Laws of the Israelites

[psimmond]

Homer wrote: Interesting. So we who are fallible are able to determine that Moses and the so called prophets are fallible in writing the Old Testament and we are able, though we are fallible, to separate the fallible from the infallible and thus come up with our infallible version of the truth. Sweet.

But then those so called prophets who wrote false things were to be stoned to death for claiming the title of prophet and being wrong in what they wrote but I'm supposing they are okay after all because that thing we read about false prophets being stoned for their falsehoods is also likely one of their falsehoods so all is good.

First, if Jesus and his disciples taught us so that we would have a standard to discern the fallible from the infallible, that would be pretty sweet.
Second, to stone a prophet, you have to prove that his prophesy was false. How could their contemporaries do this?

dizerner wrote: Lol, Homer I feel the same frustration once we throw inspiration out the window...

What if it's just dizerner's definition of "inspiration" that is being thrown out the window?

BTW Paidion, that was a very interesting article you linked to a few comments back. Thanks!

[dizerner]

What if it's just dizerner's definition of "inspiration" that is being thrown out the window?

Wouldn't you admit that claiming God told you something clearly and forthrightly is a pretty big sin, if God did not, even if you thought you were right? Are you really going to argue that inspiration can include this kind of outright lie, whatever room it might leave? Why was Moses nowhere in all of Scripture corrected for this? But rather, almost every single godly person in Scripture exalts his role and function? I don't see how you can be so dismissive of these arguments by somehow saying "well, that's just your take on inspiration."

[psimmond]

dizerner wrote: Wouldn't you admit that claiming God told you something clearly and forthrightly is a pretty big sin, if God did not, even if you thought you were right? Are you really going to argue that inspiration can include this kind of outright lie, whatever room it might leave? Why was Moses nowhere in all of Scripture corrected for this? But rather, almost every single godly person in Scripture exalts his role and function? I don't see how you can be so dismissive of these arguments by somehow saying 'well, that's just your take on inspiration.'

You can go to almost any church in America today and hear people say "God is telling me..., Yesterday, God told me..., I'm waiting on the Lord, and when he tells me..."

None of these people are corrected by God and none of them drop dead, even when they are proven to be wrong. Such as the time a woman in the church said to another with ALS, "God told me you will be healed" and two months later the person died.

Yes, I do believe it is a sin, but I would never call it outright lying since the person who does it usually believes they are telling the truth.

[Paidion]

Are you really going to argue that inspiration can include this kind of outright lie, whatever room it might leave?

I was wondering, Dizerner, you would fit your thought with the following inspired word:

And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another.

Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has spoken evil concerning you."(1 Kings 22:19-23)

[Homer]

Hi Paidion,

You wrote:

Oh yes, and we who are fallible are able to decide that all of the OT is infallible, but not the Apocrypha. Our fallible decision is that the Apocrypha is fallible, even though the Catholics disagree. Only we Protestants qualify to decide which scriptures are infallible.

We are not discussing what has been left out of the scriptures but the veracity of what is in the scriptures, recognized by Protestants and Catholics. Since you believe Moses, in numerous instances, wrote falsely, how can you trust or make any use of the first five books of the OT? And the authors of Joshua, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles, The Psalms, etc. you also criticize. How can you determine where they are in error and where they are not? Of what use to you could the OT possibly be?

Now, the infallible scriptures state that the LORD incited David to number Israel, and also that Satan on that same occasion incited David to number Israel, and since both statements are infallible, then both statements are true. If we think they are contradictory, it's because of our fallible minds. They are just to weak to comprehend infallible truths. Since the infallible scriptures state that God blesses those who knock babies' brains out by whacking their heads against a rock, we simply accept it as morally right.

I was wondering, Dizerner, you would fit your thought with the following inspired word:

And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another.

Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has spoken evil concerning you."(1 Kings 22:19-23)

If you care to bother, there are any number of sources giving reasonable explanations of the passages you question. One that comes readily to mind is Haley's "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible".

[dizerner]

dizerner wrote: Wouldn't you admit that claiming God told you something clearly and forthrightly is a pretty big sin, if God did not, even if you thought you were right? Are you really going to argue that inspiration can include this kind of outright lie, whatever room it might leave? Why was Moses nowhere in all of Scripture corrected for this? But rather, almost every single godly person in Scripture exalts his role and function? I don't see how you can be so dismissive of these arguments by somehow saying 'well, that's just your take on inspiration.'

You can go to almost any church in America today and hear people say "God is telling me..., Yesterday, God told me..., I'm waiting on the Lord, and when he tells me..."

None of these people are corrected by God and none of them drop dead, even when they are proven to be wrong. Such as the time a woman in the church said to another with ALS, "God told me you will be healed" and two months later the person died.

Yes, I do believe it is a sin, but I would never call it outright lying since the person who does it usually believes they are telling the truth.

I'm not saying God doesn't forgive people when they repent of thinking they heard him but didn't, however I believe the testimony Scripture speaks about Moses, that he was truly a man of God who had experiences with God.

[dizerner]

Are you really going to argue that inspiration can include this kind of outright lie, whatever room it might leave?

I was wondering, Dizerner, you would fit your thought with the following inspired word:

And Micaiah said, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another.

Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has spoken evil concerning you."(1 Kings 22:19-23)

I think when people sin, God can cause them to believe a lie, but I don't think that means God would support lying among his prophets or people.

[psimmond]

dizerner and Homer,
Up until very recently I would have been cheering for you as the champions of the truth and shaking my head to see that Paidion was once again being Paidion

But I'm having a hard time towing the line when my conscience tells me that maybe what I've been told since I was a kid is wrong. I know that unless you want to be labeled a heretic, you should keep these thoughts to yourself, but it's kind of like the elephant in the room. A couple years ago I finally found the courage to express to my friends and family members that I love the New Testament and parts of the Old Testament but there are parts of the Old Testament that I really don't like. Of course, this is met with an uncomfortable silence and I suspect people are waiting to see if lightening strikes me

I just think that maybe we are reading the Bible in a way it was never meant to be read. We have made "inspired" mean "inerrant," but I'm not sure the writers or the early church did the same. I know there are websites out there that defend God's honor by dealing with the contradictions and troubling passages so that we can all keep on keeping on, but the kind of "exegesis" that is used is usually amateurish and embarrassing.

I am beginning to think Flood and Enns are not just progressives being influenced by the black sheep out there (like Bell and McLaren). Apologist William Lane Craig, esteemed Bible scholars like Gundry and Licona, and even reformed pastors like Keller are agreeing that many of the passages that are taken literally probably should not be. And as I dig deeper into this subject, I'm surprised and fascinated to see that many of the early church fathers and great theologians of the past did not believe God actually commanded the violence that is attributed to him in the Old Testament.

I realize if I go down this road, I can kiss any chance of serving as an elder in the church or as a small group leader goodbye, but I also know that I have to do what I believe is right, even if it's not popular.

[dizerner]

Alright, man. Although I may sound like one of those "close-minded" people, I don't consider myself so—and greatly relate to this struggle to harmonize and understand passages that seem immoral. Although I'm committed to believing Scripture is inspired, because of things I myself have experienced from God, I know that's not something you can "prove" with arguments. We can speculate Moses was mistaken, Paul was mistaken, shoot we can even speculate Jesus was mistaken, or that the Bible doesn't accurately record enough information, and these people were really different than what we have. That might dissolve in a big mash of skepticism, and that's why I'm big on the witness of the Spirit to whatever the truth in Scripture is.

I would say, I won't expect God's ways to naturally "make sense" to me or "ring true" to my innate morality, since I believe in original sin, you know? So that would be putting my own pondering and speculating with my foggy limited mind about ultimate realities only God can reveal to me. I really can't harmonize a good, powerful God with the existence of evil, even, the most basic moral problem for Christianity, yet I believe the Word reveals just that—and it's completely paradoxical to my natural understanding of logic. I don't think people should hide things they believe that are not based in logic, and if you are strict with logic, it seems impossible to even prove that logic is trustworthy since it's circular in nature. This is way, way bigger moral problem than the fact that God commanded to kill some people in the OT.

If I read a passage that says God told Moses "if you do this, you shall be put to death," or if he told his people then "put to death all of this enemy nation," I don't believe that's the kind of morality that is ideal, per se, but I believe the Spirit witnesses to the inspiration of the text for me personally. How do I then harmonize that with the NT morality? Well, first off, many people that object to NT morality being different don't really closely study NT morality, it's not all cut and dried; not that we are to kill people, but God's judgments in the NT can seem just as harsh as in the OT. That aside, I see the OT Jewish nation as being unregenerate, and man's true problem being internal sin, that can only be cured through the work of the Cross. So without a new birth, right attitudes will never reside in the human heart, no matter what laws the Jewish nation got, even if they perfectly reflected what you feel is your own innate sense of morality. And that covenant was a covenant to display sin contrasted against God's holiness, and to be shadows for spiritual realities and to a covenant leading to the death of our own righteousness and then faith in the new birth that does produce right attitudes. Christians are not under the covenant from Mt. Sinai, let's be clear on that; and I realize people are frustrated when they think others "cherry-pick" morality from it. I don't see the NT doing quite that.

Not that I'm saying even a good morality is easy to explain or cut and dried, since we have a lot of problems figuring out what is right to do in any situation. I don't like this modern trend to remove the classic view of inspiration and replace it with a "let's just speculate about Scripture anything our natural mind thinks is reasonable." I mean we get a Scripture that says "lean not on your own understanding," yet I feel so many "new thinkers" that's basically all they do to write their books with hundreds of pages of fleshly speculation and constantly rewriting and redefining the Word of God away to be acceptable to what Paul calls the "fleshly man," or naturally minded man. I hope you can at least understand the danger I feel in doing that, though perhaps someone who doesn't feel they know what's what might feel they have no choice but to try to parse things out with their natural understanding.

[psimmond]

dizerner, I appreciate your gracious reply, your reasoning, and your cautions. Just out of curiosity, when you say the Bible is inspired does that necessitate inerrancy for you? (By "inerrancy" I mean no factual errors in the original manuscripts.)