Is The Bible Literally True?

[JonathanL]

Expect that once of his claims has been debunked he will continue to throw up more.

Nah, he'll simply ignore the answers and continue repeating his claims ad nauseam.

[Same Hakeem]

Someone notify me when he comes up with an objection that hasn't been addressed 1,000 times before. Alright?

Addressing is the easiest but making sense is the most difficult.

As we are questioning "is the Bible literally true?", please turn to Lev 20:9 which says "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death"

Is Lev 20:9 literally true?

James 2:10 says "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it"

[JonathanL]

"is the Bible literally true?"

The parts that are intended to be interpreted literally are literally true.

And literally all of the Bible is true.

But not all of the Bible is literally true.



Chew on on that cud for a while.

[Cow Poke]

The parts that are intended to be interpreted literally are literally true.

And literally all of the Bible is true.

But not all of the Bible is literally true.



Chew on on that cud for a while.

He's not programmed to respond in that fashion. He's simply programmed to go back to his talking points and copy/paste another (or the same) section of text.

But he's VERY POLITE about it! Somewhat... robotic... even.

[Same Hakeem]

The parts that are intended to be interpreted literally are literally true.

And literally all of the Bible is true.

But not all of the Bible is literally true.



Chew on on that cud for a while.

If so, why is Lev 20:9 not applied when "for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" according to James 2:10?

[tabibito]

The law is part and parcel of the covenant (or testament). When the covenant (testament) changes, so does the law. The existence of a new law, superseding the old, is pointed out by the fact that we have an "Old Testament" and a "New Testament."

[rogue06]

The parts that are intended to be interpreted literally are literally true.

And literally all of the Bible is true.

But not all of the Bible is literally true.



Chew on on that cud for a while.

He's not programmed to respond in that fashion. He's simply programmed to go back to his talking points and copy/paste another (or the same) section of text.

But he's VERY POLITE about it! Somewhat... robotic... even.

If so, why is Lev 20:9 not applied when "for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" according to James 2:10?

[ReformedApologist]

Please take the following commands and orders of God in relation to treatment of women;

Exodus 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 "10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife."

Funny you quote verse 16 of Exodus 22 but leave out verse 17 which says:

If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.-Exodus 22:17

Thus it was optional and could be refused. There is a thing in Torah called Maximum penalty or Lex talionis which is what we find in Exodus 21:24. So quote the verse rightly.

Same goes for Deuteronomy 21:10-13 in which you left out verse 14 which says:

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.-Deuteronomy 21:14

Did you serious think no one was going to check these verses you quoted it see if they were being read in their full context? Your proof texting are a joke. But please continue to embarrass yourself.

[Same Hakeem]

Funny you quote verse 16 of Exodus 22 but leave out verse 17 which says:

If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.-Exodus 22:17

Thus it was optional and could be refused. There is a thing in Torah called Maximum penalty or Lex talionis which is what we find in Exodus 21:24. So quote the verse rightly.

Same goes for Deuteronomy 21:10-13 in which you left out verse 14 which says:

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.-Deuteronomy 21:14

Did you serious think no one was going to check these verses you quoted it see if they were being read in their full context? Your proof texting are a joke. But please continue to embarrass yourself.

Why did you not continue to comment on Deut 22:28-29?

[Same Hakeem]

Another test if the Bible is literally true is in the fact that God orders several times in the Bible to kill infants, children, (1 Sam 15:3) and anything that breathes (Deut 20:16-17). The same God that orders to kill infants in 1 Sam 15:3 is loving and just. It is impossible to imagine a loving God orders to kill infants.

[ReformedApologist]

Another test if the Bible is literally true is in the fact that God orders several times in the Bible to kill infants, children, (1 Sam 15:3) and anything that breathes (Deut 20:16-17). The same God that orders to kill infants in 1 Sam 15:3 is loving and just. It is impossible to imagine a loving God orders to kill infants.

Your claims where already addressed in the other thread in which you posed this question. So there is no need to repeat it. I find it funny you complain about the wars in the Old Testament, the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, yet these same events are recorded in your Quran. The other problem is you say its impossible to imagine God would do etc... That is your issue you have a problem with the way God does things according your finite mind (Isaiah 55:8-9). Just because you cannot imagine God would do something does not mean he had no reason. This is called an argument from silence. Further God can kill and make alive (Deuteronomy 32:29; 1st Samuel 2:6). It seems you know better then God. Especially since in Islam Allah cannot be known since he is so transcendent.

[Same Hakeem]

Your claims where already addressed in the other thread in which you posed this question. So there is no need to repeat it. I find it funny you complain about the wars in the Old Testament, the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, yet these same events are recorded in your Quran. The other problem is you say its impossible to imagine God would do etc... That is your issue you have a problem with the way God does things according your finite mind (Isaiah 55:8-9). Just because you cannot imagine God would do something does not mean he had no reason. This is called an argument from silence. Further God can kill and make alive (Deuteronomy 32:29; 1st Samuel 2:6). It seems you know better then God. Especially since in Islam Allah cannot be known since he is so transcendent.

Let me correct you;

1. I never talked about the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah

2. God can do anything is not my objection.

[JimL]

Your claims where already addressed in the other thread in which you posed this question. So there is no need to repeat it. I find it funny you complain about the wars in the Old Testament, the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, yet these same events are recorded in your Quran. The other problem is you say its impossible to imagine God would do etc... That is your issue you have a problem with the way God does things according your finite mind (Isaiah 55:8-9). Just because you cannot imagine God would do something does not mean he had no reason. This is called an argument from silence. Further God can kill and make alive (Deuteronomy 32:29; 1st Samuel 2:6). It seems you know better then God. Especially since in Islam Allah cannot be known since he is so transcendent.

Hacking to death infants and children is either immoral, or it is not. If you think it can be either, then you all need stop clamoring about the existence of an objective moral standard.

[Same Hakeem]

Your claims where already addressed in the other thread in which you posed this question. So there is no need to repeat it. I find it funny you complain about the wars in the Old Testament, the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, yet these same events are recorded in your Quran. The other problem is you say its impossible to imagine God would do etc... That is your issue you have a problem with the way God does things according your finite mind (Isaiah 55:8-9). Just because you cannot imagine God would do something does not mean he had no reason. This is called an argument from silence. Further God can kill and make alive (Deuteronomy 32:29; 1st Samuel 2:6). It seems you know better then God. Especially since in Islam Allah cannot be known since he is so transcendent.

Let me correct you;

1. I never talked about the flood or Sodom or Gomorrah. Otherwise, please show me where.

2. My objection is how a loving & just God orders the killing of infants in 1 Sam 15:3.

[Same Hakeem]

Hacking to death infants and children is either immoral, or it is not. If you think it can be either, then you all need stop clamoring about the existence of an objective moral standard.

I agree that killing infants is immoral.