I read both Christ and the Antichrist in my KJ Bible. Do you?

Hi GIA, Why are you asking me a question in response to a message in which I answered the question that you are asking?You must be having fun already,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Just my way of kissing you off.Regards
DL

The Hebrew language has far fewer words than the English. My understanding is that the same word is used for capital punishment as for murder. The context determines the type of killing being addressed.The context of the Ten Commandments would be the equivalent in English to "You shall not murder." This is logical and sensible, given God commanded the killing of sacrificial animals etc.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

GIA, And I thought you were only trying to be as bright as my class of 10 year olds.Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Of course I wouldn't endorse it.But the topic is about the source of the quote.I'm saying it isn't Christ or Antichrist. It's purely human.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

The question pops to mind, would a law maker break His own laws. It certainly appears that God did a number of times. Right up to the genocidal flood.If God is to be our example of good action, He sure is giving a bad one.Then again, if you are to believe in talking snakes it is easy to forgive God a genocide or two against helpless humans.Regards
DL

I hope none of them are unruly. I hope you do not keep stones in the class.Regards
DL

That being the case and since most recognize the absurdity of that scripture, would you like to speculate as to why it was included in the selection of scripture.
Could it have been just to activate debate?Regards
DL

No.You can see from the responses of Buzsaw and ICANT that people do take that passage and others like it seriously. It would have been irresponsible of the Bible writers/compilers to include such absurdity "just to activate debate" when they should have known some people would take it in the stupidest possible way.The more reasonable conclusion is that they meant it in the stupidest possible way.They meant what they said, so everything they said has to be scrutinized even more closely. But there's no reason to think they wanted us to scutinize them more closely.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

But Jesus said that those old Jewish laws, like the one in the OP, were not correct and that there are only 2 real laws: Love god, and love youe neighbor as yourself.The whole point Jesus was making was the god didn't write those laws.

You are not trying to tell us we cannot trust every word in the Bible are you?
Isn't it all the word of God?Regards
DL

Sure, why not? I don't know but I doubt it.

Did you even read what I said? Why don't you address that?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

He didn't say that at all. He was introducing a new dispensation/era where the law was to be fulfilled by the indwelling Holy Spirit, i.e. his spirit.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Semantics. Death is death.Regards
DL