A Real and Significant Biblical Contradiction?

[spockrates]

-There isn't anything to wiggle out of- ?

Wiggling out of a contradiction of IPs? I was of the opinion there was none.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, if you feel the need to perform an exercise in creative interpretation then have it it. I just don't see what there is to wriggle out of in the first place. Sort of a manufactured dilemma, imho. You say Kenobi is a good guy, I say he's a bad guy. You say he died on page 36 of book 1, I say he only -seems to have died- on page 36 of book 1.

¯\(º_o)/¯

[Skepsis]

Sorry for the vague answer. Please let me try to be more specific: I'm a Christian, but I'm not into partisan politics, or partisan religion. I continuously question everything I believe (putting it to the test) and hold on only to what is true (to what passes the test). Does that shed better light on my motives?

Yes, that will do just fine. I was simply wondering if you were serious or if I might waste my time speaking to you, and you have proved that not only are you serious but willing as well. Willing to change to conform to the evidence- willing to even consider new evidence.
Appreciate the answer. Finally.

[spockrates]

Sorry for the vague answer. Please let me try to be more specific: I'm a Christian, but I'm not into partisan politics, or partisan religion. I continuously question everything I believe (putting it to the test) and hold on only to what is true (to what passes the test). Does that shed better light on my motives?

Yes, that will do just fine. I was simply wondering if you were serious or if I might waste my time speaking to you, and you have proved that not only are you serious but willing as well. Willing to change to conform to the evidence- willing to even consider new evidence.
Appreciate the answer. Finally.

I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt. Thanks!

---

Well, if you feel the need to perform an exercise in creative interpretation then have it it. I just don't see what there is to wriggle out of in the first place. Sort of a manufactured dilemma, imho. You say Kenobi is a good guy, I say he's a bad guy. You say he died on page 36 of book 1, I say he only -seems to have died- on page 36 of book 1.

¯\(º_o)/¯

Ezekiel says God deceives; the writer of Hebrews says it's impossible for God to lie. Not sure why you don't see a conflict between the two. You Rythm are a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, deep within a black hole of that which I might never know!



In a word, I find you...

[Godscreated]

And if the prophet gives a deceiving prophecy, then I the LORD have deceived him by not giving him the prophecy, I will make a fool of him before My nation, Israel, for trying to deceive them.


The two verses have nothing to do with each other. I hope this clears things up for you.

Actually, it's still clear as mud!



The writer of Hebrews says it is impossible for God to lie. Ezekiel quotes God as saying he himself deceives. Are you thinking that deceiving is not the same as telling a lie?

The writer of Hebrews is correct, God can not lie, deceiving and lying are not necessarily the same. Example military battles are often won by deception. This would actually qualify as a strategy.
What I was trying to explain is this, God allowed the false prophet to believe his own deception, God actually never deceived the false prophet but allowed the prophet to try and deceive Israel. God punished the prophet for his deceitful work by ruining his reputation as a prophet so the Israelites would not listen to him. In actuality God was protecting His reputation as one who does not lie. If the people of Israel believed the prophecy and it did not come to past, then the people would say God has deceived us. Hope this helps.

[Drich]

The writer of Hebrews says it is impossible for God to lie. Ezekiel quotes God as saying he himself deceives. Are you thinking that deceiving is not the same as telling a lie?

No for the word in the Hebrew is: פתה pathah It tied to the concept of allowing one's self to be persuaded. In essence God allowed them to induldge their own vanity because of their sin.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6601&t=KJV
Click on the Gesenius's Lexicon drop down for a more detailed explaination.

The Hebrew word that equates to the greek word found in Hebrews 6 (pseudomai) is: שָׁקַרshaqar It means to lie or to tell a falsehood as it's greek counter part found in Heb 6.

The website or 'reference material' you used to point out this supposed contradiction is compareing apples and oranges. If the bible was orginally written in english, you might have a case. but as these two passages were being only repersented by the english, one would have to be desperate to make a case, to take the english definations/understandings as the final word here.

[Cato]

Ezekiel says God deceives; the writer of Hebrews says it's impossible for God to lie. Not sure why you don't see a conflict between the two. You Rythm are a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, deep within a black hole of that which I might never know!

Ezekiel says? Ezekiel? When I pronounce the name aloud it sounds similar to the sound my cat makes when she attepts to eject a hair ball. Ezekiel?

Perhaps you didn't notice when you joined, but this is the Atheist Forums. You seem to be trying to give Rhythm stick by invoking a contradiction. Wasn't this the mission of your two posts? You've recognized a contradiction, now go ponder it. We don't really give a shit what Ezekial or Hebrews has to say. We recognize the contradiction and leave it as such, but you want to try and tell us the contradiction isn't really what it appears to be by means of definition hocus pocus and invoking multi-language translations.

One ass or two? Did I lose you? Did your savior triumphantly ride into Jerusalem on one ass or two? Your gospels seem to differ in opinion. Riding on 'them'; don't forget this bit. In fact, in this case, it's a missed translation that causes the contradiction (you'll understand my meaning if you know anything about the history of the gospels).

[Cato]

Spock,

Check this dude out. St. Patrick seems pretty passionate about the topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPjYrXw2B...GqsiZjDSug

[fr0d0]

Helpful concordance here: http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.c...hapter=014

I have deceived that prophet…
(Ezekiel 14:9). As Cooke noted, A statement like this is not intelligible unless we take into consideration the thought patterns of oriental mind.F7 We have the same pattern in the thinking of believers even today. When a loved one is lost, we have all heard it said that, The Lord has called him home. This merely by-passes secondary and subordinate causes and attributes all that happens to the eternal will of God. God's deceiving a false prophet here was in no sense an evil act upon God's part. As a matter of fact the false prophet had brought the deception upon himselfF8 a by his own evil desires and deeds.

What is in view here is God's judicial blinding, hardening, or deception of wicked men. The classical example in the Old Testament is that of Pharaoh. The Lord indeed "hardened Pharaoh's heart"; but that occurred only after the Bible had declared no less than ten times that, "Pharaoh had hardened his own heart." Does the equivalent of such a thing happen today? Most assuredly, it does.

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. 2:11-12 KJV).

It was possible to say of this self-deceived prophet that God had deceived him, because, "The consequences of his sin,. as well as the moral law of God which he violated were God's ordinances, and because the penalty of deception, was according to God's will, therefore his state of deception could quite properly be attributed to God."F9 This line of reasoning, however, suggests no amelioration of the false prophet's guilt. "No man can possibly become a false prophet without criminal blame upon himself."F10

This passage forbade any true prophet to provide God's Word to idolaters; and, by definition, that meant that any prophet speaking with an idolater was, of course, an evil-doer himself.

It is amazing, as Calvin said, that, "Neither imposters nor frauds take place apart from the will of God." Keil quoted Calvin's remark, and then added that, "This can happen only with persons who have first admitted evil into themselves. Furthermore, the penalty of God's judgment shall fall upon both alike, the deceived prophet, and the idolatrous inquirer."F11

[spockrates]

And if the prophet gives a deceiving prophecy, then I the LORD have deceived him by not giving him the prophecy, I will make a fool of him before My nation, Israel, for trying to deceive them.


The two verses have nothing to do with each other. I hope this clears things up for you.

Actually, it's still clear as mud!



The writer of Hebrews says it is impossible for God to lie. Ezekiel quotes God as saying he himself deceives. Are you thinking that deceiving is not the same as telling a lie?

The writer of Hebrews is correct, God can not lie, deceiving and lying are not necessarily the same. Example military battles are often won by deception. This would actually qualify as a strategy.

Thanks for the reply GC. So to say the deception of Ezekiel is the same as the same as the telling of a lie of Hebrews would be akin to committing the informal fallacy of equivocation? To equivocate telling a lie with deception is illogical? You might be onto something there. I suppose one might reasonably say that all telling of lies is deception, but not all deception is telling of lies. One might logically assert that God never lies, but does sometimes deceive. Is this what you are saying?

What I was trying to explain is this, God allowed the false prophet to believe his own deception, God actually never deceived the false prophet but allowed the prophet to try and deceive Israel.

But why do you believe God actually never deceived the prophet? What else do these words of God mean?

"... I the Lord have deceived that prophet... ."

(Ezekiel 14:9)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=KJV

Not sure why you need to back off your premise that not all deception is telling a lie. I see no reason to, at the moment--unless I was mistaken about what you were trying to assert.

God punished the prophet for his deceitful work by ruining his reputation as a prophet so the Israelites would not listen to him. In actuality God was protecting His reputation as one who does not lie. If the people of Israel believed the prophecy and it did not come to past, then the people would say God has deceived us. Hope this helps.

Wouldn't the false prophet's inaccurate prediction be evidence he was not speaking for God? Seems to me this is what Moses quotes God as saying:

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

(Deuteronomy 18)

---

The writer of Hebrews says it is impossible for God to lie. Ezekiel quotes God as saying he himself deceives. Are you thinking that deceiving is not the same as telling a lie?

No for the word in the Hebrew is: פתה pathah It tied to the concept of allowing one's self to be persuaded. In essence God allowed them to induldge their own vanity because of their sin.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6601&t=KJV
Click on the Gesenius's Lexicon drop down for a more detailed explaination.

Yes, I agree there is a difference between self-deception and deception caused by another. But isn't God saying that he is the one doing the deceiving?

"...I the LORD have deceived that prophet... ."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=KJV

The Hebrew word that equates to the greek word found in Hebrews 6 (pseudomai) is: שָׁקַרshaqar It means to lie or to tell a falsehood as it's greek counter part found in Heb 6.

The website or 'reference material' you used to point out this supposed contradiction is compareing apples and oranges. If the bible was orginally written in english, you might have a case. but as these two passages were being only repersented by the english, one would have to be desperate to make a case, to take the english definations/understandings as the final word here.

Are you thinking the King James version has mistranslated Ezekiel?

---

Ezekiel says God deceives; the writer of Hebrews says it's impossible for God to lie. Not sure why you don't see a conflict between the two. You Rythm are a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, deep within a black hole of that which I might never know!

Ezekiel says? Ezekiel? When I pronounce the name aloud it sounds similar to the sound my cat makes when she attepts to eject a hair ball. Ezekiel?

Perhaps you didn't notice when you joined, but this is the Atheist Forums. You seem to be trying to give Rhythm stick by invoking a contradiction. Wasn't this the mission of your two posts? You've recognized a contradiction, now go ponder it. We don't really give a shit what Ezekial or Hebrews has to say. We recognize the contradiction and leave it as such, but you want to try and tell us the contradiction isn't really what it appears to be by means of definition hocus pocus and invoking multi-language translations.

One ass or two? Did I lose you? Did your savior triumphantly ride into Jerusalem on one ass or two? Your gospels seem to differ in opinion. Riding on 'them'; don't forget this bit. In fact, in this case, it's a missed translation that causes the contradiction (you'll understand my meaning if you know anything about the history of the gospels).

Cato:

Don't you know that things are not always as they seem? I am keenly aware of my susceptibility to self-deception. So I ask what others think. To ponder alone is less likely to cure me of my deception than to think it through with others. The same is true if I'm not deceived: To ponder alone is less likely to assure me I'm not deceived than than to think it through with people like you.

Regarding this being an atheist-only forum, I read online that this is a forum designed for atheists, agnostics and people of religios faiths to respectfully discuss. Was I deceived about that, too?