Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Gawdzilla Sama]

*Whether "skin of my teeth" refers to gums or to enamel or to whatever is itself a question, but that question isn't much affected by changing "with" to "by".

Refers to a very thin chance, virtually non-existent.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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

No, they were living breathing human beings. No person is ever the property of another; no matter what you believe your idiot God says.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Refers to a very thin chance, virtually non-existent.

That's not what it means in the book of Job, where the phrase originated.

It was not a matter of chance. When @Rusty Tyler's Lord and Satan first agreed upon the terms of their cruel wager, the Lord stipulated "only upon himself put not forth thine hand." When Satan loses that bet, he/she/it proposes (chapter 2) a more trying trial: "Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face." To which the Lord says okay, whatever, "but save his life." So it was the terms of the wager that saved Job's life, not chance.

Job himself never learned that his misfortunes were caused by that Lord and Satan amusing themselves by betting on what Job would do when they kill off his family and servants and then (in the second bet) causing Job himself great pain and misery.

To Job's credit, he confronts those miscreants toward the end of the book, only to be told that, as a puny human, he's too insignificant to question the motives of the God he worships.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If the Bible was really the Revealed Word of God, you'd think he would do better way of revealing it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

By checking to see if her hymen was intact, which is not a reliable test for virginity. It's quite common for girls and women to experience a torn or streched hymen from physical activity. And don't forget that if the bride was found not to have an intact hymen, she was put to death. I wonder how many Bronze Age girls had their heads bashed in with stones simply because God never bothered to tell a highly patriarchal culture that a torn or stretched hymen wasn't a dependable indicator of sexual activity.

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.

Except that the author of Matthew didn't speak English, so he never actually said that. Most academic scholars rate the KJV as one of the most problematic English translations in terms of fidelity to the best available Koine Greek textual witnesses. The NIV, on the other hand, is rated much more highly in that regard, and in that transition the verse reads:

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.​

So there's no semantic distinction between adultery and fornication. It's the same problem the Greco Roman authors of the Gospels had with the translations of the Hebrew texts they were referencing, like the "young woman" to "virgin" issue.

It's also a bit funny that the implication is that you can't divorce your wife for, say, trying to poison you with hemlock. Much less funny is the fact that the question of divorce is clearly entirely up to the husband. The wife has no say in the matter and cannot, for example, divorce a husband who beats and rapes her, or otherwise makes her life with him miserable.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

And when you are commanded to slaughter every living thing in some village, you are permitted to keep the virgin girls for yourself.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

But it's strange to claim to be christian and then pick and choose which bits of christianity you want to believe in.

Isn't that what the denominations are already doing?
Each one a specialist in some area, and neglecting another.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Which brings us back to the law vs. God's Law®, and the issue of supposedly perfect, objectively correct divine morality. Why didn't YHWH state right from the start that it's immoral to enslave other human beings, be they foreigners, debtors or women? Why did YHWH always seem to issue laws that were coincidentally [cough] in the interests of the men being gifted [cough cough] with His Divine Word®?

If God's morality is objectively perfect, why has it changed so much over time to follow along in the wake of subjective human morality?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Except for all the surviving ancient references to love.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Oh! You're so close to finding the cheese! You just need to turn one more corner.

Look, either turning your own daughter over the men of the village to be killed for having sex is objectively a morally good thing to do, or "God's Law" is just as subjective as any other human code.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Is it just confirmation bias?

I suppose that plays a part.
They resonate with what I have already discovered, or align with a point I am trying to make.

I used to have an older version of the NIV that had a verse that really worked for me. (Ephesians 3:15)
Rarely seen it since. But these two include it. (see bold emphasis)

AMPC
For Whom every family in heaven and on earth is named [that Father from Whom all fatherhood takes its title and derives its name].

WYC
of whom each fatherhood in heavens and in earth is named, [of whom each fatherhood in heaven and in earth is named,]

 

[Foster Zygote]

That's not what it means in the book of Job, where the phrase originated.

It was not a matter of chance. When @Rusty Tyler's Lord and Satan first agreed upon the terms of their cruel wager, the Lord stipulated "only upon himself put not forth thine hand." When Satan loses that bet, he/she/it proposes (chapter 2) a more trying trial: "Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face." To which the Lord says okay, whatever, "but save his life." So it was the terms of the wager that saved Job's life, not chance.

Job himself never learned that his misfortunes were caused by that Lord and Satan amusing themselves by betting on what Job would do when they kill off his family and servants and then (in the second bet) causing Job himself great pain and misery.

To Job's credit, he confronts those miscreants toward the end of the book, only to be told that, as a puny human, he's too insignificant to question the motives of the God he worships.

Little known fact: the bet was settled when Satan (the Adversary) paid God the agreed upon wager of $1.00.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

If God's morality is objectively perfect, why has it changed so much over time to follow along in the wake of subjective human morality?

I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
Is abortion murder? (subjective human morality?)

I just realized that I asked that question of someone with "zygote" in their username. - LOL

 

[Foster Zygote]

Isn't that what the denominations are already doing?
Each one a specialist in some area, and neglecting another.

"Tu quoque" doesn't make it any less strange.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Only if it says what they want it to say.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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? By affirming what you want it to mean? You can't just agree that the KJV is problematic except for the bits that say what you want.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

How? By affirming what you want it to mean? You can't just agree that the KJV is problematic except for the bits that say what you want.

Why not?
You seem to be in the business of discarding any child with a blemish.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's not what it means in the book of Job, where the phrase originated.

It was not a matter of chance. When @Rusty Tyler's Lord and Satan first agreed upon the terms of their cruel wager, the Lord stipulated "only upon himself put not forth thine hand." When Satan loses that bet, he/she/it proposes (chapter 2) a more trying trial: "Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face." To which the Lord says okay, whatever, "but save his life." So it was the terms of the wager that saved Job's life, not chance.

Job himself never learned that his misfortunes were caused by that Lord and Satan amusing themselves by betting on what Job would do when they kill off his family and servants and then (in the second bet) causing Job himself great pain and misery.

To Job's credit, he confronts those miscreants toward the end of the book, only to be told that, as a puny human, he's too insignificant to question the motives of the God he worships.

Fine. But you have to know that I don't give a flying ◊◊◊◊ about Job.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Isn't that what the denominations are already doing?
Each one a specialist in some area, and neglecting another.

Which is, in itself, a good reason for treating christianity with a very hefty amount of suspicion.

I mean, if all you christianists can't agree among yourselves what it is you actually believe in I'm at a loss as to why any of the rest of us should take any of it remotely seriously.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why limit yourself to one set of translators on a specific version.
Compare to see what best speaks to you.

And there it is. You just cherry pick the ones you like best, regardless of actual translational fidelity. Now you're seeing why there are so many religious denominations.

In comparative study they bring out a subtle or blatant difference.

But what you're describing isn't comparative study. It's just going with the one you like best. The comparative study has already been done by people who are experts in Koine Greek with access to the whole of the available textual witnesses, many of which weren't available to the translators of the KJV.