What do you mean?

[ruck1b]

9 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

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"

No I stated that you didn't answer my question, because you didn't.  But no need to carry on with this sideline stuff.  We can either carry on the conversation or not.

[warrior12]

3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

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

Well if the lines said "it is not the word of God" but "contains the word of God ", is that not like contradictory ?.  Did not reach far in english exams, so please forgive my misunderstandings if any. The reason i said i am asking. 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, ruck1b said:

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?

By overall character, I mean that the whole Bible, all of it, every word is inspired by God.  It is Gods' word 100% from Genesis to Revelation, every verse.

Quote

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.

No, what I asked you for is what I assume you know how to do in order to arrive at your conclusions about the Bible.   Show some verses that you believe are not inspired by God and demonstrate the process for how you arrived at that conclusion about those verses.   Pretty simple request, really.  Not asking you to prove the un-provable.   Just asking you to support your premise. 

Quote

  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.

"Infallible" means that not all of the doctrinal teachings of Scripture are correct.   It's different than inerrant. "Inerrancy" means that all of the historical claims of Scripture are true. .   But "infallibility" speaks to the truth claims the Scriptures make with respect to God's character, nature, such as His mercy, holiness, righteousness, purity, sinlessness, and so on.   It also speaks to the doctrines of Scripture like, The incarnation of Jesus, the virgin birth, Salvation, the doctrine of sin, Redemption, the doctrine of Last Things, the Resurrection of the redeemed and so on.  

There is a lot that we as Christians depend on being true in the Bible.   You don't want what you're putting your ultimate faith in to end up being wrong.   If the Bible is not 100% infallible, if we cannot put our 100%, total faith in the infallibility of Scripture, which parts of the Scripture should we discount and discard as not being infallible?   

Are their parts of the Bible that are simply expendable and we can disregard or discount them?   And if so which parts?

Quote

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.

You're penciling something into the text that isn't there.  Nothing in that text says that a slave is allowed to be beaten within an inch of its life.  You are adding to Scriptures.

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

Well if the lines said "it is not the word of God" but "contains the word of God ", is that not like contradictory ?.  Did not reach far in english exams, so please forgive my misunderstandings if any. The reason i said i am asking. 

That would not be an oxymoron.  An oxymoron is a self-contradictory phrase, "Atheistic Christian."   It's two words that cancel each other out.

Ruck is saying that doesn't believe the Bible to be 100% God's word, but that God's word is somewhere in the Bible.  He is saying that He does not trust the Bible to be the Word of God.

[The_Patriot21]

21 minutes ago, ruck1b said:

No I stated that you didn't answer my question, because you didn't.  But no need to carry on with this sideline stuff.  We can either carry on the conversation or not.

my point is made. I gave you my answer, your still not accepting it. you not accepting it, doesnt  change my answer. The answer is, scripture is either the holy inspired word of God, or its heresy. There is no in between. If you dont accept that then there is no point to continue with the rest of the conversation.

[Jayne]

1 hour 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. 

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?    

No, brother, you have not read the verse in question correctly nor in context of chapter or the Law, itself - which does not pertain to New Testament Christians anyway.

God is not "cool" with violent behavior at all and yes, these are the literal words of God to the Israelite people who just came for bondage in Egypt.

I am currently teaching Exodus at my community Bible Study and just typed up notes for chapters 21-31 this passed week.

The chapter you are citing from is the very first of the Law, other than the Ten Commandments that God gives to Moses.  It's no irony that this first word on the Law chapter is on slavery.  These people God is giving his word to WERE slaves in Egypt.  He doesn't want them to treat any of their servants in a manner that is unGodly.

First, did you know that slavery like American slavery in the Civil War days is condemned in that same chapter?

• Exodus 21:16 - "He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death."

So we are not even talking about slavery as you and I understand modern and vile slavery.  It's more along the lines of servants - indentured and otherwise. 

The verse that you have in question is not about a man beating a slave - servant - within an inch of his life and getting away with it.

Look further in that chapter and you will see this:

• If a man caused even the slightest permanent damage to a slave [servant], the servant was set free.  The man apparently did not deserve to have servants because he could not take care of them.  Exodus 21:26-27 - “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.”
•  As for your verses - this is talking about corporal punishment of a servant.  It the man got out of line and the servant died because of it - the man [owner] was to be punished or "avenged".  A life for a life as it taught so many times in the law.  But what if the slave did not die? The man's punishment was the loss of his slave and the work he or she would have done.

No where is this teaching the Israelites could abuse their slaves and get away with it as long as they didn't die.

And, yes, this is the word of God.

[warrior12]

51 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

That would not be an oxymoron.  An oxymoron is a self-contradictory phrase, "Atheistic Christian."   It's two words that cancel each other out.

Ruck is saying that doesn't believe the Bible to be 100% God's word, but that God's word is somewhere in the Bible.  He is saying that He does not trust the Bible to be the Word of God.

Thanks Shiloh357.   

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

That would not be an oxymoron.  An oxymoron is a self-contradictory phrase, "Atheistic Christian."   It's two words that cancel each other out.

Ruck is saying that doesn't believe the Bible to be 100% God's word, but that God's word is somewhere in the Bible.  He is saying that He does not trust the Bible to be the Word of God.

which is the point im trying to get through to him. You cant take bits and pieces of the word. You either have to accept it as the holy, inspired word of God, or its heresy, and none of it can be believed. if its heresy, there is no point in even having discussions about it, if its not heresy you have to accept that it is the complete, holy, inspired word of God. There is no in between. And if hes not going to accept my answer that it is the entire, holy word of God, he wont accept any answers pertaining to any questions about the content therein, making the discussion meaningless.

[Guest shiloh357]

8 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

which is the point im trying to get through to him. You cant take bits and pieces of the word. You either have to accept it as the holy, inspired word of God, or its heresy, and none of it can be believed. if its heresy, there is no point in even having discussions about it, if its not heresy you have to accept that it is the complete, holy, inspired word of God. There is no in between. And if hes not going to accept my answer that it is the entire, holy word of God, he wont accept any answers pertaining to any questions about the content therein, making the discussion meaningless.

Exactly.   If there is part of it we cannot trust, then we can't trust any of it.

[coheir]

24 minutes ago, eileenhat said:

since the Beast system initiation in 1945 (the date I chose for it's inception due to Roosevelt and his co-conspirators being the Beast out of the Sea mentioned in Revelations, God showed me in vision this past year)

?