Your LEAST favorite Bible Story?

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

08.25.2020 06:48AM

-->

@SirAnonymous

You keep saying that these were "innocent" people or "innocent" children.

Where in the OT is it that god condemns all babies to death for sin.

However, according to the Bible, no one is innocent.

Indeed and we all know how contradictory the bible is, don't we?

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

There are over 30 verses in the bible claiming people to be "innocent" and or "blameless".

blameless

adjective

Innocent of wrongdoing.

Were not Zechariah and Elizabeth said to have been blameless in the eyes of god? Or are you going to tell me that to be blameless in ancient times meant that Zechariah and Elizabeth were fond of threesomes and hard core porn?

Furthermore, the Bible also says, "For the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23)

What are the sins committed by first born children/babies?

If we put 2 and 2 together, this means that everyone deserves death because everyone is a sinner.

Try reading the psalms of David for instance and tell me who "the innocent" are that are being refereed to? And what about the Philippians?

"Prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach ".

How can anyone then, according to your maths, ever hope to " prove themselves innocent" when you and your maths say "everyone is a sinner."

So if the Bible is true,

Are you asking me or telling me?

#32

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,259

zedvictor4

08.25.2020 07:19AM

-->

@ludofl3x

What is a prophet other than a manipulative and highly opinionated person?

And what is a disciple other than a gullible hanger on?

And most people want a quite life, but prophets and their disciples have a tendency to want to f**k things up.

#33

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

08.25.2020 07:54AM

-->

@zedvictor4

And most people want a quite life, but prophets and their disciples have a tendency to want to f**k things up.

10/10

#34

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.25.2020 10:56PM

-->

@SirAnonymous

You keep saying that these were "innocent" people or "innocent" children. However, according to the Bible, no one is innocent. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Furthermore, the Bible also says, "For the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) If we put 2 and 2 together, this means that everyone deserves death because everyone is a sinner. So if the Bible is true, then God is justified when he kills people.

It is a great point you make. Unfortunately, people who have a prejudice against the God of the Bible miss the significance of this point. They continue to see through the lens of the Western individualistic worldview where for them covenantal representation is not comprehensible. Hence, they look at the sins of the individual and make that the issue - where the Bible says - it is the entire human race that fell not just one individual. So they see the baby and think innocent.

They also continue to imply that God, who is perfect and completely and holy is not so. And they continue to place God under the jurisdiction of humanity. Again replicating the picture of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit. These people do exactly the same thing - they think they know better than God. Yet, in their own lives, they probably support the practice of abortion - the killing of "innocent" human life. They would not call that murder though because they call these humans something less than human. But if God orders a punishment on humanity which includes these so called sub human lives - God becomes a monster. The hypocrisy is staggering. Then they wonder why the words they speak lack credibility and integrity and force.

#35

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.25.2020 11:26PM

-->

@Stephen

So you don't think any human has any personal responsibility for anything?

Of course I do you silly little man.

Well then start using that logic in your responses. You continue on every occasion, EVERY OCCASION, to excuse the sinfulness of the humans in the bible and attempt to blame GOD. You give lip service only to saying you do. Put it into practice. Admit that Pharaoh was an evil man. Admit that Adam and Eve willingly ate the fruit knowing full well the implication of the same. Admit that the people of Noah's time were so vile and wicked and evil that they needed to be put to death. Don't excuse them.

But what you don't want to understand or accept is that I wouldn't butcher your innocent children for something you may or may not have been responsible for. You are also ignoring the fact that the bible is clear as to why Pharaoh acted the way he did.

I don't believe you. I suspect you probably agree with abortion and euthanasia. And if you do, then you are willingly butchering innocent children. As for ignoring the biblical story of Pharaoh, don't tell lies. I am not ignoring it. I have explained elsewhere that I totally agree that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. I also explained how I understood that. You disagreed with me - because it did not fit your narrative and actually demonstrated that God was just and holy. That is the reason you rejected my explanation. Not because you could actually refute my argument. I also pointed out to that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. You just scoffed at this. Again you just make the evil human innocent - you excuse his vileness and just go on and blame God. Your prejudice is so blind it is almost amusing.

A wager is hardly a fitting description of what is going on here.

It was nothing short of a bet. Stop trying to play down and make this dreadful violent biblical episode anything less than what it was. It was sheer wanton violence for the sake of your gods ego and reputation.

Well I disagree. In the case of a bet, both parties are doing something in order to win. And for the record, a bet implies an unknown outcome. There are no probabilities here. God knew how Job would respond, and informed Satan from the beginning. Satan still wants to push the point. Many people think in our world that having wealth is a sign that the gods are favoring you. And that being cursed is a sign that the gods are not favoring you. Here that philosophy is put to death. It is a warning against the wealth and prosperity doctrines well before it became vogue. Satan tried to suggest that Job believed this view and that if you take away his wealth and health that this would push him into a situation where he would curse God and then walk away. Job's faith was far deeper than Satan understood. Job was convinced that despite all of these things that happened to him, that God remained just. He could not figure out what was happening. Yet all of his mates - some of them just like you, tried to convince him that either God is unjust or vindictive or mean spirited or even more so - that Job deserved these things.

You just don't seem to get that God is absolutely entitled to his EGO. He is perfect and just. He is the only one in all things that is able to draw attention to himself and praise himself - without fear or worry that he is big noting himself. He certainly does not need to prove himself to us. I find that whole line of logic just a remarkable and arrogant line of nonsense. I actually think you are jealous. But you would deny this.

I can back everything I say with evidence.

Not without lies and reinterpretation and putting words into the mouths of the authors and characters of the bible. You lot are all the fkn same. You like to talk and discuss what it is the bible never says.

Stop with the false narrative. The things I say are not reinterpretation. That implies that there is a well known interpretation and that I am changing it to suit myself. Unfortunately for you, it is the reverse situation. I simply follow the traditions of those who have gone before me for millennia. You on the other hand are your own source. Unless you can produce credible sources to demonstrate your views - and then they are the original interpreters of these things, then the burden is on you. I have produced sources - I refer to them all of the time. You have yet to produce one. So stop with the false narrative.

I can back everything I say with evidence.

lets see you evidence for the existence of god. Lets us see your evidence of how god is supposed to have created the whole world and universe and all that is in it in only six days.

Yes, there you go again. Twist things around and then try and pull a fast one. I have never come onto this site and tried to prove that the God of the Bible existed. I have always maintained the position that such a thing is impossible. Yes, I have articulated various positions an arguments prove the existence of god. That is not the same thing at all. There is quite a difference between arguing god exists and the God of the bible exists. I used recently the philosophical argument of an agnostic to prove god exists. No one refuted that position. I though some would try. But no one did. Brother came on and took the topic down a completely nonsensical path.

I take the position that God of the Bible does not need to be proved for to even ask that question begins with a negative premise that will always take you to a negative conclusion. Logically, it is an impossibility to reach any other conclusion when you begin with that premise - unless of course your premises are false. And in this case - the premise would need to be deleted. Which would then in turn take us back to the truth of God.

I read somewhere recently, I am not sure whether it was on this site or another - that proving something is true is not the same thing as proving something is true to an individual. I could prove something is true to the world at large, yet this would still not be enough to convince you. And I think that is a truism.

You don't want the truth - because you cannot handle the truth.

#36

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,140

08.26.2020 01:53AM

-->

@Stephen

Where in the OT is it that god condemns all babies to death for sin.

Certainly. (All quotes from the NIV)

Psalm 14:2

"The Lord looks down from heaven

on all mankind

to see if there are any who understand,

any who seek God.

3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;

there is no one who does good,

not even one."

This verse tells us plainly that all mankind, which includes babies, are corrupt.

We learn in the very first biblical passage about sin what the penalty for sin is.

Genesis 3:17-19

“Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat food from it

all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return.” (emphasis mine, obviously).

It's just the same as it is in the New Testament. All are sinners, with no exceptions, and the penalty for sin is death. These verses are just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless verses in the Bible discussing sin and the punishment it deserves.

There are over 30 verses in the bible claiming people to be "innocent" and or "blameless".

blameless
adjective
Innocent of wrongdoing.

Were not Zechariah and Elizabeth said to have been blameless in the eyes of god? Or are you going to tell me that to be blameless in ancient times meant that Zechariah and Elizabeth were fond of threesomes and hard core porn?

What are the sins committed by first born children/babies?

Try reading the psalms of David for instance and tell me who "the innocent" are that are being refereed to? And what about the Philippians?

"Prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach ".

How can anyone then, according to your maths, ever hope to " prove themselves innocent" when you and your maths say "everyone is a sinner."

All of these questions can be answered from a single passage of Scripture.

Psalm 51 (The first nine verses would be enough, but I'll quote the whole thing just because I like it.)

For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.

1 Have mercy on me, O God,

according to your unfailing love;

according to your great compassion

blot out my transgressions.

2 Wash away all my iniquity

and cleanse me from my sin.

3 For I know my transgressions,

and my sin is always before me.

4 Against you, you only, have I sinned

and done what is evil in your sight;

so you are right in your verdict

and justified when you judge.

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,

sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;

you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

7 Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;

wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.

8 Let me hear joy and gladness;

let the bones you have crushed rejoice.

9 Hide your face from my sins

and blot out all my iniquity.

10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,

and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

11 Do not cast me from your presence

or take your Holy Spirit from me.

12 Restore to me the joy of your salvation

and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.

13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,

so that sinners will turn back to you.

14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,

you who are God my Savior,

and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.

15 Open my lips, Lord,

and my mouth will declare your praise.

16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;

you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.

17 My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;

a broken and contrite heart

you, God, will not despise.

18 May it please you to prosper Zion,

to build up the walls of Jerusalem.

19 Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,

in burnt offerings offered whole;

then bulls will be offered on your altar.

What sins have babies committed? "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." We are sinful by nature. We sin because it is our nature to sin. We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. How, then, can anyone be blameless in the eyes of God? "Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin." The only reason anyone can be blameless is because of God's mercy. We can be blameless be God can make us blameless. Let me return to Romans 3, which I quoted earlier. Let me add the context.

Romans 3:21-26

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

This is the gospel. It isn't about some vicious, angry God kills people on a whim, nor is it about some lovey-dovey God who closes His eyes to evil. It is about a God who created people who rebelled against him and, in so doing, became sinful by nature. Rather than immediately give us the punishment we deserve, He made a way of redemption. His Son sacrificed Himself, taking our punishment. It is only through faith in Him that we can become blameless and innocent in His sight.

All right, you're probably tired of me preaching to you now (Actually, you were probably tired of that before I even started, but I got carried away). Hopefully I answered your questions, or at least gave you some things to think about. However, this is one more that I have yet to answer because it wasn't really relevant to the topic we're discussing.

So if the Bible is true,

Are you asking me or telling me?

Presuming you aren't merely being rhetorical here, the answer is neither. While I believe the Bible is true, I know that you don't. Thus, I wrote my conclusion as a hypothetical scenario ("If the Bible is true, then X") because to you, it is hypothetical.

#37

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

08.26.2020 02:32AM

-->

@ludofl3x

If you begin from the position of God's infallibility and the Bible's inerrancy as the inspired word of God, then it seems to me that no story in the Bible can be wrong enough that it is acceptable to hate or dislike it. If it seems wrong to you or to others, you will believe you or they have misunderstood it, that there is some deeper meaning you or they do not yet understand, or even refuse to believe (in the case of atheists/skeptics) - and your faith will drive you to find a meaning that is compatible with your faith. That is just what it means to look at the Bible through the lens of inerrancy, and it seems rather to me that you are asking if there are any Christians who don't look at the Bible through that lens.
Sort of...it's not really a lens of inerrancy anymore, though, it's more like a 'filter of contemporary.' The words in the bible are the words in the bible, and if it's not meant to be read or understood in anything but its native language, it shouldn't be published in any other language, because that risk misinterpretation. If these words are difficult, as they really are, for Christians to square with a character (god / Jesus) who they've been taught is nothing but love and justice and all things good, then you're correct, their faith seems likely to drive them toward any explanation, no matter how flimsy (see: Rod's explanation of the bible's instructions on who's okay to own as a slave, i.e.). These post-hoc rationalizations would indicate really clearly that there's a level of discomfort between the book and contemporary values. I don't expect a Christian to say 'the bible is wrong.' I hope there are some who wonder why the god they're taught about as a naive child isn't the same god in the book they're told is a modern manual to daily life.

Heh, so both you and Rod say the other is mistakenly looking at biblical stories through a contemporary lens? Interesting.

You may not expect a Christian to say the Bible is wrong, but I think for them the OP may basically amount to, "Do you on some level think any parts of the Bible are wrong?"

#38

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

08.26.2020 05:26AM

-->

@SirAnonymous

What absolute claptrap. You need to learn how to read your bible.

#39

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

08.26.2020 05:33AM

-->

@Tradesecret

You continue on every occasion, EVERY OCCASION, to excuse the sinfulness of the humans .

That's simply not true. Where have done that? You just want me to agree that "sin" is inherited and all mankind is guilty of sin. But there is no evidence for that as much as you like to pretend that there is. Humans commit crimes and are punished without gods interference and double standards.

God is the biggest criminal in the whole of the bible.

#40

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.26.2020 05:38AM

-->

@Stephen

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

So please explain how the baby is sinful in the womb if it is not inherited?

Or will you just ignore this verse and pretend it is fake?

Topic's author

#41

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.26.2020 10:55AM

-->

@Castin

"Do you on some level think any parts of the Bible are wrong?"

In retrospect, a much easier entree into the discussion, wish I'd thought of it.

#42

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

08.26.2020 12:38PM

-->

@Tradesecret

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
So please explain how the baby is sinful in the womb if it is not inherited?

That's your job. You are claiming something I haven't claimed. Psalm 51 is traditionally claimed to have been composed by David as a confession to his god after he sinned with Bathsheba?

So this is Davids opinion and belief.

I haven't seen a verse yet from the almighty himself. So get to it.

Or will you just ignore this verse and pretend it is fake?

No. The verse is real, written by David human a very human being by all accounts. Yes this is David writing his own beliefs and feelings. this is not evidence that god condemned all children to death and btw, there is no evidence what-so- ever that king David wrote anything.

You are simply avoiding what I have asked for. show me where the OT god condemns all children to death for sin. I don't want the opinions or beliefs of biblical characters. I want factual evidence that god himself condemned all children to death.

#43

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,140

08.26.2020 01:40PM

-->

@Stephen

What absolute claptrap. You need to learn how to read your bible.

I was going to ask you why what I said is claptrap, but, to your credit, you explained in a post to TradeSecret.

That's your job. You are claiming something I haven't claimed. Psalm 51 is traditionally claimed to have been composed by David as a confession to his god after he sinned with Bathsheba?
So this is Davids opinion and belief.

Yes and no. Yes, it is David's opinion and belief, but it is not just David's opinion and belief.

2 Peter 1:19 - 21

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (emphasis mine).

The biblical writers were human, but, according to the Bible, God spoke through them. So while David wrote those words, they are God's words as well. But since you want it "from the Almighty Himself," I will oblige you. Let's start in Genesis 3.

Genesis 3:17-19

“Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat food from it

all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow

you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

and to dust you will return.”

While this is spoken directly to Adam, this curse applies to the whole human race. How do I know this? It's simple, really. I know this because everyone dies, not just Adam. Here's what the Bible says about this curse.

Romans 5:12-21

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

It's clear from this passage that the curse in Genesis 3 applies to everyone. Let's move on to another place where God Himself once again declares that everyone deserves death.

Genesis 6:11-13

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Notice who God is saying deserves death in this passage. "I am going to put an end to all people." That includes children. Here's what God says just after the flood.

Genesis 8:21

21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood."

Here you have it from the Lord Himself that everyone is evil from childhood. It would seem that that isn't just David's opinion after all. According to God Himself, everyone is evil. Everyone is under the curse of death.

#44

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

08.26.2020 03:03PM

-->

@Castin

As a rule, I see a problem with looking at any ancient texts without taking into consideration the context of the time, people, language, and culture.

However, I also see a problem with looking at the Bible through the lens of inerrancy, as I believe it was a book written by quite fallible humans from quite a long time ago on the road of moral and intellectual progress.

The folks who wrote the bible were definitely fallible. But it really boils down to whether or not God exists, and actually leads, guides, and empowers weak fallible men. If God doesn't exist, then the skies the limit on how many errors would be in the Bible. If God exists, and actually did inspire the authors of scripture, and those who chose the canons, then why should I think there are errors?

Theoretically, after I pass on and meet the creator, it's possible He may tell me there's that one verse in Malachi that is wrong, and/or shouldn't

be there. But why should I think any verse is wrong?

If God purposed for a written document to contain everything He wanted to convey, even if someone tried to sabotage the writings to contain error, it would most likely fail. The bible is full of attempts at defying God's plan, and inadvertently help fulfill God's plan (like Christ's crucifixion). Do you ever see those movies or tv shows where someone tries to run away from something, going the opposite direction, but ends up in the same location? In the context of Yahweh being real, it would be far more difficult to change the bible (into false literature) than writing divinely inspired words, and choosing which books should be included in the bible. Not even Thomas Jefferson could do it.

If you found out that Yahweh exists, how would you view the fallible/infallible biblical issue? Do you think God would allow for scriptural error?

I confess I have paid little study to the passage of Elisha and the bears in particular. My prima facie read is that the youths' mocking is seen as an insult to God (through his prophet) and it is dealt with as insults to God usually are in the Old Testament. I'm not sure what you mean by a "contemporary interpretation" of the story.

What I mean by contemporary view is exactly how Ludo, and many others view the text. They read it as a group of little children mocking Elisha's lack of hair. Elisha gets offended because he's sensitive about it, throws a tantrum, commands 2 bears to come out and slaughter the little culprits.

Your understanding is correct, although I'll point out that more than likely Elisha's life was in danger. So verbal insults was not the only issue at play here.

The Binding of Isaac I have paid much more attention to as it is one of the more fascinating passages to me, inspiring such a wealth of interpretations in Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim tradition. I always enjoy exploring these interpretations, but I will address yours.

I assume you are referring to Genesis 21:12.

It is interesting that you think this means Abraham knew God would prevent the sacrifice, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to
think it meant Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead after Abraham had gone through with it and sacrificed him (Hebrews 11:17-19). Of course, that is a Christian perspective and I remind myself that Christians did not write Genesis.

Oh I know. Maybe a better way to put it would be prevention of Isaac's death.

But I don't think that passage in Hebrews eliminates the possibility that Abraham didn't assume he would have to plunge the knife into him.

8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

So for the sake of argument I will ask this: If Abraham knew God wouldn't let him go through with it, was it really a test? Was the angel really justified in declaring "Now I know you fear God"?

Yes. An example of this would be Peter who knew Jesus was the Son of God, had seen His miracles, etc. But, fear gripped him when he tried walking on water. The disciples had seen miracles, but were still inhibited in their faith when facing a large group of hungry people, with just a few fish and loaves of bread. Faith doesn't end with finding God. There's still the calling. If God told you to face a lion, and it will flee, you still have to face a 500 lbs. beast face to face. When a believer finds God, their calling is revealed

sometime after. The calling is usually something desirable, but impossible on our own ability. It's tough because we have to rely on God to see it through. If you found God today, you may find you're called to sing. You may say that singing karaoke is fun, but that's as far as you would ever go. You don't have to worry about forgetting your lines, talking in between songs to the audience, etc. So within your own strength, you can stick with karaoke, sing as you read along, and get a nice round of applause. But if you were called to sing in concert settings, you'd have to go on faith that God will enable you. So all that to say that yes, it was an act of faith for Abraham to take his son up the mountain because he still had to deal with the physical appearance of danger to his son.

This is indeed interesting. To my knowledge, the text uses the two terms Elohim and Yahweh. Are you then referring to Elohim, which I know was
sometimes used to refer to kings and profits (authorities)?

Yes.

I admit the Old Testament God does often come across as mean-spirited to me, but this does not strike me as unusual for the period at all. The gods of this time were very often fierce, brutal, and warlike. We are talking about a tribal people living very close to the edge of survival, constantly subjected to violence and warfare with other tribes, totally at the mercy of pestilence and nature. What we go through always shapes what we believe. What else can we realistically expect? They wanted a strong, fierce god who rewarded blind loyalty, favored only them, and rained wrath and destruction upon their enemies. Much later Jews, the ones who became the early Christians, wanted a different sort of

God (a much better one, imo - ahem) and wrote a very different testament (a much better one, imo - ahem).

Yes, but they weren't masochists. They wanted a god like all the other nations. It was common for nations to embrace a national god, and erecting a statue of their god. That was the appeal of the golden calf. That was supposed to be the equivalent of Dagon, Bael, etc. They didn't want a God that would hold them accountable for their lifestyle.

The OT might appear mean-spirited, but so does "Scared Straight", which has been proven quite effective. The OT places a lot of emphasis on the judgments of peoples. If the OT were a fictional novel, the author would have placed a lot of emphasis on the crimes that brought on the judgments. But because the bible contains testimonies, it throws people off who assume it's fiction because fictional writers focus on qualifying it's heroes with details, whereas people who give testimonies present simply bare facts. In a court of law, that's all the judge is interested in ("just the facts ma'am" - Joe Friday).

#45

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,222

08.26.2020 03:56PM

-->

@ludofl3x

"Do you on some level think any parts of the Bible are wrong?"
In retrospect, a much easier entree into the discussion, wish I'd thought of it.

My work here is done.

*spreads hands, fades back slowly into shadow*

Topic's author

#46

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.26.2020 05:16PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

They read it as a group of little children mocking Elisha's lack of hair. Elisha gets offended because he's sensitive about it, throws a tantrum, commands 2 bears to come out and slaughter the little culprits.

Did you not see how I explained I read this text? I read it as a myth. I don't read it as children (even though the words say children) because the age of the people who are purportedly mauled to death by bears is immaterial to the morality of the action given the options available to the author of the bear attach (Jesus / God). It's just a story.

Topic's author

#47

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.26.2020 06:11PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

I'll point out that more than likely Elisha's life was in danger. So verbal insults was not the only issue at play here.

You know, I really DON'T care about this story at all, but all your claims about it made me curious. Which version of the bible is the right one to use to understand this story? Because here's from the KJV:

2 Kings 2 23 - 25:
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

I don't see any evidence of his life being in danger here. And this one specifically says little children, not a mob of young men. Maybe New International has it:

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

Hmmmm....okay so "some boys" is different than little children, but the bible does make a distinction between boys and men all over the place, so it seems strange to use "boys" to mean "men" here. Also, no mortal danger. Hm. New Century version?

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. On the way some boys came out of the city and made fun of him. They said to him, “Go up too, you baldhead! Go up too, you baldhead!” 24 Elisha turned around, looked at them, and put a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two mother bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys to pieces

Again boys...but again no bodily danger in the text. You're not putting it there on authority of someone else, right? Like no one TOLD you that's what had to be going on, instead you read the hebrew or greek and discerned that these translations are wrong? Can you please explain where the mortal danger is? New American must have it, right/

23 [a]From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some little boys came out of the city and jeered at him: “Go away, baldy; go away, baldy!” 24 The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.

Oh no! Little boys again, and again, no mortal danger, not even from the bears. Footnote in this one says "This story probably was told to warn children of the importance of respect for prophets." New international reader's edition:

23 Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. He was walking along the road. Some boys came out of the town. They made fun of him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here! You don’t even have any hair on your head!” 24 He turned around and looked at them. And he asked for bad things to happen to them. He did it in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods. They attacked 42 of the boys.

They made fun of him, but again, no mortal danger. Why are you putting that in the text? If it SHOULD be there and was overlooked, then isn't this part of the bible at the very least poorly written, if not plain wrong? The words are the words, they have meaning. If god used the wrong words or inspired some fallible person to write the wrong words, then never inspired any other translator of the many, many, many versions of the bible to fix it, then what authority do you have to add this detail, that Elisha was in mortal danger, or at least about to be mobbed and beaten by children, to the text? Why shouldn't someone read it exactly as purportedly inspired or even DICTATED by god?

#48

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

08.26.2020 09:19PM

-->

@ludofl3x

They made fun of him, but again, no mortal danger. Why are you putting that in the text? If it SHOULD be there and was overlooked, then isn't this part of the bible at the very least poorly written, if not plain wrong? The words are the words, they have meaning. If god used the wrong words or inspired some fallible person to write the wrong words, then never inspired any other translator of the many, many, many versions of the bible to fix it, then what authority do you have to add this detail, that Elisha was in mortal danger, or at least about to be mobbed and beaten by children, to the text? Why shouldn't someone read it exactly as purportedly inspired or even DICTATED by god?

I'll try and cover everything with this one quote.

First off, the fact you read it as a myth was never in question. Don't know why you think it was.

You have a problem with term the children being used in the passage. Do you have a problem with the Beach Boys still using the term boys? Should they have to legally change their band name to the Beach Old Men?

As far as what's the best translation to use to understand this (or any text)? I don't know. It may depend on the individual. The very first translation I read was the Living Bible.

How do I know that Elisha was in physical harm?

I think I made it clear that it's my opinion. If you read that a mob visits a local vendor, we can assume most likely it's an intimidation visit. Even if the article doesn't specifically say it. Mobs can be very dangerous. Ask any police officer.

The thing is, I don't read it as a myth. I try to look at the text through different angles including historical. And historically, prophets in Israel were abused both verbally, and physically.

You have the absolute freedom to read it as you wish. If you want to read it as a myth, by all means....indulge!

The people who wrote the text were just not concerned about Ludo's conditions on what's acceptable writing. You'll just have to accept that. I have absolutely no problem with

the fact that the Bible needs careful examination to understand. Ironically, the fact that very careful examination is required is what excites many students of the Bible. We like that we have to research. Most college students of any kind would probably choose having to research rather than having information somehow downloaded into their brains.

You say that the Bible is poorly written. If the Bible says children instead of young adults (as we would say today), why wouldn't they mean what they're saying? Well, they are. Their mentality is not that of a 21st century westerner. It's not their fault if we can't understand what their saying. When the term "Gay 90s" came out, do you think they were talking about mass homosexuality in the 1890's?

Another thing I forgot to mention.

In another thread you stated you didn't believe Jesus literally instructed His followers to pluck their right eye out. Well, the text plainly says:

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Where do you draw the line as to what is meant to be literal in the bible, and what isn't?

#49

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,896

Greyparrot

08.26.2020 10:10PM

-->

@Castin

Eh, the bish incident really turned me off the site for a while.

i still miss Bish.

Topic's author

#50

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

08.26.2020 10:23PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

First off, the fact you read it as a myth was never in question. Don't know why you think it was.

Because you said:

Ludo, and many others view the text. They read it as a group of little children mocking Elisha's lack of hair. Elisha gets offended because he's sensitive about it, throws a tantrum, commands 2 bears to come out and slaughter the little culprits.

I do not in any way read it that way. I read it as a story from a different time that has nothing to do with if they were kids are not. You demmonstrate this repeated misunderstanding right here:

You have a problem with term the children being used in the passage.

I do not have this problem at all. Again the age of the people reportedly mauled is immaterial to how I read it, which is best described as "as it is written and translated."

How do I know that Elisha was in physical harm?

I think I made it clear that it's my opinion.

Okay, so we are in agreement that this condition is NOT in the text, anywhere, and you're adding it. Why, exactly, are you adding it? It doesn't say "mob" either, it says children, calling him bald. Or boys, calling him bald. And telling him to leave their town, which apparently he was, because he TURNS AROUND to sic the bears on them. Again, this is the text.

You say that the Bible is poorly written.

This is a subtle distinction: I'm not saying it's poorly written, unless you're saying all this stuff that the text requires to be added to it in order to justify the actions in it. The bible is supposed to be the manual for all people, for all time, to save their souls, from eternal damnation. Is it not? If so, then why does it demand such extratextual additions to make it make sense today? If it were properly written, you wouldn't need to add to it (which is not the same as STUDYING it).

Where do you draw the line as to what is meant to be literal in the bible, and what isn't?

I don't think ANY of the bible is literal. That doesn't make it not worth reading, or not worth studying, but there's nothing in it. It has talking animals, magic unseeable angels, nothing at all that we can point to and say "That seems like it supports that Jesus rose from the dead." There isn't any second axis of triangulation on any of its important tales, there's not a second source I can use to say "this matches." It's a snapshot of its time, the gods and tales are mostly cribbed from other cultures, the stuff we should be able to verify, like the order of creation, an exodus of 600k people for forty years, or a global flood, is all demonstrably wrong. It's a collection of myths from unknown authors, from a culture whose contributions outside this book of myths is almost literally nothing at all compared to advanced cultures of the age. This is the most sensible conclusion I can reach based on available evidence.

#51

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.27.2020 12:06AM

-->

@Stephen

5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
So please explain how the baby is sinful in the womb if it is not inherited?

That's your job. You are claiming something I haven't claimed. Psalm 51 is traditionally claimed to have been composed by David as a confession to his god after he sinned with Bathsheba?
So this is Davids opinion and belief.

I haven't seen a verse yet from the almighty himself. So get to it.

Stephen - hello - is there anyone at home? The verse above is evidence for the proposition. It may not be the overwhelming proof of the proposition - but it is clearly evidence for the proposition that babies are conceived in sin. Why you would want to run away from this verse and go elsewhere smacks of avoidance and makes you smell a little like a JW or Mormon. Since this is evidence for the proposition - no matter how thin it might be, we should explore it further before running off elsewhere in order to avoid what is quite a clear example here. And one I think is the voice of God confirming the same.

You are correct in relation to the view that the author of this verse, whoever it might be, believed it and it was his opinion. But Stephen, hello there, opinions and beliefs are not formed in vacuums. If the author of this verse believed he could be born or conceived in sin, how did he come to that conclusion? One thing it does give overwhelming proof for is that at the time that he wrote this - that some people clearly believed it was the case. Surely you would not deny this? You have indicated that the traditional view is that this is David. Perhaps it is or perhaps it is not. If it is David, why would he say he (David) was conceived in sin? Yes, we know he committed adultery with Bathsheba. And if he was talking about his son who was conceived from that union, then why does he refer to himself and not the child? There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that David's conception was somehow the result of a sinful union. So if it is David writing this confession, and he is referring to himself and it was his own truth, this man, or even a king, why is he is positing it so strongly? Unless of course it was a natural outworking of his own theology. But that is conjecture I concede.

Now if it someone else, then really we have not much to work on - save and except that the author at that time clearly believed from the very culture he lived in at the time - and potentially from his own history that he could be conceived in sin. Certainly the words have been credited to David, which implies that his words were not seen as being antithetical to the Jewish position on sin. If so, there would be commentary denying the words. Also since David is often credited to this Psalm, his beliefs and opinions would have been valued per se.

What is more. There is no evidence anywhere else disputing these so called words of David. No denial. No suggesting that his words were wrong or hyperbole.

In fact his words are consistent with the Bible.

Psalm 14:2

"The Lord looks down from heaven

on all mankind

to see if there are any who understand,

any who seek God.

3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;

there is no one who does good,

not even one."

It is consistent because if babies can be conceived in sin - then the statement in verse 3 "that no one does good, not even one" is clearly on the same lines. In other words, It is not inconsistent with it. Now I certainly concede that in the first verse it does not say expressly that ALL BABIES are born into sin. Yet, neither does it say that No baby is conceived in sin. And nor does it say "all babies are born innocent".

Furthermore, Psalm 51:5 is consistent with the message of Genesis - that all humanity inherit the consequences of their first parents. That since their first parents acted in treason against God, humanity including all of its children have been judged and sentenced to death. Adam represented humanity. He was our champion. If Trump went to war against China tomorrow, the consequences of his actions would fall upon all Americans whether you support him or not. The Chinese would not be going around to every individual and saying "excuse me Stephen, did you support Trump or not? " No they would simply kill you or throw you into a prisoner of war camp until they decided what they would do with you. Despite your unwillingness or even consent for Trump to go war, you would suffer the consequences of his actions. Hence, to say that a child is conceived in sin - is consistent with that position. To say that all children are conceived in sin is consistent with that position.

There is not one verse in the Bible from God or anyone else that tells us that children are born innocent and without sin. There is no verse which denies that children are born into sin - and moreover, the entire character of the Bible declares that humanity is at war against God in treason.

Or will you just ignore this verse and pretend it is fake?

No. The verse is real, written by David human a very human being by all accounts. Yes this is David writing his own beliefs and feelings. this is not evidence that god condemned all children to death and btw, there is no evidence what-so- ever that king David wrote anything.

You are simply avoiding what I have asked for. show me where the OT god condemns all children to death for sin. I don't want the opinions or beliefs of biblical characters. I want factual evidence that god himself condemned all children to death.

Yes, I agree it was a human account. This does not by itself demonstrate that it is not also God's position. Yes, it is consistent with God's position that all humanity has sinned against God and is at war against him. I don't know whether David wrote it not. It really is irrelevant who wrote it - what is relevant is who is attributed to writing it.

I have not avoided it. In fact I have stopped you from directly avoiding it - by keeping us directly on this text. IT is evidence - and I suggest quite strong evidence that the bible says what was proposed above. You wanted to run away from the text as quickly as you could. You wanted to make it a footnote - one with only a small commentary by yourself only. You want to avoid scrutiny. I have shown you numerous times where God condemns all humanity to death. All includes children. The bible is God's word. Can you find anywhere where it supports your position?

#52

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

08.27.2020 06:13AM

-->

@Tradesecret

The verse above is evidence for the proposition.

Well as much you want it to be evidence it isn't. I have explained that psalm 51 is simply the outpouring of man feeling guilt. What it isn't, is the evidence I asked for showing the lord god almighty himself condemning all children to death for sin.

So without your boring windbag filibustering, let us see the factual evidence that you brag often about producing.

And you still haven't come up with the evidence that your lord god almighty created the whole universe in only six days.

The bible is God's word.

Prove it

Tick tock, Tick tock, Tick tock, Tick tock

#53

Debates: 38

Posts: 749

08.27.2020 08:05AM

Not exactly a scripture story, but when I was a Mormon, I was always bothered by how polygamy slipped in and out of church approval both in the Bible and in Mormon history in America. It's almost as if God's opinion on the matter is subject to public approval.

#54

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.27.2020 08:08AM

-->

@Stephen

The verse above is evidence for the proposition.

Well as much you want it to be evidence it isn't. I have explained that psalm 51 is simply the outpouring of man feeling guilt. What it isn't, is the evidence I asked for showing the lord god almighty himself condemning all children to death for sin.

Sorry Stephen, I don't take your explanation as gospel. You are making it up. It is not simply an outpouring of his grief. That is a ridiculous way to attempt to argue a point. It is the theology of a person at the time that the religious leaders of Israel purported to be the king of Israel. And it is very likely it was the theological position of most of the nation following the king. Just because you say something does not make it true. You are not GOD. You don't get to decide what it says or does not say. At least produce some authority to support your position - even one would give something. What is even more telling about you is the fact that you don't even think David did write this - so to say it is about grief really is stretching the truth. You don't really know the background of the Psalm.

It is evidence for the proposition. It is strong evidence. You discounting only means you refuse to accept it. Yet others accept it and I do as well. As I said - and which you refuse to do is put up is - any verse which refutes what this verse actually posits. You don't put it up because you know there is nothing to support your views. You don't care about the truth - you just want to rewrite everything with a new narrative.

So without your boring windbag filibustering, let us see the factual evidence that you brag often about producing.

And you still haven't come up with the evidence that your lord god almighty created the whole universe in only six days.

I never said God made the world in six days. And I assume you mean 24 hours days. As for producing what I say - I have produced. What you do with it is up to you. It is produced - and as I said - you were going to reject it before you saw it anyway.

The bible is God's word.
Prove it

Tick tock, Tick tock, Tick tock, Tick tock

LOL! Psalm 119. the BIBLE. OT and NT. Everything. That leaves nothing to be added.

#55

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

08.28.2020 06:37AM

Sorry Stephen, I don't take your explanation as gospel.

What's new.

I never said God made the world in six days.

But your bible does? And according to you >>

The bible is God's word.

I assume you mean 24 hours days

And this is where you rewrite the bible and tell us that the bible doesn't mean days when it says "days", without providing the evidence that you proudly brag to "always produce" , when you never do

#56

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

08.28.2020 06:52AM

-->

@K_Michael

Are you saying that you think the bible condones (or to some degree condones) polygamy?

#57

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

08.28.2020 07:54AM

-->

@Stephen

Sorry Stephen, I don't take your explanation as gospel.

What's new.

Do you seriously expect me to take your word as gospel? Why should I? You have no authority. Your opinion is not one of an expert. I don't expect you to believe me - even though I am qualified professionally to give advice. This is a forum. Forums require evidence and argument not just assertions of an opinion. You have refused to provide any sources for your "opinion". So why should anyone take your opinion as gospel? Surely you are not surprised!!

I never said God made the world in six days.

But your bible does? And according to you >>

But the point is - I never did. And I said I would provide evidence for what I say. Not just what the bible says or what you think the bible says.

The bible is God's word.

Yes. The bible itself calls itself the Word of God. Psalm 119 is a wonderful example of this. I am not attempting to prove it the Word of God. Just providing evidence that it is the word of God. On the other hand, once I have provided it, you can cross examine my assertion and evidence. That is what the forum is for. Assertion, evidence, argument and examination of the same. Not just assertion and denial of any evidence as though it is not evidence. If you would learn how to read, perhaps you might understand how to discuss and reason. For example, suggesting that the above verse was simply a emotional response to a grieving father is partially a response - but not a full one. I would have tried to articulate that David was suggesting "I wish I had never been born". Hence - the very reason I am alive is because of someone's mistake. At least you could have filled it out. I don't particularly think that is a strong argument - but it better than simply making an assertion and expecting anyone else to understand what you - can obviously see.

I assume you mean 24 hours days

And this is where you rewrite the bible and tell us that the bible doesn't mean days when it says "days", without providing the evidence that you proudly brag to "always produce" , when you never do

Did you even notice the way you responded here? Not only did I never say God made the world in six days, I picked up your position that you implied I was going to say 24 hours days? Far out. I was helping you out - and yet you have the audacity to turn that around and say I am going to argue it means something it does not mean. Well Stephen, given that you don't have anything more to go on than a feeling, that means nothing to me. I do produce evidence. I always do. It is just that you think evidence means proof - which is not what I mean. I suppose I could use the word data but it means the same anyway. Evidence does not mean proof - it never has and it never will. All evidence has to be examined and weighted. Does it support a particular position or not? People in the main - misunderstand what evidence is. When they mistake it for proof they demonstrate a profound ignorance. Don't make the same mistake.

I did not mention creation and particular days - because this topic is about least favourite stories - and I like the Genesis story.

#58

Debates: 38

Posts: 749

08.28.2020 08:22AM

-->

@RoderickSpode

Um, obviously yes? Abraham had two wives and had kids with their handmaidens. Solomon supposedly had 1000 wives and concubines.

#59

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

08.28.2020 08:37AM

-->

@K_Michael

The bible doesn't hold back info on the failures, shortcomings, or sins of the saints in the bible. As far as Solomon goes, yeah, he was like Elvis Presley. Obviously this was part of the conflicts that lead him to conclude all was vanity. Why do think the references to weakness for women amongst saints was in anyway condoned by God?

As far as Abraham, he had a second wife naned Keturah. But that didn't involve adultry. And God never commanded Abraham to have intercourse with Hagar. But that was common practice back then when someone was childless with their wife.

The saints who were womanizers had consequences for their actions.

#60

Debates: 3

Posts: 4,140