You might like to take a look at this website, Hebrew root word studies. "Jealous" is at the bottom. You can't lift someone out of the water without getting your hands wet. The Mosiac laws were a schoolaster (in the words of Paul) to the Hebrews, to teach them and lead them out of sin. You have to understand the culture to appreciate the significance of the laws. Women were "property", just like slaves. But they didn't live in a Capitalist post-industrial world like we do, so "property" didn't have the demeaning connotation you automatically attach to it, at least not in principle. If your happiness and livelihood depended on your property, would you neglect or abuse it? Take for instance their herds of cattle. Every one of them were more precious than his house or its contents, because they were their income. But without laws - slaves and women could be considered less important, less valuable. So their were laws making sure they were treated as people, not objects. That laws existed to regulate the treatment of women and slaves and criminals didn't mean they were less important - it gave them importance. It gave them rights. If you read up about it, you'll see that most other cultures didn't give these people any rights. The most disturbing thing about those laws weren't that they weren't strict or subversive enough, it was that they were necessary at all. Why do people need laws telling them to love, not to steal, not to commit murder? Isn't it in order to make punishment justifyable. Words themselves don't make things wrong - it's the way those words are applied. There is no doubt that many of the practices of the Israelites were unacceptable by today's standards - but you have to ask how we came to have today's standards at all. You object about the death penalty of stoning, but they didn't have electric chairs or "humane" injections! You object about slavery, but these people didn't have unions and democracy and human rights - the Bible was their first introduction and only understanding of human rights! Many of those laws were made by humans, you're right - but their intention was to bring people into accountability where there was none. What made them divine laws, was that their punishment would be exactled by God himself, the God of righteousness and justice. They wouldn't get away with immorality anymore. I don't know about you, but if with all the human rights movements and high moral values of today's world, we haven't gotten any nearer to comply to them. Whether it's murder with the hand or with the mouth, we simply adjust to make our sins to more devious, less "detectable" by laws. The problem with the Biblical laws aren't that they didn't enforce absolute morality, it was they that couldn't. Why do people make laws, you think? To make us better people? To set the standards? Who decides those standards, and when will the laws be strict enough to eradicate crime completely? Think about it - the more laws we make, the more criminals we create. When Jesus came, He brought the standard in line with himself, He made it God's standard - human laws didn't do the trick, so in essence we all became cirminals. And now everybody is complaining about how that brings people down, makes us out as evil when they're not. Newsflash: we're now no more righteous than the Israelites were slavery, property, stoning and all. We're still just trying to redeem ourselves. If you take God out of the picture, you can adjust laws up or down as much as you want, you still won't really know what you're trying to do.
I've heard this argument many times, but I must confess it doesn't make sense to me. Are there Christians who say we have two lives? If there are, I don't know any. Personally, my faith says I had better respect this life, more than I would have if death presented a back door for my actions. Because what we do with this short life echoes in eternity (to borrow the phrase from Gladiator and Troy) - and we will be held accountable for it for eternity. There's no second chance; this life is as precious and unique as it will ever get, and it's this life that we must live with. God created life as we know it, and Jesus payed for your life with his own. If anybody owns it, if you ask me, it's God. But I want to know how you think you've have earned life, or how death is justified? How does life deserve death, metaphorically speaking? Isn't it more unreasonable to pretend you can escape death by taking destiny in your own hands any more than by putting it in God's hands? That argument relies on one premise: That God is a created being, like we are. I can understand how we can look for our own origins by the principle of cause and effect, because we live in a physical realm ruled by cause and effect. God, on the other hand, doesn't - being the first cause of our world. We can't even begin to ask why God exists. We don't even know why we exist, logically.
it is quite simple and obvious. "God"=male-authority. an authority which believes it is above IT' sC "Commandments"......you can see this same sorry pattern everywhere. in every dictatorship, in our cryptofascism here in the UK. where the so-called leaders hand out their commandments yet dont follow them themselves. we had a John Major preachin bout family virtues whilst secretly (not now!) fukin one of his fellow female mistess-ministers.....sort of ting So that's the bottom line. "God" = male authority. as to WHTHER there is a 'God'....well, to explore that you HAVe to explore direct experience, which means what the pre-'God' people who 'God' wanted and did kill lots of --DID. Direct experience is when you eat an hallucinogen and have Direct Experience. a sense of a larger self think about this: where does your body end?.........at your skin? thats what the authorities currntly want you to believe. that you are nuthin-but a biochemical-machine.....but wiat. the Sun, and the air, and the whole environemnt is needed for you to live. isn't THat your body too?.....when you have Direct Experience you expreience such as this, beyond merer intellectuality
That's another way of interpretation, but there are other references to this: Jeremiah 15:2 2 And if they ask you, 'Where shall we go?' tell them, 'This is what the LORD says: " 'Those destined for death, to death; those for the sword, to the sword; those for starvation, to starvation; those for captivity, to captivity.' Jeremiah 43:11 11 He will come and attack Egypt, bringing death to those destined for death, captivity to those destined for captivity, and the sword to those destined for the sword. Also there are a reference to your interpretation: Mathew 26:52 52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
Hello Cyperium Jeremiah 15 NKJV 2And it shall be, if they say to you, "Where should we go?' then you shall tell them, "Thus says the LORD: "Such as are for death, to death; And such as are for the sword, to the sword; And such as are for the famine, to the famine; And such as are for the captivity, to the captivity."' The NKJV Jeremiah 15:2 interpretation is practically exactly the same as your bible reference. Jeremiah 43 NKJV 11When he comes, he shall strike the land of Egypt and deliver to death those appointed for death, and to captivity those appointed for captivity, and to the sword those appointed for the sword. Same with Jeremiah 43:11 Matthew 26 52But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Same again with your Matthew 26:52 But The NKJV Revelation verse: Revelation 13 NKJV 10 He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. This has a totaly different meaning to your bibles verse. My verse conforms to the teachings of Jesus that those who kill with the sword will be killed by the sword and those who hold others captive will be held in prisons themselves. I cannot see how interpreters could get the verse so different in your translation. Also the sayings of Jesus that you have mentioned that is in your bible is in no other bible that i know. That leads me to concern that you may have a questionable interpretation of the bible on your hands. Could you tell me what version it is? Is it available on the Internet? Because there is no way that both mine and your translations can both be correct. Blessings to you Brother Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! All praise The Ancient of Days
Well, it has to do with translation. I have "Bible 2000" - Swedish version, which is the same translation as the "New International Version" where I got the verses I showed to you. Here is a link to the NIV: The Bible Gateway - New International Version - NIV
It's not just the word I'm after here. It's how the women were treated, a God that has existed forever, and will always, would not succumb to the laws/culture of man. A perfect deity's law would not allow such to happen. I do not care about worldly standards at this time. God would not abide or form his laws around the culture. I never said that I agree with the killing through electric chairs or injections. No matter what time period, a perfect deity's laws would not allow the killing of another man. Basically my entire argument is that, the laws described in the Bible, do no way appear to have come from a perfect divine being. Forget the words, as word's definitions can be changed. I don't care if it is for punishment, or to cast away evil from the world, a perfect being would have a better way to deal with it. At least, this is my opinion. This Christian God looks awfully flawed to me, too flawed to be considered perfect.
jesus is god in human form and is just as bad Jesus says that most people will go to hell. matt 7:13-14 Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). matt 10:14-15 "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." matt 10:33 Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. matt 11:20-24 Jesus becomes angry at those who said that he had "an unclean spirit," so he announces the unforgivable sin: "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." mark 3:29 Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. mark 6:11 Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil. mark 7:25-29 "The wrath of God" is on all unbelievers.romans 1:18 With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. roman 1:26-28
duendy: it is quite simple and obvious. "God"=male-authority. an authority which believes it is above IT's "Commandments".....you can see this same sorry pattern everywhere. in every dictatorship, in our cryptofascism here in the UK. where the so-called leaders hand out their commandments yet dont follow them themselves. we had a John Major preachin bout family virtues whilst secretly (not now!) fukin one of his fellow female mistess-ministers.....sort of ting So that's the bottom line. "God" = male authority. as to WHTHER there is a 'God'....well, to explore that you HAVe to explore direct experience, which means what the pre-'God' people who 'God' wanted and did kill lots of --DID. Direct experience is when you eat an hallucinogen and have Direct Experience. a sense of a larger self think about this: where does your body end?.........at your skin? thats what the authorities currntly want you to believe. that you are nuthin-but a biochemical-machine.....but wiat. the Sun, and the air, and the whole environemnt is needed for you to live. isn't THat your body too?.....when you have Direct Experience you expreience such as this, beyond merer intellectuality ************* M*W: duendy, you asked, "Where does your body end . . ."at your skin?" You have just touched on the profoundness of being part of creation. Our 'body' never ends, only the bioelectrical energy fades away, but it doesn't die, it moves elsewhere in creation. I'm not a physicist, like I've said, but the energy that is made up of bioelectrical currents just moves out of the body. Having lost my mother recently and observing her body before and after she "died," I called it her "soul" at the time of death was leaving her body, but now I realize it was only bioelectric energy. Now, her body was buried as naturally as the law would allow -- that is my belief, to return to the elements -- but the energy that was in her body giving her life went somewhere else, somewhere I couldn't see or determine. It was almost as if she turned off her electric current! Poor soul, she hung on to life as long as she could. I kept telling her to "keep on going," "don't give up," "Mama, I don't want you to go...", and she hung on. When her doctor told me it would be about another week, I could see the signs, but I couldn't do anything about reversing them, so I started to tell her, "Mama, it's okay to go, I love you, and there's a better place you're going -- follow the light." She did, and shortly after that she went to sleep and never woke up. I'm not claiming any miracles or visions or hallucinations. Her time had come, but I wouldn't let her go. When I finally told her it was okay, that I would try to help her across, she was so peaceful. I did nothing except let her go in peace. And I was peaceful about it. Sure, I did my fair share of crying as did all of her descendants, but we were happy for her that she had made it! I still miss her, buat I miss what I knew of her. Her bioelectric energy will find its way to another human or who knows what part of creation? She wasn't a Christian at the end, but our energy never dies, only our Earthsuit is discarded. Sorry, I've rambled. Your "biochemical-machine" reminded me and gave me comfort again. You are so right! I vote you Queen of the Universe (a title formerly held by moi). Thank you!
Audible, Interesting that you feel so condemned by Jesus. Guilty conscience? Why don't you pay attention to the people God spared?
read the thread, jenyar. he pointed out the Intolerance, in the bible, and the qu'ran etc. he's an atheist, he has no belief in any god/gods, messiahs/devils etc. so would not have a guilty conscience. if it came to it, he could have saved a million, but killed ten, he still killed. and you used the word spared, did they not collect kindling on the sabbeth. or were they not deaf and dum, or did they not have sex out of wedlock, dont talk foolish man, you more intelligent then that.
If I didn't have more faith in the common sense of most people, this would have spoken volumes about atheists. He pointed out intolerance of sin. There can be no other reason to call this a bad thing than to try and justify sin. What he gave was examples of punishment and warnings - not absolute applications of them. He makes no mention of mercy, forgiveness, or the possibility of repentance. Show me one person who has been smitten recently because he collected kindling on the sabbath? Clearly someting has changed. People who wish to revel in their sins can have their fill of it - they have ther whole lives ahead of them to receive their reward for it in full. And hopefully those who hate sin will see the damage it does, and stay away from it.
Oh the NIV Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i hate the NIV it must have been translated by masons. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
But man will, and have allowed it to happen. They have treated women as objects, contrary to God's will, and have all but legalized it for a while. And then women stood up for themselves, and now it's men who're constantly in the wrong. But still people are missing the point, which was mutual love. Laws don't prevent or force people to follow them, you know that. That laws were even necessary means that things were already not what God intended them to be. People made laws to try and come back to where they should be. To try... You don't have to care about the standards of the time because you're not trapped by them. What you have to care about is the standards of your time. I repeat again: God's laws were formed around people who were leading sinful lives and were not taking responsibility for it. They weren't formed around perfect people or perfect cultures or even ideals - those would have been unrealistic and impossible - but they turned out to be too strict even as insufficient as they were. Read Matthew 5. That's because no law, no matter how absolute, has the ability to make us perfect. You will complain that God's laws are too strict, that they make us all criminals and sinners. Precisely. Laws are due to a lack of our short-sightedness, not God's. They come from God only because they lead to God - they aren't God. God's law became human in Christ, and what happened? We crucified him. That's what people do to anything that supposedly comes from God, but isn't "God" enough or "too human". What do you expect? We are human, andwe live in a human world! If we exclude God, we are accepting a fate we have forged for ourselves. God dealt with sin perfectly, we just don't accept perfection. We rebel against strict laws, and demand freedom. Then when things get out of hand we try to inhibit our freedom by imposing laws we don't intend to follow; we think they're meant for criminals. Just look at Fahenheit's response: he doesn't even have a guilty conscience. Nothing but state laws are valid for him. Not to mention *higher* laws, nevermind *perfect* laws. Perfection is only possible with God. You can't reject God and expect the world or its laws to reflect Him perfectly, only the little we accept of Him.
Cuperium and Adstar, I can't figure out whether you two are agreeing or differing. What's the problem? I haven't really been following your discussion.
I think we agree on the basic message, but there are two translation of the passage in Revelations that mismatch. Though both translations are mentioned in the NIV. But the passages are reffered to in other points of the Bible too, where there isn't disagreement of their meanings, thus I think we can agree on their meaning. Which was what I really wanted to express, it's unfortunate that there are differing translations, but I guess there are reasons why. Undoubtable they have given much time to get the translation right in NIV, comparing to old scriptures and translating directly from the originals. I trust that it shows the meaning in a easy-to-understand language.
I have no problem with the NIV. It's possible to learn from any translation. But translators are human. Is the issue about "he who leads" vs. "he who is destined"? I think the sense is that justice will be done, whether he is led or leads in to captivity. Or it could be understood as "what will be will be, but you must persevere".
I don't know what persevere means, but I think I understand you anyway. But I can agree on, both: "What will be will be", and "your actions determine your judgement (kill by the sword, die by the sword)".
To persevere is to remain faithful, true, even in the face of adversity. Taking up the sword doesn't show patience, but impatience - and will be to no avail anyway.
