Just to Clarify

And likewise, we wonder if you read the Bible much at all. You condone things that Scripturally unequivocally condemns. YOu fail to recognize vital and significant distinctions (such as Law [which is at the heart of your problem here], salvation by imputed righteousness, same sex relationships, role of women in the church, etc.). These things are obvious to people who have no precommitments to a non-biblical worldview.

This is the same Paul who said that "All Scripture is God-breathed." It is obvious that 1 cor 7:12 was not a direct statement of Jesus as his other comments were. Again, this is a such a simple explanation, especially for someone with your level of training. It is amazing that you are so confused by these things.

Joshua [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

It seems that some things were included in the
Law of Moses because of the "hardness of (the people's) hearts" (Matt 19:8-9).

Since the NT is the fulfillment of the Old, then we can expect to see the moral principles from the OT reiterated there (NT) that we are expected to observe today. So while we are under no obligation to wear garments made of only one type of fiber, we are still told that homosexuality is a sin before God.

 

Pastor Larry, Rufus dittoes your REMARKS. AMEN!

rufus

 

As Dr. Bob states, I’m surprised that a man of your supposed biblical training is so far astray concerning the OT and the Law.

Deut. 22:23-29 describes no such thing as rape in the first case. The woman, in a town who does not cry out for help, when help would surely respond, implys she participates willingly. This understanding is reinforced when the passage goes out of the way to state “force” is used with a woman in the “field” (where no one would hear whether she cries out or not), then the man is to die and the woman is innocent. Sounds perfectly righteous to me!

I’ll cover your other two examples together. So great was the difference between “bond” and “free,” and so “superior” was the man to the woman in Hebrew culture when the Law was given, that God “permitted” certain things to stand. In the NT we find out how God really feels about some things He “permitted” under OT Law. Examples:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. – Matt 19:8

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. – Colossians 3:11

Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself – Ephesians 5:28 This says a woman is even better than equal, she is “same.” The two shall become one flesh.

When you get right down to it, God is still "permitting" a lot of things within the body of Christ today that grieve Him and are contrary to who He is! If this were not so, we would see many smoldering churches on Sunday afternoons! So Joshua, as hard as you try to create a morality problem with God in the OT, to justify your pragmatic, relativistic interpretations of the NT, it just doesn’t wash!

 

I sometimes wonder if any of you actually read carefully the entirety of the Bible that you claim speaks with one voice on all issues\

Maybe some people are educated beyond their intelligence level. Huh Josh?

 

Thank you. This is the best laugh I had all day. Did you actually read those verses before you cited them?

I suspect you heard a sermon on this one time and didn't think about what you heard.

Verse 23: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Notice this does not talk about rape. It talks about an engaged women who is found sleeping with another man.

Verse 24: Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

In the vernacular "they shall both die because you know it was consensual because she did not resist".

Verse 25: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die

but if it is in the country you cannot stone her because it might not have been consensual.

Put very simply these three verses exist to protect women. The default behaviour having found the sexual union would be to stone both because you would assume consensuality. But if they are found in the country then you may not assume consensuality because she may have screamed and not been heard.

Boy oh boy its amazing what people can miss when they put their minds to it.

DAB

 

Depends on if you believe the Bible is God inspired, authored by Him. If so then everything in the bible is God approved. HIS written word, you know the word of God. Either it's God written word, or it isn't. You don't really think God would have allowed Paul to put anyting in the bible He did not approve of, that was not directly from Him do you?

 

Why must the Bible be the very words that God dictated to persons in order for it to be inspired? I have never understood this assumption. What Joshua is pointing out is that the scriptures don't speak with one voice on all issues and this is a clear indication of their human quality (there are much better examples than the one Joshua quoted above).

The bigger questions that we are here raising are how exactly is the Bible inspired and how does it function as a source of revelation. These are very complicated questions no quipped responses can answer. They involve issues of historicity, scientific viability, development of a cannon, and a host of philosophical presuppositions.

Grace and Peace, Danny

Oh, and by the way: Grasshopper, some people are educated at exactly their intellegence level.

 

DANIEL, I did not say exact words, I think when comparing one book to another(like the gospels) that it is not God's exact words otherwise He spoke differently to different people, but I do belive it when it says the scriptures are God inspired, meaning it's the written word of God, and that all scripture is good for teaching us. If God was at all in control of what went into the scriptures then it is all His word,a nd all approved by Him. Meaning the verses peoople don't like, are the word of God. The bible needs nothing more for us to be able to read and understand it, all we need to know is it's God's word to us. The Holy Spirit on His own will help us to understand it, and He leaves nothing out just becasue we do not like it. You take the whole bible, or none of it.

 

Does this mean if we "flush" Genesis chapters 1-11 as myth (as Joshua suggests), that the vital link between the "first Adam" and the "Second Adam" looses all meaning and purpose?

By the way, I agree with you Kate!
I don't think God went to the trouble to inspire 40 men to inscribe His revelation to man, and this same God who created all that there is, was not omnipotent enough to preserve it through the cannonization and translation processes. That doesn't mean that I think ALL translations are thought for thought perfect. But I do think that any serious believer and student of the Bible who avails themselves of several of the acclaimed major translations will not be lacking in God's revelation, but only in complete understanding!

 

I think the problem with Joshua is that he has torn so many pages out of his Bible because he didn't agree with them; that he has trouble finding verses he can read in context.

Sue

 

I prefer taking the approach of Occam's Razor - the simplest approach is most likely the correct one. The books of the Bible are just what they appear to be, the collected writings which the faithful children of God recognized as accurately describing their experience with God.

Isn't that nice. Story time in church. I can just hear it:
Teacher: "Now just because Paul believed it was wrong doesn't mean it's wrong for us little Johnny, so you might grow up to have "certain" feelings for little Bob, and those will be just fine."

 

Inspiration does not speak of "dictation." That would be your first misunderstanding. Inspiration speaks of the divine origin and divine nature of the product. The result is that the words Paul, or Peter, who [insert biblical author] are the words that God intended for them to write. God worked through the historical context and peronsality of the writers, not overruling them, but "bearing them along so that they wrote from God (2 Peter 1:21). The connection of inspiration to inerrancy is a very simple one: If something came from God, it must be without error because it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2)

Actually this speaks to their historical context in which they are written. It has nothing to do with their human quality, as testified to by the nature of Scripture. You have the right phenomenon, but the wrong cause.

 

Or, stoning your errant child because he refuses to behave.... that too is biblical

Cheers,

Jim

 

It has already been mentioned here by Joshua that we are no longer under the law therefor these silly references to stoning children and other OT commands are totally off topic. Now for a matter that I feel is more on topic, who should we more fully believe the Apostle Paul or Joshua?

Murph

 

That depends on who is right at the time...