Literal/Original texts

[phee]

I read it all.

I beleive in it all.

and because I know what it is, and what its telling me to do, I do as Im told.

and all its telling me to do is to follow after Christ.

I cant say it any plainer than that Mike.

its not a process of ommission - that question does not fit into what I do, or others like me.

i know you guys dont get that - but its the best I can do to explain it.

I guess to clarify... what parts do you see as literal fact, and which parts do you see as more allagorical? And how do you decide between the two?

[torn asunder]

to me the two work togethor as parrales to one final figurehead and series of events...so I work with both. I often cite from New Testament scripture primarily because alot of topics in here turn to what "christians" are or believ eor are not....and thats all centered on "Christ" - so there you go - buncha new testament stuff.

im cool with you telling me the email is sarcastic - i can take it.

would you mind my posting it here? (i've posted it before) it might be interesting to others, to see the discussion unfold, and the different takes on it...

[Steven]

And I would like to add that the earliest accepted (canonized?) documentation did not start showing up for about another 200 years A.D.

well there's nothing in there about ages - youve got all sorts of men from different walks of life with diffrent vocations and social standings that would allude to possible age groups but thats it. And you've got the accounts of the first Apostles and you have the early history of the first series of churches. That history is drawn from a pretty consistent source. You also have historians accounts like Josephus.

[Steven]

would you mind my posting it here? (i've posted it before) it might be interesting to others, to see the discussion unfold, and the different takes on it...

as long as your not trying to intentionally be disrespectful to me Mike then Im not on the defense.

so its cool - go ahead. I'll chew on it and see what I can come up with...

[Rev.Reverence]

I will start;

From cross examining theological points from Hebrew and Islamic beliefs I found that Abraham had two sons:

Ishmael- thru Hagar his wife's handmaiden

Isaac- thru Sarah later

each side will try to tell you they are promised Abraham's 'blessing'

I say the story is about how it is not necessarily a good idea to hold one child as superior to another.

Steve wanted to discus this subject further...

Hi everybody...

Just a not so gentle reminder...

YOUR OFF THE SUBJECT...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

K one last thing.

In regard to dismissing Biblical texts, The bible (Let's just talk about New Testament here) was written by men based on second, third, fourth and fifth hand telling of stories that may or may not have happened. It was not written by Matthew mark, Luke and John because they were not living during the time of Jesus. If they were they would have been almost 200 years old when they wrote their texts, which is not possible.

So, the bible is flawed factually, but who cares! It's one huge book of myths with a little bit of fact. And it's not even complete, if you can call myths complete. The ecumenical council threw out hundreds of pages of text, why? If they were words from god then why not include them all? They needed to create a cohesive manual for their members plain and simple. They had to define the doctrine, and decided what Jesus relationship with his father was, among many many other biblical issues. Men decided how the stories would be told, that doesn't sound like divine prophecy to me, and it isn't based on factual evidence so while I don't entirely dismiss it, I can't see using it as the basis for for every argument about catholicism or christianity because of it's non-factual nature.

That's all I got, thanks for the debate, very interesting.

Wait wait... The Bible... should not be used at all when discussing... Christianity? Can we use the Quran, Torah, Talmud or Dead Sea Scrolls?

What exactly, that was written in Biblical times, can we use a point of referance?

BTW, The Book of Mark, according to historians, was most likely written in 70AD and was dictated by Peter. Thats only 40 years after Christ died, not 200.

[Steven]

I guess to clarify... what parts do you see as literal fact, and which parts do you see as more allagorical? And how do you decide between the two?

your asking good questions today homie.

I dont know if this will help, but let me first set an example.....

lets say you "know me"....know me know me, because youve spent years in relationship with me, you get how I think and respond to things and you know that I tend to be a bit aggressive at times, at other times tender, and that I'm inclinded to lots of "left brained isms".... that I sometimes exemplify things in a strange or outside way, while at other times I can be much more linear - it all depends on my current mood and the circumstances, but overall - you know me.

-thats my take on the Bible, and this YHWH God.

Literal Fact: all of the historical writings of Moses. Also the Gospels - literal fact. Also the Letters that Paul wrote, and James letters, and Peters, etc. History is just history - I take it face value. Letters of encouragement or isntruction are jsut letters - I take them at face value.

Allegorical / Symbolic: the actual prophesy portions of all of the books of prophesy in the bible - both major and minor prophets and all new testament prophesy. Also add to that the many parables of Jesus as he tuaght both the large crowds and his APostles in private.

Also add to that the Psalms and Proverbs of David and Solomon.

I hope that helps

[phee]

Wait wait... The Bible... should not be used at all when discussing... Christianity? Can we use the Quran, Torah, Talmud or Dead Sea Scrolls?

What exactly, that was written in Biblical times, can we use a point of referance?

BTW, The Book of Mark, according to historians, was most likely written in 70AD and was dictated by Peter. Thats only 40 years after Christ died, not 200.

Do they actually have primary sources that date back to 70 A.D.?

[phee]

your asking good questions today homie.

I dont know if this will help, but let me first set an example.....

lets say you "know me"....know me know me, because youve spent years in relationship with me, you get how I think and respond to things and you know that I tend to be a bit aggressive at times, at other times tender, and that I'm inclinded to lots of "left brained isms".... that I sometimes exemplify things in a strange or outside way, while at other times I can be much more linear - it all depends on my current mood and the circumstances, but overall - you know me.

-thats my take on the Bible, and this YHWH God.

Literal Fact: all of the historical writings of Moses. Also the Gospels - literal fact. Also the Letters that Paul wrote, and James letters, and Peters, etc. History is just history - I take it face value. Letters of encouragement or isntruction are jsut letters - I take them at face value.

Allegorical / Symbolic: the actual prophesy portions of all of the books of prophesy in the bible - both major and minor prophets and all new testament prophesy. Also add to that the many parables of Jesus as he tuaght both the large crowds and his APostles in private.

Also add to that the Psalms and Proverbs of David and Solomon.

I hope that helps

So you do take their writings as literal fact? or as a literal fact that they wrote them to begin with?

[torn asunder]

So you do take their writings as literal fact? or as a literal fact that they wrote them to begin with?

could you clarify this, phee - i don't understand the question!?

[Steven]

So you do take their writings as literal fact? or as a literal fact that they wrote them to begin with?

I take the historicals as literal fact - to include the weird shit such as Eden, Noahs arc and Jonah and the whale - straight up,and the fire and sulfar that raind down on Sodom, etc.

[Steven]

could you clarify this, phee - i don't understand the question!?

honestly, I didint either

[Steven]

Do they actually have primary sources that date back to 70 A.D.?

I dont know. I'd have to research it to be honest.

this may or may not help - but its something I found earlier - I havent taken a good look at it:

The Old Testament

For both Old and New Testaments, the crucial question is: "Not having any original copies or scraps of the Bible, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we do have so they give us a true, undistorted view of actual people, places and events?"

The Scribe

The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c. 900 A.D.

The Massoretic Text

During the early part of the tenth century (916 A.D.), there was a group of Jews called the Massoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Massoretes would copy Isaiah, for example, and when they were through, they would total up the number of letters. Then they would find the middle letter of the book. If it was not the same, they made a new copy. All of the present copies of the Hebrew text which come from this period are in remarkable agreement. Comparisons of the Massoretic text with earlier Latin and Greek versions have also revealed careful copying and little deviation during the thousand years from 100 B.C. to 900 A.D. But until this century, there was scant material written in Hebrew from antiquity which could be compared to the Masoretic texts of the tenth century A.D.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

In 1947, a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some strange clay jars in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archeological discovery of the twentieth century. The scrolls have revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is believed that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea. [see Detailed Article]

The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.

These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition." (2)

The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah." (3).

The Septuagint

The Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, also confirms the accuracy of the copyists who ultimately gave us the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is often referred to as the LXX because it was reputedly done by seventy Jewish scholars in Alexandria around 200 B.C. The LXX appears to be a rather literal translation from the Hebrew, and the manuscripts we have are pretty good copies of the original translation.

Conclusion

In his book, Can I Trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity." (4)

The New Testament

The Greek Manuscript Evidence

There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time. These are written on different materials.

Papyrus and Parchment

During the early Christian era, the writing material most commonly used was papyrus. This highly durable reed from the Nile Valley was glued together much like plywood and then allowed to dry in the sun. In the twentieth century many remains of documents (both biblical and non-biblical) on papyrus have been discovered, especially in the dry, arid lands of North Africa and the Middle East.

Another material used was parchment. This was made from the skin of sheep or goats, and was in wide use until the late Middle Ages when paper began to replace it. It was scarce and more expensive; hence, it was used almost exclusively for important documents.

Examples

1. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Siniaticus

These are two excellent parchment copies of the entire New Testament which date from the 4th century (325-450 A.D.). (5)

2. Older Papyrii

Earlier still, fragments and papyrus copies of portions of the New Testament date from 100 to 200 years (180-225 A.D.) before Vaticanus and Sinaticus. The outstanding ones are the Chester Beatty Papyrus (P45, P46, P47) and the Bodmer Papyrus II, XIV, XV (P46, P75).

From these five manuscripts alone, we can construct all of Luke, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, and portions of Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Revelation. Only the Pastoral Epistles (Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) and the General Epistles (James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2, and 3 John) and Philemon are excluded. (6)

3. Oldest Fragment

Perhaps the earliest piece of Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John. (7).

This manuscript evidence creates a bridge of extant papyrus and parchment fragments and copies of the New Testament stretching back to almost the end of the first century.

Versions (Translations)

In addition to the actual Greek manuscripts, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syria, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic, as well as 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate, some of which date back almost to Jerome's original translation in 384 400 A.D.

[phee]

could you clarify this, phee - i don't understand the question!?

Literal Fact: all of the historical writings of Moses. Also the Gospels - literal fact. Also the Letters that Paul wrote, and James letters, and Peters, etc. History is just history - I take it face value. Letters of encouragement or isntruction are jsut letters - I take them at face value.

When Steven says "Literal Fact" does he mean the historical writings of Moses are literal? or that it is a literal fact that Moses wrote them...

And the Gospels, does this mean only the Canonized ones... or all the gospels, including the ones the Church decided not to include fact as well? In Stevens view

[phee]

I take the historicals as literal fact - to include the weird shit such as Eden, Noahs arc and Jonah and the whale - straight up,and the fire and sulfar that raind down on Sodom, etc.

Interesting so you believe that the earth itself is definitly less then 10,000 years old?

[torn asunder]

When Steven says "Literal Fact" does he mean the historical writings of Moses are literal? or that it is a literal fact that Moses wrote them...

i see...

And the Gospels, does this mean only the Canonized ones... or all the gospels, including the ones the Church decided not to include fact as well? In Stevens view

that's a question i've had for a while... and why, if they are the word of god, would the church decide not to include them, and how they might reconcile the fact that they were "bastardizing" (so to speak) the word of god by abridging it!?

[Steven]

Interesting so you believe that the earth itself is definitly less then 10,000 years old?

no I dont.

and this was a good example because it allows me the ability to think inside of what I calim to take literally.

first - there is no literal interpretation of the earths age.

next - in that same old testment text - it says that "ad day to God is like a thousand years to man"

that does not however - tell us to apply a 1000 to 1 ratio on earths age relating to "and on the 5th day God made Mexicans, etc..."

all that text is giving you Phee - is a beginning.

The biblical text never even bothers to try to validate itself with dates and times of the earths age because none of that at any point comes into play into the Gospels in terms of foundational information. It likewise never come into play in the relationship between God and Man, or in the old testmanet prophesies of a coming messiah like the book of Isiah.

all its really saying is: God did this, and this, and this, and this.....and then he mad Man in his image, and here's what went down from that point onward and where its leading.

so with that in mind, I have no idea how old the earth really is, and I dont care - and I dont beleive that God needs me to care or waste my time on it. All he's syaing is "this is mine - I made it - you didint".

[Steven]

When Steven says "Literal Fact" does he mean the historical writings of Moses are literal? or that it is a literal fact that Moses wrote them...

And the Gospels, does this mean only the Canonized ones... or all the gospels, including the ones the Church decided not to include fact as well? In Stevens view

no one is sure if Moses wrote all of the early histories. Personally, my hunches lead me int aht direction by way of the "style" of the narratives and the elelments of what Moses sees in YHWH - or how constant he is in describing his actions - but nobody knows. And its one of those thigns that are not (in my world at least) pivitol to the intention of scripture - which I beleive was mused for God to reveal himself and his plans for mankind.

clarify for me what yoru askign about cannonized text because Im not following you....

[torn asunder]

no I dont.

and this was a good example because it allows me the ability to think inside of what I calim to take literally.

first - there is no literal interpretation of the earths age.

next - in that same old testment text - it says that "ad day to God is like a thousand years to man"

that does not however - tell us to apply a 1000 to 1 ratio on earths age relating to "and on the 5th day God made Mexicans, etc..."

all that text is giving you Phee - is a beginning.

The biblical text never even bothers to try to validate itself with dates and times of the earths age because none of that at any point comes into play into the Gospels in terms of foundational information. It likewise never come into play in the relationship between God and Man, or in the old testmanet prophesies of a coming messiah like the book of Isiah.

all its really saying is: God did this, and this, and this, and this.....and then he mad Man in his image, and here's what went down from that point onward and where its leading.

so with that in mind, I have no idea how old the earth really is, and I dont care - and I dont beleive that God needs me to care or waste my time on it. All he's syaing is "this is mine - I made it - you didint".

totally see where you're coming from, (and i would agree) but i think this is why i get confused, personally - you said you take things literally, but when given a specific, case, you say you don't. that gets confusing...

[phee]

no I dont.

and this was a good example because it allows me the ability to think inside of what I calim to take literally.

first - there is no literal interpretation of the earths age.

next - in that same old testment text - it says that "ad day to God is like a thousand years to man"

that does not however - tell us to apply a 1000 to 1 ratio on earths age relating to "and on the 5th day God made Mexicans, etc..."

all that text is giving you Phee - is a beginning.

The biblical text never even bothers to try to validate itself with dates and times of the earths age because none of that at any point comes into play into the Gospels in terms of foundational information. It likewise never come into play in the relationship between God and Man, or in the old testmanet prophesies of a coming messiah like the book of Isiah.

all its really saying is: God did this, and this, and this, and this.....and then he mad Man in his image, and here's what went down from that point onward and where its leading.

so with that in mind, I have no idea how old the earth really is, and I dont care - and I dont beleive that God needs me to care or waste my time on it. All he's syaing is "this is mine - I made it - you didint".

So you believe that God literally condones certain things such as in here?

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can force a woman captive to marry him without regard for her wishes. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."

[Steven]

that's a question i've had for a while... and why, if they are the word of god, would the church decide not to include them, and how they might reconcile the fact that they were "bastardizing" (so to speak) the word of god by abridging it!?

now im getting you.

in a nutshell - I beleive there are some very strong constants in foundational scripture:

a) the breakdown of the original intention of the man to God relationship

b) the need for a God provided and originated mediator to bridge the gap

c) the need for "compensation" for sin - as exmplified from the first bloodletting int he garden of Eden to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness to the final sacrifical lamb of Jeuss Christ.

I beleive that the church looked for these constants in collecting and archiving and finnaly cannonizing these ancient writings. yes other ancient writings existed, as well as other ancient beleifs about god and nirvana such as which has been exemplified by teh Gnostiocs. But ultimately - I think that "IF" there is a God YHWH that wanted to reveal himself to mankind, and that "BECAUSE" he had to work with man's limitations and perspectives given taht man is a free willed creature - that a gatheirng of constants would allow him to do that.

and "IF" there is a God who seeks to make this happen, I dont have a hard time beleiveing he has the werewithal to ensure that what was selected is what he wants to work with.

you may be suprised to find also - that I do not beleive scripture to be 100% without error - even though I beleive its inspired by God. I beleive God is both the written and collective muse - but its still done by men.

[Steven]

So you believe that God literally condones certain things such as in here?

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can force a woman captive to marry him without regard for her wishes. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."

I beleive that he did condone and or simply allow these types of activities to take place during the time Israel was becoming a force to be reckoned with in their early inception, yes.

I also beleive - that other nations (such as say.....babylon under Nebuchadnezzar) did the exact sorts of things to Israel and other nations that they captured. it was all ugly. and it was all how thigns were during thsoe times.

i dont call it "good" however - I simply call it what it is: war.

[torn asunder]

now im getting you.

in a nutshell - I beleive there are some very strong constants in foundational scripture:

a) the breakdown of the original intention of the man to God relationship

b) the need for a God provided and originated mediator to bridge the gap

c) the need for "compensation" for sin - as exmplified from the first bloodletting int he garden of Eden to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness to the final sacrifical lamb of Jeuss Christ.

I beleive that the church looked for these constants in collecting and archiving and finnaly cannonizing these ancient writings. yes other ancient writings existed, as well as other ancient beleifs about god and nirvana such as which has been exemplified by teh Gnostiocs. But ultimately - I think that "IF" there is a God YHWH that wanted to reveal himself to mankind, and that "BECAUSE" he had to work with man's limitations and perspectives given taht man is a free willed creature - that a gatheirng of constants would allow him to do that.

and "IF" there is a God who seeks to make this happen, I dont have a hard time beleiveing he has the werewithal to ensure that what was selected is what he wants to work with.

you may be suprised to find also - that I do not beleive scripture to be 100% without error - even though I beleive its inspired by God. I beleive God is both the written and collective muse - but its still done by men.

interesting!

ok, steven, here's the email i received - remember, it's a bit harsh, and sarcastic, but i think the point it makes is valid, relating to this idea - what do we take literally, and what is allegory, and how do we determine the difference?

DISCLAIMER:

I received this email from a friend. I do not contend to agree or disagree with its contents or p.o.v. I have on occassion listened to the Dr. Laura show and have found some of her points amusing, mainly due to the clueless idiots seeking advice from her. Nuff said.

Subject: Dr. Laura

>

>

> Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice

> to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that,

> as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination

> according to the Old Testament, Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be

> condoned under any circumstance.

> The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US

> resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as

> informative.

> Dear Dr. Laura:

> Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

> I have learned a great deal from your show, and 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 of the other

> specific laws and how to follow them.

> 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it

> creates a pleasing smell for the Lord - Leviticus 1:9. The problem

> is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them.

> Should I smite them?

> 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in

> Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what to you think would be a fair

> price for her?

> 3. I know that I am not allowed to have contact with a woman while

> she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Leviticus 15:19-24.

> The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women

> take offense.

> 4. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed 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?

> 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus

> 35:2 clearly states she should be put to death. Am I morally

> obligated to kill him myself?

> 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an

> abomination - Leviticus 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than

> homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

> 7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God

> if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading

> glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle

> room here?

> 8. Most of my male friends get their hair cut, including the hair

> around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by the

> bible, in Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

> 9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead

> pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

> 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting

> two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing

> garments mad of two different kinds of thread (cotton and polyester

> blend). He also tends to curse a lot. Is it really necessary that

> we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone

> them? - Leviticus 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? Leviticus 20:14

> I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident

> you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is

> eternal and unchanging.

> Your devoted fan, Jim

>

[phee]

I beleive that he did condone and or simply allow these types of activities to take place during the time Israel was becoming a force to be reckoned with in their early inception, yes.

I also beleive - that other nations (such as say.....babylon under Nebuchadnezzar) did the exact sorts of things to Israel and other nations that they captured. it was all ugly. and it was all how thigns were during thsoe times.

i dont call it "good" however - I simply call it what it is: war.

So God literally condoned rape then...

[Steven]

totally see where you're coming from, (and i would agree) but i think this is why i get confused, personally - you said you take things literally, but when given a specific, case, you say you don't. that gets confusing...

im not sure how to answer this Mike.

when you expereince peopel and events and especially spoken interaction, there is always a mixture of hard fact, literalism, generalities, and symbolism used. this is the human way.

you see your asking me to take a book containing thousands of years of human experience - and only approach it one way and Declare my method with a certain degree of rigidity. But I dont do that with anybody and neither do any of you. I struggle with that logic if thats what your asking me to do.

see you need to try to remember that I see this bible thign as a WHOLE lot more than rules and fables and parables. There is tremendous amounts of recorded history there - human history. I Have to use that lens as well.