Do you believe the Bible is infallible? If so, why?

[davo]

Physical death:

Our physical body may die, at which time our spirit leaves our body. When this happens, those on earth would then call us “dead” —when in fact we (our spirits) are still alive:

Luke 20:38 “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

Well I can go with 99% of that

[LLC]

My problem with that is that Jesus never spiritually died.

qaz, Yes, Jesus/ the Spirit of God did “die” as it says “This people honors Me with their lips but their hearts are far from Me.” At that time, there was no Spirit of truth, justice, mercy, love, forgiveness, etc.etc. among the people, as it was in the beginning, " When the Lord alone led him, and there was no foreign god with him." and 'He made him ride in the heights of the earth, that he might eat the produce of the fields." ( Deut. 32:12-13). Nor was it like in the days of Moses when " able men , such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness" were appointed as rulers.( Ex. 18:2).

[davo]

I claim Pauline thinking about the resurrection ‘body’ actually looks to his language and argument in 1 Cor 15 (possibly influenced by the Gospels’ mysterious picture of how Jesus ‘body’ was experienced and was difficult to identify with the Jesus they had known). But skirting those salient texts, you cite yet another author (John’s) obscure text arguing that it controls the meaning of Paul’s words in 1 Cor (as if doctrines rest on solving intricate puzzles).

WOW Bob this is really rich coming from you! With regards to the whole resurrection issue of 1Cor 15 I have argued in detail and have skirted nothing… any honest reading of the public record as all can see will show this, regardless of agreement or disagreement.

THEN to belittle the Apostle John’s account on the similar matter as being “OBSCURE”… well, only reflects your own inability to rationally deal with a pertinent point and text relative to that matter under discussion. And to question John’s words further on this matter as espousing… “intricate puzzles” well

P.S. To avoid taking Romans 8’s setting free “the creation,” as a new earth kind of transformation, you repeatedly translate this as “the creature (Israel).” Assuming this unusual translation, is Israel previously called “the creature”?

There is NO avoidance at all Bob… I shared in detailed a particular understanding, but your single paragraph above probably better reflects the avoidant plank firmly wedged in your own eye.

I think the question is more what you mean by saying this does not mean he rose up over physical death.

Bizarre Bob. Relative to Paul’s words to Agrippa about Jesus being the first to rise from the dead ones he was NOT, the first to rise from death — FACT! There was, is not, nor has there been ANY equivocation on my part over the fact Jesus rose physically from death and thereby what his resurrection accomplished.

What kind of metaphorical death or dead old covenant condition did Jesus have that he needed to be delivered from?

See my post to qaz and see IF you can understand it (I won’t hold my breath)… it answers to this.

Thanks Dave, this nicely bolsters my contention that the view that 1 Cor 15 points to some sort of future resurrection ‘body’ rests on the argument of 1 Cor 15 itself.

Apparently all Wright…

I frankly find in most dialogues that critiquing the language of third party’s longer videos or essays usually complicates the confusion (esp.,that we then end up debating how yet another person’s words should be interpreted),…

Apparently all Wrong… do I detect the faintest echo of unabashed… BIAS!? — unbelievable, but in fact totally believable

[qaz]

@davo interesting point regarding Isaiah 53.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Perhaps these church signs, will provide inspiration - for this thread discussion?

These 18 Funny Church Signs Are a Blessing to Us All

[Bob_Wilson]

I claim Pauline thinking about the resurrection ‘body’ actually looks to his language and argument in 1 Cor 15. But you cite another author John’s) obscure text arguing that it controls the meaning of Paul’s words in 1 Cor.

I don’t know what resemblance 1John 3:2 has in mind here to Jesus in the coming age… Indeed, the very setting of John’s words is about believers’ changed character and victory over sin in their lives, and expecting that when they are fully with Christ this transformation will be completed in a way beyond their imagination. I.e. I can’t assume that like Paul, John is explicitly addressing the nature of the “resurrection body, ” or what their own future bodily existence will or won’t be like.

WOW Bob this is really rich… to belittle John’s account on the similar matter as being "OBSCURE”… well, only reflects your own inability to rationally deal with a pertinent text relative to that matter under discussion.

You translate Rom. 8 on the creation as “the creature (Israel).” Assuming this unusual translation, is Israel previously called “the creature”?

I shared in detailed a particular understanding, but your single paragraph above probably better reflects the avoidant plank firmly wedged in your own eye.
Do I detect the faintest echo of unabashed… BIAS!? — unbelievable, but totally believable

Davo, you appear to mock my reading of texts, but I’m not seeing that you engage my questions or responses. I have no idea how your response on Romans 8 addresses what I asked. And as I outlined, I don’t see that 1 John 3 is even addressing the nature of a future resurrection “body,” much less as explicitly as does 1 Cor. 15. As I said, the whole context is about the amazing “character” we can expect to share with Jesus when we see him face to face.

So you can insistently assert that John’s account is on the same “matter,” and an equally “pertinent text” relative to 1 Cor. 15’s “matter” of explicating of resurrection bodies. But seeing 1 Jn 3:2 as claiming that we won’t share in a resurrection of the body analogous to Jesus’ invalidly assumes that our later beatific vision of “seeing Him as He is” in his purity and becoming like him in that excludes that earlier witness of Jesus’ amazing bodily appearances offered some clue about the nature of their own future bodily resurrection in the promised new earth.

Thus the logic escapes me that this text means that Paul cannot speak of our future bodily resurrection, or that it exempts you from answering the traditional exegesis based on arguments in 1 Cor. 15 itself, the central text, such as those Dave has reproduced from N. T. Wright.

(p.s. I never suggested you deny Jesus physically rose. I only said you deny that "this" text you had cited (Acts 26:23) means Jesus rose from physical ‘death’, and so asked what death he experienced.)

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

I think I shared this before. For a year or two, I hung out with Christian Scientists (AKA Mary Baker Eddy) and clergy - of the Liberal Catholic Church.

• Mary Baker Eddy - and her followers - would try to convince me, that everything is mind and ideas

• The Liberal Catholic Church clergy will try to convince me…that Christ was teaching esoteric Christianity…and only a few understood it.

What is Christian Science?

What is the Liberal Catholic Church?

Wisdom has taught me one thing…no matter how hard, I tried to convince them…of the validity of conventional views, they just wouldn’t see it. They were convinced that their understanding, was the only correct one.

Well, perhaps they are right. And God is not making, his message very clear…to the majority of mankind. Then whose fault is it, if folks aren’t following - the “correct” path and “correct” understanding?

And there is probably some validity, to the Mary Baker Eddy - method of healing. But NOT at the expense, of discarding modern medicine…nor ancient healing modalities.

True, we are a house divided. Just like any religion is. But we are divided into camps. with sizeable followings. Like RC, EO and Protestant degrees of understanding.

Perhaps someday…when Z-Hell (1, 2, 3) finally comes and passes…God will tell us, which understanding is “right”. Perhaps the zombies will bring us, the “right” understanding?

This next movie is really good. It’s rated 4 out of 4 stars, on the Syfy TV channel

[davo]

Davo, you appear to mock my reading of texts, but I’m not seeing that you engage my questions or responses.

No… I simply challenge your cavalier dismissal of John’s summation of “what we shall be” as somehow irrelevant to the discussion on Paul’s 1Cor 15 body understanding because you yourself declare John’s words here to be “obscure”. I accept that’s how you see it, I simply disagree, viewing your description of John’s words as more confirmation of your dogmatic intransigence on the “matter”. Now to be sure we all have our own intransigence… I’ll just simply note that where you are I myself have once been.

I have no idea how your response on Romans 8 addresses what I asked.

Well… BEFORE I gave my take on Rom 8 you raised it… to which I simply pointed out the singular of the Greek that mitigates against a fleshly “bodies* translation — something you yourself failed to deal with; you said this…

…but that Jesus was resurrected in a renewed body (Paul calls it a spiritual body) which is fit for the promised future renewed earth.

Well NOWHERE does Pauls say… Jesus was raised with a spiritual body — he just DOESN’T! IF you are desperate for your “clues” THEN WHY don’t you just trust Jesus’ words I’ve pointed you to earlier on this where Jesus starkly proves his fleshly risen humanity…

Lk 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” Cf. vss 40-43

Then you made these comments…

But Wright reads it that God’s redemptive work is precisely aimed toward that. As Romans 8 puts its, “the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into freedom and glory.”

I already pointed to Romans 8’s reiteration of this restored creation. But Wright would point to the whole sweep of Hebrew Scripture’s concern for life in this tangible land & earth,…

Again… on Rom 8 pointed out the correct parsing of ‘BODY’ — but really I just waste my time doing this because you typically ignoring such grammatical pointers as not important. And so ignoring this you then switch to misapplying what I’m describing as Israel’s covenantal renewal aka resurrection as… “Israel’s metaphorical resurrection”… which again just totally misses or avoids the point, as per…

Your belief that Paul can’t be referring to a future event, but means here a metaphorical resurrection that delivered Israel out of it’s old covenant status seems to rest on him sometimes using the present tense to describe the nature of that event’s resurrection body.

Again you have this twisted as I don’t advocate that… Paul does affirm futurity relative to the end, i.e., AD70 was future to THEM.

And then finally tying BOTH your metaphorical AND Romans 8 misconstruals together you said…

Your reading that NT resurrection language is all about Israel ’s metaphorical resurrection seems incorrect to me. I see it also applied to believers in Christ at large. I’m also skeptical that Romans 8’s words about the whole creation groaning to experience the freedom of God’s children is only about Israel ’s desire for a metaphorical resurrection.

SO… on BOTH these point I stated…

As to your use of ‘ metaphorical resurrection ’… that is far from an adequate understanding. Sure, metaphor has a rich usage in scripture but Israel’s resurrection is better understood in terms of covenant renewal aka covenant resurrection … which is where all the OT prophetic promises point, and of which Jesus and His firstfruit saints fulfil.

And then…

Again, putting aside for a moment your metaphorical blockage… this is what I see happening according to that passage in terms of covenant eschatology…

THEN followed my take on the Rom 8 passage. So STOP saying I haven’t answered you… I have. I can appreciate you either don’t like or can’t grasp my responses, but that’s different.

(p.s. I never suggested you deny Jesus physically rose. I only said you deny that "this" text you had cited (Acts 26:23) means that Jesus rose from physical death, and thus asked what it did mean.)

Again Bob, I DID point this out BUT you won’t accept my answer… well I can’t help that. This what I said…

No… I argued the body was a metaphor for Israel. Jesus rose quite literally from death — AS DID numerous others BEFORE him — so HOW can Paul claim as he did in Acts 26:23 that Jesus was THE FIRST? Simple, BECAUSE Paul chooses his words… he didn’t say Jesus was the first to rise from death ( as most evangelicals, yourself included read it ) but that Jesus the first to rise “ from the dead ones ” [plural] i.e., OC Israel… the first of the firstfruits, i.e., NC Israel!

Jesus’ very literal resurrection was the evidence to Israel HE had been appointed the world’s Lord with power ( Acts 2:36; Rom 1:3-4 ),…

So yet again, from WHAT was Jesus… “the first to rise from” as per Acts 26:23? Once more… Jesus’ resurrection was more than rising from mere physical DEATH per sé (as the bible is unequivocal — others did so first) but more precisely… from “DEAD ONES” in accordance with the Greek text; and WHO were these 'dead ones’? — none other than old covenant Israel aka “dead in trespasses and sins”. Jesus WAS the first of the firstfruits of Israel’s covenant quickening aka resurrection with Jesus himself, in fact, being “the resurrection and the life” for all Israel… and then those beyond.

It’s amazing how I know without getting all twisted up you fully grasp the metaphoric understanding of… “dead in trespasses and sins” of “firstfruits” of “the likeness of death & resurrection” as per Rom 6, BUT… WHEN it comes to 1Cor 15, ah shucks, it’s magically all just too hard to believe…

[Bob_Wilson]

Davo, I’m not seeing that you engage my questions or responses.

No… I simply challenge your cavalier dismissal of John’s summation of “what we shall be” as irrelevant to Paul’s 1Cor 15 body understanding… viewing your description of John’s words as more confirmation of your dogmatic intransigence on the “matter”.

I had inquired, “You translated Rom. 8 on the “creation” as “the creature (Israel).”
Assuming this unusual translation, is Israel previously called “the creature”?”
But I still have no idea how your response on Romans 8 addresses what I asked.

Well… (followed by numerous paragraphs)

I’m sorry I don’t follow. You generously reviewed Romans 8 at great length.
But I now still have no idea if your answer is even yes or no to my question about literature on Israel.

Of course my main focus above was that you accused my reading of 1Cor 15 of "skirting"
an especially “salient” and “pertinent” text (1Jn 3:2) on the same matter of bodily resurrection.
But I had already answered that I had detailed my own interpretation of that text with the reasons
that I saw it as about sharing Jesus’ moral “character” when we meet face to face,
but not as even addressing the nature of any future body, much less in a decisive way.

Thus I responded that you can “assert” that I “belittled” a verse you raised. But that I could not see that you at all engaged the contextual and exegetical substance of my reasoning. So I tried to amplify on my reasons for not seeing 1Jn 3:2 as definitive on the resurrection ‘body,’ hoping they would then be more clear. But it appears that you still don’t engage or answer any of my arguments,
but just repeat your ad hominem accusation that I am intransigently “cavalier”

It does seem we both tend to feel the other does not grasp what we are saying. Maybe others are comprehending your response. But I don’t know how to respond in any more helpful way.

(you seem to say the death Jesus was raised from in Acts 26:23 was being “dead in trespasses & sins;”
But I’m unsure that He was ever dead in that spiritual kind of way.)

[davo]

Well Bob I think I’m done with these rolling litany of deceptive post tweaks, and this latest just takes the cake…

Of course my main focus above was that you accused my reading of 1Cor 15 of “skirting” an especially “salient” and “pertinent” text (1Jn 3:2) on the same matter of bodily resurrection.

I accused you of skirting the issue… REALLY?? Not so… thou art the man!

I fear this typifies what happens in exegetical debates. I claim Pauline thinking about the resurrection ‘body’ actually looks to his language and argument in 1 Cor 15 ( possibly influenced by the Gospels’ mysterious picture of how Jesus ‘body’ was experienced and was difficult to identify with the Jesus they had known). But skirting those salient texts, you cite yet another author (John’s) obscure text arguing that it controls the meaning of Paul ’s words in 1 Cor (as if doctrines rest on solving intricate puzzles).

I even objected to your outlandish claim with…

WOW Bob this is really rich coming from you! With regards to the whole resurrection issue of 1Cor 15 I have argued in detail and have skirted nothing… any honest reading of the public record as all can see will show this, regardless of agreement or disagreement.

So yet again it is very disappointing to see above your latest massaging of the truth. It seems you cannot help yourself with this rewriting of facts… dialogue with you at this time is proving frustratingly fruitless — I’m out.

[Bob_Wilson]

My main focus above was that you accused my reading of 1Cor 15 of “skirting” an especially *“salient” and “pertinent” text (1Jn 3:2!).

REALLY?? Not so… thou art the man!

Yet again it is very disappointing to see above your latest massaging of the truth— I’m out.

Davo, my view is that you repeatedly accused me of a "cavalier dismissal" of 1Jn 3:2 which you insisted is an especially “salient” and “pertinent” text about bodily resurrection. You pressed this with pejoratives such as that my supposed dodging of your key text showed my “inability to rationally deal with a text,” and that I was full of “dogmatic intransigence,” “unabashed bias,” etc, etc.

Because I love honest grappling with texts and truly wanted to hear your insightful response & exegesis, I answered that I did not dodge 1Jn at all, and twice presented my exegetical reasons for seeing its’ words as irrelevant to bodily resurrection and the meaning of 1Cor 15. Yet you had still just ignored this exegetical substance in favor of again asserting my “cavalier dismissal” of that text.

Now, apparently because you hate how I imperfectly edit or state such responses, you again just call me “outlandish,” with still No response to the case I had again detailed against your interpretation. If you’d rather not engage my arguments, it’s fine if you just say so. I can gladly stop any evaluation of your own interpretations.

[davo]

Well… apologies for my own over-reaches but methinks we’re just talking past each, so enough said.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

This dialogue reminds me, of a joke I once played. I had a female friend… who liked to talk, for hours on the phone. And a male friend, who liked to do the same thing. So once, I arranged to introduce them. And get them to talk, to each other - on the phone. Afterwards, I decided to ask the female… how the phone conversation went.

Well, she said:

We talked for three hours, on the phone. He can talk a leg, off a chair.

Well, I had to do my best - to refrain from laughing.

I can just image the conversations! As both these people, are exceptionally bright!

And if I hosted some folks here, for dinner…I probably would behave, like Captain Picard…as I hosted their dinner conversations!

[Hermano]

I would let the certainty of that conclusion settle my heart to where doubts on other matters, e.g., the infallibility or otherwise of scripture, fall into the background. IOW… run with what I have become confident about, i.e., the love and mercy of God.

I’m very glad to hear you say that! I believe the Scriptures were divinely inspired and ordered, but that they MUST be prayerfully interpreted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not merely by human intellectual power; because we are cautioned that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor. 3:6).

The overarching interpretive filter I now use to study Scripture is encapsulated by John 10:10—

“The thief [Satan] comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I [Jesus] came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.”

The unchanging God (all three persons) always only has each person’s best interests in mind, and is only ever about abundant life. On the other hand, the devil is a jealous, bloodthirsty legalist; unchecked human sin creates openings in God’s divine hedge of protection around people, which allows the devil to come in and hurt them.

This interpretive filter helps me to distinguish, for example, that God (who is love) warns people about the dire consequences of sin, but that He does not threaten to send those consequences. So whenever Scriptures seem to indicate God threatens, kills, steals, or destroys, I identify those instances as misattribution.

As a result, by always drawing this sharp distinction between God and the devil (what Richard Murray calls using “the bracket of truth”), I can now recognize for example, that,

• Moses, in his ignorance about the devil, was wrong when he said it was God who sent the worldwide Flood to kill everyone except Noah and his family (Gen. 6:5-7). I now perceive, according to this filter, that it could only have been the devil who did this monstrous thing, coming in through the open door of mankind’s widespread sin—with God trying to warn any who would listen to Him.

• The blood applied by the Israelites to their doorposts and lintels in Exodus was not to appease God, or to protect them from God, but from Satan, the destroying angel (Ex. 12:23). The blood, applied by Israelites by faith (having been persuaded by the Spirit of Truth), anticipated the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).

• When Jesus confronted the hypocrisy of the Pharisees regarding manipulating people to give them their money, instead of taking care of their parents, he told them, “For God commanded ‘Honor the father and the mother’ and 'the one speaking evil of father or mother in death must end’” (alternative literal translation, Matthew 15:4), he was by no means reaffirming the mistaken capital punishment of Moses, but only warning of the satanic consequences of unrepentant sin.

• In the book of Revelation, all the forewarned death described their surrounding Satan’s coming eviction, is from the devil himself, who alone has the power of death (Heb. 2:14); not from God, who is only about abundant life. God at that time will be opposing, ameliorating, and mitigating those destructive activities, because death is His stated enemy (1 Cor.15:26).

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

I found this interesting paragraph, from:

The Orthodox Faith - Word of God

It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.

So their position - and mine - is that there can be contradictions in Holy Scripture. But not in

the relationship between God and the world

Anyway, I mentioned that I know the husband…of contemporary, Old Catholic mystic - Tiffany Snow…he’s an Old Catholic Church priest. And she is a contemporary, Christian mystic. Let me share an article of hers - regarding her visions:

The Third Secret ‘The Secret’ Didn’t Tell You

Let me quote a bit of “radical” stuff, from the article:

I was first awakened by a lightning-strike and near-death experience in 1999. Since then, there has been continual communion with the other side and further choices to empirically experience Divine Love through times of stigmata, which began in 2005. I have learned many deeper things and further clarity on things that are popular and already known. So for me, since I had come from a traditional religious background, one of my first questions was; “What religion is the right one?” The answer: “All those who love me.” Another question; “Are the Holy Scriptures complete?” The answer: “All the Holy Books are incomplete, so that man may reach out to me, and I will greet him, and he will know me by name.” All this made sense to me more than anything before, and empirical experience made it something I couldn’t ignore.

That’s enough to ponder for now!

“Divine love has always met and will always meet every human need” - Mary Baker Eddy

“Stop thinking about the difficulty and think about God instead.” - Golden Key - Emmet Fox

[davo]

I believe the Scriptures were divinely inspired and ordered, but that they MUST be prayerfully interpreted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not merely by human intellectual power;

So how might that be determined as being a kosher means of defining so-called truth when many from contrary views will all say… I have prayed and am convinced of ‘thus and so’ — none too convincing at all IMO.

And as for this so-called bracket of truth and misattribution, hmm well I’m not so sure. If God didn’t do it then God certainly didn’t say it either, so the ONLY option according to this interpretive thesis reads as follows…

Gen 6:5-7 Then the Lord Satan saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord Satan was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord Satan said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

More like taking a hatchet to the truth. IF Moses who spoke ‘face to face’ with God didn’t know, couldn’t recognise or understand the voice of God then I wouldn’t be looking to any of his words as being classified as ‘inspired’ at all.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

I believe the Scriptures were divinely inspired and ordered, but that they MUST be prayerfully interpreted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not merely by human intellectual power;

So how might that be determined as being a kosher means of defining so-called truth when many from contrary views will all say… I have prayed and am convinced of ‘thus and so’ — none too convincing at all IMO.

Davo to Hermano.

Very true. I mentioned earlier, I hung around - for a year or so…with Christian Scientists, who taught that everything - is mind and ideas…and clergy from the Liberal Catholic Church…who taught that Christ, was teaching Esoteric Christianity…BOTH would say, that the Holy Spirit guided them. Even those having visions of Z-Hell (1, 2, 3), would say the same thing.

THE IRRESISTIBLE HOLY GHOST - The Christian Science Journal

And this car salesmen, is probably saying…that the Holy Spirit is guiding him, in selling the right car.

But let me add a caveat. If you take the systems of folks like Mary Baker Eddy, Joel Goldsmith and Emmet Fox…and instead of a theology and philosophy, turn them into a contemplation…on the Omnipotence, Omnipresence,. Omniscience .and Goodness of God…you will have all, that TV preachers like Joel Osteen teach…And if would be fully compatible with Christian theology, as most folks see it.

[Hermano]

I believe the Scriptures were divinely inspired and ordered, but that they MUST be prayerfully interpreted by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not merely by human intellectual power;

So how might that be determined as being a kosher means of defining so-called truth when many from contrary views will all say… I have prayed and am convinced of ‘thus and so’ — none too convincing at all IMO.

When discussing the Bible, people identified as genuine Christians are often “all over the map” on any given doctrinal question, even as they advance their competing experts and evidence; so inarguably, we Christians are not all being led by the Spirit, all the time.

Honestly, should any of us say, “I choose doctrinal position ‘x’ because that is what the majority believes”? Don’t most of us say, on some occasion, “I have prayerfully considered several different positions, and ‘y’ is what I discern to be best, at least at this time, regardless of that putting me in the minority”?

The question isn’t which interpretation is traditional, or acceptable to the majority; but which one we ourselves, after prayerfully considering the alternative arguments, believe before God to be right. (I know you agree, so I don’t really understand your warning against “I have prayed and am convinced of ‘thus and so’.” After all, ultimately, all of us are subjective in our personal choices about our doctrinal positions.)

IF Moses who spoke ‘face to face ’ with God didn’t know, couldn’t recognise or understand the voice of God then I wouldn’t be looking to any of his words as being classified as ‘inspired’ at all.

I believe Moses’ understanding of God was hit-and-miss—like yours, mine, and Peter’s:

Matthew 16:15-17
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

Matthew 16:22-23
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Everything in the Scriptures is not of equal value or validity; some verses have predominance over others. As Professor C.S. Cowles said in his essay Scriptural Inerrancy? “Behold, I Show You A More Excellent Way” [emphasis mine]—

A “more excellent way” of thinking about the plethora of human and even anti-divine personalities that speak and act throughout the Bible is to recognize that— contrary to Calvin’s determinism— God not only created human beings with genuine freedom but allowed them to exercise their free will and express themselves accordingly. In doing so he was not the least bit threatened by what they might say or do. God did not prompt the serpent or Jacob or King David or anybody else to lie. Rather, he took these occasional twisted strands of falsehood and foolishness, and wove them with the truth about himself and life into a wondrous tapestry of “God-breathed” revelation that brings glory to his name, and contributes to the overarching purpose of Scripture which is the salvation of lost humankind.

To reiterate: my fundamental hermeneutic tool for interpreting Scripture (a tool I prayerfully accepted and prayerfully retain) centers on the clear contrast Jesus made between Satan and himself —

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. John 10:10 (ESV)

[With these assumptions when interpreting that verse:
“the thief” is the devil; God is unchanging; Jesus exactly represents God.]

Hence, whenever any other given Bible verse appears to indicate that God threatens people (vs. warns people), or kills people, I reject that assertion as a case of misattributing to God what Jesus clarified to actually be of Satan.

I assert that this overruling (John 10:10) filter resolves discrepancies throughout the Bible regarding God’s true nature of love: God is only about abundant life, no matter what anyone else says.

[hollytree]

When love itself becomes a god, it becomes demonic - C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

Lewis points out in “The Four Loves” that although God is love , not all love is God . He says that if any type of love became a god , it would, in fact, become a demon. We see this in how EU attributes acts of God to Satan. EU blasphemes the holy (Supra Rational).

It was of erotic love that the Roman poet said, “I love and hate,” but other kinds of love admit the same mixture. They carry in them the seeds of hatred. If Affection is made the absolute sovereign of a human life the seeds will germinate. Love, having become a god, becomes a demon. ~~ C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

[Bob_Wilson]

If God is love, then truly practicing love (agape) reflects the character of God. I don’t know what it would mean that agape “love becomes a god.” I actually think its’ importance is underrated.