Quote:
Originally Posted by mmm...Jaz 
Wow. You get to pick and choose what to believe and not believe about the Bible? Imagine that.
|
No one said that... I'm not even sure how you came up with that... The Trinity is inferred without the specific word being mentioned...
And I forgot I responded to these and saved it on my desktop:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgman27 
No, it wasn't out of context.
I am not sure how you can put it any context without it being considered to be genocide.
God orders the murder of all the Amalakites in Samuel. He orders the death of all men, women and children.
"Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey" Samuel 15:3.
|
That request was for Saul and nobody else. Thanking you for proving my point by taking a piece of conversation and taking it out of context by misdirection. And since the birth of Jesus and the New Testament, God does not punish sin with death which makes your example completely irrelevant... You also fail to mention the preceeding verse: "'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt." Apparently, the Amalekites weren't very nice and were indeed not the unfortunate, innocent bystanders of some random case of genocide...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf825 
Why? Anything that is claimed to BE historically accurate IS up to debate--because its accuracy, facts and claimed correct account of occurrences needs to be verified if it is expected to stand up to any scrutiny and eventually be held without 'question'. IMO the bible has not done that..and that may be personal view which would be an agree to disagree thing..at least for historical accuracy in purpose. For lesson learning purposes--it has exceeded any book published to date on the parable and moral lessons that should be looked at and learned from and weighed...but for accurate proven 'history'? 
|
The writings of the Bible are congruent with many secular writings and archaeological findings; there are many parts of the Bible that are indeed viewed "without question". These accuracies, I believe, lend credibility towards the book as a whole. Granted, there are many "holes" in the Bible and parts that are both highly debated and considered far from fact. This is common with much of our ancient history. Regardless, the Bible is at least partially true. That is indisputable.
And, no offense, Jaz. But I consider random youtube videos in a religious debate to be about as "respectable" as Jon Stewart videos in a political debate... I did watch them and they're more of the same petty discrepancies that hinge on semantics and translation. For example, the first author chastises God for referring to a four-legged insect...which is odd because insect classification began about 6,000 years after that reference was made...and as Gould guesstimates, 99% of all plant and animal species that have existed have already become extinct with most leaving no fossils...(which also trumps the snake reference)... Frankly, pitting some random youtube videos against the best-selling book of all time, is rather ridiculous, imo.