Are These Contradictions?

[inquiringmind]

God or Joseph, this was a cruel test.

Even if (as Paul says) he remembered God's promise that all nation's would be blessed thru Isaac, and believed that God would raise him from the dead, Abraham's test was probably harder than Heber's.

He probably believed that God really wanted him to kill his son (and burn the body, which is why he brought the wood, and placed him on it), and that seems lie what God wanted him to believe at the time.

What I'm interested in is whether Heber's test was devised by God or Joseph, and how these things can be reconciled with Numbers 23;19.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

[theplains]

I think that this demonstrates that the Lord separates his will from his foreknowledge.

Was it the Lord's will that Adam and Eve disobey him in the Garden of Eden?

Jim

[Ahab]

Can anyone help me here?

Yes. Don't focus so much on what the scriptures seem to be saying.

Focus instead on what they actually say, and then ask God to help you understand what was meant.

[ERayR]

God or Joseph, this was a cruel test.

In a way all tests are cruel.

[inquiringmind]

In a way all tests are cruel.

I don't know about that, but if this was a test of Heber's faith, it seems it was necessary for him to believe that Joseph wanted his wife (and had a right to ask for her.)

If it wasn't entirely Joseph's idea (I mean if God said, ask Heber for his wife, and see what he does before you seal them for eternity), then it would seem God led him to believe (for a time) that he would have to give her up.

If you take the story of Abraham's trial literally (as Paul did), it also seems that God led Abraham (for a time) to believe he'd have to kill his son.

Given the promises that were made about his seed being called thru Isaac, and all nations being blessed thru him, and what Paul said about him reckoning that God was able to raise the dead, he may have expected to have him back (and may have even thought his son was the promised Messiah), but he certainly seems to have taken God seriously when he said to offer him up as a burnt offering on mount Moriah (considering he had fire ready, isaac lying on a pile of wood, and a knife in his raised hand when the angel stopped him.)

How do we reconcile this with Numbers 23:19?

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor is the son of man, that he should repent. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill.

Was it God, or Joseph who told Heber to give up Violet?

And either way, didn't God tell Abraham to go to mount Moriah, and offer Isaac as a burnt offering on the slope He would show him, and didn't God stop Abraham because He never really wanted him to do such a thing?

Is there a contradiction here, and how can it be reconciled?

That's the topic of the OP, and I haven't really seen anyone say anything here yet.

P.S. The only thing I can see is the use of the word parable (proverb, or simile, depending on which translation you use) in Numbers 23:18. Maybe that suggests that Balaam's words in verse 19 aren't to be taken too literally. But there are also passages in the BOM and the New Testament that say that God cannot lie, so that would still leave the question of how it is that these temporary deceptions weren't lies (or, in other words, how do we define a lie?)

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

On the passage in 2 Kings, I think if there were any deception it was on the part of Elisha statement, but I am uncertain to how deceptive that actually was. These Syrians were blinded as they came against Israel, if they were seeking a man.. what man would they have sought rather than the nations King?

They weren't seeking the king, they were seeking Elisha.

Then the king of Syria warred against Israel, and took counsel with his servants, saying, In such and such a place shall be my camp. And the man of God sent unto the king of Israel, saying, Beware that thou pass not such a place; for thither the Syrians are come down. And the king of Israel sent to the place which the man of God told him and warned him of, and saved himself there, not once nor twice. Therefore the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing; and he called his servants, and said unto them, Will ye not shew me which of us is for the king of Israel? And one of his servants said, None, my lord, O king: but Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber. And he said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan. Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about. (2 Kings 8:8-14,)

They were sent to Dothan to get Elisha, they were right outside Dothan when Elisha (with God's help) convinced them they were in the wrong place, and led them into Samaria.

And when it says they were blinded, it apparently doesn't mean that they couldn't see at all, because the whole company was still able to follow one man, without realizing where they were going until their eyes were opened once inside Samaria and surrounded by enemy troops.

"Blinded" apparently means that God interfered with the sensory input into their brains in such a way that they didn't see things as they really were.

My question is how to reconcile incidents like this with passages like Numbers 23:19.

Doesn't anyone have any thoughts?

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Scott Lloyd]

To me, the evidence suggests that God can be negotiated with.

I can't accept that. It's as much as to say we know better than God what is best for us, and we need to talk Him into coming around to our way of thinking. To me, such a notion is rank arrogance bordering on the blasphemous.

I believe in the God who said "Come now, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:16)

The context of that passage implies God reasoning with us, not the other way around. It is we who need to be taught, not God.

To put it another way, we need to unify our mind and will with God's, but it is we who need to change, not God.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[MormonMason]

Has anyone ever considered the fact that Numbers 23:19 contains words spoken by a false prophet? His name was Balaam. The Lord did deign to speak through him from time to time but he still was a false prophet and a sorcerer fraught with error, nonetheless.

Edited February 23, 2013 by MormonMason

[inquiringmind]

Has anyone ever considered the fact that Numbers 23:19 contains words spoken by a false prophet? His name was Balaam. The Lord did deign to speak through him from time to time but he still was a false prophet and a sorcerer fraught with error, nonetheless.

I have considered that fact, but verse 16 says that God "met with Balaam, put a message in his mouth" and told him to "go back to Balak and give him this message."

In verse 17, Balaam finds Balak, verse 18 says says he "utters his oracle" (or parable, or simile, depending on the English translation), and verse 19 follows.

I think that when Mormons and anti Mormons look at this passage, they tend to see only the part that says "God is not a man...or the Son of Man...," but the part I'm interested in here is "...that He should lie, or...that He should repent: Hath He said, and shall He not do it? Hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?"

Given Jeremiah 18:7-10, and the book of Jonah, there do seem to be times when He says, and doesn't do.

Hence my interest in Numbers 23:19.

The same word translated "oracle" in verse 18 is translated "parable" in Ezekiel 17:2, and in the following verses a highly symbolic story about two eagles and a grape vine is given, so maybe Balaam's words shouldn't be taken too literally (but I'm unhappy with that interpretation because Ezekiel lived a long time after Moses and Balaam, the meaning of words change, and I can't determine the meaning of this word by the way it's used in the Torah.)

If there are verb tenses in Hebrew (and I'm not sure there are), knowing the tenses here might help.

Maybe the passage is meant to teach that once God has finished speaking, He will do, but I don't understand Hebrew well enough to say (so I was hoping someone else might.)

Thank you.

Edited February 23, 2013 by inquiringmind

[cdowis]

I take your point regarding Ann Frank.

Would it be a sin to lie in order to cover up the fact you were concealing Jews? Yes.

What was your motivation? To preserve life. Will that sin of lying be dealt with by the atonement? Yes. Do you need to repent of it? Not sure but I don't think so.

I have spent decades thinking about that issue, and here is what I came up with==>>

The Nazis are actually asking the question: "Sill you assist us in killing the Jews by telling us whether there are Jews in this house." The truthful answer to the *actual* question is NO.

"Do you like my new hat" the favorite aunt asks. The real question is, "Do you love me, do you respect me."

The truthful answer is Yes, even if I dislike the hat itself.

++++++++++

I remember a nosy member asking a question on a decision I had made, and my wife's opinion on it.

This was none of his business, and very personal and intrusive, so I told him that this had nothing to do with my wife and was none of her business, and I was not interested in her opinion. He is still talking about that ten years later in our HP group meeting. I told him a "blow off answer" to this question.

Nosy neighbor -- wow, how much did that car cost.

blow off answer -- oh, a couple million dollars (none of your business).

In the case of the nazis, I have no obligation to tell them the real truth, even though it may cost me my life.

Edited February 23, 2013 by cdowis

[inquiringmind]

In the case of the nazis, I have no obligation to tell them the real truth, even though it may cost me my life.

So you'd agree with this?

...veracity is a kind of justice, and therefore, when we have no duty of justice to tell truth to another, it is no sin not to do so

http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/02/27/cardinal-newman-on-lying-and-equivation/#more-28580

Edited February 23, 2013 by inquiringmind

[cdowis]

So you'd agree with this?

http://the-american-...ion/#more-28580

To continue the paragraph:

Hence we may say the thing that is not, to children, to madmen, to men who ask impertinent questions, to those whom we hope to benefit by misleading.

It is not sin to lie to Nazis in order to save lives. It was not a sin for Abraham to lie about his relationship with his spouse.

Edited February 23, 2013 by cdowis

[inquiringmind]

To continue the paragraph:

Hence we may say the thing that is not, to children, to madmen, to men who ask impertinent questions, to those whom we hope to benefit by misleading.

It is not sin to lie to Nazis in order to save lives. It was not a sin for Abraham to lie about his relationship with his spouse.

I think it would be more correct to say that it's not a lie to misinform Nazis, and it wasn't a lie for Abraham to misinform Pharaoh about his relationship with His wife.

[Alan]

I can't accept that. It's as much as to say we know better than God what is best for us, and we need to talk Him into coming around to our way of thinking. To me, such a notion is insufferable arrogance bordering on the blasphemous.

The context of that passage implies God reasoning with us, not the other way around. It is we who need to be taught, not God.

To put it another way, we need to unify our mind and will with God's, but it is we who need to change, not God.

Abraham negotiated with God over Sodom.

[cdowis]

Isa 1 [18] Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:

Edited February 23, 2013 by cdowis

[Alan]

Isa 1 [18] Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:

Oops!

I was never good with figures.

[Scott Lloyd]

Abraham negotiated with God over Sodom.

And God ended up doing what He already had in mind to do to begin with.

God was patient enough to provide Abraham with a learning experience so that Abraham, through his own exercise, would comprehend God's justice. I do see here God "reasoning" with Abraham, but I don;t see God "negotiating" in the sense of offering compromise and capitulation to a mortal being. There is, quite simply, no need for God, an omniscient, perfect and glorified being, to do such a thing.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[MormonMason]

I have considered that fact, but verse 16 says that God "met with Balaam, put a message in his mouth" and told him to "go back to Balak and give him this message."

...

The problem is that we do not know where his own words end and where the Lord's message begins. The border is vague in the text. But, given that the Lord sometimes does change his mind, such as in the Torah and in the scriptures you gave above, it contradicts what the Lord actually does and what he said about it himself elsewhere in scripture, like in Ezekiel. The statement looks more like Balaam's interpretation rather than what the Lord told him to repeat.