The Holy Bible


serapha
 Share

Recommended Posts

I believe the Old Testament (the "Scriptures") and the New Testament (the "Christian Scriptures") were given by God and are preserved by God just as He promised, and therefore, they are infallible.

I understand that many people see the Bible as filled with errors and, therefore, fallible.

I think that, before addressing other issues here (conerning "books," it might be important to address the fallibility or infallibility of the Bible first, so the discussions do not go to statemate again and again about the credibility of the Bible.

So, without posting extensive cut-n-paste responses from "anti-biblical" sites, would anyone care to post what they view as "fallible" in the Bible. I would like the chance to "convert" you to my way of thinking

(Is that grounds for dismissal from this site????) B)

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this as a start Serapha?

By inerrant, infallible and literal, we mean that the scriptures are:

-verbally inspired... that the process of inspiration extends not only to the thoughts and concepts in the scripturees, but the actual words as well. God prevented the writers from making errors in their writings.

-plenary inspired... that all books of the scripture in all their part are inspired.

-infallible and true in everything they affirm as well as all facts and stories told and mentioned or presupposed, whether they have to do with doctrine, morality, or social, physical or life sciences.

-infallible and true in their present day form, as we have them now, not just in some ancient manuscript lost long ago.

-infallible and true in their present day translations.

-infallible and true and literal in the stories and narratives. If the story is about an individual or people then we are to understand that the person or people and the narrative as told, represents actual history, that it really happened. Words have their generally understood meanings. If the scriptures say angel, then we are to understand that there really was a supernatural being. Metaphors such as a Christ being a lamb or a hen spreading her wing are not literal.

-parables and figures of speech as in the New Testament are not understood to be straighforward history and thus we are to employ a less scientific standard in understanding them. Figurative or allegorical interpretations are to be held to a minimum. Miraculous events are historical and the moral and ethical teachings are binding and valid.

-scriptures are to be understood as self-contained in that what Isaiah says need not be understood in the context of Paul. Each work stands on its own. Likewise, Judges is not dependent upon Genesis to be understood. Each is true according to the standards in this list. Likewise, the scriptures do not depend upon outside materials to define them. They are valid unto themselves.

-the scriptures are complete unto themselves, meaning that you cannot make an appeal to silence or omission in order to make the scripture true, correct or valid.

-the scriptures never lie or deceive.

-the scripture are authoritative and are binding on all people everywhere in all times.

Can you live with those defintion; do you have anything to add or change.

...and before we begin, can we stipulate that what we are going to discuss is whether or not the Bible meets the standards as defined, not whether the Bible is good or bad or indifferent or that one interpretation of Bible or its inerrany means you hate or reject God and the Bible and another perspective means you are favored of God...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this as a start Serapha?

It's a start....

By inerrant, infallible and literal, we mean that the scriptures are:

-verbally  inspired... that the process of inspiration extends not only to the thoughts and concepts in the scripturees, but the actual words as well. God prevented the writers from making errors in their writings.

I would love to say the "actual words", but certainly we are aware of such techniques as scribal glossing... where man interferred with God's word.  However, there are sufficient manuscript evidences available to determine what is the  "actual words" that are inspired. 

-plenary inspired... that all books of the scripture in all their part are inspired.

Actually, I cannot accept the various endings of Mark as "inspired"... it must stop in the short form

otherwise,  I believe I could agree. 

Man shall not live on bread alone, but on  every  word  that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4, NASB)

The  words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times. (Psalm 12:6, NASB)

-infallible and true in everything they affirm as well as all facts and stories told and  mentioned or presupposed, whether they have to do with doctrine, morality, or social, physical or life sciences.

I can accept that the biblical accounts are true, exempting the parable and the other obvious symbolisms. 

-infallible and true in their present day form, as we have them now, not just in some ancient manuscript lost long ago.

no, of course not. Manuscript committees write accoring to what their philosophy is. Let's stick with a reliable translation or else go back to the Hebrew and Greek.

-infallible and true in their present day translations. (ditto above.)

-infallible and true and literal in the stories and narratives. If the story is about an individual or people then we are to understand that the person or people and the narrative as told, represents actual history, that it really happened. Words have their generally understood meanings. If the scriptures say angel, then we are to understand that there really was a supernatural being. Metaphors such as a Christ being a lamb or a hen spreading her wing are not literal.

<span style='color:red'>Somehow I feel this is "bait", but I'll bite.

-parables and figures of speech as in the New Testament are not understood to be straighforward history and thus we are to employ a less scientific standard in understanding them. Figurative or allegorical interpretations are to be held to a minimum. Miraculous events are historical and the moral and ethical teachings are binding and valid.

I believe you already brought it to my attention concerning the actual lack of evidence for miracles--although historically and archaeologically there are "supports.

-scriptures are to be understood as self-contained in that what Isaiah says need not be understood in the context of Paul. Each work stands on its own. Likewise, Judges is not dependent upon Genesis to be understood. Each is true according to the standards in this list. Likewise, the scriptures do not depend upon outside materials to define them. They are valid unto themselves.

That isn't fundament dispensational theology. Daniel clarifies and relates to Revelation. Ezra and Nehemiah were one book in the original manuscripts. etc.. etc... Psalm 22 is useless without Christ to fulfill the messianic prophecy

-the scriptures are complete unto themselves, meaning that you cannot make an appeal to silence or omission in order to make the scripture true, correct or valid.

In other words, Jewish tradition is irrelevant to understanding Jewish writings?

-the scriptures never lie or deceive.

If there is a lie in the Bible, then it all needs to be pitched as I will not be able to determine which is truth and which is a lie.

-the scripture are authoritative and are binding on all people everywhere in all times.

Can you live with those defintion;

No... I can't live with those definitions...

do you have anything to add or change.

...and before we begin, can we stipulate that what we are going to discuss is whether or not the Bible meets the standards as defined, not whether the Bible is good or bad or indifferent or that one interpretation of Bible or its inerrany means you hate or reject God and the Bible and another perspective means you are favored of God...

A counter proposal...

Hermeneutics

The fundamental assertion of dispensational hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation which gives to each word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage. This is also called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The principle relies on the normal meaning of words as the approach to understanding them. It is also known as plain interpretation to keep from ruling out symbols, figures of speech, and types. These are interpreted plainly in order to communicate their intended meaning to the reader. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are normal literary tools that are used to clarify or emphasize thoughts and ideas.

This position is suppored in the following ways.

1. Language was given by God for the purpose of communication with humankind. Therefore, God would give His linguistic communications in the most understandable way--literally and normally. It seems unlikely that God would go to all the trouble of revealing Himself to people in a manner that only caused people confusion and uncertainty in their understanding of who God is and how He works.

2. The Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ's birth and rearing, ministry, death, and resurrection were all filled literally.

3. In order to maintain objectivity the literal method of interpretation must be employed. This insures that impartiality is maintained and prevents the interpreter from overlaying biblical truth with personal thoughts.

Thus, normative dispensationalism is the result of the consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation. This claim can be made by no other system of theology.

Literal imterpretaton results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value, which involves recognizing distinctions in the Bible. The text taken at face value and the recognition of distinctions in the progress of revelation reveals the different economies God uses in the outworking of His program. The consistent hermeneutical principle of plain or literal interpretation is the basis of dispensationalism.

The opponents of dispensationalism say that it gives the view of compartmentalizing the Bible, which has the effect of destroying its unity. Nothing culd be further from the truth. C. I. Scofield identifed seven evidences that the Bible is one book, (1) from Genesis it bears witness to one God, (2) it forms one continuous story, (3) it sets forth the most unlikely future predictions, (4) it is a progressive unfolding of the truth, (5) from beginning to end the Bible testifies to one redemption, (6) it's great theme thoughout is the person and work of the Christ, and (7) the fourty-four writers over a period of sixteen centuries have produced a perfect harmony of doctrine in progressive unfolding ("A Panoramic View of the Bible" in the introduction to The Scofield Reference bible).

Instead of clouding biblical unity, dispensationalism serves to clarify it. It brings into sharp focus the progressive unfolding of God's plan throughout the ages. It is this disclosure of God's absolute truth that stands in direct opposition to modern self-centered relativism. Thus, dispensationalism sees the unity, the varity, and the progressive character of God's purposes for the world as no other system of theology does. It is though these progressive stages that God is glorified.

R. L. Thomas

C. A. Blaising

D. L. Bock,

Progressive Dispensationalism, Wheaton:1993

Charles C. Ryrie

Dispensationalism, Moody 1995

R. L Saucy

The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, Zondervan 1993

R. L. Thomas,

A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics, When the Trumpet Sounds, Harvest House 1995

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serapha,

Here are some sticky points with your responses to me:

-You admit that translations are or may be incorrect.

-You admit that manuscripts from which translations come are or may be incorrect.

-You admit that part of the the Bible are or may be incorrect.

So it seems to me that any time I show the Bible to be fallible you can then say that it was translated incorrectly or that there was a scribal error, or that the original manuscript (long since lost) was correct or that the particular part of the Bible was not correct and so it doesn't count.

Seems like a lose-lose proposition for me. Any time I prove my point, you can trump me with one of your trump cards.

Additionally I have to reject you thinking (if I understand it correctly) that books of the Bible don't stand on their own. I agree that Daniel and Revelations may support and agree with one another but Daniel (whoever really wrote Daniel) had no idea that Revelations would ever be written. Daniel wrote what he wrote and his work needs to stand on it's own. You can't say that Micah (for example) only makes sense read understood in conjunction with Peter. Micah has to be inerrant all by his lonesome.

About your counter proposal:

Hermeneutics

The fundamental assertion of dispensational hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation which gives to each word the same meaning it would have in its normal usage. This is also called the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. The principle relies on the normal meaning of words as the approach to understanding them. It is also known as plain interpretation to keep from ruling out symbols, figures of speech, and types. These are interpreted plainly in order to communicate their intended meaning to the reader. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are normal literary tools that are used to clarify or emphasize thoughts and ideas.

This position is suppored in the following ways.

1. Language was given by God for the purpose of communication with humankind. Therefore, God would give His linguistic communications in the most understandable way--literally and normally. It seems unlikely that God would go to all the trouble of revealing Himself to people in a manner that only caused people confusion and uncertainty in their understanding of who God is and how He works.

agreed

2. The Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ's birth and rearing, ministry, death, and resurrection were all filled literally.

Although I am not going to question the literal fullfillment of OT prophecy about Christ, I don't want to stipulate that we have to interpret this or that thing in any particular way. That is like saying, the Bible is prophetically inerrant if we all pre-agree that all Bible prophecy has been or will be fullfilled. I agree that Christ fullfilled prophecy, but lets let evidence speak for itself.

3. In order to maintain objectivity the literal method of interpretation must be employed. This insures that impartiality is maintained and prevents the interpreter from overlaying biblical truth with personal thoughts.

agreed

Thus, normative dispensationalism is the result of the consistent application of the basic hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation. This claim can be made by no other system of theology.

Literal imterpretaton results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value, which involves recognizing distinctions in the Bible. The text taken at face value and the recognition of distinctions in the progress of revelation reveals the different economies God uses in the outworking of His program. The consistent hermeneutical principle of plain or literal interpretation is the basis of dispensationalism.

If I understand normative dispensationalism... "Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His household-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations" [Ryrie, Charles, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), p. 29.]

Whether I agree with it is not the point. The issue is that it put another prearranged stipulation into our discussions. Let's not stipulate that God does or does not do anything. Let's just examine the text and test it. If the Bible said that such and such happened, regardless of God's part of in it, let's explore whether or not it did.

Serapha,

Now, I personally agree that the Bible may not be correctly translated and that it may have scribal errors and that the ancient manuscripts may have been thus different than what we have today but we cannot test that which we do not have. I will compromise and agree that translations can be faulty and thus we can look at the original (or at least earlier language) and or various translations for the sake of clarifications, but I think it is unfair that if I point out errancy you trump me with: 'Well the Book of James is not inspired and so it doesn't count, OR, sorry, the was a copyist error - unless you can prove that it was a copyist error. You can't very well make an appeal to the original if there is no original.

So as I see it, our outstanding issues are:

-How do we handle errancy if it is a result of "scribal error" but there is no known original manuscript without the error?

-I don't want to stipulate that we have to interpret the Bible in any one way or the other. Let the evidence speak for itself.

-I want books of the Bible to inerrant on their own and not dependent on another book or author to make them inerrant. If Paul says it, Paul has to be correct himself.

Whaddaya think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 28 2004, 10:48 PM

So it seems to me that any time I show the Bible to be fallible you can then say that it was translated incorrectly or that there was a scribal error, or that the original manuscript (long since lost) was correct or that the particular part of the Bible was not correct and so it doesn't count.

Is that statement a first cousin to ....

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

So in counter-statement, whenever I say the Bible states "this", you will say but the Prophet Joseph Smith was given a new revelation to restore the church.

IN both cases, the question is,

"Who is translating correctly?"

I suggest that we dismiss with the "rulings", and try a real conversation before frustration creates more hardship.

So, what passage of the Bible do you find "not to be true"?

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there!

Did I just read in a commentary on 1 Nephi that God commanded one person to kill his brother, and it is under the commandment of God, yet you question the Bible concerning killing on command?

I am confused on this point, but I will address the statement from a biblical standpoint in a separate response... I would want to keep any comments or comparisons between the bom and the Bible separate from addressing strictly biblical statements.

okay?

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 30 2004, 05:52 AM

Hi there!

Did I just read in a commentary on 1 Nephi that God commanded one person to kill his brother, and it is under the commandment of God, yet you question the Bible concerning killing on command?

Sure,

That’s a fair question. How do I reconcile it with the belief that I just posted? Here are some options:

1. Nephi made up the part about being commanded to kill Laban to cover himself. I don’t think that is a very good argument but it is the same argument that I believe the ancient Jews used – “Um, er, we killed all the married women, and took the virgins as our property and stole the cattle, because, because, God told us to, yeah that’s right, God told us to make the children our slaves see…”

2. We could accept Nephi’s version of it:

"4:10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

4:11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

4:12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

4:13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. 1It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief."

Laban had tried to kill Nephi and was therefore an attempted murderer. Beyond that Laban was an evil man. Was Nephi justified? Would a just God have asked it of him? Yes, I think you can make the case that it was not outside the law of justice.

Can the same be said of the actions of the Jews… killing all the men, killing all the non-virgins, regardless of their individual guilt, taking the virgins as property and enslaving the children and alternating between stealing and killing the livestock – sometimes for reasons as twisted as revenge for an offense 400 years earlier. If you can successfully reconcile that with justice, my hat is off to you. I suggest that the only way you can is to claim that man’s ways are not God’s ways and we cannot know what is just to God. In other words – an appeal to mystery.

So regardless of what Nephi did and whether or not it was justified, I offer that wholesale slaughter and slavery is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My perspective is that the Bible contains the true gospel of Jesus Christ and is a history of God’s dealings with ancient man, from man’s point of view. Although there are faults in the Bible, God’s truth is found there. The problem, as I see it, is that viewing the Bible as infallible, forces you to accept things that just are not true. Whether or not it is dangerous to accept such things is a valid question. It may not matter if you believe a Bible myth that is demonstrably false such as a world wide flood and the ark or Jonah and the fish,

Hi Snow,

But I do believe, and I feel that it was all reinforced when Christ walked on the earth as a man. He never changed the Torah. He didn't add to it, nor take away.

but it may matter a great deal if you believe that God orders you to kill your male enemies and married women, steal their cattle, kidnap their children as slaves and rape the virgin women. (Deut 20, and 7, Numbers 31)

I just read Deuteronomy 7 and 20, and Numbers 31, and no where did I read where God said to rape the virgin women. The fact of the matter is, it is stated in Numbers 31 why God made the determination that men, married woman, and male children should die. It was because their women had seduced the Israelite men and had introduced them to idoltry and that had brought a curse upon the Israelites.

You probably would not understand that there is a degree of mercy in the killing of male children. But God in His omnipotence would know which of these would eventually be lost. Taking young children in death is giving them eternal life with the Father. There is a mercy in that.... an assurance of heaven.

or to kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ###### as matter of revenge for an offense that happened 400 years ago(Samuel 15).

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt."

That passage? It should tell you that God is a jealous god and he does remember the sins of people that are not unforgiven. A just God would administer a punishment which was earned.

If someone did that today, we would instantly recognize it as immoral and evil. If they claimed God told them to do it, then we would outright reject it. It is dangerous to believe that an all-just, and omnibenevolent diety would command such a thing. There are fundamentalist Christians (and even fundamentalist Mormons) and Muslims who believe such evil. I do not.

Where does the Bible say that God is omnibenevolent? Your "if" proposal is a personal comment. It is not "dangerous" thinking to believe that God is just with the righteous and with the unrighteous.

A correct understanding or the Bible avoids the problems of thinking the Bible is inerrant.

And I believe that I do have the correct understanding of the Bible.

I can easily point out how the Bible repeatedly gets its math wrong, contradicts itself, has faulty science, is full of myth etc, but let’s start with something interesting.

okay...

Doctrinal Clarity:

I can easily compose in a matter of hours a two page exposition that explains how faith, works and grace lead or don’t lead to salvation in language that is so clear that it cannot be mistaken - much clearer than the Bible, although certainly not as poetically or inspirationally.

On such a topic as fundamental and essential as salvation the Bible is confusing. I can argue from either position and make a persuasive case using the Bible. The point that the Bible is really unarguable. Martin Luther himself agreed. It is evidenced by the fact that vast numbers of sincere, honest, educated, studious, pious men and women, ministers, theologians, Bible scholars, Christians and interested parties throughout all Christian history have had diametrically opposed ideas and all can claim as the source of their belief - the Bible.

An infallible Bible would give a clear enough roadmap to salvation that those who were sincere and studious, and humble and prayerfull could follow it accurately. Such is not the case.

Is that your opinion, that an infallible Bible would give clear-cut "everything", thus making Christianity a legalism just as Judaism is... a "works" progam. Where is the gain from Christ's death? Perhaps we need to discuss some of these persuasive cases where you say that you could argue both sides. There is only one true church, that being the body of believers.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 30 2004, 05:52 AM

Hi there!

Did I just read in a commentary on 1 Nephi that God commanded one person to kill his brother, and it is under the commandment of God, yet you question the Bible concerning killing on command? 

Sure,

That’s a fair question. How do I reconcile it with the belief that I just posted? Here are some options:

1. Nephi made up the part about being commanded to kill Laban to cover himself. I don’t think that is a very good argument but it is the same argument that I believe the ancient Jews used – “Um, er, we killed all the married women, and took the virgins as our property and stole the cattle, because, because, God told us to, yeah that’s right, God told us to make the children our slaves see…”

2. We could accept Nephi’s version of it:

"4:10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

4:11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

4:12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

4:13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. 1It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief."

Laban had tried to kill Nephi and was therefore an attempted murderer. Beyond that Laban was an evil man. Was Nephi justified? Would a just God have asked it of him? Yes, I think you can make the case that it was not outside the law of justice.

Can the same be said of the actions of the Jews… killing all the men, killing all the non-virgins, regardless of their individual guilt, taking the virgins as property and enslaving the children and alternating between stealing and killing the livestock – sometimes for reasons as twisted as revenge for an offense 400 years earlier. If you can successfully reconcile that with justice, my hat is off to you. I suggest that the only way you can is to claim that man’s ways are not God’s ways and we cannot know what is just to God. In other words – an appeal to mystery.

So regardless of what Nephi did and whether or not it was justified, I offer that wholesale slaughter and slavery is not.

Hello Snow,

So, it is okay for the spirit of God to tell a man to kill another man. but it is not okay for a nation to take another nation to war and kill the inhabitants?

Why? Because it involves more people?

You have to remember when you read the Old Testament, to read the entirity of the Old Testament. You have to read of the cities of refuge for the criminals, about the releasing of slaves to freedom at scheduled times, of the fact that there were no prisons to keep POW's, no means of central govenment yet at this point (in taking the 7 nations of Deut 7 and 20) After destroying towns and fortified cities, you want leave the women and children behind with no food or means of living? Where's the mercy in that?

"Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes"

okay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sephara,

Who gets to decide which parts of the Bible are perfectly untouched by man and which may be incorrect? You had said that the Bible is correct up to a certain part (or however you worded it...if I misunderstood you, let me know). Who gets to decide that? You? Do you claim to have revealed knowledge from God that few others get to have? (That is called being a prophet)

I guess I'll get to my point now. The Word of God is infalliable. NO MISTAKES in it. You are right.

However, no one has ever claimed that the word of man is infalliable.

Therefore, our saying, "The Bible is correct, in so far as it is translated correctly"

This isn't a blast to the mainstream Christian church. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you believe the same thing. Our differences lie in whether it has been mistranslated.

broadway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Snow,

But I do believe, and I feel that it was all reinforced when Christ walked on the earth as a man. He never changed the Torah. He didn't add to it, nor take away.

Hi Serapha,

I don’t know what this has to do with the quote of mine that you posted right above it. I don’t see the connection but to be argumentative I would counter that Christianity – the movement founded by Christ did in fact take away from the Torah – in that we no longer follow Mosaic law (you can say that Christ fulfilled the law but whatever you say, we just ignore Mosaic law) and Christianity has added the entire New Testament to the Torah. We added and we subtracted (at least we ignored).

I just read Deuteronomy 7 and 20, and Numbers 31, and no where did I read where God said to rape the virgin women.

True, I am reading into the text that where it says to slay the women who had already had sex with other men and to take the pure virgins as booty, as plunder, as spoils, that the meaning of booty and plunder was that the men were going to use the virgins for their sexual desirability. I further assume that the virgins would not willingly agree to become sex plunder.

The fact of the matter is, it is stated in Numbers 31 why God made the determination that men, married woman, and male children should die. It was because their women had seduced the Israelite men and had introduced them to idoltry and that had brought a curse upon the Israelites.

My thinking is that a just God would hold people responsible for their own sins. If I robbed a bank because my buddy talked me into, then I think God would hold me responsible, not command me to kill my buddy because he induced me. Additionally, God, according to Deut did not instruct the Jews to seek out the guilty among their enemies and hold them responsible. The text says he commanded all men and non-virgins to be slain. Hardly just, hardly moral.

You probably would not understand that there is a degree of mercy in the killing of male children. But God in His omnipotence would know which of these would eventually be lost. Taking young children in death is giving them eternal life with the Father. There is a mercy in that.... an assurance of heaven.

Please Serapha, don’t tell me that cold is hot and that evil is moral. Killing children = bad.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt."

That passage? It should tell you that God is a jealous god and he does remember the sins of people that are not unforgiven. A just God would administer a punishment which was earned.

Which prove my point. A just god would administer punishment that was earned, not unjustly punish people for the sins of their forefathers 400 years earlier. If I were to accept your logic, it would make sense to kill your kids because in 1604, early American immigrants unjust killed some Indians. You should find a much different line of reasoning.

Where does the Bible say that God is omnibenevolent? Your "if" proposal is a personal comment. It is not "dangerous" thinking to believe that God is just with the righteous and with the unrighteous.

I didn’t understand your last sentence but it is a personal belief that God is perfect in all good qualities and perfect absent of bad qualities. It is a tradition belief that God is all-good. All-kind is an extension of that. Being all-just does not contradict being all-kind.

Is that your opinion, that an infallible Bible would give clear-cut "everything", thus making Christianity a legalism just as Judaism is... a "works" progam. Where is the gain from Christ's death? Perhaps we need to discuss some of these persuasive cases where you say that you could argue both sides. There is only one true church, that being the body of believers.

No, that is not my opinion (inerrant bible to be clear-cut in everything). However, it is my opinion that in essential teachings the Bible would be clear and non-contradictory. And the matter I mentioned, faith, works and salvation through the atonement, is THE central teaching of the New Testament. Yet millions and millions honest and sincere adherent, throughout history, cannot come to an agreement on what the doctrine is. That’s a problem. Further, you, if I recall your posts on the other board correctly, want to exclude Mormons from the body of true believers based on doctrinal purity. Then – the doctrine ought to be clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 30 2004, 06:21 PM

Hello Snow,

So, it is okay for the spirit of God to tell a man to kill another man. but it is not okay for a nation to take another nation to war and kill the inhabitants?

Why? Because it involves more people?

You have to remember when you read the Old Testament, to read the entirity of the Old Testament. You have to read of the cities of refuge for the criminals, about the releasing of slaves to freedom at scheduled times, of the fact that there were no prisons to keep POW's, no means of central govenment yet at this point (in taking the 7 nations of Deut 7 and 20) After destroying towns and fortified cities, you want leave the women and children behind with no food or means of living? Where's the mercy in that?

"Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes"

okay?

Serapha,

I think that any reasonable person can see the difference between taking that life of one evil, guilty person, in order to accomplish a greater good, and the wholesale slaughter of all men, all women who have had sex, kidnapping and enslaving the virgins and children and stealing the livestock – not based upon individual guilt, but based upon what nationality they were.

And, I doubt any reasonable person would buy your theory that it is just and mercifull to kill all parents in a village and then kidnap and enslave the children so that they have someone to look after them and maybe release them after some period of enslavement.

Think about it if the city of Peoria killed all the men and sexually active women in Bloomington and enslaved the virgins and children and stole all the property…. And then said that God commanded it. Sure. Not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 30 2004, 06:21 PM

Hello Snow,

So, it is okay for the spirit of God to tell a man to kill another man.  but it is not okay for a nation to take another nation to war and kill the inhabitants? 

Why?  Because it involves more people? 

You have to remember when you read the Old Testament, to read the entirity of the Old Testament.  You have to read of the cities of refuge for the criminals, about the releasing of slaves to freedom at scheduled times, of the fact that there were no prisons to keep POW's, no means of central govenment yet at this point (in taking the 7 nations of Deut 7 and 20)    After destroying towns and fortified cities, you want leave the women and children behind with no food or means of living?    Where's the mercy in that? 

"Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes"

okay?

Serapha,

I think that any reasonable person can see the difference between taking that life of one evil, guilty person, in order to accomplish a greater good, and the wholesale slaughter of all men, all women who have had sex, kidnapping and enslaving the virgins and children and stealing the livestock – not based upon individual guilt, but based upon what nationality they were.

And, I doubt any reasonable person would buy your theory that it is just and mercifull to kill all parents in a village and then kidnap and enslave the children so that they have someone to look after them and maybe release them after some period of enslavement.

Think about it if the city of Peoria killed all the men and sexually active women in Bloomington and enslaved the virgins and children and stole all the property…. And then said that God commanded it. Sure. Not.

Hello Snow,

In ignorance, I am asking for a serious response...

I think that any reasonable person can see the difference between taking that life of one evil, guilty person,

Why is Laban considered to be such an evil, guilty person. What was the evil and what was he guilty of? Is he considered evil simply because he defied the demand for the records? What is he guilty of? False witness--as in calling them robbers. It appears to be more of a vision, that in fact, he was killed and the plates were "robbed" from his home.

Nephi was a robber. Is it okay to "rob" in the name of the Lord? Is it okay to kill and then take what the Lord has told you to take?

Think about it if the city of Peoria killed all the men and sexually active women in Bloomington and enslaved the virgins and children and stole all the property…. And then said that God commanded it. Sure. Not.

Snow, the laws today are not the same as the laws of ancient Mesopotamia, Palestine, or Arabia. It is unrealistic to read into the text of ancient accounts with the mindset of today's society and laws. Today's law says one may not ship silver or gold into particular countries, but certainly that was a viable action in ancient times. Let's do be realistic and use examples which do identify the task at hand and not an interpretation of the task at hand only considering a modernistic mindset.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 1 2004, 08:32 AM

Hello Snow,

In ignorance, I am asking for a serious response...

I think that any reasonable person can see the difference between taking that life of one evil, guilty person,

Why is Laban considered to be such an evil, guilty person. What was the evil and what was he guilty of? Is he considered evil simply because he defied the demand for the records? What is he guilty of?

Let's follow the passage:

4:3 – Nephi understood that Laban might need to be destroyed

***Nephi’s Decision to Kill Laban – a matter of blind obedience, or faith?

4:10 – the Spirit commands Nephi to slay Laban; his first reaction is to “shrink”

4:11 – the Spirit reasons with Nephi – “delivered into your hands”; Nephi continues to reason: Laban was an attempted murderer, disobedient to the Lord, and a thief

4:12 – the Spirit whispers again (for the third time)

4:13 – more reasoning from the Spirit: wicked may be slain so the Lord can save many more righteous individuals

4:14-17 – Nephi realizes his people would need the Scriptures contained on the brass plates

4:18 – Nephi obeys the Spirit and slays Laban (byu notes)

There are 3 things to remember. 1. God delivered Laban into Nephi's hands. [interesting note: I understand Mosaic law concerning murder, that those who "laid in wait" for their victims were to be killed, while those whose victims "God delivered into their hands" were allowed to seek refuge in another city.] 2. Laban was a wicked man. He was an attempted murderer and a thief and disobedient to God. Beyond that we do not know in what other ways he was wicked but God himself, according to the text, judged him personally and specifically condemned him. Nephi had tried every other way to get the plates. 3. If Nephi did not overcome his reluctance to kill Laban, a whole people would dwindle in unbelief. One would think that God could have found another way to get Nephi the plates. Besides the justification I just gave there is speculation that the ordeal was a type and a shawdow of a greater gospel principle. Whether you think that Nephi was justified or not, this is still worlds apart from indiscriminate killing, kidnapping, enslaving and stealing of a whole people, who's individual guilt/innocence is not at issue.

[but what does that have to do with the Bible and inerrancy?]

 

Is it okay to kill and then take what the Lord has told you to take?

I gave reasons above why I think Nephi was justified. But I do not understand your question. You ask if is proper to obey God. Do you have doubts about that?

Think about it if the city of Peoria killed all the men and sexually active women in Bloomington and enslaved the virgins and children and stole all the property…. And then said that God commanded it. Sure. Not.

Snow, the laws today are not the same as the laws of ancient Mesopotamia, Palestine, or Arabia. It is unrealistic to read into the text of ancient accounts with the mindset of today's society and laws. Today's law says one may not ship silver or gold into particular countries, but certainly that was a viable action in ancient times. Let's do be realistic and use examples which do identify the task at hand and not an interpretation of the task at hand only considering a modernistic mindset.

Serapha, my analogy is an apt one because it drives home the point. Today we could never accept such evil barbarity. The fact that it happened ages ago does not change the barbarity. Mothers were still put to the sword, babies torn asunder from their families, blood spilt in unspeakable cruelty. Did not people of that time suffer, did they not love, did they not bleed? Regardless of any laws and customs, evil is evil. If the laws of your home town were changed today, would it be alright for you to kill your neighbor, kill your's neigbor's spouse, take the virgin teen for sexual booty, steal the dog and enslave the children. No, perish the thought. Evil is evil regardless of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow,

The right side of my brain is connected to the left side. Re-read what you posted to me concerning the bom, and then compare it to what you posted to me concerning the Bible.

Both instances involve doing as God commands and reaping the reward of obedience... but you condemn the one and exalt the other.

And justify it by saying "didn't people suffer".... didn't Laban's family suffer? Didn't they have feelings.

Do you see where I am coming from yet?

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, let's pick it up here....

My perspective is that the Bible contains the true gospel of Jesus Christ and is a history of God’s dealings with ancient man, from man’s point of view. Although there are faults in the Bible, God’s truth is found there. The problem, as I see it, is that viewing the Bible as infallible, forces you to accept things that just are not true. Whether or not it is dangerous to accept such things is a valid question. It may not matter if you believe a Bible myth that is demonstrably false such as a world wide flood and the ark or Jonah and the fish, 

Hi Snow,

But I do believe, and I feel that it was all reinforced when Christ walked on the earth as a man. He never changed the Torah. He didn't add to it, nor take away.

but it may matter a great deal if you believe that God orders you to kill your male enemies and married women, steal their cattle, kidnap their children as slaves and rape the virgin women. (Deut 20, and 7, Numbers 31)

I just read Deuteronomy 7 and 20, and Numbers 31, and no where did I read where God said to rape the virgin women. The fact of the matter is, it is stated in Numbers 31 why God made the determination that men, married woman, and male children should die. It was because their women had seduced the Israelite men and had introduced them to idoltry and that had brought a curse upon the Israelites.

You probably would not understand that there is a degree of mercy in the killing of male children. But God in His omnipotence would know which of these would eventually be lost. Taking young children in death is giving them eternal life with the Father. There is a mercy in that.... an assurance of heaven.

 

or to kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ###### as matter of revenge for an offense that happened 400 years ago(Samuel 15).

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt."

That passage? It should tell you that God is a jealous god and he does remember the sins of people that are not unforgiven. A just God would administer a punishment which was earned.

If someone did that today, we would instantly recognize it as immoral and evil. If they claimed God told them to do it, then we would outright reject it. It is dangerous to believe that an all-just, and omnibenevolent diety would command such a thing. There are fundamentalist Christians (and even fundamentalist Mormons) and Muslims who believe such evil. I do not.

Where does the Bible say that God is omnibenevolent? Your "if" proposal is a personal comment. It is not "dangerous" thinking to believe that God is just with the righteous and with the unrighteous.

A correct understanding or the Bible avoids the problems of thinking the Bible is inerrant.

And I believe that I do have the correct understanding of the Bible.

 

I can easily point out how the Bible repeatedly gets its math wrong, contradicts itself, has faulty science, is full of myth etc, but let’s start with something interesting.

okay...

Doctrinal Clarity:

I can easily compose in a matter of hours a two page exposition that explains how faith, works and grace lead or don’t lead to salvation in language that is so clear that it cannot be mistaken - much clearer than the Bible, although certainly not as poetically or inspirationally.

On such a topic as fundamental and essential as salvation the Bible is confusing. I can argue from either position and make a persuasive case using the Bible. The point that the Bible is really unarguable. Martin Luther himself agreed. It is evidenced by the fact that vast numbers of sincere, honest, educated, studious, pious men and women, ministers, theologians, Bible scholars, Christians and interested parties throughout all Christian history have had diametrically opposed ideas and all can claim as the source of their belief - the Bible.

An infallible Bible would give a clear enough roadmap to salvation that those who were sincere and studious, and humble and prayerfull could follow it accurately. Such is not the case.

Is that your opinion, that an infallible Bible would give clear-cut "everything", thus making Christianity a legalism just as Judaism is... a "works" progam. Where is the gain from Christ's death? Perhaps we need to discuss some of these persuasive cases where you say that you could argue both sides. There is only one true church, that being the body of believers.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I can summarize where we stand so far:

Point 1:

An infallible Bible would be clear and non-contradictory on matters of key doctrine such as salvation

Snow's position: it isn't; reference faith and work through Christian history.

Serapha's position: The Bible doesn't need to be clear and so it's lack of clarity is not a problem.

Point 2:

An infallible Bible would teach correct moral principles.

Snow's position: Blaming God for ordering the wholesale killing of all males, all non-virgin females, taking the virgins as booty, enslaving children and stealing cattle is a correct moral principle.

Serapha's position: Morality is relavite to local law and custom and dso killing, taking sexual booty, enslaving, etc. was not immoral; "You probably would not understand that there is a degree of mercy in the killing of male children. But God in His omnipotence would know which of these would eventually be lost. Taking young children in death is giving them eternal life with the Father. There is a mercy in that.... an assurance of heaven."

Did I summarize you position correctly? Are you ready for another test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 1 2004, 08:38 PM

Snow,

The right side of my brain is connected to the left side. Re-read what you posted to me concerning the bom, and then compare it to what you posted to me concerning the Bible.

Both instances involve doing as God commands and reaping the reward of obedience... but you condemn the one and exalt the other.

And justify it by saying "didn't people suffer".... didn't Laban's family suffer? Didn't they have feelings.

Do you see where I am coming from yet?

~serapha~

No, Serapha, I do not jusify Laban's slaying by saying that didn't people suffer. I justifies Laban's slaying by exactly what I wrote:

1. The Lord delivered him to Nephi.

2. Laban was disobedient to the Lord, a thief, and an attempted murder and wicked in other ways that were not explained.

3. Nephi needed the plates which contained scripture so that his posterity might not dwindle in unbelief.

The part about people suffering is unrelated to justification of Laban's death. It related to your claim that killing, kidnapping, enslavement and stealing was not immoral if it was in line with local custom. Beside the obvious illogic in that argument, I can assure you that it was not legal nor customary among the people that the Jews killed to be killed, raped and pillaged by the Jews. They were real people who felt real pain and real families with real lives. There was no distinction between those that might have been guilty and those who might not have been guilty. Further you tried to justify the murder because you said that the women tempted the Jews to become idolatrous (if I recall correctly). How absurd to kill someone because you can't take responsibility to for you own behavior.

If any of the things you propose happened today, here, society would instantly recognize the horror of it imprison them. There would not be a single doubt, not one, yet you want to defend the behavior.

Beyond that I do not see how Nephi's actions related to an infallible Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this,

Point 1:

An infallible Bible would be clear and non-contradictory on matters of key doctrine such as salvation

.... is your definition and interpretation of what an infallible Bible should be.

I see the Bible as "clear" and "non-contradictory" on the matter of the doctrines concerning salvation.

If you have a question on the "PROCESS" of salvation, then please ask, for salvation is a process. Many time, people lost at the different aspect included in salvation and they get confused. If it isn't "clear" to you, then, please, ask for an explanation.

~serapha~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 1 2004, 08:50 PM

Quote me, don't put words in my mouth...

such as...

Serapha's position: The Bible doesn't need to be clear and so it's lack of clarity is not a problem.

I didn't say that. I belive the Bible has all the answers.

~serapha~

Your right.

You didn't say that at all. You mostly ignored it. I inferred from what you said, "Is that your opinion, that an infallible Bible would give clear-cut "everything", thus making Christianity a legalism just as Judaism is... a "works" progam..." that you thought that the Bible did not give a clear cut answer on the topic and gave rise to your reply, namely faith, works, and grace.

If you thought that the Bible was clear on the topic, one would think that you would say so rather than to attempt to deflect the importance of clarity.

What is your opinion? If you think that the Bible is clear how do you explain the hundreds of millions, no billions, of people that have contradictory opinions about what the Bible teaches in this regard? Are they all just screwed up, bad? dumb? fighting God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 1 2004, 08:54 PM

If you have a question on the "PROCESS" of salvation, then please ask, for salvation is a process. Many time, people lost at the different aspect included in salvation and they get confused. If it isn't "clear" to you, then, please, ask for an explanation.

~serapha~

No Serapha,

I do not have a question on the process of salvation. I am very clear on what I believe and I have what is likely a very close understanding of what you believe. I think you are wrong but that is not the issue. You can make a case, I am sure, for your position from the Bible. Other persuasive cases can be made, from the Bible to contradict you.

It is not salvation I am concerned about it. It is the Bible's lack of clarity as evidence 1. by contradictory opinions of hordes of intelligent, educated, sincere, devote, prayerful, followers of the Bible and 2, The Bible itself. You have read Jeff Lindsay's list of faith and works scriptures. You may not agree with the works interpretation but your opinion is an interpretation as well. Like I said, I could write myself an more clear exposition on faith and works than is found in Bible.

The Bible is unclear, if not to you, then to millions of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share