Hit And Run Xtians

[Ouroboros]

That is not how you do Biblical exegesis. You cannot look up synonyms for the English word be assured that you are talking about the same thing.

I used Strong's concordance.

 

The Hebrew word is sarar and it is defined as "a primitive root; to turn away, i.e. (morally) be refractory -- away, backsliding, rebellious, revolter(-ing), slide back, stubborn, withdrew." It is never translated as unruly, that would be the Hebrew word rud which only has one instance in the OT (Hosea 11:12). You picked up the wrong Hebrew word, which may be part of your confusion. Marah is synonymous with bitter, but you are right that it can also mean disobey or provocation. It is from the same root that was used by Naomi in the book of Ruth when she said upon her return from Moab to call her Mara (bitter) and not Naomi (pleasant). If you want check a concordance on this to check me out there are plenty of them online to access.

You're pretty dumb, aren't you? I even gave you a QUOTE FROM AN EXISTING BIBLE TRANSLATION WHICH USE THE WORD "UNRULY." You basically say that some scholar who translated the Bible were wrong. You include them with me. Fine. Reject your own scholars. Dumbhead.

 

This is from the Duoay-Rheims translation of your stupid holy Book:

De 21:18

If a man have a stubborn and unruly son, who will not hear the commandments of his father or mother, and being corrected, slighteth obedience:

Go get a copy and look it up yourself instead of accusing me of using wrong "methods".

 

Here's an extract about that particular translation:

The Douay-Rheims Bible, also known as the Rheims-Douai Bible or Douai Bible and abbreviated as D-R, is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. The New Testament was published in one volume with extensive commentary and notes in 1582. The Old Testament followed in 1609–10 in two volumes, also extensively annotated. The notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which was heavily influencing England. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation.

 

 

The verse never did apply to me as I am not of Jewish heritage and the Law and commandments were given as part of the Mosaic Covenant which was for the Jews. It would be like asking me when the British law stopped applying to me. It never did. Now, you make an interesting, albeit silly attempt at parsing words. When you take a verse out of its context it can mean just about anything.

Then OT does not apply to you. It was for the Jews.

 

The Gospels do not apply to you. It was for the disciples.

 

The Bible does not apply to you. It was for the first Christians.

 

OK, so you say that exegesis is a human making human arguments, but what are you making here? I believe you are a human making a human argument, which says what exactly? When you read the definition of the word did you interpret the meaning? The answer is yes in case you are wondering. Was you interpretation valid? The answer is again yes. Why? Because you applied rules of language and interpretation to it and derived its meaning. Is that subjective? Somewhat, as it always is. Does that mean that it is not accurate? No, if you thought so you wouldn't have posted your answer.

Exactly. Bible interpretation is completely to 100% always subjective, hence the Bible and Christianity is not objective in how it apply anything. Because it is 100% human. Not God.

 

What you are doing is appealing to a post-modern mindset that says that interpretation equals complete subjectivity and lack of truth and meaning. If that were the case we should stop exchanging messages as we have to interpret each other's messages and that would mean that we wouldn't be communicating in meaningful propositional terms. But, I don't think that you, being most likely a modernist (as most atheists are), would accept that we couldn't communicate meaningfully with one another.

Of course things can make sense, if you apply them to the real world instead of you imaginary world! The problem is that I live in the real world, and I interpret things that fits into the real world, while you interpret things based on your imagination and belief in a supernatural world! That's the difference. Sane person's interpretation vs Crazy person's interpretation. Who got it right? The one who try to do it according to reality, or the one who do it based on religious fantasy? I start with what I can see in this world, and you start with what you can't see in this world. Who do you think got a better chance of getting to the truth? Sane man, or crazy man?

 

But why should I even try to explain these things to you? I know you will skip the parts the PROVE what I say, and just go for your own stupid opinion. Go ahead. Reject scholars, me, everyone else, and live in your little fantasy world. But don't expect me or anyone else to buy into your private delusion.

[Looking4Answers]

The Hebrew word is sarar and it is defined as "a primitive root; to turn away, i.e. (morally) be refractory -- away, backsliding, rebellious, revolter(-ing), slide back, stubborn, withdrew." It is never translated as unruly, that would be the Hebrew word rud which only has one instance in the OT (Hosea 11:12). You picked up the wrong Hebrew word, which may be part of your confusion. Marah is synonymous with bitter...

 

Actually, you are wrong that HanSolo got the wrong Hebrew word. There are two Hebrew words used to describe the disobedient son in Deut. 21:18. The first word is "stubborn" and that is the Hebrew word sarar. This is the one you are talking about. The second word is "rebellious" and THAT is the Hebrew word maraw.

 

Secondly, learning the true use of a word means understanding it within both the sentence in which it was used as well as its context. Just because some Hebrew lexicon tells you it is a root word meaning to turn away, etc, does not mean that you automatically understand its use in a sentence. The verse from Deuteronomy is pretty clear because of the two words used (sarar and marah). We have a son who has, to use your definition, "turned away" from obeying his parents and his parents rules make him "bitter."

 

The word "unruly" has several definitions. Here is one of them (pulled right from a dictionary):

 

disobedient: unwilling to submit to authority; "unruly teenagers"

 

Here's another one from a dictionary:

 

hard to control, restrain, or keep in order; disobedient, disorderly, etc.

 

While you may not like the word choice that Hans made, it is an appropriate word to describe what is being talked about in the Deuteronomy passage in question.

 

The verse never did apply to me as I am not of Jewish heritage and the Law and commandments were given as part of the Mosaic Covenant which was for the Jews.

 

Who cares if these laws apply to you or not? The point is that such a law, no matter when it was given and no matter to whom it was given, is atrocious! A child is rebellious, unruly, disobedient (pick whichever word you prefer here, OK?) and the solution is to have all the men of the city stone him to death (Deuteronomy 21:21)! That is evil. And supposedly the just, holy and righteous god who is all merciful commanded this as law? Simply sick.

[LNC]

So you can cherry pick the bible all you want but if you "reject" Jesus, in other words, if we disagree with you, then we're going to hell? If you can cherry pick the bible without rejecting Jesus, why bother with believing the bible at all since you apparently only want to believe in the parts of it that are convenient for you? And who died and made you God to decide which people can still get into heaven and which ones aren't? What happened to judge not lest ye be judged?

 

I am not sure how you come up with your interpretations of what I said, but that is not close to what I said. I said that if you rebel against God you merit hell. I said nothing about you disagreeing with me, I have no part in that. Now, we have to distinguish two concepts. One is what merits hell, which is rebellion against God and for that we are all guilty - no one is innocent of that charge. The second is how that sin is covered or payed for, and that is by trusting in Jesus and his death and resurrection as payment for sin. On the first part, we are all guilty, on the second, only those who have put their trust in Jesus will have their sin covered. I am not pronouncing judgment on any individuals only telling you what the Bible says, so I am not God nor the son of God, just a servant of God. I don't decide who goes to hell or who makes it into heaven, that is for God to decide, but he did tell us on what basis that is decided. Regarding the verse about judging, I don't think you quite understand it in context as it is referring to having a judgmental attitude, not judging, which is done later in the passage. I am not your judge, nor anyone else's on this site or elsewhere. I am simply telling you what the Bible says.

 

If you don't know enough about us to judge us, then why did you just now judge us? It's hypocritical for you to say you aren't judging us, but then turn around and claim we're "suppressing" the truth. Isn't that a judgment? And how are we "suppressing" anything? Have we banned you yet? Have we restricted your freedom of speech any? No, we've done none of those things. So don't you dare make a false claim about us that you have no evidence for. Isn't bearing false witness a sin in the bible? Why don't you pluck the shard out of your own eye before you pluck the shard out of ours?

 

I didn't say that you did that, I am simply saying that it logically follows that if someone did do that, it logically follows that it would be tantamount to calling God a liar. If you want the logic, let me spell it out:

 

P1: God, by standard definition is truthful and omniscient, therefore, cannot be mistaken.

P2: God has said in his word (Rom. 1) that he has given sufficient evidence for a sane person to know of his existence.

C: If someone were to say that God didn't give sufficient evidence such that a sane person would know of his existence, it would be calling into question God's veracity.

 

That is not to judge, but to simply follow the logic where it leads. I don't claim that you are suppressing the truth, that was written by Paul by the inspiration of the God (2 Tim. 3:16). So, if you have a problem with that assessment, it is Paul and God with whom you should take that up. I make no claims about anyone here as I don't know you. I have told you what the Bible says and you have then apparently applied that to yourself. I have no control over what you do with God's word.

 

If you're so honest and open minded, why do you keep making false claims about us and ignoring our posts? You're exactly like the Pharisee who prays to God and thanks him for making him so perfect and not like a tax collector.

 

I don't believe that I have made any false claims and only ignored posts in which I was called names without an adequate argument (I believe that would be about two posts so far). If you believe I have ignored your posts or those of someone else, please point those out and I will correct my error. Now, you said something about me judging you, yet you have not stopped judging me in this post. Why do you feel that it is OK for you do apply a standard to me that you don't apply to yourself? It's funny that one of your accusations of me was that I was being hypocritical...

 

I'd believe if you can drink poison and survive like it says in Mark 16:17-18

These signs will accompany those who have believed: (V)in My name they will cast out demons, they will (W)speak with new tongues;

 

18they will (X)pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will (Y)lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

According to these verses, it says that true Christians will be able to drink poison and survive. If you can do that, then that means you're a true Christian and what you're saying is right. If you can't drink poison and survive though, then that means you are not a true Christian and I see no reason why I should believe what you say. So, how about it? If you believe you have the truth, why don't you try drinking poison and surviving? If you can't do that, then don't claim to know the truth because the scriptures say you're not a true follower of Jesus.

 

If you knew anything about the Bible you would know that that passage of Mark is a later addition and not considered part of the original. So, I don't consider that this passage applies to me or to any other believer. You may find that strange, but it is because we have so many manuscripts that we can know that this is not an original part of Mark.

[Looking4Answers]

If you knew anything about the Bible you would know that that passage of Mark is a later addition and not considered part of the original. So, I don't consider that this passage applies to me or to any other believer. You may find that strange, but it is because we have so many manuscripts that we can know that this is not an original part of Mark.

 

Can you really know that? I mean, it is hotly disputed among Christians. And while you are at it, do you also remove the first eleven verses of John chapter 8? That one is also not in many manuscripts and is disputed. Frankly, there are many disputed verses and words, bot additions that some think SHOULD be included, but are not and words that are there in most current translations of the Bible that scholars think should NOT be there. However, there is a lack on consensus on most (if not all) of these. The fact that you state it emphatically as if you KNOW for sure ... wow. It is rather convenient ... keeps you from having to drink that poison and all of that.

 

By the way, I happen to agree with you in that I think that that portion of Mark was not originally there.

 

Ugh! I did NOT want to get back into this thread ...

[Looking4Answers]

I wanted to be clear about the Deuteronomy 21:18 passage. Here it is in Hebrew (with a little color coding added to help out):

 

 

The word highlighted in red is the Hebrew word sarar, though spelled a little differently here (due to how it is used in the sentence) as sorar. The blue highlighted word is the word morah (it actually ends with the Hebrew letter "hey"). Hebrew, like many ancient languages, reads from right to left (the opposite of English). A poor translation of the phrase I posted would read (word for word) like:

 

if/because having a man a son withdrawing/stubborn/rebellious and bitter/contentious ...

 

The color coded words in the above English sentence show their relation to the Hebrew words in the image above.

[Ouroboros]

L4A, I don't think it helps. LNC reads only half the posts, and the part he reads he either can't understand or he intentionally misinterpret.

 

He's just a troll.

[Looking4Answers]

L4A, I don't think it helps. LNC reads only half the posts, and the part he reads he either can't understand or he intentionally misinterpret.

 

Yes. I get that. But I also posted that for you. I wanted you to know that you were not incorrect when you chose the one Hebrew word that you did.

[Ouroboros]

Yes. I get that. But I also posted that for you. I wanted you to know that you were not incorrect when you chose the one Hebrew word that you did.

I appreciate that.

 

I use the Bible.Crosswalk.com website for Bible references, so I got the Hebrew word, Strong's explanation, and even the Douay-Rheims translation from there. LNC is rejecting the Bible, a 400 year old translation which is still used in traditionalist Catholic Churches, and he's rejecting one of his fellow Christian websites who specialized in Bible studies and exegesis. So my conclusion is that he is either dumb and can't help it, or he is intentionally being dumb and behave like a troll. If the former, I can only pity him and this discussion is really far, far above his head, or if the latter, I have to consider banning him since we have a policy against trolls. He said he would leave and we would know for real why he left, but it's hard to know the real reason if insist on staying and he doesn't leave for real. After all these discussions with him, not much has been gained. It's just wasting space... Well, maybe not completely, I think some good came out of it, which is that other members and even I, learned some good things from it, but I don't think LNC learned one single bit.

 

And just to prove that it's not only Crosswalk that got this translation, here's Douay-Rheims Bible online for Deu 21: link

18 If a man have a stubborn and unruly son, who will not hear the commandments of his father or mother, and being corrected, slighteth obedience:

[Neon Genesis]

The verse never did apply to me as I am not of Jewish heritage and the Law and commandments were given as part of the Mosaic Covenant which was for the Jews. It would be like asking me when the British law stopped applying to me. It never did. Now, you make an interesting, albeit silly attempt at parsing words. When you take a verse out of its context it can mean just about anything.

Yes, it most certainly does apply to you. Matthew 5:18 says that the OT law still applies until the end of time

For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Last I checked, heaven and Earth are still here, so yes, these verses still do apply to you, unless you're going to call Jesus a liar. So, according to these verses, unless you're stoning people for eating shellfish, then you're not a true Christian.

 

I am not sure how you come up with your interpretations of what I said, but that is not close to what I said. I said that if you rebel against God you merit hell. I said nothing about you disagreeing with me, I have no part in that.

Expect that in your alternate universe, we are "rebelling" against God because we aren't agreeing with you and you'll only be fucking satisfied until we agree with you which is when you'll agree we aren't rebelling against your stupid imaginary friend, so it's all the same fucking thing, your liar.

 

C: If someone were to say that God didn't give sufficient evidence such that a sane person would know of his existence, it would be calling into question God's veracity.

What the hell does this have to do with anything in this thread?

 

Now, you said something about me judging you, yet you have not stopped judging me in this post. Why do you feel that it is OK for you do apply a standard to me that you don't apply to yourself? It's funny that one of your accusations of me was that I was being hypocritical...

Your problem is not that you're judging others. Judging others is something we all do and if you deny that you're doing it, you're a stupid liar. Your problem is that you are judging people over STUPID THINGS THAT DON'T MATTER! You are a stupid judge and if we were to let you judge in a court of law in modern society, you'd be rightly fired for your stupidity, bigotry and incapability to listen to what other people have to say.

 

I don't believe that I have made any false claims and only ignored posts in which I was called names without an adequate argument (I believe that would be about two posts so far)

Does that sound like something Jesus would do to you? Do you think Jesus would ignore people's souls just because some people have called him names or do you think Jesus would turn the other cheek? Do you really think you've been acting Christlike in these threads?

 

If you knew anything about the Bible you would know that that passage of Mark is a later addition and not considered part of the original. So, I don't consider that this passage applies to me or to any other believer. You may find that strange, but it is because we have so many manuscripts that we can know that this is not an original part of Mark.

If you knew anything about the bible at all, you wouldn't be a fucking xtian. I know already that that passage in Mark is a later addition, but by admitting it's a later addition, aren't you just disproving your whole claims about the bible and have just proven that the bible is not the word of God? God is supposed to be perfect, so if God exists, wouldn't he therefore make a perfect book? If these verses are later additions, then the bible has contradictions in them and so it's not a perfect book divinely inspired by a perfect God. If one passage is in the bible is clearly made up by humans and a later addition, why should we trust that any of the rest of it is authoritative? If you're just going to cherry pick the bible knowing full well that some passages were added in later, what's the point in being a Christian?

 

He said he would leave and we would know for real why he left, but it's hard to know the real reason if insist on staying and he doesn't leave for real.

You just know if he gets banned, he'll go over to William Lain Craig's stupid forums and whine to all his xtian friends about how evil we all are for "persecuting" him and they'll give him a pat on the back for being such a good little martyr for the Lard and Slaver. The very thought of it sickens me.

 

Well, maybe not completely, I think some good came out of it, which is that other members and even I, learned some good things from it, but I don't think LNC learned one single bit.

I've learned some good things from it two. 1}William Lain Craig and his followers are idiotic bigots, it seems 2)Ruby has far more patience with these idiots than I do, and for that admire her, but for some reason this counts as "zeal" in xtianland. 3}William Lain Craig's followers apparently have reading comprehension problems.

[Abiyoyo]

Who cares if these laws apply to you or not? The point is that such a law, no matter when it was given and no matter to whom it was given, is atrocious! A child is rebellious, unruly, disobedient (pick whichever word you prefer here, OK?) and the solution is to have all the men of the city stone him to death (Deuteronomy 21:21)! That is evil. And supposedly the just, holy and righteous god who is all merciful commanded this as law? Simply sick.

 

I agree with you L4A. This is a bad 'command'. That's why I keep a 'raised eyebrow' to the commandments. I still say Moses just went with the flow and made up all these things from growing up in Egyptian royalty. Call me a bad Christian

[Ouroboros]

I remember how the Church I belonged to in Sweden used this verse, including other verses, to justify why we should use the spanking to raise our kids. Amazing isn't it? Stoning becomes spanking, but unruly or rebellious are still the same.

 

L4A, you're making a good point. Regardless if this applies to LNC or any Christians or not, it still is the evidence that the Bible is a bad moral code. Or maybe the answer is in that Moses misheard God? Or maybe God had a change of heart and his moral code changed? Or maybe it's just all man made from start to end? We know for sure that it's evidence the Old Testament is a bad guide for morality. So even if morality would be absolute, and even if it came from some kind of God, at least we know that the Old Testament is wrong.

[Abiyoyo]

I remember how the Church I belonged to in Sweden used this verse, including other verses, to justify why we should use the spanking to raise our kids. Amazing isn't it? Stoning becomes spanking, but unruly or rebellious are still the same.

 

L4A, you're making a good point. Regardless if this applies to LNC or any Christians or not, it still is the evidence that the Bible is a bad moral code. Or maybe the answer is in that Moses misheard God? Or maybe God had a change of heart and his moral code changed? Or maybe it's just all man made from start to end? We know for sure that it's evidence the Old Testament is a bad guide for morality. So even if morality would be absolute, and even if it came from some kind of God, at least we know that the Old Testament is wrong.

 

The whole story of Moses existence presented by apologists is where I got the idea that he probably was influenced by Egyptians. They argue that Moses, though thought to be placed around the 18th dynasty of Egypt, that if he were in the 12th dynasty, he would've likely existed, even so with Israel ..Nevertheless, they go into detail about how the Pharaoh's daughter was without child and prayed to the river god, and it's likely that God sent Moses to the woman, and he existed Little out there as far as evidence of Moses existence, but if....if....he did exist, and the Bible is correct about his basic life; found on the river, grew up in Egypt, murdered the Egyptian man etc, then it's possible that Moses 'character' reference given by ...his own self....is bogus. If Moses was this shy, set back, not good with words, etc; Doesn't anyone think that Pharaoh would've kicked him out as ignorant? I just curious? Maybe not, even still. He grew up watching Egyptians front and center, knew how they operated, their 'gods' they worshiped, their ethics, etc.

 

No surprise to me that he was the one that molded Israel as a country? He looked at their writings, or was told their oral traditions; decided to paraphrase the whole thing and make it a book that included God's laws. Maybe he did have an encounter with God?, yet, I think his hand was on the molding of Israel from Egyptian observations. Why would the Pharaoh even listen to him? Let him be in his presence? I think that is why the Pharaoh let them go, because Moses was ....royalty!

 

Dunno, it's a thought

[Ouroboros]

Yoyo, sure, I don't hold it for impossible that some guy took his family or tribe and ran off from Egypt, and started a religion. I think I read once that the early Egyptian pharaohs were Semites.

[Looking4Answers]

I think I read once that the early Egyptian pharaohs were Semites.

 

I think you may be referring to the Hyksos:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

 

Some Christian theologians have speculated that the reason the Pharaoh started to limit the size of the Israelites in his kingdom (according to the book of Exodus) was because he feared a Hyksos invasion and because both the Israelites and Hyksos were Semitic that they Israelites would join with their "brethren" in battle, increasing the size of the invasion force.

 

This is all speculation, of course, because historians are having a lot of trouble determining that the Israelites ever dwelt in Egypt to begin with.

[LNC]

It's like talking to a space alien. As far as I can tell LNC believes that all all the animals in the world were on a tiny boat--much smaller than modern ULCCs. That makes no sense. You can't really have conversation with such a person because their views differ so wildly from our own. The Azande believe (reportedly) believe that their souls can be stolen by witchcraft and get very depressed if this happens. Witchcraft forms an important part of their daily lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azande

 

The Azande are not stupid. But they not part o fthe modern world either. You can't really understand them or come to terms with them because their conception of the world is so different from the modern conception of the world. LNC has, for whatever reason, decided that the modern world, with it's modern notions of justice, skepticism, and empirical observation is simply not for him. He's withdrawn into his own world of magic and superstition. This he calls "faith," and he can call it whatever he wants, but he's not part of the modern world. It makes about as much sense talking to him as it would trying disuade an Azande from believing in witchcraft.

 

How many space aliens have you spoken to? What's it like speaking to a space alien? I have never had that experience, so you've got one on me here. The Bible doesn't say that every animal was on the ark, just one of every kind. That doesn't mean one of every species, just one of every kind plus some extra animals for sacrifice, food, and Noah and his family. The dimensions of the ark were approximately 480' L x 75' W x 45' H. The animals would have taken up less than half of the capacity of the ark, leaving the rest for the supplies, Noah and his family, etc.

 

You are are partially correct and partially mistaken in your observations of me. As for empirical data, I am all in favor of his as far as it can go, but it does have its limits. For example, cannot empirically verify past events, we can only attempt to reconstruct them via eyewitness accounts and reconstructing other forms of evidence. So, I don't vest all knowledge in empirical verification since empiricism itself is not empirically verifiable (it is a philosophical model). As t modern notions of justice, you would have to explain what you mean here. If you mean that justice is somehow relativistically determined, which seems to be what is common these days, then no I cannot go along with that. Who gets to determine what is and what is not just in this model? As for skepticism, I believe that it also has its limits, otherwise I should be skeptical of everything, including skepticism.

 

Yes, I think quite differently from many on this site as I believe that morality must have grounding in a transcendent reality. I believe that the universe is not past eternal nor did it pop into existence by itself or for no reason whatsoever. I believe that the universe is finely tuned for a purpose and that that fine tuning was not an accident or a necessary condition of the universe. However, what I believe is grounded on good philosophical and scientific observation, so my beliefs do fit with many of the standards that you seem to ascribe to. The question is how you come to your beliefs and are they equally grounded?

[LNC]

LNC. I have a question for you, you say that the bible has no contradictions?. Well could you help me understand how this isn't a contradiction.

 

It says clearly in Exodus 20:13 that "you must not murder" and yet in Ecclesiates 3:3 that there is "a time to kill..."

 

Now in case you're wondering the bible that I'm refering to is the New World Translation version since it's the only full bible I have but I've found that most bibles are the same it's the interpretation that is different.

 

Thanks in advance

 

That one isn't too difficult. When a police officer kills a person who is about to commit murder does he commit murder? How about a soldier in war, is killing the enemy murder? No, we would not say that killing in self-defense or in the line of duty would count as murder. So, in that way the Bible is not contradictory. Murder is considered the taking of innocent life, where these forms of killing are considered justified by our laws and laws throughout history.

[Deva]

The Bible doesn't say that every animal was on the ark, just one of every kind. That doesn't mean one of every species, just one of every kind plus some extra animals for sacrifice, food, and Noah and his family. The dimensions of the ark were approximately 480' L x 75' W x 45' H. The animals would have taken up less than half of the capacity of the ark, leaving the rest for the supplies, Noah and his family, etc.

 

How did they get to the Middle East - "every kind" of animal. I am assuming that means EVERY kind. Did the penguins waddle up from the Antarctic? Kangaroos hop over from Australia? Tiny poison arrow frogs get over from Brazil somehow? You said "every kind" so you can't object that they swam in the flood. What about the 10,000 species of birds alone? How are they are going to fit, plus the food? Unless you think "every kind" of animal doesn't really mean that.

 

This ranks with the most absurd things Christians have ever said on this site. As an adult you believe this? You MUST be joking.

[LNC]

Unruly: not submissive

 

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ...

 

If part of the definition of "unruly" is to not submit (per your words) then not submitting is not obeying, right? Could we not reinterpret the portion of the verse quoted above as:

 

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which is not submissive to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ..."

 

What you are really doing is picking at gnats here and arguing against HanSolo's choice of the word "unruly" over "rebellious." I am sure that HanSolo would be just as upset over someone being stoned to death for being "rebellious" as well as being "unruly." The point is not which word is used (rebellious or unruly) but the unjust and extreme punishment for the "crime" from a supposedly just deity. And the point was that you said it was not the case (and stated it rather emphatically) when, in fact, the Bible did. So, you were wrong. Period.

 

To all others in this thread:

 

Yes. I am guilty. I am beating a dead horse here. I know ... I know ... sorry ... sorry ...

 

You know, I noticed that my prior answer to you didn't deal with both words, nor did yours. I dealt with the first word in the passage and you dealt with the second. So, how do we resolve this? We have to deal with both words which were both put into the passage on purpose. Second, we also have to deal with them in Hebrew as that is the original language. Third, we have to establish that we are dealing with objective morality, otherwise, you argument is meaningless to me as you are basing it on your personal feelings and not on objective reality.

 

So, the first issue is the two words. Stubborn - carar - to rebel, be stubborn, be rebellious, to turn away morally (Strong's); Rebellious - marah - to be contentious, be bitterly rebellious, be disobedient towards, be rebellious against (Strong's). So, when Hebrew repeats words like this it is to give emphasis to the common understanding. So, the literal translation would be, "If any man has a rebellious rebellious son (Hebrew, ben - could be a literal son, grandson, subject, nation - but literally means the one who builds the family name - doesn't necessarily mean a young child) who will not obey (shama - to be an intelligent listener)...

 

Now, the key to this verse that indicates that it is not a minor child is what he is accused of, which is of being a glutton (zalal - loose morally, worthless, or prodigal (think of what the prodigal son did with his father's inheritance)) and a drunkard (caba - someone who drinks to excess). In other words, this man has been warned repeatedly and is on his own path to destruction. Now, does this offend our modern sensibilities? Sure it does. However, if you believe that it is really wrong, not just subjectively offensive, then you need to tell me on what basis you make that judgment. To date, you have failed to give me a basis for your moral sensibilities.

[Abiyoyo]

***eating popcorn***

[Ouroboros]

***scratching my head in wonder***

[Neon Genesis]

How many space aliens have you spoken to? What's it like speaking to a space alien? I have never had that experience, so you've got one on me here. The Bible doesn't say that every animal was on the ark, just one of every kind. That doesn't mean one of every species, just one of every kind plus some extra animals for sacrifice, food, and Noah and his family. The dimensions of the ark were approximately 480' L x 75' W x 45' H. The animals would have taken up less than half of the capacity of the ark, leaving the rest for the supplies, Noah and his family, etc.

How can the ark fit every animal species on Earth? There's at least 100 million known species on the Earth. According to this site http://library.thinkquest.org/21583/4/spec.htm , the Titanic was 882 feet and 8 inches long, its beam was 92.5 feet, and its height was 60.5 feet waterline to Boat Deck, 175 feet keel to top of funnels. Even the Titanic could only fit a total capacity of up to 3547 passengers and crew. Do you honestly expect any sane and rational person to believe that God was somehow magically able to fit one of every 100 million species on Earth onto a ship that was smaller than the Titanic? Are you for real? Does anyone else start to wonder now if LNC is really just an atheist in disguise pretending to be a xtian for kicks? He can't be serious.

[Ouroboros]

Are you for real? Does anyone else start to wonder now if LNC is really just an atheist in disguise pretending to be a xtian for kicks? He can't be serious.

He's been good at posing as hardcore Christian on some other website. He's either extremely delusional, or he's intentionally being an asshat.

[Pandora Moon]

LNC. I have a question for you, you say that the bible has no contradictions?. Well could you help me understand how this isn't a contradiction.

 

It says clearly in Exodus 20:13 that "you must not murder" and yet in Ecclesiates 3:3 that there is "a time to kill..."

 

Now in case you're wondering the bible that I'm refering to is the New World Translation version since it's the only full bible I have but I've found that most bibles are the same it's the interpretation that is different.

 

Thanks in advance

 

That one isn't too difficult. When a police officer kills a person who is about to commit murder does he commit murder? How about a soldier in war, is killing the enemy murder? No, we would not say that killing in self-defense or in the line of duty would count as murder. So, in that way the Bible is not contradictory. Murder is considered the taking of innocent life, where these forms of killing are considered justified by our laws and laws throughout history.

 

that's one way of interpretating it I haven't thought about it that way. It's interesting how it seems ok for someone to kill if that person is in authority, like a police officer or a soider or god even. I realise that sounds very naive peharps but it just something I've observed.

 

I suppose you want to know what I mean when I mentioned God well to give you one example I've noticed

What about when God asked Abraham to prove that he was faithful to prove by asking him to sacrifice his only child as an offering. Ok I know that God did stop Abraham from doing it in the end but that sounds like a cruel request to make. At least to me it does.

 

Thank you for answering my previous question

[Justin]

He keeps making posts like they are the end all and be all of everything. Look at his last post to L4A. You all already covered this and it will take him, at his current rate, the middle of next week to get to it. In a way, you all answered him before his own post.

[Looking4Answers]

In a way, you all answered him before his own post.

 

That's because ... I am a prophet!

 

Look at his last post to L4A. You all already covered this ...

 

Yes ... multiple times. Multiple times.

 

Like Hans, I am scratching my head as well.