privy member cut off!!

[Anonymous Inquisitor]

“He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:1).

How should we intepret this, i can not understand!!

 

[daveleau]

Any man that is emasculated, he is cut off from the Lord. This is an Old Testament Law that no longer applies to us. Circumcision was a sign of being a Jew. That is why it was important then. It no longer applies now, especially after seeing the eunuch saved in Acts 8:26-39.

 

[Ave Maria]

Errr, thank God they don't do that anymore!

 

[Ave Maria]

Here is a much easier to understand translation (paraphrase actually). It's the New Living Translation:

Deuteronomy 23:1 "If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be included in the assembly of the LORD.

 

[mark53]

Ouch!

 

[mark53]

Why do some Christians still use the KJV instead of translations written for people in the last century.

There are so many words in KJV that are no longer in use, or were never in use in the furst place! They were "invented" for the original KJV (Read histories of the English language)

Back to the passage.

Why these people could not be a part of the assembly of the Lord was that they were of no use to the building up of the Jewish people. They could not have children. Israel was a very small country in population compared to those around and they could not afford to have men unable to have children.
Hence other sexual issues come to light, e.g homosexuality, and as some say, the railway station principle, always pulling out in time! (Sorry about the bad joke - I am well, or badly know, as telling bad jokes)

 

[constance]

There are early Church decrees that state that if a man emasculates himself that he cannot become a priest (Origen, for example), but if he is made a eunuch, or if he loses "it" through some accident, then it is OK.

Constance

 

[spinningtutu]

Glad to know we contextualise the Old Testament Law when it comes to things like this and wearing clothing made of more than one material and other laws that are obviously out-dated but that we don't contextualise the OT Law when it comes to prohibition regarding homosexuality. There's nothing like consistency.

*note the sarcasm*

 

[hindsey]

Why do some Christians still use the KJV instead of translations written for people in the last century.

There are so many words in KJV that are no longer in use, or were never in use in the furst place! They were "invented" for the original KJV (Read histories of the English language)

Back to the passage.

Why these people could not be a part of the assembly of the Lord was that they were of no use to the building up of the Jewish people. They could not have children. Israel was a very small country in population compared to those around and they could not afford to have men unable to have children.
Hence other sexual issues come to light, e.g homosexuality, and as some say, the railway station principle, always pulling out in time! (Sorry about the bad joke - I am well, or badly know, as telling bad jokes)

privy = private
private members = private parts. It hasn't changed all that much

 

[JohnJones]

"Why do some Christians still use the KJV...There are so many words in KJV that are no longer in use"

"Privy member" is still used in modern English. Its not archaic, it's BRITISH! In America we would say "private part." Do you see the resemblance? Privy=private. Member=part. Got it?