Couldn't It Just Be Wishful Thinking?

[marie glen]

Paul wrote - and most agree he was mightily used by God for the 'church' - that all nations upon the face of the earth came from one man.. Acts 17:26 - And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.

We are still all brothers and sisters. But in those early days the genetic code was not narrowed down, to where marrying a (early) sister or brother was not a danger to those born from that union as it is today. I read once someone did a study of how long it would take for about 25,000 people to exist.. But I don't remember what day that brought them to.. And I do believe what the text says, that living that close to the genesis, the life spans were very long, so each family could keep multiplying and being fruitful for some time.

[marie glen]

P.S, also, thinking about the law, in my evening reading was Philippians chapter 3 - A perfect fit! About the law. And of course the word for word interlinear is likely the most revealing - http://biblehub.com/interlinear/philippians/3-1.htm - starting with verse 1.

Or, here's the whole chapter, NKJ - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+3&version=NKJV

(..but verse 19, the Greek could read, "whose end/closure/toll is destruction/ruin/loss.."
It seems to me like translators seem often to choose an extreme use of words in their options for translation.
:Peace2:

[CST]

Hmm, that article looks interesting but I don't think if I read it right now I'd have time to discuss the bigger points. I should make clear that I'm not trying say that Jesus would have some how failed to keep the law by being crucified. If He were it was the Jews of the day that would be in the wrong, more so than they already were, not Him.

But these are the points that immediately jump out at me which the article may or may not address. Hopefully, I'll remember to find out later:

1. The use of the word 'crucify' seems more than a bit inappropriate if Jesus is not in fact being Crucified.  Especially in Luke who you would expect his audience to understand it that way.

2. The nail holes in Jesus's hands which Thomas asks to investigate sound like they point to a classic crucifixion. He's not asking to see cuts and grazes from rocks being hurled at Jesus.

2. From all the description in the Bible this also sounds like your standard crucifixion. According to the Bible Jesus was on the cross/tree whatever by noon and dead just shy of three hours later. It should not take three hours to stone someone to death. But actual crucifixion takes time because time is what is doing the killing. If Jesus was killed by stoning as the article you directed me to suggests, why were they surprised how soon Jesus died? All it takes is a good shot to the right place. In a usual crucifixion I can understand them being surprised by an unusually swift death, in a stoning this makes no sense.

4. The water that rushes out Jesus side when the spear goes in is a consequence of how crucifixion works, i.e. internal drowning.

I don't know if they need a command to bring sacrifices to God, the Bible's pretty clear a lot of sacrifices are sycophantic and insincere and don't impress God, what made them think to bring sacrifices is another matter.

I like that the word 'work' is connected to the word 'worship', it sounds like it's as it should be although I think there are a lot of words that imply toil and labour to describe the consequences of 'the fall'.

God is said to visit the Garden in the cool of the day (the evening, I understand) just after they've eaten from the forbidden tree and for some God needs know further excuse than to catch them in their sin. Since He intended a relationship with His creation I also don't think He needed any other excuse than that. But the distinction here is that either God is acting immediately in response to knowledge of their sin or He isn't but if He isn't they shouldn't need more laws while they remain innocent but if He is than we don't really have any reason to read in anything more than we get except that these nagging questions keep turning up.

But the reason they believe it's a New Testament thing is because in the prophets God takes about replacing the law written on stone (the tablets and the Old Covenant) with laws written on their hearts which are in a context which so clearly seems to foretell Jesus that it must be held that those references in the Psalms are also foretelling Jesus and don't refer to the present.

And I do know the stuff about how each of the plagues is a judgement on one of the gods of Eygpt but this seems to connect to concerning Nation of Israel stuff which also seems to contain the justification for the genocide of the nations when Israel received their inheritance. A part of Biblical history that, ironically, secularists think indefensible and archaeologists say doesn't need defending because it can't have happened.

And, in principle I understand why punish them, because some of them might get the benefit. The only point is that I don't see how you can say their sins aren't been imputed to them afterwards when they're being imputed every time they die.

I've heard the Gehenna being a year at most thing, I like it a lot but really wonder if they believed if before Jesus or afterwards because I don't know how reliable it is. Of course the downside is that I think we have to take the end of the Revelation allegorically for anything to work. The Bible basically says there is no Sun, Moon, Day or Night in the New Earth and if that is true then I struggle to see how anyone will reach the other end of that 12 months. Of course, Gehenna may have time and the New Earth doesn't but since time is required for anything to happen I'm pretty much against the concept of the end of time... it sounds ill conceived.

But the question here was on whether or not the salvation by grace thing originated with Paul or if he simply added the salvation by grace through faith of Jesus part.

Jesus used the "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob" quote, God gave to Moses to argue that the Torah supported the concept of resurrection. It doesn't come across well in English but I think the understanding is that because God said "I am" rather than "I was" suggests that in some capacity Abraham, Isaac and Jacob continue to live and so proves the resurrection.

Jesus said that Abraham knew who He was and we can take it from what Jesus says and the context He says it in that whatever detail Abraham had he had enough.

Oh, great! I didn't even know what I meant I hadn't even though of that one. That's the problem with Biblical literalism, you try to interpret one story literally and there's a good chance it'll class with the literal reading of another one. Of course, the thing about literal interpretations is that you forget some of the details you've just read in and assumed and aren't actually supported by the text at all.

But taking your number that would be that 2% of the original population may have been of Adam and 98% not. But only that 2% ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So how did the other 98% become sinful? Maybe they learned it from the 2%? Maybe they weren't created in innocence like Adam was. So they may not be saved by Jesus but they may not need to be.

As I said according to the Bible (whatever archaeology may say about) all the nations of the Earth (those who are blessed through Abraham) are descended from Noah and he is descended from Adam. Biblically, we're covered on all bases at least in a literal sense but, again, archaeology doesn't like that.

So if there are people on the planet that are in no way descended from Noah they might be in danger because they miss the salvation won through Christ. But that seems a little unlikely of God to leave them behind.

Maybe the non-Adam peoples are those other human species scientists occasionally talk about and maybe they aren't made in the image of God and don't quite reach the qualities we do. Of course thinking about what the term 'image of God' means is always dangerous in our sinful state and can lead to unworthy ideas of which this may be one.

Paul wrote - and most agree he was mightily used by God for the 'church' - that all nations upon the face of the earth came from one man.. Acts 17:26 - And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.

Yes, but as I just mentioned that man could, in theory, be Noah and I'm pretty sure that's generally taken to mean Jesus.

[marie glen]

I'm not following this thread very well.. I don't know what article.. but I do know Jesus said "if I be lifted up from the Earth" which most agree and it seems logical means His manner of death, as Rome was the only one allowed to crucify, which was done by lifting up on a cross or tree.. I think people make everything way more complicated than it is.. Want to come up with some new ground breaking discovery.. Who got this idea of stoning? It's not in the Bible..

I don't know about the article, but sometimes I think people "just like to hear themselves talk" - an old saying, lol. Take Paul out of the bible..? Paul said Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness - Genesis 15:6 - Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

And there's verses about the light shining unto the gentiles.. and the book of acts shows the Spirit doing just that.. Jesus told the disciples power would come upon them and they would be His witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.. And that just what occurred, has occurred and is occurring.

I would also lean toward suspecting a troll if the righteousness of Jesus is being questioned.. by a nonbeliever, fine.. but a 'believer'.. oy.

Also the secular world does not realize the nations around Israel whom God wanted annihilated were heavily into human sacrifice.. now perhaps some would think it mercy that it remain a force in the world and have descendants of it.. kind of reminds me of voices you sometimes hear who seem to think hitler, for instance should have been allowed to dominate the world.. or maybe wishful thinking would have provided a remedy.. and the spirit today that seems to want terrorism to go unhindered and un-harassed.. Peace, in this world, unfortunately, is not aLways the best way. What about a bully beating up much smaller children.. Pacifism demanded? Any way, on Judgment 'Day' they will no longer be judging God..

[CST]

Just a couple thoughts, sure people like WW will go into more detail, but anyway...

If you are referring to the physical image, then yes, that already happened. But, if you are talking about the Spiritual image of God, that is STILL going on. In Hebrew and Greek, it is in the Aorist tense. Basically meaning it is still continuing. Same with God locking up everyone in disobedience, stretching out the heavens, etc.

What do you think this experience of evil God gives us is for? Because He was bored? That there was nothing to do? No, because it is the only way to be like Him. Knowing Good and Evil are inseparable. Take a look at the fruit, for example. Did the two get into one fruit because He was stupid? Of course He knew what He was doing.

I wasn't talking about the physical, I don't have a problem with God the Father having a matching physical image of us, He may have created one for the purpose and a realm to put it in; I don't think it makes any difference to our relationship with Him. Jesus as incarnate obviously did the Holy Spirit certainly doesn't. As for the idea it comes from marrying the relevant terms in Genesis 1 and 2 where no such marriage is necessarily invited.

Here I was talking about my suggestion that we are somehow superior to the other, now extinct, human species that science says there were because it served my very hypothetical idea and could in fact be a huge slight on those species. Cleaving to this idea is one of the strongest reasons Fundamentalists reject Evolution out of hand, the Bible teaches humans are made in the image of God and from the dust of the Earth, not desended from some series of earlier apes (and the rest) which are all inherently less than us not being made in God's image.

Speaking of that, who said anything about being created innocent?

25And they are both of them naked, the man and his wife, and they are not ashamed of themselves.

They were naked but not ashamed of it. If you think this was just physical nakedness, you will not understand this book. The Spirit of God is necessary for understanding these words, CST. Not by how much worldly wisdom you have, not by how much verses you know of, and not even by reading these things over and over 'till you're blue in the face! Heard of a guy named John Van Dyke, who memorized 12,000 verses. Do you think he understands these words? Nope! Heard of another guy, who had 7 DOCTORATES, and could speak GREEK and HEBREW FLUENTLY. Doesn't even know what the Gospel is.

I'm pretty sure beings that have not yet sinned would qualify as innocent. Paul certainly seems to argue that Adam and Jesus are identical up until the point Adam sins and Jesus doesn't. As long as Adam obeyed God he was innocent, after he disobeyed he wasn't. Disobedience to God is the only sin there actually is.

As far as being naked not being purely physical, yes, I'm sure it isn't, yet this is what our attention is drawn to when the sin occurs:

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." (Gen. 3:7)

They obviously weren't so good at covering there spiritual nakedness.

"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." (Gen. 3:21)

Again, not spiritually so far as can be ascertained. You can understand why the reader would be drawn to think of their nudity in terms of the physical when it says thing like this?

Gen 3:6
6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

1 John 2:16
16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Remember, this is BEFORE they ate the fruit.

Yes, but after the serpent had told her it would make her like God, this fact is a major problem for free will because the idea that led her to sin didn't originate with her. If the serpent hadn't whispered in her ear who knows how long she could have gone on obeying God. Of course, if you reject the literal presence of the serpent this distinction becomes almost meaningless, if you don't it makes a big difference.

And, speaking of "context" and "literal" interpretation. Yes, context CAN help. But, to think it is the SOLE determining factor to determine the meaning of the words, it isn't. As mentioned above, the Spirit of God is your FOUNDATION. Without it, you are building a house on sand. And, this is what we use for establishing Scriptural truths:

Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses, the one about to die shall be put to death. He shall not be put to death at the mouth of one witness.

Deu 19:15 A single witness shall not rise against a man regarding any depravity or any sin. In any sin which one may sin, the matter shall be confirmed at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses.

Mat 18:16 Yet if ever he should not be hearing, take still one or two others along with you, that at the mouth of two witnesses, or of three, every declaration may be made to stand.

That's right. In two or three witnesses, is how you establish a Scriptural Truth. As a witness/verse on its own is not its OWN interpretation, but you need Minimum 2 or 3 to establish a truth. Even if there are only 2 verses for that truth, this does not make that any less true.

"In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." (John 8:17-18)

and yet immediately before:

You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me. (John 8:15-16)

I think these a supposed to essentially be the same thing yet I can't help thinking that if Jesus testifies for Himself He inevitably testifies against anyone who doesn't and thus judges them so this passage sounds a bit strange. it all sounds very confused to me. But is clearly what the two or three witness laws refers to.

But scripture isn't as reliable as you suggest there, it's two easy to twist so that two pieces of text that seem to agree to one reader can contradict to another. Scripture is not that dependable but I think I provided two quotes that support the physical nakedness on Adam and Eve as being a significant touch point in Genesis 3.

Psalm 119:160
160The sum of Thy word [is] truth, And to the age [is] every judgment of Thy righteousness!

Isaiah 28:10
10For rule [is] on rule, rule on rule, line on line, line on line, A little here, a little there

And how do we live?

Day 8:3
3And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

Mat 4:4
4But he answering said, 'It hath been written, Not upon bread alone doth man live, but upon every word coming forth from the mouth of God.

So, as shown above, the SUM of all these words is truth. Take even one away, and do you still have the whole?

I can't answer that as I don't know what you're trying to say with them. Out of context they look like gibberish. Well not gibberish but I can't see the relationship you're seeing.

I'm not following this thread very well.. I don't know what article.. but I do know Jesus said "if I be lifted up from the Earth" which most agree and it seems logical means His manner of death, as Rome was the only one allowed to crucify, which was done by lifting up on a cross or tree.. I think people make everything way more complicated than it is.. Want to come up with some new ground breaking discovery.. Who got this idea of stoning? It's not in the Bible..

I don't know about the article, but sometimes I think people "just like to hear themselves talk" - an old saying, lol. Take Paul out of the bible..? Paul said Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness - Genesis 15:6 - Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

And there's verses about the light shining unto the gentiles.. and the book of acts shows the Spirit doing just that.. Jesus told the disciples power would come upon them and they would be His witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.. And that just what occurred, has occurred and is occurring.

I would also lean toward suspecting a troll if the righteousness of Jesus is being questioned.. by a nonbeliever, fine.. but a 'believer'.. oy.

Also the secular world does not realize the nations around Israel whom God wanted annihilated were heavily into human sacrifice.. now perhaps some would think it mercy that it remain a force in the world and have descendants of it.. kind of reminds me of voices you sometimes hear who seem to think hitler, for instance should have been allowed to dominate the world.. or maybe wishful thinking would have provided a remedy.. and the spirit today that seems to want terrorism to go unhindered and un-harassed.. Peace, in this world, unfortunately, is not aLways the best way. What about a bully beating up much smaller children.. Pacifism demanded? Any way, on Judgment 'Day' they will no longer be judging God..

"He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." (Lev. 24:16)

This is the law of God. Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy and thus the punishment demanded is death by stoning, giving this fact death by crucifixion is obviously unlawful. Some commentators see a huge problem that Jesus didn't did in the lawfully proscribed manner in realising God's promise. Personally I think since Jesus was innocent there was nothing lawful about His death but as i say some people want to argue that He was stoned in the proscribed Old Testament manner rather than crucified in the Roman one which they think doesn't fulfil the law. Personally I think crucifixion makes the point better, a species that does that is a species that definitely needs saving and really doesn't deserve it.

And I'm not questioning the righteousness of Jesus, just how much is actually required to bring that righteousness about.

And the secular world doesn't care that the surrounding nations were appalling as they conclude that any God as wonderful as ours claims to be should provide a better example than He seems to here.

[marie glen]

Dialog with the world does not need to descend to the world's level, only pristine Truth will aid them.. And the world will not be judging God.. And it is empty air to dance to their tune. The scripture, yes, meaning the Bible, including Paul's writings as Peter called it scripture by saying "and the rest of the scripture do un-established ones twist" And Paul writing to Timothy who worked so close w/Paul, said all scripture is for the person of God's instruction that they be complete/adequate for the work..

And so many more verses.. If a whole multitude of people sprang from the earth over millions of years, breathing while their lungs so slowly formed? And by hit and miss found foods and.. (imo, it's a ridiculous theory that claims man to be the highest power / god, deciding good and evil; "seats himself as god").

If there was a world full of (inferior :faint: ) people somehow come about God still would lose none as He can only be perfect, or He too would fade away.. And perfect can lose nothing.. knows all.. makes no mistakes..

But yes, the debate about origins REALLY does need to move on to " what sort of intelligence designed/created?" As a lot of new knowledge and data after Darwin has come to light. Darwin.. the false prophet began as a man but evolved (pun intended :laughing7: ) into a white smocked magician with many miracles and wonders up his sleeve even ye.. enabled Rev 13:13.. so huge like the false prophet that no one sees them..

Jesus will rule with an "iron rod". Which is? And can only be? Truth. Because one CANNOT break truth but breaks ones self upon it.. "undefiled un-stained with woman" Greek is singular.. in the last days.. spiritual virgins w their foreheads sealed - no more religion/faith/belief in the female principle as origins.. that other (pagan) faith which Gnosticism was a loose connection of the more esoteric elements of the world's pagan beliefs.. female in essence.. mother gods, faint memories of eve? Corrupted/confiscated..?

Iron rule(r) - the measure.. without God's Word, I believe ones faith will wander into these other tempting 'esiteric' leanings.. spots and stains.. rather than found spotless at His coming..

The measure of true from untrue w/o it our faith becomes, I believe, like salt that has lost its savior.. but also! works to mislead others.. who are also seeking.. such decievers Paul said seeking truth but never finding.. leading astray.. why add to God's word or take away  from its importance..

P.S. -

between Theologians and Scripture, I will always go with Scripture.

amen.. and if the cultural laws of the old testament are misunderstood in this age, imo, the fault has to be with one's understanding.. Not with God, nor with His inspired Word.. :gsmile:

[CST]

Well, I reject "free will" (as well.) Would they have obeyed God from the heart, though? Remember, that in the old Covenant/Law the heart motive was not looked at/revealed yet. In the new/better Covenant, even looking upon and lusting after a woman has already committed adultery in his heart.

James 1:13-15
13Let no one say, being tempted — 'From God I am tempted,' for God is not tempted of evil, and Himself doth tempt no one,
14and each one is tempted, by his own desires being led away and enticed,
15afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death.

Especially take note of v. 15, and compare it with Gen 3:6 and 1 John 2:16 that I listed earlier. They desired the sins of the world, yes?

Honestly, I don't see why not. The heart seeks after God by design. It's only the introduction of sin into the human condition afterwards that can confuse it and draw it away. If I've understood you correctly you already seem to reject the tradition idea of 'the fall' but I may be mistake on that.

Well, yes, to the carnal mind, who has not been given the understanding to know the meaning of these words, of course they wouldn't know. But yes, upon first glance the only notable thing would probably be their nakedness. Isn't all these words one giant parable? Without God's wisdom, you won't know what it means, but only what it says.

To the carnal mind? That's basically everyone who's going to read it. If no-one is going to understand it correctly unless the Holy Spirit comes along and tells them how to read it there's no purpose for it to exist. God may as well just make personal visits to anyone He wants to reveal His truth too, the Bible is utterly useless. Even the reading for the carnally minded must be instructive to some degree or else it's more likely to be deceptive and then God kind of would be tempting people because He'd given them something He knew was as likely to lead them astray as lead them to Him.

On the first part, did you see it? There are still 2 witnesses, not just one only. I'm pretty sure that is also not the only thing it refers to.

On context, it is quite simple actually. If there is anything other then a period at the end of a sentence, you know it usually is not the end of the sentence. Secondly, that is what discernment is for, is it not? Third, that is what Scripture tells us how it establishes Truth, so between Theologians and Scripture, I will always go with Scripture.

How do you define "twisting" the Scriptures? If a verse is a witness, and you need 2 or 3 in establishing a truth, what is the problem with that? It is a problem for the world, that's for sure. They know nothing of Spiritual principles and truths, and just tarnish the Word of God with their own traditions. They confine everything to context. Even following what God reveals to us through His Spirit, they don't like that! They despise these things. Don't think so? Show them verses on something like the salvation of all. Or tithing, or any other one of their traditions.

Remember Isaiah 28:10? Does it say "here a lot, there a lot?" No! Instead, "here a little, there a little." Each witness is also a line, right? So, "Line upon line."

But herein lies you problem, the Hebrew and Greek have no punctuation in their texts. Whether or not there's a period there depends on whether or not the theologians doing the translating decided there should be one. The same with all punctuation marks and you've already concluded they lack wisdom.

In the same way the books of the Bible weren't written divided into chapter and verse, some of our theologians have decided to do that to make certain passages more accessible so no verse can be held as an original witness.

This is the mistake you're making, you're taking a law that was clearly devised to protect against fatal miscarriages of justice (not always successfully I suspect) and using it to make claims about the veracity of the Bible. There are lots of verses in the Bible that have no parallel elsewhere but that doesn't mean we conclude that what they say is false. Lots of laws in the Torah, for example, are given only once. In some case we're told of various violations but the expected verses on what to do if people violate those laws appear to be absent.

If you want to I can quote three verses from Psalms and Proverbs that make UR are look more than a bit shaky which seem to go beyond simple mistranslation yet I don't doubt the Bible supports UR.

Here are some other problematic examples from scripture of the law under discussion:

"If a malicious witness rises against any man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days; the judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."(Deut. 19:16-19)

Fine, if a person is caught giving false testimony they shall receive as they intended the person they accused. Ok, seems fair enough. Kind of. Compare this to:

""If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' hen the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, "I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity." And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you." (Deut. 22:13-22)

As seen above the law saw that anyone found to have brought false evidence against someone else should false the penalty the one they accused would receive. Not so hear the accusation if founded will bring the woman's death but if unfounded the accuser will simply be flogged, fined and then she'll be stuck with the man who tried to murder her for the rest of her life. Well, what a wonderful law that is.

Also just below that is the classic OT rape law always guaranteed to get atheists and feminists up in arms, and rightly so:

'"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."' (Deut. 22:23-24)

Nice, so if her gags her and rapes her, or silences her by threat of violence or she screams herself hoarse and no one bothers to come but later someone comes and catches them, she dies. What a wonderful way to treat a victim of rape. Oh, it gets better:

'"But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die But to the young woman you shall do nothing; in the young woman there is no offense punishable by death, for this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor; because he came upon her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. (Deut. 22:25-27)

Oh, well. That's slightly better if we gloss over the question this sexist society is bound to ask about what a woman is doing alone in open country at least only he dies for raping her. Oh, but wait no he doesn't because no one witnessed the attack because no one was there or they could say whether she screamed or not.

So basically we've got his word against hers and she is one witness and he cannot be put to death on her testimony alone it's unlawful. But he can get one of his friends to back him up and say he was no where near where the rape took place and then she gets executed under the false testimony law... fantastic!

And still it gets worse:

'"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days. (Deut. 22:28-29)"'

Ah, married forever to the man who raped her, she might prefer death! Atheists and feminists are understandably appalled by all this it gives the woman no right to reply against her abuser at all. Someone seems not to understand the psychological damage rape actually does, but as that some one seems to be God it's more than a bit concerning and so much so I have to suspect there may be a lesser degree of inspiration here.

Certainly none of these laws appears to be repeated elsewhere in the Bible although I doubt that means the Israelites were free to just ignore God's word.

Well, considering I "tried" to establish a truth the way God tells us to, it is not in my power to tell you the meaning of these words. I can only tell you OF that meaning, but only through the Holy Spirit, can that meaning be showed to you. Not to say I have been revealed all truth. I don't have all of it, and only up to God how much is revealed to me. If I don't follow these principles right, then that's on me. But, if I did, then that's only up to Him when it is revealed.

Maybe we should stop with this discussion. If you have any burning questions, then try just continuing with just those points. I could see this going on and on for pages and pages, with nothing fruitful accomplished, and end up with a locked thread and angry people. Even changing your mind, is not changing your opinion. (Or is it the opposite?)

I do pray for you, that these things will be revealed to you. No, I am not trying to sound pious or self righteous or self boasting. I really do mean that.

Yes, I think that at this point we should probably stop the discussion to because I'm already on the verge of feeling angry myself and am certainly feeling insulted. And you certainly do sound self-righteous suggesting you know better than I do about how to read scripture, even the leadership of the Westboro Baptist Church have made that claim about scripture and obviously I disagree with them. And if you are correct I would certainly second your prayer but if you are mistaken, as I suspect you are, I would rather pray you lead no others into error and are yourself rescued from yours.

I think generally if scripture says something once it's enough to establish that it is in someway the truth and I also agree that a lot of scripture is allegorical, but I think that scripture is dependant on the context is is presented for its sense and cannot simply be broken down into its constituent verses. The allegory of Eden is found in the meaning of the whole not necessarily in any one of its parts.

[jabcat]

Yeah, I think the tone and content of some of this leaves a bit to be desired.  Probably time to give it a break.