HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › The Bible, Jesus and God - (we cant just go making things up)? a discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bible, Jesus and God - (we cant just go making things up)? a discussion - Page 3

post #41 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTrader View Post
Minor correction. Major difference.

It is not " Thou shalt not kill"

It is "Thou shalt not do murder"




Good Luck
That is actually fascinating and I had to look it up...

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/w...kill-mean.html
Quote:
Q. I am studying the Ten Commandments. Please explain the Sixth commandment "thou shall not kill."

A. The commandment "thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean "you shall not murder." Most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way.

According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10).

Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

The primary reason God hates murder is that out of all creation, only human are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:4-6). Even before the codification of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai the murder of other human beings was wrong (Genesis 4:8-12; 4:23-24; 9:4-6; Exodus 1:16-17). While on earth, Jesus spoke out against murder (Matthew 5:21-26; Mark 10:17-19). We also see in the writings of Paul (Romans 1:18, 29-32; 13:8-10; Galatians 5:19-21), James (James 2:8-11; 4:1-3), Peter (1 Peter 4:15-16) and John (Revelation 9:20-21; 21:7-8; 22:14-15) that murder is wrong.

In Matthew 5:21-26 Jesus amplifies the meaning of the sixth commandment. He brings out that to commit murder means more then just killing someone, it means having an angry and unforgiving attitude towards them:
"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny."
(Matthew 5:21-26, NKJV) The apostle John elaborates on this by writing that to hate someone is the same as murdering them:
"Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." (1John 3:15, NKJV). Murder like all sin, beginnings in the human mind (Matthew 15:18-19; Mark 7:20-23) it starts as a thought, in this case hatred, which leads to the action of murder (James 1:13-15; 4:1-3). The opposite of hating someone is loving them, we should even love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48), seeking not revenge, but looking for ways to help them (Romans 12:17-21).

As we have seen, under the Old Covenant God allowed humans to kill other humans under certain circumstances. But what about today, and those who are now under the New Covenant, should we participate in the execution of a murder or an adulterer? Should Christians involve themselves in warfare? I would argue that Christians should not participate in such activities because the New Covenant is a covenant of life, not of death (2 Corinthians 3:4-11). Under the New Covenant Christians do not execute people for sinning. The most drastic steps anyone can take against an unrepentant Christian are withholding brotherly fellowship from him until he repents (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15); and delivering or handing him over to Satan for spiritual correction (1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:18-20). It is unclear from the scriptures exactly what it means to turn someone over to Satan.

Under the New Covenant a change occurred. Just as Christians are to no longer execute sinners, so they should not wage carnal war, but spiritual warfare (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 10:1-6; Ephesians 6:10-18; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 6:11-14; 2 Timothy 2:3-5; 4:6-8). Christians must be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9, Romans 14:19), forgiving those who do them harm (Ephesians 4:29-32; Colossians 3:12-14; Matthew 6:9-15; Mark 11:25-26), treating their enemies with love (Luke 6:27-36) and not seeking revenge (Romans 12:17-21; 1 Peter 3:8-12). Hatred which is the same as murder (1 John 3:15), is unforgiving, vengeful and hostile towards one's enemies.
post #42 of 254

Interesting...



Discovery casts light on Bible's age
The words on an ancient tablet suggest the Hebrew bible
was written far earlier than thought. » What the tablet says



Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests


Clara Moskowitz
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com – Fri Jan 15, 9:40 am ET


Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing - an inscription dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign.

The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible's Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.)

Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older, scientists announced this month.

"It indicates that the Kingdom of Israel already existed in the 10th century BCE and that at least some of the biblical texts were written hundreds of years before the dates presented in current research," said Gershon Galil, a professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Haifa in Israel, who deciphered the ancient text.

BCE stands for "before common era," and is equivalent to B.C., or before Christ.

The writing was discovered more than a year ago on a pottery shard dug up during excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, near Israel's Elah valley. The excavations were carried out by archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. At first, scientists could not tell if the writing was Hebrew or some other local language.

Finally, Galil was able to decipher the text. He identified words particular to the Hebrew language and content specific to Hebrew culture to prove that the writing was, in fact, Hebrew.

"It uses verbs that were characteristic of Hebrew, such as asah ('did') and avad ('worked'), which were rarely used in other regional languages," Galil said. "Particular words that appear in the text, such as almanah ('widow') are specific to Hebrew and are written differently in other local languages."

The ancient text is written in ink on a trapezoid-shaped piece of pottery about 6 inches by 6.5 inches (15 cm by 16.5 cm). It appears to be a social statement about how people should treat slaves, widows and orphans. In English, it reads (by numbered line):

1' you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2' Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3' [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4' the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5' Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.

The content, which has some missing letters, is similar to some Biblical scriptures, such as Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, and Exodus 23:3, but does not appear to be copied from any Biblical text.
post #43 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by 22rowdy View Post
No respected historian or archaeologist would make a statement like your last one. The historical accuracy of the Bible is not debatable. This accuracy lends credibility towards this rest of the Bible...which is exactly how we derive much of our history from ancient literature...




post #44 of 254
post #45 of 254


post #46 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigcat View Post
Blah blah..

There is more evidence of God than there is evolution. I'm not saying millions of people can not be wrong, Obama getting elected proves that. You comparing God to santa is retarded.
Bigcat, there is zero evidence of God. Please cite references to anything different.

There are piles of evidence proving evolution. Fossils, rock layers, related species, artificial selection, the fact that we have mutatable genes etc.
post #47 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gen1GT View Post
Bigcat, there is zero evidence of God. Please cite references to anything different.

There are piles of evidence proving evolution. Fossils, rock layers, related species, artificial selection, the fact that we have mutatable genes etc.

If "evidence" in your sentence mean BS or "science" twisted by yelling when something may prove your point but being silent and sweeping it under the rug when it's something that may prove you wrong.

Then yes you are correct.
post #48 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigcat View Post
If "evidence" in your sentence mean BS or "science" twisted by yelling when something may prove your point but being silent and sweeping it under the rug when it's something that may prove you wrong.

Then yes you are correct.
So you have nothing then?
post #49 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigcat View Post
If "evidence" in your sentence mean BS or "science" twisted by yelling when something may prove your point but being silent and sweeping it under the rug when it's something that may prove you wrong.

Then yes you are correct.
That is so incredibly ignorant, you evidently have this logic flipped.

post #50 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayperion View Post
That is so incredibly ignorant, you evidently have this logic flipped.


LMAO! Classic...
post #51 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayperion View Post
That is so incredibly ignorant, you evidently have this logic flipped.





-w
post #52 of 254
Thread Starter 
Somehow I knew this thread would turn into a scientific, no proof thread
post #53 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by BranRx View Post
Somehow I knew this thread would turn into a scientific, no proof thread
I told you that it's difficult, if not impossible to remove science from the equation. It would be like starting a thread to discuss the possibility of the existence of unicorns (or insert any mythological creature of your choice).
post #54 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by BranRx View Post
Why do I as a Christian believe what I believe? I mean am I taking the word from another who claims to have a legitimate experience, or have I experienced something that tells me God exists? Or am I just wanting to believe?
I think it all comes down to this question... and no one can answer it for you.. you must look inward for this.
post #55 of 254
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
I think it all comes down to this question... and no one can answer it for you.. you must look inward for this.
true, very true. I have a mind like many in here, that doesnt ignore science, Ive studied evolution, understand it and believe it. And Ive had a couple of course in psychology so I understand the Froeid concepts. But when you approach the boundries of what we know, and try to glimpse at what lies beyond, you start to think wow, it really isnt just about matter evolving and an expanding universe. I really dont have a clue what lies beyond, but its easy for me so say, its definitely possible that what billions of people believe could actually be true. At least the core part of the religions. Not the rituals or the rules, those are manmade, but the fundamentals. Could it be possible that someone stepped into our plain of existence to bring forth truth and introduced faith?
post #56 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gen1GT View Post
Bigcat, there is zero evidence of God. Please cite references to anything different.

There are piles of evidence proving evolution. Fossils, rock layers, related species, artificial selection, the fact that we have mutatable genes etc
.
That is not proof that there isn't a God either.
post #57 of 254
If there were evidence to support that God existed, everyone would believe in him... hence defeating the purpose of our existence. Thats y people that believe in God have a little something called faith. Discussing creation is great, but arguing about it is pointless. Religious or not, people need to stop judging/persecuting people, that's God's job. Rather love and help one another!
post #58 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman98 View Post
That is not proof that there isn't a God either.
There is not proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist either.
post #59 of 254
EXPLAIN BROCK LESNAR'S MIRACLE WITH YOUR SCIENCE THEN!

Haha
post #60 of 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmm...Jaz View Post
There is not proof that Bigfoot doesn't exist either.
I saw a photo of bigfoot, is that not enough proof?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Politics
HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › The Bible, Jesus and God - (we cant just go making things up)? a discussion