mymistake Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Typically you would buy a young boy slave and neuter him so that when he grows up you could trust him do look after your female slaves (a.k.a. wives) without getting them pregnant. The slave's status was public knowledge. Why kind of a master would you be if you had non-eunuchs tending your wives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Wow, this thread got derailed and Foxy didn't do it. Foxy, just agree with MWC or this will never die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Post your oddest verses like the topic says. I thought that's what was going to happen a looong time ago. Just don't pull a "Now that he's gone...about that eunuch thing..." because I just might come back and with something to say just like the last time. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemars Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. 26 So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyanaprajna0 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 This verse isn't like the others posted, that's just so outrageous and off the wall that it just makes you go "holy shit!" then laugh at it. This one is a bit more straightforward. Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord..." I think we can all see the irony in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyanaprajna0 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Here's one that's off the wall: Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." So, apparently god has a weakness. His kryptonite is iron chariots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 How about some OT hard-core porno? Ezekiel 23:20 "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." Oy vey! BAA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Or some NT transexuality? Revelation 1:13, KJV. "And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle." (Paps = female breasts.) BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isawthelight Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I like the tenth commandment. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I like the tenth commandment. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass. I always thought this was rather redundant - it woulda been better to just use this one, then you wouldnt have to put some of the others (steal, adultery, etc) in there, and you could use some of them for better rules - dont enslave, for example. o.O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyanaprajna0 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I like the tenth commandment. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass. I always thought this was rather redundant - it woulda been better to just use this one, then you wouldnt have to put some of the others (steal, adultery, etc) in there, and you could use some of them for better rules - dont enslave, for example. o.O Nah, can't have verses condemning slavery, then what kind of wrathful god would he be? He wouldn't be able to properly cause fear in bronze age goat herders then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Rev 1:13 Paps = His chest http://biblelexicon.org/revelation/1-13.htm http://concordances.org/greek/3149.htm mastos: the breast Original Word: μαστός, οῦ, ὁ Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine Transliteration: mastos Phonetic Spelling: (mas-tos') Short Definition: a breast, pap Definition: the breast, pap. Men get breast cancer you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Judges 1:19 http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm: And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron - Strange! were the iron chariots too strong for Omnipotence? The whole of this verse is improperly rendered. The first clause, The Lord was with Judah should terminate the 18th verse, and this gives the reason for the success of this tribe: The Lord was with Judah, and therefore he slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, etc., etc. Here then is a complete period: the remaining part of the verse either refers to a different time, or to the rebellion of Judah against the Lord, which caused him to withdraw his support. Therefore the Lord was with Judah, and these were the effects of his protection; but afterwards, when the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim, etc., God was no longer with them, and their enemies were left to be pricks in their eyes, and thorns in their side, as God himself had said ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyanaprajna0 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Judges 1:19 http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm: And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron - Strange! were the iron chariots too strong for Omnipotence? The whole of this verse is improperly rendered. The first clause, The Lord was with Judah should terminate the 18th verse, and this gives the reason for the success of this tribe: The Lord was with Judah, and therefore he slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, etc., etc. Here then is a complete period: the remaining part of the verse either refers to a different time, or to the rebellion of Judah against the Lord, which caused him to withdraw his support. Therefore the Lord was with Judah, and these were the effects of his protection; but afterwards, when the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim, etc., God was no longer with them, and their enemies were left to be pricks in their eyes, and thorns in their side, as God himself had said ... And your point being? It doesn't matter where the verse ends, or begins, or how you interpret it. God is not stronger than iron chariots. This sort of puts a damper on that whole "all-powerful" thing, doesn't it? Nice try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deconverted Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV: 17 Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.[d]18 Judah also took[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory. 19 The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. 20 As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. 21 The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Judges 1:19 http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm: And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron - Strange! were the iron chariots too strong for Omnipotence? The whole of this verse is improperly rendered. The first clause, The Lord was with Judah should terminate the 18th verse, and this gives the reason for the success of this tribe: The Lord was with Judah, and therefore he slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, etc., etc. Here then is a complete period: the remaining part of the verse either refers to a different time, or to the rebellion of Judah against the Lord, which caused him to withdraw his support. Therefore the Lord was with Judah, and these were the effects of his protection; but afterwards, when the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim, etc., God was no longer with them, and their enemies were left to be pricks in their eyes, and thorns in their side, as God himself had said ... And your point being? It doesn't matter where the verse ends, or begins, or how you interpret it. God is not stronger than iron chariots. This sort of puts a damper on that whole "all-powerful" thing, doesn't it? Nice try. The commentary is self explanatory, I did not see the need for me to explain further. The Christian knows or should know that God's promises are conditional in that if we keep His commandments it shows we have faith in Him. As a result believers get blessings and the peace that passes understanding. The bible has historical books and one has to go to and fro throughout the scripture in order to learn what God wants them to. God withdraws His protection when His children apostatize. That happened again and again throughout the OT; when the children in the Exodus complained and wanted to go back to Egypt, God withdrew His protection and fiery serpents stung them. In other parts they tried to go to war without consulting God and they were defeated, like when the Ark of the Covenant got stolen. Alas, I had personal experiences with running ahead of God and He permitted me to get in sticky situations but when I sincerely went back to Him, He fixed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Judges 1:19 http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm: And the Lord was with Judah, and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron - Strange! were the iron chariots too strong for Omnipotence? The whole of this verse is improperly rendered. The first clause, The Lord was with Judah should terminate the 18th verse, and this gives the reason for the success of this tribe: The Lord was with Judah, and therefore he slew the Canaanites that inhabited Zephath, etc., etc. Here then is a complete period: the remaining part of the verse either refers to a different time, or to the rebellion of Judah against the Lord, which caused him to withdraw his support. Therefore the Lord was with Judah, and these were the effects of his protection; but afterwards, when the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim, etc., God was no longer with them, and their enemies were left to be pricks in their eyes, and thorns in their side, as God himself had said ... And your point being? It doesn't matter where the verse ends, or begins, or how you interpret it. God is not stronger than iron chariots. This sort of puts a damper on that whole "all-powerful" thing, doesn't it? Nice try. The commentary is self explanatory, I did not see the need for me to explain further. The Christian knows or should know that God's promises are conditional in that if we keep His commandments it shows we have faith in Him. As a result believers get blessings and the peace that passes understanding. The bible has historical books and one has to go to and fro throughout the scripture in order to learn what God wants them to. God withdraws His protection when His children apostatize. That happened again and again throughout the OT; when the children in the Exodus complained and wanted to go back to Egypt, God withdrew His protection and fiery serpents stung them. In other parts they tried to go to war without consulting God and they were defeated, like when the Ark of the Covenant got stolen. Alas, I had personal experiences with running ahead of God and He permitted me to get in sticky situations but when I sincerely went back to Him, He fixed it. While I don't agree with what you have said here. You did hit the nail on the head about the iron chariots deal. Its a bunk arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deconverted Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Valk0010, Are you saying that the claim that God is too weak to overcome iron charriots is bunk or that Thumbelina's assumptions that the people of Judah were being apostates when they couldn't over the people with iron charriots is bunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV: 17 Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.[d]18 Judah also took[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory. 19 The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. 20 As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. 21 The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites. Please, please, please, read the commentaries at the bottom of this page: http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS. Without faith is is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and those men of Judah started playing the ox as my mom would say. They were supposed to be bold but they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them. Again, PLEASE read the commentaries! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deconverted Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 If Thumbelina's argument is to believed, this is just another example of how people who are not following God's will, will not have God on their side (conditional). This would seem to be an important lesson, and would seem to me that the writer would be very clear about this. Instead we are left to guess at it's meaning (when at least on the surface it appears to limit God). Or make assumptions that aren't made. During all my years of Bible study, I always had a difficult time with this kind of stuff because it always seemed like the leaders and participants of the Bible study always made assumptions to twist scripture around so it fit their ideas of consistency. Instead, I read it with a more simplicity and took the words for what they meant (face value). It always bothered me that we had to grasp for explanations like this that were not clearly stated in the Bible (I know, I know...as a Christian, it's crystal clear and obvious) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Hey man, I suppose you're doing better since you're back to your polite arguing The argument is bunk to skeptics but it gives lessons and encouragement to believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Instead we are left to guess at it's meaning (when at least on the surface it appears to limit God The HS helps teachable people AND it is also fun when one realizes the important lessons in scripture that are not so apparent on the surface. (I know, I know...as a Christian, it's crystal clear and obvious) Yup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deconverted Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Is the Bible so difficult to understand and interpret (and so misguided in it's translations) that we have to rely on commentaries and cross references in the margins? I don't buy it. "Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS." Do you have any idea HOW many times I have asked God for his Holy Spirit, for Wisdom, for clarity, and for understanding? And when I asked for these things, I was TOTALLY sincere and humble! He never helped me out...and I would bet most everyone else on this forum has had similar experiences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbelina Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Is the Bible so difficult to understand and interpret (and so misguided in it's translations) that we have to rely on commentaries and cross references in the margins? I don't buy it. "Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS." Do you have any idea HOW many times I have asked God for his Holy Spirit, for Wisdom, for clarity, and for understanding? And when I asked for these things, I was TOTALLY sincere and humble! He never helped me out...and I would bet most everyone else on this forum has had similar experiences. The bible is not that difficult to understand but it does stipulate that one needs to go back and forth in scripture and let the bible explain itself. You guys ain't dead yet so maybe you jumped ship before you had your prayers answered or maybe your prayers will be answered since you jumped ship? If so then maybe you will be stronger for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Hey man, I suppose you're doing better since you're back to your polite arguing The argument is bunk to skeptics but it gives lessons and encouragement to believers. Well sometimes you give people a inch they try to take a mile. I just said, I don't see a contradiction in the iron chariots deal. You explained the situation correctly. You got a agnostic agreeing with you for once, be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts