the Baptist ever attempting to perform that required function.
. To make matters worse, Jesus claimed in Luke 12:49-53 that his mission was to divide families.
So we have John the Baptist portrayed as Elijah by the New Testament writers who is supposed to have a mission to reconcile families and Jesus having a mission to divide them. A more absurd set of mission parameters for two men living at the same time, allegedly directed by the same God, I can't imagine. This is the type of nonsense that occurs when writers attempt to concoct and retrofit an agenda or storyline into an existing prophecy as the New Testament authors did.


4-

There is yet a final falsehood to notice in this wonderful NT passage

"But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him." Mark 9:13

first: the death of John is ascribed directly to Herod Antipas,Not the jews as Mark 9:13 claims
(Matthew 14:10). "He [Herod Antipas] sent and had John beheaded in the prison"

second: Mark 9:13 Bless us with imaginary prophecy :

they have done unto him(John the baptist or Elijah ,whatever you wish to call him) whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him."

Question: where is it written in the old testament that (John the baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims (mark 9:13 they have done unto him as it is written of him) ???????

Yet, despite this flaw and the many others noted, millions of people consider this Book a remarkable example of divine word. In reality, the only remarkable thing about it is that so many intelligent people could have been duped into believing that it was remarkable.

You seem to be fond of the Jewish interpretations of the Tanach with regard to Elijah and the Messiah. Do you accept their teachings in other things as well, particularly their understanding regarding who is and who is not a prophet of God?

 

[back_to_faith]

I didn't contradict myself. Christians believe that Christ will return to Earth again...the same with Elijah. When the priests and Levites asked John whether he was Elijah, obviously he was not literally Elijah, the one who had ascended to Heaven physically 878 years earlier.

One must also take into account the words of the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:17 where the Angel speaks to Zechariah, the father of John who was not yet born, "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers". Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the "Elijah" whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, "Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as 'Elijah'?" John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this "Elijah" suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; "the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist". Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", John 1:29.

Keltoi Being factual Has never been one of your strong points !!
finally you blessed us with the official response to The issue of John the baptist......
yes, Any christian would provides a solution to the Elijah-John problem away from the straw (John came with the spirit of Elijah) would be naive and never got a look at Luke 1:17 where the Angel speaks to Zechariah, the father of John who was not yet born, "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

But as I explained before :

1- Malachi didn't say anything about Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way. Neither does he say that some other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah.

2-Instead, Malachi clearly says that Elijah himself was going to return. That's not a difficult concept to visualize. Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire. And he's going to come back. Visibly. Physically. In the flesh.

3- If the new testament Affirms that some hundreds of social reformers and prophets that came with the spirit and power of Elijah ,that will never, ever fulfill Malachi ....
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5

4- Anyone Reads Malachi 4:1-5 , and claims that the text indicates even remotely that Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way,or other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah , then (He.She) must have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually you have come full circle . either John the baptist is Elijah the prophet or he is not ,there is no in between .....

well, apart from that John is Elijah or not the passage is still riddled with errors that you wish you care to defend if you like:

1-John the baptist (or Elijah whatever you like to call him) in order to fulfill the Malachi prophecy was supposed to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and vice versa Yet, there is not one reference to John the Baptist ever attempting to perform that required function.

2- To make matters worse, Jesus claimed in Luke 12:49-53 that his mission was to divide families. So we have John the Baptist portrayed as Elijah by the New Testament writers who is supposed to have a mission to reconcile families and Jesus having a mission to divide them.
Luke 12:51-53 Do you think I(Jesus) came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

3-The Imaginary prophecy of Mark 9:13 should drive the final nail into the coffin of this marvelous NT passage
"But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him." Mark 9:13

A- Where in the new testament the proof that The jews killed John the baptist as Mark claims?

B- Most important ,Where it is written in the old testament that (John the baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims .

I advise you to let the (John the baptist came in the spirit of EliJah Dodge) and try to answer my questions and most important the last one, Where is it written in the old testament that (John the Baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims ?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Keltoi Being factual Has never been one of your strong points !!
finally you blessed us with the official response to The issue of John the baptist......
yes, Any christian would provides a solution to the Elijah-John problem away from the straw (John came with the spirit of Elijah) would be naive and never got a look at Luke 1:17 where the Angel speaks to Zechariah, the father of John who was not yet born, "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

But as I explained before :

1- Malachi didn't say anything about Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way. Neither does he say that some other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah.

2-Instead, Malachi clearly says that Elijah himself was going to return. That's not a difficult concept to visualize. Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire. And he's going to come back. Visibly. Physically. In the flesh.

3- If the new testament Affirms that some hundreds of social reformers and prophets that came with the spirit and power of Elijah ,that will never, ever fulfill Malachi ....
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5

4- Anyone Reads Malachi 4:1-5 , and claims that the text indicates even remotely that Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way,or other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah , then (He.She) must have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually you have come full circle . either John the baptist is Elijah the prophet or he is not ,there is no in between .....

well, apart from that John is Elijah or not the passage is still riddled with errors that you wish you care to defend if you like:

1-John the baptist (or Elijah whatever you like to call him) in order to fulfill the Malachi prophecy was supposed to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and vice versa Yet, there is not one reference to John the Baptist ever attempting to perform that required function.

2- To make matters worse, Jesus claimed in Luke 12:49-53 that his mission was to divide families. So we have John the Baptist portrayed as Elijah by the New Testament writers who is supposed to have a mission to reconcile families and Jesus having a mission to divide them.
Luke 12:51-53 Do you think I(Jesus) came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

3-The Imaginary prophecy of Mark 9:13 should drive the final nail into the coffin of this marvelous NT passage
"But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him." Mark 9:13

A- Where in the new testament the proof that The jews killed John the baptist as Mark claims?

B- Most important ,Where it is written in the old testament that (John the baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims .

I advise you to let the (John the baptist came in the spirit of EliJah Dodge) and try to answer my questions and most important the last one, Where is it written in the old testament that (John the Baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims ?

I'm sorry, but you miss the whole point of the concept of the New Testament. You will note that the Christian concept of who and what the Messiah is and does is considerably different from the Jewish concept. We believe that the Jews got it wrong. They are still waiting, but the Messiah has already come. Further, we think that not only did they get it wrong, but that they misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them. You are asking for a Christians to explain to you how it is that John the Baptist doesn't fit the Jewish understanding of the prophecies regarding Elijah. The answer the interpretation accepted by the Jews of Jesus' day, of today, and that which you are trying to impose on the scriptures is simply wrong. We read the whole set of passages differently. And we aren't under any compulsion to try to make our theology fit your interpretation of the passages, I'll take Jesus' word (or that of the NT author's) over anyone else's view on this, even if it means I have to accept some apparent contradictions with prior understandings of Old Testament passages. And I'll sleep well at night doing so.

 

[back_to_faith]

I'm sorry, but you miss the whole point of the concept of the New Testament. You will note that the Christian concept of who and what the Messiah is and does is considerably different from the Jewish concept. We believe that the Jews got it wrong. They are still waiting, but the Messiah has already come. Further, we think that not only did they get it wrong, but that they misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them. You are asking for a Christians to explain to you how it is that John the Baptist doesn't fit the Jewish understanding of the prophecies regarding Elijah. The answer the interpretation accepted by the Jews of Jesus' day, of today, and that which you are trying to impose on the scriptures is simply wrong. We read the whole set of passages differently. And we aren't under any compulsion to try to make our theology fit your interpretation of the passages, I'll take Jesus' word (or that of the NT author's) over anyone else's view on this, even if it means I have to accept some apparent contradictions with prior understandings of Old Testament passages. And I'll sleep well at night doing so.

Grace Seeker All you are doing now is rehashing the tired old Christian refrain as if you never heard a thing I have said about the (John-Elijah problem)I posted...

you and some other Christians have learned over the centuries that if you keep it nebulous, avoid specifics, employ a lot of grandiloquent rhetoric, and rely on glittering generalities at crucial moments, you attract more and alienate less.
Anyone reads my last posts will think that the following pasage you wrote:

(The Jews misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them.)

should have been written as follows:

(The Gosel writers misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them.)

Anytime you post from now on, I want to see documentation, not pontification. Otherwise, don't bother.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker All you are doing now is rehashing the tired old Christian refrain as if you never heard a thing I have said about the (John-Elijah problem)I posted...

you and some other Christians have learned over the centuries that if you keep it nebulous, avoid specifics, employ a lot of grandiloquent rhetoric, and rely on glittering generalities at crucial moments, you attract more and alienate less.
Anyone reads my last posts will think that the following pasage you wrote:

(The Jews misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them.)

should have been written as follows:

(The Gosel writers misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them.)

Anytime you post from now on, I want to see documentation, not pontification. Otherwise, don't bother.

You have provided many answers to your own questions: "Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of this prophecy." But you don't like that answer. You see in it a contradiction. OK. You see it as a contradiction. You refuse to accept any other way of viewing the world or the text as anything other than a pontification. If the answers are not provided in a way that suites you, then you don't wished to be bothered by them. That only means you want to be the great pontificator, and arbitrator of all truth. Then so be it. Search for truth on your own. If it is even truth that you seek?

 

[Keltoi]

What's with all the "you Christians" stuff? I enjoy a friendly discussion on religious beliefs, but all too often these discussions stop being friendly and become something else. Why is that exactly? I as a Christian have no wish at all to combat Muslims over their religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Christians on this forum are very respectful of Islamic belief, even though they do not accept it as being true. Perhaps it stems from the fact that for Islam to be correct, Christianity must be wrong. That is fine, since the reverse is also true. I just wish these threads could remain respectful and productive and concentrate on religious understanding and not religious confrontation. Just my two cents I guess.

 

[Woodrow]

What's with all the "you Christians" stuff? I enjoy a friendly discussion on religious beliefs, but all too often these discussions stop being friendly and become something else. Why is that exactly? I as a Christian have no wish at all to combat Muslims over their religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Christians on this forum are very respectful of Islamic belief, even though they do not accept it as being true. Perhaps it stems from the fact that for Islam to be correct, Christianity must be wrong. That is fine, since the reverse is also true. I just wish these threads could remain respectful and productive and concentrate on religious understanding and not religious confrontation. Just my two cents I guess.

Speaking as a Muslim I would like to see that also.

Disagreeing with respect does not mean we have to follow another persons beliefs or compromise our own beliefs in any manner.

Courtesy and respect do not require allegiance to another person's religious beliefs.

I believe Christians to be erroneous in their beliefs and I accept the fact the majority of them will believe I am erroneous in my beliefs. But, that does not mean we have to be hostile towards each other.

 

[back_to_faith]

Well, It is obvious that both Grace_seeker and keltoi failed to provide us with the so called old testament prophecy regarding what happened to John the baptist as the writer of Mark claims.
as a matter of fact my request was very simple, Just to copy from the old testament such prophecy and paste it here ,May be both of them still searching the old testament? anyway I assure them ,they can search the old testament till Day of Judgment for such imaginary prophecy and never find it !!.......
well, then I feel the need to highlight another Biblical contradiction

Queastion oes God ever repent of anything?

Answer:

NO
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

YES
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth .

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

1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me (God) that I have set up Saul to be king

 

[westcoast]

What's with all the "you Christians" stuff? I enjoy a friendly discussion on religious beliefs, but all too often these discussions stop being friendly and become something else. Why is that exactly? I as a Christian have no wish at all to combat Muslims over their religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Christians on this forum are very respectful of Islamic belief, even though they do not accept it as being true. Perhaps it stems from the fact that for Islam to be correct, Christianity must be wrong. That is fine, since the reverse is also true. I just wish these threads could remain respectful and productive and concentrate on religious understanding and not religious confrontation. Just my two cents I guess.

exactly... i've been on this website for 2 days now and already i've been called a liar, a coward, an ignorant, dumb, cursed and had my posts and topics deleted lol, while i've been nothing but respectful whenever i speak to and of muslims

and these "contradictions" threads are pointless, as there can be quoted contradictions in the Qu'ran and nothing will ever be accomplished discussing such things.

 

[back_to_faith]

exactly... i've been on this website for 2 days now and already i've been called a liar, a coward, an ignorant, dumb, cursed and had my posts and topics deleted lol, while i've been nothing but respectful whenever i speak to and of muslims

and these "contradictions" threads are pointless, as there can be quoted contradictions in the Qu'ran and nothing will ever be accomplished discussing such things.

There we go again !!!!
Another one pretending to be a victim of our arrogance,rude offensive language etc !!!
As a matter of fact It is a non-muslims tactic to avoid providing straight,specific answers to our topics regarding the Bible........
If the issue of Bible contradictions is pointless for you, then you are not forced to Share us here . Just let us and our concern to discuss it.
You claim that there can be quoted contradictions in the Qu'ran ,Do you think that providing Quranic so called contradictions will clear up Bible contradictions?!
It is at best will prove that the Quran not the word of God ,and has nothing to do with Biblical contradictions ...
Don't you feel like answering my last post regarding Whether God repents or not according to the Bible?
just do it or pick any other contradiction and you are welcomed ,and we will reply without violating any rules of the forum.....

 

[Woodrow]

One of the biggest problems in trying to compare the Qur'an and the Bible, it is very much like arguing about the differences between French Cuisine and Chinese cooking. Although they both have the same final goals there is little in common to discuss.

All topics of this nature tend to fall apart and become an "I am right, you are wrong fight and not a debate."

Honest debate is fine and even encouraged. However, comments about any members character or insulting remarks about any beliefs are not constructive to peaceful debate.

Please let us all remember to keep comments directed towards posts and not towards any member. We probably will never agree about all matters, but we can all be respectful of each other and avoid personal attacks.

 

[don532]

Well, It is obvious that both Grace_seeker and keltoi failed to provide us with the so called old testament prophecy regarding what happened to John the baptist as the writer of Mark claims.
as a matter of fact my request was very simple, Just to copy from the old testament such prophecy and paste it here ,May be both of them still searching the old testament? anyway I assure them ,they can search the old testament till Day of Judgment for such imaginary prophecy and never find it !!.......
well, then I feel the need to highlight another Biblical contradiction

Queastion oes God ever repent of anything?

Answer:

NO
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

YES
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth .

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

1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me (God) that I have set up Saul to be king

Greetings.
What translation are you using that shows the word repent used in those verses?

Thank you.
Peace.

 

[back_to_faith]

Greetings.
What translation are you using that shows the word repent used in those verses?

Thank you.
Peace.

Greetings Don

The Hebrew word (nacham) which is used means according to (blueletterbible)
regret,to be sorry, console oneself, repent
that is why It is translated :

1 Samuel 15:35 (King James Version)
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel

1 Samuel 15:35 (New International Version)
Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel


If the word repent (or grieved or felt sorry)means anything, it says, I somehow made a mistake, not that I merely regret the results of my acts. I went down the wrong road. If you regret the outcome you are also saying, I wish I had done something else.

even if repent is restricted to the very narrow sense of emotion , the fact remains that God does not repent in any sense. 1 Sam. 15:29 Num. 23:19 says, "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." There are no qualifiers, modifiers or restrictions applied to the word "repent." It simply says he won't repent. Why he later repents is irrelevant.

 

[جوري]

close to (nadam) in Arabic... fascinating!...& Astghfor Allah 3la ma yasifoon!

 

[don532]

Greetings Don

The Hebrew word (nacham) which is used means according to (blueletterbible)
regret,to be sorry, console oneself, repent
that is why It is translated :

1 Samuel 15:35 (King James Version)
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel

1 Samuel 15:35 (New International Version)
Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel


If the word repent (or grieved or felt sorry)means anything, it says, I somehow made a mistake, not that I merely regret the results of my acts. I went down the wrong road. If you regret the outcome you are also saying, I wish I had done something else.

even if repent is restricted to the very narrow sense of emotion , the fact remains that God does not repent in any sense. 1 Sam. 15:29 Num. 23:19 says, "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." There are no qualifiers, modifiers or restrictions applied to the word "repent." It simply says he won't repent. Why he later repents is irrelevant.

Greetings. I see your point. Repent in English carries with it a connotation of turning away, or changing one's life also. For example, repent from sin. I agree it does not make sense God should repent.
God's wrath is mentioned many times in the Qur'an and the Bible. Is it not then possible He is capable of what we might call emotion including regret? What do you think?
Thank you and peace.

 

[جوري]

Emotions are a human quality and G-D isn't human!... if he were I really would have no need to worship a being like myself...

Just think of all the sophistication of the universe including what the smartest human minds combined are capable of... the glory and grandeur in the galaxy to the most intricate tiny snow flake of which no two share the same shape... and know that all that combined from most grand to most intricate -- is all still worth nothing to the throne and magistrate of the almighty...
peace!

 

[lavikor201]

Well, It is obvious that both Grace_seeker and keltoi failed to provide us with the so called old testament prophecy regarding what happened to John the baptist as the writer of Mark claims.
as a matter of fact my request was very simple, Just to copy from the old testament such prophecy and paste it here ,May be both of them still searching the old testament? anyway I assure them ,they can search the old testament till Day of Judgment for such imaginary prophecy and never find it !!.......
well, then I feel the need to highlight another Biblical contradiction

Queastion oes God ever repent of anything?

Answer:

NO
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

YES
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth .

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

1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me (God) that I have set up Saul to be king

It isn't our job to convert the world. Nor do Jews even care, but here, so you do not continue to think that your foolish "contradictions" have any merit, or make you look like more than a complete fool, who cut and pastes from atheist websites and has no knowledge of hebrew, or the Torah let alone elemtry knowledge of that book you call "holy".

Of course G-d doesn't repent of anything -- He is after all omniscient (he knows everything because He is outside of time). So how could He be sorry (repent) for something that happened when He knows everything that happens, is happening and happened since He is outside of it all?

So what you are dealing with here is the use of the English word "repent" which is not a very good choice.


The word translates more to reconsidering something than repent. G-d knows what happens, but He still regrets that mankind does these painful and foolish things. Rashi's commentary:

HaShem was comforted that He had made man on the earth, and He grieved in His heart. ​

Grieved at man's actions, not repentent. G-d can't repent.

Now look at your quote:

Exodus 32:14 "And the L-rd repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

compare it to R' Kaplan's translation:

Exodus 32:14 G-d refrained from doing the evil that He planned for His people.​

Refrained from doing something is quite different from repenting of something now isn't it?

But either way, G-d has no emotions. When G-d says he is angry or loving, G-d does not get angry or loving etc.

Kind of like when you say about your compute that "it doesn’t like this software" - you don’t mean the computer has emotion; you mean that the computer acted in a way that makes you feel as if it didn’t like the software.

The Torah was created for man, so therefore, it was created to show us how we would percieve G-d's actions. However, I have gone to far since non-Jews are in reality not even suppose to learn deep Torah knowledge.

 

[back_to_faith]

It isn't our job to convert the world. Nor do Jews even care, but here, so you do not continue to think that your foolish "contradictions" have any merit, or make you look like more than a complete fool, who cut and pastes from atheist websites and has no knowledge of hebrew, or the Torah let alone elemtry knowledge of that book you call "holy".

Of course G-d doesn't repent of anything -- He is after all omniscient (he knows everything because He is outside of time). So how could He be sorry (repent) for something that happened when He knows everything that happens, is happening and happened since He is outside of it all?

So what you are dealing with here is the use of the English word "repent" which is not a very good choice.


The word translates more to reconsidering something than repent. G-d knows what happens, but He still regrets that mankind does these painful and foolish things. Rashi's commentary:

HaShem was comforted that He had made man on the earth, and He grieved in His heart. ​

Grieved at man's actions, not repentent. G-d can't repent.

Now look at your quote:

Exodus 32:14 "And the L-rd repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

compare it to R' Kaplan's translation:

Exodus 32:14 G-d refrained from doing the evil that He planned for His people.​

Refrained from doing something is quite different from repenting of something now isn't it?

But either way, G-d has no emotions. When G-d says he is angry or loving, G-d does not get angry or loving etc.

Kind of like when you say about your compute that "it doesn’t like this software" - you don’t mean the computer has emotion; you mean that the computer acted in a way that makes you feel as if it didn’t like the software.

The Torah was created for man, so therefore, it was created to show us how we would percieve G-d's actions. However, I have gone to far since non-Jews are in reality not even suppose to learn deep Torah knowledge.

Do you realize what you have done, lavikor?

To begin with, you haven't read the thread well...

1-You tried very hard to shift the focus from Why God is engaging in inconsistency , describing himself That he can never repent
Num. 23:19 and Do it in Ex. 32:14 etc ,to How God being perfect,knows the future Repents,and that is irrelevant to the topic
.
2- To make it clearer (Imagine) for example once we read the following:

Num. 23:19 (God is not a pervert that He should discover women secret parts,or orders the taking of a harlot ).
or
Num. 23:19 (God is not Nasty to order the cooking of food with human feces and spread dung upon faces)
or
Num. 23:19( God is not a barbaric That he should order the killing of infants and suckings)

And we read later that he did it

Isaiah 3:17 says, "the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts."
"...the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of *****doms and children of *****doms: for the land hath committed great *****dom, departing from the Lord" (Hosea 1:2).

Ezkiel 4:12-And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight
"Behold I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts...." (Mal. 2:3).

1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and woman, infant and suckling...."

we will accuse God that he is engaging in inconsistency ,not whether or not such acts degrades him .
that was the crux of the topic i post.



3- the "repent" in Num. 23:19 and the one in Ex. 32:14 come from the same Hebrew word "nacham." The two "repents" do not come from two separate Hebrew words which can't help but weaken dramatically any argument that they have separate meanings.

4- Num. 23:19 says, "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." There are no qualifiers, modifiers or restrictions applied to the word "repent." It simply says he won't repent.
5- Though your post began with hurling insults on me ,your try to prove your point using documentation (although irrelevant) encouraged me to reply. and that is what I like to see ....the person whom i discuss with any point could insult me as much as he wish but satisfy me with a documentation as well.

 

[back_to_faith]

Greetings. I see your point. Repent in English carries with it a connotation of turning away, or changing one's life also. For example, repent from sin. I agree it does not make sense God should repent.
God's wrath is mentioned many times in the Qur'an and the Bible. Is it not then possible He is capable of what we might call emotion including regret? What do you think?
Thank you and peace.

Greetings.
your question :
God's wrath is mentioned many times in the Qur'an and the Bible. Is it not then possible He is capable of what we might call emotion including regret?
You question is well answered in

Numbers 23:19 (God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent)
there is a possibility to see God's wrath ,but impossible to see his repentance according to Numbers 23:19.

peace

 

[lavikor201]

1-You tried very hard to shift the focus from Why God is engaging in inconsistency , describing himself That he can never repent
Num. 23:19 and Do it in Ex. 32:14 etc ,to How God being perfect,knows the future Repents,and that is irrelevant to the topic

It is compeltly relevant, your like an echo gong from room to room.

Of course G-d doesn't repent of anything -- He is after all omniscient (he knows everything because He is outside of time). So how could He be sorry (repent) for something that happened when He knows everything that happens, is happening and happened since He is outside of it all?

So what you are dealing with here is the use of the English word "repent" which is not a very good choice.

- To make it clearer (Imagine) for example once we read the following:

Num. 23:19 (God is not a pervert that He should discover women secret parts,or orders the taking of a harlot ).
or
Num. 23:19 (God is not Nasty to order the cooking of food with human feces and spread dung upon faces)
or
Num. 23:19( God is not a barbaric That he should order the killing of infants and suckings)

And we read later that he did it

Isaiah 3:17 says, "the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts."
"...the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of *****doms and children of *****doms: for the land hath committed great *****dom, departing from the Lord" (Hosea 1:2).

Ezkiel 4:12-And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight
"Behold I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts...." (Mal. 2:3).

1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and woman, infant and suckling...."

we will accuse God that he is engaging in inconsistency ,not whether or not such acts degrades him .
that was the crux of the topic i post.

Alright so now that we are done imagining, tell me what your point is! You say I am straying away from the topic but your straying away, you have no clue at all.

The word your using has DIFFERENT MEANINGS as in, When I say "Principle" and "Principal" I am not at all refering to the same thing, one being the headmaster of a school and the other one being a belief of foundation of mine. That may be a bad example, but a hebrew word can have 20 different meanings that could form 20 different english words, but they may just use one! The translators of the christian old teatsmanet do not have a correct translation.

Now to respond to you distortions:

Mal 2:3

and I will scatter dung of the animals means: of your festive sacrifices; that is to say, you will not receive reward from Me, but [you will receive a curse] for harm and shame. And I will rebuke the seed of the field because of you.
and it shall take you to itself means: The dung of your sacrificial animals will take you to itself to [make you] cheap and despised, as it is.

This speaks about the animal sacrifices, and what happend if your use cheap ones i believe.

1 sam 15:3

Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' "

Now I am not sure if you know who Amalek is but Amalek is the enemy of G-d, and now we wage the battle against amalek as he tries to destroy our faith in G-d.

I've got news for you -- I do seek out Amalekites. Between you and me, I've even killed a few. You should try it, it's not nearly as bad as it sounds. No one gets hurt, and it feels great. But first you have to learn to identify who Amalek really is.

Amalek was an ancient Middle Eastern nation that had an inborn hatred towards Israel. The Amalekites took any opportunity to attack Jews for absolutely no reason. There was no land dispute or provocation that caused this hatred - it was an intrinsic pathological need to destroy G-d's people. Such hatred cannot be combatted through diplomacy. There was no option to re-educate the Amalekites or review their school curricula. Their hatred was not taught - it was ingrained. As long as an Amalekite walked the earth, no Jew was safe. It was a clear case of kill or be killed. A Jew had to take the command to kill Amalek quite literally - his life depended on it.

In time, the Amalekite nation assimilated into the people around them. Their inborn hatred became diluted as their national identity dissolved, and the command to kill them became impossible to fulfill. This was no accident of fate. The G-d who authored the Torah is also the Author of history. He decided that the time had come that this command should no longer apply in its literal sense. It was time for the Jewish people to move on.

But this doesn't mean that Amalek has disappeared. Amalek is alive and well today, albeit in a different form. No longer a foreign nation, today's Amalek is an internal enemy. We each have an Amalekite lurking within our very self. The inner Amalek is unholy cynicism. That little voice inside each of us that derides, belittles and attacks truth and goodness; our irrational tendency to mock people who act morally, to be cynical when we see altruism, to doubt our own or other's sincerity - these are the modern day Amalekites. They wage a lethal war with our soul. If we let it, cynicism can kill our every attempt to improve ourselves and smother any move towards refining our character and expressing our soul.

There is only one effective response to Amalek's attacks: Annihilation. Don't argue back, it won't work. The power of cynicism is that it is irrational. The most inspiring, uplifting and profound moment of spiritual awakening can be dismissed in an instant by Amalek's sarcastic taunts. The most logical and sound arguments can be deflected with his quick one-liners -- "Get real!", "Who ya kidding?" or "Hey, you think you're so holy-moly?" There is no answer to such cheap pot-shots. You can't fight cynicism with reason. Just wipe it out. No dialogue. No compromise. Erase it from the face of your soul.
Next time your cynical Amalekite raises his ugly head, stomp on it. Beat him at his own game: Do good things for no good reason. Be kind without an explanation. Love your fellow irrationally. Become the hero of your own inner battle, and free your captured soul--kill an Amalekite today.


isaiah:

This is a punishemnt for people doing wrong. I have heard Muslims say that AIDS was created as a sin punishment so don't start on the Tanakh! Look athe prevoious verse:

16. And the Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are so haughty; and they walk with neck stretched forth, and winking eyes; walking and raising themselves they walk; and with their feet they spout "venom."

And the Lord said Concerning the women who governed My people, “Since the daughters of Zion are so haughty…” and winking eyes Heb. וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת, an expression of looking. Another explanation is: They paint their eyes with vermilion or with blue eye shade. walking and raising themselves they walk Heb. ותפוף. This is an expression of something floating on another, as (Deut. 11:4): “over whom He caused… to flow (הֵצִיף),” which the Targum renders as אַטֵיף. Thus, a tall one would walk between two short ones, in order to appear to be floating over them (Shabbath 62b). Jonathan, however, renders: and with wigs they surround themselves. They would tie wigs, braids of cut-off hair. They would twist together with their braids so that they would appear thick and broad.

and with their feet they spout venom When they would pass in the street near Jewish youths, they would stamp their feet and hint to them of the affection of the adulteresses, in order to arouse their temptation, like the venom of a serpent. עֶכֶס is the venom of a serpent.

17. And the Lord shall smite with zaraath the crown of the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord shall pour out their "vessels."

And the Lord shall smite with zaaraath Heb. וְשִׂפַּח. This is an expression of zaraath [believed to be a form of leprosy, see Commentary Digest II Kings 5:1], as (in Leviticus 13:6): “It is a mispachath (מִסְפַּחַת).” But since it is written with a ‘sin,’ our Sages expounded about it that they would become enslaved maidservants (שְׁפָחוֹת), and some expounded it to mean that He smote them with many families (מִשְׁפָּחוֹת) of lice.

shall pour out their “vessels” Heb. פָּתְהֵן יְעָרֶה. Their vessels He shall pour out. This is the Aramaic language, like “a black vessel” פַּתְיָא אוּכְמָא [in] (Pesachim 88a). They would say, Let Him hurry and hasten His deed, to bring on the invaders. An officer will see me and take me. When the retribution came, Nebuchadnezzar’s officers took them for wives because of their beauty. Thereupon, the Holy One, blessed be He, signaled to their ‘fountains,’ and blood of an issue flowed from them profusely, as a person pours from one vessel to another. They became loathsome to them, and they cast them to the ground from upon their chariots (Lamentations Rabbah 4:15). Jonathan, however, rendered: He will remove their glory. פתהן means wideness or greatness.