Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Is The Bible Literally True?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2, Justice is "the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law".

    Therefore;

    1) there is not fairness in God ordering to kill innocent beings (like infants in 1 Samuel 15:3 & children in Ezk 9:6) for guilty one(s).

    2) not only God ordered to kill innocents of infants and children, but God practiced injustice in the Bible such as killing David's son for David's guilt in 2 Samuel 12:14-15 and God unjustly struck ALL firstborn of Egypt.

    Human legal courts of law would NEVER accept the punishment of someone else in the place of the criminal.

    God ordering to kill innocents of infants and and God killing firstborn of Egypt in the above incidents of Bible are against God's himself command in 2 Kings 14:6 "the son shall not bear the guilt of his father and each is to die for HIS OWN sin"

    Given the above, the Bible is not literally from God in everything.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      What gives it moral authority then?
      The definitions, the meaning of the terms. They either mean what they mean to both god and man or, as you seem to be arguing, they only apply to man. But then you will need stop defining god by those terms.

      Comment


      • Oh look. Same is back with....more of the same.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          Oh look. Same is back with....more of the same.
          Why does he keep using argument s that would be worse for Islam?
          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            Oh look. Same is back with....more of the same.
            I would like to see how you would respond to God being just while ordering to kill and also killing infants ,for example, in 1 Samuel 15:3 when the very same God commanded that "every person is to die for HIS OWN sin" in 2 Kings 14:6.

            Comment


            • Another example of theological contradiction of the Bible is that while 1 timothy 6:16 says "no one has seen God nor can see", Job in Job 42:5 says "my eyes have seen you" and Matthew 5:8 says "blessed those who are pure in heart for they shall see God"

              Comment


              • It's already been done. I have no more desire to waste my time with someone who refuses to listen and seriously interact.

                All you're doing here is convincing us that you don't know what you're talking about.

                Comment


                • Please refer me to the post(s) where you have responded to God-ordering-to-kill-infants vs. God-being-just.

                  Comment


                  • No.

                    All my writing are available on line. If you want to look, feel free, but I'm not doing it for you.

                    As I said, waste of time.

                    Enjoy your echo chamber.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      No.

                      All my writing are available on line. If you want to look, feel free, but I'm not doing it for you.

                      As I said, waste of time.

                      Enjoy your echo chamber.
                      Then take these additional examples of God in the Bible.

                      2. God promised to cause adultery with more than one wive of the guilty in 2 Samuel 12:11-12;

                      “This is what the Lord says: Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.”

                      3. God sanctioned slavery in Deut 15:17 in an awful manner as follows;

                      "then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant."

                      4. God punished the bastard for being illegitimate as per Deuteronomy 23:2;
                      "No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation."

                      5. God ordered to kill a son who curses any of his parents as per Matthew 15:4 and Levi 20:9;

                      'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
                      Last edited by Same Hakeem; 11-02-2019, 11:46 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                        No.

                        All my writing are available on line. If you want to look, feel free, but I'm not doing it for you.

                        As I said, waste of time.

                        Enjoy your echo chamber.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Same Hakeem View Post
                          Another example of theological contradiction of the Bible is that while 1 timothy 6:16 says "no one has seen God nor can see", Job in Job 42:5 says "my eyes have seen you" and Matthew 5:8 says "blessed those who are pure in heart for they shall see God"
                          There is a verbal contradiction - but not a contradiction in theology. If a text said “Jesus Christ is God in the flesh” and another text said, “Jesus Christ is not, in any sense, God in the flesh” - that would be a contradiction, because the two statements make claims about the same topic that exclude one another.

                          Two statements about the same topic, that make claims about it that do not exclude one another, are not contradictions: “Zebras are black” is, in a sense, true. “Zebras are white” is also, in a sense, true. Both are statements about the coloration of zebras. Neither statement covers all the truth about their coloration. Neither statement need be taken as stating all the truth about their coloration, even if such an interpretation may seem to be self-evidently and alone valid. Blackness is a quality of zebras - and so is whiteness. A full account of what being a zebra entails, will do justice to both aspects of their coloration.

                          All 3 of your examples are clarified, and solved, by their contexts. What “seeing God” entails is different for NT Christians, who have seen Christ Himself, the Supreme Revelation of God, from what it is for Job, who has been in pre-Christian spiritual anguish that his theology, and that of his friends, cannot cope with. St Matthew 5.8 is true under both Testaments - impurity of heart is an obstacle to seeing God for Jew, Gentile, and Christian alike. The supposed contradiction is verbal - but it is not real.

                          Contradictions are of many kinds. “Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland” is true in 2019 AD - in 2000 BC neither Scotland nor Edinburgh existed. And in 1500 AD, Scotland’s capital was Dunfermline. Some statements are true, or have meaning at all, at certain times, & not at others.
                          Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-27-2019, 07:35 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                            There is a verbal contradiction - but not a contradiction in theology. If a text said “Jesus Christ is God in the flesh” and another text said, “Jesus Christ is not, in any sense, God in the flesh” - that would be a contradiction, because the two statements make claims about the same topic that exclude one another.

                            Two statements about the same topic, that make claims about it that do not exclude one another, are not contradictions: “Zebras are black” is, in a sense, true. “Zebras are white” is also, in a sense, true. Both are statements about the coloration of zebras. Neither statement covers all the truth about their coloration. Neither statement need be taken as stating all the truth about their coloration, even if such an interpretation may seem to be self-evidently and alone valid. Blackness is a quality of zebras - and so is whiteness. A full account of what being a zebra entails, will do justice to both aspects of their coloration.

                            All 3 of your examples are clarified, and solved, by their contexts. What “seeing God” entails is different for NT Christians, who have seen Christ Himself, the Supreme Revelation of God, from what it is for Job, who has been in pre-Christian spiritual anguish that his theology, and that of his friends, cannot cope with. St Matthew 5.8 is true under both Testaments - impurity of heart is an obstacle to seeing God for Jew, Gentile, and Christian alike. The supposed contradiction is verbal - but it is not real.

                            Contradictions are of many kinds. “Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland” is true in 2019 AD - in 2000 BC neither Scotland nor Edinburgh existed. And in 1500 AD, Scotland’s capital was Dunfermline. Some statements are true, or have meaning at all, at certain times, & not at others.
                            Now that's what we call rationalizing. No one has seen god, or can see god and my eyes have seen god, do exclude one another. They are contradictions.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Now that's what we call rationalizing. No one has seen god, or can see god and my eyes have seen god, do exclude one another. They are contradictions.
                              It’s always possible to call explanation “rationalising”. What is unsatisfying about my answer ? Is the reasoning bad (for instance) ? And: what would you judge to be an acceptable reply, and why ? I sometimes get the impression - which may of course be wholly mistaken - that any answer that fails to agree with your POV will be unacceptable. Is that impression unjustified ?

                              Your response is limited to the words used - it leaves out the contexts of the passages, and the reasons those words in particular are used. And the reply ignores the need for exegesis of the texts. Words have a social context, because they are not self-explanatory units, like grains of sand, but are used by human beings, in society, to convey meanings. They cannot always be adequately understood simply by consulting a dictionary, or by being read in isolation from the rest of the text in which they occur.

                              And they are conditioned by their historical environment - writers who are centuries and cultures apart, cannot be assumed to have the same ideas in mind when using the same words. To take a simple example: what “corn” denotes in the US, is not what the word denotes in the UK. When Spanish uses the word “burro”, it is referring to a donkey - but in Italian, the same word refers to butter. One cannot assume without further investigation that the same words used by different writers, speakers, authors or cultures are going to mean the same thing in all cases. They may - or they may not.

                              Is a candidate who “runs for the Presidency”, but walks or drives everywhere, running for the Presidency ? By the standards you apply, to say the candidate is running for President, is false. Language does not convey meaning in the static, culture-free, history-free, association-free way in which your reasoning takes those three texts.
                              Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-28-2019, 06:59 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                                It’s always possible to call explanation “rationalising”. What is unsatisfying about my answer ? Is the reasoning bad (for instance) ? And: what would you judge to be an acceptable reply, and why ? I sometimes get the impression - which may of course be wholly mistaken - that any answer that fails to agree with your POV will be unacceptable. Is that impression unjustified ?

                                Your response is limited to the words used - it leaves out the contexts of the passages, and the reasons those words in particular are used. And the reply ignores the need for exegesis of the texts. Words have a social context, because they are not self-explanatory units, like grains of sand, but are used by human beings, in society, to convey meanings. They cannot always be adequately understood simply by consulting a dictionary, or by being read in isolation from the rest of the text in which they occur.

                                And they are conditioned by their historical environment - writers who are centuries and cultures apart, cannot be assumed to have the same ideas in mind when using the same words. To take a simple example: what “corn” denotes in the US, is not what the word denotes in the UK. When Spanish uses the word “burro”, it is referring to a donkey - but in Italian, the same word refers to butter. One cannot assume without further investigation that the same words used by different writers, speakers, authors or cultures are going to mean the same thing in all cases. They may - or they may not.

                                Is a candidate who “runs for the Presidency”, but walks or drives everywhere, running for the Presidency ? By the standards you apply, to say the candidate is running for President, is false. Language does not convey meaning in the static, culture-free, history-free, association-free way in which your reasoning takes those three texts.
                                But, there is no taking out of context, or different meaning to the phrase in Timothy 6:16 "no one has seen or can see god." It doesn't leave an opening for exceptions, for other interpretations, it simply and clearly says no one has or can see god. Same with Job 42:5. What else could "my eyes have seen you mean, other that he saw god with his eyes. It's true that context etc matters, but that fact in itself alone doesn't explain these otherwise obvious contradictions.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                54 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X