wow, can you really be this bad at understanding simple concepts? Just because I used to like Fred Flintstone doesn't mean that I still do, that is the point. Oh well....it doesn't really matter anyway if you listen to what is being said or not, some people are just like that.
It was sarcastic humor. Hehe. I couldn't help it. Just trying to keep the conversation light. Sarchasm is difficult for some people to read in a text.
Yes, it helps for me not to get razzled and flabby and blabby because of taking things the wrong way. This is how I once lost my so-called "faith" > I took Christianity to mean criticizing everyone who I thought was wrong . . . but not being at least as careful to make sure people were wise to how >I< myself could be wrong and misleading.
Awesome post! This is one of my personal favorites that I have failed to follow many times.
I agree. And ones can read this and try to protect and defend God, by saying it doesn't mean what it says. This is not having faith, or losing faith.
I agree. And ones can read this and try to protect and defend God, by saying it doesn't mean what it says. This is not having faith, or losing faith.
It can be like how ones in the same family with a predator can be in denial about the person being a horrible person.
Either I accept that this scripture says what it means or I don't; and God said it or it is not God's word. If it is God's word, then yes He has a good intention, somehow, for how this directive is meant to work. Ones can lose faith when they read something and right away think up all the bad things it could mean.
But even while Satan was in Heaven itself, he found problems with Heaven. He was the problem! lolololol
But God is able to create, even from the worst of things, such as how He has used the crucifixion of Jesus for the good of us. So, I am sure, that "if" He gave that order for a rapist, He knows the good which can come of it. It is a command intended for how it can be done right.
If the guy does not learn to love her dearly, he is not obeying the order. And if once he is married, he rapes someone else, that's adultery . . . death penalty for him; so it can mean she can't be stuck with a guy who doesn't change. There is another order, if I remember right, to stone a guy who doesn't straighten out. So, this command it is meant with hope for a wrong person to repent, and for there to be forgiveness. Jesus on the cross shows God has hope for any evil person to change for the better. This is included in the meaning.
But if people have never even started in "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6) and how love "hopes all things" (in 1 Corinthians 13:7), they can have anti-love interpretations of the Bible, then lose their "faith" when they can't "protect" or "defend" God against how ones make themselves dictators of what God has to mean by something. Ones have not done well, making themselves God's dictators! God is better and smarter
Huh? We took it straight back to the translation of the original text, iow's modern translations aren't important, knowing what the original word means is. And no, like I already said, we don't need to know ancient greek, hebrew and aramaic, cause that is what the Lexicon does, it translates for us...as someone who supposedly is basing your bias on the Bible and not man's traditions, I find it hard to believe that you don't know what a Lexicon is or how to use it, cause it is one absolutely vital tool for knowing the intent of scripture. But wait a moment....this whole discussion began when I said that some lose faith because their faith is based on man's traditions not on scripture and you want to argue about that, only to show time and time again that I am right on the matter.
I once had a land line phone, do you want to claim I have one now as well? Cause that would be the equivalent of this stupid argument, which is easy to settle, just ask me what my favorite translation is rather than take a very old statement that was provided before many of the new translations even existed.
Actually, though I wouldn't expect some here to believe or understand this, God was the woman's rights activist of the day....iow's He cared very deeply about women and protecting them and giving them more power than they had been given by the world. It's easy to see when we study the Bible for what it says not for what we want it to say.
In my case, Nihil, I have "lost" belief when I got into intellectual analyzing, instead of personal trusting of God. But most of all, in my case, has been how I have needed to get a clue how to love. My character has been my real problem. And the Bible has helped me a lot, to find out how Jesus wants us to love any and all people, and how to relate.
I think I am familiar with what people are painting. And one thing I think of is how we the body of Jesus are His Bride church. We certainly are less than He is! And it is for our own good, how we stay "under"
And the guys could be getting the sun stroke out in the field.
In my case, Nihil, I have "lost" belief when I got into intellectual analyzing, instead of personal trusting of God. But most of all, in my case, has been how I have needed to get a clue how to love. My character has been my real problem. And the Bible has helped me a lot, to find out how Jesus wants us to love any and all people, and how to relate.
I think I am familiar with what people are painting. And one thing I think of is how we the body of Jesus are His Bride church. We certainly are less than He is! And it is for our own good, how we stay "under"
So, do we mean, then, that women are less than men and so they need to stay low? No. I see how women were very highly appreciated by men, in the early scripture. Abigail helped to rescue David from making a very big mistake, and so he married her. But then he betrayed her by going with Bathsheba . . . leaving such a real woman. Who was inferior, there?
But, too, the men could be the ones who could get killed and cut in pieces in battle. So, I'm curious why ones are saying the women were getting the worst deal
So . . . may be the Bible is a "design play" to bring out each person's character and motives > Hebrews 4:11-13.
There are plenty of times when the Bible has caught me with my pants down, and I might want to just reject the Bible. Or, I can trust God to do with me what He pleases, according to how He understands His word. And what I gain is how He has me find out how to love, in His correction, not only according to my standards.
well, the Lexicon goes into all of that, but in addition, my husband (no not me but we talk a lot) has studied both ancient biblical hebrew and greek...so do you want to try again? In addition, none of the possibles listed in the Lexicon gives rape as a possible.
your question was "loaded" in that you want to try to use man's interpretation, that is man's tradition over scripture interpretation when my whole point is that we need to do away with man's traditions in exchange for biblical translation....but you know that by now, your just trying to be difficult, presumably because you have been shown wrong time and again
really? so consensual sex is not forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist....wow, I'm glad you are not trying the case of the person close to me that was recently raped. As I pointed out, according to rules of comprehension, the text you are referring to suggests the case you are referring to is consensual sex, not rape. The problem is that you are so determined to follow man's traditions on the matter that you refuse the Biblical standpoint which is one reason so many fall away.
see above...you just repeating your assumptions doesn't show any reason for the interpretation I point out through context and translation....iow's your just making my point more obvious.
I will say it now and later and every day in between....now, at the same time, I will tell you that man's interpretation or traditions of what the bible says is not fair to woman, in fact, I don't know a time in history that man's traditional understanding of scripture has ever been "fair" to woman...scripture on the other hand, has always been "fair" and "liberating" to woman...but then again, that is the point, isn't it? !
that is why context is vital to our understanding...duh...your objections here are so lame that I really am not going to go round and round tonight since I do have a headache already and your circular reasoning attempt to justify your claims will only make my headache worse.
yep....but we are not questioning if rape is talked about in the Bible, now are we? No, we are talking about what the passage in question tells us about rape and it is in context pretty clear as I pointed out to you but you refuse to address those points.
how so? Seriously, I even pointed out to you that in some of the context, it was clearly talking about rape, yet here you try to assassinate my character by claiming or attempting to claim that I never said such.
which is why context is important and necessary to our understanding, a context that you refuse to address.
What are you talking about? I have repeatedly told you from the get go that translations were man made and thus the traditions of man that we should dismiss in exchange for study of the word, only to have you come here and try to slander my character even further with this accusation....seriously, if you want to try to get under my skin and start a flaming war, at least do so with something I didn't repeatedly say and clarify so that your posts at least look they are are trying to be honest.
