Another Bible Error: An Eye for and Eye

by JosephAlward 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

JosephAlward

Scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:20-22)
However, according to the author of the book of Matthew, not only did Jesus not believe in fighting back against one's enemies, he even wanted his disciples to do good (!) to the ones who hurt them:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)...Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:38-44)
How can both of these teachings be true at the same time? For a those who would argue that the rules laid down by God in the Old Testament became invalid in New Testament times, let us not forget that Paul said that ALL scripture is useful for teaching:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

If Paul had known what Matthew would write, would he have agreed that Jesus found the Old Testament teaching of an eye for and eye "useful"? Of course not. Thus, either Paul was wrong about all scripture being God-breathed and useful, or else Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said. Either way, the Bible is in error.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
pomegranate

Foolish man. Without knowing the law of the OT (part of the all scripture inspired and beneficial for teaching), Paul could not teach what law in fact they were released from, could he? No he couldn't.
Gal 3:24-25
24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
JosephAlward

Joseph Alward:
Scripture teaches that one should destroy one's enemies, and take an eye for an eye: "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:20-22)
However, according to the author of the book of Matthew, not only did Jesus not believe in fighting back against one's enemies, he even wanted his disciples to do good (!) to the ones who hurt them:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)...Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:38-44)
How can both of these teachings be true at the same time? For a those who would argue that the rules laid down by God in the Old Testament became invalid in New Testament times, let us not forget that Paul said that ALL scripture is useful for teaching:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
If Paul had known what Matthew would write, would he have agreed that Jesus found the Old Testament teaching of an eye for and eye "useful"? Of course not. Thus, either Paul was wrong about all scripture being God-breathed and useful, or else Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said. Either way, the Bible is in error
===========
Pomegranate
Foolish man. Without knowing the law of the OT (part of the all scripture inspired and beneficial for teaching), Paul could not teach what law in fact they were released from, could he? No he couldn't
============
Joseph Alward:
Let me repeat what Paul said, then I'll comment:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
If you believe that the Bible writers--Paul included--were God inspired to write God's truth, then how do you explain why Paul would say that ALL of scripture is useful for teaching if--according to you--he didn't even KNOW all of scripture? How could God allow him to comment on a topic about which his knowledge is incomplete--according to you?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
larc

Pomegranate,
Foolish man. Whether your premise is correct or Joseph's is, there are problems. If we aren't under the law, why do some religions keep the sabbath and some don't? Why do some obstain from blood and some don't? It seems to me that religions pick and choose from the old law as it suits them. Of course, Paul's words, as Joseph pointed out, are clearly contradictory.
pomegranate

>>>>If you believe that the Bible writers--Paul included--were God inspired to write God's truth, then how do you explain why Paul would say that ALL of scripture is useful for teaching if--according to you--he didn't even KNOW all of scripture?<<<<<
I no where in my statement said Paul didn't KNOW all of scripture, you misunderstood what I said. It would be the audience Paul is talking/writing to. In order to KNOW what a person was released from, THE inspired OT Mosaic LAW, one had to KNOW the inspired LAW that came from God. All of that Law, the prophets and the psalms are all inspired of God for a people STRICTLY UNDER LAW. Those very texts TEACH and REPROVE and SET STRAIGHT that perfect LAW cannot be strictly kept by imperfect man. Ever. That is what is taught from the OT...LAW BRINGS WRATH.
Then comes Christ. Then release from those things that condemn man. LAW. Which brings wrath. Law was replaced by love for those chosen to be given the gift of being salvaged. Law will be enforced on those God chooses not to have mercy on.
It was no longer in man's hands <i>who are true in Christ</i> to apply scales of justice (eye for eye, tooth for tooth). It would temporarily be done by imperfect man made governments by the will of God, and then permanently be accomplished by The Father and His Christ at the end. The vengeance of complete justice is now in His hands. God will repay according to HIS standards in due time.
>>How could God allow him to comment on a topic about which his knowledge is incomplete--according to you?<<
You misunderstood what I said.
pomegranate

>>If we aren't under the law, why do some religions keep the sabbath and some don't? Why do some obstain from blood and some don't? It seems to me that religions pick and choose from the old law as it suits them. Of course, Paul's words, as Joseph pointed out, are clearly contradictory.<<
First, Joseph only pointed out Joseph's own misunderstanding of my words.
>>If we aren't under the law, why do some religions keep the sabbath and some don't? Why do some obstain from blood and some don't?<<
Good question. Why not ask those who do so. They flaunt their noses in the air to very simple texts such as this:
Rom 10:4
4 Christ is the end of the law
Look at this one:
Gal 5:2-4
3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
Circumcision was one point of the law. If one feels obligated to obey that one part of the law as something from God, then that one is obligated to obey the WHOLE LAW. In the same way that you point out those that choose to keep the sabbath point of the law, and others the blood laws, are all then OBLIGATED TO OBEY THE WHOLE LAW. They violate simple scripture, and give the "shoot" to Christ.
Gal 2:16
because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Gal 3:10-11
10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do EVERYTHING written in the Book of the Law."
Because if you can't do it all, you shouldn't try to do any.
Back to Joseph, in order to know what the above means, one would need to know what LAW meant. Paul knew Law. He was a Pharisee.
>>It seems to me that religions pick and choose from the old law as it suits them.<<
I would refine that by saying the religious hypocrites pick and choose which parts to enforce on the unknowing.
Released. 100%.
Gal 5:13-15
14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Love is law unto itself.
It is perfect.
pomegranate

PS. Paul always used circumcision as a point in the law that seemed to be CONTINUED in practiced by first century Christians even though thay were TOTALLY released from such a practice. Here are his words:
Gal 6:13-14
13 Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh.
Now, let's take a point of Law that JW's like to keep clinging onto, blood and replace that point of law in the text above:
Not even those who "abstain from blood" obey the law, yet they want you to "abstain from blood" that they may boast about your flesh (membership).
Now, see what else Paul says:
Gal 6:14-16
14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 Neither circumcision (nor abstaining from blood, nor sabbath keeping, etc) nor uncircumcision MEANS ANYTHING; what counts is a new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.
Again, with the Law, it's all or NOTHING.
James 2:10
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
With true Christians, they practice NONE of the law, because stumbling over the Law is inevitable.
Gal 5:1
5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. (From LAW)
1 Peter 2:16-17
16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
JosephAlward

I don't believe Pomegranate has responded to the main point in the question I raised, so I will summarize my argument. Paul said that ALL scripture is useful for teaching: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) One of those teachings is that man should extract and eye for an eye: "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Deuteronomy 19:20-22) According to Paul, anyone--and we must assume that includes Jesus--will find this teaching useful. But, look what Matthew says Jesus said:
"I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44)
So, the contradiction seems to be this: Jesus couldn't possibly have found the "eye for an eye" Old Testament teaching useful--as Paul said it would be, since Jesus preached the exact opposite. Thus, either Matthew was wrong about what Jesus said, or Paul was wrong about ALL scripture being useful. Either way, the Bible is in error. If not, why not?
On a separate matter: Pomegranate notes that Galatians speaks of love: "The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14) How can this command be reconciled by the Lord's command to Samuel to slay INFANTS? "This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants"
(1 Samuel 15:1-3)
Surely the infants were especially deserving of neighborly love, wouldn't you think? According to Matthew, Jesus taught that one's enemies were to be loved, but Samuel wrote that the Lord wanted men to kill babies. One thing seems to be certain: Either Samuel was wrong (I hope so) about what the Lord wanted, or Matthew was wrong about what the son of God believed. Either way, the Bible is in error.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
pomegranate

I will sum up the blindness of Joseph.
>>One of those teachings is that man should extract and eye for an eye: "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
The above is called the Law. Simple.
>>Jesus preached the exact opposite.<<
For his disciples yes, Why?
Rom 10:4
4 Christ is the end of the law
How can this contradict when Christ plainly ended that which man was
initially bound to? It DOESN'T.
Bound to: Eye for an eye
Released from: Eye for an eye
The above is pure simple COMMON SENSE logic. Why don't you apply that which you claim I don't. It only contradicts to a fool.
>>Jesus couldn't possibly have found the "eye for an eye" Old Testament teaching useful<<
Christ taught from the Law of Moses on many occassions that are plainly recorded from the OT. If He taught from some, he believed all. (Actually, he authored the Law) You are now concocting fabrications to hide that you are incorrect.
>>How can this command be reconciled by the Lord's command to Samuel to slay INFANTS? "This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants"<<
Why do you have to leave your Christ/Paul argument? Because you know it has been answered by me plainly and with TOTAL common sense. That is the only reason why someone would have to bring in another decoy point? Because their first point got wasted.
Regardless of your floundering, the LAW was applied with TOTAL JUSTICE:
I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel (eye for an eye) when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt...
The Amalikites got what they deserved.
>>Surely the infants were especially deserving of neighborly love, wouldn't you think?<<
OHhhh. Now it's on to infants becasue again your initial argument is so weak and ridiculously unfounded. Surely not with Amalikite infants either as they are the offspring of a corruption that God deemed worthy of destruction.
PS.
Regarding the Lord you think you know:
Luke 17:26-29
26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. (INCLUDING INFANTS DUDE)
28 "It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. (INCLUDING INFANTS DUDE)
Jesus own words at the end:
Rev 2:20-24
20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, LIFE FOR LIFE)
Sounds just like the God of the OT eh? Because it is. YHWH of the OT is the same God as the NT. He will execute his VENGEANCE with a mighty fury, unthrottled by the likes of you and yours. Simple.
The Law WILL BE aplied to those God deems worthy to have it applied to. Mercy will be shown to those chosen to live.
James 2:12
12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom,
JosephAlward

I've read Pomegranate's recent post and believe that further discussion on this point will prove fruitless. I will move on to some other topic now.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Another Bible Error: An Eye for and Eye

Share this