Um, not sure what you're getting at here. But I don't even see a hint
of this contradiction that you speak of. You do realize that the Bible
includes many different types of literature, including: poetry, songs, wisdom sayings and proverbs, letters, law, history, apocalyptic literature... And, you wouldn't read the law and history the same way as the poetry or the apocalyptic literature, right?

Yes, right, like I said in the text you quoted, "a bunch of writings put together, by many authors".

The word month appearing in that same sentence as the sun or moon not being needed, it is possible that they are not needed because of a "splendor" but this is something that jumped out at me.

That seems a silly nit.

They were using it as an expression of time, meaning it's coming all the time as opposed to seasonal.

That's really such a small thing, despite Aaron's portrayal of me I'm not looking to exploit literal hiccups.

The point of the NT is to treat others how you would want to be treated (what a beautiful world that would be), the OT green-lights many things that are the antithesis to that.

I try to follow the NT regardless of any historical or actual accuracy. The number one thing I strive for is to avoid personal hypocrisy.

Basically I try to emulate Jesus whether or not he was fictitious and a proxy for subduement of the lower classes.

Another element of the discussion, is when you are talking about ancient Hebrew, the language itself had less than 10,000 words. The Hebrew
OT uses 8679 unique words.

So, for example the Hebrew word "Yom" translated day in many places
in Genesis, can also mean era, or long period of time, which is why
many Christians believe in an old earth. Another example is the word
translated "erets" translated into "earth" in the Genesis flood account.
This word is almost almost always used in the OT to refer to a local
piece of land. It can mean: earth, land, country or ground. Which is
why many people believe in a local flood, instead of a global flood.

Thanks for sharing these translations.. as well as these different ideas. Expand on "many Christians believe in an old earth" if you want, I think I know what you mean.

Yup, that's me im a nit.

lol I don't care but I find it humorous you changed my comma to a perioud

I will try to fix it :P

Edit: it worked

I really couldn't care less, I just noticed it and found humor in the thought process

I understood capping it before the comma but edited punctuation on a redacted quote was just too much not to mention

The god of the old testament was the god of the Jews. Many times the Jews were commanded to kill all the foreigners in the promised land, including men, women, and children - total genocide. Definitely don't marry foreigners, or tolerate their religions existing in Jerusalem/Israel. Etc..

And when they don't follow those instructions, they get punished! Their god would use the foreigners as pawns, causing them to wage war against the Jews when they were impious.

There are some exceptions, of course, but that is the general trend.

Nuance and character in a book tho

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

The law is still applicable and Jesus has stated it himself. I think many are giving way too much weight to a verse concerning preventing the escalation of physical assaults, in forming your 'God is a big sissy now' hypothesis, thus the apparent contradiction.

Well that's the inverse of my point

It's not who god is now but who god was

I was addressing apparent contradictions, but fwiw, the was and is, seems good to me.

One of the staples of the law is preserving land ownership and inheritance for every family of the nation who adopts it (numbers 33:54) in contrast to every other man made government model which results in a large slave class. (the citizens don't own land and therefore have to negotiate for jobs from a horrible negotiating position)

This is the glory of God and His law.

so to try and make sense of all of this

Herbavorus_Rex thinks God exists sees no contradictions and likes God

Ok I'll clarify further since you didn't seem to understand and are characterizing the position either duplicitously or completely backwards. I'll use similar language to your portrayal.

No, I don't think God (of the NT) is a sissy. I think it's a God of love, a God I would worship.

I think God (of the OT) was an ******* and played favorites with certain people and others were pre-destined to be screwed. It's a totally different 'character'.

Jesus came and saved mankind from that you say? Great. What about the people of the OT? Don't be so self-centered that you can't put yourselves in the shoes of a gentile of the OT and instead focus solely on the blessings that the NT brought with the Good News and His sacrifice.

God isn't a guru handing out cid at woodstock. Simply saying "God is love" isn't very informative. There is nothing in the old testament that excludes "love" as one of his characteristics.


Thusfar, I've only spoke of the blessings of the old testament. Without understanding that Jesus' gospel of the kingdom was about restoring God's laws and government, the document (NT) is fairly useless.

And yet you phrased the position as 'God is a big sissy now'. I was rewording the framing you used.

You're all over the place.

I don't think He's a big sissy, I think the majority of Christians mistakenly think he is though. Therefore, they, as well as atheists see contradictions. (between the NT and OT character of God)

"The law is still applicable and Jesus has stated it himself. I think many are giving way too much weight to a verse concerning preventing the escalation of physical assaults, in forming your 'God is a big sissy now' hypothesis, thus the apparent contradiction." - me

edit - I should have typed "their" instead of "your"...my bad

This...ldo

Right you keep mischaracterizing my position even thought I've held your hand to change it. Duplicitousness it is as I assumed initially. You've got your little playbook and you're going to follow it no matter what I post or ask you.

You equate love of your fellow man and non-violence as being a sissy? Cool, I would want no part of the god you worship.

Non-violence is absurdly naive. Governors need to enforce.

You're correct, it's not pragmatic and a poor choice of wording

I meant to imply non-aggression

In the world of the Golden Rule, violence isn't necessary but we don't live in that world

I think I've come to some understandings of this before but I'm rusty in my logic so I'll continue to read and get back to the thread with questions that pop up

http://www.realclearreligion.org/art...ent_jesus.html

I do have a question for you and the logic you've presented so far though;

So those that Jesus was preaching to was it useless unless they knew what you're saying I'm ignorant to?

I went back and forth between 'utterly useless' and 'fairly useless' when typing that. Understanding that He was imploring the audience, present and future, to restore God's laws, is a very significant concept to grasp when thinking about his ministry.

One other major concept was the teaching that people aren't animals at all, but rather spirit beings that they must be born again as, if they want to return to their original home in heaven. (John ch 3)

But yes, all of the work that God would have one do while on earth, revolves around establishing "the kingdom", so if a person didn't understand that, it's fair to say they're in the dark.

How does one go about establishing the kingdom?

Is it through a personal journey w/ God or an edict of action and deeds?

I assume you were talking about the Holy Spirit within us in much of the above post, no?

Also, harkening back to one of my original questions; were birthed gentiles in the OT basically pre-destined for failure vis a vis a relationship w/ God?