Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..

[downbeatplumb]

Godschild

Without the bible what exactly do you have?

Youre whole argument seems to reside in the meaning of what is just a poorly written work of fiction.

Just imagine for a moment that youve never seen or heard of the bible, not an unreasonable thing to ask, most of the people who have ever lived have been/are ignorant of what the bible says, including a lot pf people who consider themselves christian, (certainly round this way).

So without your blinkers what do you see?

[Godscreated]

Godschild

Without the bible what exactly do you have?

Youre whole argument seems to reside in the meaning of what is just a poorly written work of fiction.

Just imagine for a moment that youve never seen or heard of the bible, not an unreasonable thing to ask, most of the people who have ever lived have been/are ignorant of what the bible says, including a lot of people who consider themselves christian, (certainly round this way).

So without your blinkers what do you see?

Why should I imagine that there's no Bible, I think it's unreasonable, just because many people have not seen a Bible or many christians have not read the Bible what does that have to do with me? I do not find the Bible to be a burden, as a matter of fact I find it very rewarding I've learned a considerable amount about God, life, ect. I recieve a great peace from reading scriptures, I can not see any reason to give up something that helps make my life so much better.

[DeistPaladin]

Why should I imagine that there's no Bible, I think it's unreasonable, just because many people have not seen a Bible or many christians have not read the Bible what does that have to do with me? I do not find the Bible to be a burden, as a matter of fact I find it very rewarding I've learned a considerable amount about God, life, ect. I recieve a great peace from reading scriptures, I can not see any reason to give up something that helps make my life so much better.

He's asking you to think.

Try it.

Don't be afraid.

[Godscreated]

I've underlined part of your statement above and I think you are confused about a miscarriage, a miscarriage never result in the baby living.

Not so much confused as familiar with the apology that the verse refers to a premature birth which might or might not produce a living baby. Besides the fact that no modern translation that I'm familiar with translates it as "premature birth" but rather as "miscarriage", there's the part about "foot for foot, burn for burn, stripe for stripe, eye for eye" etc. How many premature births feature babies with missing feet and yet they survive? Or whip marks (stripe)? Or missing eyes? Or burns?

The passage is about damage done to the woman, who might actually suffer burns, stripes or missing eyes and feet as a result of the assault upon her.

Incidentally, I would ask you where you got your degree in ancient Hebrew. Can you go into detail here on why the passage is about premature births and not a miscarriage and how modern translators seem to have gotten it wrong?

As for the last supper that wine was symbolic and there are many symbolic passages in the NT.

So you're not sinning, you're just acting out a sin and pretending to commit it? That hardly seems like sound theology, since Jesus spoke out against committing sins in the mind as well as in practice. Jesus on the mount said that those who lust after women in their hearts or commit hateful acts toward others in their mind have also sinned.

The nature of the OT condemnation of the consumption of sacrificial blood is strong and unambiguous. It should also preclude pretending to do so.

Again you are trying to satisfy your (own) disbelief.

Projection. Your attempts to rationalize both discussed passages and the ad hoc hypothesis you've used demonstrate that you started with the conclusion and then tried to make the scriptures fit that conclusion.

Read the English Standard Version it translates "so that her childern come out" not a mention of the word miscarriage,an accurate translation of the Hebrew. The passage is not about the mother it's about the baby. Verses 23 and 24 are not necessarily about a premature birth they are however about the result of the harm brought on by someone striking a pregnant woman.
The NIV translates this as a "premature birth" not a miscarriage these are two very popular translations that do not use the word miscarriage. My favorite translation does use the word miscarriage, it does give in a footnote the literal meaning of the Hebrew so I'm not sure why this group of translators used the word miscarriage. They did make a mistake and they knew how the Hebrew translated, I'm going to try and find out because it does have my curiosity up.
Modern translators have not gotten it wrong and the translations I use indicate this, even my favorite gave the literal translation. The reason that the original Hebrew states the verse this way is to show us that God considers the unborn as a living being (life). I got my degree in Hebrew from the UOHK that would translate university of hard knocks. Also my pastor is a very well educated man and when we have a difference in opinion we will go to the Hebrew or Greek to find the original intention.
Now as for the blood, my reference to it was to show that God was saying that the life of the flesh is in the blood and that a fetus developes it's own blood type before a woman is certain she is pregnant.
I never started with a conclusion, the truth of the matter is clearly stated in scripture and all one has to do is read. Now I will say, if a question arises about a subject and I want to find the answer to the question I will search through the scriptures and try to find the truth, not what I want scripture to say but what scripture tells us about the subject. The question (subject) was of your making not mine, I gave you what I've known for many years and this knowledge is not to prove abortion is wrong (even though it does), it's to show what God has to say about the life He gives.

---

Why should I imagine that there's no Bible, I think it's unreasonable, just because many people have not seen a Bible or many christians have not read the Bible what does that have to do with me? I do not find the Bible to be a burden, as a matter of fact I find it very rewarding I've learned a considerable amount about God, life, ect. I recieve a great peace from reading scriptures, I can not see any reason to give up something that helps make my life so much better.

He's asking you to think.

Try it.

Don't be afraid.

I do think and I do not need someone to try and manipulate my beliefs I've searched over scripture studied evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, long earth ages , short earth ages and on and on and have come to a belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and He died for me and was raised from the dead. I believe in the entire Bible as God's trusted word, I really do not care whether people think I'm afraid to search out the truth, I know what I've found to be true and valuable for my life and I know the searching I've put into this matter. I've stated this before and I will again, so people want forget, I've come to this forum to learn. The questions posed in this forum aides me in my search for truth, I've not come here to convert anyone that is God's job, but if something I write helps someone then that is a good thing and it goes to the glory of God.

[orogenicman]

I've stated this before and I will again, so people want forget, I've come to this forum to learn.

If you've come here to learn, then ask yourself this question:

Why would a loving, compassionate, forgiving god create a world full of creatures whose most important task in life is to eat other animals so they can grow strong and raise more babies that can eat other animals and raise babies of their own? When you look at the natural world, you see no evidence for mercy, compassion, or forgiveness. The made up morality of man and the real morality of that exists in nature couldn't be more different.

[DeistPaladin]

The passage is not about the mother it's about the baby. Verses 23 and 24 are not necessarily about a premature birth they are however about the result of the harm brought on by someone striking a pregnant woman.

And you know the author's intent how?

I'm just going by what's there. First it says "fruit depart from her but no further harm is done". Then it says "but if further harm is done..." and describes injuries consistent with, as you admit, the battery of the pregnant woman, not the premature birth.

My interpretation is also consistent with the whole nature of the OT's attitude toward children as property of the father. In a census, they're not even counted as alive until a month after birth.

Num 3:15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them

Now as for the blood, my reference to it was to show that God was saying that the life of the flesh is in the blood and that a fetus developes it's own blood type before a woman is certain she is pregnant.

So do you have an answer for my question? Is communion a sin because you're pretending to do something in violation of OT regulations regarding the consumption of sacrificial blood? Does Jesus' admonishment of the imagined sin still being a sin not apply?

[orogenicman]

"Now as for the blood, my reference to it was to show that God was saying that the life of the flesh is in the blood and that a fetus developes it's own blood type before a woman is certain she is pregnant."

I think most doctors would agree that life is not possible without the whole beast, so to speak. There are many parts of the human body which are indispensible to life. Blood is one. But blood without a heart doesn't give one life. Blood without a brain doesn't give one life. Blood without a liver, pancreas, or endocrine system doesn't give one life. All of these and more are requisite to sustain life. But none of this is really the issue here with respect to abortion. The issue is a woman's control over her own body, her own reproductive rights. Women are the child bearers, and for their entire lives they have that responsibility laid upon them. They didn't ask for it. They were born with it. And it is their innate right to decide what is best for their bodies, and for their lives, and no one else's, certainly not the government's. If the tables were turned, if men had the responsibility laid upon them, this wouldn't be an issue.

[solja247]

Why would a loving, compassionate, forgiving god create a world full of creatures whose most important task in life is to eat other animals so they can grow strong and raise more babies that can eat other animals and raise babies of their own? When you look at the natural world, you see no evidence for mercy, compassion, or forgiveness.

Not at all. Nature is beautiful and we can learn a lot from observing nature.

The issue is a woman's control over her own body, her own reproductive rights. Women are the child bearers, and for their entire lives they have that responsibility laid upon them. They didn't ask for it. They were born with it. And it is their innate right to decide what is best for their bodies, and for their lives, and no one else's, certainly not the government's. If the tables were turned, if men had the responsibility laid upon them, this wouldn't be an issue.

While I do agree with you. I think a line should be drawn with abortion. The unborn baby should have some rights. Abortion should not be used as contraception.

---

Perhaps read the rest of the OT as well? I mean, slaughter of innocents, genocide, predjudice, intollerance.... and this is from Yahweh!!!!

I think this picture sums up the bible best:

Context! The Israelites placed God in everything, whether it be sealing a woman's womb or leading a bloody conquest, it was the Israelities who went on the conquest, not God.
The OT isnt that bad, the OT is massive, I challenge you to find me 50 immoral stories where God commands something we would call immoral. Perhaps to understand God's mercy you should read Jonah?

[Minimalist]

Start with these, Sol.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm


When you finish you can come back and tell us how good your fucking god is.

[solja247]

God Slaughters Blacks

Dont you know, God hates blacks?

Kill All Unbelievers
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;" (Deuteronomy 13: 6)

"Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 13:8-9)

"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword." (Deuteronomy 13:15)

Where is the context?

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

Quoting prophecies? wow

The Survivors
"Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Revelation 7:3-4)

"And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads." (Revelation 9:3-4)

"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads." (Revelation 14:1)

"...the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins." (Revelation 14:3-4)

Comment
Here we have the great future destruction where billions of people will die. Only 144,000 virgin Jews with a protective mark on their heads will survive. (I suppose the 'Jews for Jesus' cult would serve as the leading candidates.)

How many believers realize that this means the death of everyone on earth but a few virgin Jews? And this includes the destruction of all Christians! (Of course the alleged Jesus, a virgin Jew, who claimed only a few would enter heaven would agree with this).

wow.

Ok most of these were about Israelites warring with people and David's poems.
10 points for trying.