Originally posted by RJHinds
This had to do with voluntary vows that people could make to the Lord to show gratitude for some blessing that they had received. He could vow himself or a member of his family or an animal or his house or a field of his own land to the Lord and according to Numbers 18:7-14 it was to be received by the priests.

In lieu of the thing vowed, a sum of money ...[text shortened]... sum of money set, then the priest determined a lesser amount according to his ability (verse 8).

You can put whatever spin you want on it, I'm sure a few thousand years of apologists have done just that but no god would put a bias on gender. Your alleged god has no body, it is supposedly made of godly stuff. Therefore it would have no reason to show gender bias one way or the other. It would know full well the human race or any other animal would not exist without both sexes and would be viewed with equal concern or whatever.

It is just further proof the entire thing was made by men, for men, against women and to set up a political power base. Which it has done extremely well but now becoming more and more in the margins, and I cannot wait till it all ends and humans start to really grow up and become mature as a race.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You can put whatever spin you want on it, I'm sure a few thousand years of apologists have done just that but no god would put a bias on gender. Your alleged god has no body, it is supposedly made of godly stuff. Therefore it would have no reason to show gender bias one way or the other. It would know full well the human race or any other animal would not e ...[text shortened]... I cannot wait till it all ends and humans start to really grow up and become mature as a race.

You asked for the rational behind that verse. You accuse me of putting a spin on it. So how do you know that you are not the one putting a spin on it? What do you know about the people of Israel at that time? What makes you such an authority of the mind of God?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Some Christians say some particular Bible verse is literally true, while others say it was meant to be read as metaphor or hyperbole or poetry. Some say a Biblical passage was meant for some tribe living at some time in the past, but does not apply to the modern church. Some will say the modern translation is a corruption of a perfect original, so that ...[text shortened]... on of Heli, the son of Matthat… the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. - Luke 3:23–38

I will try one for now...
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. – John 14:12

This is easy. Since the gift of holy spirit was not available until the day of Pentecost, believers since then, can speak in tongues, and interpret. Jesus could not do this. Believers can also preach the bible to the end of the recipient getting to the point of faith or believing and receive holy spirit or the new birth. This also was not available in Jesus time.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Some Christians say some particular Bible verse is literally true, while others say it was meant to be read as metaphor or hyperbole or poetry. Some say a Biblical passage was meant for some tribe living at some time in the past, but does not apply to the modern church. Some will say the modern translation is a corruption of a perfect original, so that ...[text shortened]... on of Heli, the son of Matthat… the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. - Luke 3:23–38

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. - 1 Corinthians 7:9
To burn with passion that is. He is talking about it is better to marry than sex before marriage. I know people look at this today as silly or the new "norm", but it is sin.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Since the gift of holy spirit was not available until the day of Pentecost, believers since then, can speak in tongues, and interpret. Jesus could not do this. Believers can also preach the bible to the end of the recipient getting to the point of faith or believing and receive holy spirit or the new birth. This also was not available in Jesus time.

I had always looked at that verse as a reference to what might be called physical-chemical miracles, like multiplying the loaves and turning water into wine and withering a fig tree just by giving it a sharp look. But I will grant you that it is possible that nonphysical things are what Jesus was referring to.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
I had always looked at that verse as a reference to what might be called physical-chemical miracles, like multiplying the loaves and turning water into wine and withering a fig tree just by giving it a sharp look. But I will grant you that it is possible that nonphysical things are what Jesus was referring to.

Jesus cursed the fig tree. He didn't just give it a nasty look.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Some Christians say some particular Bible verse is literally true, while others say it was meant to be read as metaphor or hyperbole or poetry. Some say a Biblical passage was meant for some tribe living at some time in the past, but does not apply to the modern church. Some will say the modern translation is a corruption of a perfect original, so that ...[text shortened]... on of Heli, the son of Matthat… the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. - Luke 3:23–38

Gen. 19:26

Do be like her and cling on to your past sins after knowing the truth that set you free.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Gen. 19:26

Do be like her and cling on to your past sins after knowing the truth that set you free.

I'm not sure how literally you are taking that claim about Lot's wife.

Do you think that if you knew where to look, the pillar of salt is still there? Or would it have dissolved away by now?

Or are you saying that it was never meant to be read as anything other than a general warning against clinging to past sins?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Some Christians say some particular Bible verse is literally true, while others say it was meant to be read as metaphor or hyperbole or poetry. Some say a Biblical passage was meant for some tribe living at some time in the past, but does not apply to the modern church. Some will say the modern translation is a corruption of a perfect original, so that ...[text shortened]... on of Heli, the son of Matthat… the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. - Luke 3:23–38

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. - Luke 14:26

This is saying that God/Jesus are to be #1 in our lives. We are to love them more than our mothers, sons,etc, even self. We must be willing to die to self.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
I'm not sure how literally you are taking that claim about Lot's wife.

Do you think that if you knew where to look, the pillar of salt is still there? Or would it have dissolved away by now?

Or are you saying that it was never meant to be read as anything other than a general warning against clinging to past sins?

Well wind and rain would have washed her salty behind away.
It should be donT not do

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
I'm not sure how literally you are taking that claim about Lot's wife.

Do you think that if you knew where to look, the pillar of salt is still there? Or would it have dissolved away by now?

Or are you saying that it was never meant to be read as anything other than a general warning against clinging to past sins?

Here is a good theory...

http://www.emergingtruths.com/lots_wife/lots_wife.html

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Here is a good theory...

http://www.emergingtruths.com/lots_wife/lots_wife.html

Lot's wife aside, I would like to hear the apologist's about the Leviticus verses.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Lot's wife aside, I would like to hear the apologist's about the Leviticus verses.

Many in olden days dedicated their children to the Lord. Samuel was one that comes to mind. It sounds from these verses that it was voluntary and one could substitute this vow, if made, with a price instead of a person.
I don't see the problem here. Vows to God are common, and honorable. But know this, God expects a vow, if made, to be carried out. It even says somewhere not to make a vow if you cannot fulfill it.
Here is the NIV translation...
Redeeming What Is the Lord’s

1The Lord said to Moses, 2“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, 3set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekelsa of silver, according to the sanctuary shekelb ; 4for a female, set her value at thirty shekelsc ; 5for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekelsd and of a female at ten shekelse ; 6for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekelsf of silver and that of a female at three shekelsg of silver; 7for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekelsh and of a female at ten shekels. 8If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, the person being dedicated is to be presented to the priest, who will set the value according to what the one making the vow can afford.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You can put whatever spin you want on it, I'm sure a few thousand years of apologists have done just that but no god would put a bias on gender. Your alleged god has no body, it is supposedly made of godly stuff. Therefore it would have no reason to show gender bias one way or the other. It would know full well the human race or any other animal would not exist without both sexes and would be viewed with equal concern or whatever.

By what authority do you condescend to tell everyone what God should and shouldn't be like? Your projection of what God should be, according to your own selfish, personal viewpoint, is certainly no better than the "spin" you accuse Christians of using.

The bible takes issue with your God qualifiers. God absolutely does have what you describe as "bias," and there are several unquestionable examples of it in the bible.

If you don't LIKE the biblical Creator, that's your business. But don't play god yourself and demand that the Creator have only the attributes you approve of.

God said "I AM THAT I AM." Take it or leave it. You've made your decision, but, as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Originally posted by sumydid
By what authority do you condescend to tell everyone what God should and shouldn't be like? Your projection of what God should be, according to your own selfish, personal viewpoint, is certainly no better than the "spin" you accuse Christians of using.

The bible takes issue with your God qualifiers. God absolutely does have what you describe as " ...[text shortened]... it. You've made your decision, but, as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Amen..