Like it or not, God is immoral.

[genkaus]

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?

I've never heard anyone ever claim that the your god is sourced only in the bible. There are references to him all over the place - in culture, arts, literature. None of it counts as proof of your god - just his attributes. In fact, as some of the theists on this forum argue, a lot of your god's attributes are not in fact in the bible but come from "interpretations".

sweeping generality. try again.

Why? It's so accurate and pithy.

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...

Really? Can you give me that source? Because from what I can find out there is not nor has there ever been any distinction in the meanings of righteousness and adherence to morality. In fact, the most common argument is that its because your god is morally upright (which, in fact, he is not) that righteousness can be attributed to him.

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.

If by "extrapolated" you mean "creatively interpreted" - I believe you. But since you had to extrapolate, it means that that was not how it was originally used in Hebrew and Greek - otherwise, you wouldn't have had to "extrapolate". The definition would have indicated it clearly.

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.

The blueletterbible.com, huh? Yeah, that sounds completely impartial. Don't tell me, show me. Show me that it ascribes the particular meaning in the particular verses and why does it do so. Remember, you'd also have to show that the meaning of righteousness is distinct form morality.

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

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Take the words I translated and Show me with reference material where I misrepersented these words or how I have misrepersented the bible.

Well, you state that righteousness is an attribute solely of god, it has been used to describe men in biblical verses as well. Therefore, it cannot be an attribute solely of god.