Are you man enough...

[Zen Badger]

You asked the question and I answered it. If you're really interested, google a bible commentary by a respected bible scholar. In fact, google a commentary by a non-Christian bible scholar. If you don't believe, I understand, but you're making ignorant comments about something you know nothing about.

I asked you upon what basis you formulated your answer. There is nothing ignorant about that.

Don't tell us to google the commentaries that support your answer, that's your job.
And if you can't, that's just more reason to think you're full of shit.

[Snidely Whiplash]

This chapter doesn't refer to individuals, but rather it's symbolic language used throughout much of the old testement. The prostitutes represent the nation of Israel, which was unfaithful to God and made alliances with pagan nations and adopted their religions. The language stresses the disgust which God and the prophet Ezekiel had toward Israel. What was wrong with using that language? The old testament world was not as civilized as the world is today. We want to make God into who we think he should be, but he is who he is. A loving God also can be an angry god.

I see and God, who is the most intelligent being and greatest linguist in his creation, couldn't come up with a bit less pornographic language to describe his pet people's betrayal. I wonder why Jesus didn't rave on about gigantic animal's cocks and tsunamis of cum when Judas betrayed him?

[Fruity]

You asked the question and I answered it. If you're really interested, google a bible commentary by a respected bible scholar. In fact, google a commentary by a non-Christian bible scholar. If you don't believe, I understand, but you're making ignorant comments about something you know nothing about.

You made a statement. You back it up. You can't argue something and when questioned about it reply, "Google it." Really. It makes you look like you don't have a clue of how to support your claim.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

You asked the question and I answered it. If you're really interested, google a bible commentary by a respected bible scholar. In fact, google a commentary by a non-Christian bible scholar. If you don't believe, I understand, but you're making ignorant comments about something you know nothing about.

Any bible scholars worth their salt won't be supposing the bible is god's word. What you have there are theologians, not actual experts who study ancient texts.

[Jacob(smooth)]

It's an interesting paradox. If God wrote the bible as evidence of who he is, why write it in such a manner as to need major hermeneutic study to get what he's saying?

I mean if I was writing for an audience in 3000 years, knowing that language culture etc would change, I would Avoid Hyperbole, metaphor etc like the plag.... Completely.

The question for me is not then whether Lek or the heathen horde are misinterpreting, it's why is interpretation necessary?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

It's an interesting paradox. If God wrote the bible as evidence of who he is, why write it in such a manner as to need major hermeneutic study to get what he's saying?

I mean if I was writing for an audience in 3000 years, knowing that language culture etc would change, I would Avoid Hyperbole, metaphor etc like the plag.... Completely.

The question for me is not then whether Lek or the heathen horde are misinterpreting, it's why is interpretation necessary?

Who are you to question god?!

[Bob Kelso]

Reminds me of some strange hentai.

[Jacob(smooth)]

It's an interesting paradox. If God wrote the bible as evidence of who he is, why write it in such a manner as to need major hermeneutic study to get what he's saying?

I mean if I was writing for an audience in 3000 years, knowing that language culture etc would change, I would Avoid Hyperbole, metaphor etc like the plag.... Completely.

The question for me is not then whether Lek or the heathen horde are misinterpreting, it's why is interpretation necessary?

Who are you to question god?!

Me? I'm the service user

[Cyberman]

If you don't believe, I understand, but you're making ignorant comments about something you know nothing about.

Right, because every non-believer here and even some of the faithful who dares to question your interpretation of the words is ignorant and knows nothing about the subject. Never mind that most of us have been engaging in this for more years than we'd care to admit and many here had a religious upbringing in which this kind of apologist rationalising is the name of the game; you and you alone are the keeper of divine truth. Well done.

[TudorGothicSerpent]

The verses say apple. You say no no, it's all symbolic it really means watermelon, you guys just think it's apple because you want to make god into who you think he is.

Completely disregarding the fact that the verses in fact said apple.

In this case, he seems to be right. The text is pretty explicit that the two prostitutes mentioned (who get the names Aholah and Aholibah) are actually the cities of Jerusalem and Samaria. Ezekiel 23:4: "Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah." The names also aren't common female Hebrew names, and they're puns suggesting the relationship between the states of the divided monarchy. Prostitution or adultery is used as a metaphor for the Israelites practicing paganism fairly frequently in the Old Testament, sometimes with pretty sexually suggestive imagery. This is probably the most dramatic time, but other uses are also kind of explicit. The ancient Israelites probably weren't quite as squeamish about sexual language as a lot of modern readers. The easiest interpretation of that isn't that the author was trying to be graphic to show how terrible it was. More likely than not, he was trying to say that the Egyptians had a lot to offer in terms of material wealth (which, in the metaphor, is of course sexual prowess) and that Israel and Samaria went for it.