The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Contradictions: OT V OT

Please add any scripture in the OT that contradicts itself and reasons why.

Don’t see how this is a contradiction. God says that he will smite those who disobey his commandments, and sure enough thats what happened. God always keeps his side of the deal, but the people do not keep theirs.

…so then you look at CONTEXT to see what is going on and what said statements might actually be about; lest you be left dumbfounded by such crass literalism that uncritical thinking leaves you with. Example:

No man has seen God

Man has seen Jesus

Therefore Jesus is not God


God cannot be tempted

Jesus was tempted

Therefore Jesus was not God


See the weakness of such literal puerile pondering.

You talking to qaz?

1 Like

Obviously if you just pluck a verse out with no context then you can make a verse sound like almost anything. God is being compared to Baal & the point was that God is not whimsical or capricious.
In the bible there are numerous times where a promise from God is conditional based on the response from the listener, so God changed his mind many times but not based on being capricious.

1 Like

Early O.T. assumes “other gods” exist- but that Israel’s supreme “God of gods” has no rivals:
Ps. 86:8; 97:9; 95:3; Dt. 10:14-17; 1 Kgs.11:4f; 2 Kgs 17:35-39; Jos. 24:23f.

The later prophets come to see: other ‘gods’ don’t even actually exist: Isa. 44:6-20!

Proverbs 26:
Verse 4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

Verse 5
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

1 Like

Your Idea of a fool could be construed as judgemental.

You are quite ambiguous.:thinking:

Leviticus presents sacrifices that assured ‘forgiveness,’ defined as restoring God’s covenant blessings which sins had taken away. And Israel’s use of sacrifices appears to please God and indeed make ‘atonement’ (1:6,9; 4:27-35).

But later prophets denounce such trust, urging that God does not really want sacrifice. What’s actually needed is a righteous and merciful life: “Your sacrifices, what are they to me? says the Lord… I have no pleasure in the blood of lambs and goats. Who has asked this of you? Stop bringing meaningless sacrifices… I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” (Isa 1:10-17; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6-8).

This may have been a case of God having now had a gutful of their sacrificial insincerity, wherein they had turned what had been instituted for their benefit into an abomination, and so now says… Enough!!

1 Like

Amen, in a progressive revelation, it can seem that even God is portrayed as able to learn from the frustrating trial and error of instituting various approaches; and hopefully saves the best for last :slight_smile:

Not really Michael… for her wickedness God had decreed destruction on Nineveh and yet at their positive turning to Jonah’s negative proclamation God himself also repented, i.e., He changed His mind — this of course really upset Jonah’s self-righteous sensitivities.

1 Like

Are you going to offer some commentary qaz?

How do you figure that? Haven’t you read the text… there was no presumption for God told him what to say. The Ninevites listened to God’s prophet and consequently lived.

1 Like

I really, really shouldn’t need to say this qaz BUT… Read Jonah 1:1-2; 3:1-4, 10; 4:11. Notice the DISASTER of 3:10… THAT’S what Jonah’s detailed message of 1:2 & 3:2, 4 was all about. AND… why does God repent of an action He apparently according to your logic wasn’t going to do? So then qaz… you must likewise say the pity God affirms in 4:11 to be false as well? What then is the textual evidence for your position??

Yes, that’s the Biblical predicament, since the Bible itself repeatedly declares a God surprised at events, learning from them to do something else, and repenting of his past actions. What systematic theology does is try to explain such texts away :wink:

And yes, this enables the open theist to argue that he takes the Bible more literally than more traditionally orthodox theologies…


Even the literalist has to have a criterion for choosing what IS literal. Job? Song of Solomon? Psalms? Were they written with the aim of being understood literally? The literary study of the OT is a very helpful way to break loose of the literal mindset.

Yes it’s possible but it’s also possible that the description of God changing his mind is a literary device.

1 Like

Jonah and Nineveh, etc. God changing His mind, etc.

An interesting but fruitless discussion. Who do we think we are? Just because we constantly have second thoughts and changes of mind?

There is no need to bring God down to our level of understanding. He is so far higher than us in His thoughts and His ways are unsearchable. No need to try and explain what can’t be explained at our level. That’s where faith comes in.

Isaiah 46:10
“From the beginning I predicted the outcome;
long ago I foretold what would happen.
I said that my plans would never fail,
that I would do everything I intended to do.”

I don’t think that’s the issue. It’s a discussion of the meaning of what Scripture reveals.
The open theist argues that rejecting plain statements that God is surprised at things that happen, and thus changes his mind, is what amounts to placing our understanding upon God, instead of trusting what His Word states about God.

Steve suggests that we see it as just “literary,” but again the dilemma is what theological beliefs to affirm when the Bible appears to offer conflicting views on something. My perception is that all of us bring reasoning and views to the table that influence what we end up doing with that hermeneutical challenge.

1 Like