The Word of God or the Word of Man?

[EricH]

I don't see where Jesus's statement not to kill has relevance. Who listens to that? Leaders of nations? Somebody could easily find a justification to kill. The commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" is about as vague as it gets. Jesus may have said not to kill, but was extremely limited in defining what that meant. Mankind has been forced to interpret that commandment. I appreciate the intent with the commandment, but it is useless because mankind interprets it the way he sees fit. The argument could easily be made that someone could hear a voice that they think is from God telling them to kill and believe that God is referring to a justifiable killing.

I think you are indeed representative of man-kind in general. Your statements regarding the impossibility of knowing what Jesus meant when He said not to kill, are an attempt to make the meaning of a text dependent on our interpretation rather than authorial intent. Even if man-kind interprets it how it sees fit, that does not impact in the least bit what God intended by the command. And that is the crux of the issue. If God has indicated that individuals are not free to take life, and an individual comes stating that God has told them to do so, they are in clear contradiction of what God has alread revealed. That is not debatable (unless you have an isight into the text that you have not shared)

In relation to Israel read my initial post again. The context of the passage you initially quoted, was a command given by God over a nation over which He was sole King. There is no nation today that can legitimately claim that (as God has in no place in His word revealed that there will be an additional nation that will have this relationship with Him). Again if you have info to the contrary, please make it available. Otherwise your arguments have little wieght

[sylvan3]

I don't see where Jesus's statement not to kill has relevance. Who listens to that? Leaders of nations? Somebody could easily find a justification to kill. The commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" is about as vague as it gets. Jesus may have said not to kill, but was extremely limited in defining what that meant. Mankind has been forced to interpret that commandment. I appreciate the intent with the commandment, but it is useless because mankind interprets it the way he sees fit. The argument could easily be made that someone could hear a voice that they think is from God telling them to kill and believe that God is referring to a justifiable killing.

I think you are indeed representative of man-kind in general. Your statements regarding the impossibility of knowing what Jesus meant when He said not to kill, are an attempt to make the meaning of a text dependent on our interpretation rather than authorial intent. Even if man-kind interprets it how it sees fit, that does not impact in the least bit what God intended by the command. And that is the crux of the issue. If God has indicated that individuals are not free to take life, and an individual comes stating that God has told them to do so, they are in clear contradiction of what God has alread revealed. That is not debatable (unless you have an isight into the text that you have not shared)

In relation to Israel read my initial post again. The context of the passage you initially quoted, was a command given by God over a nation over which He was sole King. There is no nation today that can legitimately claim that (as God has in no place in His word revealed that there will be an additional nation that will have this relationship with Him). Again if you have info to the contrary, please make it available. Otherwise your arguments have little wieght

Who will make the determination as to whether the human voice of God is an hallucination or the real deal? What requirements are there for a human to make a legitimate claim that he or she has talked to God?

If Pat Robertson says that a tsunami is coming (as he has done) because God talked to him, are we to believe this? Is there anything anti-scriptural about saying that a tsunami is coming? It is not like telling someone to murder. Will that make it legitimate?

[sylvan3]

Here is a passage that states very clearly where the final authority lies today and that God no longer speaks through prophets that can write inspred scriptures that add to the revelation regarding who God is and what He desired from us:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 1:1-3 NASB

Jesus is the final and full revleation of God and His will for our lives. Anyone claiming to hear from God, must be in line with the final revelation.

I am sorry, I don't see where this would give anyone the impression that he would not speak again. Pat Robertson sure didn't get that impression.

It says, "He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom he appointed heir of all things...." I don't see anything clear at all regarding not speaking in the future.

he spoke "long ago"--OK--

he spoke to us in "His Son"--OK--

he appointed Jesus "heir of all things"--OK--

Jesus, being God, who is the heir of all things, will therefore not speak again (in voice to man)--not OK

Nothing is stated that he will not speak in voice to man as in the Old Testament.

I don't get the logic. It sounds to me like you have made a conclusion of convenience.

I see the problem being people reading the Bible and seeing that God spoke to people in a voice. Ergo, there is nothing to indicate that this wouldn't happen again. God might need to tweak some instructions, especially if the humans need guidance understanding his word, which seems like such a big problem.

Edited July 14, 2006 by sylvan3

[Guest lnj]

In some previous threads, I have taken the position that much in the Bible reflects the large probability that it was written through human inspiration as opposed to divine inspiration. If one thinks about this, there are only two possibilities--either the Bible was divinely inspired or humanly inspired.

Please read the following verse and comment, if you are wont to, about whether it is rational for a person to believe--as I do--that this verse is the product of human imagination (i.e. human inspiration) as opposed to divine inspiration from an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent deity. (Please note the instruction to "kill").

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 NAB

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Once again, is it rational for me to believe that this is not the work of a "four omni" God?

Sylvan3, I see clearly you are not a follower of God and like to argue about the Bible. Alot of people do that. When one reads the Bible like a regular book, the things read will be taken at face value, with no Deeper meaning. As Beleivers , we ask for Wisdom, Discernment, and Clarity, Knowledge etc before we read the Bible. But to just dissect the Bible and to argue about it just for arguements sake, you will be on a treadmill, because you aren't reading the Word how you should be and you will be dissatisfied with the answers given to your questions.

Another thought provoking thing is, alot of people who originally have argued about the Bible with Beleivers have been saved eventually from Eternal banishment from God. If you read in Acts, you will find a man called Paul, the great Apostle. He fought tooth and nail against those who followed the Way, he would witness stonings of these people, having played a part in their phisical demise. He was pricked by the Holy Spirit and he fought against it but in the end God won, and look at how mighty Paul was!! Think about it. LNJ

[sylvan3]

In some previous threads, I have taken the position that much in the Bible reflects the large probability that it was written through human inspiration as opposed to divine inspiration. If one thinks about this, there are only two possibilities--either the Bible was divinely inspired or humanly inspired.

Please read the following verse and comment, if you are wont to, about whether it is rational for a person to believe--as I do--that this verse is the product of human imagination (i.e. human inspiration) as opposed to divine inspiration from an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent deity. (Please note the instruction to "kill").

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 NAB

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Once again, is it rational for me to believe that this is not the work of a "four omni" God?

Sylvan3, I see clearly you are not a follower of God and like to argue about the Bible. Alot of people do that. When one reads the Bible like a regular book, the things read will be taken at face value, with no Deeper meaning. As Beleivers , we ask for Wisdom, Discernment, and Clarity, Knowledge etc before we read the Bible. But to just dissect the Bible and to argue about it just for arguements sake, you will be on a treadmill, because you aren't reading the Word how you should be and you will be dissatisfied with the answers given to your questions.

Another thought provoking thing is, alot of people who originally have argued about the Bible with Beleivers have been saved eventually from Eternal banishment from God. If you read in Acts, you will find a man called Paul, the great Apostle. He fought tooth and nail against those who followed the Way, he would witness stonings of these people, having played a part in their phisical demise. He was pricked by the Holy Spirit and he fought against it but in the end God won, and look at how mighty Paul was!! Think about it. LNJ

Once again, I appreciate your positive approach. Your words carry much more credibility--though I may not totally agree--than many who post. I commend you on your tact.

[Guest lnj]

In some previous threads, I have taken the position that much in the Bible reflects the large probability that it was written through human inspiration as opposed to divine inspiration. If one thinks about this, there are only two possibilities--either the Bible was divinely inspired or humanly inspired.

Please read the following verse and comment, if you are wont to, about whether it is rational for a person to believe--as I do--that this verse is the product of human imagination (i.e. human inspiration) as opposed to divine inspiration from an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent deity. (Please note the instruction to "kill").

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 NAB

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Once again, is it rational for me to believe that this is not the work of a "four omni" God?

Sylvan3, I see clearly you are not a follower of God and like to argue about the Bible. Alot of people do that. When one reads the Bible like a regular book, the things read will be taken at face value, with no Deeper meaning. As Beleivers , we ask for Wisdom, Discernment, and Clarity, Knowledge etc before we read the Bible. But to just dissect the Bible and to argue about it just for arguements sake, you will be on a treadmill, because you aren't reading the Word how you should be and you will be dissatisfied with the answers given to your questions.

Another thought provoking thing is, alot of people who originally have argued about the Bible with Beleivers have been saved eventually from Eternal banishment from God. If you read in Acts, you will find a man called Paul, the great Apostle. He fought tooth and nail against those who followed the Way, he would witness stonings of these people, having played a part in their phisical demise. He was pricked by the Holy Spirit and he fought against it but in the end God won, and look at how mighty Paul was!! Think about it. LNJ

Once again, I appreciate your positive approach. Your words carry much more credibility--though I may not totally agree--than many who post. I commend you on your tact.

Sylvan3, You are very welcome.LNJ

[Guest GWG]

sylvan3, I want to first clear up the "rationalizations" that you claim Christians use. We use arguments & you say they are only rationalizations. But, isn't that what you yourself do? If I saw you murder someone you would rationalize it by saying something to respond to that. Thats rationalizing. But, giving a defense for the Bible or any argument is not rationalizing. IT is stating what you have discovered. Now, about the contradiction issue. I have already responded to that in a forum on magic (I forget where it is located) but what I have discovered about every (or almost every) person who claims that the Bible contradicts itself has not done 1 of these 3 things that are required to argue. They are: (1) study the context that the topic was in (2) study the time frame & culture it was written in & (3) study the history of the culture it was written in. I think you have missed all 3. First off, the Bible was written over the course of 1500 years & yet through all that time it is in perfect harmony. Nothing, no doctrine, belief, creed or idea was messed up. Second, the Bible was written in the Hebrew, Greek & Arabic Languages but here's the catch, it was written in at least 5 different variations of each of these languages. Also, what means one thing in our language can mean seven things in hebrew, greek & arabic. What we interpret as fear in our language as it is used in the Bible means a deep respect & love for in the other languages. This all ties in & is explained by the Israelite's history. Which moves me to the final point, the Israelites were conquered at least 5 different times throughout their history. Their conquerors were: The Egyptians, the Chaldeans or Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans & the Medeo-Persians. Each of these nations had different battle techniques. For example, the Babylonians knew that as long as a nation had remnants of it's past it will always have nationalism within it so the Babylonians would destroy everything that reminded a nation of it's past (language, government, customs etc.) & would transport them to another area. Also, each of these nations had different languages & so they each would influence those they held in captivity such as the Romans, Greeks & Egyptians. The Egyptians held the Israelites captive for the longest time-400 years! Who could leave after living in that culture without using at least one thing you learned from it? This is why the Bible has "contradictions". Now, before you say "Well, why didn't God keep his Word perfect if he's all powerful?" it's because of 2 reasons. 1-This isn't a problem of whether the Bible is wrong but whether men made a mistake in translating. What made the contradictions, God's Words or Man's translations? 2-Not to be heretical or dishonoring to the Bible but nothing that is doctrinally important has been comprimised & nthing has been cut out. The contradictions are simply cases of words getting bungled or misinterpreted. If responding to a challenge is rationalizing then we all are rational people aren't we? I had more but this should be enough. (I think)

Praise God,

GWG

[Guest yod]

God arranged the life and death of every creature who has ever lived.

Why does this particular one raise an issue for you?

.

[Jesus Admirer]

Deleted

Edited February 14, 2007 by Jesus Admirer

[Guest lnj]

In some previous threads, I have taken the position that much in the Bible reflects the large probability that it was written through human inspiration as opposed to divine inspiration. If one thinks about this, there are only two possibilities--either the Bible was divinely inspired or humanly inspired.

Please read the following verse and comment, if you are wont to, about whether it is rational for a person to believe--as I do--that this verse is the product of human imagination (i.e. human inspiration) as opposed to divine inspiration from an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent deity. (Please note the instruction to "kill").

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 NAB

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Once again, is it rational for me to believe that this is not the work of a "four omni" God?

Sylvan3,

G'day!!

Listen to this.......Proverbs 17 v 22 "A joyful heart is good medicine, but a broken spirit dries up the bones."

A recent medical study(US) offered x-ray evidence of the bone density loss in women who suffered even mild depression compared with those who never suffered depression. The study revealed that when depression lifted, new pockets of calcium would amazingly form and strengthen the weakened bones. Ironically, that verse from Proverbs, Solomon spoke through the Holy Spirit concerning this more than ....3 thousand years ago......

Very thought provoking don't you agree?

I WHO now speak with you AM HE....JON..Jesus of Nazereth