Search results

Ummm... did you read the chapter? Psalm 40? It's not about David repenting of sin. This subforum is marked out as a place where people can discuss unorthodox theology. If they ignore the warning sign on the door, they don't get to complain about what's in the room.

You might be giving her too much credit.... she's just a puppet for someone else. I'm not sure she has any ideas of her own.

Yes, that's the contradiction we're talking about. Leviticus certainly requires sacrifices, while the prophets specifically say otherwise: Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering Thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required. I'm sensitive...

I explained in post #23 somewhat... the Israelites wanted to sacrifice and God allowed it... but did not demand it, and certainly didn't need them for Himself. Moreover, God used the granting of their bad asks to punish them... the sacrifices became a huge financial burden to them, and the...

David is fascinating. He's reckoned among the prophets, despite being a king. God did NOT reject the sacrifices David offered. But that needs an asterisk, because David, being a prophet, knew the score... and told us truthfully... God neither wanted nor asked for sacrifices: Psalm 40:6...

It's a fair point, but I think if you read the whole chapter, you'll find that Amos includes ALL the Israelites starting from the Exodus up to the current day.

Your logic is good here. God rejected their sacrifices because of their sin. It should be extended - the Israelites didn't just sin in Amos' day. They were in a state of perpetual sin from... before Mt Sinai, and it persists to this day. This has been the rule; not the exception. Doesn't it...

Have ye offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves. Tell me, who wandered 40 years in the wilderness and carried a tabernacle?

I side with the prophets. At a high level, this is actually reconcilable. Both groups agree that Israel sinned by building an idol at the base of Mt Sinai and that as a result God instituted the Levitical priesthood. But WHY was the priesthood instituted? The priests tell us that they are...

Amos is talking about the Israelites during the Exodus under Moses. Not the people of his current day.

Who cares? No doctrine is affected by the timing of the tree's death. Here's a bigger issue... The first 7 chapters of Leviticus require a number of different animal sacrifices, for various sins, to appease God. Exodus contains a couple chapters about how God gave a specific design for the...

The short answer is - they weren't written by prophets, so we shouldn't expect them to be inspired. A longer answer would include an analysis of each book, showing how they disagree with the Prophets. The Prophets are very consistent with each other.

The Bible contradicts itself quite a bit. I think you can divide the Old Testament into two groups: Books written by Prophets Books written by Priests The prophets and priests don't get along. They disagree on important points, such as the necessity of animal sacrifices, the purpose for the...

Well, I don't actually want to remove anything, but there are a number of books that I'd like to put an asterisk on that says *NOT AN INSPIRED BOOK: Leviticus Numbers Joshua Judges 1&2Kings 1&2Chronicles Esther Proverbs Ecclesiastes Basically, these should be part of the Deuterocanon rather...

Thomas Jefferson did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Boy is this argument tired. As always, the answer is that I am not arguing with Scripture, it's only your interpretations of it that I questioned. And when I asked earnestly for explanation, you didn't offer anything. You said, "I do not see a proper and complete fulfilment, in the first...

I mean... that's actually pretty likely to happen. Not from a Bible standpoint, but just scientifically.

I might be confusing you and ecq. I was talking to you both and one of those conversations was about how to interpret Rev 7. Which one of you pointed out that it uses the same langauge as a chapter in Ezekiel? Because that was a good point/find.

That's ironic. I think many people would feel that way about your opening post.

Did you just use Rev 7 to justify your interpretation of Rev 7? o_O I can't really get with that, because it's circular reasoning.