pop morality

[Drich]

That isn't what Deuteronomy 23:18 says you lying sack of shit. Look it up.  I don't care what the website is because you're quoting a Bible verse.  Look it up, fucking retard.

this is the part where I get to take my baseball bat of righteousness to your face and swing for the fences...

(Let's start by setting up the pitch..)
do you mean to tell me that out of that WHOLE response I did your only grievance/inconsistency you found was the bible verses that seem to be different on the Jewish Law web site and what your translation reads?

Now out of all of that fact checking I did to bring you a 1000 word essay on how and why you are wrong, the same essay that you could find no fault in, you really think I over looked the passages you pointed out?

Let's look up the verse shall we:


בּוֹא bow' =Thou shalt not bring
אֶתְנַן [i]'ethnan =the hire
זָנָה zanah = of a whore

[/i]Theirs that word you've allowed to mess you up, Not whore but "Zanah", so again the non fool asks what is the definition of this is a strange word. (Or backs into this line of reasoning if they did not use a lexicon. Meaning you know the bible was not written in English, Nor was the word whore and your originally used, Matter of fact how can you be certain of its representation of what is truly being communicated? Yet the fool charges forward!!)

(the pitch)

So we seek the definition.
Seemingly, your defination is limited to the english, meaning prostitute. the problem? While the word Zanah can mean prostitute, as you see here it's primary meaning is to commit adultery, or fornicator, it final understanding is that of a prostitute. the word is not limited to sex for money being the point. In otherwords all women who had sex outside of marriage are considered 'Zanah.'
Zanah
זָנָה zânâh, zaw-naw'; a primitive root [highly fed and therefore wanton]; to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively, to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah):—(cause to) commit fornication, × continually, × great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2181&t=KJV


In other words a Zanah was a female fornicator formally paid or unpaid. which is not much different than how whore can be used in english.

(the Swing)

So again back to rule number 69 in this particular list:

That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18)

(The crack of the bat)

"their shall be no Harlot in Israel"

is what was taken from deut 23:18. you Can't deny that as I pasted the Hebrew and english that says this VERY thing.

then you see a ";" (Meaning they are going to give a further translation or break down of this law.)

then they out line or define what a harlot/whore/Zanah is or how one is judged that way when they say:

that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage

(Man that ball is sailing out of here!!!)
Now I know you like being as stupid as possible so your simple man's arguments work with little to no opposition, but the problem here in the real world is.. when speaking of an actual law or cultures beliefs their is always a massive paper trail that defines, translates and explains what it is a people believes.

(It's going...)
Now I know I let you people have slack in calling me a liar, the reason being I was giving you enough slack to hang yourselves/enough time to fully commit to your argument as i could, so when I close the door/show you how and why you are wrong, it will make you look as foolish as possible. (not because you are ignorant/I don't make fun of ignorant. You are foolish/stupid because you don't know, but insist that you do, and refuse to check yourself and understanding.. then argue about it when shown you are wrong)

(go-innng)
You may want to argue with me, my translation, and try and prop up your reading of the bible or any number of other foolish/trivial things.. But bottom line... Law #69 that defines what a Zanah is, is not up for debate. why? because no matter how or what you think, how you read your bible, or intrepret this Deut 23.. This law for the Hebrew people has been interpreted and set in figurative stone by the Hebrew people themselves and is to read EXACTLY how I cut and pasted it to read for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!!!!
(gone!!!)
Who are you to tell the Jews they are not reading their bibles correctly?

(Read as third 1940's person commentator for fun)
Home run! Home RRUUUUUNNNNN!!!! Drich knocks the douche virus out of the park!!! If he's (DV short for douche virus) is smart, he will concede or just say nothing, but we know the douche virus thinks he's smarter that Drich even when Drich is just cutting and pasting from 2000 year old book of Jewish law! It seems The DV, and his fellow/like minded "thinkers" (irony abounds) don't quite get that this particular law was in place 1000 years before Christ walked the earth, and to argue this point is beyond just stupid it show a completely lack of any knowledge what so eve-a!! It hard to see where the douche virus landed after that home run smack, but rest assured, where ever he landed, I'm sure he is getting up and brushing himself off and headed back to this stadium!!

:Roflol:
Oh, douche Virus (and supporting thinker friends who said I lied) I know you think you know better, but the truth is you don't! before another one of you gets his teethed kicked in again, i ask you to look up the the 613 Mitzots (Rambam's they are the oldest and of the 2000 year old variety I cut and pasted from here) Or better yet look up: Chafetz Chayim's Concise Book of Mitzvot as it pairs a specific law with it's command.

The problem you guys have???
 you all put WAYYYYY Too much Faith in your anti God bloggers and anti-theologians. They are shills and shadows of who they make themselves out to be. Just because some one like carrier or that other guy... what's his names... says something against the bible or the religion in general, doesn't make it true. where is all of this 'independant thought you guys keep talking about? From my POV you all are the sheep and instead of God you follow people like.. that one atheist guy with the hair problem..

If you people spent 1/2 the faith you had in I-dots (yes I know how idiot is spelled, it an "acurn") like Dawkins or carrier, God would open your eyes, so that you may see Him and have the proof you need.