Some of us seem to be overlooking a very important fact

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Would you like to say a little more than "context"?

It is, indeed, my contention that such laws were totally built on context... and since OUR context is DIFFERENT to the context of the ancient Israelites, all such laws deserve re-examination.

Do you really want me to find the specific verses, or are you just being obtuse? I mean, I'll do it if you want, but I'm sure you already know te specific verses to which I refer.Again, I have a simple question to bypass all the minutiae and semantics... If you get bitten by a deadly snake, would you go for the bronze serpent, or for modern anti-venom?[/SIZE]

I didn't "say Context," each mention had a "[SIZE=+2]?[/SIZE]". You do know what ? means don't you?

How about murder, rape, theft, adultery, incest, etc. etc. etc.? Is there a different context then and now?

Yes, find the specific verses, read and understand the context. If you make an assertion back it up. See e.g. your phony assertions about 4 legged birds, satyrs, unicorns, and PI=3.

God did NOT command me to go to a bronze serpent! But were you to actually read the Bible, with the intent of understanding it, you might learn that was a shadow of a future event, as were many events in the O.T. e.g. slaying of the passover lamb, sacrifice of Isaac, etc.

I'll help you out, I don't see any stoning of a rape victim in this passage.

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

deleted

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'll help you out, I don't see any stoning of a rape victim in this passage.

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:​

So check this out then?

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deut 22:24 seems pretty clear about stoning rape victims to death.

How about murder, rape, theft, adultery, incest, etc. etc. etc.? Is there a different context then and now?

What about them? There are still more reasons to consider murder a negative than a positive, so law regarding that holds. You can't murder someone and follow Jesus greatest commandment. You can, however, be in a homosexual relationship and be in full compliance with the greatest commandment.

See e.g. your phony assertions about 4 legged birds,

Nothing phony about it. I can show you direct Bible quotes that say foul with 4 legs are abomination... now you can do your semantic backflips all you want, but the fact of the matter is that talking about 4 legged fowl, no matter the rationale, is not LITERALLY correct, is it?

God did NOT command me to go to a bronze serpent! But were you to actually read the Bible, with the intent of understanding it, you might learn that was a shadow of a future event, as were many events in the O.T. e.g. slaying of the passover lamb, sacrifice of Isaac, etc.

Could you explain this please?

Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

I mean, the literally correct interpretation would seem to suggest that we are uspposed to use a bronze snake as a snake bite cure... So if I'm reading this wrong, please explain?
​

 

[Der Alte]

[size=-1]So check this out then?

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deut 22:24 seems pretty clear about stoning rape victims to death. What about them?[/size]

Even as you quoted the verse it does not say she was stoned because she was a rape victim but because she had sex, in the city, and “she cried not.”

But this is another example of your deliberate deception. Say anything to push your agenda. A deliberate out-of-context selective quote desperately trying to make it appear you were right. Here is the vs. you quoted in context. What is the difference between vs. 24, which you quoted, and vs. 26? The woman in vs. 24 was in he city, was NOT forced, and did not yell! That is why I asked you to check the context. The woman in vs. 26 was out in the field and no one could hear her if she yelled.

Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:​

[size=-1]There are still more reasons to consider murder a negative than a positive, so law regarding that holds. You can't murder someone and follow Jesus greatest commandment. You can, however, be in a homosexual relationship and be in full compliance with the greatest commandment.Nothing phony about it. I can show you direct Bible quotes that say foul with 4 legs are abomination... now you can do your semantic backflips all you want, but the fact of the matter is that talking about 4 legged fowl, no matter the rationale, is not LITERALLY correct, is it?Could you explain this please? [/size]

It is not a matter of semantics, it concerns the actual Hebrew words used in the original manuscripts. And the word for “fowl” or “bird” NEVER appears in this passage. AFIK the word “fowl” only occurs in the KJV. And FYI the KJV has over 800 words that have changed in meaning or have dropped out of usage altogether.

More dishonesty and deception, here you are arguing it means fowl, and elsewhere you were arguing it meant insect. Pretty incompetent “intelligence” spec., that can’t even keep their false accusation straight.

[size=-1]Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
I mean, the literally correct interpretation would seem to suggest that we are uspposed to use a bronze snake as a snake bite cure... So if I'm reading this wrong, please explain?[/size]

Where do you get the “we” Kemo sabay? More dishonesty and deception, trying to eat your cake and have it too. You have claimed repeatedly that Leviticus does not apply to you today but here you are trying to make one (1) only historical event apply to you with no regard for its historical context.

Do about three right face movements and tell me if you see Moses, or a bunch of poisonous snakes, in the area. Context? The Israelites had just apostasized with a graven image, God sent poisonous snakes to chastise them, and he used another graven image, as a point of focus to heal them.

Now had you actually read your Bible instead of copy/pasting out-of-context arguments from your pet homosexuals-Я-us.com® website you would know that particular serpent was later destroyed because the Israelites apostasized again and began to worship it. And that was the only incident in the O.T. involving a bronze serpent.

And if you had really read your Bible you would know this incident was a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Jesus. So even if the serpent had some purpose beyond the immediate apostasy of the Israelites, which is not supported in scripture, then Christ replaced it and that was about 2007 years ago.

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.​

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Even as you quoted the verse it does not say she was stoned because she was a rape victim but because she had sex, in the city, and “she cried not.”


But this is another example of your deliberate deception. Say anything to push your agenda. A deliberate out-of-context selective quote desperately trying to make it appear you were right. Here is the vs. you quoted in context. What is the difference between vs. 24, which you quoted, and vs. 26? The woman in vs. 24 was in he city, was NOT forced, and did not yell! That is why I asked you to check the context. The woman in vs. 26 was out in the field and no one could hear her if she yelled.

Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;​

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.​

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:​

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:​

Is it your contention, Der Alter, that any woman who doesn't call out during a sexual assault, gives her implicit consent?

Now had you actually read your Bible instead of copy/pasting out-of-context arguments from your pet homosexuals-Я-us.com® website you would know that particular serpent was later destroyed because the Israelites apostasized again and began to worship it. And that was the only incident in the O.T. involving a bronze serpent.

What is this bizare homosexuals r us website you keep rabiting on about?

But anyway... if you are saying that the bronze snake deal was only relevant at that time and place, can you explain to me why the Laws in Leviticus aren't only relevant at that time and place?
​

 

[kulenok]

amen

 

[CShephard53]

OT bits I don't think apply in modern society?

stoning rape victims
forcing rape victims to marry their attackers
proscribing homosexuality
executing disobedient children
showing mouldy curtains to priests
using bronze snakes as a cure for snakebite

shall i continue?

Yes, you have yet to give me an example from the NT (save for homosexuality, which is in the NT, but you and others have chosen to ignore it). Yes, continue. Address the long post on page one. This is I think the second time I've asked.

 

[CShephard53]

BTW, those still apply- they set a standard. God hates it when you don't do it. They (every single example you picked) show that God hates sin.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Is it your contention, Der Alter, that any woman who doesn't call out during a sexual assault, gives her implicit consent?What is this bizare homosexuals r us website you keep rabiting on about?[/SIZE]

No because the passage you keep deliberately misrepresenting, Deut 22:23, says absolutely nothing about rape, and you know this, I have irrefutably proven it from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Which you continue to ignore. Also see ISBE, below.

We don't have to go to a God hating, Jesus hating, Bible hating, atheist website to find vicious attacks on the Bible, we can get it all right here. Opposing the word of God moving heaven and hell trying frantically to find errors in scriptrure and ignoring ALL evidence which proves them wrong.

homosexuals-Я-us.com® website is a generic term for any pro/homosexual website. Any resemblance between this and any actual website, existing or defunct, is purely intentional.

[SIZE=-1]But anyway... if you are saying that the bronze snake deal was only relevant at that time and place, can you explain to me why the Laws in Leviticus aren't only relevant at that time and place??[/SIZE]

I have found it is helpful to actually read posts when trying to reply. If God sends serpents to chastise you, because you have delibertely disobeyed him and worshipped an idol, and he commands Moses to construct a bronze snake, and then God commands you to look upon the snake for healing, if you meet all the conditions then it may apply to you. Do you?

Since you are concocting all this absurd stuff, have you started building an ark to the dimensions in the O.T. yet, or was that commandment specifically for one person, at one point in time?

As for the other laws in Leviticus, many laws apply only to the priests, many apply only to the temple, and many laws were abrogated by God and Jesus in the N.T. However, the injunction against ALL homosexual activity, by all persons, under all circumstance, in all situations is reiterated in the N.T.. This was clearly understood by the early church.

Recent post citing evidence from early church fathers Link

A listing of all offenses, in the O.T., for which God commanded the death penalty. Note, "Rape victim" is NOT listed. For 3200 years +/- Hebrew speaking Jews have NEVER read this verse, Deut 22:23, to imply stoning a rape victim.

You keep posting that rape victim rubbish and I will keep posting the truth.

Jewish Encyclopedia - Capital Punishment.

According to these conclusions, [Exegesis of scripture in the preceding section] rabbinic law based on Pentateuchal authority, expressed or inferred, affixes death by stoning to each of the following eighteen [18] crimes:

1. Bestiality committed by man
---(Lev. xx. 15; Sanh. vii. 4, 54b; Sifra, kedoshim, x. 1; Mek., Mishpa’im, 17).
2. Bestiality committed by woman
--- (Lev. xx. 16: Sanh. vii. 4, 54b; Sifra, khedoshim, x. 3; Mek., Mishpatim, 17).
3. Blasphemy
--- (Lev. xxiv. 16; Sanh. vii. 4, 43a; Sifra, Emor, xix.).
4. Criminal conversation with a betrothed virgin
(Deut. xxii. 23, 24; Sanh. vii. 4, 66b; Sifre, Deut. 242).
5. Criminal conversation with one's own daughter-in-law
--- (Lev. xx. 12; Sanh. vii. 4, 53a; Sifra, khedoshim, ix. 13).
6. Criminal conversation with one's own mother
--- (Lev. xviii. 7, xx. 11; Sanh. vii. 4, 53a; Sifra, khedoshim, ix. 12).
7. Criminal conversation with one's own stepmother
--- (Lev. xviii. 8, xx. 11; Sanh. vii. 4, 53a; Sifra, khedoshim, ix. 12).
8. Cursing a parent
--- (Lev. xx. 9; Sanh. vii. 4, 66a; Mek., Mishpatim, 17; Sifra, khedoshim, ix. 7).
9. Enticing individuals to idolatry: "Mesit"
--- (Deut. xiii. 7-12 [A. V. 6-11]; Sanh. vii. 4, 67a; Sifre, Deut. 90).
10. Idolatry
--- (Deut. xvii. 2-7; Sanh. vii. 4, 60b; Sifre, Deut. 149).
11. Instigating communities to idolatry: "Maddiakh"
--- (Deut. xiii. 2-6 [A. V. 1-5]; Sanh. vii. 4, 67a; Sifre, Deut. 86).
12. Necromancy
--- (Lev. xx. 27; Sanh. vii. 4, 65a; Sifra,khedoshim, xi., end).
13. Offering one's own children to Molech
--- (Lev. xx. 2; Sanh. vii. 4, 64a; Sifra, khedoshim, viii., parashah 10, beginning).
14. Pederasty
--- (Lev. xx. 13; Sanh. vii. 4, 54a; Sifra, khedoshim, ix. 14).
15. Pythonism
--- (Lev. xx. 27; Sanh. vii. 4, 65a; Sifra, khedoshim, xi., end).
16. Rebelling against parents
--- (Deut. xxi. 18-21; Sanh. vii. 4, 68b; Sifre, Deut. 220).
17. Sabbath-breaking
--- (Num. xv. 32-36; Sanh. vii. 4; Sifre, Num. 114).
18. Witchcraft
--- (Ex. xxii. 17 [A. V. 18]; Sanh. vii. 4, 67a; Mek., Mishpatim, 17).

Mode of Judgment.

[1] Capital punishment in rabbinic law, or indeed any other punishment, must not be inflicted, except by the verdict of a regularly constituted court (Lesser Sanh.) of three-and-twenty qualified members (Sanh. i. 1; Sifre, Num. 160), and except on the most [2] trustworthy and convincing testimony of at least two qualified eye-witnesses to the crime (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15; Sotah vi. 3; Sifre, Num. 161; ib. Deut. 150, 188; Sanh. 30a) who [3] must also depose that the culprit had been forewarned as to the criminality and the consequences of his project (Sanh. v. 1, 40b et seq.; see Hatraah). The culprit must be a person of legal age and of sound mind, and the crime [4] must be proved to have been committed of the culprit's free will and without the aid of others (see Abetment); and [5] if any one wilfully kills him before conviction, a charge of murder will lie against such perpetrator (Tosef., B. . ix. 15; Sifre, Num. 161; compare 'Ar. i. 3, 6b). Nor may an execution be deferred, except in the case of the “Zakhen mamre” (Sanh. xi. 4), or of a woman about to be delivered of a child ('Ar. i. 4), nor may it be carried out on a day sacred to religion (Mek., Mishpatim, 4; ib. Wayyakhhel; Yeb. 6b; Sanh. 35b). [6] On the day that the verdict is pronounced, the convict is led forth to execution (Sanh. 34a). Looking upon the sinner as upon the victim of folly (Sotah 3a), and considering death an expiation for misdeeds (Ber. 60a; Sanh. vi. 2; see Atonement), the Rabbis would not permit the protraction of the interval between sentence and execution, which they considered as the most terrible period in the convict's existence. These considerations prompted them to afford the convict every possible alleviation of the pains and sufferings concomitant with the execution, and to direct the execution itself so as to prevent the mutilation of the body, or to reduce such mutilation, where it is unavoidable—as in stoning or slaying—to a minimum. The Pentateuchal law (Lev. xix. 18) prescribes, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy-self”; and the Rabbis maintain that this love must be extended beyond the limits of social intercourse in life, and applied even to the convicted criminal who, “though a sinner, is still thy brother” (Mak. iii. 15; Sanh. 44a): “The spirit of love must be manifested by according him a decent death” (Sanh. 45a, 52a).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=128&letter=C

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) - 2. The Mosaic Law concerning Punishment:

Under the Mosaic Law, the offenses that made one liable to the punishment of death were: (1) striking or reviling a parent (Ex 21:15,17); (2) blasphemy (Lev 24:14,16,23; 1 Ki 21:10; Mt 26:65,66); (3) Sabbath-breaking (Ex 31:14; 35:2; Nu 15:32-36); (4) witchcraft and false pretension to prophecy (Ex 22:18; Lev 20:27; Dt 13:5; 18:20; 1 Sam 28:9); (5) adultery (Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22); (6) unchastity: (a) before marriage, but detected afterward (Dt 22:21), (b) in case of a woman with someone other than her betrothed (Dt 22:23), (c) in a priest's daughter (Lev 21:9); (7) rape (Dt 22:25); (8) incestuous and unnatural connections (Ex 22:19; Lev 20:11,14,16); (9) man-stealing (Ex 21:16); (10) idolatry, actual or virtual, in any form (Lev 20:2; Dt 13:6; 17:2-7); (11) false witness in capital cases (Dt 19:16,19).
* * *
(1) Stoning

Stoning, which was the ordinary mode of execution (Ex 19:13; Lev 20:27; Josh 7:25; Lk 20:6; Acts 7:58; 14:5). The witnesses, of whom there were at least two, were required to cast the first stone (Dt 13:9 f; Jn 8:7). If these failed to cause death, the bystanders proceeded to complete the sentence, whereupon the body was to be suspended until sunset (Dt 21:23).

ISBE – Seduction

Three cases are to be distinguished: (a) The seduction of an unbetrothed virgin: In this case the seducer according to J-E (Ex 22:16 f) is to be compelled to take the virgin as his wife, if the father consents, and to pay the latter the usual purchase price, the amount of which is not defined. In the Deuteronomic Code (Dt 22:28) the amount is fixed at 50 shekels, and the seducer forfeits the right of divorce. (b) The seduction of a betrothed virgin: This case (Dt 22:23-27; not referred to in the other codes) is treated as virtually one of adultery, the virgin being regarded as pledged to her future husband as fully as if she were formally married to him; the penalty therefore is the same as for adultery, namely, death for both parties (except in the case where the girl can reasonably be acquitted of blame, in which case the man only is put to death).​

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Like I said Der Alter, my sources are just as capable as yours. You can give me the homosexuals-r-us.com "rubbish" all you want. It doesn't make the evidence you say is from there any less reliable. If anything it's a sign of ignorance.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Like I said Der Alter, my sources are just as capable as yours. You can give me the homosexuals-r-us.com "rubbish" all you want. It doesn't make the evidence you say is from there any less reliable. If anything it's a sign of ignorance.[/SIZE]

A sign of ignorance, indeed. When someone who has posted NO, NONE, ZERO evidence of any kind whatsoever claims their vague, nonexistent "evidence" is superior to the actual writings of the Jewish scholars for 3200 years +/- .

If you can do so, find me some evidence by any ancient Jewish scholar which states or implies that Deut 22:23 commands stoning for a rape victim? There is NO such evidence, it does not exist. The only thing you might be able to post would be some guesses, suppositions, assumptions by homosexuals, with no education in Hebrew, making empty claims that the verse refers to a rape victim.

If you, or anyone else, had such evidence starving pit bulls could not prevent you from posting it here.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A sign of ignorance, indeed. When someone who has posted NO, NONE, ZERO evidence of any kind whatsoever claims their vague, nonexistent "evidence" is superior to the actual writings of the Jewish scholars for 3200 years +/- .

If you can do so, find me some evidence by any ancient Jewish scholar which states or implies that Deut 22:23 commands stoning for a rape victim? There is NO such evidence, it does not exist. The only thing you might be able to post would be some guesses, suppositions, assumptions by homosexuals, with no education in Hebrew, making empty claims that the verse refers to a rape victim.

If you, or anyone else, had such evidence starving pit bulls could not prevent you from posting it here.

It says that anyone woman who doesn't cry out consents, right?

I contend that it is possible to be a rape victim without crying out. Do you agree or disagree that this is possible?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]It says that anyone woman who doesn't cry out consents, right?

I contend that it is possible to be a rape victim without crying out. Do you agree or disagree that this is possible?[/SIZE]

No it does NOT say "that anyone [sic] woman who doesn't cry out consents" You keep gnawing on this one point over and over again. I am not interested in your deliberate perversion of the text to further your own agenda! Deut. 22:23 was written in Hebrew, and the ancient Jews NEVER interpreted this vs. to refer to rape. As I have proved from the Jewish Encyclopedia, citing scripture and the rulings by Jewish scholars in the Talmud.

"Rape victim" is NOT one of the 18 offenses for which the death penalty was decreed!

As I said we don't have to go to a God hating, Jesus hating, Bible hating atheist website to find vicious attacks against the word of God. We get it right here. Ignore all the evidence and keep slinging the mud, or worse.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No it does NOT say "that anyone [sic] woman who doesn't cry out consents" You keep gnawing on this one point over and over again. I am not interested in your deliberate perversion of the text to further your own agenda! Deut. 22:23 was written in Hebrew, and the ancient Jews NEVER interpreted this vs. to refer to rape. As I have proved from the Jewish Encyclopedia, citing scripture and the rulings by Jewish scholars in the Talmud.

"Rape victim" is NOT one of the 18 offenses for which the death penalty was decreed!

As I said we don't have to go to a God hating, Jesus hating, Bible hating atheist website to find vicious attacks against the word of God. We get it right here. Ignore all the evidence and keep slinging the mud, or worse.

No... but its who QUALIFIES as a rape victim that I have a problem with...

Can a woman be raped without crying out?

Does the Bible recognise this?

Straightforward answers please?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]No... but its who QUALIFIES as a rape victim that I have a problem with...

Can a woman be raped without crying out?

Does the Bible recognise this?

Straightforward answers please?[/SIZE]

If "who QUALIFIES as a rape victim" is a major concern of yours, you could do as I have done, link to the Jewish Encyclopedia and do a word search. There is a search box at the top of the home page.

Then you could google on "Talmud," there are two sites I know of which have the Soncino Talmud. I think only one of them is searchable. You can also download them to a CD or your PC.

Whether a woman can be raped without crying out, AFAIC is irrelevant to this topic. I believe there is a specific forum where you may discuss your views on sexual assault.

"Does the Bible recognize this?" I don't know and it is irrelevant to this topic. If this concerns you take it to the appropriate forum.

What I do know only one person has posted any credible, verifiable historical evidence on this point, and it has been ignored.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Whether a woman can be raped without crying out, AFAIC is irrelevant to this topic. I believe there is a specific forum where you may discuss your views on sexual assault.

"Does the Bible recognize this?" I don't know and it is irrelevant to this topic. If this concerns you take it to the appropriate forum.

What I do know only one person has posted any credible, verifiable historical evidence on this point, and it has been ignored.

Of course, any matter that doesn't reinforce your own beliefs is off topic. How could I forget.

 

[CShephard53]

Enemy Party II and Brieuse, please address this post.