Accuracy of the Bible

[Autodidact]

I see how some might come to that conclusion with an incomplete knowledge of Jewish law.

So you're saying that God didn't command these things?

You cannot be raised to love Tanakh without having been taught what the Tanakh says. Any love you'd had before reading it was superficial.

Well, I was a child at the time, and did not know Hebrew.

What exactly is hateful about that verse?

Nothing, to a sociopath or morally retarded person. To people with moral sense, killing little children is considered wrong. Also sexual slavery.

 

[Autodidact]

Is that why God ordered that they be killed? Verse 17 of Numbers 31 follows verse 2 which says:



Revenge for what exactly? If you read the entire Parsha (Chapters 25-30) of Pinchas, you'll see that the revenge was for a plague that had harmed the people of Israel. The plague was brought on by the Midianites and their leading the Israelites astray.

Oh that's so much better. If your great-grandparents persuaded our great-grandparents to eat oysters, which caused God to kill us, then it's perfectly justified to kill you as an infant who had nothing to do with it.

When explaining morality to someone who doesn't see a problem with that, it's necessary to go back to very elementary level. Let's start with: murder is wrong. Then we'll work up from there.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Because "accuracy" can mean any number of things. Accurate as to what?

I think it's fairly obvious that we're talking historical accuracy in this situation. Does the archaeology back up what is written? Do non-jewish/christian histories written in the same era back up the biblical texts? Are the different accounts of the same stories consistent even within the bible?

The answer, in the majority of cases, is an emphatic NO.

 

[Caladan]

Jesus Did fulfill the Jewish Law.

The Jewish Christians certainly thought so.

However his subsequent teachings Showed a new Merciful face of God.

The neo Christians certainly think so.

The above passage seems more the work of a Jewish apologist than the actual words of Jesus. (Spin doctors were around in even those days.)

Thats an interesting notion, in other words it leaves the NT right where you left the OT.. a Jewish text that should be read in its own [interesting] context, on many occasions, certainly on other occasions both texts climb into impressive heights, universal in their inspirational qualities.

 

[sojourner]

I think it's fairly obvious that we're talking historical accuracy in this situation. Does the archaeology back up what is written? Do non-jewish/christian histories written in the same era back up the biblical texts? Are the different accounts of the same stories consistent even within the bible?

The answer, in the majority of cases, is an emphatic NO.

All of that is true, and it's true because the Bible does not attempt to be a history textbook. It's a collection of theological treatises. Is the Bible accurate in it's portrayal of Israel's and early Xy's relationship with God? Now that's a question worth asking. I think you'll find the answer to that question of accuracy is "yes," especially as concerns the readily-apparent contradictions therein. You see, the editors, when writing down the stories that had been told verbally for centuries, thought it more important to preserve all the tradition -- not just the stuff that jived.

That makes the Bible, not a book of history, but a book of tradition. And the Bible is accurate in that regard.

 

[Perfect Circle]

All of that is true, and it's true because the Bible does not attempt to be a history textbook. It's a collection of theological treatises. Is the Bible accurate in it's portrayal of Israel's and early Xy's relationship with God? Now that's a question worth asking. I think you'll find the answer to that question of accuracy is "yes," especially as concerns the readily-apparent contradictions therein. You see, the editors, when writing down the stories that had been told verbally for centuries, thought it more important to preserve all the tradition -- not just the stuff that jived.

That makes the Bible, not a book of history, but a book of tradition. And the Bible is accurate in that regard.

I see what you're saying, and I agree. It does preserve the tradition. However, a large percentage of Christians in the world today would in fact argue that it IS attempting to be a history book. I'm not even limiting this to the fundagelicals. Even for the more moderate modern Christians, the stories of Jonah living in a whale, the condemnation to death by the Sanhedrin, the Exodus, the cleansing of the land, and the resurrection of Jesus are all literal truth. But none of these have much if any historical backing.

So yes, it's accurate as far as preservation of an ancient tradition goes, but not as literal history.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Thats an interesting notion, in other words it leaves the NT right where you left the OT.. a Jewish text that should be read in its own [interesting] context, on many occasions, certainly on other occasions both texts climb into impressive heights, universal in their inspirational qualities.

Every thing should be read in context not just the Ot and NT.

I have come to believe, over time, that Both testaments are very uneven in their accuracy. Some seem more propaganda than inspired teachings.
When you consider that both are constructed from unconnected Books, selected as to how well they fitted into the selectors preconceived perceptions, this is not unexpected.
That the Bibles contain many errors has never challenged my faith.

It would be beyond belief if they had contained no error.

 

[TheKnight]

So you're saying that God didn't command these things?

I said what the words say.

Well, I was a child at the time, and did not know Hebrew.

That's understandable.

Nothing, to a sociopath or morally retarded person. To people with moral sense, killing little children is considered wrong. Also sexual slavery.

Killing people is considered wrong, yet a person with moral sense will agree that there are times when people should be killed.

The verse does not discuss sexual slavery.

Oh that's so much better. If your great-grandparents persuaded our great-grandparents to eat oysters, which caused God to kill us, then it's perfectly justified to kill you as an infant who had nothing to do with it.

When explaining morality to someone who doesn't see a problem with that, it's necessary to go back to very elementary level. Let's start with: murder is wrong. Then we'll work up from there.

It's not murder when God commands it.

 

[Autodidact]

I said what the words say.

Well the words say that God frequently commanded the Israelites to commit genocide and infanticide, to kill all the people occupying the land He gave us, being sure not to spare the toddlers and infants.

Killing people is considered wrong, yet a person with moral sense will agree that there are times when people should be killed.

When should toddlers and infants be killed, when their ancestors tempted our ancestors to violate a taboo?

The verse does not discuss sexual slavery.

Says you. What do you call it when soldiers take female prisoners for their own, a career opportunity?

It's not murder when God commands it.

Yes, thank you, we know that's your reprehensible, barbaric, view, and I appreciate you repeating it as often as possible. If you follow TheKnight's religion, then slaughtering babies is morally rights, whenever God commands it, as He frequently does.

 

[sojourner]

I see what you're saying, and I agree. It does preserve the tradition. However, a large percentage of Christians in the world today would in fact argue that it IS attempting to be a history book. I'm not even limiting this to the fundagelicals. Even for the more moderate modern Christians, the stories of Jonah living in a whale, the condemnation to death by the Sanhedrin, the Exodus, the cleansing of the land, and the resurrection of Jesus are all literal truth. But none of these have much if any historical backing.

So yes, it's accurate as far as preservation of an ancient tradition goes, but not as literal history.

Not sure how many "moderates you could include in that set of literalists. Most moderates I know would agree that it's not a history book.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Not sure how many "moderates you could include in that set of literalists. Most moderates I know would agree that it's not a history book.

I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that I live around a large percentage of southern baptists... My view of moderate is probably closer to what you would call fundamentalist. Either way, it's just semantics. I think we're really in agreeance here.

 

[Perfect Circle]

I said what the words say.

That's understandable.

Killing people is considered wrong, yet a person with moral sense will agree that there are times when people should be killed.

The verse does not discuss sexual slavery.

It's not murder when God commands it.

Uh-oh... Does somebody want to re-open the biblical genocide thread?

 

[TheKnight]

Well the words say that God frequently commanded the Israelites to commit genocide and infanticide, to kill all the people occupying the land He gave us, being sure not to spare the toddlers and infants.

God commanded the Israelites to end lives that He was responsible for. In essence, God was ending those peoples lives and the Israelites were commanded to be the agents of God's action.

When should toddlers and infants be killed, when their ancestors tempted our ancestors to violate a taboo?

A person should only be killed if commanded by God.

Says you. What do you call it when soldiers take female prisoners for their own, a career opportunity?

I don't call it anything because I don't know what it is that that soldier is doing with her. He might want to have her marry his sons, he might want to adopt her as a daughter, he might want her to be a servant, he might want her to marry him.

What he does isn't relevant. The fact that he is allowed to take her into his custody does not mean that he can do whatever he wants to her. He is still subject to Jewish law which forbids rape, murder, and brutality to other human beings.

Yes, thank you, we know that's your reprehensible, barbaric, view, and I appreciate you repeating it as often as possible. If you follow TheKnight's religion, then slaughtering babies is morally rights, whenever God commands it, as He frequently does.

God does not frequently order the death of babies (unless you consider everyday deaths a result of God's ordering--which you could probably make an argument for).

The death of people is unfortunate. The fact that a person is younger than another person doesn't necessarily make their death any more tragic. Perhaps a problem with our society is that we are OK with some deaths and not OK with others. For you, the death of a baby is some sort of horrific event whereas the death of an adult doesn't bother you as much. You should be just as bothered by both in my opinion. People are still people. Whether they be wicked or righteous. And the death of said people, creations of God, should sadden us all.

 

[Humanistheart]

When should toddlers and infants be killed, when their ancestors tempted our ancestors to violate a taboo?.

When their lives are going to be too painful to live. In this case, I'd rather be killed as an infant that raised as a slave, particularly if we're talking about a female slave who will surely be violated repeatedly, especially considering the young age at which said violations would surely take place. This justifies nothing mind you, but I know I'd rather die than live through that.

Says you. What do you call it when soldiers take female prisoners for their own, a career opportunity?

Sounds more like a bonus.

Yes, thank you, we know that's your reprehensible, barbaric, view, and I appreciate you repeating it as often as possible. If you follow TheKnight's religion, then slaughtering babies is morally rights, whenever God commands it, as He frequently does.

I agree that slaughtering babies as can be read of in the bible is wrong. But then again we live in a society that kills babies every day and what's being done about that? Oh that's right nothing, because it's legal.

 

[rojse]

I agree that slaughtering babies as can be read of in the bible is wrong. But then again we live in a society that kills babies every day and what's being done about that? Oh that's right nothing, because it's legal.

It's not a baby until it is born. Otherwise, it is a foetus.

And, I know such semantics doesn't appeal to the desire to sensationalise such an issue, but there it is.

 

[Humanistheart]

God commanded the Israelites to end lives that He was responsible for. In essence, God was ending those peoples lives and the Israelites were commanded to be the agents of God's action.


A person should only be killed if commanded by God.


I don't call it anything because I don't know what it is that that soldier is doing with her. He might want to have her marry his sons, he might want to adopt her as a daughter, he might want her to be a servant, he might want her to marry him.

What he does isn't relevant. The fact that he is allowed to take her into his custody does not mean that he can do whatever he wants to her. He is still subject to Jewish law which forbids rape, murder, and brutality to other human beings.


God does not frequently order the death of babies (unless you consider everyday deaths a result of God's ordering--which you could probably make an argument for).

Knight we had this debate once before if I recall, on a different thread. You never gave any justification for your opinion. Even if this god existed you were never able to make an argument for why his opinions matter over others. If god calls for the death of other beings it's murder, and his no less guilty than anyone else. This god of your's has no moral authority what so ever, and since he's appearently unable to do his own dirty work anymore, for what ever reason, it's safe to say he simply has no power period, assuming he exists at all.

 

[Humanistheart]

It's not a baby until it is born. Otherwise, it is a foetus.

And, I know such semantics doesn't appeal to the desire to sensationalise such an issue, but there it is.

That's not entirely accurate. Early on it's titled an 'embryo' then later in development a fetus. Note that, as you said, birth is the action required to change titles. Yet if a child is born prematurely at 7 months, it is called an infant but a child still in the womb at 7 months is still called a fetus dispite no developmental difference. You'll also note that 'baby' is not a technical term, and can in fact be used for a child in the womb. Have you ever heard someone put their hand on a pregnant womans stomouch and say 'wow I can feel the fetus kicking!"? No, they say baby. However if you'd said infant, you'd have been correct, but it still would have been mere semantics and would have done nothing to detract from my point.

 

[rojse]

That's not entirely accurate. Early on it's titled an 'embryo' then later in development a fetus. Note that, as you said, birth is the action required to change titles. Yet if a child is born prematurely at 7 months, it is called an infant but a child still in the womb at 7 months is still called a fetus dispite no developmental difference. So you're right, it is mere semantics and they do nothing at all to change my point.

And where are people legally allowed to abort a seven-month old foetus?

 

[Humanistheart]

And where are people legally allowed to abort a seven-month old foetus?

It was merely an example, clearly you missed the point. Try reading the post again and responding with something worth addresssing.

You said it was a baby, not a fetus without understanding what you were saying.

 

[TheKnight]

Knight we had this debate once before if I recall, on a different thread. You never gave any justification for your opinion. Even if this god existed you were never able to make an argument for why his opinions matter over others.

God's opinion matters over others because He is the initiator, owner, and ruler of all that is. If He is the one in control of disseminating life, then it is up to Him when and how that life dissemination is ceased.

If god calls for the death of other beings it's murder, and his no less guilty than anyone else.

That's assuming that morality is external to God. It isn't. God is the definer of morality because He is the Creator of all that exists.