This crippled my faith

[oi_antz]

I already expressed in my last paragraph that there is always value in continuing:

"...I am on a mission to make sure there is no rock left overturned on this matter..."

I do not leap to agree that there is always value in continuing. I say this in reflection of our conversation here, there has been a long history of dismissal of my views. I do certainly wish to resolve some things in those two unresolved replies, though I have suggested that I would rather strike them because we were getting drawn out and uncivilised. I would like to suggest that I choose some paragraphs in those posts that I desire to resolve, ignore the rest, and go back through the thread to bring forward those issues of mine which I would like you to resolve for me. I could try to do that for you tomorrow morning as I am now on mobile device. Will you be willing to proceed this way to establish whether there is value in it? I recognize that you may prefer a different approach, so let us really try to co-operate

 

[ISTANDBYJESUS]

Hi, I'm new here. Originally I posted this in the debate section and it got deleted. If I'm still in the wrong area, then I apologize.

I used to believe in inerrancy. It was a requirement for me as a Christian, and it would be a requirement for me to believe in the Bible once again. To me, the limit of faith is believing in something that is not verified... believing in something that is unverified but also self-contradictory is, in my opinion, past the limits of being reasonable.

I don't know how I feel about scribal errors as being an explanation for most of the passages in disagreement - as a Christian I wasn't thrilled, to say the least - but what I'm going to present below cannot be explained by scribal error since both accounts I'm quoting will agree with each other. It is a plain contradiction, but the explanations I've gotten for plain contradictions have always been utterly unsatisfactory. "Does it change what Jesus did for you on the cross?" Yes, actually, it does - at least to me - because if the Bible is self-contradictory then it is false.

So you have to understand that I am coming here with this question because it is very difficult to find someone who cares about this issue, even if I walk into a church. Anyway, here's my issue:



1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30, Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah in italics is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31, 2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I do not leap to agree that there is always value in continuing. I say this in reflection of our conversation here, there has been a long history of dismissal of my views. I do certainly wish to resolve some things in those two unresolved replies, though I have suggested that I would rather strike them because we were getting drawn out and uncivilised. I would like to suggest that I choose some paragraphs in those posts that I desire to resolve, ignore the rest, and go back through the thread to bring forward those issues of mine which I would like you to resolve for me. I could try to do that for you tomorrow morning as I am now on mobile device. Will you be willing to proceed this way to establish whether there is value in it? I recognize that you may prefer a different approach, so let us really try to co-operate

Proceed however you like. I am interested in instances in which I apparently dismissed your points for no good reason. However, if we find that I've done nothing wrong, then I would hope you also refrain from dismissing my points.

 

[oi_antz]

Proceed however you like. I am interested in instances in which I apparently dismissed your points for no good reason. However, if we find that I've done nothing wrong, then I would hope you also refrain from dismissing my points.

Wow, this is very generous of you! Yes, so today as I asked Him how to begin the day, He told me to read Deuteronomy 4-18, and as I did this, I got a really good idea of why it is that you and I are looking at these things in such different light. I made quite a few notes of various verses in that passage that I would like to make use of with you, but in order to do this and achieve an effective result, I remain mindful that you aren't really looking to be brought into having my view. Rather, you are wanting assurance that your view is correct. There is a very subtle difference in those expressions, that probably you could understand better than I could describe anyway.

So I reckon, probably it is best to leave the old conversation dormant, and we may choose to refer to it as what has already been discussed, but to remove the energy that is present in that conversation and to begin the conversation again, we would need to ensure the main issues are addressed.

As I see of the main issues that have come to surface in our conversation, that the issues you face go beyond scriptural inerrancy, and particularly when slavery, rape, homosexuality, Sabbath and ethnic cleansing all being raised as the most major cause of your distrusts, it certainly demonstrates that your real struggle is with the viewing of the scriptures according to what you expect a good, holy, loving God would support - and this is due to your having viewed the commandments in the bible as being prone to support an immoral society.

I am pretty certain you would agree that this is the real major contention for you at this time, and in fact that it is more important to you than the inerrancy of the bible. SO I would like to go ahead with our conversation to address those, with your permission of course seeing as it is your thread, and this is a clear divergence from the OP. I think the forum rules will permit it, if you and I will find it agreeable.

So being conscious I have written lots already here, and before the post gets wearisome, I think my priority should be to try and explain to you why I can see the purpose of the law is given to produce a holy society, since if we can agree whether the society inherrently [desired to be, or became, or was instructed to be, or any combination of these] holy, then we will be able to assess whether the laws really were given appropriately to achieve that effect.

Mainly I would like to use this opportunity to draw your attention to the following verses, with the contexts I have attached, so that you can observe the meaning that I see, that implies a holy intention:


Deuteronomy 6:18 "You must do what is good and right in Jehovah's eyes"
Deuteronomy 5:14 "The seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your bull nor your donkey nor any of your domestic animals nor your foreign resident who is inside your cities, in order that your slave man and your slave girl may rest the same as you.
Deuteronomy 10:12 "Now, O Israel, what is Jehovah your God asking of you? Only this: to fear Jehovah your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of Jehovah that I am commanding you today for your own good.
Deuteronomy 10:17 For Jehovah your God is God of gods, Lord of lords, the God great, mighty and awe-inspiring, who treats none with partiality and does not accept a bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless child and the widow and loves the foreign resident, giving him food and clothing. You too must love the foreign resident, for you too became foreign residents in the land of Egypt.
Proverbs 12:10 "The righteous one takes care of his domestic animals, but even the mercy of the wicked one is cruel".
You should appoint judges and officers for each tribe in all the cities that Jehovah your God is giving you, and they must judge the people with righteous judgement.
Deuteronomy 16:14,15 "Rejoice during your festival, you and your son, your daughter, your male slave, your female slave, the Levite, the foreign resident, the fatherless child, and the widow, who are inside your cities. Seven days you will celebrate the festival to Jehovah your God in the place that Jehovah chooses, for Jehovah your God will bless all your produce and all that you do, and you will become nothing but joyful."

These parts that I have highlighted are the ones that stood out to me, that I think for you, can help to demonstrate the heart of the holy intention. I felt these would be useful for you to read, because you asked earlier for an example of where it is implied in the law, that the essence of the law is to promote love for God and each other.

One other thing that stood out to me as I read this, since you had recently expressed a view that sin is the transgression of the law and I had opted to not engage in that discussion, as I read Deuteronomy 8:3, I found it saying "man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every expression from Jehovah's mouth".

Only recently I have come to learn about all this so that I can understand it, as the Word of God encouraged me to look into the seven deadly sins. As I read that page on Wikipedia, the words that stood out to me were:

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a mortal or deadly sin is believed to destroy the life of grace and charity within a person.

So then, if we do what we know we should not do, we are not living by the Word of God, and we suffer a spiritual death. This is what sets apart the regenerate Christian from the obstinate:

All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.

I really do feel that you are not going to be one of those obstinate ones forever. My feeling about you, is that you have been involved with Christians who had engaged a lot in sinful practice to the detriment of their spiritual life, and they were not spiritually fit to teach you the ways of God, as is stipulated in Galatians 6:1. The consequence is, that in being unfairly judged for what probably you had morally right, you have come to view the scriptures in a light that shows God much the opposite to what He truly is. This is the truth in Matthew 6:23. I do not know whether you will allow me to show you His nature in the light that I view it, but I do know that despite being on the razor's edge, you have trusted me this far. I hope certainly that I will not let you down.

So, I feel that I would like to help your search, to have another go at this again, and see whether I cannot help you to find that there is truth hiding under one of those stones you are turning, that you will find He really is a good and loving God.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I would like to jump in with you two on the above discussion if that is acceptable to both of you...I believe it is the custom to do so anyway, but wanted rather to ask.
Do you two permit me??

 

[oi_antz]

I would like to jump in with you two on the above discussion if that is acceptable to both of you...I believe it is the custom to do so anyway, but wanted rather to ask.
Do you two permit me??

I cannot encourage that, as this is not a discussion forum for that purpose and the rules prevent it. However, I remember the gist of a rule, that you can tell the OP that a different Christian view exists, and you may discuss it with him. We should of course make effort to avoid talking to each other indirectly this way You and I can talk by PM if you like, I certainly will welcome that.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I cannot encourage that, as this is not a discussion forum for that purpose and the rules prevent it. However, I remember the gist of a rule, that you can tell the OP that a different Christian view exists, and you may discuss it with him. We should of course make effort to avoid talking to each other indirectly this way You and I can talk by PM if you like, I certainly will welcome that.

That's fine but I was only wanting to add some passages here and there for further edification... for N.V.'s benefit...I'd hope, that is. I thought that Christian's were allowed to "help one another out" on this site, but I'll have to re-read the rules.

 

[oi_antz]

That's fine but I was only wanting to add some passages here and there for further edification... for N.V.'s benefit...I'd hope, that is. I thought that Christian's were allowed to "help one another out" on this site, but I'll have to re-read the rules.

The rules probably will permit that, if you address it to him. Best to check first though.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Can't find the site-wide CF rules which this site says apply...of course...so I'll just hang out awhile until I do figure out what is and is not permitted!

 

[oi_antz]

Can't find the site-wide CF rules which this site says apply...of course...so I'll just hang out awhile until I do figure out what is and is not permitted!

Oh, I have been in error, with the mistaken assumption this was Exploring Christianity. It appears that it is permitted for Christians to address each other here, but I will check with a moderator for clarification. Sorry for causing that confusion!

 

[jenny1972]

Hi, I'm new here. Originally I posted this in the debate section and it got deleted. If I'm still in the wrong area, then I apologize.

I used to believe in inerrancy. It was a requirement for me as a Christian, and it would be a requirement for me to believe in the Bible once again. To me, the limit of faith is believing in something that is not verified... believing in something that is unverified but also self-contradictory is, in my opinion, past the limits of being reasonable.

I don't know how I feel about scribal errors as being an explanation for most of the passages in disagreement - as a Christian I wasn't thrilled, to say the least - but what I'm going to present below cannot be explained by scribal error since both accounts I'm quoting will agree with each other. It is a plain contradiction, but the explanations I've gotten for plain contradictions have always been utterly unsatisfactory. "Does it change what Jesus did for you on the cross?" Yes, actually, it does - at least to me - because if the Bible is self-contradictory then it is false.

So you have to understand that I am coming here with this question because it is very difficult to find someone who cares about this issue, even if I walk into a church. Anyway, here's my issue:



1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30, Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah in italics is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31, 2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

no the Bible is not perfect and Christianity has been corrupted true but why would disbelieving in religion , or at least disbelieving in the Bibles 100% accuracy , cause you to disbelieve in the existence of God ? God is not religion God is not made by humans and IS perfect and you can have a relationship with God .

as Mediaeval said " Even if we had the original manuscripts, most people would still have access only to a fallible translation and fallible pastors and teachers, with their teaching filtered yet again through our fallible brains. But why should their fallibility prevent the infallible God's communication with us? "

 

[Mediaeval]

Recognition of unseen realities? Such as what, logical laws? But we have constructed those based off what we actually do see. If we as creatures were electron-sized then our laws of logic would be quite different.

To be consistent, I should believe in nothing. You've got me there. But for you to be consistent, you should sell all that you own, give your money to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel. But you will NEVER do this. There is no extremist Christian. Not one.

The rest of what you are saying is appeal to consequence. If there's no God then there's no morality. So? Does that mean God exists? Also, the absolute objective morality put forth by your God is actually quite repulsive and bigoted.

Laws of logic could be adduced. I was thinking along the lines of how logic cannot prove that what we see is itself real and not mere appearance, but I think you picked up on that. Your description of Biblical morality as repulsive and bigoted seems very much like a value judgment and therefore a matter of faith that, in your own words, hangs on nothing. Regarding morality, I do not appeal entirely to consequence. It is true that if there were no God, there would be no morality, as in Dostoyevsky’s observation about everything being permissible. It is consistent on your part to admit that. But the self-evident fact is that the conscience recognizes a moral law not of its own own devising, and this self-evidently points to God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We see by the verse below That God said himself that Jehoiakim shall have none to sit upon the throne of David and in the beginning of the next chapter we see Coniah removed and Zedekiah set up.
Jeremiah 36:30King James Version (KJV)

30 Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.

If indeed 1 Chronicles 3:15 is giving the order of birth, could it be not possible then with the verse above in mind that that would be the reason the scriptures tell us that Zedekiah is the son of Josiah seeing that God cursed Jehoiakim and his seed? Even by looking at the genealogy of Benjamin we see that grand sons can also be referred to as sons.


And also, would it be incorrect that the scriptures could call Jehoiakim's son his brother(especially in light of the curse) when we see by the scriptures that being of the same flesh and bone men call each other brothers:

Genesis 29:14-15King James Version (KJV)

14 And Laban said to him, Surely thou art my bone and my flesh. And he abode with him the space of a month.
15 And Laban said unto Jacob, Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?


2 Samuel 19:12King James Version (KJV)

12 Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh: wherefore then are ye the last to bring back the king?

Even remember the scriptures telling us that Abraham and Lot are brethren.

With these things in mind and concerning the age of Zedekiah could the verse below then not be referring to his brother according to 1 Chronicles 3:16?

2 Chronicles 36:10King James Version (KJV)

10 And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the Lord, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.


And could it not be correct to say that the sons of Zedekiah in 2 Kings 25:7 are the grand sons Jehoiakim especially in light of the curse in Jeremiah 36:30? And could that curse not be related to the curse placed upon Coniah and his seed seeing he is of Jehoiakim?

Jeremiah 22:28-30King James Version (KJV)

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord.
30 Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Is he not written "childless"(a man with out a seed) at eight years old in the verse below( according to the curse God place upon him) seeing 2 Kings 24:8 in the king James bible tells us he is really eighteen?

2 Chronicles 36:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.

These are just some thoughts of mine knowing that it is not possible for the scriptures in the king James bible to be in error.

If I am reading this all correctly, it looks like you are convinced that King Zedekiah was the son of Josiah and not the son of Jehoiakim.

My point in the OP is that there is a contradiction either way.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I would like to jump in with you two on the above discussion if that is acceptable to both of you...I believe it is the custom to do so anyway, but wanted rather to ask.
Do you two permit me??

I believe in the free exchange of ideas and information. Indeed, the reason I grew weary with you was because of your refusal to freely exchange information with me and answer simple questions. If you want to participate in some other discussion of mine, you do not require my permission, although I do hope you will be more freely engaging than you were last time.

You might notice an atheist was replying to this thread earlier, and I said nothing until someone else asked him to stop. I know there are rules on these forums for order, and I will not break them, but I do not care if others do and I will not shy away from their input just because it is in the wrong place or in the wrong format or from the wrong kind of saved/unsaved person.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

no the Bible is not perfect and Christianity has been corrupted true but why would disbelieving in religion , or at least disbelieving in the Bibles 100% accuracy , cause you to disbelieve in the existence of God ? God is not religion God is not made by humans and IS perfect and you can have a relationship with God .

as Mediaeval said " Even if we had the original manuscripts, most people would still have access only to a fallible translation and fallible pastors and teachers, with their teaching filtered yet again through our fallible brains. But why should their fallibility prevent the infallible God's communication with us? "

The Bible is not accurate, we agree on this. How many errors are required for you to lose your faith? Surely if the Bible fell on its face every time you turned the page, and if every single claim it made was false, eventually you would lose patience. What is the number of contradictions that you will tolerate? You must have some magic number, even if you don't know what it is.

I found out that my magic number was 1.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Laws of logic could be adduced. I was thinking along the lines of how logic cannot prove that what we see is itself real and not mere appearance, but I think you picked up on that.

Logic cannot actually prove anything about physical reality, not even a single thing. All proofs in logic are conditional upon the validity of the axioms, and the axioms are simply asserted with no justification. Furthermore, the formal language acknowledges that all mathematical terms decompose into primitive symbols which have no meaning. Every statement in logic or mathematics is ultimately composed of terms with no meaning at all - math's dirty secret.

Your description of Biblical morality as repulsive and bigoted seems very much like a value judgment and therefore a matter of faith that, in your own words, hangs on nothing. Regarding morality, I do not appeal entirely to consequence. It is true that if there were no God, there would be no morality, as in Dostoyevsky’s observation about everything being permissible. It is consistent on your part to admit that. But the self-evident fact is that the conscience recognizes a moral law not of its own own devising, and this self-evidently points to God.

I am admitting that atheism posits no objective morality, but you cannot assert that your theism provides it.

Since God had no creator, his properties are not intelligently assigned. A value which is not intelligently assigned is random. Therefore God's views on morality, along with everything else about him, are random. There is no real reason to suggest that the things God prefers are better or worse than the things he does not prefer.

But then again, what does logic actually prove about reality?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Wow, this is very generous of you! Yes, so today as I asked Him how to begin the day, He told me to read Deuteronomy 4-18, and as I did this, I got a really good idea of why it is that you and I are looking at these things in such different light. I made quite a few notes of various verses in that passage that I would like to make use of with you, but in order to do this and achieve an effective result, I remain mindful that you aren't really looking to be brought into having my view. Rather, you are wanting assurance that your view is correct. There is a very subtle difference in those expressions, that probably you could understand better than I could describe anyway.

I require no reassurance in my beliefs that rape and slavery are wrong.

So I reckon, probably it is best to leave the old conversation dormant, and we may choose to refer to it as what has already been discussed, but to remove the energy that is present in that conversation and to begin the conversation again, we would need to ensure the main issues are addressed.

As I see of the main issues that have come to surface in our conversation, that the issues you face go beyond scriptural inerrancy, and particularly when slavery, rape, homosexuality, Sabbath and ethnic cleansing all being raised as the most major cause of your distrusts, it certainly demonstrates that your real struggle is with the viewing of the scriptures according to what you expect a good, holy, loving God would support - and this is due to your having viewed the commandments in the bible as being prone to support an immoral society.

That sounds pretty accurate.

I am pretty certain you would agree that this is the real major contention for you at this time, and in fact that it is more important to you than the inerrancy of the bible.

Perhaps it is accurate to say that, although at the time when I was a Christian it was the contradictions that bothered me most, hence the title of this thread.

SO I would like to go ahead with our conversation to address those, with your permission of course seeing as it is your thread, and this is a clear divergence from the OP. I think the forum rules will permit it, if you and I will find it agreeable.

Like I said, proceed however you like.

So being conscious I have written lots already here, and before the post gets wearisome, I think my priority should be to try and explain to you why I can see the purpose of the law is given to produce a holy society, since if we can agree whether the society inherrently [desired to be, or became, or was instructed to be, or any combination of these] holy, then we will be able to assess whether the laws really were given appropriately to achieve that effect.

Mainly I would like to use this opportunity to draw your attention to the following verses, with the contexts I have attached, so that you can observe the meaning that I see, that implies a holy intention:

I will be quite amazed if you can show this is a holy society, seeing as how the very first thing they did in their holy land was commit multiple acts of genocide with the occasional sparing of virgins who served as rape slaves.

Deuteronomy 6:18 "You must do what is good and right in Jehovah's eyes"

You highlight "good and right" but we could just as easily present it like this:

Deuteronomy 6:18 "You must do what is good and right in Jehovah's eyes"

Jehovah made it quite clear what is right in his eyes. Slavery, rape, and genocide. I understand you want to contest this issue, but thus far you have not.

Deuteronomy 5:14 "The seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your bull nor your donkey nor any of your domestic animals nor your foreign resident who is inside your cities, in order that your slave man and your slave girl may rest the same as you.

I would think that the slaves had to rest on the Sabbath because otherwise the Jews would have to execute them for working on it, and Jews generally did not want to execute their slaves any more than they wanted to burn their money.

Deuteronomy 10:12 "Now, O Israel, what is Jehovah your God asking of you? Only this: to fear Jehovah your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of Jehovah that I am commanding you today for your own good.

And what are those ways, if not rape, slavery, and genocide?

Deuteronomy 10:17 For Jehovah your God is God of gods, Lord of lords, the God great, mighty and awe-inspiring, who treats none with partiality and does not accept a bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless child and the widow and loves the foreign resident, giving him food and clothing. You too must love the foreign resident, for you too became foreign residents in the land of Egypt.

God treats none with partiality? Malachi 1:2-3.

Proverbs 12:10 "The righteous one takes care of his domestic animals, but even the mercy of the wicked one is cruel".
You should appoint judges and officers for each tribe in all the cities that Jehovah your God is giving you, and they must judge the people with righteous judgement.

But again, what was righteous or good to these people who regularly engaged in rape and slavery?

Deuteronomy 16:14,15 "Rejoice during your festival, you and your son, your daughter, your male slave, your female slave, the Levite, the foreign resident, the fatherless child, and the widow, who are inside your cities. Seven days you will celebrate the festival to Jehovah your God in the place that Jehovah chooses, for Jehovah your God will bless all your produce and all that you do, and you will become nothing but joyful."

So the Jews had their slaves participate in religious celebrations. If you were the slave of a Muslim, would you feel privileged to participate in a pilgrimage to Mecca?

These parts that I have highlighted are the ones that stood out to me, that I think for you, can help to demonstrate the heart of the holy intention. I felt these would be useful for you to read, because you asked earlier for an example of where it is implied in the law, that the essence of the law is to promote love for God and each other.

For the most part they are promoting justice and righteousness. Their notions of justice and righteousness were quite perverse.

You are simply reading your own understanding of righteousness into these things. If it said, "Do no harm to others" or "Men and women are not equal, but are to be treated equally," then I would see your point.

A clan of cannibals advocating a "good diet" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as what you or I think of as a good diet, and this backwards, barbaric, inhumane society advocating "justice and righteousness" doesn't mean a lick to me because they regularly engaged in savagery.

One other thing that stood out to me as I read this, since you had recently expressed a view that sin is the transgression of the law and I had opted to not engage in that discussion, as I read Deuteronomy 8:3, I found it saying "man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every expression from Jehovah's mouth".

And how many commandments of genocide and permissions of rape and slavery have come from Jehovah's mouth?

Only recently I have come to learn about all this so that I can understand it, as the Word of God encouraged me to look into the seven deadly sins. As I read that page on Wikipedia, the words that stood out to me were:

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a mortal or deadly sin is believed to destroy the life of grace and charity within a person.

Life of grace?

So then, if we do what we know we should not do, we are not living by the Word of God, and we suffer a spiritual death.

"Obey your conscience" or "follow common sense" is essentially secular humanism.

This is what sets apart the regenerate Christian from the obstinate:

All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.

I really do feel that you are not going to be one of those obstinate ones forever. My feeling about you, is that you have been involved with Christians who had engaged a lot in sinful practice to the detriment of their spiritual life, and they were not spiritually fit to teach you the ways of God, as is stipulated in Galatians 6:1. The consequence is, that in being unfairly judged for what probably you had morally right, you have come to view the scriptures in a light that shows God much the opposite to what He truly is. This is the truth in Matthew 6:23. I do not know whether you will allow me to show you His nature in the light that I view it, but I do know that despite being on the razor's edge, you have trusted me this far. I hope certainly that I will not let you down.

Generally I deal in the realm of logic, as the OP attests to. If you want to show me God's nature in the light that you view it, I am almost certain that we will drip into incoherency. But you should know that of course I will allow you to show me whatever you like, as I am quite open minded.

So, I feel that I would like to help your search, to have another go at this again, and see whether I cannot help you to find that there is truth hiding under one of those stones you are turning, that you will find He really is a good and loving God.

That conclusion would be as fascinating as it is unlikely.

 

[ISTANDBYJESUS]

If I am reading this all correctly, it looks like you are convinced that King Zedekiah was the son of Josiah and not the son of Jehoiakim.

My point in the OP is that there is a contradiction either way.

It appears that Zedekiah is indeed the son of Josiah according to the scriptures in the king James bible: But I am still wondering if that is related to the curse placed upon Jehoiakim and his seed, I am not sure(if the age of birth is in order, then Zedekiah would appear to be the son of Jehoiakim, still possibly making him the son of Josiah and Jehoiakim's brother according to the scriptures I quoted explaining these things). I am still trying to interpret it my self, knowing that there is no contradiction in the king James bible.
Truthfully, the only interpretation That I am convinced about in that word I wrote you is the explanation of why Coniah was written that he was eight years old.

Further more, the word below says "shall have none"(no seed) not "after him".
Jeremiah 36:30King James Version (KJV)
30 Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.


I am aware of what many call contradictions in the king James bible that God has made plain for me: I know well enough now that the only thing wrong is faithless men trying to prove God wrong. I am not moved by your question, I know the answer is in the scriptures some where, and if God reveals it to me then well, if not, I will move on still knowing the answer is there with out error and man's wisdom is foolishness with God.

 

[oi_antz]

I require no reassurance in my beliefs that rape and slavery are wrong.



That sounds pretty accurate.



Perhaps it is accurate to say that, although at the time when I was a Christian it was the contradictions that bothered me most, hence the title of this thread.



Like I said, proceed however you like.



I will be quite amazed if you can show this is a holy society, seeing as how the very first thing they did in their holy land was commit multiple acts of genocide with the occasional sparing of virgins who served as rape slaves.



You highlight "good and right" but we could just as easily present it like this:

Deuteronomy 6:18 "You must do what is good and right in Jehovah's eyes"

Jehovah made it quite clear what is right in his eyes. Slavery, rape, and genocide. I understand you want to contest this issue, but thus far you have not.



I would think that the slaves had to rest on the Sabbath because otherwise the Jews would have to execute them for working on it, and Jews generally did not want to execute their slaves any more than they wanted to burn their money.



And what are those ways, if not rape, slavery, and genocide?



God treats none with partiality? Malachi 1:2-3.



But again, what was righteous or good to these people who regularly engaged in rape and slavery?



So the Jews had their slaves participate in religious celebrations. If you were the slave of a Muslim, would you feel privileged to participate in a pilgrimage to Mecca?



For the most part they are promoting justice and righteousness. Their notions of justice and righteousness were quite perverse.

You are simply reading your own understanding of righteousness into these things. If it said, "Do no harm to others" or "Men and women are not equal, but are to be treated equally," then I would see your point.

A clan of cannibals advocating a "good diet" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as what you or I think of as a good diet, and this backwards, barbaric, inhumane society advocating "justice and righteousness" doesn't mean a lick to me because they regularly engaged in savagery.



And how many commandments of genocide and permissions of rape and slavery have come from Jehovah's mouth?



Life of grace?



"Obey your conscience" or "follow common sense" is essentially secular humanism.



Generally I deal in the realm of logic, as the OP attests to. If you want to show me God's nature in the light that you view it, I am almost certain that we will drip into incoherency. But you should know that of course I will allow you to show me whatever you like, as I am quite open minded.



That conclusion would be as fascinating as it is unlikely.

Why do you suppose that your response to me here produces such an opposite view than that I attempted to draw in you?

 

[oi_antz]

Can't find the site-wide CF rules which this site says apply...of course...so I'll just hang out awhile until I do figure out what is and is not permitted!

Got a reply from moderator:

You can address each other but stay away from debating each other.