seebs

So? Nothing has yet given me a reason to believe that we have any such thing.

That's not what it *says*, though - that's what someone *decided* to claim it meant, nearly two thousand years later.

Indeed. It would be nice if you'd allow for the possibility that this is one of the valid paths to God, and part of His plan.

livius drusus

This topic was split off from the Christian Forums Outcast thread in MD. Enjoy.

chimaira

"les mots d'Yahweh sont des mots purs : comme argent essayé dans un four de la terre, épuré sept psaumes 12:6 de périodes "--.

Deuteronomist CH 23 v 1: That whose testicles were crushed or the cut urethra will not enter the assembly of the Eternal.

Numbers CH 31 v 17-18: Now, kill any male among the little children, and kill any woman who knew a man while sleeping with him; but leave in life for you all the girls who did not know the layer of a man.

Comment ont-ils déterminé quelles filles étaient des vierges ? Viols ?

livius drusus

I imagine they determined virginity for general purposes by partner status. Anyone not a wife/window, concubine or prostitute could be considered a technical virgin. Otoh, maybe they did rape them first and ask questions later. May I ask why you ask? Do you mean to imply that the textual ambiguities of a religious writing can't help but translate into moral ambiguities for its followers?

More generally you seem to contrast the psalmist claim that God's word is always pure with verses about the state of various people's genitals. My response to that would be that the subject of urethras and hymens is only impure seen from the perspective of a very rigid kind of Puritain xianity, not from the Jewish tradition at all.

wildernesse

Which English translation is the correct and inerrant copy? Can they all be? How do you know which one it is?

I want to know. Really and truly.

Thank you.

--tibac

chimaira

is a question that I am posed before posing it to you, it was undoubtedly a warlike tradition to take the virgin girls,at the time or that happened it were undoubtedly normal, but I does not know if God tolerated its and in odronné the practice as quoted in the passage.

Badfish

No they all can't be, do you really want to know what I think and believe?

For starters the bible needs to be translated by an authorative source. If we look through history, we will see that the first english translation that God apparently saw sufficient to convey his infallible word would be The King James.

If you look at the theme of the bible, it is a monarchy, and throughout history mankind has followed this monarchy, up until relatively recently, there always has been Monarchies.

So since the bible is about the Kingdom (monarchy) God intends to give to his begotten son Jesus in which he will rule over, it is a reasonable conclusion that God would inspire his translation under a monarchy, and he did under King James.

People can say that the KJ and it's translators say they did the best they could and had to add some vowels or substitute some words which don't work with the english language, the point is, is that God said his word is infallible, and since the Gentiles (or english speakers) are now included in the salvation and grace of Jesus, he would know that these english people would need a *correct* copy of his word and God would would send the holy spirit to move and divinely guide these translators in their work to ensure that the exact meaning and word of what God intended is inerronously delivered.

The KJ has stood the test of time and is the authority on God's word, if it hadn't then God is not omnipotent enough to convey his message accurately for the last 400 years.

There is the NASB, which has been meticulously translated, and I do use it sometimes, but for the authorative word I would look to the King James.

It is within man's ability to distort the bible, so if one finds a version which strays too far from the KJ, I would be suspicious and wouldn't trust it.

Why? Because anything other than the KJ was not translated under a monarchy.

Remember God said there would be false teachers and be alert and know who they are, well, distorted versions of his word would fall into this category.

Badfish

Go ahead, lets check out the passage, do you have a passage in mind?

Badfish

Ahhh, I see, she's french, no?

I don't have scripture to work with here, but I am presuming that in general the OT looks kinda chaotic. Well some attrocities have been recorded in the bible, that's for sure, but not all were condoned by God, some of the stories are about tradition and cultures that man himself created, and sometimes those cultures strayed from god so bad, that God had to break out some whoop ass, because people were just too far gone in their immorality.

I am probably misunderstanding the question though, so I thought I would just give a general rundown on why God and cultures are written about in the OT.

livius drusus

From the Deconversion thread in GRD, a question has come up that fits better here.

I don't. Which ones are which? Is there a consistently accurate methodology by which I can make these distinctions on my own?