The Bible - Why Trust It

[firedragon]

Really? Why not? You do realize that much of the Bible, and probably the Koran too if you are Muslim, has been refuted. Both Genesis and Exodus for example. Relying on literalism only refutes one's personal beliefs.

Sorry brother. I am not interested in general comments. Specific and more analytical the better.

I am only responding out of courtesy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's good to know that you appreciate the work of the archaeologist.

Since David ruled in the 10th century B.C.E,, I would ask the question 'where did David come from - out of what people? At what point in history did David's ancestors enter the scene?
Seems to me, when we connect the dots, the Biblical history is bang on.

Really? It merely looks like confirmation bias to me. One has to ignore the countless misses and only count the handful of hits to make this claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry brother. I am not interested in general comments. Specific and more analytical the better.

I am only responding out of courtesy.

Then be specific. So far only a general discussion has been made. You appear to be guilty of what you accuse others of.

 

[firedragon]

Then be specific. So far only a general discussion has been made. You appear to be guilty of what you accuse others of.

Brother. You haven't asked me anything. You only replied to a discussion between and another person with another thought based on a specific question.

So I know thats not related to you. So what specifically do you wish to discuss?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Brother. You haven't asked me anything. You only replied to a discussion between and another person with another thought based on a specific question.

So I know thats not related to you. So what specifically do you wish to discuss?

You made a false claim about others when it came to websites that posted Bible contradictions. You were corrected and did not acknowledge your error and that started this death spiral.

 

[firedragon]

You made a false claim about others when it came to websites that posted Bible contradictions. You were corrected and did not acknowledge your error and that started this death spiral.

Great. thanks. Ciao.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Great. thanks. Ciao.

Your thanks ring hollow. One cannot learn unless one understands one's errors.

 

[firedragon]

Your thanks ring hollow. One cannot learn unless one understands one's errors.

Very true. Youre great. Cheers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very true. Youre great. Cheers.

Trolling? I am curious as to what religion encourages that sort of bad behavior.

 

[nPeace]

Continuing from the accusations aimed at the God of the Bible, claiming that he delights in, and encouraging slapping babies against rocks.

First, I would like to point out, that one who claims that they would be willing to change their mind, and follow the evidence, if there was any, and then never admits to being wrong, when shown that they are, has demonstrated that no amount of evidence will change their position.

For example, to make a statement like this, "The bible say a lot of things, also that you should slap babies against the rocks." and then pull up a scripture and claim that the scripture supports their statement, one has placed themselves in a position, where if they are shown to be wrong, should be willing to admit, that the way they read the scripture, and the application they made to it, was based on... A) their misunderstanding, and or misinterpretation. B) their biased opinion. spurring attempts to find fault with... the Bible, and its author, or the "Biblical God".

On the other hand, one who believes the Bible to be God's word, bases that belief not on just a few passages he picks and chooses, but on a number of convincing pieces of evidence (some mentioned in this thread).
Therefore instead of making the argument that there are more scriptures on good, than the skeptic can find and assert to be bad - which he can do, the believer uses those lines of evidence, to show that since these demonstrate the Bible to be a reliable, trustworthy, document, this gives evidence of divine authorship.

It is then left for the skeptic to demonstrate that those lines of evidence are not supportive of Biblical authenticity.
Personally, I don't see how cherry picking verses to claim that the "Biblical God" is cruel, and therefore no God at all, gets us anywhere, in determining if the Bible is authentic... but if the skeptics only have that... well, I'm open... take your best shot.

@Nimos So to remind you... You are wrong that the Bible says...you should slap babies against the rocks.
You should admit that you made a mistake. Then I would believe what you said here... Obviously not, but I would also expect them with their knowledge to present an excellent case for why I was wrong. If that were the case I would change my views.

Otherwise please explain what an excellent case would look like to you.
Continuing...
Psalm 137:1-9
First, let me thank you for looking at the whole verse, so we can get the context.
That makes a difference.

The scripture is not mentioning babies at all.
How do we know?
The Israelites are singing a song while captives in Babylon.
They are asking God, to remember, their enemies - both their captors, and their brothers (Edom), who handed them over to the enemy.
Remember them and give them sweet cakes and fruit?
For this?

Yeah? Nope.

Verse 8 - O daughter of Babylon, who is soon to be devastated, Happy will be the one who rewards you With the treatment you inflicted on us.
Verse 9 - Happy will be the one who seizes your children And dashes them against the rocks.

Who are the children?
Well first, we must ask, about the daughter of Babylon, because the children belong to her.

So who or what is the daughter of Babylon?

Isaiah 47:1 Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon. Sit down on the ground where there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans, For never again will people call you delicate and pampered.
Jeremiah 50-52 is very useful.

Atheist first - especially if you are female.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Continuing from the accusations aimed at the God of the Bible, claiming that he delights in, and encouraging slapping babies against rocks.

First, I would like to point out, that one who claims that they would be willing to change their mind, and follow the evidence, if there was any, and then never admits to being wrong, when shown that they are, has demonstrated that no amount of evidence will change their position.

For example, to make a statement like this, "The bible say a lot of things, also that you should slap babies against the rocks." and then pull up a scripture and claim that the scripture supports their statement, one has placed themselves in a position, where if they are shown to be wrong, should be willing to admit, that the way they read the scripture, and the application they made to it, was based on... A) their misunderstanding, and or misinterpretation. B) their biased opinion. spurring attempts to find fault with... the Bible, and its author, or the "Biblical God".

On the other hand, one who believes the Bible to be God's word, bases that belief not on just a few passages he picks and chooses, but on a number of convincing pieces of evidence (some mentioned in this thread).
Therefore instead of making the argument that there are more scriptures on good, than the skeptic can find and assert to be bad - which he can do, the believer uses those lines of evidence, to show that since these demonstrate the Bible to be a reliable, trustworthy, document, this gives evidence of divine authorship.

It is then left for the skeptic to demonstrate that those lines of evidence are not supportive of Biblical authenticity.
Personally, I don't see how cherry picking verses to claim that the "Biblical God" is cruel, and therefore no God at all, gets us anywhere, in determining if the Bible is authentic... but if the skeptics only have that... well, I'm open... take your best shot.

@Nimos So to remind you... You are wrong that the Bible says...you should slap babies against the rocks.
You should admit that you made a mistake. Then I would believe what you said here... Obviously not, but I would also expect them with their knowledge to present an excellent case for why I was wrong. If that were the case I would change my views.

Otherwise please explain what an excellent case would look like to you.
Continuing...
Psalm 137:1-9
First, let me thank you for looking at the whole verse, so we can get the context.
That makes a difference.

The scripture is not mentioning babies at all.
How do we know?
The Israelites are singing a song while captives in Babylon.
They are asking God, to remember, their enemies - both their captors, and their brothers (Edom), who handed them over to the enemy.
Remember them and give them sweet cakes and fruit?
For this?

Yeah? Nope.

Verse 8 - O daughter of Babylon, who is soon to be devastated, Happy will be the one who rewards you With the treatment you inflicted on us.
Verse 9 - Happy will be the one who seizes your children And dashes them against the rocks.

Who are the children?
Well first, we must ask, about the daughter of Babylon, because the children belong to her.

So who or what is the daughter of Babylon?

Isaiah 47:1 Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon. Sit down on the ground where there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans, For never again will people call you delicate and pampered.
Jeremiah 50-52 is very useful.

Atheist first - especially if you are female.

Christians were called Atheists by Romans so I will be happy to go

I find your overall question too reductionistic....
there are many aspects of this

God says vengeance is mine, I will repay and so stepping back and letting God repay is indeed Biblical where taking things into your own hands is not

That is not the only issue. We are not to rejoice rather offer them mercy. Even in the case of Ninevah God was stunningly merciful offering repentance.... so much so that Jonah ran the other way

That also is not the only way, God may use the discipline as a means of repentance and turning one to a better thing, Himself.

Note in Psalm 137 by the rivers of Babylon we wept we could not in our power sing
Note in Psalm 138 God will make A:: KINGS SING even nasty Babylonians

In a bigger picture both Jew and gentile are without strength to come to God but God will draw them both in Christ

As far as trusting the Bible, it is fully trustworthy
and there is substantial archeological evidence for it
AND taste and see that the Lord is good!! How do you know honey tastes good?
put it on your tongue!

 

[nPeace]

Christians were called Atheists by Romans so I will be happy to go

I find your overall question too reductionistic....
there are many aspects of this

God says vengeance is mine, I will repay and so stepping back and letting God repay is indeed Biblical where taking things into your own hands is not

That is not the only issue. We are not to rejoice rather offer them mercy. Even in the case of Ninevah God was stunningly merciful offering repentance.... so much so that Jonah ran the other way

That also is not the only way, God may use the discipline as a means of repentance and turning one to a better thing, Himself.

Note in Psalm 137 by the rivers of Babylon we wept we could not in our power sing
Note in Psalm 138 God will make A:: KINGS SING even nasty Babylonians

In a bigger picture both Jew and gentile are without strength to come to God but God will draw them both in Christ

As far as trusting the Bible, it is fully trustworthy
and there is substantial archeological evidence for it
AND taste and see that the Lord is good!! How do you know honey tastes good?
put it on your tongue!

Not sure what the issue is here. I don't see any. Is there one?

 

[Nimos]

For example, to make a statement like this, "The bible say a lot of things, also that you should slap babies against the rocks." and then pull up a scripture and claim that the scripture supports their statement, one has placed themselves in a position, where if they are shown to be wrong, should be willing to admit, that the way they read the scripture, and the application they made to it, was based on... A) their misunderstanding, and or misinterpretation. B) their biased opinion. spurring attempts to find fault with... the Bible, and its author, or the "Biblical God".

I made a statement as you said, but at the same time quote the verse from where it is stated, clearly showing this to be the case and so you could read it for yourself and see exactly what was meant with it. Would it help anything or change anything. if I had written that God thought that it was fine to throw Babylonian babies against the rocks? I doubt it.

One should also be able to figure out, that if my statement was meant literally, that there would be no humans left if God thought that all babies ought to be killed. So again I think you are missing the point.

But lets look at the verse and see if im correct or not, and take in some other peoples opinions as well. And cross reference it with the bible it self. (Because this is getting a bit silly)

Psalms 137:1-9
1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yes, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 On the willows in that land, we hung up our harps.
3 For there, those who led us captive asked us for songs. Those who tormented us demanded songs of joy: “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing Yahweh’s song in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill.
6 Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I don’t remember you; if I don’t prefer Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember, Yahweh, against the children of Edom, the day of Jerusalem; who said, “Raze it! Raze it even to its foundation!”
8 Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, he will be happy who rewards you, as you have served us.
9 Happy shall he be, who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

From Wikipedia:
Verses 1–4
The early lines of the psalm describe the sadness of the Israelites in exile, weeping and hanging their harps on trees. Asked to "sing the Lord's song in a strange land", they refuse.

Verses 5–6
In vv. 5–6 the speaker turns into self-exhortation to remember Jerusalem:

Verses 7–9
The psalm ends with prophetic predictions of violent revenge.

So according to wikipedia Verses 7-9 is talking about predictions of violent revenge. Which seems to fit rather well with throwing babies at the rocks and that it is exactly what it means.

Now lets put some more context behind it and cross reference it with the bible it self.

Isaiah 13 - The Judgment of Babylon

Isaiah 13:1-22
1 A message that Amoz's son Isaiah received about Babylon:
2 "Raise a banner on a bare hilltop! Cry out loud to them! Give a wave of the hand, signaling for them to enter the gates of the nobles.
3 I myself have commanded my consecrated ones; I have also summoned my warriors, those who rejoice in my triumph, to carry out my angry judgments.
4 "Listen! There's a noise on the mountains like that of a great multitude! Listen! There's an uproar among the kingdoms, like that of nations massing together! The LORD of the Heavenly Armies is mustering an army for battle.
5 They're coming from a faraway land, from the distant horizon—the LORD and the weapons of his anger—to destroy the entire land."
6 Wail out loud, because the Day of the LORD is near. It will come like destruction from the Almighty!
7 Because of this, every hand will go limp, and every man's courage will melt.
8 They will be terrified; pain and anguish will seize them; they'll writhe like a woman in labor. They'll look aghast at one another; and their faces will be ablaze with fear.
9 Watch out! The Day of the LORD is coming—cruel, with wrath and fierce anger—to turn the entire inhabited earth into a desolation and to annihilate sinners from it.
10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations won't shine their light; the sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon won't shine its light.
11 I'll punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I'll put an end to the pomposity of the arrogant, and overthrow the insolence of tyrants.
12 I'll make people scarcer than pure gold, and mankind rarer than gold from Ophir.
13 Therefore I'll make the heavens tremble. The earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD of the Heavenly Armies, at the time of his burning anger.
14 They will be like a hunted gazelle, or like sheep with no one to gather them, each will turn to his own people, and each will flee to his own land.
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall dead, killed by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, and their houses will be looted, and their wives slept with.
17 Watch out! I'm stirring up the Medes against them, who care nothing for silver and take no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will dash the young men to pieces; they'll show no pity on those not yet born, and their eyes will not spare children.
19 Babylon, that jewel of kingdoms, the splendor and pride of the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah, when God overthrew them—
20 It will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; no Bedouin will pitch his tent there; no shepherds will make their flocks lie down there.
21 But desert beasts will lie down there, and their houses will be full of howling creatures; there owls will dwell, and goat-demons will dance there.
22 Hyenas will howl in its strongholds, and jackals will make their dens in its citadels. Its time is close at hand, and its days will not be extended any further.

So reading this, it seems to fit rather well with what is written in Psalms. Clearly God is not happy about the Babylonians.

If you interpret it any other way. Then please find verses to support your claim, and that these verses do not mean what I (and those on wikipedia) claim they mean.

And its not the only time God think its fine to kill children, so not really sure what the big issue is with this?

Therefore instead of making the argument that there are more scriptures on good, than the skeptic can find and assert to be bad

Because its an absolute none sense way of reasoning. It doesn't matter if one think there is a majority of good verses vs bad ones. That is not how anyone in their right mind judges anything, especially not when we are talking about a God who is claimed to be all good. He liked the Jews!!! and not so much anyone else if you read the bible.

I know a person the best one you will ever know.

1. He always help elderly people safely over the street.
2. He once rescued a cat stuck in a tree.
3. He spend every weekend handing out food and clothing to the homeless.
4. He once saved a women from drowning and risked his own life.
5. He once raped and murdered two children.
6. He once traveled to Africa to help the poor.
7. He spends almost all his money on charity.

Obviously the number of good things a person have done have nothing to do with how we judge, if they are good or bad.

And that is why I quote some of the verses I do, because religious people tend to forget, when they make their claims. Exactly why point 5 in above list, should be there, when we are to judge whether one is good or bad, otherwise it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

I made a statement as you said, but at the same time quote the verse from where it is stated, clearly showing this to be the case and so you could read it for yourself and see exactly what was meant with it. Would it help anything or change anything. if I had written that God thought that it was fine to throw Babylonian babies against the rocks? I doubt it.

One should also be able to figure out, that if my statement was meant literally, that there would be no humans left if God thought that all babies ought to be killed. So again I think you are missing the point.

But lets look at the verse and see if im correct or not, and take in some other peoples opinions as well. And cross reference it with the bible it self. (Because this is getting a bit silly)

Psalms 137:1-9
1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yes, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 On the willows in that land, we hung up our harps.
3 For there, those who led us captive asked us for songs. Those who tormented us demanded songs of joy: “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing Yahweh’s song in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill.
6 Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I don’t remember you; if I don’t prefer Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember, Yahweh, against the children of Edom, the day of Jerusalem; who said, “Raze it! Raze it even to its foundation!”
8 Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, he will be happy who rewards you, as you have served us.
9 Happy shall he be, who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

From Wikipedia:
Verses 1–4
The early lines of the psalm describe the sadness of the Israelites in exile, weeping and hanging their harps on trees. Asked to "sing the Lord's song in a strange land", they refuse.

Verses 5–6
In vv. 5–6 the speaker turns into self-exhortation to remember Jerusalem:

Verses 7–9
The psalm ends with prophetic predictions of violent revenge.

So according to wikipedia Verses 7-9 is talking about predictions of violent revenge. Which seems to fit rather well with throwing babies at the rocks and that it is exactly what it means.

Now lets put some more context behind it and cross reference it with the bible it self.

Isaiah 13 - The Judgment of Babylon

Isaiah 13:1-22
1 A message that Amoz's son Isaiah received about Babylon:
2 "Raise a banner on a bare hilltop! Cry out loud to them! Give a wave of the hand, signaling for them to enter the gates of the nobles.
3 I myself have commanded my consecrated ones; I have also summoned my warriors, those who rejoice in my triumph, to carry out my angry judgments.
4 "Listen! There's a noise on the mountains like that of a great multitude! Listen! There's an uproar among the kingdoms, like that of nations massing together! The LORD of the Heavenly Armies is mustering an army for battle.
5 They're coming from a faraway land, from the distant horizon—the LORD and the weapons of his anger—to destroy the entire land."
6 Wail out loud, because the Day of the LORD is near. It will come like destruction from the Almighty!
7 Because of this, every hand will go limp, and every man's courage will melt.
8 They will be terrified; pain and anguish will seize them; they'll writhe like a woman in labor. They'll look aghast at one another; and their faces will be ablaze with fear.
9 Watch out! The Day of the LORD is coming—cruel, with wrath and fierce anger—to turn the entire inhabited earth into a desolation and to annihilate sinners from it.
10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations won't shine their light; the sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon won't shine its light.
11 I'll punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I'll put an end to the pomposity of the arrogant, and overthrow the insolence of tyrants.
12 I'll make people scarcer than pure gold, and mankind rarer than gold from Ophir.
13 Therefore I'll make the heavens tremble. The earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD of the Heavenly Armies, at the time of his burning anger.
14 They will be like a hunted gazelle, or like sheep with no one to gather them, each will turn to his own people, and each will flee to his own land.
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall dead, killed by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, and their houses will be looted, and their wives slept with.
17 Watch out! I'm stirring up the Medes against them, who care nothing for silver and take no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will dash the young men to pieces; they'll show no pity on those not yet born, and their eyes will not spare children.
19 Babylon, that jewel of kingdoms, the splendor and pride of the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah, when God overthrew them—
20 It will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; no Bedouin will pitch his tent there; no shepherds will make their flocks lie down there.
21 But desert beasts will lie down there, and their houses will be full of howling creatures; there owls will dwell, and goat-demons will dance there.
22 Hyenas will howl in its strongholds, and jackals will make their dens in its citadels. Its time is close at hand, and its days will not be extended any further.

So reading this, it seems to fit rather well with what is written in Psalms. Clearly God is not happy about the Babylonians.

If you interpret it any other way. Then please find verses to support your claim, and that these verses do not mean what I (and those on wikipedia) claim they mean.

And its not the only time God think its fine to kill children, so not really sure what the big issue is with this?


Because its an absolute none sense way of reasoning. It doesn't matter if one think there is a majority of good verses vs bad ones. That is not how anyone in their right mind judges anything, especially not when we are talking about a God who is claimed to be all good. He liked the Jews!!! and not so much anyone else if you read the bible.

I know a person the best one you will ever know.

1. He always help elderly people safely over the street.
2. He once rescued a cat stuck in a tree.
3. He spend every weekend handing out food and clothing to the homeless.
4. He once saved a women from drowning and risked his own life.
5. He once raped and murdered two children.
6. He once traveled to Africa to help the poor.
7. He spends almost all his money on charity.

Obviously the number of good things a person have done have nothing to do with how we judge, if they are good or bad.

And that is why I quote some of the verses I do, because religious people tend to forget, when they make their claims. Exactly why point 5 in above list, should be there, when we are to judge whether one is good or bad, otherwise it makes absolutely no sense.

This citation is accurate and difficult for Christians who believe it is the literal word of God, and not accept it as also reflecting the human beliefs and views of the time.
It is important to realize that much of ancient scripture reflects an ancient human tribal view of God and not God.

I trust the Bible to reflect the human views of God, and the nature of their ancient word around them as they knew it, and understand their relationship with God. There is no way it can be trusted as the literal Word of God, nor that it is a consistent witness of God's word and plan for humanity today, regardless of whether God exists or not.

As far as the natural nature and history of the earth, universe and life science can be trusted.

 

[Nimos]

This citation is accurate and difficult for Christians who believe it is the literal word of God, and not accept it as also reflecting the human beliefs and views of the time.

I trust the Bible to reflect the human views of God, and the nature of their ancient word around them as they knew it, and understand their relationship with God. There is no way it can be trusted as the literal Word of God, nor that it is a consistent witness of God's word and plan for humanity today, regardless of whether God exists or not.

As far as the natural nature and history of the earth, universe and life science can be trusted.

Agree, I would never claim to know the potential word of God, simply that this is what the bible state. Looking at it in context, the Babylonians assaulted the Jews and did horrible things, so I don't see why its such a weird thing to assume that it pissed off the Jews and they wanted revenge for what was done against them. People and nations that feel they have been wronged have called for revenged all over the world.

The Nanjing Massacre or the Rape of Nanjing, alternately written the Nanking Massacre or the Rape of Nanking, was an episode of mass murder and mass rape committed by Imperial Japanese troops against the residents of Nanjing (Nanking), then the capital of China, during the Second Sino-Japanese War.

The massacre occurred over a period of six weeks starting on December 13, 1937, the day that the Japanese captured Nanjing. During this period, soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army murdered Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants who numbered an estimated 40,000 to over 300,000, and perpetrated widespread rape and looting.

I don't assume that anyone would be surprised if the Chinese reaction to this event weren't in the form of revenge against the Japanese. So why the difference between this and the Babylonians?

The only difference is that the later, seem to conflict with the nature of God, whereas the Nanking event doesn't. At least as I see see it.

 

[nPeace]

I made a statement as you said, but at the same time quote the verse from where it is stated, clearly showing this to be the case and so you could read it for yourself and see exactly what was meant with it. Would it help anything or change anything. if I had written that God thought that it was fine to throw Babylonian babies against the rocks? I doubt it.

One should also be able to figure out, that if my statement was meant literally, that there would be no humans left if God thought that all babies ought to be killed. So again I think you are missing the point.

But lets look at the verse and see if im correct or not, and take in some other peoples opinions as well. And cross reference it with the bible it self. (Because this is getting a bit silly)

Psalms 137:1-9
1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yes, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 On the willows in that land, we hung up our harps.
3 For there, those who led us captive asked us for songs. Those who tormented us demanded songs of joy: “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing Yahweh’s song in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill.
6 Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth if I don’t remember you; if I don’t prefer Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember, Yahweh, against the children of Edom, the day of Jerusalem; who said, “Raze it! Raze it even to its foundation!”
8 Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, he will be happy who rewards you, as you have served us.
9 Happy shall he be, who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock.

From Wikipedia:
Verses 1–4
The early lines of the psalm describe the sadness of the Israelites in exile, weeping and hanging their harps on trees. Asked to "sing the Lord's song in a strange land", they refuse.

Verses 5–6
In vv. 5–6 the speaker turns into self-exhortation to remember Jerusalem:

Verses 7–9
The psalm ends with prophetic predictions of violent revenge.

So according to wikipedia Verses 7-9 is talking about predictions of violent revenge. Which seems to fit rather well with throwing babies at the rocks and that it is exactly what it means.

Now lets put some more context behind it and cross reference it with the bible it self.

Isaiah 13 - The Judgment of Babylon

Isaiah 13:1-22
1 A message that Amoz's son Isaiah received about Babylon:
2 "Raise a banner on a bare hilltop! Cry out loud to them! Give a wave of the hand, signaling for them to enter the gates of the nobles.
3 I myself have commanded my consecrated ones; I have also summoned my warriors, those who rejoice in my triumph, to carry out my angry judgments.
4 "Listen! There's a noise on the mountains like that of a great multitude! Listen! There's an uproar among the kingdoms, like that of nations massing together! The LORD of the Heavenly Armies is mustering an army for battle.
5 They're coming from a faraway land, from the distant horizon—the LORD and the weapons of his anger—to destroy the entire land."
6 Wail out loud, because the Day of the LORD is near. It will come like destruction from the Almighty!
7 Because of this, every hand will go limp, and every man's courage will melt.
8 They will be terrified; pain and anguish will seize them; they'll writhe like a woman in labor. They'll look aghast at one another; and their faces will be ablaze with fear.
9 Watch out! The Day of the LORD is coming—cruel, with wrath and fierce anger—to turn the entire inhabited earth into a desolation and to annihilate sinners from it.
10 For the stars of the heavens and their constellations won't shine their light; the sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon won't shine its light.
11 I'll punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I'll put an end to the pomposity of the arrogant, and overthrow the insolence of tyrants.
12 I'll make people scarcer than pure gold, and mankind rarer than gold from Ophir.
13 Therefore I'll make the heavens tremble. The earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD of the Heavenly Armies, at the time of his burning anger.
14 They will be like a hunted gazelle, or like sheep with no one to gather them, each will turn to his own people, and each will flee to his own land.
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall dead, killed by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, and their houses will be looted, and their wives slept with.
17 Watch out! I'm stirring up the Medes against them, who care nothing for silver and take no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will dash the young men to pieces; they'll show no pity on those not yet born, and their eyes will not spare children.
19 Babylon, that jewel of kingdoms, the splendor and pride of the Chaldeans, will be like Sodom and Gomorrah, when God overthrew them—
20 It will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; no Bedouin will pitch his tent there; no shepherds will make their flocks lie down there.
21 But desert beasts will lie down there, and their houses will be full of howling creatures; there owls will dwell, and goat-demons will dance there.
22 Hyenas will howl in its strongholds, and jackals will make their dens in its citadels. Its time is close at hand, and its days will not be extended any further.

So reading this, it seems to fit rather well with what is written in Psalms. Clearly God is not happy about the Babylonians.

If you interpret it any other way. Then please find verses to support your claim, and that these verses do not mean what I (and those on wikipedia) claim they mean.

And its not the only time God think its fine to kill children, so not really sure what the big issue is with this?


Because its an absolute none sense way of reasoning. It doesn't matter if one think there is a majority of good verses vs bad ones. That is not how anyone in their right mind judges anything, especially not when we are talking about a God who is claimed to be all good. He liked the Jews!!! and not so much anyone else if you read the bible.

I know a person the best one you will ever know.

1. He always help elderly people safely over the street.
2. He once rescued a cat stuck in a tree.
3. He spend every weekend handing out food and clothing to the homeless.
4. He once saved a women from drowning and risked his own life.
5. He once raped and murdered two children.
6. He once traveled to Africa to help the poor.
7. He spends almost all his money on charity.

Obviously the number of good things a person have done have nothing to do with how we judge, if they are good or bad.

And that is why I quote some of the verses I do, because religious people tend to forget, when they make their claims. Exactly why point 5 in above list, should be there, when we are to judge whether one is good or bad, otherwise it makes absolutely no sense.

Bottom line. You reap what you sow. Be a tyrant. be treated like one. Slaughter children. Your children will be slaughtered.
God will take vengeance for the oppressed, and he will repay evil, with evil - not good. He does what he pleases.
Some people call it Karma, but the Bible calls it justice.

The nations that came up against those in opposition to God, were just as tyrannical. They showed no mercy. That was the way of war.
You saw the Barbaric nature of Rome.
God allowed all of it.

They reaped the consequences of their tyranny.
Do you have a problem with that God? That's cool, but it does not disqualify the evidence for the Bible's authenticity.
Nor does it indicate that God thinks it okay to do anything.
It just means that God can allow things to happen to people, or he can just rescue every soul on earth (Huh? Really?), if he wants.
So when a nation attacks a tyrannical nation, he could take all the children to heaven until the battle is over, then send them to families of another nation. Um... No.

To understand the situation, one must understand the Bible. If one does not, they will see things as though looking through a slit 2 mm wide, and high. ...and because they want to hold on to their preconceived ideas, their mind is not open to understanding.
That's okay by me.

When there is evidence that the Bible is true, we can appreciate, that we can adjust our ideas to suit.

 

[nPeace]

This citation is accurate and difficult for Christians who believe it is the literal word of God, and not accept it as also reflecting the human beliefs and views of the time.
It is important to realize that much of ancient scripture reflects an ancient human tribal view of God and not God.

I trust the Bible to reflect the human views of God, and the nature of their ancient word around them as they knew it, and understand their relationship with God. There is no way it can be trusted as the literal Word of God, nor that it is a consistent witness of God's word and plan for humanity today, regardless of whether God exists or not.

As far as the natural nature and history of the earth, universe and life science can be trusted.

So from this, you don't believe God has revealed anything to man? How do you know of God, or do you?

 

[nPeace]

Agree, I would never claim to know the potential word of God, simply that this is what the bible state. Looking at it in context, the Babylonians assaulted the Jews and did horrible things, so I don't see why its such a weird thing to assume that it pissed off the Jews and they wanted revenge for what was done against them. People and nations that feel they have been wronged have called for revenged all over the world.

The Nanjing Massacre or the Rape of Nanjing, alternately written the Nanking Massacre or the Rape of Nanking, was an episode of mass murder and mass rape committed by Imperial Japanese troops against the residents of Nanjing (Nanking), then the capital of China, during the Second Sino-Japanese War.

The massacre occurred over a period of six weeks starting on December 13, 1937, the day that the Japanese captured Nanjing. During this period, soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army murdered Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants who numbered an estimated 40,000 to over 300,000, and perpetrated widespread rape and looting.

I don't assume that anyone would be surprised if the Chinese reaction to this event weren't in the form of revenge against the Japanese. So why the difference between this and the Babylonians?

The only difference is that the later, seem to conflict with the nature of God, whereas the Nanking event doesn't. At least as I see see it.

Nature of God? What is that, and how do you know?

 

[Nimos]

Bottom line. You reap what you sow. Be a tyrant. be treated like one. Slaughter children. Your children will be slaughtered.
God will take vengeance for the oppressed, and he will repay evil, with evil - not good. He does what he pleases.
Some people call it Karma, but the Bible calls it justice.

I would agree with that, it would be weird for a God, to not protect those they believed to be their chosen people and seek revenge on anyone that harms them. And the bible doesn't hide this either.

Nature of God? What is that, and how do you know?

Based on the bible, that he is all good.

 

[danieldemol]

Bottom line. You reap what you sow. Be a tyrant. be treated like one. Slaughter children. Your children will be slaughtered.
God will take vengeance for the oppressed, and he will repay evil, with evil - not good. He does what he pleases.
Some people call it Karma, but the Bible calls it justice.

That would be precisely where the Bible is wrong calling it justice to the innocent babies of the Babylonians