 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Biblical Laws |
| Gospel trumphs Old Testament laws |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Old Testament Laws are completely invalid |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| You have to find the truth yourself, new or old testament |
|
100% |
[ 1 ] |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Bat'Ur
Little Guppy
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 31
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: Yet Still... |
 |
|
"...Then you're instead stuck with the interpretation of those who have translated it."
What?! If you question the Hebrew, there doesn't seem to be much point in reading on any further. Interlinear Bibles can be useful here.
"...All of which were condemnations of particular religious rituals contemporary to the writing of Leviticus. Not that bestiality is necessarily okay, but it's not the condemnation of homosexual relationships certain modern Christians would like it to be...."
Again, this is probably why the Bible says not to add or subtract anything from what's written. You could go on and on and then on some more about what might or might not have been the "true" meaning behind what is perfectly clear as written. I believe most problems are with acceptance rather than confusion.
"...I'm guessing that you're alluding to Onan. The problem with Onan wasn't that he was effectively masturbating, it was that he was obligated by Jewish law to impregnate his dead brother's wife. He enjoyed the sex too much to let it end by getting her pregnant; that's where the condemnation comes in."
There is no mention of masterbation or enjoyment of sex being a problem. The problem was with wasting the seed. Putting human seed into an animal is a waste, as is putting animal seed into a human. There may be more, but that is the only problem specifically mentioned. If we stick to what's actually written, confusion stays to a minimum.
-B |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Bat'Ur
Little Guppy
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: Oops, Almost Forgot... |
|
|
I know it's painful for some and I empathize. But Putting seed into a man is a waste, too. So, apart from any sqeemishness people might have about male/male sex, if you use references to what God says about the importance of functioning genitals as a guide, it seems the main concern is loss of seed and not necessarily a dislike of a particular behavior. Gen. 25:11-12 provides more insight into how God feels about functioning genitals. Reading is fundamental.
-B |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5857
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bat'Ur wrote: | "...Then you're instead stuck with the interpretation of those who have translated it."
What?! If you question the Hebrew, there doesn't seem to be much point in reading on any further. Interlinear Bibles can be useful here. |
It wasn't the Hebrew I was questioning, it was the abilities and biases of those who translated from the original Hebrew and Greek through Latin and then into English.
| Bat'Ur wrote: | "...All of which were condemnations of particular religious rituals contemporary to the writing of Leviticus. Not that bestiality is necessarily okay, but it's not the condemnation of homosexual relationships certain modern Christians would like it to be...."
Again, this is probably why the Bible says not to add or subtract anything from what's written. You could go on and on and then on some more about what might or might not have been the "true" meaning behind what is perfectly clear as written. I believe most problems are with acceptance rather than confusion. |
1 Thessalonians 5:21 But examine all things; hold fast to what is good.
It is known that translators make mistakes. This can happen for multiple reasons. They can be intentional or unintentional due to bias; they can be uninentional due to lacking knowledge of what a particular word means; they can be unintentional because the translator lacked knowledge of the historical context of a law or phrase. Examples of all of these can be found within English translations of the Bible—particularly the KJV.
| Bat'Ur wrote: | "...I'm guessing that you're alluding to Onan. The problem with Onan wasn't that he was effectively masturbating, it was that he was obligated by Jewish law to impregnate his dead brother's wife. He enjoyed the sex too much to let it end by getting her pregnant; that's where the condemnation comes in."
There is no mention of masterbation or enjoyment of sex being a problem. The problem was with wasting the seed. Putting human seed into an animal is a waste, as is putting animal seed into a human. There may be more, but that is the only problem specifically mentioned. If we stick to what's actually written, confusion stays to a minimum. |
Then try sticking to what is actually written?
Gen 38:1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.
Gen 38:2 And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
Gen 38:3 And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.
Gen 38:4 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan.
Gen 38:5 And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.
Gen 38:6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
Gen 38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
Er was Onan's brother. By Jewish law, after Er's death, Onan was obligated to impregnate Er's widow as the Hebrews practiced levirate marriage. Onan instead had sex with her and then thwarted the law by not impregnating her—this displeased the Lord and Onan was slain for it. Some time after this, levirate law was codified (and known as Yibbum) but with an opt-out procedure known as Chalitzah.
Deu 25:5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
Deu 25:6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
Deu 25:7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
Deu 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
Deu 25:9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
Deu 25:10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
| Bat'Ur wrote: | | I know it's painful for some and I empathize. But Putting seed into a man is a waste, too. So, apart from any sqeemishness people might have about male/male sex, if you use references to what God says about the importance of functioning genitals as a guide, it seems the main concern is loss of seed and not necessarily a dislike of a particular behavior. |
You're adding to what is written.
| Bat'Ur wrote: | | Gen. 25:11-12 provides more insight into how God feels about functioning genitals. Reading is fundamental. |
Gen 25:11 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahairoi.
Gen 25:12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bat'Ur
Little Guppy
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject: Uh... It's Deut. not Gen. |
|
|
Regarding functioning genitals... It's Deut. 25:11-12, not Gen. 25:11-12. Sorry, I was sleepy when I responded last night.
I have no problem with correction and I'm not here to prove how much I know. I'm here to discuss the Bible with others who have actually read it. You will never, ever hear me try to pass my opinions off as "interpretation". We have no choice but to deal with "translations", unless we are fluent in both Hebrew and Greek. I have about 15 different Bibles and they all say approximately the same thing. That's why "interpretation" is so useless! In the end, you will either "get it" or not "get it". It's my opinion that NIV is easy enough to read and close enough to KJV (one of the most trusted Bibles) that individuals can be confident in their ability to "get” what they read. Calling the Bible too difficult to understand is tantamount to calling God a liar (Deut. 30:11-14).
-B |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5857
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bat'Ur wrote: | | Regarding functioning genitals... It's Deut. 25:11-12, not Gen. 25:11-12. Sorry, I was sleepy when I responded last night. |
Ha!
25:11 If two men get into a hand-to-hand fight, and the wife of one of them gets involved to help her husband against his attacker, and she reaches out her hand and grabs his genitals,
25:12 then you must cut off her hand - do not pity her.
This could mean all sorts of things, not just necessarily some God-ordained preservation of genitals or seed. Perhaps it's the fact that someone's wife touched another man's genitals, not that they were damaged? Maybe it's just a preventative against the low blows women seem all too fond of?
| Bat'Ur wrote: | | Calling the Bible too difficult to understand is tantamount to calling God a liar (Deut. 30:11-14). |
It's not difficult to understand when you have a historically accurate perspective. Without, you're stuck with any mistakes you may make out of ignorance.
I mean, look at Lucifer, for instance. Gigantic mistake. The translators didn't understand that the passage was about a Ugaritic deity which attempted to overthrow the leader of its pantheon and was punished for it, so they translated it literally. The name meant "morning star," so they translated it into the Greek eosphorous, with the same meaning. Then they translated it into Latin, lucifer, same meaning. Then suddenly it stopped getting translated literally and became a name again, losing completely its historical context. Then people retconned it into being a reference to Satan when it was never about anything in Hebrew theology to begin with.
If you don't understand the context behind Isaiah 14, you come away with it with a mistake. You can't ever "get it" if you never know the truth behind the dogma. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bat'Ur
Little Guppy
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: You're Right... |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | ...25:11 If two men get into a hand-to-hand fight, and the wife of one of them gets involved to help her husband against his attacker, and she reaches out her hand and grabs his genitals,
25:12 then you must cut off her hand - do not pity her.
This could mean all sorts of things, not just necessarily some God-ordained preservation of genitals or seed. Perhaps it's the fact that someone's wife touched another man's genitals, not that they were damaged? Maybe it's just a preventative against the low blows women seem all too fond of? |
You're preaching to the choir, though you don't realize it yet. You're opinion is as valid as mine. But, if a woman is grabbing to defend her husband, you cannot also claim she is being lewd. She is simply doing something God feels is worthy of loosing a hand for. There are separate Laws against lewdness throughout the Bible.
-B |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5857
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If a woman's been gagged such that she cannot scream and is then raped, she's to be killed because she did not cry out according to Jewish law.
Additionally, I didn't catch this earlier:
| Bat'Ur wrote: | | It's my opinion that NIV is easy enough to read and close enough to KJV (one of the most trusted Bibles) that individuals can be confident in their ability to "get” what they read. |
Trusted by whom? The KJV is one of the worst translations available! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bat'Ur
Little Guppy
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: In other words... |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trusted by whom? The KJV is one of the worst translations available! |
In other words, you just want to argue. You've got me wrong. Last post on this subject.
-B |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5857
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do like to argue, but I have exceptionally good reasons for my stance in regards to the KJV.
Shame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 595
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| By your logic, Bat'ur, putting seed into a woman who cannot have children would be a waste as well. May as well not marry & stay celibate all his life..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bat'Ur
Little Guppy
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: Out of Curiosity... |
|
|
| Evee wrote: | | By your logic, Bat'ur, putting seed into a woman who cannot have children would be a waste as well. May as well not marry & stay celibate all his life..... |
Why would a man go celibate because a woman cannot conceive? I repeat, these are opinions and suggestions and ideas... whatever you wish to call them. Each is as valid as the next. Logic simply makes arguments stronger.
-B |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skyhaven
Newbie Alert
Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: Lesbianism in the Bible |
|
|
| If you read Romans Ch 1 it does mention lesbianism there and states that it is equally sinful for a woman to lie with another woman as it would be for a man to lie with another man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5857
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Romans 1 is not about homosexuality as sin, it is about homosexuality as a punishment for idol worship.
Read it again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eleven
Lion King
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 1360
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I just got this in an email this morning.
Enjoy! 
Subject: Laura Schlesinger show
On her radio show recently, Dr Laura Schlesinger
said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality
is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and
cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura,
penned by a US resident, which was posted on the
Internet.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people
regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from
your show, and try to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind
them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
abomination. .. End of debate. I do need some advice
from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I
know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -
Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the
odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what
do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman
while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness
- Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have
tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves,
both male and female, provided they are purchased from
neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this
applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the
Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he
should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination
than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle
this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar
of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit
that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be
20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though
this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should
they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play
football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as
does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He
also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private
family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and
thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so
I am confident you can help. Thank you again for
reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D.
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special
Education
University of Virginia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig2uguys
Hamster
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Romans 1 is a condemnation of idol worship. |
Rom. 1:22. Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23. and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27. and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29. being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30. slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31. without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32. and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Romans 1:22-32 is very much more than just a condemnation of idol worship—it sets forth a consequence of idol worship; the people spoken of worshiped idols rather than God and consequently God gave them over to impurity and degrading passions. The impurity and degrading passions specifically mentioned are male and female homosexual conduct. Paul used these examples of the consequence of worshiping idols because, to the first-century Jew, nothing was more disgusting and vile than homosexual sex.
These first-century Jews were of mixed opinion regarding marriage and divorce and adultery and many other issues and Jesus taught on those issues to make it very clear where He and His Father stood on those issues. However, these Jews were not of mixed minds when it came to homosexuality—they believed that the practice of homosexuality was the ultimate expression of a depraved mind and decadent morality. Therefore we would not expect to find Jesus teaching on that subject, and we don’t. Jesus knew that that the practice of homosexuality was the ultimate expression of a depraved mind and decadent morality and he knew that the other Jews knew that and there was no need, therefore, for him to talk to them about a subject that was so repugnant to both Himself and the other Jews. Indeed, if we did find in the gospels accounts of Jesus teaching against homosexuality, such accounts would give liberal scholars very strong reasons to doubt the authenticity of the accounts. The finest liberal New Testament scholarship has always taken the position that homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament, and all of conservative scholarship has also always taken that position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
