If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. (Deut. 21:18-21)
Yeah we got the point the first time that was posted. You can say that this isn't moral at all in modern times and whoever created these laws had to be f'ed up. But I think what you are doing is you're judging God by humanistic standards. How you can you give human qualities and standards to something not human?
Rabbis undoubtedly adhere to the laws in the Torah.
Who was ever to say a t-shirt is only a man's clothing? In the Victorian Age, yes it'd have been a sin. When men (not holy men, just people overall whatever their beliefs) decided they wouldn't browbeat their women for wearing shirts and pants instead of dresses, it happened. The Bible is simply clarifying what is appropriate to be worn, the opposite of actually controlling what we wear.women never wear men's t-shirts?
That (the bible being subjective) is the entire reason it still holds great meaning today as it did then - and why it affects so many people in so many different ways.It sucks that Bible verses are subjective.
Yes.so a man divorcing his wife for whatever reason he wants is ok?
Again, in the NT, Paul wrote that we must abide by the laws of our country, because God has put them into place (the leader of the country and its lawmakers), so long as they don't go against the will of God...and does the same law apply for a woman wishing to divorce her husband?
In the USA, a woman is given the same rights as a man, thus yes, you are correct.
In biblical times, it was not necessary for a wife to divorce her husband - the husband was required by God to care for her regardless of problems within the marriage, unless he divorced her.
already answered, and easily done so.
just because you refuse to believe it is just, well that's your problem. Humans are not just, nor moral, by nature. Only God is just.
And again, its up to the parents to take their OWN child, to the city gates, and ask them to be stoned. It has little to do with God's "wishes" concerning the situation, and everything to do with pushing your parents over the edge by breaking the Law of the country over and over.
They say no parent would throw their child into a furnace, how often do you think this happened? just about never:
"So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid."
If this was even remotely common, why would all of Israel hear about it, then be afraid for their own children? It was simply another abstract instruction/example concerning the Ten Commandments, the basis of all law in Israel which must NEVER be broken.
Last edited by z0sa; 05-05-2009 at 11:16 AM.
Youre comparing Pop to God and you say my example doesn't work?
We can actually see and do ent Pop talking to Tim and Tony in the huddle.
In the real world, if God exists, then he coaches from way upstairs and the players never physically see or hear him coach....
..and the assistant coaches try to decipher the plays that God sent in from his suite.
Walk into any Christian bookstore and there might be 20 different translations of the Bible.
Why? Which version is the most correct version?
The difference in our perspective is that you feel that God is far off whereas I know him to be a personal, always present, and extremely loving Savior, Friend, and Father.
Yes there are many different wordings of the Bible such as the New International Version, The King James Version, the New Living Translations.
The different versions are not meant to contradict the original version but rather to phrase the original text in ways in which all people can understand.
For example a young person would find the New International Version easier to read and comprehend than the King James Version, because the New International Version phrases things in today's English.
See for example
John 3:16-21 ( KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God
John 3:16-21 ( NIV)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
The King James Version is the word of the Lord, down to the last sentence. Research it and find out for yourself (at least, that its the best version we have 1400 years after they were written - there's actually plenty of evidence supporting the fact they are the exact same books as written originally)
Many other versions rephrase certain things differently than what is translated in the KJV.
Keep on assuming that my questions and answers start and end at a spurs message board.
you also don't care and never bothered to look for inconsistencies, but you think the questions that are brought up about them are BS..
....and you are still here.
you are a moron.
I have no doubt they do.
Too bad the rabbi is going to , while the preacher at the local Christian church with the Rolex on his wrist is going to heaven.
So according to you, society, not God dictates what the sin is in regards to clothing.Who was ever to say a t-shirt is only a man's clothing? In the Victorian Age, yes it'd have been a sin. When men (not holy men, just people overall whatever their beliefs) decided they wouldn't browbeat their women for wearing shirts and pants instead of dresses, it happened. The Bible is simply clarifying what is appropriate to be worn, the opposite of actually controlling what we wear.
and why it has split apart so many people into many different directions and religions.That (the bible being subjective) is the entire reason it still holds great meaning today as it did then - and why it affects so many people in so many different ways.
most southern Baptists I know would disagree with you.Yes.
so the law of the land supercedes God's law.Again, in the NT, Paul wrote that we must abide by the laws of our country, because God has put them into place (the leader of the country and its lawmakers), so long as they don't go against the will of God.
In the USA, a woman is given the same rights as a man, thus yes, you are correct.
In biblical times, it was not necessary for a wife to divorce her husband - the husband was required by God to care for her regardless of problems within the marriage, unless he divorced her.
Priests and rabbis still wear a "single woven cloth" gown over themselves to follow this instruction. It was primarily made to distinguish the holy men in case someone needed help (and to signify their connection with God).
Are you stupid, or just playing stupid? Both women and men wore "dresses" (skins or cloths hanging over the whole body) in the biblical times, yet only women wore dresses in the Victorian age. Times change, and God knew they would as humans increased in knowledge and population.So according to you, society, not God dictates what the sin is in regards to clothing.
More like adaptations of the same religion. There are different religions who recognize the bible as a holy book, but not as Christians do - the ONLY holy book.and why it has split apart so many people into many different directions and religions.
Are you southern baptist?most southern Baptists I know would disagree with you.
Never.so the law of the land supercedes God's law.
no, the difference is that I have seen Pop on TV.
and yet the different versions end up changing contexts based on subjective views of what the original text is saying.Yes there are many different wordings of the Bible such as the New International Version, The King James Version, the New Living Translations.
The different versions are not meant to contradict the original version but rather to phrase the original text in ways in which all people can understand.
For example a young person would find the New International Version easier to read and comprehend than the King James Version, because the New International Version phrases things in today's English.
See for example
See for example:
1 Corinthians 6:9 (New International Version)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male pros utes nor sexual offenders
1 Corinthians 6:9 (King James Version)
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
you're very much wrong, they don't write their own versions based off the KJV, they have their own translators of ancient scripture for every version.
The context isn't "changed" onceosever. Like I said, only some things are rephrased differently - which, although not "changing the context," changes the message I think we were intended to perceive (this does sometimes have to do with ty or purposely misleading translations). When I read the bible, I always read the KJV.
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. "
(Hebrews 11:1-2)
The point and context of both verses is the same and is plainly stated in both, though worded slightly differently:and yet the different versions end up changing contexts based on subjective views of what the original text is saying.
See for example:
The wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God ( NIV)
The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. ( KJV)
What is your confusion?
right. and rabbis still will go to while the preacher with the rolex goes to heaven.
true or false: a woman with a flat top and sideburns wearing guy's jeans is a sin.Are you stupid, or just playing stupid? Both women and men wore "dresses" (skins or cloths hanging over the whole body) in the biblical times, yet only women wore dresses in the Victorian age. Times change, and God knew they would as humans increased in knowledge and population.
the only holy book with a bunch of different versions.More like adaptations of the same religion. There are different religions who recognize the bible as a holy book, but not as Christians do - the ONLY holy book.
does it matter to this conversation?Are you southern baptist?
if you need it, it's really not hard to look up a reference on the internet to Baptists believing that divorce = sin.
so when it says to take your kids out into the street and have them stoned, then that supercedes the law of the US?Never.
great.
Ok, let's not throw gobbledygook into this.
If you are a Bible literalist, it obviously supports stoning children, and so obviously God supports stoning children, or did at one time.
Are you saying that his decree that children should be stoned is no longer valid until Jesus/NT came about?
If so, are there possibly OTHER OT laws/punishments that are no longer valid?
So God supports stoning. Thanks!
You don't understand why this is going to happen - why the Jewish people are accountable for not believing in the messiah God promised them throughout the OT?
Sideburns? It's a unattractive, but no, this is not a sin. Guy's jeans? Like her husband's? Why wouldn't she wear her own clothes?true or false: a woman with a flat top and sideburns wearing guy's jeans is a sin.
you just don't know what you're talking about.the only holy book with a bunch of different versions.
Yes, why bring up beliefs of a sect of christianity you know nothing about?does it matter to this conversation?
the burder of proof is on you, first of all, if you feel like actually making a point.if you need it, it's really not hard to look up a reference on the internet to Baptists believing that divorce = sin.
second, divorce is considered a sin, but people cannot live with eachother. God forgives, friend.
Is the USA's head of state God?so when it says to take your kids out into the street and have them stoned, then that supercedes the law of the US?
great.
Are there city walls or gates, or an elder to call the men together for this stoning? Where are the huge rocks they stoned with? It was not just tossing pebbles at eachother, they crushed your head in with a stone to make it quick.
Last edited by z0sa; 05-05-2009 at 12:43 PM.
Zosa,
What makes YOUR belief that your holy book is the correct one any better than the beliefs of those who follow OTHER religions?
I don't need faith to believe in Pop's existence.
I'm not confused.The point and context of both verses is the same and is plainly stated in both, though worded slightly differently:
The wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God ( NIV)
The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. ( KJV)
What is your confusion?
The word " sexual" is a relatively recent term and is a jump to make that conclusion from the original text, much less from the KJV.
On another note,
Do any of the Christians here believe in Calvinism? Could any of them prove it wasn't true/correct?
Does the president of the USA support putting criminals behind bars? Yes, it is the law of the country.So God supports stoning. Thanks!
God's Law says if you break the ten commandments, it can be punishable by death (and God rules Israel). Don't. Break. The. Ten. Commandments. God meant it when he made them.
This really tells the informed, how little your knowledge is on the current subject.
Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed by God because of sexuality (and many other immoral practices, but sexuality is highlighted including a story concerning Lot). The KJV translators didn't have the word sexual, because they were not tolerated like in today's world - they were simply a part of the sexually immoral. Even a little research will field this knowledge, and by you claiming the Biblical scholars have translated the ancient texts wrong, you make quite a fallacious statement.
The NIV is written using today's language and grammar, so we can read it without knowing the lingo of the 15th/16th centuries. It is still a direct translation from the ancient texts, which undoubtedly implied sexuality with their wordings. Its not hard to do a little research, then again, SpursTalk is your hub for all knowledge so ...
So stoning=jail. Understood!
God didn't just say death, he said stoning.
Why does that upset you so much? Just say, "Yeah, God was ok with people being stoned to death, even children."
Also, I like how you like equate the President with God. Yes, because the President is limited by law in the same way that God is limited by... uhm... his own laws.
it isn't, or doesn't, whatever you want to say. why do you ask?
That was not the point.
The term may be new but the practice is referenced in the Old Testament.
I'm not confused.
The word " sexual" is a relatively recent term and is a jump to make that conclusion from the original text, much less from the KJV.
Men in Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with Lot's angelic guests
( Genesis 19: 4-9)
Lot was no hero- let me make that clear.
First, Lot chose to move to Sodom for financial gain even though it was known that ungodliness was prevelent there ( Genesis 13:10-13).
Then though Lot did well to try to protect the angels, he failed to protect his own daughters- instead offered them to appease the men. ( Genesis 19: 8).
The men of Sodom were so insistant and wicked that Lot's family had to be defended by the Angels. (Genesis 19:9-11)
Genesis 13:10-13
And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.
Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.
Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.
But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.Genesis 19- 1-11
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
it was an analogy, not a great one, but the reasoning behind this death penalty is clear: don't break the ten commandments, they're that important.So stoning=jail. Understood!
Are you attempting to make a point, or will you just keep asking questions and shooting down my answers? Make your point and be done, or make your intentions known.God didn't just say death, he said stoning.
What exactly do you think has upset me?Why does that upset you so much?
Innocent children would never have been stoned to death. You're taking this out of context - the verse isn't even speaking of a child or even a teenager, but a drunkard glutton still living in his parents' home and dishonoring them. You keep ignoring my responses, I don't know what else to say as I've already answered this question for you numerous times. It's just not good enough for you, I understand, but that doesn't mean the answer is going to change.Just say, "Yeah, God was ok with people being stoned to death, even children."
Israel was a theocracy, look it up.Also, I like how you like equate the President with God. Yes, because the President is limited by law in the same way that God is limited by... uhm... his own laws.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
