Is The Bible Literally True?

[Same Hakeem]

According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2, Justice is "the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law".

Therefore;

1) there is not fairness in God ordering to kill innocent beings (like infants in 1 Samuel 15:3 & children in Ezk 9:6) for guilty one(s).

2) not only God ordered to kill innocents of infants and children, but God practiced injustice in the Bible such as killing David's son for David's guilt in 2 Samuel 12:14-15 and God unjustly struck ALL firstborn of Egypt.

Human legal courts of law would NEVER accept the punishment of someone else in the place of the criminal.

God ordering to kill innocents of infants and and God killing firstborn of Egypt in the above incidents of Bible are against God's himself command in 2 Kings 14:6 "the son shall not bear the guilt of his father and each is to die for HIS OWN sin"

Given the above, the Bible is not literally from God in everything.

[JimL]

What gives it moral authority then?

The definitions, the meaning of the terms. They either mean what they mean to both god and man or, as you seem to be arguing, they only apply to man. But then you will need stop defining god by those terms.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Oh look. Same is back with....more of the same.

[Christianbookworm]

Oh look. Same is back with....more of the same.

Why does he keep using argument s that would be worse for Islam?

[Same Hakeem]

Oh look. Same is back with....more of the same.

I would like to see how you would respond to God being just while ordering to kill and also killing infants ,for example, in 1 Samuel 15:3 when the very same God commanded that "every person is to die for HIS OWN sin" in 2 Kings 14:6.

[Same Hakeem]

Another example of theological contradiction of the Bible is that while 1 timothy 6:16 says "no one has seen God nor can see", Job in Job 42:5 says "my eyes have seen you" and Matthew 5:8 says "blessed those who are pure in heart for they shall see God"

[Apologiaphoenix]

It's already been done. I have no more desire to waste my time with someone who refuses to listen and seriously interact.

All you're doing here is convincing us that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Same Hakeem]

Please refer me to the post(s) where you have responded to God-ordering-to-kill-infants vs. God-being-just.

[Apologiaphoenix]

No.

All my writing are available on line. If you want to look, feel free, but I'm not doing it for you.

As I said, waste of time.

Enjoy your echo chamber.

[Same Hakeem]

No.

All my writing are available on line. If you want to look, feel free, but I'm not doing it for you.

As I said, waste of time.

Enjoy your echo chamber.

[JimL]

No.

All my writing are available on line. If you want to look, feel free, but I'm not doing it for you.

As I said, waste of time.

Enjoy your echo chamber.

[Rushing Jaws]

Another example of theological contradiction of the Bible is that while 1 timothy 6:16 says "no one has seen God nor can see", Job in Job 42:5 says "my eyes have seen you" and Matthew 5:8 says "blessed those who are pure in heart for they shall see God"

There is a verbal contradiction - but not a contradiction in theologyverbal - but it is not real

[JimL]

There is a verbal contradiction - but not a contradiction in theologyverbal - but it is not real

Now that's what we call rationalizing. No one has seen god, or can see god and my eyes have seen god, do exclude one another. They are contradictions.

[Rushing Jaws]

Now that's what we call rationalizing. No one has seen god, or can see god and my eyes have seen god, do exclude one another. They are contradictions.

[JimL]

It’s always possible to call explanation “rationalising”. What is unsatisfying about my answer ? Is the reasoning bad (for instance) ? And: what would you judge to be an acceptable reply, and why ? I sometimes get the impression - which may of course be wholly mistaken - that any answer that fails to agree with your POV will be unacceptable. Is that impression unjustified ?

Your response is limited to the words used - it leaves out the contexts of the passages, and the reasons those words in particular are used. And the reply ignores the need for exegesis of the texts. Words have a social context, because they are not self-explanatory units, like grains of sand, but are used by human beings, in society, to convey meanings. They cannot always be adequately understood simply by consulting a dictionary, or by being read in isolation from the rest of the text in which they occur.

And they are conditioned by their historical environment - writers who are centuries and cultures apart, cannot be assumed to have the same ideas in mind when using the same words. To take a simple example: what “corn” denotes in the US, is not what the word denotes in the UK. When Spanish uses the word “burro”, it is referring to a donkey - but in Italian, the same word refers to butter. One cannot assume without further investigation that the same words used by different writers, speakers, authors or cultures are going to mean the same thing in all cases. They may - or they may not.

Is a candidate who “runs for the Presidency”, but walks or drives everywhere, running for the Presidency ? By the standards you apply, to say the candidate is running for President, is false. Language does not convey meaning in the static, culture-free, history-free, association-free way in which your reasoning takes those three texts.

But, there is no taking out of context, or different meaning to the phrase in Timothy 6:16 "no one has seen or can see god." It doesn't leave an opening for exceptions, for other interpretations, it simply and clearly says no one has or can see god. Same with Job 42:5. What else could "my eyes have seen you mean, other that he saw god with his eyes. It's true that context etc matters, but that fact in itself alone doesn't explain these otherwise obvious contradictions.