GOD OF THE OT / GOD OF THE NT.......IS IT THE SAME GOD?

[eddif]

Why take a break?

Where does Genesis 9 speak of an eye for an eye?

Genesis 9:3 kjv
3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

I admit it is sort of hidden.

But the shedding of blood is required of man.
If a seed = Word of God
If ground is men’s hearts
Then
(I require the life of man) is not spot on the same words.

A New Covenant is being started after the flood.
Water used to come up from Ground to water plants
Now rain will water plans.

Man will start to eat meat?

Lots of changes.

Later the Law of Moses will chang rules again.

God is the same but things change.

God is Rod and Staff
Till
Man’s New heart of flesh and Mimd of Christ.

The eyes of our understanding goes inward rather than outward.

How can a man enter into his mother’s womb a second time?
Becomes
Oh I get it now (we are born of the Spirit)

I use PaRDeS to help. Many reject the concept. Jewish and all that. So far this is all I use from that particular group. If a donkey can speak truth, so can they.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Free]

The point of this thread is to show how God is not adhering to His nature.
Not to discuss His nature...which was touched upon.

As I just stated above, everything God says and does necessarily flows from his nature. Therefore, this discussion must include discussion of his nature; without that, you will never understand or get an answer to your dilemma.

The point is that if He does not adhere to His nature,
He cannot be trusted....

But, he does adhere to his nature and he can be trusted. That is what I showed. A big part of the problem, perhaps, is this popular idea of God is Love, without fully understanding the implications. God’s love and justice are two sides of the same coin.

Yes, and I can repeat this.

You could, but my point is that you’re contradicting yourself. It either is about God’s nature (and it is) or it isn’t.

OK
So God ordered man to kill.
Didn't God order man NOT to kill while travelling through Sinai?

If God commands one thing at one time and something else at another time, why would that matter?

We're not discussing sin here.

We must, it is central to the topic. I even gave passages showing that sin was the reason.

We all sin.

Maybe we should all be struck down?
Is this what God said He would do or does He have a plan of salvation?

This is really off-topic.

Yes, this part is, as it doesn’t have anything to do with sin being the reason for God commanding Canaanites to be killed.

OK.
This is your opinion then.
I cannot agree.
It splits God in two and makes the God of the OT completely different from the God of the NT.

One teaches man to kill other men.
One teaches to turn the other cheek.

One has a child brought to the edge of town to be stoned to death...
One gives instruction on how to raise children properly and says they are to come to Him.

One gives us hundreds of laws to keep..
One tells us He will change our heart.

It isn’t my position that splits God in two. God’s commands to kill were very few, limited in time, and limited to the Israelites in specific circumstances. They most certainly were not open commands to kill whomever the Israelites wanted, whenever they wanted. Christ’s commands are for everyone, at all times, and in all places.

Additionally:

Act 5:4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”
Act 5:5 When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.
…
Act 5:9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
Act 5:10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. (ESV)

Act 12:21 On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them.
Act 12:22 And the people were shouting, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!”
Act 12:23 Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last. (ESV)

1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
1Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (ESV)

And, of course:

Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (ESV)

Because sin has consequences and all without Christ face judgement, sometimes now and later, but always later.

If the above is correct, God is not to be trusted.

I’m going to suggest doing serious study and meditation on the nature of God, and precisely what his love, holiness, and justice entail. It is central to understanding what appears to be a difference between the God of the OT and of the NT.

 

[Riven]

Believing in God is sufficient.
If you'd like to know more about Him, then reading the bible is a good idea.
Believing in the bible?
Well, if God exists
and He revealed Himself to man
and used the bible to do it,
why wouldn't you believe it?
Maybe there are certain PARTS you find difficult to accept,
so do we just ditch the entire book(s)?

No, I wouldn't want to ever ditch it. It would be accurate to say that I have a hard time believing certain parts of it. Talking animals and that sort of thing, you know? By the car the most compelling character in the book for me is Jesus. Without him, I wouldn't give Christianity a second thought.

So you have faith....but it's in science.
This is most interesting since the bible CAME FIRST and I don't understand what it contradicts....
If you reply, please keep in mind that I'm not a fundamentalist.

Scientific discoveries have contradicted some of the stories in the Old Testament. For example, Noah's Ark and the Flood. There has been geological evidence of a local flood that could have been the basis for that story. But the evidence for a worldwide flood doesn't exist. That's the kind of event that would leave a significant amount of fossilized evidence within layers of the earth.

I don't put my faith in science.
I like putting my faith in the God that created a universe that allows science to be able to function by creating the rules that make that universe function.

Math.
What is math.
Was it invented or was it discovered?

Something to ponder.
(which, knowing you, you probably already have).

I'm terrible at math. So I try not to ponder it too much. XD

 

[eddif]

We could look at the nature of those receiving punishment.
King David received chastisement for his sins.

Psalms 73:1 kjv
1.. Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart.
2. But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped.
3. For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
4. For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm.
5. They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men.
14. For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning.

God chasten them he loves

God’s nature works to correct Israel externally in the Old Testament
But
New Testament:
His people have to.be turned over to Satan (by Church discipline) to receive external punishment? All this thread discussion misses the larger picture.

Oh well rednecks are just strange. King David was ruddy.

eddif

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

We're not discussing God exercising justice.
We're discussing how God could command man to do something that is AGAINST the 10 Commandments....which are written in stone.

How so? None of the ten commandments did God command man to violate. The sixth commandment does NOT say you shall not "kill", it states you shall not MURDER, specifically, first degree, premeditated murder out of pure hatred. Self defense, execution, warfare, accident, butchering animals are NOT included, even pulling the plug of life support system for a terminally ill patient, or coup de grace to end suffering are debatable. In Ex. 20 the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, and immediately in the next chapter, "blood for blood" death penalty was instituted (Ex. 21:12-17), God never meant his people to be weak pacificists turning blind eye on evil, it is you who read it wrong. You're asking a loaded question with a false premise.

 

[GodsGrace]

When people turn away from sound teaching, commentaries, and God given teachers...error follows such people shortly there after. We see that here with some suggesting God goes against His own nature
Such an idea is profane. All biblical theology starts with the presupposition of our God being Holy and Perfect in all His ways. When so called teachers leave the pathway of trusted guides, error is waiting for them.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED MANY TIMES REGARDING THE TOS.
ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE BREAKING THE TOS RULES.

HERE IN THEOLOGY WE DISCUSS THE TOPIC AT HAND AND USE VERSES TO DO SO WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

WE DO NOT DISCUSS THE BELIEFS OF OTHER MEMBERS.

IF THIS IS WHAT YOU WISH TO DO, PLEASE PM THE MEMBER TO WHOM YOU ARE MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS.

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5


DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST IN THIS THREAD.
USE TALK WITH STAFF IF NECESSARY.

 

[GodsGrace]

Right, but God's nature cannot be kept out of the discussion. It is very important to understand God's nature to see why he does what he does, in both the OT and the NT, which shows that he is no different from one to the other. You cannot reconcile "the God of the OT with the God of the NT" without understanding God's nature.

And you think you understand God' nature 100% and you think you know why He does things 100%?
And the God of the OT seems exactly the same to you as the God of the NT?

I've listed differences.
Can you list HOW they are exactly the same? (in nature I mean - or at least that part of it God has revealed to us)

Could you make us understand how He is acting the same instead of repeating that His nature is in question here.

Please reconcile the two.
Preferably using scripture instead of writings of men.

It's worth noting that first you say "the thread is not about God's nature," but then say "it would seem, goes against His nature," and "You're offering reasons as to WHY God betrayed His own nature and killed," and "It is not explaining if God broke His nature by doing so." It is precisely about God's nature. That is why I first said that that gets to the heart of the matter.

Correct. I'm saying God is going against ONE ASPECT of His nature.
God commanded NOT TO KILL.

And then He commands men TO KILL??

This is what needs to be reconciled.

We are NOT discussing God's nature here.
There are threads on this.

With that said, I don't think you understood the main point of my post. Maybe you skimmed too quickly. What I've posted has everything to do with the OP. God is the one and only righteous judge, whose holiness demands justice for sin. That God ordered the Israelites to kill various tribes in Canaan was because their sin was full (Gen 15:13-16). And there is no excuse for sin (Rom 1:18-21). That is what undergirds all of it. It was time for their judgement from a righteous God.

Who is saying anything about sin?
Really, I think you're on the wrong thread.

Maybe we could start a new one on God's nature?

I provided several verses (and there are more) that show God is patient, long-suffering, to give people every chance to repent and turn to him. He does that in the OT and he's doing that now. But, as Gen 15:13-16 and Prov 29:1 show, God tolerates wickedness for only so long. Judgement must come eventually, if God is truly holy and just. God not only had the right to command to kill in the name of judgement, he had to do it in order to be who he says he is.

If what God did in the OT betrays his own nature, then what he does at the end of all things, as per Revelation, certainly goes against his nature. It's all one and the same. However, contrary to God's commands in the OT to kill being contrary to his nature, all those commands were on the basis of judgement, which God must do in order to be consistent with his nature.

God MUST TAKE THE ACTON....
He cannot instruct MAN to take an action that HE ALSO PROHIBITS.


(Caps are for emphasis. As they always have been.
I'm not yelling, as the younger folk here seem to understand.)

 

[GodsGrace]

Genesis didn’t, but the same principle of retribution is stated in Ex. 21:24, Lev. 24:20, Deut. 19:21.

That’s not what Jesus did when he was struck. Instead he protested:

And when he said these things, one of the officers who stood by struck him with the palm of his hand: “do you answer the high priest like that?” Jesus answered him: “if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, WHY DO YOU STRIKE ME?” (Jn. 18:22-23) why didn’t the Lord turn the other cheek?

Yes, man MUST do so, again Gen. 9:6, which alludes to Rom. 13:1-4. This is a response to the pre-flood world of extreme wickedness, that was a result of extreme lawlessness.

I'm refusing to speak about sin, the wickedness of man, etc.

If you care to discuss the turning of the other cheek, we could get into it in another thread.

Jesus didn't need to turn the other cheek.
He was GOD.

Do you know what turning the other cheek means?
Does it mean getting hit on the other side too?
No. That is not what it means.


Maybe it's time to close this thread down.
It might be me that is unable to keep it on track.

 

[KV-44-v1]

It isn’t my position that splits God in two. God’s commands to kill were very few, limited in time, and limited to the Israelites in specific circumstances. They most certainly were not open commands to kill whomever the Israelites wanted, whenever they wanted. Christ’s commands are for everyone, at all times, and in all places.

Yes, athiests consistently FAIL to differetiate, to "rightly divide the Word." They are too caught up in their selfish sin to even try to understand the Bible, and thus make many strawmans.

Your post is excellent to refute the athiests who try to "prove" their claim that "God is mean" or its variations.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Talking animals and that sort of thing, you know?

There is a Supernatural. NDE's prove it.

Without Him, I wouldn't give Christianity a second thought.

Indeed, Christianity stands or falls on the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection. The Bible itself claims this.

https://twitter.com/intent/tweet/?t...nity-stands-or-falls-on-the-resurrection.html
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead separates Christianity from all mere religion - whatever its form. Christianity without the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is merely one religion among many. "And if Christ is not risen," said the Apostle Paul, "then our preaching is empty and your faith is in vain" [1 Corinthians 15:14]. Furthermore, "You are still in your sins!" [1 Corinthians 15:17]. Paul could not have chosen stronger language. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable" [1 Corinthians 15:19].

So yes, without Jesus, Christianity would not be! Can't even spell CHRISTianity without CHRIST.

Scientific discoveries have contradicted some of the stories in the Old Testament. For example, Noah's Ark and the Flood. There has been geological evidence of a local flood that could have been the basis for that story. That's the kind of event that would leave a significant amount of fossilized evidence within layers of the earth.

I see non believers use this as a talking point against the Bible quite often.
WHICH discoveries, specifically?
Science is FALLIBLE - meaning it should always be in submission to the Bible, not be manipulated against it.
The reason physics exists is because GOD created it.

But the evidence for a worldwide flood doesn't exist.

Asssertion, not fact.

Some evidence:
SOFT TISSUE IN DINO FOSSILS THAT ARE ALLEGEDLY MILLION YEARS OLD.
FOSSIL GRAVEYARDS.
CREATURE FOSSILS WHERE THEY SHOULDNT BE.
THE BIBLE!
MANY MANY FLOOD LEGENDS THAT ARE A NOTICABLE DEGENERATION FROM THE GENESIS ACCOUNT.
your assertion is bald like a plucked chicken.

That's the kind of event that would leave a significant amount of fossilized evidence within layers of the earth.

Which is precisely what we see. You almost refuted your "doesnt exist" claim there, but you wrote an expectation.

AnswersinGenesis.org <-- for the humble and factual and logical.

 

[KV-44-v1]

NOT TO KILL.

Killing and murdering are radically different.
Killing a nazi soldier is simply killing, it is not murdering.
Killing a random dude who did no crime or big sin would be murdering.
Murdering is unjust killing.
Indeed, the word used is murder. The KJV chose a word, but languages change, so modern ver. easily compensate.

In fact, this is a great point against KJV-onlyism.

NASB 1995
"“You shall not murder."

 

[GodsGrace]

Killing and murdering are radically different.
Killing a nazi soldier is simply killing, it is not murdering.
Killing a random dude who did no crime or big sin would be murdering.
Murdering is unjust killing.
Indeed, the word used is murder. The KJV chose a word, but languages change, so modern ver. easily compensate.

In fact, this is a great point against KJV-onlyism.

NASB 1995
"“You shall not murder."

This discussion already came up.
This topic is not about the difference between killing and murdering.

Guess what....the person is dead in both cases.
Should we change the topic to:
WERE THE CAANANITES MURDERED OR KILLED?

 

[KV-44-v1]

This topic is not about the difference between killing and murdering.

So? My post completely dissolved the alleged "contradiction" between the OT's revelation and NT's on the 'killing' part.
Apparently we can't post even if it is clearly related, we must agree with you. :/

Guess what....the person is dead in both cases.

Circumstances and the individuals' actions still matter.

 

[GodsGrace]

So? My post completely dissolved the alleged "contradiction" between the OT's revelation and NT's on the 'killing' part.
Apparently we can't post even if it is clearly related, we must agree with you. :/



Circumstances and the individuals' actions still matter.

I thought we were discussing GODS actions?

You could disagree all you want to, but your post dissolved nothing.
You're posting about what a word means.

Does this dissolve what God did?

 

[KV-44-v1]

I thought we were discussing GODS actions?

Waaait a minute.

The thread title is "GOD OF THE OT / GOD OF THE NT.......IS IT THE SAME GOD?"

You are a stickler for "only discuss x/y/z!!" So by your logic, we have to discuss the GOD of the Testaments, not the ACTIONS of Him.

dissolved nothing.

Yes it did.

I thought we were discussing GODS actions?

Yes.
God's actions are just, never unjust.
God's killings are never murders.
God GAVE life so He can TAKE it.
Read Job and Jeremiah 18.

Does this dissolve what God did?

No, it dissolves your assertion that OT and NT God are different.

Do you think that the Bible is double minded??
Because if the Bible really is revealing "two different gods" then:

1. it preaches polythiesm
2. it is inconsistent
3. therefore CANNOT be God's Word.

You do not understand the implications of if "they" are different....

 

[GodsGrace]

Waaait a minute.

The thread title is "GOD OF THE OT / GOD OF THE NT.......IS IT THE SAME GOD?"

You are a stickler for "only discuss x/y/z!!" So by your logic, we have to discuss the GOD of the Testaments, not the ACTIONS of Him.

We're not understanding each other KV.
I AM discussing the ACTIONS of God in the OT.....as regarding whether or not they break the nature He has revealed to us.

Yes it did.

Yes.
God's actions are just, never unjust.
God's killings are never murders.
God GAVE life so He can TAKE it.
Read Job and Jeremiah 18.

OK...
So this is your view.
You have reconciled this dichotomy in this way:
You're able to accept anything God does with no question.

This is a resolution.

In the OP I stated that this is a big topic in Christianity right now.
I even stated something Bill Craig stated that was very much opposed.
(very unusual for him- to be opposed I mean).

No, it dissolves your assertion that OT and NT God are different.

Well, I never said they're different.
This is what you THINK I said.

Do you think that the Bible is double minded??
Because if the Bible really is revealing "two different gods" then:

1. it preaches polythiesm
2. it is inconsistent
3. therefore CANNOT be God's Word.

You do not understand the implications of if "they" are different....

You're new here and don't know me so you could post the above.

I'm presenting a current Christian Theology problem that exists right now.
It is, in fact, a problem that we, as Christians must resolve TO OURSELVES.
Just wondering how we do that.

There is only ONE GOD.
Deuteronomy is true yesterday and today and forever.
(the shema).

 

[Alfred Persson]

This goes without saying.
But don't you believe God told us what was necessary for us to know to believe He is a God that loves us and will do what's best for us?
Can we believe this if God goes against His own principles?
Do not kill.
What other principles will He invalidate? (that He has revealed to us).



I refer you to Romans 1:18-21 or thereabouts.
No one has an excuse for not believing in God.



God cannot be mocked.

Here's my last question, to which you're replying:

If I'm dead....
and I know it....
And God gives me a second chance....
what kind of a crazy person would I have to be not to take it?

I'm saying the opposite of what you're understanding....
What IDIO wouldn't take the second chance??

See?




What does Matthew 7:22-23 mean to you?

Scripture contains all necessary for the man of God to be complete, equipped for every good work which includes knowing everything necessary to know about God our Father:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NKJ)

God did not violate the principle "thou shalt not kill". When God executes a person, its judgment...not murder. In the "holy wars" of Theocratic Israel, Satanism was being judged and those who turned to Baal died the death.

Christ will lead His angelic army against the Beast and slaughter them on the mountains of Israel and they become food for vultures.

This is separate and distinct from His teaching to love enemies. God practices what He preaches when He showers blessings upon the earth and the wicked enjoy the good bounty of God along with the righteous.

44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 "that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matt. 5:44-45 NKJ)


"If I'm dead....
and I know it....
And God gives me a second chance....
what kind of a crazy person would I have to be not to take it?"

Clement of Alexandria believed "Souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh"-Chap. VI, "The Gospel was preached to Jews and Gentiles in Hades"

That may be the case, but it does not follow the wicked suddenly become righteous. Wicked souls can lie whether in or out of their physical bodies.

The miracle working apostates tried to claim they still served Jesus when they were being judged:

22 "Many will say to Me in that day,`Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 "And then I will declare to them,`I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Matt. 7:22-23 NKJ)

These apostates are just like the those who left John's church and began preaching antichrist doctrine:

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. (1 Jn. 2:18-19 NKJ)

The End Time apostates who once worked miracles in Christ's name, but joined the antichrist Beast, were so much like the apostates in John's Day, he likens the time to "the last hour". He wasn't saying its the last hour chronologically, it was the last hour in an antitype.

What did the apostle John reveal when he said: “It is the last hour”? | End Time News

John saw the apostasy of miracle working schismatics leaving his church as fitting Christ's description of the End Time falling away (Mt. 7:22-23; 24:11-12; Mk. 13:22-23) and writes "it is the last hour". What did John mean? Was he speaking chronologically or did he thereby illustrate to every...

endtimenews.net

 

[Free]

And you think you understand God' nature 100% and you think you know why He does things 100%?

No, I have never made that claim. All I have been saying is that he can only act from his nature, so that is where your answer is found.

And the God of the OT seems exactly the same to you as the God of the NT?

I've listed differences.
Can you list HOW they are exactly the same? (in nature I mean - or at least that part of it God has revealed to us)

Could you make us understand how He is acting the same instead of repeating that His nature is in question here.

Please reconcile the two.

I have done all of that, in my first two long replies. I showed why he is consistent with his nature in both the OT and the NT. He is loving and just--two sides of the same coin--and that his justness flows from his holiness. All of those, particularly the latter, show why he cannot tolerate sin forever and why it must be judged and sinners punished. That is the answer to your dilemma in the OP and why he cannot act contradictory to his nature.

It all comes down to this one fact: God will never act contradictory to his nature; he absolutely cannot. He will always act perfectly justly and lovingly because he is perfectly holy. So, if one thinks that God's actions contradicted his nature, then their understanding of his nature is incorrect or deficient at some point.

Preferably using scripture instead of writings of men.

You do realize that probably almost every thought you have on anything theological (or anything else) has come to you, at some point, through the "writings [or teachings] of men," yes? It's how we primarily learn and it's primarily how God speaks to us. We can eventually come to believe that they were our own thoughts. In the very least, it is what others say that sparks us to think differently about something.

Correct. I'm saying God is going against ONE ASPECT of His nature.

Which aspect?

God commanded NOT TO KILL.

Murder, which is different.

And then He commands men TO KILL??

As judgement for their sins, so it wasn't murder. God not only has the right to kill people in judgement for their sins, his nature dictates that he must. And, he can decide when and how, because he is God.

This is what needs to be reconciled.

I've done that, in those two long posts. Of course, there is more that could be said, but I believe I gave enough to show how it is all reconciled.

We are NOT discussing God's nature here.
There are threads on this.

Again, you are contradicting yourself. You say "We are NOT discussing God's nature here," just after having said "I'm saying God is going against ONE ASPECT of His nature." So, you are making it about God's nature, and intuitively know it's about his nature, but you don't want to discuss his nature and also say it isn't about his nature. Apart from being contradictory, it means you will never get the answer, or accept the answer, to your dilemma.

Who is saying anything about sin?
Really, I think you're on the wrong thread.

Maybe we could start a new one on God's nature?

It honestly seems like you're not reading what I am writing. The nature of God and sin are at the very heart of your dilemma. The whole reason God commanded the killing of Canaanite tribes was in judgement of their sin. And, God commanded that because he is loving, just, and holy; he was being perfectly consistent with his nature.

God MUST TAKE THE ACTON....
He cannot instruct MAN to take an action that HE ALSO PROHIBITS.

Well, God didn't instruct man to take an action he also prohibits. Also, God mainly acts through people. That is how he does most of his work. There is ultimately no difference if God does the action directly himself or indirectly through people. He could also have commanded them to kill so that they would get used to warfare, something they may not have had to deal with as Egyptian slaves, but something they would have to deal with to defend their territory and cities.

 

[kjw47]

No, I wouldn't want to ever ditch it. It would be accurate to say that I have a hard time believing certain parts of it. Talking animals and that sort of thing, you know? By the car the most compelling character in the book for me is Jesus. Without him, I wouldn't give Christianity a second thought.


Scientific discoveries have contradicted some of the stories in the Old Testament. For example, Noah's Ark and the Flood. There has been geological evidence of a local flood that could have been the basis for that story. But the evidence for a worldwide flood doesn't exist. That's the kind of event that would leave a significant amount of fossilized evidence within layers of the earth.


I'm terrible at math. So I try not to ponder it too much. XD

A fallen angel being talked through the serpent, later known as satan and devil.
Mans use of science is flawed to the core.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

If you care to discuss the turning of the other cheek, we could get into it in another thread.

Jesus didn't need to turn the other cheek.
He was GOD.

"He was GOD" was not an answer because he chose to become a man, and he led by example. More is caught than taught, more is shown than known. I don't care to discuss the turning of the other cheek, I care to discuss the LACK thereof when the Lord was struck in one cheek.

Maybe it's time to close this thread down.
It might be me that is unable to keep it on track.

Yes, please. I've already answered your question in the OP, take it or not it's up to you.