> I think the Israelites were to have their local communities carry out those death penalties even during the centuries from 586BC to 30AD

Do you have any evidence of this? Walton & Walton say, "The Torah has no role apart from the sanctuary—the place of YHWH’s presence from which He rules over His people as He dwells among them in a covenant relationship. The Torah is therefore contingent on the tabernacle/temple—the establishment of God’s presence among the Israelites. The Torah is given so that God’s covenant people Israel can order their lives and society in a way that will retain YHWH’s favor and His presence residing among them. It is designed to provide examples of covenant order and to help Israel understand how they can bring honor, rather than shame, to the name (that is, the reputation) of YHWH because they have been identified with Him by being designated as holy. As they are faithful to the covenant by heeding the wisdom of the Torah, they will preserve God’s presence among them. Failure to establish covenant order will result in YHWH’s departure, to their great loss."

Which is what happened. God departed from them, and the Temple was destroyed. The Torah was instructions for living in proximity to sacred space (the Temple). Without the Temple, and with the presence of God withdrawn, the Torah became defunct in essence (though the people continued to obey it as God's revelation and their way of life.

> Israelites who committed the prohibited sexual immorality listed in Lev 18 should still have received the penalties listed in Lev 20 during those six centuries.

We have no record that it was.

> Israelites who committed other severe sins, such as advocating idolatry and serving other gods, should still have received death penalties for those sins during those six centuries

We have no record that it was.

> Some of the prophets were after 586 BC, right?

Of course.

> If we suppose that event occurred, the text says that the Israelite leaders in 30 AD believed that someone caught in adultery should get the death penalty

I do suppose that event occurred, but we have no record that anyone was ever so executed. John 8 was distinctly a trap for Jesus, as you know, and not necessarily their realistic expectation.

> the civil law (the capital crimes) was intended for Israel as a theocratic state. When Israel/Judah fell (586 BC), the civil law became defunct with it.

I disagree with your proposition that the civil law became defunct in 586 BC.

I think the Israelites were to have their local communities carry out those death penalties even during the centuries from 586BC to 30AD, no matter whether they were under the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Alexander, or the Romans, or when they weren't strongly controlled by others and sort of had their own local leadership (e.g. the Nehemiah period).

Israelites who committed the prohibited sexual immorality listed in Lev 18 should still have received the penalties listed in Lev 20 during those six centuries. Similarly, Israelites who committed other severe sins, such as advocating idolatry and serving other gods, should still have received death penalties for those sins during those six centuries. Israelites who committed lesser crimes such as stealing should still have done the penalties and restitution prescribed in the Law for those sins, during those six centuries.

The Torah sections that specify what should happen to Israelites who commit severe sins often mention this reason for carrying out the death of a fellow Israelite: "You must purge the evil from among you." Yahweh still wanted them to purge the evil from among them during those six centuries.

I also believe that having the death penalty specified in the Law served as a deterrent: An Israelite considering adultery or another severe sin could think: "If I get caught, I'll be subject to the death penalty; it's not worth the risk." If your proposition is true that the death penalties were no longer in effect during those six centuries, and if the Israelites during those centuries knew that, that would reduce the ability of the Law to deter bad behavior (such as promoting idolatry).

Some of the prophets were after 586BC, right? And Yahweh still spoke through those prophets to the Israelites between 586 BC and the time of Malachi, for the Israelites to repent of their sins, and Yahweh never told them through the prophets that the penalties in the Law were no longer to be enforced by them.

As you know, in John 8 there's the added story of the woman caught in adultery. If we suppose that event occurred, the text says that the Israelite leaders in 30 AD believed that someone caught in adultery should get the death penalty. Do you believe that somehow the Israelite tradition never got the message about "the death penalties should no longer be enforced"? Similarly, there are incidents in the gospels and Acts where the Israelites take up stones against Jesus or Stephen. So apparently they believed at the time that stone-to-death penalties were still in effect.

> The civil law was not intended to be carried out by every government in history. It is no longer something secular governments are responsible to carry out. It is no longer something the Church is supposed to carry out. It is not a law or rule for us as Christians.

I agree with all that; I think the Law given to the Israelites was part of God's covenant with that nation only.

In any of your comments to me, you need not write apparent refutations of claims I didn't make and topics I didn't raise.

> the old covenant is still around, but in Christ it is taken away—rendered obsolete. The new covenant supersedes the old, being superior to it (Heb. 8.6).

Again here, I agree with that; I already wrote "the whole old covenant was in effect until the new covenant was instituted." Perhaps you gave me some text you copied-and-pasted from some other thread. If so, I suggest you customize your replies to the person and particular comment that you're replying to.

The covenant was in effect, yes. But the reason we no longer execute adulterers or gays, for instance (if that *ever* happened), is that the civil law (the capital crimes) was intended for Israel as a theocratic state. When Israel/Judah fell (586 BC), the civil law became defunct with it. The civil law was not intended to be carried out by every government in history. It is no longer something secular governments are responsible to carry out. It is no longer something the Church is supposed to carry out. It is not a law or rule for us as Christians.

It pertained to their covenant, yes, and covenant is still in effect. But this would be like saying, should America fall one day, would we or any other future person still live by our constitution and the Bill of Rights? Of course not. That's for us. But aren't there good, noble, and moral ideas in it? Sure there are, but such things are defunct when the nation falls. We might still recognize the morality of certain elements, but we would no longer live under that agreement.

We still recognize that adultery is wrong. That's the part that is legal wisdom for us now. But we deal with it in our own way, not in their way.

The covenant is how God reveals Himself to and relates to His people, so it will always be around (Mt. 5.17-18; Rom. 7.12). 2 Cor. 3.14 tells us that the old covenant is still around, but in Christ it is taken away—rendered obsolete. The new covenant supersedes the old, being superior to it (Heb. 8.6). The old covenant no longer provides the framework for relating to God.

> once the nation went down and the Temple was destroyed (586 BC), such laws went down with it.

Are you saying that some parts of the Law were not in effect between 586 BC and 30AD?

I have the position, instead, that the whole old covenant was in effect until the new covenant was instituted. Paul says the Law was added until the promised Christ had come.

The Bible and the Qur'an are quite different, both in content and in style. Though the Qur'an refers to some of the same characters that the Bible does (Abraham, Moses, Mary, etc.), the similarities pretty much end there. And the style of the Qur'an is very different from the style of the Bible. The Bible is much more narrative stories, poetry, prophesy, and moral teachings; The Qur'an is more like unrelated pithy sayings.

> It did, and it has me worried since that would require muslims to dismiss a direct order to live in peace.

Yes, in my reading of the Qur'an I've noticed it's quite violent toward the Kafir (the infidels)—anyone not a Muslim. It's quite different from Christianity.

> But I also heard that the bible condones killing homosexuals for example, and that isn’t something the people I know would live by, even if they were shown it was a direct command.

The Bible does mention that in Leviticus 20, but (1) that was casuistic law (hypothetical cases, not actual ones, only giving the extent of the law, not a requirement); (2) there is no record of any such execution ever taking place (confirming it was not a requirement); (3) it was based in various cultural elements no longer applicable; and (4) once the nation went down and the Temple was destroyed (586 BC), such laws went down with it.

> I’m wondering if there is a point when people say the Bible is no different than the Quran.

People say that, but it shows they haven't read either one. The books are vastly different from each other.

> I never read the bible. I have only really heard stories in church and in school.

You can do some brief reading if you want. Start in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—you can skim around if you want). Read pieces of Genesis, some of the Psalms (pick some at random), and maybe the first 11 chapters of Isaiah. That will give you a glimpse of the Bible.

Then switch and read the first 5 Surahs of the Qur'an. You'll notice the obvious difference.

And we can talk more. I'd be glad to.

Does the new or the old testament have direct commands akin to what I’ve read in the Quran?

I’ve seen a lot of people say the books are the same. Since I come from a faint Christian background, I decided to actually read in the quran to see if it really said to kill non-believers.

It did, and it has me worried since that would require muslims to dismiss a direct order to live in peace.

But I also heard that the bible condones killing homosexuals for example, and that isn’t something the people I know would live by, even if they were shown it was a direct command. We’re way too secular.

Anyway, I’m wondering if there is a point when people say the Bible is no different than the Quran.

I never read the bible. I have only really heard stories in church and in school.