i would like to propose an ethical dilemma for those who believe in the divine inspiration of the bible.. in the following scenarios i am not asking you what you would have done but rather, what you hope you would have had the courage to do.. scenario 1. you are camped on the east side of the jordan waiting for orders to cross into the promised land.
moses is nearing the end of his life but he has some unfinished business to take care of before he hands over to joshua.
he announces that he has had an instruction from god to take revenge on the midianites before he dies.
I'm not evading. I wrote what I meant on a previous page. But we both know that unless the heavens open above you and you see Jesus coming down with his angels it don't matter what anyone here writes. So ignore and be happy.
It doesn't really matter what you or I believe. You already know that.
i would like to propose an ethical dilemma for those who believe in the divine inspiration of the bible.. in the following scenarios i am not asking you what you would have done but rather, what you hope you would have had the courage to do.. scenario 1. you are camped on the east side of the jordan waiting for orders to cross into the promised land.
moses is nearing the end of his life but he has some unfinished business to take care of before he hands over to joshua.
he announces that he has had an instruction from god to take revenge on the midianites before he dies.
I explained my position in my post above. Remember I said, "I choose Good God and a Bible not always literal but nonetheless inerrant, in that it serves the purposes of God." The OT as written is good because it serves a good purpose.
i would like to propose an ethical dilemma for those who believe in the divine inspiration of the bible.. in the following scenarios i am not asking you what you would have done but rather, what you hope you would have had the courage to do.. scenario 1. you are camped on the east side of the jordan waiting for orders to cross into the promised land.
moses is nearing the end of his life but he has some unfinished business to take care of before he hands over to joshua.
he announces that he has had an instruction from god to take revenge on the midianites before he dies.
I choose Good God and a Bible not always literal but nonetheless inerrant, in that it serves the purposes of God.
i would like to propose an ethical dilemma for those who believe in the divine inspiration of the bible.. in the following scenarios i am not asking you what you would have done but rather, what you hope you would have had the courage to do.. scenario 1. you are camped on the east side of the jordan waiting for orders to cross into the promised land.
moses is nearing the end of his life but he has some unfinished business to take care of before he hands over to joshua.
he announces that he has had an instruction from god to take revenge on the midianites before he dies.
"The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict."
With respect to Mr. Lewis, I believe the better question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the literalness of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict.
When as Christians we claim that the Bible is a mix of true and false, of this is from God but not that, we go down a very slippery slope. The obvious question many would have is how in the world then can you claim any of it is true or from God? This one says this part is true or divine another claims something different. It is remindful of when Paul admonished that one says he belongs to Apollos and another says he belongs to Paul but that is Christ divided. One Christian says, the flood is myth, another Joshua did not receive orders from God to kill etc. Yet, that is what the Bible itself is saying. If one part is wrong all parts are wrong.
Many times Jesus used stories to teach a truth. If he is the reflection of his Father and if when we see him we see the Father then it could also be that Jesus taught in a similar fashion to the Father. Does the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 have to be literal for the religious truths in that story to be understood? No. And as Christians we are free to believe it literal or not literal but the truth of it remains the same and that is what is important. Did the flood actually have to occur in every detail, the burning of Sodom, the parting of the Red Sea, the killing of nations in opposition to God, Jonah in the fish, the Ninevites, and so on. No. They did not have to occur in exact detail in order for the truth of it or the religious lesson of it to be understood. But, again, being free Christians we are free to believe literal or not literal and either way the truth of it remains. Either way we have a true lesson that helps us to understand our Father.
The OT is true and real, its teachings are true and real. We can argue the truth of the flood and the burning of Sodom as from God, whether literal or a lesson in parable form it is still a truth. Jesus never said we could dismiss accounts in the OT merely because they appeared implausible. He taught using implausible stories himself but in those stories were life saving truths. So too with the OT, all of it contains true things, true historical events and as well as true lessons in order that we may learn about our God who is both love and a burning fire as his Son also is.
"His winnowing fork is in his hand to thoroughly clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat in his barn; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Luke 3:17
i would like to propose an ethical dilemma for those who believe in the divine inspiration of the bible.. in the following scenarios i am not asking you what you would have done but rather, what you hope you would have had the courage to do.. scenario 1. you are camped on the east side of the jordan waiting for orders to cross into the promised land.
moses is nearing the end of his life but he has some unfinished business to take care of before he hands over to joshua.
he announces that he has had an instruction from god to take revenge on the midianites before he dies.
PSacramento,
"Jesus did not deny that the flood killed MANY, but I don't recall him saying that God SENT the flood to kill INNOCENTS."
Neither does Genesis.
"Jesus was correcting the view that God wanted the enemies to be killed and showed NO mercy, Jesus correct that view even in regards to oursevles ( God wants mercy not sacrifice) and Paul correct the view that God is jealous in Corinthians."
Jesus corrected the Jewish religious leaders for their lack of mercy. But where in the NT did he correct Moses and his actions in battle? I'm not saying Christians should join armies and go kill one another that is a whole other topic. But what I am saying is that Jesus did not correct the actions that Moses and Joshua took in battle. In order to believe so we must put words in his mouth something I'm not prepared to do otherwise all manner of thought can be inserted into the NT!
i would like to propose an ethical dilemma for those who believe in the divine inspiration of the bible.. in the following scenarios i am not asking you what you would have done but rather, what you hope you would have had the courage to do.. scenario 1. you are camped on the east side of the jordan waiting for orders to cross into the promised land.
moses is nearing the end of his life but he has some unfinished business to take care of before he hands over to joshua.
he announces that he has had an instruction from god to take revenge on the midianites before he dies.
NVL,
Jesus preached destruction of the wicked, he taught a ritual, in his lifetime he concentrated on saving mostly the Jews not gentiles. True, he did not teach his disciples to form an army and go kill, he left that to himself and his Father.
i would like to propose an ethical dilemma for those who believe in the divine inspiration of the bible.. in the following scenarios i am not asking you what you would have done but rather, what you hope you would have had the courage to do.. scenario 1. you are camped on the east side of the jordan waiting for orders to cross into the promised land.
moses is nearing the end of his life but he has some unfinished business to take care of before he hands over to joshua.
he announces that he has had an instruction from god to take revenge on the midianites before he dies.
PSacramento,
I think we may be speaking passed one another, it's hard in this medium sometimes to get a clear point across. Here's my thoughts for what their worth.
Jesus confirmed the religious historicity of Noah's day and Sodom and that what occurred there was of divine origin. He was not, imo, "clearing up what He viewed as a incorrect view of what God wants," when he taught us to love our enemies. God did what he wanted in the OT and does the same in the NT. God has not changed (something you agree with) God in the OT is the same in the NT. Death and destruction are not a memory of the OT only, they are also found in the NT.
Also, the fact that Jesus uses Noah's day and Sodom as examples of what is to come gives at least tacit support to the truth of those events as recorded in the OT. He did not change the events, correct them or disagree with their results. If Jesus by saying we should love our enemies was in fact correcting an incorrect view of God found in the OT then he took it all away by using events in which God directly kills people. And of course, like with Sodom and Noah's day, Jesus never says that Moses' actions in battle were not from God.
We must love our enemies, this is a fact. But God does not change and what was, was. Jesus corrected men who went beyond what God said, and he instituted a better way, but he never implied that the OT was not inspired or accurate.
i would like to propose an ethical dilemma for those who believe in the divine inspiration of the bible.. in the following scenarios i am not asking you what you would have done but rather, what you hope you would have had the courage to do.. scenario 1. you are camped on the east side of the jordan waiting for orders to cross into the promised land.
moses is nearing the end of his life but he has some unfinished business to take care of before he hands over to joshua.
he announces that he has had an instruction from god to take revenge on the midianites before he dies.
PSacramento,
"I don't think anyone asked Jesus about any of that stuff and I don't recall him commenting on it.
We have what Jesus said - Love they enemy for anyone can love a brother, what is the big deal in that? I say love your enemy- and if we take him as the Word of God then we have to see it as either a change from God ( it wasn't), Jesus speaking for himself only ( he wasn't) or Jesus clearing up what He viewed as a incorrect view of what God wants ( which is what he did)."
Yet Jesus said this, "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."
And this, "but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all."
Jesus was not as you said, "clearing up what He viewed as a incorrect view of what God wants ( which is what he did)." No, he confirmed it. Neither Jesus nor God, love, love and love again regardless of what people do. That, imo, is not the full picture. There are consequences when people do not love their fellow and consequences for religious leaders who hypocritically and harshly insist on ruling over others.
i just found out that i have breast cancer on thursday (see topic http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/medical/190249/1/i-was-in-the-hospital ).
my sister has breast cancer too.
she has had it longer than me.
MsDucky,
Keep a postive chin up. How wonderful that your family is with you to help you. Think good thoughts and do things that bring a smile to you and your family.
You are all in our thoughts and prayers. Please keep us informed. All is not lost keep hope alive!
Love to you and your family,
Believing
then i cant help but come to the conclusion that everyone who died (like 99.999% of humanity at the time) was doomed from the start.. if god directed noah to build a flotation device with very specific parameters, god must have known exactly how many people, animal species, plant etc, would be in it.. what if people actually listened to noah and thousands upon thousands turned up waiting to enter the ark?
god must have known that only so many people will listen and obey instructions.. no to mention that noahs message didnt really reach that many people.
at that time how many people could have heard it?
Leolaia,
What you wrote makes sense but only if the world as we have it today, with its genetic makeup being what it is, was the same in times past. For instance, it is my understanding that in the deep past there have been multiple die offs and geologically speaking "sudden" resurgence of many species. This I believe has not yet been satisfactorily explained for many scientists. They still grapple with trying understand these events. How it was that after such a great die off, so many species rebounded so quickly, geologically speaking.
I'm not saying the flood story is literal only that we do not know the genetic makeup of species who long ago were yet to have, let us say, evolved, to the various finite species we have today. Evolutionists point to the similarities of species, bird with dinosaur, as an example. Is it so off the mark for a Christian to believe that perhaps in the deep past the species were not as differentiated as they are today?
Now, I say this not to prove the literalness of the flood account, only to enter another thought into the mix.
