Accuracy of the Bible

[sojourner]

As much of the Xian bible is fiction, it's accuracy should not be of importance.

I dunno...
Go into any library. The Bibles are not found in the fiction section.:no:

 

[Autodidact]

I dunno...
Go into any library. The Bibles are not found in the fiction section.:no:

I see. It's not fiction. It's just wrong.

 

[sojourner]

Wrong? In what sense? In the sense that it accomplishes what its purpose -- that of being a repository of the relationship between God and God's people? Nope. Not wrong there.

Wrong with regard to its historical facts? In many cases. But then, it's not a history text, which means that the underlying meaning of the stories is more important than the facts the stories contain.

Either way, "wrong" is a useless term, in this case.

 

[Autodidact]

Wrong? In what sense?

In the sense that' it's not fiction, but fact. As fact, it's wrong over and over.

In the sense that it accomplishes what its purpose -- that of being a repository of the relationship between God and God's people? Nope. Not wrong there.

And how would you go about verifying that one way or the other?

Wrong with regard to its historical facts? In many cases. But then, it's not a history text, which means that the underlying meaning of the stories is more important than the facts the stories contain.

It's not fiction, it's not history...what is it?

Either way, "wrong" is a useless term, in this case.

Let's start with: is it fiction or non-fiction?

 

[rojse]

Since when is the satisfying of law deemed hateful?

When the law is created to support hate.

 

[rojse]

I assume that's meant to be a definition of either baby or infant, or perhaps fetus. See the problem here rojse is you didn't list the word or words your trying to define. Try again.

The link is for foetus. The words "unborn" and "not fully developed" were also used. I'd think which word was being defined was obvious.

 

[TheKnight]

That's right. Even if you accept that the OT is accurate (extremely dubious) then at best, as agents for God, they were commanded to slaughter innocent babies that never hurt anyone. I can't think of anything more immoral than that, can you?

Your perspective is wrong. The fact that they are innocent is irrelevant. The way you're wording your responses makes me feel like if they had done something wrong, then it would have been OK to take their lives. That's wrong.

It is wrong, 100% of the time, for a human being to take the life of another human being. The only time a human being is permitted to take the life of another human being is when God commands or allows it.

That being said. Regardless of what you do, I cannot kill you unless you fall into that category. The fact that the babies didn't do anything isn't relevant. Even if they had shot my mother in the face it wouldn't matter. They are being killed because God commanded that it be so. The person bringing about the death is an agent acting on behalf of God.

That is how it is in any case of justified killing. You keep trying to make it sound so bad that they didn't do anything. Your thinking is wrong. It's bad because they died. Period. Death is tragic. How people die, why they die, none of that matters. The fact that they do is a tragedy and that is what should upset you.

And how can a person ever be sure that God (1) exists (2) is Whom she thinks He is (3) so commanded?

When God rescues your nation from captivity, provides for you for 40 years in the middle of a barren desert, and speaks to you in front of 3 million people, then you can be sure. Anything less than that you can be sure that He didn't command you to kill anyone.

And what kind of God commands people to stab babies to death because their great-grandparents offered your great-grandparents a BLT?

The kind of God who can see the future where those babies take the same and worse action against your great-grandchildren.

(1) is sexual slavery.

What is?

(2) He only adopts virgins?

It doesn't say virgins. It says incapable of having sex. IE a prepubescent girl.

(3) Is he allowed to have sex with his female servants?

If they consent.

(4) is sexual slavery. (Unless she has the right to refuse him. Does she? Can she say "No, I don't love you, you just killed my father, uncle, cousin and baby brother," and go free--and live?

As I said to someone else, the fact that he can take her does not mean he can lose his mind and become a wild animal. He is still fully bound by Jewish law. Bound to treat her like a human being, bound not to rape her, bound to be civilized and ethical. The fact that he is allowed to take her from her home does not allow him to do whatever he wants.

Let us count the many ways you've contradicted yourself so far. You can slaughter gentile babies, in fact, you must, whenever God commands it, but you're prohibited from brutality against other human beings? Why, aren't gentiles human? Or don't you consider running a baby through with your sword to be brutal? If throwing a newborn baby on the ground and sticking your sword into it isn't murder, what is?

What? I have never said that you can slaughter gentile babies as if they're OK but Jewish ones aren't. A person can not kill anyone. The only exceptions are those instances where God either commands or allows the death of someone. And those are exceptions. We don't live by exception.

He must kill the enemies in concordance with Jewish law, he must treat all prisoners in concordance with Jewish law, he must act within Jewish law. Which means that he cannot do the things prohibited by Jewish law.

Just like if the president says "Go to Sudan in the Darfur region, kill the enemies, and take the children." It doesn't mean go and take the little girls and rape them. The soldiers are still bound by US law (which prohibits murder normally). When they go to war, they are acting on an exceptions. We do not live by exceptions.

Would you like me to cite all the times in the Tanakh that He does?

No. I know that He does. I'm simply saying that those few times are minimal in the span of human history. It's not like every few years God gets thirsty and wants baby blood.

Have you even read it?

Yes, I have read it. I live by it.

And murder is reprensible. We're not talking about little babies who just didn't live, we're talking about a God who orders soldiers to slaughter them.

They are people. God sometimes ordered the death of people. It's unfortunate. It's undesirable. But He would not have commanded it if it were not necessary.

Well, depends on whether you're their mother or not. What it does is make it perfectly clear that it has nothing to do with any evil they committed, because newborn babies can't do evil. It demonstrates how utterly barbaric and bloodthirsty your so-called morals are.

See the first point I made in this post.

Don't jump to conclusions. The point is NOT that babies are more valuable, but more innocent.
You can get away with slandering innocent Midianites and calling them wicked for not worshipping your God, but you can't even try that with poor little Midianite (Amalekite, Mulekite, Iraqi, Bosnian, Hutu, Japanese...) babies. That's the point.

And here is the problem with your logic. No, from your position, I can't. I can't get away with slaughtering anyone. A human being cannot take the life of another of his own volition. Period. A human is a human. From a baby to an adult. If you see it as OK to kill adults then something is wrong with you. Babies, adults, old people. They're all people. And as people they have a right to live that is not and can not be hindered by me unless I am given permission to do so by the one who gave the right.

That being said, if God orders me to kill an adult or if he orders me to kill a baby, I feel the same. I feel absolutely horrible. Because it means a human has died. For whatever reason, whether known or unknown to me, a human being is dead. That is what bother me as a human being a creation of God. You're whole flashy make-this-look-worse-than-it-is-ploy won't work. If you think it's OK to kill adults, then you also think it's OK to kill babies. If it's not OK to kill a baby, then it's not OK to kill an adult.

From where I stand, if God does not command or allow it, nothing (people, animals, trees, anything) can be killed by a human being. Period.

Now./snip/..who that is?

How about we don't play your game. How about you think about what I'm posting without the petty insults, and we try to have a civilized conversation. You can handle being civilized can't you?

So Knight, let's take the 9/11 terrorists. God commanded them to take down the towers. Their actions were:
(1) right
(2) wrong
(3) other?

God didn't command them to.

 

[Commoner]

The only time a human being is permitted to take the life of another human being is when God commands or allows it.

Why? Why would it be ok when god allows it? I don't allow you to kill me nor anyone else if your god commands you to do so. Let him do it himself, if he wants to. What a weak-minded position that is and what a perverse idea that a god would need someone else to do his dirty business.

God didn't command them to.

My, my, that's a bold statement. Putting limits on your limitless god, I see. It's not in god's nature, right? Except when it is, of course.

 

[rojse]

It is wrong, 100% of the time, for a human being to take the life of another human being. The only time a human being is permitted to take the life of another human being is when God commands or allows it.

Now, how do we know when God commands it? I mean, do we just take the word of the person who says so?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Now, how do we know when God commands it? I mean, do we just take the word of the person who says so?

It seems that that is the position in the OT.
It is strange that what God wanted, was always what the Jewish people wanted to do anyway.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But what are we debating? Are we debating the accuracy of the bible (i.e. cosmology, archeology, geology...etc.) or are we arguing against what the bible condones (rape, murder, slavery, lying, fornication....etc)...?

 

[rojse]

But what are we debating? Are we debating the accuracy of the bible (i.e. cosmology, archeology, geology...etc.) or are we arguing against what the bible condones (rape, murder, slavery, lying, fornication....etc)...?

The thread was an attempt to ask whether it was relevant if the Bible was accurate or not, not whether the Bible is accurate or not. I've had the second debate far too often to wish to retread old ground.

 

[TheKnight]

Why? Why would it be ok when god allows it?

Because life has it's source in God. If God decides to cut a person off from that source, then it is His decision to make.

My, my, that's a bold statement. Putting limits on your limitless god, I see. It's not in god's nature, right? Except when it is, of course.

What? No. He didn't command them to because it is obvious that He didn't. There are ways to know whether or not God is talking to you.

Now, how do we know when God commands it? I mean, do we just take the word of the person who says so?

Well, the very first time God spoke to someone telling them to kill someone else, there were a lot of things that preceded that. Namely, God rescued the Iraelites from Egypt, kept them alive in a barren desert for 40 years, and spoke to 3 million of them at the foot of Mt. Sinai.

So basically, if God does all those things for you and then tells you to kill someone, you can believe that it's God. Anything less than all those things, and you cannot believe that it is God that told you.

Essentially, the only way a following revelation could contradict a preceding revelation, is if the events involved in the following revelation were greater. The only exception to this is a prophet and when there is no Temple in Jerusalem, there are no prophets.

 

[Dunemeister]

The only exception to this is a prophet and when there is no Temple in Jerusalem, there are no prophets.

Uhm....Samuel, Abraham......

 

[Autodidact]

Your perspective is wrong. The fact that they are innocent is irrelevant. The way you're wording your responses makes me feel like if they had done something wrong, then it would have been OK to take their lives. That's wrong.

It is wrong, 100% of the time, for a human being to take the life of another human being. The only time a human being is permitted to take the life of another human being is when God commands or allows it.

That being said. Regardless of what you do, I cannot kill you unless you fall into that category. The fact that the babies didn't do anything isn't relevant. Even if they had shot my mother in the face it wouldn't matter. They are being killed because God commanded that it be so. The person bringing about the death is an agent acting on behalf of God.

That is how it is in any case of justified killing. You keep trying to make it sound so bad that they didn't do anything. Your thinking is wrong. It's bad because they died. Period. Death is tragic. How people die, why they die, none of that matters. The fact that they do is a tragedy and that is what should upset you.

Right. I understand. In your moral system it is not only permitted but required to kill innocent people who have done nothing wrong. And that is why your moral system is murderous, barbaric and disgusting. That's what upsets me. There are people like you going around flying airplanes into buildings, hacking the arms off of Tutsi children, raping Bosnian women and shoving Jews into ovens because (they believe that) God commanded them to. And their reasons for believing that are exactly the same as yours, and exactly as wrong.

But again, thank you for making it clear. I want everyone to see where a religionist, Biblical moral system gets you: it gets you murder. That is, murder in any common definition. The fact that you choose to make up your own definition does not change the fact that in the English language, killing someone who has done nothing wrong is murder.

Oh, and it's YOUR perspective that is wrong. As wrong as a perspective can be.

When God rescues your nation from captivity, provides for you for 40 years in the middle of a barren desert, and speaks to you in front of 3 million people, then you can be sure. Anything less than that you can be sure that He didn't command you to kill anyone.

How can you be sure any of these things ever happened? How did you come up with this arbitrary list, btw?

The kind of God who can see the future where those babies take the same and worse action against your great-grandchildren.

Your attitude makes me sick.

It doesn't say virgins. It says incapable of having sex. IE a prepubescent girl.

No, it doesn't. It says women who have not been with a man.

If they consent.

Where does it say that?

As I said to someone else, the fact that he can take her does not mean he can lose his mind and become a wild animal. He is still fully bound by Jewish law. Bound to treat her like a human being, bound not to rape her, bound to be civilized and ethical. The fact that he is allowed to take her from her home does not allow him to do whatever he wants.

Please cite the verses that prohibit him from doing these things to a gentile. After all, he just killed all of her male relatives, which was not prohibited.

What? I have never said that you can slaughter gentile babies as if they're OK but Jewish ones aren't. A person can not kill anyone. The only exceptions are those instances where God either commands or allows the death of someone. And those are exceptions. We don't live by exception.

Well, the exception is the norm in the OT. At various times, the Jews are commanded to slaughter every tribe in Canaan.

He must kill the enemies in concordance with Jewish law, he must treat all prisoners in concordance with Jewish law, he must act within Jewish law. Which means that he cannot do the things prohibited by Jewish law.

Yup. And here's what's permitted by Jewish law: murder, rape, genocide, infanticide and sexual slavery. Nice law you got there.

Just like if the president says "Go to Sudan in the Darfur region, kill the enemies, and take the children." It doesn't mean go and take the little girls and rape them. The soldiers are still bound by US law (which prohibits murder normally). When they go to war, they are acting on an exceptions. We do not live by exceptions.

Why only virgin females? Why are they excepted?

No. I know that He does. I'm simply saying that those few times are minimal in the span of human history. It's not like every few years God gets thirsty and wants baby blood.

It's every few years in the OT. Go back and read it. Entire chapters are taken up commanding and describing Jewish atrocities against their enemies. I haven't done a textual analysis, but it's well over 10%: Joshua and his soldiers utterly destroyed the Thesites, the Thosites, the Otherites and all the -ites in the surrounding vicinity.

Yes, I have read it.

Doesn't sound like it.

I live by it.

Sorry to hear that.

They are people. God sometimes ordered the death of people. It's unfortunate. It's undesirable. But He would not have commanded it if it were not necessary.

And you know this...how?

And here is the problem with your logic. No, from your position, I can't. I can't get away with slaughtering anyone. A human being cannot take the life of another of his own volition. Period. A human is a human. From a baby to an adult. If you see it as OK to kill adults then something is wrong with you. Babies, adults, old people. They're all people. And as people they have a right to live that is not and can not be hindered by me unless I am given permission to do so by the one who gave the right.

So for example, Andrea Yates...?

That being said, if God orders me to kill an adult or if he orders me to kill a baby, I feel the same. I feel absolutely horrible. Because it means a human has died. For whatever reason, whether known or unknown to me, a human being is dead. That is what bother me as a human being a creation of God. You're whole flashy make-this-look-worse-than-it-is-ploy won't work. If you think it's OK to kill adults, then you also think it's OK to kill babies. If it's not OK to kill a baby, then it's not OK to kill an adult.

I don't have to make it look worse than it is. It can't be worse than genocide; there's nothing worse than that.

From where I stand, if God does not command or allow it, nothing (people, animals, trees, anything) can be killed by a human being. Period.

And how do you know there is a God, let alone what He allows or commands?

How about we don't play your game. How about you think about what I'm posting without the petty insults, and we try to have a civilized conversation. You can handle being civilized can't you?

What is uncivilized about condemning genocide?

God didn't command them to.

They say He did. Are you saying you're smarter or know better than them?

 

[Autodidact]

There are ways to know whether or not God is talking to you.

Let's talk about this. This is interesting. How do you know when God is talking to you, and how did you come by this knowledge?

 

[Humanistheart]

Because life has it's source in God. If God decides to cut a person off from that source, then it is His decision to make..

Prove it.

If life flows from this god and he cut it off for a person then they'd just drop dead. This god wouldn't need people to do his killing for him.

 

[Humanistheart]

I dunno...
Go into any library. The Bibles are not found in the fiction section.:no:

No, they're found in the religion section. A special sub section of fiction.

 

[Humanistheart]

It is wrong, 100% of the time, for a human being to take the life of another human being. The only time a human being is permitted to take the life of another human being is when God commands or allows it..

100% of the time means ALL THE TIME. You open this paragraph with it's wrong for a human to take another's life then finish by throwing in except when god says so. And without any reasoning to back it up. Do you see how you're contradicting yourself?

 

[Man of Faith]

Even the cover of my Bible is accurate, it has my name which is accurate.