Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Darat]

That's the modern day Christian interpretation of it.

Interesting to note the use of the word fornication in this verse below.
An Israelite had the right to divorce a woman if he discovered that she was not a virgin on their wedding night.
But if this was not true, the parents could contest it.

So, today we allow divorce for adultery, but Jesus said the only allowance for divorce was fornication.

Matthew 5:32 KJV
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

In the bible if a man thought his new wife was not a virgin on their wedding night and he wanted shut of her she could be put on trial. The evidence required that would prove she was a virgin was blood on the bedding (yeah apparently all virgins bleed the first time they have intercourse...). If her parents showed the elders blood on the bedding the man would be deemed as lying and for impugning that her father had sold used goods he would have to pay a fine. Oh, you ask what happened if there was no blood so she was judged to not be a virgin? Did her father have to refund the husband? Nope. Could the husband get a divorce? Nope. In an example of the fair justice of god she was to be stoned to death, after all who would want used goods?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

But it's OK to screw your slaves. Genesis 16:1–16; 21:8–21

In that day they were property, including your wife/wives.

 

[catsmate]

That's the modern day Christian interpretation of it.

Interesting to note the use of the word fornication in this verse below.

Sigh. Because that's the word the translators chose to use

So, today we allow divorce for adultery, but Jesus said the only allowance for divorce was fornication.

Yes we've progressed beyond the ideas of bronze age goat herders. Well some of us have.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Sigh. Because that's the word the translators chose to use

The King James version is unique in this.
And the closest to the NT Greek.

 

[Darat]

Apparently not even in his recognisable human cosplay form since neither Mary Magdalen or the disciples recognised the risen Christ. Perhaps they were expecting a blue eyed blonde American Jesus instead of a 33CE Palistinian?

....snip...

There's an interesting idea that could account for the resurrection stories, an imposter claiming to be Jesus risen from the dead. And we know such imposters existed back then, for example we have historical references of several imposters claiming to be the beast from Revelation i.e. Nero back from the dead, one was so convincing he almost convinced the Parthians to go to war with Rome to put him (back) on the throne! There are many, many incidents of such imposters making such claims right up to modern days.

 

[Darat]

In that day they were property, including your wife/wives.

Yes the ever changing morals of the bible. It's almost as if a society's morality changed over time and the Bible reflects that... God certainly does change...

 

[Mojo]

In that day they were property, including your wife/wives.

And that was OK, was it?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Yes the ever changing morals of the bible. It's almost as if a society's morality changed over time and the Bible reflects that... God certainly does change...

When the Apostle Paul told Christian men to love their wives, that was revolutionary thought at the time.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

And that was OK, was it?

No, not by today's standards in the west.
But that's how it was back then.

Women didn't even have voting rights until the 1900s.

 

[Darat]

And that was OK, was it?

Yes... Until it wasn't.

 

[Mojo]

No, not by today's standards in the west.
But that's how it was back then.

And it was OK with your God?

 

[Darat]

And it was OK with your God?

Yes... Until it wasn't.

 

[catsmate]

The King James version is unique in this.
And the closest to the NT Greek.

Rubbish. The King James translation is noted for the poor quality and political bias of its workmanship, plus the limited base of its sources
BTW, assuming Jesus existed he and his followers would have been speaking Aramaic not Koine Greek.

 

[Darat]

Rubbish. The King James translation is noted for the poor quality and political bias of its workmanship, plus the limited base of its sources
BTW, assuming Jesus existed he and his followers would have been speaking Aramaic not Koine Greek.

It was not a bad translation for the time, but it's long been surpassed for accuracy. It is strange how there is a minority of Christians who are "King James absolutists", you would have thought any Christian would want a translated text that was as accurate as possible.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

The Bible says that angels appear as men.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Rubbish. The King James translation is noted for the poor quality and political bias of its workmanship, plus the limited base of its sources
BTW, assuming Jesus existed he and his followers would have been speaking Aramaic not Koine Greek.

I agree in general.
But there are a few passages where the KJV shines some light on the issue.
This one of those issues.

 

[Mojo]

I agree in general.
But there are a few passages where the KJV shines some light on the issue.
This one of those issues.

How do you identify these "few passages"?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

How do you identify these "few passages"?

They come up from time to time when I am researching a verse or passage.
I will prefer the wording in the KJV.

I primarily use the New International Version. (which has its own issues)
But it works well for me.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

The King James version is unique in this.
And the closest to the NT Greek.

View attachment 71992
View attachment 71993

Which highlights the futility of quoting the bible as a source for anything...

 

[catsmate]

I agree in general.
But there are a few passages where the KJV shines some light on the issue.
This one of those issues.

Again, rubbish. Try a better translation.