Dear Arachnophilia;
it can be THOROUGHLY demonstrated that the bible is not even internally consistent, let alone accurate.
NO one has yet to prove that the Bible is inconsistent or inaccurate, time and time again, such claims have been proven false. The reason such claims are made despite the evidence to the contrary is simple. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
now, do you think proverbs is part of god's definitive philosophy on how we should live our lives? or is a collection of traditional sayings of the people of ancient israel and judah? if it's the first option, why couldn't god give us a clear answer on whether we should ignore fools or rebuke them? or at least when to do one, and when to do the other? in fact, one of these sayings seems to be the ANSWER to the other one, doesn't it?
if it's the word of god, we have a real problem in this verse. god can't make up his mind! if it's the words of men, we don't have too much of a problem, do we? it's just some sayings they had. and they're both SORTA true, aren't they? maybe the truth in both statements comes from god, but the words themselves do not.
I answered this once before for you, and now you post it again, you are displaying a flat learning curve. The answer was so simple and so basic I was shocked that you even asked it the first time. If you really want to know the answer, reread that post, maybe the effort of having to search for it will help you remember the answer this time.
they shut down EVERY temple in judah in except the temple in jerusalem. it's on this standard of jerusalem being the ONLY house of the lord that every king of israel is judged as unrighteous in the book of kings: this is the sin of jereboam.
quote:
Deu 12:13 Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest:
Deu 12:14 But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.
no other book in the torah has this. the evidence, quite frankyl, is that dueteronomy is an outright forgery from the reign ot josiah designed in part to point a finger at israel as idolators. if you want to debate that concept, i had thread about that that died from inactivity, so take it .
I don't see anything to debate about, the whole law code given to Israel was centered on worshipping Jehovah at the temple and the command given at Deu 12:13&14 is a repetition of the commands given earlier in Exodus.
(Exodus 23:17) "On three occasions in the year every male of yours will appear before the face of the [true] Lord, Jehovah".
(Exodus 34:23-24) "Three times in the year every male of yours is to appear before the [true] Lord, Jehovah, the God of Israel. For I shall drive the nations away from before you, and I will make your territory spacious; and nobody will desire your land while you are going up to see the face of Jehovah your God three times in the year."
The Israelites worship was centered on the tabernacle and later the temple, any offering made at another location while in the wilderness was viewed a worshipping another god and the penalty was death.
(Leviticus 17:3-5) "'"As for any man of the house of Israel who slaughters a bull or a young ram or a goat in the camp or who slaughters it outside the camp and does not actually bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to Jehovah before the tabernacle of Jehovah, bloodguilt will be counted to that man. He has shed blood, and that man must be cut off from among his people, 5 in order that the sons of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they are sacrificing in the open field, and they must bring them to Jehovah to the entrance of the tent of meeting to the priest, and they must sacrifice these as communion sacrifices to Jehovah."
(Leviticus 17:8-9) "And you should say to them, 'As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who may be residing as an alien in YOUR midst who offers up a burnt offering or a sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to render it to Jehovah, that man must be cut off from his people."
Once they were in the promised land, the building of an altar was enough to raise suspicions of false worship and nearly caused a civil war.
(Joshua 22:10-16) "then the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar great in conspicuousness. Later on the other sons of Israel heard it said: "Look! The sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar on the frontier of the land of Canaan in the regions of the Jordan on the side belonging to the sons of Israel." When the sons of Israel got to hear of it, the whole assembly of the sons of Israel were then congregated at Shiloh to go up for military action against them. . . . "This is what all the assembly of Jehovah have said, 'What is this act of unfaithfulness that YOU have perpetrated against the God of Israel in turning back today from following Jehovah by YOUR building for yourselves an altar, that YOU may rebel today against Jehovah?"
I suppose you will say that this history was all fabricated much later and the events are made up, but even that argument fails when you consider the fact that Jesus when replying to the Devil "It is written" quoted from the book of Deuteronomy. I see that in your other posts you state that you are a christian, if you believe Christ was the Christ, I don't see how you can reject Bible books as inspired when Jesus cited them as such. If you believe that Jesus didn't know any better, that would preclude Jesus from having come from heaven since then we would have known, and rejecting that would be in conflict with claiming to be a christian.
(John 3:13-16) "Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life. "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son,"
To call one's self a christian, you have to believe what he taught; that he was the son of God and came down from heaven to die for our sins and was raised from the dead and is alive in the heavens. If you don't believe that, then you can't say that you are a christian. To claim to be a christian, one at least has to believe what he said, just thinking he as a nice guy who taught some wise teachings doesn't make the definition of being a christian. (unless of course you want to use the definition of christian of 'a person who is a member of a christian religion', but then you would be a christian in name only and not in truth.)
I am cutting back on my time spent on this, it is spring and I have projects to do and I don't seem to be getting anywhere with you anyway. So my future posts if any will be somewhat reduced, unless you can really come up with something worth the time.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
™ Version 4.2
