The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Nihilist Virus]

Sorry, I didn't consider this to be any kind of response:


"What part is supposedly speaking of abortion? You know you can actually post the relevant scripture..."


So basically you demand the book/chapter/verse of where the Bible discusses abortion, and then you ignore the passages I present.  Or maybe you're going blind from excessive masturbation.  Here, I'll post it in large font:


When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

See Numbers 5:11-31 for context.

Numbers 5
27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

What did I tell you guys about the NIV? You do realize that it subtracts whole scriptures, and adds words that are not found in the KJV, which is translated directly from Hebrew and Greek.

Just do a google search of NIV mistranslations

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/a...rsion-niv/

The New International Version of the Bible, or NIV, was first published in 1978. Since then, it has become one of the most popular English Bible translations, and almost certainly the most popular one among Evangelical Christians. It is also one of the worst translations for anyone who is seriously interested in what the Bible says.

Why is Numbers 5 not in that list?

[Huggy Bear]

What did I tell you guys about the NIV? You do realize that it subtracts whole scriptures, and adds words that are not found in the KJV, which is translated directly from Hebrew and Greek.

Just do a google search of NIV mistranslations

https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/a...rsion-niv/

Why is Numbers 5 not in that list?

Maybe because it doesn't list every error? Not to mention I don't think it even goes into the scriptures that are completely missing from the NIV

Look I just gave you both versions of the scripture, compare them for yourself.

[The Grand Nudger]

So you deliberately take the scripture out of context?

here is the full context.

Genesis 4
4 Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.”
2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

Strange but true: Twins can have different fathers

We all know that siblings can have different fathers – technically making them half-siblings – but what about twins? Yup, it happens. In fact, one study estimates that as many as 1 in 400 sets of fraternal twins is "bipaternal."

How is it possible? Simple: Two eggs from the same mother get fertilized by two different fathers – within the same ovulation period.

also

1 John 3:12
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

No,it doesn't..just as it doesn;t get any clearer than gen 4:1.  The author (in john) expresses our spiritual lineages, as he saw them, not our genetic lineages.  That doesn't change the fact that cain and abel were brothers, both of adam.  It's simply the acceptance of our ability to be both good and evil.  I don't want to hear any more nonsense about context from you...as regards this narrative.  You could at least learn the stories if you're going to pretend to believe in them.....

That's an amusing verse, btw, considering that his own works, which were evil....happened to be farming, lol.  Have you ever actually read or understood this story?  From the above..it seems that the author of john might never have done either.  Par for the course with NT bullshit.  Hence "jesus"....... 

[LadyForCamus]

Okay, the Christian narrative as I (?)understand(?) it so far:

God was sitting around one day, and decided to create the universe and some beings within it. (How a timeless, changeless, eternal entity goes from a state of not having thoughts to a state of thinking about doing something is lunacy of course, but I'm playing along for the sake of the argument [emoji6])

So...God decides to make the universe and people, because...he's bored? Lonely? Drunk with power?

Did god not know until the moment he decided to create the world how humans would turn out? Because if he didn't; if there was ever a "time" when God thought things would go a certain a way and they turned out differently than he originally intended, there goes "omniscient" right out the window.

Oh, and along with it goes "omnipotent" as well. If God had an ideal; a vision for humanity, but failed to execute his creation properly (considering what a fucking disappointment we are, according to him) then...he screwed up. He screwed up twice in fact, if you want to consider that 'flood' mulligan he afforded himself. So...Not perfect, and not all powerful.

Now please, Christians, I know your fingers are just itching to type the words "free will". But don't. I know, it's hard. You're taught to spit that phrase out any time the logic of your God is questioned, but the fact is the existence of free will makes no difference. You can't on the one hand say God knew we would fuck it all up because 'omniscience', but then turn around and say we fell from God's grace because 'free will'.

Free will was always part of the grand plan, right? So, God basically rigged humans with a wild card (on purpose) and then blamed us when the wild card backfired on him. God is in every way like Victor Frankenstein. We never asked to be created. But the real kicker is that instead of owning up to the fact that he fucked up by creating a species of unintelligible, immoral miscreants, he decides to trick us into thinking that it's all our fault we can never be good enough. He sets up this contrived and thinly veiled "test" of righteousness that he knows full well Adam and Eve cannot not pass, and then uses the result to lay life-long blame, guilt, and shame onto all of humanity.

But, it gets worse. It's not awful enough that he can't or won't take responsibility for his actions, and just accept us for how he made us. There has to be that awful punishment; torture and suffering for eternity. Included in the list of the punished are, of course, all of those unlucky enough to be born of inconvenient geography.

And if God did see all of this coming from start to finish, and went through with it anyway? How can any rational person call that God "good"?

[Nihilist Virus]

Why is Numbers 5 not in that list?

Maybe because it doesn't list every error? Not to mention I don't think it even goes into the scriptures that are completely missing from the NIV

Look I just gave you both versions of the scripture, compare them for yourself.

OK bro, you're wrong on this issue but before I press it I got just one question.

Given you believe Satan had sex with Eve, would you be pro-choice if Satan had sex with your daughter (presuming you have one) and impregnated her?

[LadyForCamus]

Why is Numbers 5 not in that list?

Maybe because it doesn't list every error? Not to mention I don't think it even goes into the scriptures that are completely missing from the NIV

Look I just gave you both versions of the scripture, compare them for yourself.

What world do you live in that you think pointing out multiple, contradictory translations of 'god's unchanging word' helps your argument??

[Excited Penguin]

Maybe because it doesn't list every error? Not to mention I don't think it even goes into the scriptures that are completely missing from the NIV

Look I just gave you both versions of the scripture, compare them for yourself.

OK bro, you're wrong on this issue but before I press it I got just one question.

Given you believe Satan had sex with Eve, would you be pro-choice if Satan had sex with your daughter (presuming you have one) and impregnated her?

No, all life matters, even the Antichrist.

[Rev. Rye]

Just looked at the 1 John 3:12 verse Huggy Bear seems to consider a smoking gun for the "Serpent Seed" theory.

Knowing he tends to be annoyed at the NIV for taking out things, I looked to the Amplified version which does the exact opposite and tries to put the more ambiguous parts (parts that the 1st century Greek-speaking reader would have taken for granted, that leave 21st century Anglophone readers scratching their heads) into context:

12 [And] not be like Cain who [took his nature and got his motivation] from the evil one and slew his brother. And why did he slay him? Because his deeds (activities, works) were wicked and malicious and his brother’s were righteous (virtuous).

Saying he was "of that wicked one" because he killed his brother and apparently single-handedly took sin up to a new level really makes more sense than saying he was "of that wicked one" because he was the literal seed of the serpent.

And, I noticed he blew off Numbers 5:11-31 to rant about the NIV (and I don't think any of us copy-pasted it from the NIV), so, here it is in its full KJV glory.

11 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,

13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;

14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:

15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.

16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord:

17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:

18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:

20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:

21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;

22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.

23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.

25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar:

26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.

27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;

30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.

31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

It's taken directly from your beloved King James Bible and details a form of abortion that God not only sanctions, but takes part in.

Congratulations, Huggy Bear. You now officially have no excuse to blow off actually talking about this.

[Nihilist Virus]

Let's all pitch in and commission a 3D CGI artist to make us some Biblical Old Testament Genesis porn comics. I'm not much into the tentacle stuff but that's on the table if we have a ssssexual ssssserpent in the picture. Also maybe some good incest action, you know, to propagate the species and all. I mean let's be real, what Lot's daughters did was pretty hot. Speaking of Lot, there's the "Take my virgin daughters and rape the shit out of them" angle. Also the Nephilim will have the giant fetish covered. Maybe the demons can be futanari for all you freaks out there. Oh wait, plot hole, the demons don't get invented until the New Testament when there's the Greek influence. OK, maybe no fuanari... sorry guys.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Here is your first clue.

Genesis 3
14And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The clearly states that the serpent had a seed (which Eve was already pregnant with).

Except, it doesn't say what your parenthetical statement says it does.

Your second clue.

If you read the genealogy (which traces the bloodline of the firstborn male heir) of Adam, you'll notice that Cain (who WAS the firstborn) is not mentioned as Adams son.

Genesis 5
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

So, does it say that Cain's father was the snake?

No, no it doesn't.

Your third clue.

1 John 3:12
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

*empasis mine*

You will never find anywhere in the bible where it states that Cain was Adams son, you guys just ASSUME it to be so.

Is there a reason why Adam cannot be "that wicked one?"