Seeing god? No Free Will? General thoughts

whatever · Post by **whatever** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:01 pm

If god showed himself to the entire planet and said "Behold it is me, I exist... please stop fighting"

I'm sure that (given the circumstances) everyone would stop fighting and the world would be a much nicer, better place.

Now for me, the fact this does not happen means:

a. God can't reveal himself - what kind of god does this make him if he can't do something?

b. God chooses not to reveal himself - does he not want to prevent suffering?

c. God doesn't realise the positive impact such an act would have - is he dumb?

Any opinions?

Another thought (that was not my own) is that, if god is so pure and can do no wrong, that means he only ever has one option..

because he will know the outcome of all his actions inadvance, god has no free will because his action must always be the most moral... can a god not have freewill?

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:09 pm

Lotan wrote:

It is hardly my source of ideas.

I am happy to hear that, and I am happy to continue discussing with you then.

Although you clearly dislike and disagree with the observations made there you give no reason why, except that it is your opinion that the author doesn't understand the OT.

I did give a reason why. My reason is because the author of this website is not educated on the issues he/she disputes. I went out of my way to state that point clearly and provide an analogy. Why didn't you pick up on that?

If you can show that these references aren't valid please present your evidence.

The references are valid. The points or conclusions that were drawn are not valid, and that is what I am disputing.

Arch wrote:

Why are you so hostile?

I deeply apologize for coming across as hostile. It was not my intent. It may have sounded that way because I was posting in response to a referenced website that is vastly misinformed, unresearched, and uneducated on the topic matter.

I would like to note that I do not dispute websites that offer valid concerns, objections, and/or observations. It is only when subject matter is distorted and misrepresented.

Let's take a dignified look at this rape issue. Since in Due it says a man can sell his daughter to another man and that man can do with her as he pleases, then if she pleases him not he can give her away to another. The inability of this girl to choose being sold to a man is RAPE.

The abbreviation for Deuteronomy is Deut. not Due. (plus you spelled the abbreviation wrong), if that's what you meant. I had to read this paragraph 5 or 6 times to figure out what you were talking about. This isn't a criticism, it's just FYI, for future posts.

Moving on...

I admit that there are laws in the Old Testament that I do not understand myself. This doesn't mean I will dismiss those laws or make wild accusations on a whim, though. If I wanted to know the answer, I would do some reasearch or ask people that are knowledgable on such issues. And doing research does not include browsing willy-nilly on the internet for anybody's opinion, as is the case of this website.

If we are going to take a dignified look at this, I must ask what passage you are specifically referring to. I will not be able to address this until you do. Please get back to me, thanks.

Secondly, when the bible states also in DUE that if a man rapes a woman and no one is there to hear her cries, then she must marry him and he can never put her away... Says hey rape is ok as long as you marry the woman afterwards. The poor woman forced to be with her attacker the rest of her life.

I cannot respond to much of this until you specifically name the passage you are referring to. I can't find it under your paraphrasing.

But I would still like to ask: Can a man rape his own wife? Is that possible? In most countries, I think the answer is "no". I'm not sure what the case is in America. In the Bible, marriage marks the ceremony of a man and a woman becoming one flesh. Being one flesh after marriage, can you rape yourself? That would be an interesting case. There are a lot of customs that you and I and many other people do not understand regarding Jewish Law and History. In order to take a dignified look... we need to find the answers, not make up our own.

Oh wait this is all in the OT where GOD did and let awful things be done in his name

The only "awful" things God did and let be done in His name were things to awful and evil people. Can it then be considered awful? Are you a supporter of capitol punishment or against? Isn't murdering somebody awful? Or is it only awful if the person being murdered ISN'T a criminal.

By the way I haven't gone to the site and have never been there Wonder where i got my ideas from...lol

No, you're right, it's obvious where you got them from. :lol:

You made them up, maybe? :-k

WHY dont you ever actually address the information and the statment given.

I do address the information and the statement given. If you can't follow my posts, please copy and paste the parts that are not clear and I will happily clarify them for you! Sorry for the confusion.

I could see you hopping all over the site if the verses were not in the bible, but they are in the bible. So what difference does the agenda of the site make.

I already addressed this in this post and the post that you were responding to when you wrote this. I went out of my way to say that the author of this site is commenting on material that he has clearly done absolutely no research on. If he had done even an inkling of research on the History of Jewish culture and/or society in Biblical times, he would not have made such remarks. Keep in mind, that part of the Bible was written some 4000+ years ago. I think the times have changed a little bit, and one needs to seek to understand this instead making comments in the dark.

The point is THE BIBLE CONDONES RAPE DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE

I am dealing with that issue by disputing it, however, I interpret the above quote to be very impolite. Please try to extend more courtesy when making a statement.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 11:23 pm

I wrote: Although you clearly dislike and disagree with the observations made there you give no reason why, except that it is your opinion that the author doesn't understand the OT.
GreenLight311 wrote: I did give a reason why. My reason is because the author of this website is not educated on the issues he/she disputes. I went out of my way to state that point clearly and provide an analogy. Why didn't you pick up on that?

What I have picked up on is that you fail to back your arguments with anything of substance, leaving only your unsupported opinion.
Admittedly the author of the EvilBible site is a little coarse, but to me at least, he doesn't seem to be " incapable of making a rational comment or observation" as you claim. Do you know him personally? On what basis can you claim he is "vastly misinformed, unresearched, and uneducated on the topic matter"? Is it because he doesn't agree with you?

GreenLight311 wrote:The references are valid. The points or conclusions that were drawn are not valid, and that is what I am disputing.

That's easy enough then. There are 10 valid references on that page. Since you feel that the author is not educated enough to make valid conclusions regarding them, then you yourself should be educated enough to be able to show where he is mistaken. Two or three examples would be nice. It's not enough to say that someone is wrong just because you think that they are unknowledgeable or irrational, you have to demonstrate how they are wrong, preferably with evidence, otherwise it's just your word against theirs.

Since you weren't too crazy about the EvilBible site, here's another hopefully more 'educated' essay; "Religion, Rape and War" by Iris J. Stewart. You'll notice that her evidence doesn't differ substantially from the first site.

GreenLight311 wrote:If one isn't willing to be researched before arguing... one shouldn't argue.

Amen.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:46 am

GreenLight311 wrote: But I would still like to ask: Can a man rape his own wife? Is that possible? In most countries, I think the answer is "no".

Actually I think you will find that in many countries, including the US, rape in marriage is in fact a criminal offence. I did not dio extensie research but that would appear to be the case.

Arch · Post by **Arch** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:37 pm

GreenLight311 wrote:Arch wrote:

Let's take a dignified look at this rape issue. Since in Due it says a man can sell his daughter to another man and that man can do with her as he pleases, then if she pleases him not he can give her away to another. The inability of this girl to choose being sold to a man is RAPE.
The abbreviation for Deuteronomy is Deut. not Due. (plus you spelled the abbreviation wrong), if that's what you meant. I had to read this paragraph 5 or 6 times to figure out what you were talking about. This isn't a criticism, it's just FYI, for future posts.

Moving on...

I admit that there are laws in the Old Testament that I do not understand myself. This doesn't mean I will dismiss those laws or make wild accusations on a whim, though. If I wanted to know the answer, I would do some reasearch or ask people that are knowledgable on such issues. And doing research does not include browsing willy-nilly on the internet for anybody's opinion, as is the case of this website.

If we are going to take a dignified look at this, I must ask what passage you are specifically referring to. I will not be able to address this until you do. Please get back to me, thanks.

When asked to give quotes to SO CALLED Christians supposedly well versed in the bible, I always laugh to myself and say WHY DON"T YOU KNOW WHERE THESE VERSES ARE? DON"T YOU STUDY THE BIBLE?

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

Let's look at this a man sells his daughter to a master, whon then betrothes her, if ya dont know that means makes her is bed partner. NOw she was SOLD to this man by her father she had no choice in the matter then the man chooses to betroth her making her now his wife( nice way of saying this gorl was sold to be a sex slave) If she pleases him not he can get rid of her he just cant sell her to a far away tribe or nation.

GreenLight311 wrote:
Secondly, when the bible states also in DUE that if a man rapes a woman and no one is there to hear her cries, then she must marry him and he can never put her away... Says hey rape is ok as long as you marry the woman afterwards. The poor woman forced to be with her attacker the rest of her life.
I cannot respond to much of this until you specifically name the passage you are referring to. I can't find it under your paraphrasing.

But I would still like to ask: Can a man rape his own wife? Is that possible? In most countries, I think the answer is "no". I'm not sure what the case is in America. In the Bible, marriage marks the ceremony of a man and a woman becoming one flesh. Being one flesh after marriage, can you rape yourself? That would be an interesting case. There are a lot of customs that you and I and many other people do not understand regarding Jewish Law and History. In order to take a dignified look... we need to find the answers, not make up our own.

I have no need to make up anything;

DEUT 22
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

28 says it clearly if a man finds a virgin in the fields lays hold to her and rapes her he shall pay for her and he may never put her away for the rest of his life. PUt away means divorce!

Clearly this woman was not his wife before raping her. He can't put her away because he humbled her....HUMBLED HER = RAPED HER.
However if that woman was already betroth then the man will be killed. That's only because that woman was someone elses property already.

THE LAW OF GOD.

Deut 18
11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

So if you see a cute captive you take her home, have sex with her and if she pleases you not then you can let her go. It says make her your wife, but you don't just let yo wife go you have to get a divorce, they try to make it sound better than it is. HUMBLED HER should be RAPED HER. YOu said GOD let awful things happen to evil people..lol. IF she was evil why would this man sleep with her in the first place and keep her in his house.

GreenLight311 wrote:
Oh wait this is all in the OT where GOD did and let awful things be done in his name
The only "awful" things God did and let be done in His name were things to awful and evil people. Can it then be considered awful? Are you a supporter of capitol punishment or against? Isn't murdering somebody awful? Or is it only awful if the person being murdered ISN'T a criminal.

Secondly, if GOD only let's awful things happen to evil people, Whats up with the story of JOB. WHere GOD tells the devil he can do anything to JOB other than killing him?...hummmmm

GreenLight311 wrote:
By the way I haven't gone to the site and have never been there Wonder where i got my ideas from...lol
No, you're right, it's obvious where you got them from.

You made them up, maybe?

All you do is insult...lol I made this all up hun

YEah RIGHT!

GreenLight311 wrote:
WHY dont you ever actually address the information and the statment given.
I do address the information and the statement given. If you can't follow my posts, please copy and paste the parts that are not clear and I will happily clarify them for you! Sorry for the confusion.

This still stands. However, now you have no excuse, but since you didn't even know where these verses were. You can't possible say you have studied or researched them before.

But I am sure you will make up some uneducated, unresearched, response to them anyway. You call other this but it clearly you who are especially on this point since you didn't even know these verses were in the bible

GreenLight311 wrote:
The point is THE BIBLE CONDONES RAPE DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE
I am dealing with that issue by disputing it, however, I interpret the above quote to be very impolite. Please try to extend more courtesy when making a statement.

YOU call someone impolite you made an assumption about the writer of that page and you don't even know him. On top of that YOU aren't even well versed on the bible yourself. HOW can you LOGICAL dispute somethign you didn't KNOW?

YOU are trying to disupte somethig you didn't even know existed. YOU didn't know the bible had laws on rape or verses concerning the selling of women.

I believe you just showed your true colors when you asked where those verses were, showing you will dispute things when you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

You haven't even read the whole bible but you profess belief in it all, You say you believe in something YOU HAVEN"T EVEN READ, that's typical of most believers.

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:26 am

I would like to start off by apologizing for any misunderstanding I may have caused. My inention in posting and discussing is not to convince a person that what I say is correct. I already know that I have no control over what a person decides (see the Questions for GreenLight311 thread). My intention is simply to help others gain an understanding of the Christian worldview, which I hold to be an absolute truth. So when I post, I post as if it is an Absolute Truth because that's my view. Nobody is under any obligation to agree with me.

I did not think I needed to say that, but I was mistaken. I'm sorry for the miscommunication.

Arch wrote: You haven't even read the whole bible but you profess belief in it all, You say you believe in something YOU HAVEN"T EVEN READ, that's typical of most believers.

I resent this accusation. It is an extremely unfair assumption to conclude this and it is extremely unreasonable to hold this standard to all Christians.

These are the books in the Bible that I have read:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Sameul 1, Samuel 2, Kings 1, Kings 2, Chronicles 1, Chronicles 2, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Daniel, Jonah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Collossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation

These are the books I have NOT yet read FULLY (but I've read some of):
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Zapheniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Also note that ALL but two of the ones I haven't read are the short minor prophet books at the end of the Old Testament.

How am I supposed to have memorized the exact location of all 613 Old Testament commandments given by Moses and what they say?

Paul states we do not need to follow the works of the OT law and that the law exists as a picture pointing to the superiorety of Christ. This is how Christ fulfills the scriptures.

Romans 3:20-25
20For by works of the law no human being[1] will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

We can see by the next scripture that God does not condone rape:

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-28).

Here's what I call an in-depth analysis of the rape argument in Deuteronomy. Compare and contrast this reasoning with the reasoning on the website you listed. I think it's clear which one has done the reasearch.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

From http://www.kingdavid8.com/FAQs/BibleKeepVirgins.html:
The command in question, given by Moses, is in Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

To understand this command, a little background is necessary. The situation is that the Medianites are trying to destroy the Israelites, and Moses orders the Israelites to kill the Medianites in order to remove the threat, but to spare the lives of the females. But the adult female captives start trying to lure the Israelites into practicing idolatry. So Moses changes his command, and orders them to kill adult females as well, but to spare the female virgins. Now, in Medianite culture, all females were married off as soon as they reached puberty. So the virgins being spared here are pre-pubescent children, even infants in many cases. For the critics to suppose that "keep alive for yourselves" means to have sex with them is an awfully demented assumption. What God is ordering the Israelites to do is adopt them, which is the most humane thing they could do. Their only other choices would be to kill them or to let them fend for themselves with no parents. Despite how the verse is perceived by critics of the Bible, this is a command to show mercy, not a command to do harm.

These just two main examples. An in depth study is all that is needed to see that God does not condone rape at all. It is clear that the author of the website you provided... what was it, EvilBible.org? Well it's something like that. The name speaks for itself... it's clear that the author of that website has done virtually zero research or studying of the issue he bashes.

Secondly, if GOD only let's awful things happen to evil people, Whats up with the story of JOB.

A valid question. Job was righteous and he had complete Faith in God. God did not do allow anything awful to be done to him. God tests the Faith of His children. We go through trials, and that is what Job went through.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

Also, I don't know why you keep mentioning that I don't know where every verse in the Bible is. Even assuming that nobody would ever poorly paraphrase a verse of the Bible, I still wouldn't know where many of them are. Do you know how many verses are in the Bible? It's beyond reasonable to hold the standard that Christians should have the entire Bible memorized. Christians make no such claim, and God makes no such requirement.

Interesting Bible Statistics
Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 10:20 PM

Number of books in the Bible: 66
Chapters: 1,189
Verses: 31,101
Words: 783,137
Letters: 3,566,480
Longest word (and name): Mahershalalhashbaz (Isaiah 8:1)
Longest verse: Ester 8:9 (78 words)
Shortest verse: John 11:35 (2 words: “Jesus wept”)
Middle books: Micah and Nahum
Middle chapter: Psalm 118
Middle verse: Psalm 118:8
Shortest book (number of words): 3 John
Shortest chapter (number of words): Psalm 117
Longest book: Psalms (150 chapters)
Longest chapter: Psalm 119 (176 verses)
Number of times the word “God” appears: 3,358
Number of times the word “Lord” appears: 7,736
Number of different authors: Approximately 40
Number of languages the Bible has been translated into: more than 1,200
Number of new Bibles distributed (sold or given away) in the U.S.: about 168,000 per day

From:
http://weblogs.notevil.net/adam/archive ... /3092.aspx

Arch · Post by **Arch** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:36 pm

GreenLight311 wrote:
Arch wrote: You haven't even read the whole bible but you profess belief in it all, You say you believe in something YOU HAVEN"T EVEN READ, that's typical of most believers.
I resent this accusation. It is an extremely unfair assumption to conclude this and it is extremely unreasonable to hold this standard to all Christians.

It's not an accusation if it's true. YOU haven't read the whole bible. You can't resent the truth ...PERIOD

Or maybe YOU can

GreenLight311 wrote: Also note that ALL but two of the ones I haven't read are the short minor prophet books at the end of the Old Testament.

Do you reread what you write, if it is all the word of GOD how can there be minor prophets???

GreenLight311 wrote: How am I supposed to have memorized the exact location of all 613 Old Testament commandments given by Moses and what they say?

Knowing where something is and not knowing it is there at all is two different things. For the most part a well verse student of the bible should know if a verse EXISTS in the bible. They should have remember reading something like that in the bible. They don't have to know where it is? This isn't the first time you requested verses. In other threads you have done the same.

GreenLight311 wrote: Paul states we do not need to follow the works of the OT law and that the law exists as a picture pointing to the superiorety of Christ. This is how Christ fulfills the scriptures.

He didn't tell you not to read it!!!

Paul also tells you to study to show yourself approved and the NT also says to prove all things. PROVE ALL THINGS!!

GreenLight311 wrote: We can see by the next scripture that God does not condone rape:

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-28).

Here's what I call an in-depth analysis of the rape argument in Deuteronomy. Compare and contrast this reasoning with the reasoning on the website you listed. I think it's clear which one has done the reasearch.

First off I didn't list a website, get your facts straight. Secondly, who are you trying to fool us or yourself. Any one who reads the post before this one will see that there are verses concerning this matter listed after the verses you gave.

Are we playing games here? I think more than anything you are trying to convince yourself that your beliefs are right. By cutting off the verses that came after these you are clearly showing your fear of the truth. Again, this isn't the first time you have done this either.

What are you afraid of? The verses you gave here I already gave and already explained that this rapist is killed because the woman was already betroth to another man(someone else property). Its the verses about the single woman that is relevant to this discussion.

GreenLight311 wrote:
Secondly, if GOD only let's awful things happen to evil people, Whats up with the story of JOB.
A valid question. Job was righteous and he had complete Faith in God. God did not do allow anything awful to be done to him. God tests the Faith of His children. We go through trials, and that is what Job went through.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

So you were wrong God does let awful things happen to GOOD people. Even those who worship him whole heartily. Even if its just to prove something to the DEVIL

If its a test that GOD does then he ALLOWS awful things to happen to GOOD people.

You contradict yourself.

GreenLight311 wrote: Also, I don't know why you keep mentioning that I don't know where every verse in the Bible is. Even assuming that nobody would ever poorly paraphrase a verse of the Bible, I still wouldn't know where many of them are. Do you know how many verses are in the Bible? It's beyond reasonable to hold the standard that Christians should have the entire Bible memorized. Christians make no such claim, and God makes no such requirement.

Again, who are you trying to convince me or yourself. What I said still stands. YOU profess belief in the WHOLE bible but have not READ it all. In laymen's terms ;
You saying the bible is completely true, without error, and the word of GOD, but you yourself haven't read it all. YOU ARE WRONG and are logically incapable of making an assessment of something you haven't read. You yourself said you haven't read the whole thing. PERIOD

I didn't say you needed to know where every verse was. Most people even familiar with the bible can find out where a verse is

So someone who actually STUDIES the bible who actually professes its inerrancy. Should be able to find a verse.

All I see our excuses and games.

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 1:48 pm

Arch, Please go read your personal messages. This thread has become quite ugly with accusations and bitterness.
Regards, Piper

Arch · Post by **Arch** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:42 pm

I am not bitter, just stating that this person is contradicting himself and purposely misrepresenting what others are saying.

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:04 am

Arch wrote:

It's not an accusation if it's true. YOU haven't read the whole bible. You can't resent the truth ...PERIOD

You didn't know it was true until I told you. Therefore, it was an accusation. On top of that, the accusation is void in this discussion. I don't have to read a single word in the Bible in order to believe every word of it. The Holy Spirit, through Faith in Jesus Christ, testifies to me that it is true.

Do you reread what you write, if it is all the word of GOD how can there be minor prophets???

I do reread what I write. "minor prophets" is a category of OT books in the Bible. Here's a list of categories and books under that category. By saying "minor prophets" I am essentially saying they didn't write much. The books are very short.

Old Testament
Pentateuch
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy

Historical Books
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 & 2 Samuel
1 & 2 Kings
1 & 2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job

Poetical Books
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs

Major Prophets
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel

Minor Prophets
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

Knowing where something is and not knowing it is there at all is two different things. For the most part a well verse student of the bible should know if a verse EXISTS in the bible. They should have remember reading something like that in the bible. They don't have to know where it is? This isn't the first time you requested verses. In other threads you have done the same.

Of course I have done the same. I don't deny that. Why are you criticizing me for asking you to cite your source location? Does it exist? Does it mean what you say it means? It's a reasonable request, that goes without saying. How could I remember all of the 613 commandments given by Moses after having read them when they're not even important in salvation? I am not an Old Testament scholar or anything. There is a lot I don't know about Ancient Jewish Culture. What I don't know, I look up. It's not hard. I am justified in requesting verses. It would be nice if you would save me the trouble and just say where you get them from. Then I wouldn't have to ask.

He didn't tell you not to read it!!!

And I read it.

Paul also tells you to study to show yourself approved and the NT also says to prove all things. PROVE ALL THINGS!!

Where's the verse? What book is it in? Yes, I'm asking for the verse again. Don't bother jumping on me for it. I will continue to ask for verses when you continue not to give them.

First off I didn't list a website, get your facts straight.

irrelevant.

Secondly, who are you trying to fool us or yourself.

I am not trying to fool anyone.

Any one who reads the post before this one will see that there are verses concerning this matter listed after the verses you gave.

Anyone who is educated in Jewish Culture and Biblical times will see that the "verses concerning the matter" were merely unresearched claims: poor attempts to have an excuse to criticize the Holy Bible.

Are we playing games here?

If by "we" you are referring to you and I, then I can say that I'm not. Are you?

I think more than anything you are trying to convince yourself that your beliefs are right.

I don't need to convince myself. I am convinced that God is right.

By cutting off the verses that came after these you are clearly showing your fear of the truth. Again, this isn't the first time you have done this either.

Am I? What's the truth, then, since you are professing to know.

What are you afraid of? The verses you gave here I already gave and already explained that this rapist is killed because the woman was already betroth to another man(someone else property). Its the verses about the single woman that is relevant to this discussion.

I am not dodging any responsibility by not responding to those verses. By responding to two of them, I demonstrated that educated interpretation is not hard to come by, and that the interpretation that God condones rape is clearly incorrect. I challenge you to find an educated Bible Scholar that agrees with your interpretation of these passages.

So you were wrong God does let awful things happen to GOOD people.

No. And I already explained why. Why are you ignoring my replies?

You contradict yourself.

You have yet to point out a single place where I have contridicted myself.

Again, who are you trying to convince me or yourself.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. You are presenting an argument. I am presenting a response. I am a Christian, so I view the world through Christianity. The things I say I am confident (unless I note otherwise) are True. My views as a Christian have been set well before I started typing. Therefore, I need no convincing.

What I said still stands.

Your saying it doesn't make this true.

YOU profess belief in the WHOLE bible but have not READ it all. In laymen's terms ; You saying the bible is completely true, without error, and the word of GOD, but you yourself haven't read it all.

And as I said before, it is not necessary for me to read a single word. The Holy Spirit testifies to me through Faith in Jesus Christ that it is True, consistent and inerrant. Also, many people that also have the Holy Spirit and who have read the entire Bible and studied it in great depth have confirmed this.

YOU ARE WRONG and are logically incapable of making an assessment of something you haven't read.

Fine. Here's an assessment from a person who is an adult with an M.D. in Theology. He has read the entire Bible, and he will say it for me. I believe him because the Holy Spirit tells me the same concept he is saying.
Click the link if you want to read his assessment.

http://www.carm.org/evidence/inspiration.htm

You yourself said you haven't read the whole thing. PERIOD

Have you?

I didn't say you needed to know where every verse was. Most people even familiar with the bible can find out where a verse is

Show me evidence of this claim. I doubt that if a Bible verse were poorly paraphrased that MOST people, as you say, could find it without reference.

So someone who actually STUDIES the bible who actually professes its inerrancy. Should be able to find a verse.

All I see our excuses and games.

Matthew 7:3
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?