Why You Can't Live by the Bible

[naervod]

This is a fun thing I got my friend showed me that I thought I'd share with y'all at CFC. Enjoy:

Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm pretty sure she's a virgin).

3. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

4. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. Should I smite them?

5. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

6. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

[Shadylookin]

This is a fun thing I got my friend showed me that I thought I'd share with y'all at CFC. Enjoy:

Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm pretty sure she's a virgin).

3. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

4. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. Should I smite them?

5. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

6. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

this is ungodly old. The only difference between this one is to president bush instead of that one woman that used to have a radio show(forgot the name)

 

[Immortal]

Yeah, its an old Dr.Laura related email.

 

[naervod]

OK, nevermind then...

 

[Perfection]

Don't be ashamed, it's still good!

 

[El Duderino]

To tell you the truth, I had never seen that before, and it was extremely entertaining!

 

[Lonkut]

Yeah for me too. Interesting stuff by the way.

 

[stratego]

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Your friend is wrong. The Bible never said you can't own Canadians

5. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

That only applies to Muslims (and Jews). Being a Muslim is a
-Your Pal
George W. Bush.

 

[King PJ]

Sigh.... Another Bush bashing thread. I thought troll threads weren't allowed?

 

[andvruss]

Ah yes, another taking the Bible out of conext and too literally thread...

 

[Fifty]

Ah yes, another taking the Bible out of conext and too literally thread...

More like another "pretend like America is a theocracy and bash Bush" thread.


Both varieties are boring.

 

[Uiler]

Ah yes, another taking the Bible out of conext and too literally thread...

One of the central beliefs of fundamentalist Christians e.g. Bush is the notion of biblical inerrancy and the literal truth of the Bible. How often have we seen the Bible cited as reason enough to abhor homosexuality? However, if one is going to believe in biblical inerrancy you have to take the bad (the patently ridiculous stuff) with the good (whatever matches what you believe) otherwise it is hypocrisy.

The whole idea of this joke is to make fun of people who believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

Sadly though I can actually refute the argument that Christians have to follow these rules laid down in the Old Testament. Read Paul's letters. They asked if they needed to follow the Jewish law and he replied no. If my memory serves me correctly, Gentiles need only follow the 10 Commandments, the teachings of Jesus Christ and not to drink the blood of animals. Jewish Christians (such as Paul himself) however have to follow traditional Jewish law. The point being that Jewish law as laid down in the Old Testament i.e. the laws of Moses only applies to Jews. As Jews failed in the Covenant they made with God and became corrupt a new convenant was signed with Christians who are saved by their belief in Jesus. (Incidentally a similar theme exists in the Koran. That the Jews failed in their covenant with God. Jesus, the Messiah (yes he is called that in the Koran - the original meaning of Messiah is different from the popular meaning today), was a prophet sent down by God, with Mary having a virgin birth (as told to her by the angel Gabriel). Jesus then gathered the disciples and spread the Gospel. Jesus was then crucified and resurrected. However many of his later followers have corrupted his teachings and called him the son of God when it was obvious that God having any children was ridiculous. I'm guessing Muhammad didn't like this notion because the pagan Arabs often called angels the daughters of God as well. But I'm getting off topic here...Anyway, the Jews and Christians having failed, a new covenent - the *final* covenant was signed with Muslims, as stated through the prophet Muhammad)

On the other hand, the fact that Christians do not have to follow the Laws of Moses (as Paul claims) means that fundamentalist Christians shouldn't really be allowed to cite the Laws (such as those against homosexuality) in modern life as well. So - hah! Unless they can find something in the New Testament against homosexuality, that is...I don't really remember anything though...

EDIT: I would just like to add. The idea that gentiles do not have to follow the Laws of Moses is the reason why Christians do not have to be circumcised.

 

[Uiler]

To show how really stupid a literal belief in the Bible can be, here is a good analysis on the difficulty of translating Leviticus 18:22.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."
The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

The problem is, there are two types of sins in Mosaic Law and the verse is not at all clear which one this passage falls under:

There are two types of sin in the Mosaic Code:
Moral sin is produced by rebellion against God. This seems to be the interpretation of most biblical translations imply when they translate the Hebrew "toeyvah" into English words such as "abomination," "enormous sin," or "detestable."
Ceremonial uncleanliness is caused by contact with a forbidden object or by engaging in a behavior which might be quite acceptable to non-Hebrews, but which was forbidden to the Children of Israel. Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins; some called for the death penalty.

Note the different English translations:

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act." 1
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .

The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:
The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.
The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

So if one believes in the literal truth of the Bible, does one believe:

All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or
All sexual behavior between two men, or
Only anal sex between two men, or
Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or
Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

The pagan temple ritual part comes from:

Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.

and is one of the liberal interpretations of the passage.

Another argument:

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah " into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."

Another argument is that it only restricts *where* such activity can occur:

English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.

etc. etc.

 

[The Person]

I don't know what's most hilarious, the letter, or the attempts at translating the bible.

 

[Goober]

*sigh*

This one of the reasons why I dislike church, and the whole concept of the Bible. Trans-bloody-lation. Like the link shows, it has been interpreted, what, in 7 different ways, to suit the personal beliefs of the writer. THAT is an abomination, IMO, the Bible-publishing companies deliberately interpreting a hebrew p[hrase one way to make money.

One of my life goals is to learn Hebrew, and read the virgin, un-interpreted Bible. I really want to do that, I think it would truly enlighten me as to what it is all about.

The first post of this thread just proves my point, the Bible can be interpreted as seen fit. And i would be a terrible Canadian slave, I am lazy to the bone!

 

[emzie]

*sigh*

This one of the reasons why I dislike church, and the whole concept of the Bible. Trans-bloody-lation. Like the link shows, it has been interpreted, what, in 7 different ways, to suit the personal beliefs of the writer. THAT is an abomination, IMO, the Bible-publishing companies deliberately interpreting a hebrew p[hrase one way to make money.

One of my life goals is to learn Hebrew, and read the virgin, un-interpreted Bible. I really want to do that, I think it would truly enlighten me as to what it is all about.

The first post of this thread just proves my point, the Bible can be interpreted as seen fit. And i would be a terrible Canadian slave, I am lazy to the bone!

The least adulterated versions of the Bible are in ancient Greek

 

[Uiler]

Am reading, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_vt.htm. It is kindof interesting. For a lot of topics you can find Bible passages to support them, even when normally you'd think the Bible would be dead-set against it. For example, abortion:

The idea of why abortion is a sin is because a fetus is considered a human. However, there are examples in the Old Testament which could be used to argue the opposite:

- From two anti-abortion books:

John T. Noonan (1970) said: "The Old testament has nothing to say on abortion." 3
John Connery (1977) said: "If anyone expects to find an explicit condemnation of abortion in the New Testament, he will be disappointed. The silence of the New Testament regarding abortion surpasses even that of the Old Testament."

- Genesis 2:7 God made Adam's body out of the dust of the earth. Later, the "man became a living soul" only after God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." This seems to state clearly that Adam's personhood started when he took his first breath.

The word used in the passage is "nephesh" which occurs all the time in the Old Testament and means "living soul". It comes from the root, "to breathe". Hence is a person only living once they take their first breath?

Genesis 38:24 - as punishment for being pregnant outside of marriage (to Judah it turns out), Tamar is sentenced to be burned alive *while she was 3 months pregnant with twins*. "If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action."

Exodus 13:1-2 "The Lord said to Moses, 'Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether [hu]man or animal.'"

Throughout much of the ancient Middle East, the firstborn son in each family was ritually murdered as a sacrifice to the Gods. However if the first son was preceded either by the birth of a girl or a miscarriage, then the ceremony is not performed, as the son was not the first offering of the womb. In later years, this practice evolved into a substitute animal sacrifice, or a cash donation to the temple, or a dedication of the child to their deity. "...the ancestors of the Israelites probably at one time actually sacrificed their first born children, as Genesis 22:1-14 implies."

Exodus 22:29"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."

It then lists examples of human sacrifice esp. of children performed by Israelites and in the Old Testament (they were not condoned, but it shows that human sacrifice of children was not unknown in Israel of that time).

Exodus 21:22 If men strive [fight] an hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit [fetus] depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

The verse refers to a woman accidentally being hit during a fight and being injured.

The key Hebrew word "yatsa" literally means to "lose her offspring." This has been translated in different Bible versions as: A miscarriage...premature birth

The two meanings are opposing each other (the New International Version of the Bible offers *both* versions). If it is a miscarriage it means as a result, the woman loses the baby, the baby is dead. The guilty party then pays a fine as set by the father. A premature birth means the baby ended up Ok and the guilty party paid a fine. Note that even if miscarriage is the option then it still implies that the baby is not considered of the same worth as a full human. Note that the following passage says if the woman is accidentally killed the guilty party says that the guilty party should be tried for murder and executed.

One of the punishments for adultery was to allow the husband to abort any fetus his wife may be pregnant with:

Numbers 5:12-31 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water..... This passage describes the action that a husband could take if he suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nobody seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present. There was no similar magical test that a woman could require her husband to take if she suspected him of adultery.

Deuteronomy 30:19: "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." The segment "choose life, that...thy seed may live" at first glance might be interpreted as referring to the choice to not have an abortion. It is even clearer in the Living Bible which says "Choose life, that...your children might live." However, it is always important to consider the context of any isolated quotation. Verses 15 to 18 clearly state that the choice referred to in verse 19 is whether to worship either Jehovah, or the gods of the Canaanites, whose land they were about to invade. Verse 20 picks up the same theme. Verse 19 thus relates to religious choices and is unrelated to abortion. However, the "choose life" portion of this verse is often quoted by pro-life groups. Michigan Christians for Life offers a free, 3" x 6" bumper-sticker which says simply "Deuteronomy 30:19."

One conservative Christian source 1 noted that the "Greek word for 'babe' in the above text is 'brephos'. In Luke 2:12, 16, the same Greek word is used to describe Christ in the manger. 'Brephos' is also translated 'babe' in I Peter 2:2, 'child' in II Tim. 3:15; 'infant' in Luke 18:15; and 'young child' in Acts 7:19. These scriptures show that God uses the same word to describe a child whether it is unborn, new-born or sometime later." Another way of looking at the term "Brephos" is to note that the Pagan Greeks had only a single word to refer to a fetus, newborn and young child. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, the authors had only that one term available for their use. The fact that they used it to refer to a fetus, newborn and young child is a reflection on Greek Pagan beliefs, not on God's intent.

And on and on it goes.

And

Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." These verses would seem to imply that any change to the book would be a serious error, worthy of great punishment -- horrendous punishment or an eternity in Hell. Thus, according to the author of Revelation, everything in "the book" is accurate. Many conservative Christians believe that these verses refer to the inerrancy of the entire Bible. However, the New Testament did not exist at the time that Revelation was written. The text appears to be referring only to the single book, Revelation.

The point is, a really literal interpretation (and NOT taking things out of context) of the Bible can be used to argue many many points.....I'm not saying that the Bible necessarily supports abortion, but you can make a pretty decent case out of (in context) Biblical passages for it or at least to cast serious doubt on Biblical condemnation of abortion. And Deuteronomy 30:19 clearly shows that fundamentalist Christians are just as good as taking the Bible out of context as anyone else. Jeez, really. Taking a passage which talks about making a choice between Jenovah and the God of the Caanites and taking it entirely out of context to give people the impression it is talking about abortion - that's as bad an act of taking out of context as any I've seen.

 

[GEChallenger]

Wow, that was original.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Very good,

 

[naervod]

I'm glad this was moved, because it should be a humorous thread. I only take this semi-seriously, in fact not very much at all, so all you people getting mad at me because I posted it...