What do you mean?

[coheir]

4 hours ago, ruck1b said:

I can understand that point of view.  However there are serious issues that I believe directly contradict who God is, so how do we reconcile some of those issues that we read  as being his testament (or will).  

first you must post the issues and discuss them one by one are you searching by question who to show the issues?

[The_Patriot21]

51 minutes ago, ruck1b said:

The problem it seems you are finding is  answering as if I am looking to have something solved.  That simply isn't the case.     I also have provided more questions in response to answers.  In any case, thanks for your replys. 

no, the problem is your not accepting the answers given, and keep asking the same question when you dont get the answer you want. And yes, you have provided more questions-but the answer to them, is directly tied to the answer to the first question. So, if you won't accept the answer to the first question, why should I answer the second? see what Im getting at. Im not asking you to "agree" with my answer, but you need to accept it, before we can move on.

[ruck1b]

1 minute ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

no, the problem is your not accepting the answers given, and keep asking the same question when you dont get the answer you want. And yes, you have provided more questions-but the answer to them, is directly tied to the answer to the first question. So, if you won't accept the answer to the first question, why should I answer the second? see what Im getting at. Im not asking you to "agree" with my answer, but you need to accept it, before we can move on.

Your response is dripping with irony.  Again, thanks for your replies.

[The_Patriot21]

Just now, ruck1b said:

Your response is dripping with irony.  Again, thanks for your replies.

no its not, and I apologize if you took it that way, but it was a very serious reply to your question.

[ruck1b]

11 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

no its not, and I apologize if you took it that way, but it was a very serious reply to your question.

No need to apologize.  It's ironic that you want me to accept your answers but you don't want to accept my response to them.    Maybe I'm just not clear on what you mean by I need to accept you answer, because it seems like you are saying I need to agree with it.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by ruck1b

[Guest shiloh357]

54 minutes ago, ruck1b said:

 No where in the bible does it say that everything in there is the word of God or is inspired totally by him. 
 

What you have is the overall character of Scripture and it's own internal witness to inspiration.  Paul said that "All Scripture is inspired by God..."   Now, granted at the time, "Scripture" was understood in Paul's day to refer to the entire Old Testament.   So we have one internal witness that the OT was inspired Scripture.   Jesus quoted the OT many times, as Scripture referring to the OT as Scripture and appealing to its divine authority.  In I Tim. 5:8 Paul refers to Luke as Scripture.  Most scholars agree that Luke was taken from both Mark and Matthew, so it follows that at that point, Matthew, Mark and Luke could be included as Scripture.   Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture, and Peter would have received revelation from God, as well. 

The book of Revelation makes clear internal claims to be of divine authority and inspiration and placing a curse on anyone who adds to it or takes away from it.   Note the many times where "and the Lord said..."  are used throughout the Old Testament.   The human authors such as the prophets preface their writings with such phrases as, "The word of the Lord came to me saying..."  numerous times. 

There is no evidence that any part of the Bible isn't God's word.  And so far you have not provided any real evidence to counter the Bible's own internal claims to inspiration.

 

Quote

Ex 21:20-21  When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

How do you reconcile this with God's character.   According to this from exodus God is cool with a slave getting beat within an inch of their lives as long as they don't die.  You believe that is inspired by God?    

This passage is actually referring to the humane treatment of foreign slaves.  In many foreign nations at that time, slaves were the absolute property of their master and slaves could be killed for any reason the master saw fit in those nations.  It was true in Egypt, Rome, Greece and even in eastern Asian nations at the time, as well.  

What it is doing is preventing a master from killing his slave on a whim, like was happening in the surrounding pagan nations.  If the master killed his slave, he was to suffer the death penalty.  That was something unique to Israel via God's commandments, God's Torah.   

Furthermore, masters did not typically beat their slaves to within in an inch of their life.  What was the point in that?   To beat a slave that severely was not advantageous to the master since the master often depended on slaves to manage household affairs and even do business on behalf of the master.   The slaves were part of how he made a living, so beating his slave as severely as you claim would been a liability to the master.    They just didn't do that. 

So it really shows something good about the character of God who prevents the inhumane treatment of slaves that was so common everywhere else in the world.

[The_Patriot21]

28 minutes ago, ruck1b said:

No need to apologize.  It's ironic that you want me to accept your answers but you don't want to accept my response to them.    Maybe I'm just not clear on what you mean by I need to accept you answer, because it seems like you are saying I need to agree with it.

 

No irony at all.  You ask a question you need to accept the answer. You don't have to agree with it but when you say "that's not the answer" well, it doesn't lead to a profitable discussion. You asked a question. I gave you a answer. And my answer does not change and will not change no matter how much you want it to and no matter how many times you falsely accuse me of being "ironic"

[warrior12]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I want to speak to the bolded, underlined part.

What your claim leads to is that parts of the Bible are not inspired Scripture and other parts are.   But the Bible doesn't make the claim about itself.  It presents itself as the Word of God in totality and makes internal claims to that end.

So if you think the Bible only contains God's word, then how do you set about determining which parts are from God and which parts are not?   I would love to see your hermeneutic process for making that determination.

Can you provide us with some verses in the Bible that you feel are not inspired and are not God's word and then show us how you arrived at that conclusion for each one?

Could that underlined part be considered an Oxymoron ?.  Just asking.  I just thought of the word and looked it up.

http://www.oxymoronlist.com/

Oxymoron: a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.” Rhetorical oxymora (e.g., “bipartisan cooperation” or “business ethics“), on the other hand, are expressions composed of words that are not inherently mutually exclusive but express an opinion that the two cannot occur together, usually for satirical intent.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

4 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

Could that underlined part be considered an Oxymoron ?.  Just asking.  I just thought of the word and looked it up.

http://www.oxymoronlist.com/

Oxymoron: a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.” Rhetorical oxymora (e.g., “bipartisan cooperation” or “business ethics“), on the other hand, are expressions composed of words that are not inherently mutually exclusive but express an opinion that the two cannot occur together, usually for satirical intent.

 

Not seeing any oxmoron in the underlined part.  Can you expound further on what oxymoron you see in that?

[ruck1b]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

What you have is the overall character of Scripture and it's own internal witness to inspiration.  Paul said that "All Scripture is inspired by God..."   Now, granted at the time, "Scripture" was understood in Paul's day to refer to the entire Old Testament.   So we have one internal witness that the OT was inspired Scripture.   Jesus quoted the OT many times, as Scripture referring to the OT as Scripture and appealing to its divine authority.  In I Tim. 5:8 Paul refers to Luke as Scripture.  Most scholars agree that Luke was taken from both Mark and Matthew, so it follows that at that point, Matthew, Mark and Luke could be included as Scripture.   Peter refers to Paul's writings as Scripture, and Peter would have received revelation from God, as well. 

The book of Revelation makes clear internal claims to be of divine authority and inspiration and placing a curse on anyone who adds to it or takes away from it.   Note the many times where "and the Lord said..."  are used throughout the Old Testament.   The human authors such as the prophets preface their writings with such phrases as, "The word of the Lord came to me saying..."  numerous times. 

There is no evidence that any part of the Bible isn't God's word.  And so far you have not provided any real evidence to counter the Bible's own internal claims to inspiration.

 

This passage is actually referring to the humane treatment of foreign slaves.  In many foreign nations at that time, slaves were the absolute property of their master and slaves could be killed for any reason the master saw fit in those nations.  It was true in Egypt, Rome, Greece and even in eastern Asian nations at the time, as well.  

What it is doing is preventing a master from killing his slave on a whim, like was happening in the surrounding pagan nations.  If the master killed his slave, he was to suffer the death penalty.  That was something unique to Israel via God's commandments, God's Torah.   

Furthermore, masters did not typically beat their slaves to within in an inch of their life.  What was the point in that?   To beat a slave that severely was not advantageous to the master since the master often depended on slaves to manage household affairs and even do business on behalf of the master.   The slaves were part of how he made a living, so beating his slave as severely as you claim would been a liability to the master.    They just didn't do that. 

So it really shows something good about the character of God who prevents the inhumane treatment of slaves that was so common everywhere else in the world.

So the overall character of the bible is Gods word...Okay...I can actually agree to that.  So I will ask....what do you believe is the overall character of the Bible?

I also think you are asking a me to prove something that is impossible to prove.  That's like someone saying provide evidence in science that there was no big bang?  You want me to use the Bible to refute what the Bible does not say.   It is us that have said that those 66 books are his infallible word.  No where does it state that or even allude to everything written in those 66 books as his word. 

As far as your explanation of a slave getting beat within half inch of their life is crazy, but hey, if that's what helps you reconcile that showing God's character I wont argue with it.  I most definitely don't agree though.