Personally, I start at the bottom and work my way up.
Nehemiah 13:26-27
"Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned...Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?"
In context, this scripture is referring to the "sin" of interfaith marriage.
It's a load of bunk, and it's a scripture, so it stands to reason that not all scripture is God breathed.
If Jesus came to refute this racism (which He did*) and Jesus is God, and God does not change, then this scripture could not possibly be correct.
*Gal 3:28
Nehemiah is talking about women outside the faith, and enemies of Israel. It had nothing to do with their skin color. God commanded them not to make wives of them not because they had different colored skin but because they were enemies of God.
Edit:
And not allowing interfaith marriage is not "bunk". We're told not to be yolked together with unbelievers. It doesn't mean it's a sin, but that it's a warning that there will be trouble.
It doesn't mean it's a sin, but that it's a warning that there will be trouble.
So the scripture says "sin" but you somehow contend that it is not a sin?
Are you denying the truth of this scripture?
And yes, I caught the context to mean interfaith marriage. I even said so in my post . . .
But even if you do not think this scripture means "sin" even though it says "sin," you would say that interfaith marriage is a "warning that there will be trouble?"
I could see why maybe you'd try to distance yourself from the idea that interfaith marriage is a "sin."
Probably because this scripture is just plain wrong.
But the idea that you'd continue to support the idea that there is anything wrong with interfaith marriage in general is quite telling of just how far you'll go support your idea of innerancy.
There's a word to describe that type of position against interfaith marriage.
So the scripture says "sin" but you somehow contend that it is not a sin?
Are you denying the truth of this scripture?
And yes, I caught the context to mean interfaith marriage. I even said so in my post . . .
But even if you do not think this scripture means "sin" even though it says "sin," you would say that interfaith marriage is a "warning that there will be trouble?"
I could see why maybe you'd try to distance yourself from the idea that interfaith marriage is a "sin."
Probably because this scripture is just plain wrong.
But the idea that you'd continue to support the idea that there is anything wrong with interfaith marriage in general is quite telling of just how far you'll go support your idea of innerancy.
There's a word to describe that type of position against interfaith marriage.
In fact there are several words.
See if you can guess them.
The scripture doesn't say interfaith marriage is a sin. It says "because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned" that doesn't mean the marriages are in and of themselves a sin, but that because they married an unbeliever they were led into sin.
The Bible is inerrant. That's not a concept, it's a fact. I don't expect non-Christians to believe it, but it is.
I have nothing against interfaith marriage other than the fact that when it comes to Christianity our God tells us through His word not to be yoked with unbelievers. It's a warning because He knows the trouble that can come of it. It has nothing to do with if they are nice people or not, but the fact that they can lead a believer into ruin.
So, the "terrible wickedness" of marrying foreign women isn't a sin?
It's just terrible wickedness?
Or, perhaps the scripture was wrong.
Nice try Dean, but no the scripture is never wrong. Period. If something appears wrong in it or with it then it is the interpretation that needs to be revisited not the authority of the scriptures.
Malachi 2:11 clears it up even more.
Judah has broken faith. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the LORD loves, by marrying the daughter of a foreign god.
"Detestable" does not have anything to do with sin. In other versions it is translated as abomination, again nothing to do with sin. It's from the word "toebah" in the Hebrew. Gross, disgusting, vile, morally repugnant to the Lord, but not a sin.
In Nehemiah 13:27, which you mentioned before it says "great wickedness" and that is translated from the word "maal" and it means to act treacherously, or unfaithfully. Once again it is not the same as sin.
Now if it was meant to be conveyed as sin to people don't you think that the scribes who first wrote the text down would have used the word (chata) that is translated as "sin" everywhere else it is used?
Nice try Dean, but no the scripture is never wrong. Period.
Fair enough.
Note to self: Terrible wickedness is not a sin.
I'm glad to know that scriptures support me in my terrible wickedness without me being guilty of commiting any sin.
So I might as well just act on every whim to be terribly wicked because I could not be sinning while I do so.
I might be a candidate to cast the first stone at the adulterers who deserve to die (Leviticus) because I'm sin free.
Thanks for clearing that all up for me!
Oh, and one other thing. If your assertion that all scripture is God breathed and innerant boils down to such a frail premise that terrible wickedness isn't a sin, you should really take a step back and re-examine your position.
Cuz from where I'm standing, that logic is pretty much useless.
Which leaves you in the position of agreeing, at the very least, that interfaith marriage is terribly wicked.
Do you agree to that? It's scriptural, ya know.
Last edited by DeanM; 9th September 2009 at 11:41 PM.
I'm glad to know that scriptures support me in my terrible wickedness without me being guilty of commiting any sin.
So I might as well just act on every whim to be terribly wicked because I could not be sinning while I do so.
I might be a candidate to cast the first stone at the adulterers who deserve to die (Leviticus) because I'm sin free.
Thanks for clearing that all up for me!
Oh, and one other thing. If your assertion that all scripture is God breathed and innerant boils down to such a frail premise that terrible wickedness isn't a sin, you should really take a step back and re-examine your position.
Cuz from where I'm standing, that logic is pretty much useless.
Which leaves you in the position of agreeing, at the very least, that interfaith marriage is terribly wicked.
Do you agree to that? It's scriptural, ya know.
Dean, Dean, Dean -
Why is it that you completely avoid the issue at hand. The word translated to mean wickedness and the word translated to mean sin from the original Hebrew have entirely different meanings. They don't mean the same thing.
I realize in our modern society "wickedness" and "sin" are pretty much the same idea, but that wasn't the original intent of the authors of the Bible. If it had been don't you think they would have used the same word in both cases and not two entirely different words? To try and drive the point home, while our modern usage of words equates "sin" and "wickedness" together they are not the same.
As far as my opinion on interfaith marriage, what does that matter? If I tell you I support them you'll say I'm a hypocrite and if I say I don't you'll tell me I'm intolerant or some other nonsense. The Bible says not to be yolked to unbelievers. It doesn't say it is a sin, but it gives that warning for a reason.
A home that has a believer and a non-believer in it are rarely good places for Christian growth. There's compromise and when a Christian starts to compromise the principles of Christianity, the deity and total supremacy of Christ for example, there are problems. For instance as a Christian I would expect my child to learn the Bible as part of their schooling, a non-Christian would probably have an issue with that.
Just so I follow your logic, "Murder" and "Sin" are two different words with two different meanings, so therefore murder is not a sin.
You're just substituting "Terrible Wickedness."
It's a real stretch in logic, but I suppose that's what it takes to keep scripture innerrant.
No you are not following my logic. You're not even close.
I've never said, or indicated as far as I know, that "wickedness" is somehow ok. Have I?
I don't need to keep scripture inerrant, it simply is. Doesn't need my help. If scripture isn't inerrant than the gospel of Jesus Christ is no more powerful than the Qu'ran, or Buddhism, or any other religion that can be shaped to the will of man. If it's not inerrant you can make Jesus Christ seem like anything you want Him to be. You can make Him into any kind of God you want. But if it is inerrant, if it truly is 100% accurate in describing the tiny bit of His character we are exposed to then He much more complex than simply throwing lighting bolts at the slightest offense, or loving on everyone no matter what.
Linear Mode
