The Bible was not meant to be read Literally. The Global Flood Story is allegory. https://www.rt.com/uk/400630-bible-literal-interpretation-religion/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iterally-says-scholar-brought-light-earliest/
Its self explanatory text from the Bible. All you have to do is read Genesis 6,7,8. No apologetics are needed, no external reference, just read the words in the Bible. Bu that's your problem, you don't read.
Your typical Bible Borg response. The problem is far from me reading. It is you accepting the reality of what "you" are reading.
Its convenient you exclude the reference (patheos) that refutes your argument. Did you even read it? Its heading is "Does The Old Testament Contradict The New Testament?" This one http://enemylove.com/part-2-warrior-god-or-prince-of-peace/ is a 3 part series, and there is actually an entire section of his site that discusses the issue. He resolves the dilemma to his satisfaction, but you have to read. This one http://www.adamhamilton.org/blog/gods-violence-in-the-old-testament-the-problem/#.WZx5jmzJAic (part 1 of a 3 part article) does resolve the various issues, some issues are resolved in that article, others in the other 2 parts. There are issues in the Bible, I can name several, and some quite serious. But that's not my job here, that's your job. The issue of Old Testament violence and Jesus teachings (remember, there was no New Testament when Jesus was alive on earth) is not an easy one to resolve. But many people do resolve it, as the links I provided demonstrate (all 3 resolve the issue to their satisfaction). There is a third possibility you avoid : 3) There is no contradiction. Jesus never repudiated the Old Testament. Jesus frequently used the Old Testament to justify His teaching and purpose. If a person believes Jesus and Jesus personally upholds the Old Testament, then clearly there must be a continuum between the Old Testament and Jesus teachings, one leads to the other, the two must be compatible. https://www.bethinking.org/bible/q-how-did-jesus-view-the-old-testament The two being compatible does not mean they are equal. Consider the Bible may not be an autobiography of God, but a conversation with God, a history of the evolving relationship of mankind with God told from mankind's perspective and at the level of human understanding. At the start, people were children with a childs understanding and God had to take a strong parental role (as in Exodus), over time humanity gained understanding, the culmination was Jesus.
Read the words in Genesis 6,7,8. All of it, not just the 2 sentences you post. There is no contradiction, your confusion is in taking 2 sentences and comparing them out of context.
Of course I read it .. why are you making false claims. I stated that the patheos article does not even address the "specific" contradiction under discussion because it doesn't. Clearly you do not have any refutation to this contradiction from the Patheos article or you would have stated what that refutation is. The rest of your post avoids the main points made in my post. 1) that the two articles you posted that actually address one of the specific contradictions under discussion agree that there is a contradiction. 2) Commenting on what follows from this contradiction. What is absurd is after posting two articles that agree that there is a contradiction, you stick head in the sands of denial and repeat your claim that there is no contradiction ? Repeating your claim is not an argument for anything. You then go on to say that the dilemma has been resolved contradicting yourself. The dilemma is due to the "contradiction"... a contradiction you now are trying to deny after posting two articles which clearly state that this contradiction exists. You then go on to talk about thing that do not relate to this discussion in an attempt to avoid the facts of the case. Further - the fact that you feel compelled to post 3 or 4 different articles after posting 3 (2 of which agreed with me and 1 that does not even address the specific contradiction under discussion) is just an attempt to throw mud at a wall and hope something sticks. If you have an article that shows there is no contradiction then 1) give the link and 2) state the pertinent parts of the article that you think backs up your case. I will look at the "new" articles you posted but in the future - "get an argument".
So this one you claim as fact while any you disagree with is allegory? How convenient for the one who thinks he gets to decide which is which.
What is your problem. You just re-posted the two articles that agree with me. If there are other parts to these articles in which you claim the contradiction is shown not to exist. Then post them. These articles themselves claim that the contradiction exists. The further parts to come purport to resolve the dilemma created by this contradiction - not to show that this contradiction does not exist. You running to the playground crying "NO NO NO" and sticking head deep in the sandbox of denial will not make the contradiction go away. Stop it. Sure we can work on resolving the dilemma created by this contradiction ... but resolving this dilemma does not mean the contradiction that created this dilemma no longer exists.
I went through the next part of the article where you claim "The dilemma is resolved". The first thing to note is that the article clearly states that there is a contradiction. This contradicts your claim that there is no contradiction. This contradiction creates a dilemma and the next part of the article seeks to resolve this dilemma. So we have established that a contradiction exists. I offered two possibilities 1) YHWH is not the God of Jesus 2) God changed his mind. How is the dilemma created by this contradiction resolved by "your article" ? http://www.adamhamilton.org/blog/go...tament-part-2-possible-solutions#.WZ23zSiGPIV The author restates the inherent contradiction and outlines the dilemma that this creates. How this author from the article that you posted resolves the issue is to state exactly one of the resolutions I gave: The God of Jesus is not the same as the God of the OT. The author states This makes perfect sense. The God of the OT is then a representation of what the people of that time "believed" about God and thus did not necessarily represent God. The image of God depicted in the OT is then not the God in which Jesus believed.
You are not reading the posts. I reposted 2 of my original links because I addressed them specifically, I included the link for clarity. I only posted 1 new link, and that was to expand on my point that Jesus upheld the Old Testament and used it to justify His teaching. So it turns out you actually do just want a bumper sticker response. I told you the subject was not simple, and some level of education was required (that means you have to work to understand). Finally, there is only an appearance of a contradiction. Many people - including all the links I provided - resolve the issue to their satisfaction. Because the articles start out with some statement that there is a contradiction does not mean there actually is a contradiction. If they resolve it, then there was no contradiction, only misunderstanding.
What a cop out. Do I dictate to you? Absolutely not, this is an anonymous forum, you can believe what you like. I easily explained your misperception by simply reading the full text (Genesis 6, 7, 8 ). A child can do it. If you want to pout, the you can pout, but don't pretend I am forcing anything on you.
The two articles you posted that address the specific contradiction under discussion... affirm the contradiction. This contradiction creates a dilemma. Resolving the dilemma does not change the fact that the contradiction exists. This is made clear in the more detailed analysis of the "resolution" given in "your article" in post 635.
How daft can a person be? Read the **** post. Rather than writing "On link 1..." and "on link 2...." I reposted the links for clarification since I commented on each link. If the contradiction is resolved, then there was no contradiction to begin with. Learn English, and learn logic.
This is false. The resolution in the article you posted states that the contradiction creates a dilemma. The resolution is of the dilemma created by the contradiction does not negate the contradiction. It only resolves the problems created by the contradiction. I post the resolution from your article (posting the resolution which is something you did not do) in post 635. What you are saying about the article that "you posted" is false.
Your statement concerning "education" says an awful lot. You obviously do not have any and only wish to argue drivel and false facts. Then you get upset when it is pointed out to you. You want it simple so that you can understand it. Simple things for simple people.
Your attempts To bully and then deny it say an awful lot of how much of a deviate you truly are when challenged. Your book of lies certainly has affected you.
The Bible is consistent on one issue. Yahweh & Jesus are mass murderers with fragile egos. He killed just about everything in Noah's flood. In Zephaniah he swears that he will kill everything, including fish. And then in Revelation he goes on a torture spree, killing all life and blowing up the planet.
Bully? LOL Nobody can bully anyone in this forum. Nobody has any real world influence on any other person in this forum.
A contradiction means two aspects are incompatible. If it is shown that the 2 aspects are not incompatible, then there is no contradiction. The "Adam Hamilton" article is titled "God’s Violence in the Old Testament: The Problem". Of course it states there is an apparent contradiction, that the Old and New Testaments are conflicting teachings. It does so because it is stating the apparent problem. In his Part 3 he presents solutions that satisfy him, which is essentially that the Bible was written in the context of the time and place it was written, and reflects the moral vision of the people who wrote it. The link to "EnemyLove" article is "Violence In The Old Testament. Part 2: The Problem". As the Adam Hamilton article started out with, it is stating the problem so obviously it states there is an apparent contradiction. Part 3 addresses that authors reconciliation, which is that the Bible reflects a conversation, and that the entire Bible has to be interpreted from the point of view of Jesus. That satisfies that author, in his mind the issue is reconciled. Fundamentally they both argue that the Bible reflects a faltering but progressing conversation with God, and humanity's ability to understand God is dependent upon the historical point in time. The Bible does not represent a clear and constant image of God, only what people could see and understand at that time, and only what could be implemented in a world ruled by violent humanity. For example, it would make no sense for the jews during the Exodus to just "turn the other cheek" - they would simply be massacred because that was the social construct of the time.
Why have you skipped over post 325 ? The "enemy love" article gives no resolution of the dilemma created by the contradiction. The Hamilton article refers to the violent OT God as a clear contradiction not an "apparent contradiction" so this is a misrepresentation on your part. I deal with the "resolution" of the dilemma created by this contradiction in post 325.. the post you have not responded to. I can re-post if you like.
That doesn't stop your attempts. All I do is consider the source and when it is you dismiss it as the nonsense you constantly present.
I think you mean post 635. Adam Hamilton in Part 2 (God’s Violence in the Old Testament, Part 2: Possible Solutions) decides that (from a letter from Hamilton, in the comments section of Part 2) "What I am claiming is that the Bible was written by people - we know many of their names - Moses, David, Solomon, Ezra, Paul, Luke, Peter, John - God influenced them, but that doesn't mean that everything they wrote expresses God's timeless will for us. For example, the early church recognized that the Law of Moses contained many things that may have been essential at some point in history, but were no longer God's will for the Church - hence we don't worship on Saturdays, we don't follow the kosher laws, we don't insist circumcision." His Part 3 concludes the essentially the same as Part 2. He believes the Bible reflects a conversation with God, a conversation which reflects an education process which starts simply and recognizing the limiting and violent environment that mankind lives in, and over time bringing mankind to a point where the final lesson (Jesus) can be delivered. The violence in the early parts of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) reflect human society in those times (roughly 1,000 BC and earlier). Humanity was violent, rulers basically operated on a "beat up your neighbor and take his stuff" principle. God can't tell the Jews to live like Jesus because the Jews would be slaughtered - if the Jews even accepted God's command. At that time, the ideas of Jesus were so foreign that it is doubtful anyone would have believed. The later parts of the Old Testament are much less violent, reflecting mans development. The Persians (roughly 600-300 BC) were much less violent and implemented an almost modern legal structure. It was under the Persians that the Jews returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the Temple and city. Gods lessons in these times were still paternal and at times harsh, but have clearly moderated as humanity has moderated.
