"superior" and "inferior" Books in Bible

[The Night Owl]

Whether you choose to believe it or not for the purposes of THIS thread one needs to start from the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

My intent was not to debate whether God is inerrant or not. God's alleged inerrancy cannot be proven. My intent was to point out that if one really believes that mankind is fallible then one does not get to pick and choose what mankind is fallible about. Mankind is either fallible or it is not.

And, by the way, not all Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Some Christians believe that it is the work of men inspired by God.

No one cares about your opinion on the matter as it applies to this particular topic.

Cindie

Cindie... I don't post with the expectation that anyone should care about what I have to say. I post because I get something out of debating people with a different point of view than me.

[Chris_]

Whether you choose to believe it or not for the purposes of THIS thread one needs to start from the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

My intent was not to debate whether God is inerrant or not. God's alleged inerrancy cannot be proven. My intent was to point out that if one really believes that mankind is fallible then one does not get to pick and choose what mankind is fallible about. Mankind is either fallible or it is not.

And, by the way, not all Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Some Christians believe that it is the work of men inspired by God.

No one cares about your opinion on the matter as it applies to this particular topic.

Cindie

Cindie... I don't post with the expectation that anyone should care about what I have to say. I post because I get something out of debating people with a different point of view than me.

Then start a freaking thread about what YOU want to debate about. This thread...this one right here was specifically related to 2 particular books of the Bible, especially as it related to a particular historical event. I don't have quarrel with your need to debate. I have a quarrel with your methods. I find it rather rude to interject a completely different subject into what was/is an interesting subject just so you can play "look how high and mighty I am" or "can I piss off the Christians" or "can I completely shut down a conversation by a LOOK AT MEEEEEE!!!!! LOOK AT MEEEEEE! thread-jacking post" or whatever your game is.

Truly, if whatever it is you're droning on about is important enough that you want to discuss it, start a thread where full attention can be devoted to YOU and your most important subject. In other words, try a little common courtesy. What you've done is the message board equivalent of walking up to a new acquaintance's  table in a restaurant (even though you noticed they were having an intense discussion about something), sitting down, and chattering on about whatever was important to you. Not only did you interrupt said folks, you didn't even have enough class to at least contribute to the discussion they were already having.

Cindie

[The Night Owl]

Then start a freaking thread about what YOU want to debate about. This thread...this one right here was specifically related to 2 particular books of the Bible, especially as it related to a particular historical event. I don't have quarrel with your need to debate. I have a quarrel with your methods. I find it rather rude to interject a completely different subject into what was/is an interesting subject just so you can play "look how high and mighty I am" or "can I piss off the Christians" or "can I completely shut down a conversation by a LOOK AT MEEEEEE!!!!! LOOK AT MEEEEEE! thread-jacking post" or whatever your game is.

Truly, if whatever it is you're droning on about is important enough that you want to discuss it, start a thread where full attention can be devoted to YOU and your most important subject. In other words, try a little common courtesy. What you've done is the message board equivalent of walking up to a new acquaintance's  table in a restaurant (even though you noticed they were having an intense discussion about something), sitting down, and chattering on about whatever was important to you. Not only did you interrupt said folks, you didn't even have enough class to at least contribute to the discussion they were already having.

Cindie

I don't know which thread you're talking about, but in this thread, my comment about God's alleged inerrancy was in response to what someone posted. One of the nice features of message boards is that they allow people to respond not just to the original post but to responses to the original post. The style of discussion you seem to think we should be having is the kind which can be found on blogs, not message boards. That said, I suspect that your anger has nothing to do with what you claim to be my hijacking of this thread.

[FlaGator]

The passage in Leviticus says he should not take his brother's wife.
The passage in Deut. says he should take his late brother's wife.

lug-nut is absolutely right here. One passage refers to a widow (Deut) the other passage refers to what I assume to be a divorced woman. In that context there is not contradiction.

[TheSarge]

And yet, it has not a thing to do with the topic of this thread and is incredibly distracting to those trying to follow along. Perhaps you could start your own circular logic thread?

That all he knows how to do because he knows nothing of religion nor does he care to...so he must take these threads off topic.

Whether you choose to believe it or not for the purposes of THIS thread one needs to start from the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. No one cares about your opinion on the matter as it applies to this particular topic.

Cindie

Well said.

[InfamousAndy]

I wanted to make a comment about God's perfection vs omnipotence.  You are attempting to humanize that which is divine.  God is not bound by the same limitations as you or I.  It is not that God is incapable, it is simply that God IS.  He will always be good.  The manifestation of his will is always just.  If you want to try to humanize it, it would be the difference between cannot and will not.  There is no paradox here.

[Chris_]

Returning to the original issue, I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't this entire discussion rendered moot by the "New Covenant"......?

doc

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Returning to the original issue, I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't this entire discussion rendered moot by the "New Covenant"......?

doc

That depends upon whether or not you presume the proscriptions against murder, adultery, theft, blaspemy et al are lifted by the covering of Grace.

[FlaGator]

Returning to the original issue, I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't this entire discussion rendered moot by the "New Covenant"......?

doc

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matthew 5:17

A fairly decent interpretation of this can be found at http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/oldlaw.html.

An excerpt reads:

By fulfilling the law Christ satisfied it's requirements in our place. In other words, the 'required' obedience is accomplished in Him. Therefore, in Christ do we keep all the law faithfully, and cannot be accused. In this way, we are no longer judged by any of the everlasting laws, for we are under the Grace of God. The law doesn't condemn us.

Because we love Christ we try our best not to sin and the law defines what sin is. We are no longer under the penalty of the Law should we sin because Christ fulfilled that for us. However we must avoid sin which means that we must do our best to observe it and seek forgiveness when we break it.

Now the topic that started this tread concerned a wife who later remarried her husband,s bother. Those seem more like laws of social custom and were concerned with the family line being extended. Some laws of this nature did not need to be maintained once their usefulness had run its course. They weren't moral laws which is what God's laws mainly dealt with.

At any rate, MSB's answer is far more succinct and to the point.