Friday, May 4, 2012

Come and Get it: Temptation in the Bible.

At the blog post, linked to at the end of this post, a discussion on whether or not has again broken out if the Bible has contradictions or not. I again challenged Ryan Anderson to provide a single example. He responded with:

Just for fun (not that witnessing you debase yourself is fun...)

How about James 1:13 vs. Genesis 22:1

Obviously the authors are talking about different gods, but I'd "love" to hear your desecration of language and common sense.

Yes, let us indeed have some fun. First, let's look at what the text (KJV) says,


1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said , Behold, here I am.- Genesis 22:1


Versus


13 Let no man say when he is tempted * , I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted * with evil, neither tempteth he * any man: - James 1:13

So Anderson is saying that both passages seem to be referring to two different gods one who tempts humans and one who doesn't. I think that he is mistaken because he is assuming that both passages are talking about the same kind of "tempting:". This assumption cannot stand. Compare this with the NIV:

22 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied. - Genesis 22:1


Versus


13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; - James 1:13


Hmmm...The NIV translators use :"Testing" not "tempting:" in Genesis22:1. Which is correct?  Well let's look at the Hebrew word used in Genesis 22:1


The word is   and it means:

to test, try, prove, tempt, assay, put to the proof or test
  1. (Piel)
    1. to test, try
    2. to attempt, assay, try
    3. to test, try, prove, tempt 
So both translations are correct but given the context the text is referring to testing Abraham, not to do evil or to find out what Abraham would do but improve him like the way burning silver ore purifies it. When God tests us its for us to succeed ultimately, not fail.  In James, the context is definitely concerning temptation as in temptation to do evil in the context of the passage. Look at verses 13 and 14.

13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. - James 1:13-14


The shortest and most complete definition of evil is: That which transgresses and contradicts God. In obeying God you can't do evil. Which is why it is silly when people try to argue that God's laws are whimsical or that He can change His mind. As if what's evil today, would please Him tomorrow. Therefore the words here the KJV translates with the English Word tempt can't be the same concept. IF Ryan had bothered to read further maybe he would have realized what "tempt" means in James 1:13-14. 


So for completeness let's look at the Greek of James 1:13-14. The word translated "tempted": is  .It means:


  1. to try whether a thing can be done
    1. to attempt, endeavour
  2. to try, make trial of, test: for the purpose of ascertaining his quantity, or what he thinks, or how he will behave himself
    1. in a good sense
    2. in a bad sense, to test one maliciously, craftily to put to the proof his feelings or judgments
    3. to try or test one's faith, virtue, character, by enticement to sin
      1. to solicit to sin, to tempt 1c
    4. of the temptations of the devil
    5. after the OT usage
      1. of God: to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith
      2. men are said to tempt God by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted
      3. by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were to give proof of his perfections.

We can see how the word is used in the Old and New Testaments. James 1:13  is definitely referring to how God does not get people to sin. And in Abraham's case it's about demonstrating and increasing  his character. Today we don't use the word "prove" the way the definition above does but we must still see that is what God does even today for His people.

So, Mr Anderson, your mistake is that you don't understand what the authors of the Bible were talking about and not that they contradict each other.

What had happen' was.....: Mia Love: The GOP's Next Rising Black Political Star

Check out the following link for a really great Bible search engine in various translation:

http://www.academic-bible.com/en/home/
Enhanced by Zemanta

12 comments:

  1. I wonder how you "translate" nacah in Psalm 78.

    But I'll give you this one since we're talking about two different languages, even though in many of the 36 times nacah is used in the OT it's used EXACTLY like peirazō is used in James.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But do they say that God tempts people to do evil? Where?

    As for Psalms 78, no where is "nacah" meaning that God tempts anyone to do evil. They refer to the people tempting God to destroy them. But if God had destroyed them, God would not have been wrong. If God destroyed you or me God would not be wrong. So no, peirazo is not being used the same way as in James.

    Well, at least its not a total waste. You at least now recognize there was no contradiction between Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13. You actually learned something. God is good.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You at least now recognize there was no contradiction between...

    Actually, given that they're in two different, unrelated languages, you can't say with certainty if they contradict or they don't. But hey, I'll give you this one, good for you.

    Speaking of languages, did you ever figure out the feminine pronoun in Anglo-Saxon?

    ReplyDelete
  4. you can't say with certainty if they contradict or they don't

    Come'on. Be honest. Either they are saying different things in the same context about the same subject or not. And they are not = no contradiction.


    Speaking of languages, did you ever figure out the feminine pronoun in Anglo-Saxon?

    I'll state it again: In old English "He","Him"
    , "Himself" were not just used for the male gender but for both sexes and for groups comprised of both sexes. "She", "Her", "Herself" came into common usage later.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And they are not...

    Not enough info to say they are not (or are).

    I'll state it again...

    I'll state it again, please site your sources because I read Anglo-Saxon, and you are just plain talking out of your ass here.

    I notice you keep saying "old English", instead of "Old English" or "Anglo-Saxon" so maybe you don't know what you are talking about and are actually thinking of Middle English, not that it helps you since there is a distinctive feminine pronoun there too.

    Althochdeutsch also has a word for she, so I actually have no idea what you are thinking.

    Hint, "he" and "she" are really just "the" with gender...

    ReplyDelete
  6. "She" is used 18 times in Beowulf. FYI...

    ReplyDelete
  7. At what point do you admit to talking out of your ass?

    Proverbs 16:18

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not enough info to say they are not (or are).

    So according to you, you have no idea what either passage is saying. What orifice are you talking out of? Please turn your mind on.

    As for using "he" for God being gender inspecific you just need study more. Here is a start.

    http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~mariedj/browse/serious/pronouns



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_pronoun




    You're Welcomed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah, so by "old English" you're talking about Modern English and a 19th century localized convention. Which, ignoring all that, doesn't even seem to support your point at all, especially since the Greek and Hebrew distinctively identify god as male. Yet you claim god is not male or female because in the 19th century, British Parliament recognized "he" as a generic pronoun. Well played...

    Yehovah 'ab ga'al shem 'owlam

    ReplyDelete
  10. There are several places in the Old Testament where God is described using feminine imagery and words that imply femininity. It's wrong to think of God as male or female. I'm not surprised you can't understand that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There are several places in the Old Testament where conceiving of god in the feminine is strictly condemned (you should probably actually read some of the stuff from Dr. Mariottini that you post).

    Just more evidence the bible is a mish-mashed cultural artifact and not a divine revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There are several places in the Old Testament where conceiving of god in the feminine is strictly condemned (you should probably actually read some of the stuff from Dr. Mariottini that you post).

    A reference to what you are talking about would help.

    Just more evidence the bible is a mish-mashed cultural artifact and not a divine revelation.

    Just more evidence that assuming that you are reasonable and care about evidence is a really bad assumption.

    ReplyDelete