- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29598
Okay, so is the entire bible the 'word of God' or only the nice fluffy verses?
Take for example Deut 25:11
''When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.'
Yes, a Christian can distance themselves by claiming these verses were not directed at gentiles, but the word of God is the word of God surely, no matter who it was primarily directed at?
We have been asked in another thread to evidence contradictions between Jesus and Paul, or Paul and John, but what about the more gaping contraction between the 23rd Psalm and Deut 25?!
' Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,' on one hand, and 'you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy' on the other.
Are these truly in reference to the same God?!
19 Mar 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI don't think the Bible is filled with nice fluffy verses, who told you that?
Okay, so is the entire bible the 'word of God' or only the nice fluffy verses?
Take for example Deut 25:11
''When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.'
Yes, ...[text shortened]... her hand and show her no mercy' on the other.
Are these truly in reference to the same God?!
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeOne is about what women don't do even when protecting her husband and the other is
How do you balance Deut 25 with the God praised in Psalm 23?
not about that. What is it you are confused about? There are a lot of things in the
scriptures that are very nasty by todays standards, yet at the same time stopped even
worse during the times they were written for.
Where we see an eye for an eye stopped them from taking more than just an eye for the
loss of an eye.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Mar 16
9 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
''When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.'
The inheritance of the Promised Land was very important to God. The continuation of children to inherit the Land was very important to God. This period after the Exodus was a once in history occasion of a genuine theocratic nation with a portion of the planet recovered and consecrated to God.
I believe the harshness of this law demonstrated how serious it was that an Israelite not be able to produce children for the keeping of the possession of the Good Land for Israel.
"Be mad, but do not be so enraged that you destroy the ability for the land to remain in the possession of my people Israel." I think this is the tone and purpose of the command.
Yes, a Christian can distance themselves by claiming these verses were not directed at gentiles, but the word of God is the word of God surely, no matter who it was primarily directed at?
So you are saying context does not matter.
And when Ecclesiastes says "Money solves everything" (Ecc. 10:19) we should all gleefully run off to buy all our lottery tickets because - After all "Money solves everything" - thus says the Lord.
English Standard Version
Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything.
New American Standard Bible
Men prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry, and money is the answer to everything.
Thank God there are some more than superficial students of the Scripture around to consider contextual issues.
We have been asked in another thread to evidence contradictions between Jesus and Paul, or Paul and John, but what about the more gaping contraction between the 23rd Psalm and Deut 25?!
' Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,' on one hand, and 'you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy' on the other.
Are these truly in reference to the same God?!
Some scholars say that the alternative careful translation is about a public shaving of the pubic area of the offending woman. I do not know for certain if this is so.
But I agree that this passage, if about an amputation, is very harsh. But it is not an unsolvable contradiction to Psalm 23.
The "enemies" of Psalm 23 could conceivably be seriously backslidden Israelites who have become the "enemies" of the trusting saint of God.
"You spread a table before me in the presence of my enemies" (v.5)
It is not impossible that these "enemies" of the trusting saint could be those sinners who caused the saint even to have to "walk through the valley of the shadow of death". In other words, anyone, Israelite or non-Israelite could conceivably be opposed to God and His trusting saint.
The admonition of Deut. 25 suggests that because the woman has destroyed the man's ability to pro-create by crushing his testicles, she has shown disregard for His will that His people pass on the inheritance of the Good Land keeping it in the possession of the theocractic nation.
" I understand you are upset. And I understand you want to fight on behalf of your husband. But you go too far. The possession of the Promised Land actually transcends that which causes you anger."
Something of a New Testament corresponding passage might be "Be angry but do not sin." (Eph. 4:26)
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29598
19 Mar 16
Originally posted by sonshipThanks for your considered reply. I have issue with some of your points which i will address tomorrow. I will say now though that, as an atheist, such biblical passages as Deut 25 make it very difficult to take the bible seriously as an integral whole.''When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.'
The inheritance of the Promised Land was very important to God. The continuation of children to inherit the ...[text shortened]... of a New Testament corresponding passage might be [b]"Be angry but do not sin." (Eph. 4:26) [/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Mar 16
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Thanks for your considered reply. I have issue with some of your points which i will address tomorrow. I will say now though that, as an atheist, such biblical passages as Deut 25 make it very difficult to take the bible seriously as an integral whole.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke (OP)Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay, so is the entire bible the 'word of God' or only the nice fluffy verses?
Take for example Deut 25:11
''When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.'
Yes ...[text shortened]... off her hand and show her no mercy' on the other.
Are these truly in reference to the same God?!
"Okay, so is the entire bible the 'word of God' or only the nice fluffy verses?
Take for example Deut 25:11...."
____________________________
"Sundry Laws"
25 “If there is a dispute between men and they go to [a]court, and [b ]the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked, 2 then it shall be if the wicked man [c]deserves to be beaten, the judge shall then make him lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of stripes according to his [d]guilt. 3 He may beat him forty times but no more, so that he does not beat him with many more stripes than these and your brother is not degraded in your eyes.
4 “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.
5 “When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall [e]assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 But if the man does not desire to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name for his brother in Israel; he is not willing to perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak to him. And if he persists and says, ‘I do not desire to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the sight of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face; and she shall [f]declare, ‘Thus it is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 In Israel his name shall be called, ‘The house of him whose sandal is removed.’
11 “If two men, a man and his [g]countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, 12 then you shall cut off her [h]hand; [i]you shall not show pity.
13 “You shall not have in your bag [j]differing weights, a large and a small. 14 You shall not have in your house [k]differing measures, a large and a small. 15 You shall have a full and just weight; you shall have a full and just [l]measure, that your days may be prolonged in the [m]land which the Lord your God gives you. 16 For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly is an abomination to the Lord your God.
17 “Remember what Amalek did to you along the way when you came out from Egypt, 18 how he met you along the way and attacked among you all the stragglers at your rear when you were faint and weary; and he did not [n]fear God. 19 Therefore it shall come about when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your surrounding enemies, in the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance to [o]possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget."
"Footnotes:a.Deuteronomy 25:1 Lit the judgment; b.Deuteronomy 25:1 Lit they judge them; c.Deuteronomy 25:2 Lit is a son of beating; d.Deuteronomy 25:2 Or wickedness; e.Deuteronomy 25:6 Lit stand on; f.Deuteronomy 25:9 Lit answer and say; g..Deuteronomy 25:11 Lit brother; h.Deuteronomy 25:12 Lit palm; i.Deuteronomy 25:12 Lit your eye; j.Deuteronomy 25:13 Lit a stone and a stone; k.Deuteronomy 25:14 Lit an ephah and an ephah; l.Deuteronomy 25:15 Lit ephah; m.Deuteronomy 25:15 Lit ground; n.Deuteronomy 25:18 Or reverence; o.Deuteronomy 25:19 Lit possess it."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+25&version=NASB
___________________
Ghost of a Duke, to be continued with comments within the next few days. ~GB
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYou need to take verses in the context of text and times they were written.
Thanks for your considered reply. I have issue with some of your points which i will address tomorrow. I will say now though that, as an atheist, such biblical passages as Deut 25 make it very difficult to take the bible seriously as an integral whole.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIn the New Testament Jesus and the apostles clarified many of such contradictions, I have reservations on "contradictions". The laws given to Moses were put into clear perspective by Jesus. One cannot understand the Bible quite clearly without linking the two testaments. Look at " an eye for an eye" for intance. Jesus said do not judge others without cleansing yourself of all evil and sin. The entire Bible is the word of God, but different generations had their way of life which differed from other generations as such it may seem that there are contradictions in the Bible.
Okay, so is the entire bible the 'word of God' or only the nice fluffy verses?
Take for example Deut 25:11
''When two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to drag her husband clear of his opponent, if she puts out her hand and catches hold of the man by his privates, you must cut off her hand and show her no mercy.'
Yes, ...[text shortened]... her hand and show her no mercy' on the other.
Are these truly in reference to the same God?!
Originally posted by KellyJayI hear that a lot, but then nobody actually explains what the 'context and times' are and how that justifies the terrible things in the verses. If you chopped off a woman's hand 2000 years ago, did it hurt less?
You need to take verses in the context of text and times they were written.
Originally posted by KellyJayIsn't this proviso strong evidence that the verses were written by men about what those men's opinions and superstitions just so happened to be at the time they wrote them, and that the verses were not divinely inspired by your God figure at all?
You need to take verses in the context of text and times they were written.
Why couldn't your God figure impose a less demented, depraved kind of "justice" upon humans?
Why are the notions of what is "just" supposedly imposed by your God figure limited to the content of the imaginations of humans and to the context of the times when they lived?
I'm not saying I have better ideas than your "God"; I'm saying your "God" and the notions and ideology that surround it don't make any sense. Hebrew mythology merely comes across as mythology created by Hebrews.
The idea that your God figure's notion of justice was restricted to - and had to be contorted to fit - the context of the times when the texts were written ought to be an embarrassment to anyone seeking to promote the authenticity of the supposed supernatural being that they worship.
20 Mar 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI can see that, but you have to remember, the Torah was written some 3500 years ago. I'm sure that most of our early 21st century literature might be just as astonishing to someone from the year 5500, eh?
Thanks for your considered reply. I have issue with some of your points which i will address tomorrow. I will say now though that, as an atheist, such biblical passages as Deut 25 make it very difficult to take the bible seriously as an integral whole.
Originally posted by SuzianneThis sounds more like an argument making the case against there being any validity in the belief that the texts are "the world of God" than an argument make the case that they were divinely inspired.
I can see that, but you have to remember, the Torah was written some 3500 years ago. I'm sure that most of our early 21st century literature might be just as astonishing to someone from the year 5500, eh?