Biblical Inconsistencies

[finalfrogo]

You accept as truth, not the picayune minutae of the story, but the message of the story. The story is just a tool to convey a message, like a hammer is a tool for building a house. It doesn't matter if the hammer is black or brown, as long as the house gets built. It doesn't really matter if the robe was red or purple, or chartreuse with periwinkle polka-dots. The message of the story is about Jesus' self-sacrifice of love for us. Don't let the trees get in the way of seeing the forest.

also, there are some shades that are pretty darn close to both purple and red. So what? It's symbolic. Red stands for blood and for passion. Purple stands for royalty and for penitence. either one lends appropriate symbolism to the story.

Yes, I agree with you. It is a tool. However, he was just showing how ridiculous it is that people mistake the Bible for an absolutely flawless history book.

 

[finalfrogo]

From experience, most of them will be trash. I might find one or two gems that will make me actually think beyond a few moments, maybe.

If you wish to bring up Biblical inconsistencies, do so, I love strengthening, growing in, and learning more about my faith. However I detest preposterously large lists, and would appreciate a one by one basis

I don't want to admit it, but you are right; some of them are pretty trashy. Many are easily explainable. But the point is that such "gems" exist (and I think it's a bit more than just one or two) A single undeniable flaw in the Bible destroys the argument that the writers were protected by the holy spirit... thus placing the entire Bible in question.

 

[finalfrogo]

...and does not take it 100% literally.

But that's the thing! Some people do take it 100% literally!

 

[JesusIsTheWay]

Alright... I'll attempt to clear up some of these "Biblical Inconsistencies".

Inconsistency #1
On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, "Let there be light, and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness He called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 1516 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Who said that the sun is the only source of light? God Himself will be the source of light to the city of New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:23-25). God simply created light before the sun... I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that.

Inconsistency #2
Trees were created before man was created.
Man was created before trees were created.

Genesis 1:11-12, 26-2711 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good...
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:4-9
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Nowhere in here does it say that man was created before the plants and trees. Verses 8 and 9 say only that God planted a garden, put man in that garden, and made trees grow in the garden. It doesn't suggest that God created man before plant life, nor is it a contridiction from the earlier account.

Inconsistencies #3 & 4
Birds were created before man was created.
Man was created before birds were created.

Animals were created before man was created.
Man was created before animals were created.

Genesis 1:20-21, 24-27
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good...
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:7, 19
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being...
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Verse 19 is simply restating that God had created "all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air" and then going on to say that God brought the animals to Adam so that he would name them. Wheres the inconsistency?

Inconsistency #5
Man and woman were created at the same time.
Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Genesis 1:26-27
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:7, 21-22
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being...
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The statement, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" is not suggesting that both were created at the same time, but merely that God was the Creator of both.

Thats all I'm going to do for now... I'll tackle some more when I'm more awake

-David-

 

[Mister Emu]

This says that Jesus' robe was purple.

The color you utilized in typing the word "purple", would not have been called purple when the NT was written... historically purple being a deep red...

 

[Tiberius]

Alright... I'll attempt to clear up some of these "Biblical Inconsistencies".

Okie dokie.

Inconsistency #1
On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, "Let there be light, and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness He called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.

Genesis 1:14-19
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 1516 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Who said that the sun is the only source of light? God Himself will be the source of light to the city of New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:23-25). God simply created light before the sun... I don't see what is so hard to grasp about that.

Very well, please tell me what the source of light was before God created the sun and stars. And if light does not need a source, why bother with making the source?

Inconsistency #2
Trees were created before man was created.
Man was created before trees were created.

Genesis 1:11-12, 26-2711 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good...
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:4-9
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Nowhere in here does it say that man was created before the plants and trees. Verses 8 and 9 say only that God planted a garden, put man in that garden, and made trees grow in the garden. It doesn't suggest that God created man before plant life, nor is it a contridiction from the earlier account.

But it does specifically say that there were no plants or trees before man. "...and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up," according to gen 2:5, which is before man is created.

And it does say that plants were created before man in Chapter 1.

Verse 11 says, "Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."

Later on, AFTER the vegetation has been made, verse 26 says...

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image."

A clear case of plants being made, and then man being made AFTER plants.

Inconsistencies #3 & 4
Birds were created before man was created.
Man was created before birds were created.

Animals were created before man was created.
Man was created before animals were created.

Genesis 1:20-21, 24-27
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good...
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:7, 19
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being...
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Verse 19 is simply restating that God had created "all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air" and then going on to say that God brought the animals to Adam so that he would name them. Wheres the inconsistency?

Note the word THEN in Gen 1:26. God makes the animals and birds THEN makes man. This clearly states that man came after animals and birds. Then there is the word NOW in gen 2:19. God makes man and only NOW makes the animals and birds. Clearly staing that man appeared before the animals and birds. Again a contradiction.

Inconsistency #5
Man and woman were created at the same time.
Man was created first, woman sometime later.

Genesis 1:26-27
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:7, 21-22
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being...
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The statement, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" is not suggesting that both were created at the same time, but merely that God was the Creator of both.

In Chapter 1, God says that all the plants are available to be eaten after he has created people (Gen 1:29), yet in Gen 2:16 God tells Adam that he can eat all the plants and only then goes on to create Eve.

So if Eve was created AFTER God's menu suggestions in Chapter 2, why is it that in Chapter 1 both Adam and Eve were created BEFORE? Even if you argue that when the Bible says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" as in gen 1:27 is saying that God created adam, then after a bit created Eve (instead of creating both at the same time), it is still in contradiction, because something that occured before the creation of Eve in Chapter 2 occurs AFTER the creation of Eve in Chapter 1!

Thats all I'm going to do for now... I'll tackle some more when I'm more awake

-David-

I look forward to it.

 

[Tiberius]

The color you utilized in typing the word "purple", would not have been called purple when the NT was written... historically purple being a deep red...

Can you support this claim that purple was actually red in the time and place that Jesus lived? Or is this a case of redefining a word to support a particular viewpoint?

 

[sojourner]

yes, I was being flippant, but my point is that if the Bible is a historical account of actual events as many people claim it to be then it is doubtful that there would be the number of internal contradictions that there are.

it's like having two historical texts, one saying that Lincoln was assasinated by John Wilkes Booth at the Ford Theatre, the other saying it was John Wilkes Ford at the Booth Theatre. Reliable historical texts do not contain these sorts of errors, and yet the Bible does.

There's an inconsistency in your argument. The reporting of the Lincoln assassination is external history -- a reporting of empirical facts. The reporting we find in the gospels is a reporting of internal history -- a reporting of how these events shaped a community of believers. Don't confuse one with the other.

 

[Mister Emu]

Can you support this claim that purple was actually red in the time and place that Jesus lived? Or is this a case of redefining a word to support a particular viewpoint?

Ask and ye shall recieve.

Purple sometimes symbolizes royalty, dating back to Roman times, when clothing dyed with Tyrian purple was limited to the upper classes. The color, which was closer to crimson than our idea of purple, was the favored color of many kings and queens

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple#Symbolism

 

[Tiberius]

There's an inconsistency in your argument. The reporting of the Lincoln assassination is external history -- a reporting of empirical facts. The reporting we find in the gospels is a reporting of internal history -- a reporting of how these events shaped a community of believers. Don't confuse one with the other.

Right. Don't confuse the Bible with emperical fact. Got it.

Purple sometimes symbolizes royalty, dating back to Roman times, when clothing dyed with Tyrian purple was limited to the upper classes. The color, which was closer to crimson than our idea of purple, was the favored color of many kings and queens

Okay, there was no mention of "purple" in either the article about royalty nor the article abot Ancient Rome, so that claim has not been supported by the links.

I also find it hard to believe that jesus' robes were of Tyrian Purple. The article you linked to states: "The dye was expensive: Aristotle assigns a value ten to twenty times its weight in gold!" Hardly the sort of thing they'd give to a man being executed.

The page on Crimson does say that Crimson is close to purple, but it certainly isn't close enough to purple for the two to be confused. For someone at the time to confuse Crimson with Tyrian purple, they would:

1. have to be half blind to be unable to tell the differnece.
2. Have to be so silly as to believe that the Romans would give something as expensive as Tyrian die to someone the authorities considered a criminal.

In short, it doesn't seem a plausible excuse.

 

[sojourner]

Right. Don't confuse the Bible with emperical fact. Got it.

And right here, readers, we find the crux of the problem. For this person, there must be fact, or it's not real or reliable. Forget that we can't prove love...it doesn't exist. Forget that we can't prove trust...it doesn't exist either.

We're currently slugging this out in another thread. Read Niebuhr sometime. He talks about internal and external history. One is as real and reliable as the other. The truths in the Bible are just as real and reliable as the facts in a textbook. Sometimes, more so.

 

[Jerrell]

There are no Inconsistances in the BIble, now if you differ please tell me these inconsistancies. And we will see it's meaning and context to truely understand it.

 

[dan]

There are no Inconsistances in the BIble, now if you differ please tell me these inconsistancies. And we will see it's meaning and context to truely understand it.

Happily. David's Census. I will provide my explanation and you wil provide yours, and Okham's razor will decide a better explanation. I will begin by saying that my explanation starts with no pre-conceived notions, dogmas, or assumptions about the way things should be.

II Samuel 24:9 - Israel: 800,000
Judah: 500,000

I Chronicles 21:5 - Israel: 1,100,000
Judah: 470,000

The Hebrew word for "thousand" is eleph, while the Hebrew word for soldier or chief is alluph. Both are spelled aleph-lamed-peh ('lp). In Biblical Hebrew there were no vowels, so these two words looked eactly identical, and if you were talking about large numbers of soldiers it was really confusing. If I analyze the numbers under the impression that the scribe that copied them confused the two words I get two identical numbers that actually fit the demographics from that time period. The original numbers were actually as follows:

Israel: 80,000 plus 30 'lp
Judah: 40,000 plus 70 'lp

The first scribe to mess up (Chronicles) multiplied the numbers by ten (as simple as one tiny letter) and thought the 'lp meant thousand. Thus: 800,000 plus 300 'lp, and 400,000 plus 70 'lp (the 70 wouldn't be bigger than the preceding number, so he didn't multiply it by ten). That gives us 800,000 plus 300,000 for Israel and 400,000 plus 70,000 for Judah.

The Samuel scribe multiplied the big numbers by ten and got 800,000 plus 30 'lp and 400,000 plus 70 'lp. To make the numbers nice and round he added the 30 'lp and the 70 'lp to 400,000, giving us 800,000 for Israel and 500,000 for Judah.

I'm sure you'll come up with some wacky explanation about soldiers with chariots and soldiers on foot or some stuff like that. That's the most popular argument raised by people who's doctrine dictates how the scriptures are read, but I don't read them with preconceived notions about what I will find in them. If you have another explanation I'd love to hear it.

 

[Jerrell]

Keep in mind the Censuses in History Were Very wrong and often wrong, they could'nt say for sure how many people were alive. Their system of doing things was ineffective.

This however, is not a reason to deny the Bible, just becuase one writer says there were 1,000,000 poeple in Israel, and another says there was 800,000, they probaly got their cesus information from too diffrent places...or two diffrent times.
Ezra the scribe wrote 1and 2 Chornicles After the Exile to Babylon in 597-537 B.C.
And the books cover matrial from a Theological Perspective not a Historical Perscpetive

However David Ruled as King 500 years before Ezra from 1005 B.C. to 965 B.C. It was around this time that the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel was Written. Now If 500 years pass by, do you thikn incorrect censuses will survive? Alot of Jewish Hisotry was Preserved by mouth, much of the BIble was not written until the Exile or after it.

One needs to look at the Bigger picture. The Number of People in a army really doesn't matter what Matters is all the Prophecy that has been fulfilled and some yet to be fulfilled. What really matters is the scientific Accurancy of the BIlbe. What really matters is the reveavling of who or what God is. Historical Information may be fogged or inconsistant as to Howmany Troops we have in our army, but wethere right or wrong, the fact is they have a army.

This is not a matter of Theological or Doctrinal understanding of the Bible...This is a Matter of Historical Acdcurance in a Time 500 years before Jesus' Birth. Do you reall think anything they write down in a number sysytem we can't read or understand will be correct? Yet still...this accurance of diffrence in humber is just a misunderstanding in the census he took, it a simple mistake of words, man is not perfect. Yet God is able to preserve his words.
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK...ttp://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/HEBREWS/EXILE.HTM
1005 BC - 965 BC

 

[Tiberius]

And right here, readers, we find the crux of the problem. For this person, there must be fact, or it's not real or reliable. Forget that we can't prove love...it doesn't exist. Forget that we can't prove trust...it doesn't exist either.

But I have experienced those. I have felt them for myself.

I can also see the effects of love and trust. They aren't just confined to the minds of the people experiencing them, they have outside results as well.

Now, if God will provide that for me, I'd take it as evidence. However, I have not seen that.

 

[sojourner]

But I have experienced those. I have felt them for myself.

I can also see the effects of love and trust. They aren't just confined to the minds of the people experiencing them, they have outside results as well.

Now, if God will provide that for me, I'd take it as evidence. However, I have not seen that.

Maybe you just haven't opened yourself to that possibility. God stands at the door and knocks. God doesn't break it down and barge in. I (as well as others) have experienced the presence and voice of God just as surely as we have experienced love and trust.

 

[dan]

However David Ruled as King 500 years before Ezra from 1005 B.C. to 965 B.C. It was around this time that the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel was Written. Now If 500 years pass by, do you thikn incorrect censuses will survive? Alot of Jewish Hisotry was Preserved by mouth, much of the BIble was not written until the Exile or after it.

One needs to look at the Bigger picture.

We don't really kow when I & II Samuel were written, but we do know it was not written (or at least the version we have was not written) during David's life. There are several anachronisms in it. One that I will point out is the name of Saul's son, Ish-bosheth. Bosheth is Hebrew for shame. The voweling used in it is often interposed in proper names as a kind of editorial about the person. The God Molech, mentioned in the OT is actually just the Hebrew word for king melech, voweled to denote shame. Saul certainly would never name his son Man of Shame. I Chronicles 8:33 lists his name as Eshbaal, which means Man of Baal (or Man of baal). If the writer didn't want to mention that the King of Israel named his son Man of Baal he would have changed it, and Bosheth would have been a good replacement, considering what he did. During David's time and shortly after, Baal names were not taboo. It wasn't till many, many years later that those names were avoided and looked down upon. Some date it as late as 500 B.C., but I like to think it was written (at least the version we have) between 600 and 900 B.C.

The majority of people who make the argument that there are no inconsistencies in the Bible do so because of some idea they got that every syllable of the Bible is 100% inspired and accurate. You're saying that there are no inconsistencies, but that the scribes got their information wrong. I'm confused as to exactly how you think the Bible can be perfect and still be pervaded by human error. Can you explain?

 

[Tiberius]

Maybe you just haven't opened yourself to that possibility. God stands at the door and knocks. God doesn't break it down and barge in. I (as well as others) have experienced the presence and voice of God just as surely as we have experienced love and trust.

or maybe I have and nothing happened.

If God comes and shows me the truth, then I won't deny it. But that hasn't happened.

By the way, when you experienced the voice of God, how did you know it was real?

Also, how do you know that it was the Christian god? maybe it was Poseidon. or Ganesh.

And also, even if the voices you heard said something like, "I am the Christian God," does that mean that all those people who heard "I am Poseidon" many years ago were just hallucinating?

And if that's true, how do you know that the same isn't also happening to you?

And how do you know it's not Satan pretending to be the Christian God so as to lead you into sin? Surely Satan would be able to pull the wool over your eyes if he wanted to.

 

[sojourner]

or maybe I have and nothing happened.

If God comes and shows me the truth, then I won't deny it. But that hasn't happened.

By the way, when you experienced the voice of God, how did you know it was real?

Also, how do you know that it was the Christian god? maybe it was Poseidon. or Ganesh.

And also, even if the voices you heard said something like, "I am the Christian God," does that mean that all those people who heard "I am Poseidon" many years ago were just hallucinating?

And if that's true, how do you know that the same isn't also happening to you?

And how do you know it's not Satan pretending to be the Christian God so as to lead you into sin? Surely Satan would be able to pull the wool over your eyes if he wanted to.

You're taking this all too literally. It's not the personality we assign to God that is "real" so much as it is our understanding of God. Our understanding is very limited, so we assign these personalities to God that fall within the realm of our understanding, and that make us the most comfortable with that understanding. I call the divine, "God." I have a picture and a certain understanding of that. Someone else may have a different name, and a different understanding.

I know it was an encounter with the divine, and not the profane, because I felt love, peace and trust when I encountered it.. It was something that, like my love for my wife, I felt had a source that was greater than I, that drew me in.

God is truth. If you have experienced truth, then you have experienced God. How often and for how long did you wait for God to speak to you? Sometimes it takes years. It takes patience and a whole lot of denial of self, plus a willingness to be open to possibilities.

 

[Tiberius]

You're taking this all too literally. It's not the personality we assign to God that is "real" so much as it is our understanding of God.

So what we worship as God is really just an imaginary friend that we think is the way God should be?

And I'm not going to wait for years to get a gut feeling that may not ever come, because I know that even when you do get gut feelings, they can still be wrong.

I know it was an encounter with the divine, and not the profane, because I felt love, peace and trust when I encountered it.. It was something that, like my love for my wife, I felt had a source that was greater than I, that drew me in.

And you are so sure that Satan can't do that? Doesn't the Bible say that Satan is so tempting because he makes you feel good?