Originally posted by googlefudge
1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ...
[b]an everlasting covenant.
It is either everlasting or it isn't.
If there is a new covenant that replaces the old one then the above was wrong.
which means the bible is contradictory and is not inerrant.
If the abov an I can't find other
stuff that is abominable. (and without any trouble whatsoever)[/b]
1 Chronicles 16:15
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ...
an everlasting covenant.
That is the covenant He made with Abraham. See verse 16-18.
"Remember His covenant forever, The word that He commanded to a thousand generations, [the covenant] that He made with ABRAHAM, And His oath unto Isaac. And He confirmed it unto Jacob as a statute, Unto Israel as an eternal covenant.
Saying, To you I will give the land of Canaan ..."
It is either everlasting or it isn't.
First of all the reference of 1 Chron. 16 seems to be His covenant and oath to Abraham.
If there is a new covenant that replaces the old one then the above was wrong.
First Chron. speaks of the covenant and oath to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob
before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.
This is not the best verse for the argument you are attempting. I can think of some better ones for that particular argument. Though none of them I would count strong enough to make me have to take a pair of scissors and cut
Jeremiah 31:33 out of the Old Testament.
Proper students of the Bible learn not only what the Bible says, but what ELSE the Bible says.
which means the bible is contradictory and is not inerrant.
That is another debate. Copyist's errors trasmitted in the copies reveal some errors. None of much significance.
And the promise of a new covenant is not a contradiction. Rather it is Jesus Christ coming to fulfill the demands of the law which no other man could fulfill. So regarding the law of Moses forever does not stop Christ from finally fulfilling its demands for all men in a new covenant.
Once and for all Christ satisfied the demand of the law of God on behalf of all men. So we may still regard it forever with a thankful heart that Christ met its demands forever FOR the believers.
If the above is right, then the old covenant still applies and any talk of a new covenant is wrong.
The morality of the old covenant Christ hightened and made more penetrating. The ritual ordinances of the law He went out of His way many times to nullify.
Ie. His healing on the Sabbath. So it is not that simple of a matter. And I will not discuss it extensively in this one post. But I have written to the point before.
Which means the bible is contradictory and is not inerrant.
I don't worship the doctrine of inerancy. It is sufficient to point out that it is adaquately without error. It is agreed by most that obvious inconsquential copyist errors have crept into some of the many thousands of manuscripts. And no one has an autograph.
The Bible does contain some paradoxes. I might say it contains some apparent contradictions. Many can be reconciled with some futher examination. And many can be reconciled with encreased experience with the living God.
The new covenant promised by the prophet not like the old covenant is not a contradiction. And even if some things were said about regarding the old covenant forever, since no man was able to do so, Christ's keeping it on our behalf forever, does not contradict this high regard we are to have for it.
And also to my main point which you don't address...
Maybe I did not respond to every point. I wanted to respond to your neglect of a crucial passage which negates your attempt portray the old covenant as the only one in existence to all seekers of God.
When you use the Bible to argue for Atheism, it is consistent.
When I use it to show how it teaches about God, you complain that it is contradictory.
You view of the logic of the Bible depends on how you wish to use it, to argue for Atheism or for the existence of the God it speaks of.
Also the laws of the OT are supposed to be the laws handed down by your god and/or his prophet which make them
relevant to any discussion of the nature of your god and religion.
And the establishment of a new covenant is also relevant to the discussion.
Here again Christ speaks of the new covenant:
"And similarly the cup ... This cup is the new covenant [established] in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20) And the pouring out of His blood is for the forgiveness of sins of all who have broken the law of God and have believed in Christ:
"For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:28)
The NEW COVENANT in the blood of Christ atones for the sinner who was guilty under the old covenant. And the promise of the prophecy of
Jeremiah 31:33 included these words:
" ... for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jer. 31:34)
So in the new covenant Christ redeems sinners out from under the curse of the law.
"Christ has redeemed us out of the curse of the law, having become a curse on our behalf; because it is written, 'Cursed is every one hanging on a tree.' " (Galatians 3:13)
So the old covenant law had even within itself the provision for Christ to become the reality of all the offerings, atoning man from his offenses against that law.
Surely then we regard it highly forever. But we regard Jesus Christ higher for He fulfilled its demands forever for all the world. Subtstitution of Christ in OUR place occurs when we believe into Christ, receiving Him as our Lord and Savior.
Then the Holy Spirit, according to Jeremiah's prophecy, can began to inscribe the law of God's life and nature into our being. He can write it in our hearts as a living part of our being.
There is no contradicton.
I don't care if your (imaginary) god created a 'new covenant' or not.
I don't care for your lying to yourself about your atheism.
It is still the same (imaginary) god that made the 'old covenant'.
You are a deceived man. By the way, if assertions is all you want to trade, I of course can match each assertion of your self deception with an assertion of the truth of the Bible.
There is no question in my mind whatsover that you are a deceived man.
So in looking at what your god is like it is completely valid and reasonable to look at the contents of
the old covenant.
I never said it wasn't.
I just completed a issue that you only wish to biasly present in a partial manner.
Also I would point out that there are many Christian denominations, some of which still claim that the OT
still holds.
Some denominations under some legalistic bondage doesn't demonstrate anything except that they could be better informed, better taught.
The churches in Galatia as recipients of Paul's letter of
Galatians did not render the new covenant non-existent. So some believers are in need of much love and shepherding and better teaching, that is all. We, their brothers (if they are indeed Christians) have much labor in the Lord to carry out. Nothing more is proved by this.
So while YOU and YOUR denomination may have made your mind up about these issues, Christianity as a
whole is divided on this, and many other issues.
I do not meet in a denomination.
And you are jumping around like a grasshopper in a hen house.
Its that you have to stone women.
No, its that you are bound by the law of Moses forever.
No, its that there is contradiction.
No, the Bible is not inerant.
No, its that some denominations are legalistic.
No, its that Christians are all divided.
No. we are not ALL in division.
None of these arguments that you're grasping at are strong enough to cause many of us to discount our having encountered the resurrected and living Lord Jesus - according to the Bible's teaching.
Also I have no trouble finding a multitude of objectionable things in the new testament without any reference
to the OT.
Objectionable things in the Old Testament or New Testament are not strong enough to be a devastating counter weight to the splended life and testimony of
Jesus Christ.
And since Christ is the center of the Bible and its main point, why should we get sidetracked on side issues as excuses to turn away from this Wonderful One?
Not least of which is your gods still being a petty egomaniac who threatens to torture anyone who doesn't bow
and scrape before him to an eternity of fiery torment (or whatever).
Yada, yada, yada. Another Richard Dawkins wannabe.
Now if you don't have anything else to say. I'll move on.
I see you offer nothing remotely as precious, as of value, of superlative worth as the Son of God.