Like it or not, God is immoral.

[Drich]

Ah, yes.. Again. Because your god is not just defined in the bible, he is defined in lot of other places as well.

So the God of the bible is defined where else, wikipedia?.. Now where did Wikipedia get it's info? And where did that source get it? and so on Back To The Bible. There is no other source material that describes the God of the bible, but the bible. This is the linch pin of many atheist arguements that demand proof of God outside of the bible. Do you really want to go down this road an allow a Christian the oppertunity to use the standard atheist arguements about God being sole sourced in the bible against you?

And given that your bible is known to self-contradictory and erronous at so many points, it is easily conceivable that whatever sense it used a particular word in might also be used mistakenly.

sweeping generality. try again.

And all this pales in the face of the fact that a simple search reveals that the meaning of the original greek and hebrew words were no different than the modern interpretation.

Source? My source tells us that Righteousness was a defining attribute of God, not just an adhearance to a moral code. In otherwords God's defining attributes are the pattern in which 'morality' is built. Morality is not a standard in which God must adhear to be righteous. again I point to all the crap arguements about how can a moral god do bad things...

Your bible is not a book on linguistics.

But Lexicons are, and it is the Thayers lexicon in which I have extrapolated the defination of the Word Righteousness, and how it was orginally used in the Hebrew and Greek.

It may use the word righteous (or whatever the greek or hebrew equivalent may be), but the meaning of those words is not established by the bible.

Which again is the job of a lexicon to tell you how a word is used in a biblical context. The blueletterbible.com is an online source that ascribes each greek/hebrew word in the bible a number and it defines each and every instance that word is use and how it is meant to be understood in the english in a given passage. That is why and how I can tell you with out any hesitation or doubt your understanding of the word righteousness is wrong, and not consistant with the orginal use of the word.

And since I see all these greek, hebrew and english words simply mean "moral" and I see no evidence of them ever meaning otherwise, I see no reason to give any credit to your vacuous distinction.

Becaue you simply have not been made aware or choose to ignore the reference material a good lexicon provides.

---

Ah, yes.. Again. Because your god is not just defined in the bible, he is defined in lot of other places as well. And given that your bible is known to self-contradictory and erronous at so many points, it is easily conceivable that whatever sense it used a particular word in might also be used mistakenly. And all this pales in the face of the fact that a simple search reveals that the meaning of the original greek and hebrew words were no different than the modern interpretation.

Your bible is not a book on linguistics. It may use the word righteous (or whatever the greek or hebrew equivalent may be), but the meaning of those words is not established by the bible. And since I see all these greek, hebrew and english words simply mean "moral" and I see no evidence of them ever meaning otherwise, I see no reason to give any credit to your vacuous distinction.

Hi genkaus,

Actually, Drich is totally confused. He can't even explain why he chose the 66 books of the Bible as inspired. He can't name a single Church Council or a single Church Father or indeed anyone who decided on the 66 books as the Word of God. Just see this post:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-14712-po...#pid336877

He has refused to be clear how many books of the Bible are the Word of God because he knows he has no leg to stand on.

What puzzles me is how can fundies set so much store by the Bible when they don't even know a thing about the history of biblical canon and their knowledge of early church history is so poor.

Then great wise and knoweledge one please take the time and go line by lines and destroy this arguement as you say you destroyed the last one.. Or is your link your only shinning moment, and you must strive to avoid direct interaction with me and point to a perceived win from this thread??? Again, Show me line by line. Take the words I translated and Show me with reference material where I misrepersented these words or how I have misrepersented the bible.