they were instructed to go to war, so they say, by god, therefore, he commanded them to kill. and the ppl they were instructed to kill were not just other "soldiers" but women and children, who were not fighting them. Numbers 3131:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
kill all but the young innocent virgins, and "take' them for yourselves? shame on you for calling that self defense.
and the golden cheribum were on top of the ark of the covenant, the single most worshiped object in the whole bible. it was kept in a temple of the most high, attended to only by priests, for crying out loud. it was absolutely worshiped.
and shame on you pitiful sir for dismissing the fact that slavery is condoned in the bible.
Leviticus 25:44-46 (King James Version)
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
and as for Malachi, you consider gods thoughts as differing and separate from his heart or mind? that in itself is yet another contradiction.
and much shame on you for comparing the writings of some poet to the supposed "infallible" word of god. nobody is trying to claim Shakespeare writings as divine the way they do the scriptures. But the real question is: What does the Bible itself say about its own "infallibility"? Actually, it says nothing. The Bible in its current compilation didn't even exist until several centuries after the last book was written. Why are religious zealots so quick to claim divine authorship of a book that doesn't even claim it for itself (with the exception of specific portions of law and prophecy such as "Thus sayeth the Lord...," but not to the modern Bible as a whole)? The Bible was a collection of separate writings (laws, plays, poems, songs, histories and letters) by individual religious commentators who never imagined their writings would ever be considered divine. They are just like modern writers, making commentary and analysis, who just happened to have their works assembled and voted on by later believers who then canonized their words. They refer to the sanctity of sacred scripture (the body already canonized before their time -- such as the Law of Moses and the writings of the Old Testament prophets) never imagining that someday THEIR writings, letters, or whatever will be added to the canon. Paul the Apostle, who clearly believed that the established scripture of his day was inspired (see 2Tim 3:16), also clearly acknowledged that some of his own writings were NOT, as when he wrote in 1 Cor 7:12 "But to the rest speak I, NOT THE LORD..." (emphasis added); and 2 Cor 11:17 "That which I speak, I speak [it] NOT AFTER THE LORD..."
and i will not end by throwing some out of context scripture at you as you have done in response to me. i will say that your the pitiful one, who cant even show how these are not contradictions, but try to rationalize and justify horrible things condoned in the bible. shame on you for that, and i strongly advise u to get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness for confessing to be a christian when you are in fact nothing like christ.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
kill all but the young innocent virgins, and "take' them for yourselves? shame on you for calling that self defense.
and the golden cheribum were on top of the ark of the covenant, the single most worshiped object in the whole bible. it was kept in a temple of the most high, attended to only by priests, for crying out loud. it was absolutely worshiped.
and shame on you pitiful sir for dismissing the fact that slavery is condoned in the bible.
Leviticus 25:44-46 (King James Version)
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
and as for Malachi, you consider gods thoughts as differing and separate from his heart or mind? that in itself is yet another contradiction.
and much shame on you for comparing the writings of some poet to the supposed "infallible" word of god. nobody is trying to claim Shakespeare writings as divine the way they do the scriptures. But the real question is: What does the Bible itself say about its own "infallibility"? Actually, it says nothing. The Bible in its current compilation didn't even exist until several centuries after the last book was written. Why are religious zealots so quick to claim divine authorship of a book that doesn't even claim it for itself (with the exception of specific portions of law and prophecy such as "Thus sayeth the Lord...," but not to the modern Bible as a whole)? The Bible was a collection of separate writings (laws, plays, poems, songs, histories and letters) by individual religious commentators who never imagined their writings would ever be considered divine. They are just like modern writers, making commentary and analysis, who just happened to have their works assembled and voted on by later believers who then canonized their words. They refer to the sanctity of sacred scripture (the body already canonized before their time -- such as the Law of Moses and the writings of the Old Testament prophets) never imagining that someday THEIR writings, letters, or whatever will be added to the canon. Paul the Apostle, who clearly believed that the established scripture of his day was inspired (see 2Tim 3:16), also clearly acknowledged that some of his own writings were NOT, as when he wrote in 1 Cor 7:12 "But to the rest speak I, NOT THE LORD..." (emphasis added); and 2 Cor 11:17 "That which I speak, I speak [it] NOT AFTER THE LORD..."
and i will not end by throwing some out of context scripture at you as you have done in response to me. i will say that your the pitiful one, who cant even show how these are not contradictions, but try to rationalize and justify horrible things condoned in the bible. shame on you for that, and i strongly advise u to get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness for confessing to be a christian when you are in fact nothing like christ.
