An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error (page 3)

JosephAlward

JOE ALWARD

A few believers in this forum have asked that we focus our attention on the issues of justice and the role of the court in punishing evil-doers, but that directs the readers' focus away from my main point, which deals with Matthew's claim that Jesus said that we should DO GOOD to those who harm us. Here is the relevant verse:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, DO GOOD to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44)

This statement has NOTHING to do with false witness, or the role of the courts; it has only to do with how one should react when an evil-doer does you harm. Matthew claims that Jesus said we should not only not retaliate against him, but we should be NICE to him. This teaching is at complete odds with the teaching found in 2 Samuel, where we find the Lord approving of David slaughtering his enemies:

David sang to the LORD the words of this song when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies...I call to the LORD, who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my enemies..It is God who arms me with strength "I pursued my enemies and crushed them; I did not turn back till they were destroyed. I crushed them completely, and they could not rise; they fell beneath my feet. You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet. You made my enemies turn their backs in flight, and I destroyed my foes. (2 Samuel 22: 1-41)

This is an obvious contradiction, and, as I said before, either the author of 2 Samuel was wrong about what God allowed David to do, or else Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said.

Edited by - JosephAlward on 12 October 2002 1:52:14

A Paduan

Joseph,

You have said as much in your post, that you realise the bible was never intended to be literal. Indeed the bible itself plainly shows that. Yet, in your hearing, that translates to you as meaning it is not even God's word. Are you simply stuck at that point?

Where indeed have you acquired your firmity about the manner in which the Spirit should or should not speak? From literal style language itself? From within? From other men?

"The God said to him in a dream" - I wonder what type of language that was.

paduan

Edited by - a paduan on 11 October 2002 21:50:13

SixofNine

Not sure where your going with your logic, A paduan. In addition to the points brought out about the bible by J. Alward, there is also the fact that there NEVER HAS BEEN the slightest reason to believe the bible is from God in the first place.

Or should we believe it is inspired 'cuz our parents thought it so?

plmkrzy

there is also the fact that there NEVER HAS BEEN the slightest reason to believe the bible is from God in the first place.
Or should we believe it is inspired 'cuz our parents thought it so?

Actually that isn't a cold hard fact yet. It is still opinion. Even if the opinion is based on someones research it is still opinion. The proof that it is opinion is "There is argument to this day" and not only argument of a couple of dudes, but entire cultures of people. Maybe in the year 2900 you're grand childrens grandchildren will have proof and the Bible will be found on library shelves under fiction, but that hasn't happened yet.

Besides. Nobody is forcing anyone to believe that God inspired it. Intact I can't ever think of a time in history when anyone was FORCED to believe in God. As for as I know it is still a choice. There were perhaps times when people were forced to bow down to idols. I wouldn't break my back trying to convince you that the bible is inspired, but if I want to believe that it is, or at least parts of it are, "an inspiration" from a higher being, then thats my choice as well. I don't see any reason to get upset of even frustrated with it otherwise you would always be in search of something to frustrate you.

JosephAlward

A Paduan wrote:

You have said...that you realise the bible was never intended to be literal. Indeed the bible itself plainly shows that. Yet, in your hearing, that translates to you as meaning it is not even God's word. Are you simply stuck at that point?

JOE ALWARD

I don't believe just because the Bible is not--and was never intended to be--literally true in all of its parts that all or parts of it are not God's word. It's entirely possible that even those parts which are not literally true could still have come from God. The only thing I've argued is that those parts of the Bible which seem to be contradictory probably would not have come from God. I agree with PlumCrazy's notion that one need not necessarily believe that ALL of the Bible is error-free in order to believe that nevertheless some parts of it may have been inspired by God. My goal in communicating my thoughts to this forum is primarily to present what I think is evidence that parts of the Bible are in error, but I'll never be able to present enough evidence to show that NO part of the Bible could have come from God.

Joseph F. Alward
"A Skeptical View of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

JosephMalik

Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus is essentially saying that the law in Deuteronomy 19 should not be followed, that the person bearing false witness should not be punished, but instead should have good things done for him. This doesn't make sense, so either Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said, or else Jesus disavowed scriptural law, and that doesn't make sense.

JosephAlward,

Makes perfect sense. Christ knew that the Law Covenant would end with His death and was preparing His disciples for the New Covenant which put men under Grace not Law. Laws can be changed you know and since now there was a completely different approach to salvation apart from such law there needed to be a change in attitudes towards others as well.

Joseph

A Paduan

The only thing I've argued is that those parts of the Bible which seem to be contradictory probably would not have come from God.

Joseph,

The contradictions or errors that you point out are actually matters of literacy, and do not impact upon the spiritual teachings of the stories.

one need not necessarily believe that ALL of the Bible is error-free in order to believe that nevertheless some parts of it may have been inspired by God.

As I was trying to put to you - "inspired by God" and "error free literacy" are entirely different ways of thinking.

paduan

JosephMalik

As I was trying to put to you - "inspired by God" and "error free literacy" are entirely different ways of thinking.

Paduan,

Well the point under discussion was neither. That is the point I was making. It is not necessary for the verses to be perfect in either case since all we have are copies of copies and translations of them at that. Many errors have crept into the text for such reasons. Yet despite all that the material is remarkable and protected somehow by its own complexity and the truth of matters is not lost. In fact there is much truth still hidden that has not been revealed. Joseph

Satanus

Joseph

In fact there is much truth still hidden that has not been revealed.

One could say the same about almost all other religious and philosophical writings and thought. That would include the pagan, such as legends, alester crowley, alchemy, magical, kaballa, theosophy, etc etc.

SS

Edited by - saintsatan on 12 October 2002 15:23:4

A Paduan

Many errors have crept into the text for such reasons

What makes the "errors" errors? Literal / historical accuracy?

The "errors" are according to ideas of data collection for record keeping - those "errors" can only exist along side presumptions about "correct". "Inspired" is something else. Can people live in whales - yet Christ refers to Jonah - an error perhaps?

"take heed then how you hear, for to him who has more will be given"

paduan

Edited by - a paduan on 13 October 2002 8:17:23

An Eye for an Eye: Bible Error

Share this