Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?

[Czernobog]

How else would we know that god delegated the naming of the animals to Adam? God already knew them, of course, yet wanted to see how stupid A was.

Same question to you: to be clear, you would agree that the bible - the entire Bible, both Old, and New - are was written for all ages, and the things that were described as abhorrent in the Old Testament, are abhorrent now, and the things that were described as acceptable in the Old Testament, are acceptable today?

 

[TNHarley]

duh. How else would we know God killed a bunch of children?

The indication is not that they were small children but teenagers or even early twenties. They would have been called hoodlums even by the 1950's standards.

So the bible lies when it says god gave an order to kill all, including little children?

If there is nothing wrong in dropping an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or fire bombing Dresden (obviously killing hundreds if not thousands of children ) ----- then frankly no! War is war and while I sure GOD hates war, He also hates the enemy.

story changed a little, ey?

Not really. God is the Creator. And I would certainly be one to say that GOD can do exactly what He wishes with His creation. In fact, I'd have to say that GOD of the Bible has always demonstrated far more benevolence than the opinionated people I've debated on this forum.

YOUR story. The one you changed.

 

[LittleNipper]

duh. How else would we know God killed a bunch of children?

The indication is not that they were small children but teenagers or even early twenties. They would have been called hoodlums even by the 1950's standards.

So the bible lies when it says god gave an order to kill all, including little children?

No it doesn't lie. I misunderstood.

 

[TNHarley]

duh. How else would we know God killed a bunch of children?

The indication is not that they were small children but teenagers or even early twenties. They would have been called hoodlums even by the 1950's standards.

So the bible lies when it says god gave an order to kill all, including little children?

No it doesn't lie. I misunderstood.

No you didnt lol

 

[LittleNipper]

duh. How else would we know God killed a bunch of children?

The indication is not that they were small children but teenagers or even early twenties. They would have been called hoodlums even by the 1950's standards.

So the bible lies when it says god gave an order to kill all, including little children?

No it doesn't lie. I misunderstood.

No you didnt lol

You've not answered my question. Was it wrong for the Allies to bomb civilians?

 

[LittleNipper]

How else would we know that god delegated the naming of the animals to Adam? God already knew them, of course, yet wanted to see how stupid A was.

Same question to you: to be clear, you would agree that the bible - the entire Bible, both Old, and New - are was written for all ages, and the things that were described as abhorrent in the Old Testament, are abhorrent now, and the things that were described as acceptable in the Old Testament, are acceptable today?

They are acceptable By GOD today, as they were acceptable by GOD in the past. The difference is that now GOD looks at each of us through the Messiah. If anyone disregards the Messiah, then God must evaluate such an individual through LAW ----that's the choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Is the Bible the inerrent word of God?"

Of course not.

The bible is the word of man, imbued with all the faults and failing of man.

 

[badger2]

Acceptable to whom, post #21, a general audience or Charles Manson? How could a most dangerous piece of self-glossing literature like the bible be written for both when supposedly god made Charles Manson? To find out what others would call him afterwords? This is the same once-and-for-all nursery pap god tried to lay on A. Was Eve present at the time? None of the premises in post #21 should be taken seriously.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have always considered both the Old and the New as the Word. Not that I always understood it but even when I was very young reading it I respected it as the word of God spoken through holy men-people and written down through the ages. .

The bible is myths and legends collected over the centuries contrived as ‘religion’ and completely devoid of secular authority.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have noticed that in several discussions I have with Christians, the point of contention seems to be in attempting to separate the Bible into two parts - the part that must be accepted as accurate (The New Testament), and the part that doesn't (The Old Testament).

So, I have a question. The creation Truth Foundation, in their statement of faith, claims, “The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort, in all matters with which they deal, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

I would ask the Christians on this forum if they agree with that statement, bearing in mind:

First, they make no distinction between the Old, and the New Testament, and
Second, paying particular attention to the highlighted portion.

For an atheist, you sure do spend a lot of time with a bible

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

duh. How else would we know God killed a bunch of children?

The indication is not that they were small children but teenagers or even early twenties. They would have been called hoodlums even by the 1950's standards.

So the bible lies when it says god gave an order to kill all, including little children?

If there is nothing wrong in dropping an Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or fire bombing Dresden (obviously killing hundreds if not thousands of children ) ----- then frankly no! War is war and while I sure GOD hates war, He also hates the enemy.

story changed a little, ey?

Not really. God is the Creator. And I would certainly be one to say that GOD can do exactly what He wishes with His creation. In fact, I'd have to say that GOD of the Bible has always demonstrated far more benevolence than the opinionated people I've debated on this forum.

This fails as a pathetic fallacy.

 

[Meriweather]

Not really. God is the Creator. And I would certainly be one to say that GOD can do exactly what He wishes with His creation. In fact, I'd have to say that GOD of the Bible has always demonstrated far more benevolence than the opinionated people I've debated on this forum.

Doesn't this miss a vital point--i.e., the part of how the authors of Genesis saw the human race? Genesis is a story. The storytellers paint a vivid picture in a vividly picturesque language of the human race. They see a people who dismally fail at being good.

Next question: What are the original authors comparing human failure with? The authors are comparing actual human behavior to the goodness of God--with humans falling way short of God's goodness. In the story of the flood, goodness prevails, and evil (for a time) is washed away.

The Bible's first revelation about God, is that God is good and that humans, while having the ability to be good, are always failing to measure up or attain this goodness. The theme of these stories is that evil eventually crumbles and goodness wins out.

People of today cannot remember the dismay of people then when faced with corruption in the overall human population. When evil took a beating, they cannot even imagine the hope of survivors that goodness prevailed.

Today, the entire purpose of the original authors has been turned around by some.

Some people sympathize with the people that the original authors described as evil and corrupt. They judge the removal of that corruption as evil.

 

[Meriweather]

YOUR story. The one you changed.

Actually, it is today's atheists who are trying to change the story where corruption is really the good guy and anyone who removes that corruption is truly evil.

 

[Czernobog]

I have noticed that in several discussions I have with Christians, the point of contention seems to be in attempting to separate the Bible into two parts - the part that must be accepted as accurate (The New Testament), and the part that doesn't (The Old Testament).

So, I have a question. The creation Truth Foundation, in their statement of faith, claims, “The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort, in all matters with which they deal, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

I would ask the Christians on this forum if they agree with that statement, bearing in mind:

First, they make no distinction between the Old, and the New Testament, and
Second, paying particular attention to the highlighted portion.

For an atheist, you sure do spend a lot of time with a bible

That's because the Bible is invariably the justification for every belief that Christians have, yet when one tries to tie Christians down, on just what the Bible does, and does not say, they seem to be awfully fluid in their views of the accuracy of the book.

 

[Czernobog]

Doesn't this miss a vital point--i.e., the part of how the authors of Genesis saw the human race?

And herein lies the problem with your assessment. If the Bible is only "valid" from "the perspective of the authors of the book, at the time", then doesn't that fly in the face of an ever-present, unchanging, everlasting God? Would not this all-knowing God see that we in the modern world would come into being, and design the Bible so that it would be just as valid, and accurate for us, today, as it was for the writers of Genesis? Or was God not capable of such forethought?

 

[LittleNipper]

Acceptable to whom, post #21, a general audience or Charles Manson? How could a most dangerous piece of self-glossing literature like the bible be written for both when supposedly god made Charles Manson? To find out what others would call him afterwords? This is the same once-and-for-all nursery pap god tried to lay on A. Was Eve present at the time? None of the premises in post #21 should be taken seriously.

What are you babbling about? Seriously, you are about as coherent as Charles Manson!

 

[K9Buck]

That's because the Bible is invariably the justification for every belief that Christians have...

Now you've gone off the deep-end with this radical remark.

 

[RodISHI]

That's because the Bible is invariably the justification for every belief that Christians have...

Now you've gone off the deep-end with this radical remark.

By the spirit is too hard for many to grasp. Even those in the churches don't get it much of the time.

 

[badger2]

#36 doesn't seem to understand the term 'self-glossing'? Hint:stupid/

 

[badger2]

Lil Nip does not have the stones to address the material in post #21, so projects stupidity outward as in peas cast down from a high-chair.