The bible is not the Word of God. The Word of God is implied in the bible, but there is an indispensable distinction, even when there is no difference, between what is implied and what is inferred. The Word of God is an implication; it is necessarily what it is. What we infer from the bible is not necessarily what is implied. The Word of God is Truth. Truth is an implication; it is necessarily what it is. Proof is an inference; it is not-necessary. To us, it's not so much that ideas are really ever proved as it is that all of the other ideas that we've considered have been disproved. Whatever remains is what we are left to believe, then that's tested, and so on, and so on. The Word of God is tested; it is the product of testing the ideas one infers from the bible.
Read it many, many times. Turns out the Bible is a bit longer than those 12 verses, and accepting your proposal would mean believing that God's word has include commands to slaughter children. Like I said, pretty ****ed up.
You can read the Holy Bible thousands times and nevertheless misunderstand it. Begin at best with these verses: Mathew 22 35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Cool, so the law about killing people for believing the wrong thing, is that loving God or loving your neighbor? How about the law about killing people for working on the Sabbath? Killing people for leaving Judaism? Killing people for practicing free speech that offends your religion? Sounds like "love the Lord thy God" justifies a lot of not-so-loving actions toward one's neighbors. And it isn't just the laws that are the problem . . . again, the Bible claims that God ordered infanticide. You have to jump through some pretty big mental gymnastic to try to justify that one. It isn't a matter of "misunderstanding" either. That is literally what the thing says.
Ah, yes, the old "God only *used* to be evil" argument. But it doesn't hold water. If you don't want to talk about the OT, then don't cite NT verses that reference the OT. Jesus said all of the law and the prophets could be summed up in those two commandments. Remember?
It's in there, but what you infer may not be what's implied in there. Besides, the Word of God is tested; it is the product of testing what one infers from the bible.
Perhaps OP is saying the Bible isn't the complete Word of God...? Im guessing, because it was worded very complexicatedingly.
Why don't you try reading the other 99.5% of the OT before you start telling other people what it says?
I've read it many, many times over. If you have as well, then you know I'm correct. I'm not sure if you are avoiding the truth because you haven't read it or you realize that I'm right and have no response.
Can you give any examples of when American Christians as a whole have ever loved their neighbors as themselves?
The Word of God is implied in the bible, but what is inferred is not necessarily what is implied. The Word of God is tested; it is the product of testing what one infers from the bible.
The Word of God is condescended to man. God condescends to man by the inspiration and the incarnation of the Word of God. One can author a character that knows that they are a character and that their author is their author. One can even create a dialog between the author and their character, but that dialog is not a conversation; it is a condescension. Prayer and scripture are condescensions. There is another way by which an author can condescend to novel characters. The author can write them self into their novel work as them self. The author would be no less the author, and their character would be no less a character then any of the other characters. Jesus is God's character incarnate. The difference between our characters and Jesus' character is that our characters are novel while Jesus' character is autobiographical. He is the author's character. He is both author and character. He is both God and man.
16,All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Any portion of scripture is good for instruction, but no portion of scripture is good for conclusion. Conclusions should only be drawn from the full counsel of God's creation. The bible is to the balance of creation what a legend is to a map. The legend is for the map; the map is not for the legend. No where in the bible does the bible attribute to the bible the reasons why man can know that there is a God. Indeed, the bible specifically points to the balance of creation as to why we know there is a God. The bible points to the balance of creation as to how we can know God's "eternal power and divine nature".
You could have reduced that down by quite a bit and still achieved the same end: He is both God and man.
and you know this how exactly... every word, in that conglomeration of many books, was written by a human being, long long ago, and re-written many times over since then...