Critical Analysis of GIIVideo: Part 5

ukchristian28 Says:

Dec 7, 2008 - Good effort. Good responses regarding the OT theocracy. You didn't fully address the issue of women speaking in church. Good effort over all.

kut77less Says:

Dec 7, 2008 - Woman had different roles thats it. Jesus defended womans rights (with the stone and woman in adultery).

DerivedApe Says:

Dec 7, 2008 - 4:36 This is called cherry picking.

killerbandit Says:

Dec 7, 2008 - Sooooo.... we should only kill the Jews on the Sabbath? I am not familiar with the part of the bible saying that we should ignore the old testament. Maybe god should have thought about using an expiry date, like on milk.

SharbturObBurzum Says:

Dec 7, 2008 - at 7:47 you want him to prove that his opinion is correct? is it imposible for you to accept that he and myself thinks that the bible is one of the most evil books ever made?

GearsofFate101 Says:

Dec 7, 2008 - sooo, it only applies to isreal, ok, that means that only Isreaies have to follow the commandments of Exodus, not us, we can do whatever we want. if the old testament only applies to Isreal, then why should you even care about it, you are not you. You said yourself, that the book was given to Isreal, but, that does not mean that ONLY isrealies followed it. You follow other parts of it, do you not?, and besides, isnt it bad enough that people WERE killed because of being rebellious, or being gay,

ukchristian28 Says:

Dec 7, 2008 - He didn't say we should "ignore the Old Testament". He was pointing out that there were certain laws given to Israel which do not apply to the New Covenant age. This is a conclusion Christians come to by studying the Bible a whole (Old and New Testament). It is a reasonable conclusion to come to, but it requires us to do a little more indepth study into it than some of you guys seem willing to do.

ukchristian28 Says:

Dec 7, 2008 - No it is not.He was pointing out that there were certain laws given to Israel which do not apply to the New Covenant age. This is a conclusion Christians come to by studying the Bible a whole (Old and New Testament). It is a reasonable conclusion to come to, but it requires us to do a little more indepth study into it than some of you guys seem willing to do.

DerivedApe Says:

Dec 8, 2008 - I may have misinterperted what he said. he said "does this soun like literal word for you?" implying that he don't consider it literal. yet he takes other parts of the bible literally. now that is cherry picking

aaronk1994 Says:

Dec 8, 2008 - Some parts are to be taken literally, some parts are not.

Squawkerd Says:

Dec 8, 2008 - And you determine which are which by deciding if they suit you or not? By what standard do you judge them, precisely? Are there instructions? Have the bits taken literally changed over the years? Why do some people disagree on which bits to take literally? Who is right, and how do you know? With such ambiguity, how can this be considered a text without error (even if we overlook all the other errors)

CheckMateKing3 Says:

Dec 19, 2008 - GearsofFate101 God had made a Covenant with ancient Israel. The people were to keep His laws and God would protect, bless and prosper them in return. The Israelites broke the agreement they made with God and turned their backs on Him. That Covenant ended with the death of Jesus. Jesus made a New Covenant with His church, made up of people from all nations. The 10 Commandments would be written in their hearts and minds thru the Holy Spirit. Jesus' shed blood allows for forgiveness of sin.

CheckMateKing3 Says:

Dec 19, 2008 - DerivedApe "now that is cherry picking" People take what you say literally, except when you use known expressions like paying an arm and a leg. Then they know not to take your words literally. If you went back in time and told an Israelite you paid an arm and a leg for something, they would call you crazy or sadistic. The Israelites understood THEIR expressions, but not all the modern cultures reading translated Bibles.

CrohnsFeces Says:

Jan 23, 2009 - Fail.

CreedChrist Says:

Mar 18, 2009 - also remember the verses that talk about death sentences were said in order to show the seriousness and horribleness of sin. In reality we are ALL deserving of death because of our sin. But we are shown mercy by God and are given a chance to redeem ourselves. So the verses that talk about stoning were to show how serious sin was

CartCollector Says:

Mar 29, 2009 - Phail.

Naked4Jesus Says:

Jun 15, 2009 - A critical analysis of GIIVideo's video is clearly beyond you. As everyone else has been telling you, this is a clear case of FAIL.

SeppLainer Says:

Jul 2, 2009 - Epic Phail. "All of the verses that you gave were in the Old Testiment. They don't apply here." Too bad JESUS said they apply until the end...((Matthew 5:17-19) Go back and read the bible you so outwardly defend against ignorant atheists. Personally I kill people every Sunday.

SeppLainer Says:

Jul 2, 2009 - Does Jesus mind differentiating the two so we can pass a camel through the eye of the needle and live in a materialistic heaven with our Gold streets....

fairguynova Says:

Oct 25, 2009 - Which ones? There are 34,400+ denominations in xtianity, and all seem to have slight-to-very different spins on what the bible says and what it does not say.