Yaro's 'Logical fallacies' discussion...

Hello to all:Yaro had said: "This one isn't about disproving evoloution. Heck, throw it out, it don't exist for these purposes. I simply want a socratic method aproach to discussing issues in the bible.

​

Certainly if we can engage someone in a point by point dialogue, the truth should come to light."BTW, I hope I'm not being improper by starting a new thread. It's just that my position is so radically different from what I perceive Yaro's to be that I though a new platform was called for.My position is this : I am a fundamentalist Christian YEC and I hold to the AKJV 1611 Bible. I certainly have unanswered questions regarding the Bible, but I don't believe that this constitutes 'discrepancies' in my Bible - not a one!From years of study, I know about the (alleged) "errors and contradictions" and now Yaro, Brian, et al. speak of the "affronts to common sense" that many people see in the Bible.I must repeat, I have NOT been able to answer every question that I've either discovered for myself or that has been brought to my attention. This point being clearly stated, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the issue of alleged discrepancies in the Bible is just about always due to one of two reasons :1. It is a manifestation of ignorance regarding how to read and interpret the Bible or, worse yet, simply not having read enough of the Bible at all.2. It's a 'front'... a 'ruse'... a 'reasonably-appearing, socially-acceptable justification' for not submitting to the Word of God and to God Himself. After all, who'd be 'dumb' enough to submit to a Book that was "filled with all manner of errors", right?When this issue (alleged Bible discrepancies) became serious enough in my life, I conducted a very thorough, in-depth study on the matter (this was many years ago). The conclusion of these studies was as I've stated above.Maybe you've heard of 100 Bible "discrepancies" ... maybe 500 ... maybe even 2,000 of them. It may interest you to know that my studies have revealed that - depending on who you listen to - almost every verse in the AKJV 1611 Bible - over 31,000 verses - is "wrong" in some way. I realized then that there was far more to this subject than meets the eye - and there is.If you're really interested and open-minded about this subject, I'd be happy to chat about it with you for a bit. OTOH, if what you want is to justify your immovable conclusion that "the Bible is wrong" then I'll leave this subject alone after this post.In any event, I can assure you that I (and others like me) do NOT have to compromise my (our) intellectual integrity one iota in order to uphold the infallibility/inerrancy of the Bible. You are free, of course, to believe otherwise.Joralex

Id like to adress the two reasons you proposed were behind the percived errors:---------------------------------------------------------
1. It is a manifestation of ignorance regarding how to read and interpret the Bible or, worse yet, simply not having read enough of the Bible at all.
---------------------------------------------------------I have read the bible in it's entirety twice in my life. Yet the greatest issue I find with it is the one you bring up here. Interpretation.How are we to interpret this book, if not by what the words say?So, if we see a logical contradiction, something that simply makes no sense. Like the 2 creation stories having things made on diffrent days for example, then how am I to interpret it? That's just it, Yaro, there are 'rules' and 'points' to keep in mind when reading the Bible so as to avoid seeing what isn't there as well as avoiding not seeing what is there.Now, apologetics come in to play and you try to resolve the conflict. But to do this, requires you reinterpreting the passage in a different way, and in an arbitrary maner. Neither I nor any other intellectually honest person would have been satisfied if, as you say, the solution required an "arbitrary" interpretation. In fact, the Bible itself warns us against "arbitrary interpretations". So, no, this isn't it, Yaro.Now, some other christians, interpret the story as fully metaphorical. The days are billions of years, etc. These people, IMHO, make various errors the two major ones being not taking the Bible in its entirety and having to introduce ad hoc hypotheses in order to retain consistency. But that's a totally different subject.Others say it's a myth all together, never happend, but the Book is still valid and Christianity is real. These people are completely mixed up regarding Christian theology.And none of these supposed interpretations can be said to be wrong. Yes, they are wrong. What often makes it hard to prove this is that people employ 'selective evidence'.Because choosing to take something as a metaphore or literaly, is an arbitray choice exercised per taste by the apologist. A key to discovering the truth in this is watching out for consistency without introducing ad hoc hypotheses.The big problem with interpretation in general, is: "Why didn't the auther just say so in the first place?" Anything written must be read and then interpreted - removing an interpretation isn't possible.

​

Also, there are times that God intentionally hides the meaning. He tells us this and He tells us why He does it.See, the authors all thrughout the Bible are usualy saying what they mean, so why be cryptic in these instances? When there is a parable told, or a story related, the bible makes it clear that it is such. So why do these passages take so many mental acrobatics to gel in the mind? This is one of those keys to keep in mind when reading Scripture : He has a purpose and that purpose may or may not be known to us. Why use parables and not plainer language? As you well stated, because He has a purpose.The only logical way to aproach somthing like this is of course, to take it litteraly, and within historical context. Which obviously indicates that this is an old cultures creation myth, because it looks like one, reads like one etc. If it quacks like a duck... It's not that simple.--------------------------------------------------------
2. It's a 'front'... a 'ruse'... a 'reasonably-appearing, socially-acceptable justification' for not submitting to the Word of God and to God Himself. After all, who'd be 'dumb' enough to submit to a Book that was "filled with all manner of errors", right?
--------------------------------------------------------Well, in my particular case anyway, it's not a front. Im simply not a beliver, and I find peoples belife in this particular myth interesting, because of exposure to it in my life. Maybe... maybe not. I certainly wouldn't pretend to know what the case is but I do know with absolute certainty (because He says so in Scripture) that God knows the truth about you.Honestly, the Bible, and christianity just don't make sense to me. I really do see the Bible as an old book full of errors, and it is beyond me how people belive it so ardently. Fair enough. We that do know about God and of His Word say the same thing about the non-believer : it is beyond us how people cannot see the obvious. But then, there are the two answers that I stated above.When I read the Bible (twice) it allways struck me as a confusing mix of tall tales and philosphy, nothing intrinsicaly special spoke to me from it's pages. It read like other mythologies I have read. If you read it like a 'cheap novel', it'll read like a 'cheap novel'. Attitude has a lot do do with it. Your heart's condition - seeking with humility and reverence or seeking to refute with contempt - has a lot to do with it. Many things have to do with the Bible supplying more than just "words".Im not Justifying not submiting to a God, I simply don't see the God to submit to. See what I mean? He hasn't made himself real to me (neither physicaly or spirtualy), till then I see nothing to submit to. You choose not to, Yaro, it's that simple. There is more than sufficient evidence available to believe in the God of the Christian Bible, it's just a matter of seeking it earnestly and with humility.

​

Jorge

Sidelined said : "Joralex May I be assured that in debate with you that I can be assured that you will be interested and open-minded on the subject of evolution?And while we're at it we will agree that you will not wish to consider the "bible is right" as an immovable conclusion? If so then I accept your invitation." Sidelined, you're comparing apples with cruise missiles in order to avoid the true issues.

​

Here's a simple analogy involving three mathematical statements:

​

1. "I am able to write the number 300,763 as the sum of two cubed integers
(i.e., 300,763 = X^3 + Y^3)."

​

2. "2 + 2 = 4"

​

3. "All even numbers greater than two may be written as the sum of two prime numbers."

​

Now, will you be as open-minded (i.e., willing to change your mind) on the truth of ANY of these three statements?

​

My guess is you will not be so inclined.

​

There's your answer.

​

Jorge[This message has been edited by Joralex, 09-14-2003][This message has been edited by Joralex, 09-14-2003]

"Jorge I merely asked the inverse of the requirements that you asked of me. These are mirror images not opposites. You also make a poor arguement with the mathematics, since if you can show me, using rigorous logic that stands up to investigation then yes I would concede the truth of it.

​

We are not talking about mathematical statements are we now?" Absolutely not. I meant my example as a very loose analogy to illustrate the point that one is more able to changes one's mind on certain points than on others.

​

God is a far, far more complex issue than any mathematical statement (which are nothing more than tautological sentences within a formal language).

​

The point stands - the evidence for God is sufficient in an objective sense. The true issue is the acceptance of said evidence as supplying subjective and often times ill-defined criteria for 'sufficiency'.

​

Joralex

Ok Jorlax, Im willing to run the gamut on this if you are. Let's start.-------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just it, Yaro, there are 'rules' and 'points' to keep in mind when reading the Bible so as to avoid seeing what isn't there as well as avoiding not seeing what is there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------First off, may I ask you, to establish the rules and points of critical examination. What are our starting Axioms and common notions for interpretation. You want everything? I don't know if I have that for you - maybe no one does (?).

​

But I can give you a few just to get the ball rolling:

​

1. Context is very important.
2. Relatedness to other parts of Scripture must be considered.
3. Consistency within all of Scripture (OT & NT) must be maintained.
4. The times, places and names must be examined.
5. God employs His definitions, not ours.
6. God's purpose may not always be transparent or even revealed.
7. Depth of study is often essential to get to the heart of an apparent discrepancy.

​

These are just a few...Please outline them, so that we may both look at the bible from your point of view. What is the criteria for Interpretation. The very first rule is asking (by prayer) for guidance when reading His Word. Most people (and probably all non-believers) skip this step and this explains why many people read and aren't able to 'receive' anything.

​

Next, I've never gone wrong with the basic rule that the Bible is to be read and interpreted in its literal meaning UNLESS the context or some other implicit/explicit instructions tell me otherwise. Even with this rule it is sometimes difficult to extract meaning as illustrated by The Revelation.------------------------------------------------------------------
These people, IMHO, make various errors the two major ones being not taking the Bible in its entirety and having to introduce ad hoc hypotheses in order to retain consistency. But that's a totally different subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------Let's leave science out of this one, since Im sure both of us aren't scientists, Bad assumption on your part but we'll leave science out anyway.and it will likely cloud the issue. As you said, we will look at it with the above stated "points" and "rules" in mind.Once you outline these rules, we can look at the more controversial passages, that merit much interpretation to see if the rules hold up. Just as long as we don't get into 'legalistic technicalities', okay?

​

The Bible is many orders of magnitude more complex than a Shakespearean play and I challenge you to write inflexible "rules" for interpreting Shakespeare. Can't be done, can it?

​

Nonetheless, the rules I outlined above will hold up as long as we don't go 'crazy'.------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read it like a 'cheap novel', it'll read like a 'cheap novel'. Attitude has a lot do do with it. Your heart's condition - seeking with humility and reverence or seeking to refute with contempt - has a lot to do with it. Many things have to do with the Bible supplying more than just "words".
------------------------------------------------------------------I don't agree with this, I like the Bible. There is alot of neat stuff in it, it just dosn't strike me as holy. Perhapse it's because I aproached it with no preconception about it's divinity, I just read it as is. Just didn't seem to be 100% real to me as all. Ah... I see now a source (maybe even 'the' source) of your problems. Let's carry on anyway and see how far this gets us.But again, lets establish the criteria.I will anxiously await your reply. I've made a start into that above.

​

You should know that long ago I wrote a sort of 'paper' on alleged Bible contradictions (it was to answer an atheist that had challenged me on the subject). In this work I conducted an in-depth research on a few supposed 'discrepancies' in the Bible to illustrate how the correct interpretation remedies the situation in a perfectly Biblical and logical way.

​

If this is where you're heading then for the sake of time I suggest that you allow me to employ these examples. You did catch my meaning in the opening post on how many (alleged) Bible discrepancies there are said to be, right? Be assured, I am not going to enter into "answer me this one... okay, now answer me that one ... now this one... then that one... etc...".

​

If the essence of my message isn't understood after a few examples, then there's something else the matter and more examples aren't going to help. That has been my experience after doing this a long time.

​

We'll see what happens, Yaro. Hopefully, you'll 'get it'.

​

Joralex

"Which God? What evidence? Your post doesn't make that clear." The God of the Christian Bible... the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

​

The vast natural and logical evidence. Note : said evidence may be interpreted so as to support a Naturalistic position, since it is necessarily fragmented and partial.

​

Joralex

I hope this will be a fun, and enlightening discusion for the both of us. Firts off, lest us review the rules layed out, and perhapse some additions or clarifactions. Sure, it's possible to mix in some "fun" with something that is extremely important."1. Context is very important."I am assuming we mean the context of, the whole Bible, as most fundamentalists belive. Fair enugh, though I might add that this is dubious, considering the questions regarding the relatedness of the books at all. Yet, this is about exploreing "the other sides" point of view So I accept this point. Okay."2. Relatedness to other parts of Scripture must be considered."Agreed. Two-for-two."3. Consistency within all of Scripture (OT & NT) must be maintained."This is problamatic. Since we "must" maintain it, Im assuming when there is a descrepancy that takes a rather "far out" apologetic to remedy, we must accept the apologetic above the most obvious solution?Im not sure if this will be benificial to either of our case, I mean, Ocam's razor does come in handy. But ok. We will go out of our way, to make things "gel". Maybe I used the wrong word ("must"). The Bible is a unified text and, e.g., if something in Exodus conflicts with something in Acts then something is amiss and an answer "must" exist. It is in this sense that I meant "must"."4. The times, places and names must be examined."Im not sure what you mean by this one? I think you mean research into the locations, dates and such. is that the case? Kind'a... yes. BTW, I neglected to add "words" to 'times, places and names', in #4. Many alleged Bible discrepancies are resolved once it is realized, for example, that there are many names for the same individual or that different individuals have the same name. This may be confusing but is a common practice even today."5. God employs His definitions, not ours."This is also problamatic, less we have a source that explains God's definitions? I'm sure we should be able to infer HIS definition, from the Bible. Yet this is probably the most important thing to keep in mind. I'm sure this will come up later."6. God's purpose may not always be transparent or even revealed."I think we all know this. Just keep it in mind."7. Depth of study is often essential to get to the heart of an apparent discrepancy."Agreed, so outside sources, aside from the Bible are usable Im sure? Not necessarily outside sources - maybe just a deeper study of Scripture.If I may ask one question, why does it takes so much outside study to get a firm grasp on the Bible? Shoulden't anyone who reads it emidietly see the glory of God? You've assumed that outside study is required. Also, don't forget the part about attitude/heart condition. Many people read the Bible with a contemptuous attitude - almost challenging Him to show Himself. To such people, God doesn't even respond (and He says so in Scripture).and, a prayr. I said one. I really did. We'll see if it works? Many "pray" - it's what's in the heart that matters to God.Anyway... on to the isues:Since we have been up and down the creation myths, Noahs ark etc, lets try and tread some new ground in this one. And let us concentrate on only one descrepancy at a time (to avoid, answer me this, answer me that etc.), we will exaust one descrepancy.I will propose my descrepancy in a bit (gotta find a good one , but, you may propose one. Okay - one that I researched had to do with "Is God a good God?". The atheist that I spoke to you about previously was actually the one that selected it. He brought out the episode of the bears that killed the 42 'children' because the prophet Elisha cursed them in the name of God.

​

How can a "good God" do such a thing, right?

​

Joralex

No need to "bump", Yaro - just giving it the time it deserves.Ok I found one I like, 'Is God truely loving'? Yes, He is.

​

BTW, your post has an air of contempt about it. For example : "(NOTE: for more of these fun facts go to Page not found – Evil Bible .com)"
So, what's "fun" about these facts?I chose to follow in your line. Since you like this topic, and I myself find it an interesting one. While the children one you mentiond is a rather strange tale considering that they were killd for calling the prophet "baldy", this is not the one I choose. It's unfortunate that you didn't "like" my suggestion since I'd already researched it and it happens to be a pretty good example of how to read/interpret Scripture.I choose the topic of Biblicaly, and Godly, sanctioned Rape. "Godly sanctioned rape"? This I gotta see...I belive this is an interesting topic, because the above rules require us to maintain consistency, thus, no matter how we look at it, we must maintain God as being omnibenevolent. That's right but don't forget the part about HIS definition and not mine/yours. You can't have your cake and eat it too.So, in the following verses I will demonstrate rape in the Bible. And ask that Jorlax, explain, how we can remedie this contradiction to God's Omnibenevolance, by using the rules laid out above. I can hardly wait...NUMBERS 31: 7-18
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings — Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba — died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves KJV says "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.". I see no mention of "rape" anywhere here, Yaro.
The 'women children' that were kept may have become servants in the household or may later have willingly become a wife. You are seeing what you want to see, Yaro.Here God tells the isrealites, to kill the babies, women, chilldren, men, husbands, friends, wives, etc. But keep the virgions "for yoursleves". This, a command from an all-loving God. There is definitely a command to kill some of the 'little ones', and some of the women.

​

The resolution to this apparent discrepancy is simple : certain people seem to want to forget that there is a loving and merciful attribute to God but there is also a righteous attribute that demands justice. People also want to forget (I wonder why?) that God has clearly spelled out that the wages of sin is death.

​

The peoples that God ordered His people to slay (sometimes completely - men, women, children, even beasts) practiced evils that were unpardonable - burning children to their idolatrous gods, sodomy, bestiality, and all sorts of ungodly vices. Because of their loathsome vileness, God employed the sword of the Israelites to remove them from the earth.

​

Why not simply kill these people Himself? Several reasons. First, by this mechanism the Israelites were invested with a solemn official duty as the instruments of divine justice. Second, this served as a means to impress upon the Israelites, and to all future generations, God's abhorence of sin. As one writer put it, "Behold how God hates iniquity."

​

God, omniscient as He is, knew the consequences of allowing these peoples to continue spreading across the earth and so had them removed with the instrument of His choosing (the Israelites).

​

Much more can be said on this topic but this will have to do.On a side-note, human sacrifice is also practiced in this same chapter. But that is besides the issue. By the Jews? Condoned by God? Show me!Judges 21:10-24
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.Here we have an antire town decimated, and robed of it's virgins. These were taken as "wives", but when there were not enugh wives to go around, the isrealites kidnaped more.This was ok with the lord, as it was his festival they were prepering for. You picked a very complex situation here, Yaro. I've just finished reading several sources and I find no way to answer this one in a concise way. In as few words as possible this situation was about mistakes that were made and the consequences of those mistakes. Later, those mistakes were further compounded. But in all this, these were the mistakes of men.

​

Show me where it says in these verses, "The LORD God says to go and do this or that".

​

As for the killing of the inhabitants of Ja-besh-gil-e-ad, I've already provided you with some reasons why this is a righteous act.Finaly:DEUT 22:28-29 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. You insist on using the word "rape". You also break here one of the rules that I had listed - not reading enough!

​

Rape is an act of violence where the victim was in no way consentual and may have, in fact, resisted the attack. In the verses you cite, 'rape' is not implied (unless you use one of the newer translations which apparently you do).

​

Nonetheless, I'll concede 'rape'. Then you simply didn't read far or well enough. Try reading Deuteronomy 22:23-27. The meaning here is clear : if the victim cries out (i.e., resists... it isn't consentual) then the man is put to death. No consequences? Hardly!Here we find that the only law about rape is that if you rape someone you pay a fine, then marry her. Not true - see above.Why aren't most christian rape victims today marying their rapist? Let me guess - because it wasn't consentual.Clearly though, this law only applies to isrealies as this verse exlplains what you can do with enamy virgins:DEUT 20:10-14 As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. Asked and answered.Here God endorses forced labor, pilaging, and keeping young virgins for yourselves. Not at all... answered above.Now, rape is the most abominable crime most of us can imagine. How, can we rectify this obviously glaring discrepancy? Answered above. Here we have women, forced into marrige against their will, Says you.raped, Says you. And when it does occur, the consequences are clearly spelled out.kidnaped, etc. In all these cases, these were God's people, following God's orders. Heck, even Moses himself! I've refuted this above.And this wasn't even the reason God rebuked Moses, God rebuked moses for pride in claiming he brought fourth watter from the rock. Yet, the whole Rape thing is aparantly kosher. Nope, that's just Yaro's version of the Bible.So what gives Joralex? Is God Omnibenevolent, yet still capable of saying Rape is ok? Asked and answered.

​

Joralex

No need to "bump" or "chirp", Yaro - I was out for the weekend.Well, I figured you would rather start on fresh ground. Why beat long dead horses? If you think that the Elijah episode is a long-dead horse, then you are clearly missing the point. Later...Willingly become a wife? Servents in the household?Fine, say they weren't raped. Explain to me, how you could willingly become the wife of someone who raided your village, killd your parents, friends, mules, donkeys, took all your posessions, burnt your house to the ground, etc?Would you be satisfied to become the servent of your families killers? I do think that you've (1) missed the point and, (2) are getting off topic. The question was - were they raped?There is definitely a command to kill some of the 'little ones', and some of the women.I don't see this, both in the KJV it expressly says kill all boys, babies and chilldren:Num 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. Read again - it's right there. Only males were killed and only women that had known men - this is NOT everyone.But if you want "SOME", so be it. It's not what I 'want' - it's what it SAYS.So it's ok to kill some babies? Why? What did they do, what makes them less inocent than the young virgins, that the virgins should be spared and not SOME of the babies? That's where you need to do some studying, Yaro. Ever heard of a 'patriarcal society'? By "cutting off" the males the entire line of that society was extinguished forever - spiritually this was necessary because of their spiritual vileness. Same with women that had known men of that society - the spiritual connection had to be broken. BTW - I fully realize that this means nothing (rational) to a materialistic Naturalist.Why the virgins if not for sexual purposes Joralex? I mean, boys make better farmhands and such, were more highly prized in their culture, so why the little girls? They were not yet spiritually tainted with the blood of that corrupt society.Why save the little girls and not the babies? Asked and answered.How does their evil practices size up to the Isrealites rampage? I can see that we're not going to get anywhere here.

​

The Israelites did NOT practice an "evil" since it was a command from God Himself.Do two wrongs make a right? A command from God is not a "wrong".So the babies were sinful, But the young virgins werent? Asked and answered.The beasts were sinfull? The 'beasts' represented material gain (spoils) and God, in this case, did not want the Israelites to have any material gain from these spoils (spiritual reasons).ok, fine, so we will use the KJV which is a bit more ambigious. The idea is to retain the original meaning, not to be more ambiguous.So now things are ok right? So then, let us examine the verse (using the KJV) you provided as the consequence for rape. Now, if he rapes her in a field, and she cries out, it's ok, and the guy is put to death. But if in a city, and she dosn't, which I suppose means adultary, then this is the result:Deu 22:23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.And this is Just how? Again, I do not see how such an extreem action could be deemed rightious. But this is beside the points we are adressing. It isn't beside the point. If what you are trying to do is learn how to read Scripture correctly then you need to start learning to see things in a 'spiritual' way and not with your own (flesh) understanding.
Ok, so we have gone thrugh all of this post of yours. Now on, to furthering the discusion of the Topic. Is God Omnibenevolent:To narow everything down, basicaly God did let the Isrealites do some pretty viscious things, killing babies, 'Males' - I've explained why.pillaging, looting, etc. What the wicked work very hard to amass, God freely gives to His chosen people. This is a spiritual principle.Rape or otherwise. Fact is, they did some mean stuff, and this was Just, acording to you, because they had become God's tool of devine Justice. There is no "evil" in a command from God. You are trying to judge an action of God using your own understanding. That will get you nowhere... fast!Justice against what? Wicked people, who worshiped other Gods, practiced Sodomy, and alegedly sacrified humans on altars. Though these things are not mentiond, and I fail to see how the killing of inocents would have anything to with this. Spiritual perspective needed here.Does not the bible also say that god will not punish chilldren for the sins of the father?So, does this contradict Omnibenevolence. Well, then we must ask, by examples above, how can god both be all loving. and all-wrathfull?How can he kill babies, force girls into marrige, make people into slaves, and still love everyone with all his heart. Consequences of sin.

​

Nowhere in the Bible does it say (as you do above) that God is "all-wrathful".

​

He does unleash His wrath upon those that deserve it but even then He is patient to allow for repentance (what else do you think is keeping this world going?).

​

Yaro, the bottom line is that you appear to be seeking some answers but you are going about it the wrong way. Specifically, you seem already decided that God ISN'T what the Bible says He is and you are on a 'holy mission' to prove it. Try being on a 'holy mission' to see it as the Bible says and everything will fall into place.

​

Let me put it this way : if you're right, then hundreds of thousands / millions of Bible scholars/Christians have been worshipping a 'false God' - a God that is the opposite of what He has said in His Word. Such a (contrary) God makes absolutely no sense in light of the ordered, rational universe that we inhabit. Therefore, either He doesn't exist or your (contrary) 'god' doesn't exist. Since God clearly exists (by the abundance of evidence this is supported) then it must be your (contrary) 'god' that doesn't exist.

​

Later, when I have more time, I'll present the Elijah argument ... you'll see some of what you've been missing.

​

Joralex

And do you think that the Creator of the universe, the Omniscient, all powerful God, doesn't know about the 14-year-old's situation?

​

How about using some IQ points here? A knife to the throat is akin to being in a field where no one may hear - see the connection?

​

You sound like one of those irrational pro-Feminists ... ughhh.
If you do hunt me down, I get to "slap you across the head" FIRST & TWICE! (heheh)

​

Joralex

Rei : I generally don't reply to people as "cultured" as you but I'll make an exception here.She wasin a f***ing city - walking home from a friend's house. It's not "akin to being in a field" - she was *In A City*. For God's sake, are you so inhuman that you don't care that a 14 year old girl was raped, and consider anyone who gives a sh** to be an "irrational pro-feminist"???? If you promise to employ your neurons instead of your hormones you may go back and read what I wrote. God (all-knowing God) knows exactly what happened and exactly what the circumstances were. Try repeating that a couple of dozen times and maybe it'll sink in.Excuse me, but F*** You.! Ok? My, my, my... such articulate culture. Let me guess : Yale? Harvard? Or was it MIT?(my apologies to the admins.. TRANSLATION : I can act as a savage moron as long as I end it on a human note - that makes it all okay.if this were in person, he probably wouldn't still be standing... Ah, now it's back to my beastly, savage ways : violence is the solution... hormones rule over neurons!

​

( ... now I need to apologize to the admin again...)I cannot even begin to comprehend people who try to excuse rape, it just drives me mad) There's my "apology" - disguised as "I'm such a caring, sensitive person... please understand me."

​

I ain't buying today, Rei - tomorrow doesn't look good for you either. Your pathetic drama is transparent. Try reading for comprehension next time and maybe you'll spare all of us a second-rate acting performance, okay.

​

Joralex