Okay, Which one is correct then?

a reply to: olbe66

I think you're confusing the real Jesus of the Bible with the long haired, cuddly teddy bear hippy Jesus who always talks in platitudes and pats everyone on the head. The real Jesus does love everyone, but He doesn't entreat scorners and mockers for a second, He calls a woman a dog, He tells the Pharisees their father is Satan, He is coming again to destroy entire nations and rule with a rod of iron.

That's the real Jesus of the Bible.

a reply to: olbe66
You really need to take a course on post Interpretation. I was being sacrcastic but not mean spirited.

Please remember you cannot place any emotion to my post so easily because you lack eye contact, intonation of speech and body language.

But then you may think you are a mind reader and know my heart better than God.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I think you're confusing the real Jesus of the Bible with the long haired, cuddly teddy bear hippy Jesus who always talks in platitudes and pats everyone on the head. The real Jesus does love everyone, but He doesn't entreat scorners and mockers for a second, He calls a woman a dog, He tells the Pharisees their father is Satan, He is coming again to destroy entire nations and rule with a rod of iron.

So Jesus is a real hard-ass? I could go fishing around in that silly book of yours and contradict you, but you would just make up more non-sense. Just nice to know that your Jesus would be are real asshole to people who disagreed with him.

a reply to:

But then you may think you are a mind reader and know my heart better than God.
0983410">ChesterJohn

Most likely, as god does not exist, so my guess is better than no guess.

a reply to: olbe66

Sure, go ahead and school me. Start with Psalm 2, or Isaiah 19, or Isaiah 63. I know, school me about what Jesus has to say in Revelation.

a reply to: olbe66

your opinion is neither proof nor truth.

But my experience trumps your opinion.

So say what you will you will never sway me from my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, almighty God.

they are both correct.

an eye for an eye is how we govern.

turn the other cheek is how you should handle yourself.

there is no contradiction.

a reply to: rounda

You're getting close, but there's a little more to it (or more that can be said about it).

The rule of “an eye for an eye” was part of God’s Law given by Moses to ancient Israel and was quoted by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:​38, King James Version; Exodus 21:24, 25; Deuteronomy 19:21) It meant that when dealing out justice to wrongdoers, the punishment should fit the crime. * (*: This legal principle, sometimes referred to by the Latin term lex talionis, was also reflected in the legal system of some other ancient societies.) So that's a bit like your “how we govern”.

The rule applied to deliberate injurious acts against another person. Regarding a willful offender, the Mosaic Law stated: “Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, the same sort of injury he inflicted should be inflicted on him.”​—Leviticus 24:20.

What was the purpose of the “eye for an eye” rule?

The “eye for an eye” rule did not authorize or sanction vigilante justice. Rather, it helped appointed judges to impose punishments that were appropriate, being neither too harsh nor too lenient.

The rule also served as a deterrent to any who would intentionally harm others or scheme to do so. “Those who remain [those who observed God’s justice being carried out] will hear and be afraid,” explained the Law, “and they will never again do anything bad like this among you.”​—Deuteronomy 19:20.

Does the “eye for an eye” rule apply to Christians?

No, this rule is not binding on Christians. It was part of the Mosaic Law, which Jesus’ sacrificial death abolished.​—Romans 10:4.

Even so, the rule provides insight into God’s way of thinking. For example, it shows that God values justice. (Psalm 89:14) It also reveals his standard of justice​—namely, that wrongdoers should be disciplined “to the proper degree.”​—Jeremiah 30:11.

Misconceptions about the “eye for an eye” rule

Misconception: The “eye for an eye” rule was excessively harsh.

Fact: The rule did not authorize a heavy-handed, cruel application of justice. Rather, when properly applied, it meant that qualified judges would impose retribution for an offense only after first considering the circumstances involved and the extent to which the offense was deliberate. (Exodus 21:28-​30; Numbers 35:22-​25) The “eye for an eye” rule thus acted as a restraint against extremes in punishment.

Misconception: The “eye for an eye” rule authorized an endless cycle of personal vengeance.

Fact: The Mosaic Law itself stated: “You must not take vengeance nor hold a grudge against the sons of your people.” (Leviticus 19:18) Rather than promoting personal vengeance, the Law encouraged people to trust in God and in the legal system that he had authorized to right any wrongs.​—Deuteronomy 32:35.

Jesus corrects a wrong idea

Jesus knew that some had misinterpreted the rule of “an eye for an eye.” He corrected them when he said: “You heard that it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him.”​—Matthew 5:​38, 39.

Note Jesus’ expression “you heard that it was said.” He was apparently referring to some Jewish religious leaders who taught retaliation. Bible scholar Adam Clarke noted: “It seems that the Jews had made this law [an eye for an eye] . . . a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit.” By encouraging vindictiveness, those religious leaders distorted the intent of God’s Law.​—Mark 7:​13.

In contrast, Jesus emphasized that love is the dominant spirit of God’s Law. He said: “‘You must love Jehovah your God . . .’ This is the greatest and first commandment. The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments the whole Law hangs.” (Matthew 22:37-​40) Jesus taught that love, not vindictiveness, would identify his true followers.​—John 13:34, 35.

So the only thing Jesus contradicted was the misinterpretation and misapplication of those Jewish religious leaders who taught retaliation and those who “had made this law [an eye for an eye] . . . a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit.” Those who had distorted the intent of God’s Law by encouraging vindictiveness (which brings us back to your “how you should handle yourself”, especially if you also consider the paragraph above).

a reply to: whereislogic

no, there is not more to be said.

the old testament laws were created to govern.

turn the other cheek is how you are supposed to handle yourself.

they do not contradict each other.

the laws were not distorted, there are two entire books in the old testament devoted to helping groups of people transition away from nomadic life to city life. thats basically the entire theme of the pentateuch.

those books were given by God, not religious leaders.

If you read Exodus, God was setting up judges among His people to carry out capital punishment, so that punishment fit the crime. Up until that point, such a concept was foreign to man. The verse about eye for an eye is smack dab in the middle of ordinances for crimes and punishment; let the punishment fit the crime. Keep in mind that in the Old Testament, they lived in a time of rampant lawlessness, so it was necessary. The old covenant was one that pointed to the coming of Jesus. The sacrifices for sin pointed forward to Jesus on the cross.

As time progressed, societies became more civilized, because of the very ordinances that Israel were given by God. Jesus came on the scene at the perfect time, to spread a message of love (God is love), kindness, meekness and forgiveness. Such was the plan all along. God had a plan before creation, for each age.

So, no, the Bible doesn't contradict itself, it becomes completely clear once you understand the overarching context of the message of the Bible. Simply put, the old covenant and the new covenant, both of which were designed for the times and the peoples in earth's history, to fulfill God's will.

The overarching story in all of this is to eventually rid the universe of sin. It was always the plan for God to bring people in line with His character, in line with the character required for heaven. The early steps were a righting of wrongs in the way people were back then. The same capital punishment God gave Moses exists today in free countries and even inspired governments and the laws that exist today.

a reply to: forthelove

Perhaps if those two contradictory statements provide for and give the reader the concept of a choice between seeking vengeance or justice (much harsher penalties in those times and giving another chance in hoping the person has already learnt for themselves what they did is wrong and allowing a mechanism for total forgiveness.

People have been reading from and learning from this bible since the times just following Constantine, 4th century AD/CE.

a reply to: forthelove

It’s not a contradiction. In Exodus God was giving instructions for civil law, we still use this today with people who murder other people. In the NT Jesus is teaching us about personal vengeance.

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: forthelove

Perhaps if those two contradictory statements provide for and give the reader the concept of a choice between seeking vengeance or justice (much harsher penalties in those times and giving another chance in hoping the person has already learnt for themselves what they did is wrong and allowing a mechanism for total forgiveness.

People have been reading from and learning from this bible since the times just following Constantine, 4th century AD/CE.

Way before Constantine. Irenaeus quotes from each of the 27 books of the NT we have today in ~180 A.D. Many partial fragments of NT epistles date do the 1st century. The meme that Constantine decided what books are in the Bible at the Council of Nicaea is from a Dan Brown fiction book. Constantine only legalized Christianity but it was his 2nd successor who gave an edict making it the State religion on the Roman Empire.

originally posted by: forthelove
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And which version is supposed to be correct? That is my point, it is all a crock.

Both are correct in their appropriate contexts. One is in regard to civil law and the other is about taking personal vengeance. Not a crock.

originally posted by: forthelove
The funny little bible is full of contradictions, but the one that gets me is as follows:

So tell me which one is correct, huh?

Is it the scripture that suggests, an eye for an eye...

Or is it the one that says, turn the other cheek...

Please explain to me how both seemingly opposite reactions can exist in that good old book?

Are you supposed to decide based on the merits of the situation?

Are you supposed to turn the other cheek and then poke them in the eye?

Are you supposed to blind them and then turn their other cheek?

The character Jesus suggested to turn the other cheek. What are you up to, maybe?