Is The Bible Literally True?

[Cow Poke]

I agree that killing infants is immoral.

Could you pass that on to Allah?

[JimL]

I agree that killing infants is immoral.

Obviously not in the mind of a god, so my point is that there is no absolute, objective, divine standard, at least not in the sense of any of the man made gods, which are the only gods we tend to have belief about.

[JimL]

Could you pass that on to Allah?

As soon as you pass it on to YHWH.

[ReformedApologist]

Hacking to death infants and children is either immoral, or it is not. If you think it can be either, then you all need stop clamoring about the existence of an objective moral standard.

And yet your using an objective moral standard to make that statement. So your claim is self-refuting.

[JimL]

And yet your using an objective moral standard to make that statement. So your claim is self-refuting.

If you read it in context then you should have understood that what I meant is that (according to you) hacking infants to death is either right or wrong in the absolute sense, objectively. Yet you contradict yourself by defending the biblical gods command to hack infants and children to death. The question for you is, which is it?

[ReformedApologist]

If you read it in context then you should have understood that what I meant is that (according to you) hacking infants to death is either right or wrong in the absolute sense, objectively. Yet you contradict yourself by defending the biblical gods command to hack infants and children to death. The question for you is, which is it?

Your the whining and complaining about moral standards in your worldview you cannot even complain about standards. I was addressing Hakeem in his post. Yet you seem to be defending him which shows your inconsistency. But please whine some more.

[Cow Poke]

As soon as you pass it on to YHWH.

Two words, JimmyPoo --- NEW TESTAMENT. Allah never got the memo.

[Tassman]

If you read it in context then you should have understood that what I meant is that (according to you) hacking infants to death is either right or wrong in the absolute sense, objectively. Yet you contradict yourself by defending the biblical gods command to hack infants and children to death. The question for you is, which is it?

Oh that'a the Old Covenant Jimmy. It was moral to hack infants to death back then. This is how this lot get around some of the more awkward texts of the OT. Unless, of course, they're texts they like and which support their particular agenda. Then it's God's Law, to be obeyed on pain of perdition.

[JimL]

Two words, JimmyPoo --- NEW TESTAMENT. Allah never got the memo.

Two words CP, New Testement. YHWH never got the memo.

[Same Hakeem]

Another example that shows that the Bible is not literally true is Rev 22:16 “I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.” However, it is a fact that Jesus came from a virgin birth, then Jesus did not have a physical father and hence Jesus could not be a physical descendant of David.

[rogue06]

Another example that shows that the Bible is not literally true is Rev 22:16 “I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.” However, it is a fact that Jesus came from a virgin birth, then Jesus did not have a physical father and hence Jesus could not be a physical descendant of David.

That presumes that Mary didn't descend from David.

[Apologiaphoenix]

At least he affirms the virgin birth, which I do affirm.

[Cow Poke]

Two words CP, New Testement.

Jimmy, honey, if you're going to pretend to be a Bible skoller, at least learn how to SPELL TESTAMENT!!!!!

[Sparko]

Another example that shows that the Bible is not literally true is Rev 22:16 “I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.” However, it is a fact that Jesus came from a virgin birth, then Jesus did not have a physical father and hence Jesus could not be a physical descendant of David.

What? No complaint that Jesus wasn't literally a root? Or literally a star? You are slipping Hakeem.

[Same Hakeem]

That presumes that Mary didn't descend from David.

Hi rogue06,

Please let me clarify.

Both genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 trace Jesus' descent from David to Joseph in name as per Matt 1:16 and Luke 3:23. If Jesus did not a biological father, then Joseph was not his physical father and hence he could not be a physical descendant of David.