Tim?

Nope. Duetoronomy 23:15-16 is talking about escaped slaves coming into Israel from foreign nations. Nobody would own slaves if all the slave had to do to go free was jump the fence from one isrealites home to another. This is an absurd interpretation. I know you want it to be true, so did I, but it just doesn't make any sense. It was still pretty progressive for the time, but I believed in a perfect God, not just a God who was a little bit better than the people who made up the code of Hammurabi.

Yet, everyone conveniently skips the part where slaves could just up and leave whenever they wanted. So, you risk loosing your slave/servant permanently if you treated them bad. Deuteronomy 23:15-16: You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose, and you shall not wrong him. This verse was talking about ALL slaves, foreign and Hebrew.

A Christian who re-reads Leviticus and comes out thinking “God was strict” rather than “naaah this is bullshit …this shit is definitely man made” ,then their indoctrination might either be on a very different level or it’s an IQ thing…. I don’t know.

Ahh yes, let's translate with the presupositin that God is good... That'll lead us to the truth 🤦‍♂️ maybe the omnicient God who supposedly has foreknowlage should have seen this translation as a possibility and made it more clear? What about this passage from the NRSVUE that at least to me seems like God giving captive women a month to grieve their dead family (their captors just slaughtered them) before they can be married and... Well... Idk about you but this doesn't seem like a consent filled situation to me: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NRSVUE [10] “When you go out to war against your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, [11] suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, [12] and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, [13] discard her captive’s garb, and remain in your house a full month mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. [14] But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and certainly not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

I personally reject KJV onlyism. I think it's a horrible position to hold. Yet on another hand, translations matter in a very big way. Case in point. The NIV. I have come to loathe the NIV and I'll explain why. ( as well as some other English translations ) In Deuteronomy the NIV states: 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. In both instances a rape occurred and the only distinguishing factor is one girl was betrothed and the other was not. One is punishable by death and the other is rewarded with a wife. This is a translational nightmare. Really? This is the moral character and justice of our God? The word Deuteronomy means to "repeat the law" so in the Hebrew, Deuteronomy is repeating the passage given in Exodus 22: 16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. In Deuteronomy the NIV translators ( and many other English translations ) made an egregious error. This error allows atheists to make untold amounts of memes showing that our God rewards a rapist with a bride so long as he pays the victim's father 50 shekels of silver and marries the woman. This is a false witness of God. A horrible translational conclusion. At the forefront, because God is truly good, we should interpret difficult passages in a way that is consistent with His goodness. We should hold an ontological and epistemic presupposition that God is the God. If a translation makes God appear immoral, we should re-examine that translation carefully. Therefore, it we come upon a verse in any translation that violates God's fundamental character then we can know we are facing a translational problem.

Is the King James Version the only trustworthy Bible? Or are modern translations ok? Watch David Wood & I tackle a question about the "KJV only" position.

@YoIAmUno @_OKJ__ Are you saying that Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, and Zeus are all the same God from different perspectives?

@Tim0riginal @_OKJ__ Yeah, that’s actually the point. Every religion shares similar themes because they all encountered the same source and documented it through their own lens. The recurring patterns across unconnected cultures aren’t evidence against it, they’re evidence for it.

@YoIAmUno @_OKJ__ You could say the same thing about every single other religion...

“Man made the Bible” ok, but tell me what patterns they used to write it. You don’t create out of thin air. The brain builds from available patterns. So what did they consume to understand the concept of an angel, a covenant, a creation from nothing, prophecies that land thousands of years later with precision? They either encountered something outside of human experience and documented it. Or they invented concepts that had no prior pattern to build from. Both options need a source outside of man.

@Abolition__Now Be free!

I’m taking a break from this place. I am just extremely depressed and burned out.

@listenJimGreene @DrFrankTurek Ditto

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek It doesn’t seem to be productive to continue when you still can’t comprehend an argument.

Atheist Storms Out After Refusing to Give an Argument #Skeptics

The Genesis account reads like they ate a magical fruit rather than learned about good and evil via experience. Genesis 3:7 NRSVUE [7] Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. Why would the experience of disobeying God suddenly make it obvious that they were naked?

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek Eating the fruit gave the knowledge of evil by experience. Are you suggesting Adam did not know it was wrong to disobey God? You misread that one.

@listenJimGreene @DrFrankTurek I thought moral judgment nessisarily requires the knowledge of right and wrong 🤔 yet Adam had not yet obtained that knowledge before eating the fruit.

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek Adam had libertarian free will. Christianity does not suggest that will is uninfluenced but our decisions to sin are our own. They are not authored by God but allowed by him. There is a reason for the whole redemption arc.

@listenJimGreene @DrFrankTurek Incredible. You falsely criticize my argument using Hume's is-ought problem and then exempt your own view from that same criticism. All you've done is reduce morality to might makes right.

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek Hume himself included Christian thought in his is-ought problem. He being a skeptic had issues with God’s authority. The Christian can’t lean on his own authority. It is not me you must agree with, but God.

If God chose Adam's nature, and that determined ours, then our thoughts and tendencies, including our "choices" ultimately come from that divine decision. So even our decision to obey or sin isn't fully independent, it's shaped by the nature God gave us. That seems like a serious problem for the idea of libertarian free will.

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek Our nature as you say was chosen by sinful ancestors, Adam and Eve. Our very nature is the result of disobedience. Even then he has given redemption. A chance to be made holy. We can choose sin or repentance. So choose submit to God’s holiness or your own.

@listenJimGreene @DrFrankTurek So... Because God IS good, I ought to do what he tells me? Seems like you've run right into the is-ought problem... 🧱🏃‍♂️

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek If God is good and omniscient, if he designed and built the universe for a purpose, one ought to act according to his design and purpose. It will be to his benefit and the benefit of all, including the creator.

It avoids the is–ought problem by showing that the "ought" is already built into acting for reasons. But that's far beyond your comprehension level. I never claimed to have the "authority" to say what ought to be. Tell me then, why ought I do what God tells me? Does might make right?

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek These are not difficult to comprehend. Muh freedom. You run into the is-ought problem as you construct your own moral framework. You have no authority to say what ought to be. It is similar to the golden rule.

If God creates your nature and mind, your choices still flow from that. And since you said God is free while acting according to his nature, I don't see why that wouldn't apply to us too in a physicalist worldview. If God creates our nature, in what sense could we have chosen differently?

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek No where does any faith teach that god sustains your mind to believe a certain way. God constantly calls people to choose and make moral choices. The Bible is very much based on the concept of free will. Choice determined by the mind by the self.

@listenJimGreene @DrFrankTurek Lol. I figured this argument would be lost on you since you can't comprehend my points.

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek That is meaningless garbage. I think perhaps you can’t comprehend my points. Have a good day.

I think maybe you're not seeing the parallel in your own view. If the mind is grounded in God, then reflection isn't ultimately your choice either... it's the result of how God created and sustains your mind. In that case, reason isn't something you freely produce, it's something determined by God's will. You haven't escaped determinism... you've just moved it from physics to God.

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek I think maybe you can’t comprehend the argument. If the brain is governed by the fundamental forces and not by the mind, reflection is not a choice of the mind, reason is not a product of the mind. Any change in your behavior is determined by chemistry not your mind.

@listenJimGreene @DrFrankTurek I'm anti-murder, anti-rape, anti-slavery, anti-infanticide, and anti-genocide... Because I don't conform to your God's morality.

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek That just makes you evil.

@listenJimGreene @DrFrankTurek Now who's the one allergic to the burden of proof? 😂

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek No, religion requires faith. But the belief allows for good and evil, unlike materialism.

@listenJimGreene @DrFrankTurek I gladly don't conform to your God's morality.

@Tim0riginal @DrFrankTurek You judging God’s morality is hilarious. If an evil person condones God that would be alarming. You can go on and on and all you will do is confirm that you don’t conform to God’s morality. Meanwhile you give no justification for your morality.