Here is what I mean: if God uses a person's wrong actions to bring about good or to enact His plan, that doesn't justify those actions. The action is evil whether or not good comes of it.

God often brings His will to pass through secondary agents. That is, the plans of God are brought about, very often, by free and responsible human agents, who may very well be sinning and may justly be held accountable by God for their actions.

Many times I will hear Christians comforting each other in difficult times by saying, "Everything is all part of God's plan, it will all work out in the end." Is this line of thinking correct? Under the assumption that everyone has free will, evildoers are committing actions that God still didn't desire, even if God can use the actions for good. In other words, God would have to be constantly scrambling in the backstage to make all the evildoer’s actions work out for the better. But from our observation on earth his tweaking don’t seem to be working at all; most people on earth still die without knowing and accepting Jesus so God’s desire in 1 Timothy 2:4 is left unsatisfied)

In order to avoid this sort of uncertainty, God would have to create the universe and everything in it to follow a sort of blueprint that would work out in the end. Otherwise, there's no telling what the final result would be from our perspective - we would just have to hope that this version of the universe ends up with Satan getting defeated in the endtimes and whatnot. If God is outside of time, and he created time, he not only created all the objects in the universe but the time of all the objects in the universe.

Did I say anything about infallible translations? Did I say anything about lack of error in copying processes?

You didn't, but in order for me to believe that I had the same infallible bible that people 1,500 years ago did, I'd have to accept a belief in those as well.

Ok, so tell me what Jesus was really like, since you obviously can see through all of the errors.

I can't do that, because of the errors. But I don't need to have figured out a flawless description of Jesus to have doubts about the accuracy of existing testimonies, if the existing testimonies don't match up.

But this is exactly what one would expect from four accounts written from different sources, gathered over a forty-year period. Also keep in mind that the Gospels weren't necessarily written in chronological order and that the details don't necessarily contradict one another.

You are right in that some of the details I listed don't necessarily contradict each other. But on those occasions inerrancy requires one to believe that two authors gave half the story and nobody gave the whole story. This is quite irritating.

There are some real contradictions in the Gospels, though.

There's an incident in which a centurion's servant is healed through faith alone. But there's a disagreement between Matthew and Luke. Matthew 8:5-6 says that the centurion came to Jesus in person, and Jesus spoke to him directly. Luke 7:1-10 says that the centurion merely sent elders to go talk to Jesus and it is made very clear that the centurion never sees Jesus. This can't really be explained by saying the passages are talking about 2 different incidents because the same speech about authority is given in both.

Mark and Luke say that Jesus healed a blind man near Jericho. Mark 10:46 says that Jesus encountered him as he was entering Jericho. But Luke 181 says that Jesus encountered him while exiting Jericho.

Matthew 11:11-14 says that John the Baptist is Elijah. John 1:21 says that John the Baptist isn't Elijah. (And if John the Baptist isn't Elijah, then he isn't fulfilling the prophecy in Malachi 4:5.)

Mark 14:12-18 says that the Last Supper was the Passover. But John 13:27-30 says that the Last Supper was the day of preparation for Passover. Inerrantists have widely differing opinions on which Gospel is correct.

In Mark 14:45-47, after Jesus is seized by the soldiers, one of Jesus' followers attacks with a sword. Matthew 26:49-51 agrees, and is even more explicit about the order. However, when Luke retells this story, he can't present things in this order, because he wants to mention that Jesus healed the man (a detail only found in Luke). Thus, he reorders events so that Jesus is still free when the man's ear is cut off in Luke 22:47-51.

In Mark 10:35-37, the brothers James and John asked to sit at the side of Jesus in Heaven. On the other hand, Matthew 20:20-21 has it that the request came from their mother.

According to both Matthew and Mark, Jesus once cursed a fig tree. The accounts differ over whether it died immediately. Matthew 21:18-20 says that the fig tree died at once, and the disciples wondered how the fig tree could wither so fast. Mark 11:12-14, and 11:19-21 says that Jesus cursed the fig tree, and the disciples heard him. The next day, they wandered by the same fig tree and saw that it had wilted. Even Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry admits that this is a problem. [Link to article]

There's a short list to start out with.

Were you perhaps expecting four completely consistent and unproblematic accounts? How plausible would that be?

That would be what I'd expect from an infallible book inspired by God.

Of course you also ignored the most significant miracle that all four Gospels agree on: the resurrection. I recommend N.T. Wright's excellent scholarly study on the subject.

I'll make a note to check out his work in the future. However, there seem to be contradictions with the resurrection accounts as well.

According to Matthew 28:1-2, Mary and Mary Magdalene went to the tomb at dawn on the first day of the week. As they did so, the stone blocking it was moved aside by an angel. The angel speaks to them, and they leave with joy to tell the disciples. John 20:1-2 also describes an early morning visit by Mary Magdalene to the tomb. She finds the tomb deserted and tells Simon Peter and John that the body had been stolen. If Mary met an angel at the tomb, and then Jesus himself (as Matthew says) then why would she merely report that the body had been stolen?

When one is reading any ancient text, one can't take the grossest, most impossible interpretation of it, and then lambaste the authors as savage.

I don’t think I’m taking a gross, impossible interpretation – rather a realistic one, rather than the sugar coated interpretations I so often see that ignore the more unsightly aspects. At the very least, our viewpoints balance each other out.

Yes Israelites were allowed to trade their foreign slaves. Big deal. They had slavery instead of prison (far more moral in my mind to what you have today which is essentially isolation, unemployment, little victim restitution, and a lot of awful prisoner-on-prisoner abuse for things like theft).

They only used slavery as punishment for a select few things. Instead of the prison we have today, they often used capital punishment (carried out by stoning, or in some instances, fire). Is that more moral than what we have today?

The important moral issue is how foreigners came to be Hebrew slaves - usually it was through the capture of invading troops. You're thinking about biblical slavery as if it was one and the same with the African slave trade of the 1700's.

Captured troops wouldn’t become Hebrew slaves – they would become foreign slaves. There are at least two systems of slavery in the bible, as I’m sure your aware. Leviticus 25:44-46 is why I think of the foreign version of biblical slavery as if it was similar to the African slave trade of the 1700’s.

Open a commentary and you will find that the slave who had his ear pierced was subject to his master for life, that is till the year of jubilee – a time when his ancestral land was returned to him.

Incorrect – reread Exodus 21:2-6 please.

You were not required to take a wife, and if you had a wife before you were a slave, you took her out with you. How is that unfair?

Because the jubilee law didn’t apply to the wife and children like it did to the men. So it meant that slaveowners could get their male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by offering him a wife, and if he accepts, keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

The Exodus 21 scripture you disregard sets out the vows that grooms and bride took then, and still take today. They protect a spouse from neglect and abuse and was one of the grounds of divorce in the Old Testament.

The issue is not so much with the marriage itself as rather with the fact that fathers could sell their daughters as slaves for money, and the daughter slaves would never be freed like the men because the year of jubilee did not apply to them. (Exodus 21:7)

MinotaurforAslan would be interested to learn that Israel's kings, in particular, seemed to treat their own people very poorly, and with Biblical approval of Jehovah's prophets they were not only assassinated on a regular basis, but their whole families were executed as well.

Oh, I know it well. King David was the only king one could really consider to be "good" that Israel ever had. Saul, Solomon, Jeroboam I, Jeroboam II, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Ahab, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, Jehu...the list of atrocious kings they had is staggering. One could say that God was teaching the Israelites a lesson that earthly kings are bad since they were the ones who requested a king in the first place, but if that's the case, dang, God teaches really hard lessons.

I have a question about repentance. When people talk about repentance, they usually say it's not just about asking forgiveness. It's also about turning away from sin, and stopping doing what you're doing. A lot of people also say that if you're not truly repentant, you won't be forgiven...So what exactly are the "specifications", if you will? What counts as true repentance and what doesn't?...And what do you do if you find out you aren't repentant, but don't seem to have the will/willpower to change that?...Is it the wanting to stop that counts, even if you are unable to do so?...And what about sins we don't want to stop?

Protestants probably have more than a dozen opinions on this subject, but I know the Roman Catholics deal with it by simply saying that one needs to be in a state of grace to go to heaven. This can be be brought about in several different ways, including the sacrament of confession/reconciliation and purgatory.

Many times I will hear Christians comforting each other in difficult times by saying, "Everything is all part of God's plan, it will all work out in the end." Is this line of thinking correct? Under the assumption that everyone has free will, evildoers are committing actions that God still didn't desire, even if God can use the actions for good. In other words, God would have to be constantly scrambling in the backstage to make all the evildoer’s actions work out for the better. But from our observation on earth his tweaking don’t seem to be working at all

Yes and no. We have to distinguish between what God commands and wants us to do and what He allows to happen. God is always in control: nothing takes Him by surprise or thwarts His purpose. The problem is often exactly what you said: our perspective is limited and we cannot see all ends or know what God's purpose is. What we do know is that God does work all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Rom 8:28).

There's a sense in which God desires that all be saved, yet we also know from Scripture that God has elected some from before the foundation of the world. I also think that these truths can be comforting---for the right people at the right times. I'm very careful about talking about Divine Sovereignty with grieving and hurting people because sometimes those particular truths are not what people need to hear. Sometimes they need to hear that Jesus wept.

You didn't, but in order for me to believe that I had the same infallible bible that people 1,500 years ago did, I'd have to accept a belief in those as well.

No you don't. Infallibilists/inerrantists generally reject this belief in order to allow for legitimate debate within the church over translations and manuscripts. But as I said, these debates only make sense in the context of infallibility/inerrancy.

But I don't need to have figured out a flawless description of Jesus to have doubts about the accuracy of existing testimonies, if the existing testimonies don't match up.

But really, the testimonies do match up---you're just not reading them correctly. As I said, different people may report the same event accurately yet with differing or apparently conflicting details.

But on those occasions inerrancy requires one to believe that two authors gave half the story and nobody gave the whole story. This is quite irritating.

So? Was the Bible written for your convenience? The Bible annoys me too, but that doesn't make it less true: it means I have to think about it. Infallibility is no excuse for intellectual laziness.

There's an incident in which a centurion's servant is healed through faith alone. But there's a disagreement between Matthew and Luke. Matthew 8:5-6 says that the centurion came to Jesus in person, and Jesus spoke to him directly. Luke 7:1-10 says that the centurion merely sent elders to go talk to Jesus and it is made very clear that the centurion never sees Jesus. This can't really be explained by saying the passages are talking about 2 different incidents because the same speech about authority is given in both.

No, but it very well could be explained by cultural idiom. It was assumed in the Ancient Near East that what a man did by means of his servants he did himself (part of the point of the passage). If the centurion sent a servant with orders, the assumption was that the centurion himself was present.

Mark and Luke say that Jesus healed a blind man near Jericho. Mark 10:46 says that Jesus encountered him as he was entering Jericho. But Luke 181 says that Jesus encountered him while exiting Jericho.

Attributable to the geography of Jericho, actually. One passed through the ruins of old Jericho en route to the Roman town.

Matthew 11:11-14 says that John the Baptist is Elijah. John 1:21 says that John the Baptist isn't Elijah.

At the same time and in the same relationship? Also, in John, it is John the Baptist himself speaking. He wasn't literally Elijah, yet he was in the Spirit of Elijah---he fulfills the role of Elijah.

Look, I'm not saying that there aren't problems, simply that you can't really make sense of them unless you assume inerrancy. All of these are fairly minor details, many of which are due to our modern western assumptions about what constitutes fact.

If Mary met an angel at the tomb, and then Jesus himself (as Matthew says) then why would she merely report that the body had been stolen?

When I read this story, I look at it with the benefit of hindsight. Consider Mary's predicament: she's really confused! What's she supposed to believe here?

As I said, it partly comes down to your assumptions. There is no such thing as neutrality, no neutral ground to argue from. If you assume that the Bible is inspired, then the problems aren't an obstacle, and if you don't, then the problems are essentially irrelevant because they are a mere excuse for not acccepting the testimony.

TBG

Oh, I know it well. King David was the only king one could really consider to be "good" that Israel ever had. Saul, Solomon, Jeroboam I, Jeroboam II, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Ahab, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, Jehu...the list of atrocious kings they had is staggering. One could say that God was teaching the Israelites a lesson that earthly kings are bad since they were the ones who requested a king in the first place, but if that's the case, dang, God teaches really hard lessons.

Even David wasn't perfect, as the Bible (and our minister) makes clear. Yes, he was a good and revered king, but there was that little matter of Bathsheba and what he did to Uriah. What made him a good king was that he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, recognising when he was wrong, and repenting of those actions, though he still married Bathsheba. His son, Solomon started off good but ended up bad, mainly due to too many wives, too much taxation and a love of luxury. When Rehoboam followed suit, there was a split between Israel and the southern Hebrew kingdom of Judah, in which the unbroken line of David continued as kings, up until the fall of Jerusalem in 582 BC.

And therein likes an answer to the behaviour of the kings of the Northern Kingdom, and the disapproval they earned from Yahweh. They weren't anointed kings of anywhere. But they were just as luxurious and self-indulgent as was Solomon, and they were too busy suppressing revolts and murdering their predecessors, with or without approval, to rule justly or make wise decisions. Jeroboam led the rebellion against Rehoboam, Solomon's son, who remained as king, ruling the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and probably Simeon. The kingdom of Israel was headed by a series of rebels without much legitimacy, and so it was continually up for grabs.

Only Omri, the father of Ahab, managed to establish a dynasty, and then for not very long. Even Ahab, a fairly capable king, who died at the Battle of Qarqar, fighting against Shalmaneser III, was considered a bad king, mainly on account of Jezebel and her actions. Ahab, Jehu and Omri definitely existed: they are attested to on several ancient steles, including the one in the British Museum. Bits of ivory have been found from Ahab's ivory palace all over the place, including in Nineveh, and even a seal belonging to Jezebel has been found.

Jehu, who succeeded Jezebel's son, called either Ahaziah or confusingly, Jehoram, should have been disqualified on traffic offences alone. But this king, depicted on a stele, paying obeisance to Shalmaneser III, was criticized in the Bible for the bloodthirsty way in which he demolished all of Ahab's kindred, babies and all. Jehu might have had the blessing of Yahweh's prophets to take the Israelite throne, but it seems he overdid his enthusiasm for killing, just like he overdid his driving. It seems also, using Wikipedia information, that under another Jehoram, the husband of Jezebel's daughter, Athaliah, Ahab's Judahite descendants did continue.

It seems like it is necessary to read both Kings and Chronicles to work out what really was going on. Jehoram, Ahab's son-in-law, was the son of Jehoshaphat of Judah. But did Jehoshaphat really jump? Where did that particular American expression, 'jumping Jehoshaphat', come from?

Just a quick comment there wagga. Jeroboam I was actually given the same promise that was given to Saul and David. God said if Jeroboam would follow his commands, his line would remain on the throne of the northern kingdom as would David's line. But Jeroboam did not do that, as shown by his placing of the idols as Bethel and Dan (I think those are the two places). But that is the only time a northern king was given that chance. Jehu might have been, but it's been a while since I read his story.

And as Minotaur suggested, God allowed the kingdoms to have bad kings in part to show Israel the sin in asking for a king. But that lesson was mostly seen in Saul and God chose to work through the system Israel chose by having a king. And generation after generation reaped the fruit of that choice in 1 Samuel.

It is amazing when you study Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, realizing this really was history. There is so much the Bible only touches on that was going on and to see the historical context, we learn a lot about why these people made the choices they did.

I didn't know that about Jeroboam1! It was one of those little details that eluded me. Jeroboam 1 was the Israelite king when the Pharaoh Shishak invaded the area we now call Palestine. Not the first and definitely not the last invader.

It is amazing when you study Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, realizing this really was history. There is so much the Bible only touches on that was going on and to see the historical context, we learn a lot

Yes this part of the Bible is either the direct chronicles of the Ancient kings kept by the college of prophets, maybe at Shiloh, or it is at least a fairly detailed 2nd edition overview of those chronicles, edited into single cohesive narratives. It positively screams verisimilitude, especially when Pharaohs Shishak and Necho are mentioned, allowing us to measure exactly when these events occurred. There is also quite a bit of detail concerning Elijah and Elisha, and I doubt that anyone would notice the sound scientific basis for Elijah's miracle with the burned offerings on Mount Carmel.

This is the one with the priests of Baal and their offerings. Elijah drowned his offering in water, but it was his offering, not those of the priests which was consumed. A stray, and very timely bolt of lightning hit Elijah's offering, allowing it to be burned. Did I mention that water conducts electricity?

Now I'm not saying God is in the electricity, but a keen observer at the time might have noticed that there was something there that the Baal priests didn't know, and neither did we for millenia.

But that isn't all, folks. Kings and Chronicles shed quite a bit of light on prophecy, especially the tale of Jonah going to Nineveh. Jonah was the prophet mentioned by Jesus. It seems that he predicted that Nineveh would fall due to its sinful nature. Nineveh repented, so God spared Nineveh, at least for that time. The reckoning came a generation or two later. Hosea, with the same name as the last King of Israel, famously had a very turbulent married life, which was to be an analogy for God's relationship with Israel at the time. Whilst Hosea, the King, 'forgot' to pay Israel's tribute to Shalmaneser V who besieged Samaria. The rest is history.

There are also lessons to be learned from these ancient kings in both politics and business, that some of our current leaders ignore at their peril. Ever heard of the powerful CEO of a large company, running an essential service, who decided to cut staff, staff salaries, and to remove its services to overseas operators, whilst giving himself a huge pay rise? And then wondering why there was suddenly a lot of protest, strike action etc?

Or the leader of government who sacks people left, right and centre, freezes wages, and privatises essential government services, whilst giving himself a pay increase?

I'm sure you have. Meet a modern day Rehoboam or Jeroboam.

Mod Note:

As you all know discussion of politics is not allowed on NarniaWeb. Please stay focused on the topics listed in the thread title: Christianity, Religion, or Philosophy. There's plenty to go around without touching the unpleasant topic of politics in here.

Thanks in advance!

Shadowlander

There were two Jeroboam in the Northern Kingdom. The one I'm talking about was the first king of 'Israel' and was contemporary to Solomon's son Rehoboam. Jeroboam II was much later down the road after Ahab (but have to look up exactly when). I think Jeroboam II is the one you are thinking of.

The prophecies of the OT are something skeptics have long hated to discuss. We have proven the dates they are written are well before the events that took place and they took place exactly as were written. Jesus have 347 prophecies about his life (maybe more, but that was the last number I heard). For one random person to fit just 8 of those 347 prophecies is the same odds as filling the entire state of Texas in quarters two feet deep and pulling out just one at random. I don't know about some of you but Texas is a BIG state. And Jesus filled every one of the 347 prophecies to the T. Mind-boggling.

Mod Note:

As you all know discussion of politics is not allowed on NarniaWeb. Please stay focused on the topics listed in the thread title: Christianity, Religion, or Philosophy. There's plenty to go around without touching the unpleasant topic of politics in here.

Hmmm. Technically, it was ancient history politics at the root of the problems experienced by the two Biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Unfortunately. Rehoboam provided the classic example of what not to do for a leader wanting to introduce change. Read all about it in 1 Kings 12: 1-19.

As the old men did tell him, in the quoted verse below, the people weren't going to co-operate if they saw nothing in Rehoboam's style of government that would benefit themselves. What any amount of business and management texts warn about the most politic and useful way of introducing change.

7 And they spoke unto him, saying: 'If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever.'

The deeds of Rehoboam and his equally sinful and useless Israelite successors are well documented, not only in Kings and Chronicles , but also in other contemporary sources, including clay tablets, steles set up by various monarchs, and by references to be found in the 13 minor Biblical prophets and some of the major ones, Isaiah and Jeremiah in particular.

The thing to remember about Jeroboam is that he was chummy with Shoshenq, so that explains why that Pharaoh would sack Jerusalem. Jeroboam 1 did put down those calf idols at Bethel and Dan, the former being disputed territory between Judah and Israel. It seems that the purpose of those idols, especially the one at Bethel, was to stop people feeling obligated to go to Jerusalem for worship, and it also served as a border marker. According to Wikipedia, Jeroboam's line finished with the hapless Zimri, who was murdered by Omri, whose own line finished at the hands of Jehu, a general.

Jeroboam II was Jehu's great-grandson, and, according to this article, ruled over the most prosperous period Israel was ever likely to have. They gained great wealth through the production of olive oil and other things, but the upper class tended to hog the wealth for themselves. But he and his entourage were denounced by prophets like Jonah, Amos, Hosea, and Joel for their selfishness and their treatment of the poor, as well as his continuing support for the idols at Bethel and Dan, in opposition to Jerusalem. So yes, Fencer, this is the Jeroboam meant by my last post.

Jehu's line finished with Jeroboam's son, Zechariah, who was murdered, and the remainder of the Israelite kings were appointed by whichever conspiracy was going, it would seem. By then, the growing power of Assyrian kings like Tiglath-Pileser III, Shalmaneser V, Sargon then Sennacherib was one of the drivers for what happened next in both kingdoms. Ahaz, the father of the biblical Hezekiah was the one who appealed to Tiglath-Pileser III, to stop Pekah, the then Israelite king, who was allied to Rezim, king of Aram, from threatening Jerusalem.

Wagga, I understand your position, but politics are politics, whether they be present day, stone age, or ancient Judean. We have rules here, and we expect you (and everybody in this thread) to abide by them. Opening the door even in the least bit, can allow thoroughly nasty conversations onto the forum; this has proven itself time and time again.

These are our rules, and it is our job to enforce the rules. Drop the conversation about politics. Period. End of discussion.

The other Mods and I are unanimous on this.

I have a question about repentance. When people talk about repentance, they usually say it's not just about asking forgiveness. It's also about turning away from sin, and stopping doing what you're doing. A lot of people also say that if you're not truly repentant, you won't be forgiven..... So what exactly are the "specifications", if you will? What counts as true repentance and what doesn't?

And what do you do if you find out you aren't repentant, but don't seem to have the will/willpower to change that?

I know people who swear. Then they ask forgiveness. Then they end up doing it again. Sometimes they do it again, not just by accident when they stub their toe or something, but in regular conversation. Are they not forgiven?

Is it the wanting to stop that counts, even if you are unable to do so?

One of the scripture teachers who bravely faced my weekly scripture class informed us that repentance is a process, not necessarily a single event. It may involve several stages, most or all of them involving a term starting with either the letter 'r' or the prefix 're'. The trouble is, that when I heard this teacher was a good fifty years ago, and I can't remember everything that was said.

I think such terms might involve recognition. That is to say, you realise what is wrong with what you are doing, and that there may be consequences to yourself or others. It might also involve retribution, that is to say, consequences like punishment, and the repentant person would realise that due penalties have to be paid. And it might involve restitution, another facet of retribution and punishment, especially if past wrongdoing involves damages to other people or their property.

What you seem to be mistaking repentance for is remorse, the feeling of regret and sorrow because of any consequences or harm that has been done, and definitely one of the stages of repentance. The difference between remorse and repentance is that whereas remorse will cause anguish and self-loathing, repentance involves something more, a complete change of heart, and a realisation that to change one's habits one needs help.

The way forward, is grace, which includes redemption, and restoration by God's forgiveness. That includes refraining from sinning any more, which may involve analysing what it is that causes one to sin. If lawless or self-destructive behaviour is a problem, the answer may include attending Alcoholics Anonymous if addiction to alcohol is the reason, for example. If swearing is the problem, praying to God and reflecting on what makes one swear may allow one to find other solutions to this sort of behaviour.

There is something very right in they way God said to deal with theft. It is intuitive, and quite apart from chopping off both hands as the ancient Babylonians did, or one hand as I am told Islam commands, or with the death penalty or exile to the colonies as with early England, or with imprisonment with murderers and rapists in isolation as with modern England. Prison is a very recent invention - less than two hundreds years old - a blink in time in terms of civilizations. Trust the spiritual founder of socialism to turn boredom into a punishment!

In Sunday's sermon, the minister pointed out that in the Middle Ages the penalty for theft in even Christian countries could involve chopping off the culprit's right hand, & left hand for a repeat offender. The minister mentioned a thief who, having lost both his hands, then tried to steal using his teeth. What then?

As a matter of interest, imprisonment as a punishment is a bit more ancient than is generally realised. Joseph, one of the sons of Jacob, was imprisoned in Egypt, and also his brother Simeon. Jeremiah was imprisoned for his prophetic warnings against Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. St Paul and other apostles, eg Barnabas, spent time in prison, and even Elizabeth I was imprisoned in the Tower of London at one stage of her career. When imprisonment in UK became too unwieldy, transportation provided one answer, especially after the American Revolution. Imprisonment has become more popular more recently as an alternative to execution.

Yes and no. We have to distinguish between what God commands and wants us to do and what He allows to happen. God is always in control: nothing takes Him by surprise or thwarts His purpose. The problem is often exactly what you said: our perspective is limited and we cannot see all ends or know what God's purpose is. What we do know is that God does work all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Rom 8:28).

I can see how the Christian would think this way. However, I can't bring myself to accept it, because it explains away every situation. If Christians are blessed on Earth, one can say that it is yet another example of God's blessings upon his children. If Christians are poor or persecuted, one can quote the Beatitudes and say that any suffering on earth doesn't really matter because it will be repaid infinityfold up in heaven. In order to accept this worldview, I would have to do so entirely on faith, because the world events to not validate or invalidate it. I just don't have the faith, and that is all there is to it.

But really, the testimonies do match up---you're just not reading them correctly. As I said, different people may report the same event accurately yet with differing or apparently conflicting details.

I read an interesting article yesterday about shape-shifters and hallucinations in the Bible. Many times God uses audible and visible hallucinations to trick people. He scares an army away in 2 Kings 7:6 by making them hear the fearful sound of an even bigger army coming to attack them. Jesus walked away from an angry crowd about to push him off a cliff presumably by blinding their eyes to him (Luke 4:30). Jesus even managed to walk next to two of his close friends for hours and eat dinner with them without having them recognize him (Luke 24: 13-34), and Mark 16:12 tells us that Jesus changed form. The article asks that if shape-shifters and supernatural hallucinations can occur in a Biblical worldview, wouldn't that affect the validity of eyewitness testimony?

So? Was the Bible written for your convenience? The Bible annoys me too, but that doesn't make it less true: it means I have to think about it. Infallibility is no excuse for intellectual laziness.

I would certainly hope that the Bible wasn't written for my inconvenience, but that unfortunately seems to be the case. The Bible can be incredibly confusing with misguided interpretations or lack of background knowledge or many other things. With more than 30,000 denominations that have wildly differing ideas on salvation, Christianity today seem to be the exact opposite of God's original intentions to have his followers be united.

I shouldn't have to have a PhD in cultural anthropology to understand Hebrew idioms used in the Bible. Imagine how difficult it would be for an indigenous person that had no concept of ownership to understand Jesus's parables. If there was any being that could create a universally understandable book about how to achieve salvation and help others do the same, it would be an omnipotent God. But the Bible doesn't seem to be an example of that.

Look, I'm not saying that there aren't problems, simply that you can't really make sense of them unless you assume inerrancy.

I don't think this would be the best way to phrase it. I'll admit that I when writing my post I was looking specifically looking for contradictions under the assumption of errancy, but that was just for the purpose of the post. In order to make sense of them, I should be able to find explanations simply from an honest attempt to discern truth from lies. Assuming something's true and then searching for justification is on the same level as assuming something's false and then searching for justification.

As I said, it partly comes down to your assumptions. There is no such thing as neutrality, no neutral ground to argue from. If you assume that the Bible is inspired, then the problems aren't an obstacle, and if you don't, then the problems are essentially irrelevant because they are a mere excuse for not acccepting the testimony.

This could be said by a defender of any religious book, though. :/

Person A: Do you believe book A is true?
Person B: No, I haven't seen it before.
Person A: Here's a copy, why don't you read it?
*Person B reads the book, and talks to Person A a few days later*
Person B: I think I see some problems with it.
Person A: I don't think there are any problems with book A, because I believe it's true.
Person B: Then how do you explain the problems I think I see?
Person A: You have to start with the assumption that there are no problems.
Person B: So I have to believe book A is true before I can study it's truthfulness?
Person A: If you studied book A's truthfulness right now, you wouldn't look hard enough for the truth. You'd just stop whenever you saw an apparent falsehood, and feel justified in ending your studies. You wouldn't spend hours, days, or weeks studying the historical details, cultural context, alternate translations, and reading commentaries with possible explanations.
Person B: Fair enough. Do you believe book B is true?
Person A: No, I've never read it.
Person B: Here's a copy, why don't you read it?
Person A: Well, I don't think I need to.
Person B: Why not?
Person A: Because I already believe that book A is the only true book. If I wanted to study book B's truthfulness, I'd have to assume that book B was true. Therefore, I'd have to denounce my belief in book A, which I can't do.
Person B: Then I think neither of us is ever going to get anywhere in convincing the other of anything here.

Can I give you just one example of how you treat a near impossible interpretation as the gospel truth?

Exodus 21.18-21 sets out how free men and slaves are treated in cases of non-fatal assault. The text make no distinction between the treatment of a slave and free man, with the exception that a slave does not get his loss of time covered. This is because the Jewish version of a slave has already sold his time to his master (six years labour).
...
Exodus 21.19c Only he shall pay the free man's sitting (loss of time); He shall give healing he shall heal.
Exodus 21.19c But the slave is his silver.

You can see that part 19c is about when compensation is payable or not for 'sitting'. God is saying that the corrupt master is responsible for his slave health care (as per usual), but he is not responsible to pay his slave compensation for loss of time because the master already purchased his labour for silver when he bought him as a temporary slave. That sounds brilliant to me!

So what you're saying here is that the idea behind the law is to discourage slave owners from beating their slaves so hard that they can't work anymore because it would only equal lost labor for them. That sounds all right...so far. But let's keep going...

The only alternative translation to this is to interpret 'stands up' as something else - i.e., 'if [for only] day or days he [remains] standing up'. Even if you took this rather weak interpretation (a slave who you unjustly hit got up and walked around quite normally for a week before falling down dead) it would be hard to attribute to the original blow to his eventual death a week later, even in a modern court. But to me it doesn't mean much - it is not the sort of thing you can build legislation around. The first translation is much more plausible and that is what the most common English translation says in the NIV (stand up = recovers).

I decided to do a bit of research on Exodus 21:21 to see which interpretation was really correct. I used http://bible.cc/ (an excellent online Biblical resource) to check 16 alternate translations of Exodus 21:21. I also read some pro-Christian biblical commentaries on the passage. The wording of 12/16 (75%) of the translations and all of the commentaires supported the alternate interpretation you dismissed above. Here's a sample of them.

English Standard Version: But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
New American Standard Bible: If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
King James Bible: Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Bible in Basic English: But, at the same time, if the servant goes on living for a day or two, the master is not to get punishment, for the servant is his property.
Douay-Rheims Bible: But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money.
Darby Bible Translation: Only, if he continue to live a day or two days, he shall not be avenged; for he is his money.
Young's Literal Translation: only if he remain a day, or two days, he is not avenged, for he is his money.[/list3e202qzt]

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible says,

"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two,".... And does not die immediately, or the same day, but lives twenty four hours, as the Jewish writers interpret it; so Abendana (footnote 1) explains the phrase, "a day or two";"a day which is as two days, and they are twenty four hours from time to time,''that is, from the time he was smitten to the time of his continuance; and so it is elsewhere explained (footnote 2) by a day we understand a day, which is like two days, that is, from time to time, the meaning of which is, from a certain time in one day to the same in another.

(footnote 1) Not. in Miclol Yophi in loc.
(footnote 2) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Zabim, c. 2. sect. 3.

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible says,

If the slave who had been beaten by his master died under his hand, the master was punished with death - see Genesis 9:5, Genesis 9:6. But if he survived the beating a day or two the master was not punished, because it might be presumed that the man died through some other cause. And all penal laws should be construed as favourably as possible to the accused.

The conclusion of my research spanning numerous pro-Christian resources supported my interpretation. The final sentence in the excerpt of Clark's commentary was the point I was trying to get across - the laws were set up to favor the accused, not the victim.

What do you consider the right punishment for a man who, say, steals livestock in the ancient world? The Bible says that the thief must return the livestock to his victim, plus pay a fine depending on whether he on-sold the stolen property or killed the livestock. The fine also depended on the value of the property stolen (the penalty rate was higher for oxen than for sheep). There is something very right in they way God said to deal with theft.

I don't recall ever taking issue with this particular aspect of Hebrew legislation. But I suppose you brought it up to argue with me about how God's system of punishment is better than prison. I don't think one can make a good comparison here.

It is intuitive, and quite apart from chopping off both hands as the ancient Babylonians did, or one hand as I am told Islam commands, or with the death penalty or exile to the colonies as with early England, or with imprisonment with murderers and rapists in isolation as with modern England. Prison as a punishment is a very recent invention - less than two hundreds years old - a blink in time in terms of civilizations. Trust the spiritual founder of socialism to turn boredom into a punishment!

Prison is a recent invention because modern society as we know it only developed recently. There are many reasons we use prison today instead of Hebrew punishment methods. In a gigantic society, prison is a far easier form of punishment to administer because everyone is able to pay for crimes with time. Not everyone can pay for crimes with money, because not everyone would have sufficient money. Thus, they would have to be thrown into slavery, and that sort of thing would be too difficult to regulate and too easy to take advantage of in modern society.

For example, it's like the Hebrew punishment for rapists. You might be able to make the argument that a rapist should marry the woman he raped in ancient Israel because in that culture a woman could never marry if she lost her virginity and at least the rapist would provide her with bed and board. But there's absolutely no way such a law would work in modern society, where women are afraid to even report rapists because they don't even want to see them again (since they'd have to in court). Imagine the trauma the poor women would face, having to spend the rest of their lives with the men who violated them in the most brutally intimate way. I just don't think you can make sweeping claims that one system of law is better than the other - it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Also, I don't see how throwing a mass murderer into isolation for 30 years until he dies to be kinder than execution if evidence is available. The cruel Babylonians would have considered us cruel and usual! And they would be right! Cruel AND gutless. Exodus is both kind and has a backbone to both victims and perpetrators.

From a Christian perspective, I'd see the 30 year isolation to be a much better alternative to execution. For one thing, it would hand the responsibility of killing the murderer over to God, since God could choose to kill the murderer in prison by whatever causes at the moment he chose. In this post-new covenant age, deciding when people should die doesn't seem very Christian to me. Additionally, heinous criminals are usually given the opportunity to at least read books while in prison for life (that's reportedly how Bernie Madoff passes his time). Who knows, maybe the evil man will read the Bible and accept Christ during those 30 years! An eternity of bliss for a soul could be gained from allowing the criminal more time to live! From a Christian worldview, what is exactly wrong with this?

The issue about Jubilee and how it applied to a life-long slave is an issue of superiority. Which takes precedence - The law of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:10) or the law of awl (Exodus 21.5-6)? You realise the entire Hebrew law code was structured according to a hierarchy? (Remember the question Jesus was asked “Which is the greatest commandment [in cases of clashes]”).

Regarding this issue, I'll admit I made a mistake when I wrote my original post. I confused the Sabbatical Year with the year of Jubilee. I am sorry that I prompted you to write out so many paragraphs to refute this.

Wrong. Most offences in ancient Israel had financial consequences - even most capital offenses were commuted to fines with the exception of blatant violations (Numbers 35.31) .

I'm confused here. I see dozens of laws calling for nothing other than punishment by death. A small sample:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
If evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, gods of any other nations: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed. (Numbers 1:48)
Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death. (Exodus 31:15)

The death penalty (and other penalties) wasn't just limited to murderers. Were you implying that one could buy their way out of the death penalty for doing things besides murders, and then earn the money by being a slave? That's something I've never heard of before. It doesn't seem to fit with some passages I remember from the Bible, particularly Numbers 15:32-36, where a man was stoned instantly for collecting sticks on the sabbath.

Wrong again. Are you trying to make out that the Jewish punishment of cremation (say 2 Kings 23.16-18, Genesis 38.24, Lev 21.9) was actually the burning of criminals ALIVE?!

Only one of the verses you cited above, the one from 2 Kings, actually talks about the act of cremation. These are the other two verses you cited; the ones I was familiar with.

About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant." Judah said, "Bring her out and have her burned to death!" (Genesis 38:24)

If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she also defiles her father's holiness, and she must be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)

When I read those verses, I thought they meant that they were actually going to burn those people alive. I got further confused when I cited those verses in an earlier discussion with TBG as evidence of burning to death in the Bible and he ended up conceding that I was right.

You mean it was exactly the same, apart from the allowance of all public holidays and festivals (!), the ability of a foreign slave to own their own property, buy their own freedom, and receive the protection of law like a Jewish person. Yes EXACTLY the same.

I didn't say that. I said the foreign slavery in the Bible was merely similar to the African Slave Trade of the 1700's because of the way the slaves were bought, sold, possessed permanently and could be handed down through generations as inheritance.

And I'm not sure how a foreign slave could buy their own freedom. I thought Leviticus 25:46 was clear. You can will them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.

Most foreign “slaves” lived in their own homes and cities and simply paid a yearly tax and penalty for invading Israel.

I wasn't ever talking about the foreign slaves that were obtained as invading soldiers though. I was talking about the slaves bought from foreign slave traders (and I would hope they wouldn't have to pay a tax since they weren't invading Israel).

Wrong again, bordering on the absurd. Women were released after six years service exactly the same as men (Deut. 15.12). The Jubilee did apply to daughters also (Lev. 25.54) Come on mate! That would be a very odd interpretation of the Hebrew!

As I said earlier, I mixed up the Sabbatical Year with the year of Jubilee in my head when writing my previous post. Sorry about the confusion.

It seems like you haven’t given these verses any more than a cursory glance. It is simplistic non-sense. Watching you navigate Exodus 21 is like watching a 100m hurdle runner who collects all ten hurdles. In fact, your misses were not even close. You remind me of Liesl Von Trapp from the Sound of Music actually! She sings this line, “People I meet, may call me I’m sweet, and willingly I believe!” And I’m shouting at the screen – No! Can’t you see! The postman’s a Nazi!

I can understand your frustration over a mistake on my part, but writing an entire paragraph of insults doesn't really help anyone.

You take this atheistic propaganda 'mail', hook-line-and-sinker without blinking, without searching it out for yourself. And it seems you willingly fall for this rot because you WANT to believe anything that discredits Christianity.

Sir, I'm really trying. I spent the better part of a Sunday afternoon researching the topics you presented and writing this post, because I finally had a good chunk of spare time in-between the busy life I have during the school week. My previous post to you was indeed written quickly and I made a mistake, but I think you might have made a mistake in your response as well. So please, don't think I'm not trying to search out the truth because I don't have the same knowledge that you have from talking to leading bible scholars about this very subject earlier this week. I'm not trying to interpret everything like a Philistine.

If the reason you left Christianity was of the same strength as these kinds of interpretations, your abandonment of the faith is on very shaky ground! If you can be talked out of the truth so very easily, you can be talked IN to anything. What did Lewis say about atheists being a ‘strangely unsuspicious people’?

The reason I am not a Christian is far more complicated and less superficial than unrest over a few rogue verses in the Pentateuch about slavery. Lewis is correct, atheists should not be an unsuspicious people. I don't try to hide from Christianity. I spend on average about 5 hours a week in church. I spend huge amounts of time on this forum debating aspects of theology. And thank you for your conversation with me - so far I've learned quite a bit more about biblical slavery and cleared up a misconception I had in my head.

The article asks that if shape-shifters and supernatural hallucinations can occur in a Biblical worldview, wouldn't that affect the validity of eyewitness testimony?

Maybe I'm not understanding the question here, but how would it, exactly? People are reporting what they see. I'm not sure what sort of a problem you think you see here. Admitting the possibility of hallucinations here is no different from admitting that possibility in a court of law or the laboratory.

I shouldn't have to have a PhD in cultural anthropology to understand Hebrew idioms used in the Bible. Imagine how difficult it would be for an indigenous person that had no concept of ownership to understand Jesus's parables. If there was any being that could create a universally understandable book about how to achieve salvation and help others do the same, it would be an omnipotent God. But the Bible doesn't seem to be an example of that.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Christianity is something that communicates apart from cultural idiom---yet that is not how we understand it. If God communicated apart from human culture, we would not understand Him at all. You also seem to think that the Bible is simply a handbook about how to achieve salvation, when in reality it contains the witness of the self-revelation of God in space and time. God freely chose to reveal Himself in space and time as a particular man in a particular culture. Is that really so hard to understand?

For God to become man, He had to become a particular man in a particular culture at a particular time. There is no humanity apart from humans.

Assuming something's true and then searching for justification is on the same level as assuming something's false and then searching for justification.

But we do this all the time. When Descartes comes up to you and asks you how you know that you are not a brain in a jar who is just hallucinating your experience, you don't generally try to come up with an argument because you don't actually know: you come up with an argument because you know that he's wrong. It's the same with any basic belief: for me, belief in Christianity is on the same epistemic level as belief that there is a desk in front of me right now.

This could be said by a defender of any religious book, though.

All right, so tell me then: what objective criteria do you think there are? How does one judge between worldviews? The problem is that of trying to measure a ruler: you can do it, but only with another ruler.

In order to accept this worldview, I would have to do so entirely on faith, because the world events to not validate or invalidate it. I just don't have the faith, and that is all there is to it.

But what is faith? How is my faith any different from yours?

From a Christian perspective, I'd see the 30 year isolation to be a much better alternative to execution. For one thing, it would hand the responsibility of killing the murderer over to God, since God could choose to kill the murderer in prison by whatever causes at the moment he chose.

You mean from a non-Christian perspective that is. You actually know very little at all about the heart of Christianity don’t you? So quit talking for Christians.

I actually know a lot of Christians who prefer criminals being sent to prisons over being executed. Some of them pastors, and people who are very knowledgeable about the Bible and close to the Lord. The Bible doesn't say we must disapprove of prisons. And if the Bible doesn't say something about an issue, then everyone's thoughts on that issue are an opinion. Different people have different opinions on this particular point. Just because someone favors one opinion over another on this issue, that doesn't make them ignorant of the Bible.

Personally, I think both methods (prison or execution) have their ups and downs. I wouldn't say one is better than another. Equal but different, perhaps?

And that is a good point that inmates can be saved during their prison sentence. I've seen many people who had such a thing happen to them.

~Riella

I don't believe prison or execution are right. Prison - for the reasons already stated and Execution - because only God has the right to give or take lives.

God is "slow to anger", but it isn't right to be more patient than God.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that God has more of a right to be angry than we do. He's perfect; and because He is perfect, He has a right to judge humankind. But as humans, we are sinners judging fellow sinners. We are humankind judging humankind. Even though we should strive to be like Christ, there are still some things Christ did that we cannot. And some things God has a right to do that we do not.

I'm not saying the death penalty is wrong. Actually, I have no idea if it's wrong or not. I definitely believe it was the right thing for Old Testament times, because the Law was something set up by God for that time. But even though we know He set it up for that time, does that mean He wanted it to remain true for this time? This was a part of the Law, and the Law has already been fulfilled.

The question is, how much did Christ's death change? We are no longer under the Law. Instead, we are in the age of Grace. Because of this, God often deals with His people much differently than He did then. But what things are different and what things have changed? And is there a way to know?

What about the scripture where Christ says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" If stoning was appropriate during the time of the Old Testament, why did Christ prevent a stoning in the time of the New Testament?

~Riella