Samnmax--if you could find the verses where those things are specified, I'd appreciate it. I don't believe I've read any of those, though I may have missed them.
All from the King James version, though there isn't much of a difference between versions.
When the host goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing. If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash [himself] with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp [again]. Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
In my experience atheists generally know more about the Bible than theists, with the exception of priests.

In my experience atheists generally know more about the Bible than theists, with the exception of priests.

I've noticed that as well.

I'm Agnostic and am currently reading the Bible.

English Standard version is far more accessible for the modern reader. KJV uses language that is a bit archaic for those not used to it to understand, and some of words in KJV aren't used the same way today as they were some 400 years back.

Deut. 23: 9-14--
9"When you are encamped against your enemies, then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing.

10"If any man among you becomes(A) unclean because of a nocturnal emission, then he shall go outside the camp. He shall not come inside the camp, 11but when evening comes, he shall(B) bathe himself in water, and as the sun sets, he may come inside the camp.

12"You shall have a place outside the camp, and you shall go out to it. 13And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement. 14Because(C) the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Verse 9 doesn't look like it's connected to 10-11--it's just a general admonition not to do evil. v. 10 is about nocturnal emission--it made one ceremonially unclean, and described what someone had to do to be in restoration with the community. Frankly, if a soldier has time to do anything at night besides sleep, he probably deserves to be apologizing to the community for slacking off on his duties during the day so that he has time at night for this.

Verses 12-14 are actually talking about poop, not semen. It's actually a basic sanitary measure--you dig the toilets away from where you eat/sleep/etc. so that you don't spread disease. This is something still taught in basic camp safety to this day.

Deut. 23:1
1"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

This verse is speaking about entering into the temple/tabernacle. Someone who's been emasculated is ceremonially unclean, hence the exclusion from the assembly. It does not mean they've been condemned to hell.

Lev. 20: 10-16 for reference--
10"If a(N) man commits adultery with the wife of[a] his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 11(O) If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 12(P) If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed(Q) perversion; their blood is upon them. 13(R) If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14(S) If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. 15(T) If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16(U) If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

What happens when you have incest? Increased rate of birth and genetic defects. What happens when you have multiple sexual partners? Increased rate of sexually transmitted disease. What happens when you have male homosexual sex? Increased rate of some very specific health problems that are not encountered with "regular" sex. Why do they have these verses in the Bible? To minimize these problems in a culture that had zero antibiotics, zero hospitals, zero access to anything remotely related to modern medical health care. I think it's a pretty brutal way to deal with ancient public health issues, but if your choice is two people dying versus dozens, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Fortunately, we have been given grace by Christ's sacrifice, so these strict sentences have been commuted.

This verse is speaking about entering into the temple/tabernacle. Someone who's been emasculated is ceremonially unclean, hence the exclusion from the assembly. It does not mean they've been condemned to hell.


How is that at all better? Because they lost their manhood, they can't come to your church anymore? How is that at all fair or logical? Or tolerant?

Oh, right, it isn't.

English Standard version is far more accessible for the modern reader. KJV uses language that is a bit archaic for those not used to it to understand, and some of words in KJV aren't used the same way today as they were some 400 years back.
KJV is closer to the original, that being why some of you people believe it to be the only version that "Satan" hasn't tampered with.
Deut. 23: 9-14--


Verse 9 doesn't look like it's connected to 10-11--it's just a general admonition not to do evil. v. 10 is about nocturnal emission--it made one ceremonially unclean, and described what someone had to do to be in restoration with the community. Frankly, if a soldier has time to do anything at night besides sleep, he probably deserves to be apologizing to the community for slacking off on his duties during the day so that he has time at night for this.

Verses 12-14 are actually talking about poop, not semen. It's actually a basic sanitary measure--you dig the toilets away from where you eat/sleep/etc. so that you don't spread disease. This is something still taught in basic camp safety to this day.
There isn't a clear break from the talk of semen to indicate that we are now talking about poo poo and pee pee, so I'm going to keep on assuming. That said, nocturnal emissions are not voluntary (and this being the Bible it can be assumed we're not talking about masturbation which is outlined as bad elsewhere) so I have no idea where you were going with the soldier thing(hee hee).


This verse is speaking about entering into the temple/tabernacle. Someone who's been emasculated is ceremonially unclean, hence the exclusion from the assembly. It does not mean they've been condemned to hell.
What purpose does that serve? Are they worried about him bleeding on the new carpet? If they're not allowed to even enter a temple it stands to reason that they won't be allowed into heaven either, no eunuchs need apply.



What happens when you have incest? Increased rate of birth and genetic defects. What happens when you have multiple sexual partners? Increased rate of sexually transmitted disease. What happens when you have male homosexual sex? Increased rate of some very specific health problems that are not encountered with "regular" sex. Why do they have these verses in the Bible? To minimize these problems in a culture that had zero antibiotics, zero hospitals, zero access to anything remotely related to modern medical health care. I think it's a pretty brutal way to deal with ancient public health issues, but if your choice is two people dying versus dozens, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Fortunately, we have been given grace by Christ's sacrifice, so these strict sentences have been commuted.
They weren't aware of any of these things, they had a mythology in place to explain things they didn't understand. This mythology also held an advantage for those who knew how to exploit it, using it to impose their personal taste on others.

How is that at all better? Because they lost their manhood, they can't come to your church anymore? How is that at all fair or logical? Or tolerant?

Oh, right, it isn't.

Clearly you haven't read the NT, otherwise you would know the story of the Eunuch...

Philip and the Ethiopian
26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian[d]eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."

30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.

31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."[e]

34The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"[f] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

So eunnuchs are allowed in the Church, OT is Jewish ;)

And please people don't quote the KJV of the Bible, its extremely antiquated, contains numerous errors, and only comes from four source documents. Beyond that I'm not getting drawn into a debate about the OT at this time of night :xp:

EDIT:

KJV is closer to the original, that being why some of you people believe it to be the only version that "Satan" hasn't tampered with.

It's really not, and you may well know more about the Bible than many Christians, but I would doubt you know it better than me. If I really have to proove the unreliability of the KJV I will do, I've established there are 120 errors/contradictions in it.

*dusts off Bible*

Hey kids, guess what? God says that it's okay to massacre, rape, and pillage an entire race!
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

And if anyone has any physical or mental deformities, they can all go to Hell!
16 The LORD said to Moses, 17 "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy."

Or, if you feel like killing your closest relatives, then what the hell; have fun!
27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

Isn't the Bible great![/sarcasm]

On a more serious note, the God in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, isn't really the kind of god I, or any sane person, should worship.

Clearly you haven't read the NT, otherwise you would know the story of the Eunuch...
I don't quite understand how God is an all knowing all seeing entity when he goes around changing his mind like that.

It's really not, and you may well know more about the Bible than many Christians, but I would doubt you know it better than me. If I really have to proove the unreliability of the KJV I will do, I've established there are 120 errors/contradictions in it.
I happen to like antiquated language.

I'm fairly surprised no one has come out with an annotated version of the Bible with footnotes like This means its okay to kill gays, This means it's okay to kill women, etc. With a directory for finding quick excuses in a pinch.

I don't quite understand how God is an all knowing all seeing entity when he goes around changing his mind like that.

Changing his mind, would infer a time constraint on God, as changing one's mind, can only occur if you are in time.

I've heard various explanations of the reasons for the differences, are you actually interested to hear the theories?

Changing his mind, would infer a time constraint on God, as changing one's mind, can only occur if you are in time.
If there were no time constraint on God then it doesn't really make sense that the word of God would need revising.
I've heard various explanations of the reasons for the differences, are you actually interested to hear the theories?
As long as they aren't along the lines of the great flood made the Grand Canyon, and the Israelites crossed the Sea or Reeds. I suspect that at least one of these is going to blame the Jews for being unreliable interpreters.

If there were no time constraint on God then it doesn't really make sense that the word of God would need revising.

It's an interesting point. Perhaps the point could be made that at varying points people need to hear different things. So if a people are being persecuted, then they need to be built up. If a people are running around sacrificing kids, then they need to me reminded that's bad. Could be one quick suggestion. The question then becomes are there universal truths behind something said at a particular time? I am by no means conventional on my Biblical beliefs, and I'm infuriating enough that not all of this reflects my actual opinion :xp:

Though in general I would agree with this;

"There is, then, no absolute proof that our Canon is precisely the true Canon and no absolute proof that any one word of the text is exactly as God gave it. But the quest for absolute proofs, whether historical or theological, is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of history, theology and the human mind. History is at best an approximation to truth based upon incomplete induction of the facts. Theology is a fallible human attempt to co-ordinate the data of revelation. The human intellect, even when renewed by the Holy Spirit, cannot know absolute certainty. In his inmost being the Christian believer has an absolute assurance (that is, an assurance which comes from God's direct witness within him), that he has heard the voice of God and that he is a child of God. But when he puts his beliefs into his own words the absoluteness of the truth of his statements vanishes."

I was somewhat mystified that some of those who think the Bible is infallible concurred with the above, but then I've always had the suspicion they don't know what infallible means,

As long as they aren't along the lines of the great flood made the Grand Canyon, and the Israelites crossed the Sea or Reeds. I suspect that at least one of these is going to blame the Jews for being unreliable interpreters.

Nope, you won't get anything too crazy from me :xp: I believe in the Big Bang and Evolution.

I'm away this W/E, so you'll have to wait till Monday for me to put that together for you in a post, if that's acceptable?

And, I won't be blaming the Jews for anything :)

I'm away this W/E, so you'll have to wait till Monday for me to put that together for you in a post, if that's acceptable?I can wait, I'm interested enough to see what you've got.[/quote]

And, I won't be blaming the Jews for anything :)
That's good, that stuff gets old really quick.

KJV is closer to the original, that being why some of you people believe it to be the only version that "Satan" hasn't tampered with. Not actually closer to the original--the translators for the KJV didn't have access to the Dead Sea scrolls, for instance. Scholars consider the ESV and NIV to be the current most accurate translations.

There isn't a clear break from the talk of semen to indicate that we are now talking about poo poo and pee pee, so I'm going to keep on assuming.

There is a difference in the original Hebrew--the words are different ("that which chanceth him by night" vs. "that which cometh from thee")
י כִּי-תֵצֵא מַחֲנֶה, עַל-אֹיְבֶיךָ: וְנִשְׁמַרְתָּ--מִכֹּל, דָּבָר רָע. 10 When thou goest forth in camp against thine enemies, then thou shalt keep thee from every evil thing.
יא כִּי-יִהְיֶה בְךָ אִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר מִקְּרֵה-לָיְלָה--וְיָצָא אֶל-מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה, לֹא יָבֹא אֶל-תּוֹךְ הַמַּחֲנֶה. 11 If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp.
יב וְהָיָה לִפְנוֹת-עֶרֶב, יִרְחַץ בַּמָּיִם; וּכְבֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, יָבֹא אֶל-תּוֹךְ הַמַּחֲנֶה. 12 But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall bathe himself in water; and when the sun is down, he may come within the camp.
יג וְיָד תִּהְיֶה לְךָ, מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה; וְיָצָאתָ שָּׁמָּה, חוּץ. 13 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad.
יד וְיָתֵד תִּהְיֶה לְךָ, עַל-אֲזֵנֶךָ; וְהָיָה, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ חוּץ, וְחָפַרְתָּה בָהּ, וְשַׁבְתָּ וְכִסִּיתָ אֶת-צֵאָתֶךָ. 14 And thou shalt have a paddle among thy weapons; and it shall be, when thou sittest down abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee.


That said, nocturnal emissions are not voluntary (and this being the Bible it can be assumed we're not talking about masturbation which is outlined as bad elsewhere) so I have no idea where you were going with the soldier thing(hee hee).Not all nocturnal emissions are voluntary, but some are, depending on the situation, (and my dancing around the fact that I don't want to get too graphic on a PG-13 forum).

What purpose does that serve? Are they worried about him bleeding on the new carpet? If they're not allowed to even enter a temple it stands to reason that they won't be allowed into heaven either, no eunuchs need apply.It violated the purity required to enter the temple--the temple represented God's purity and holiness where the sacrifices were made to absolve the entire community from sin. However, they were never excluded from the community. You are incorrectly extrapolating that to heaven--the Bible in no way says or even implies that. If that were the case, women's menstrual periods would damn us all to hell, too, and that's clearly not the case. There were quite a few things that made one ritually unclean and thus prevented one from physically entering the temple until one underwent the appropriate purification rites (if one was able to), but it did not separate them from God.


They weren't aware of any of these things, they had a mythology in place to explain things they didn't understand. This mythology also held an advantage for those who knew how to exploit it, using it to impose their personal taste on others.

How is 'exploiting' and 'taking advantage' of basic sanitation issues imposing personal taste on others? Would you like to walk through a camp full of crap piled everywhere, with flies spreading all that disease around, or would you like it confined in one latrine spot?
I completely disagree that they didn't know that incest led to more genetic defects, or that promiscuity led to STDs. Having studied history of medicine in graduate school at Ohio State, I can tell you there are numerous historical accounts of people knowing they got an STD and knowing how they got it well before Pasteur came out with the germ theory and long before we could actually see the gonococcus or syphilis spirochete under the microscope. I've read some of them. There are plenty of accounts of mercury and arsenic being used in the 1700's and 1800's for treatment of syphilis (and arsenic actually works if it doesn't kill you first). There are discussions of STDs in medical texts that pre-date Pasteur and how to treat them. The Bible obviously is an ancient text that acknowledges that people knew the consequences of immorality and sought to minimize those consequences.

I don't quite understand how God is an all knowing all seeing entity when he goes around changing his mind like that.The conventional thought is that the Old Testament looks forward to Christ's sacrifice, while the New Testament looks back in terms of what He did on the cross. It's not a changing of mind--it was orchestrated that way while working around people and groups that have the free will to either obey or not.

As for the various events in the Old Testament like the flood, parting of the red sea, etc. my thought is this--if God can create an entire universe, a little rain or a little holding back of a few waves isn't going to be a problem for Him. That being said, I think God set the universe in motion with specific physical laws in mind and doesn't bend them for our convenience all that often.

I can wait, I'm interested enough to see what you've got.

Cool beans, hope I don't disappoint!

That's good, that stuff gets old really quick.

Anti-Semitism has never made any sense to me from a Christian stand point, if Christian orthodoxy is to be believed;

Jesus is Jewish
The Jews are God's original people
Jesus had to die, ergo who killed him is irrelevant
The Romans crucified him
The Pharisees may of been Jewish, but so were all the disciples

I could go on...

Regardless, Anti-Semitism, I would argue has more to do with the fact, Jewish people tend to be a rather talented bunch, and rise to prominence in the lands they are in. IIRC, a ridiculously high number of Jews have been Nobel Prize winners, jealousy is a horrible thing, and I think unfortunately the reason the Jews have suffered so much over the centuries; victims of their own success, in a very sad way.

Well it's good to see none of that stuff about putting the gays to death counts anymore.

There is a difference in the original Hebrew--the words are different ("that which chanceth him by night" vs. "that which cometh from thee") Both could honestly mean the same thing.


Not all nocturnal emissions are voluntary, but some are, depending on the situation, (and my dancing around the fact that I don't want to get too graphic on a PG-13 forum). A nocturnal emission generally refers to a wet dream. Its pretty clear that this is the case it is being used in, as the Bible forbids masturbation elsewhere.


It violated the purity required to enter the temple--the temple represented God's purity and holiness where the sacrifices were made to absolve the entire community from sin. However, they were never excluded from the community. You are incorrectly extrapolating that to heaven--the Bible in no way says or even implies that. If that were the case, women's menstrual periods would damn us all to hell, too, and that's clearly not the case. There were quite a few things that made one ritually unclean and thus prevented one from physically entering the temple until one underwent the appropriate purification rites (if one was able to), but it did not separate them from God.
Either way it's ridiculous.



How is 'exploiting' and 'taking advantage' of basic sanitation issues imposing personal taste on others? Would you like to walk through a camp full of crap piled everywhere, with flies spreading all that disease around, or would you like it confined in one latrine spot?
I completely disagree that they didn't know that incest led to more genetic defects, or that promiscuity led to STDs. Having studied history of medicine in graduate school at Ohio State, I can tell you there are numerous historical accounts of people knowing they got an STD and knowing how they got it well before Pasteur came out with the germ theory and long before we could actually see the gonococcus or syphilis spirochete under the microscope. I've read some of them. There are plenty of accounts of mercury and arsenic being used in the 1700's and 1800's for treatment of syphilis (and arsenic actually works if it doesn't kill you first). There are discussions of STDs in medical texts that pre-date Pasteur and how to treat them. The Bible obviously is an ancient text that acknowledges that people knew the consequences of immorality and sought to minimize those consequences.
Immorality is kind of a funny word to choose. Heterosexual intercourse spreads STD's as well, so it seems rather convenient to forbid homosexual relations all the while polygamy was perfectly acceptable.

Your points about sanitary practices aren't pertinent here, my points about sanitary practices were separate from where I stated that the mythology was used to enforce rules.

As for the various events in the Old Testament like the flood, parting of the red sea, etc. my thought is this--if God can create an entire universe, a little rain or a little holding back of a few waves isn't going to be a problem for Him. That being said, I think God set the universe in motion with specific physical laws in mind and doesn't bend them for our convenience all that often.Or at all. Way back in the time of Genesis as far as the original chroniclers knew the world only consisted only of a small area in the fertile crescent, which floods every year (Many of the cultures in that area have flood stories, of their own). One particularly bad flood gets written down as the great flood which floods the entire "world". When it comes to parting the Red Sea there is even less basis there, as the Bible is the only supposed record that the Jews were ever in Egypt. It's generally accepted now that the Egyptian's used Egyptian conscripts, not foreign slave labor. The laws of physics don't seem to bent anymore for our convenience or punishment, and generally when there are claims they're easily debunked lies.

Hey kids, guess what? God says that it's okay to massacre, rape, and pillage an entire race!


Don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah!

Both could honestly mean the same thing.Sam, I said the Hebrew was different, though I used the English translation for those of us who aren't fluent in ancient Hebrew. I posted the Hebrew so you could see the difference. You can tell the words are different, even if you can't read the Hebrew itself.

A nocturnal emission generally refers to a wet dream. Its pretty clear that this is the case it is being used in, as the Bible forbids masturbation elsewhere.Please post where it says "thou shalt not masturbate".
And yes, I know what a nocturnal emission is. Probably could tell you the physiology behind it if you really wanted.


Either way it's ridiculous. That's a value judgment on your part. I think endless discussions about cockrings are ridiculous, but you and the other boys enjoy them. :)


Immorality is kind of a funny word to choose. Heterosexual intercourse spreads STD's as well, so it seems rather convenient to forbid homosexual relations all the while polygamy was perfectly acceptable. Monogamous sexual intercourse does not spread STDs to others. Polygamy was allowed at that time but with strict restrictions (don't take more wives than you can support) and it wasn't encouraged, nor was it necessarily common for most people. The man still was not allowed to have sex outside of marriage

Your points about sanitary practices aren't pertinent here, my points about sanitary practices were separate from where I stated that the mythology was used to enforce rules.You didn't make the distinction, hence the confusion.

Or at all. Way back in the time of Genesis as far as the original chroniclers knew the world only consisted only of a small area in the fertile crescent, which floods every year (Many of the cultures in that area have flood stories, of their own). One particularly bad flood gets written down as the great flood which floods the entire "world". When it comes to parting the Red Sea there is even less basis there, as the Bible is the only supposed record that the Jews were ever in Egypt. It's generally accepted now that the Egyptian's used Egyptian conscripts, not foreign slave labor. The laws of physics don't seem to bent anymore for our convenience or punishment, and generally when there are claims they're easily debunked lies.
That doesn't mean that NO foreign slave labor was used, and the number of Jews would have been comparatively small. I'm aware of other cultures having flood accounts, yes. It doesn't negate the fact that if you believe in a God that can create an entire universe, then He has the capability to do something comparatively easy like part a sea.

I think god must be a very angry yet sad being because people put words in his mouth using the bible for ages now.

Don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah!
What about Sodom and Gomorrah?

What about Sodom and Gomorrah?

They were all gomorrahble sodomites, of course. :carms:

Sam, I said the Hebrew was different, though I used the English translation for those of us who aren't fluent in ancient Hebrew. I posted the Hebrew so you could see the difference. You can tell the words are different, even if you can't read the Hebrew itself.
Please post where it says "thou shalt not masturbate".
And yes, I know what a nocturnal emission is. Probably could tell you the physiology behind it if you really wanted.

Genesis 38:9 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the LORD: and he slew him also.
There's a whole load of messed up stuff going on here, but it seems pretty clear that sex acts not attempting to procreate are bad.

That's a value judgment on your part. I think endless discussions about cockrings are ridiculous, but you and the other boys enjoy them. :)
We're playing scientist. In case anyone is very confused right now. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=157061)

Monogamous sexual intercourse does not spread STDs to others. Polygamy was allowed at that time but with strict restrictions (don't take more wives than you can support) and it wasn't encouraged, nor was it necessarily common for most people. The man still was not allowed to have sex outside of marriage.
Some STD's are passed through birth so I get out on a technicality.

That doesn't mean that NO foreign slave labor was used, and the number of Jews would have been comparatively small. I'm aware of other cultures having flood accounts, yes. It doesn't negate the fact that if you believe in a God that can create an entire universe, then He has the capability to do something comparatively easy like part a sea. The Torah and by extension the Bible is the only account that says the Jews were in Egypt. Archaeologists (The reputable ones) don't believe that they were there either.

Perhaps the general standard Christian view of the Bible would be that the Old Testament points towards Jesus.

With regards the Old Testament, (again the more 'standard' view) is that it can be broken down into five different segments;

1. Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy) - Which records the creation of Israel, and God revealing himself to the Jews, and making an agreement with them.

2. Historical books (Joshua to Esther) - Records the 'history' of Isreal, both 'good' and 'bad' - i.e. epic wins or losses in battle etc

3. Poetic books (Job to Song of Solomon), a much more 'intimate' set of thoughts on God, why is there suffering? and so forth.

4. Major Prophets (Isaiah tto Daniel) - the call of God's prophets to a people who have turned from him, to come back to God.

5. Minor Prophets (Hosea to the end of the OT), the minor prophets tend to deal with the same issues the Major Prophets did.

The following assumes, a believer, believes in 'divine revaluation', and I suppose would be the 'standard' conservative branch view...

The general argument put forth for the harshness of the Old Testament, is that God meets people where they are at and trys to move them a step forward. So for example, some would argue, that at a time when woman had no rights, making a man marry and look after a woman he had defiled was a step forward, as it forced the man to acknowledge the woman as having needs etc. The argument then goes forth that to a 21st century mind this seems horrible, but we live in 'more civilised times'.

So this particular line of thought argues that God meets people where they are, and trys to move them forward, and then forward again. It would also argue that the revelation of scripture is 'progressive' and not giving the people 'too much they couldn't handle'.

More liberal theologians, not believe in the revaluation of scripture, perhaps do not have the problem of explaining, any real or apparent differences is in scripture.

I'm pausing for now, have quite a few real life concerns atm, but shall post more theories/explanations up, didn't want you to feel I was ignoring the thread, but family members are ill, so having to sort things out there...

The general argument put forth for the harshness of the Old Testament, is that God meets people where they are at and trys to move them a step forward. So for example, some would argue, that at a time when woman had no rights, making a man marry and look after a woman he had defiled was a step forward, as it forced the man to acknowledge the woman as having needs etc. The argument then goes forth that to a 21st century mind this seems horrible, but we live in 'more civilised times'.I can agree with that, to an extent.
So this particular line of thought argues that God meets people where they are, and trys to move them forward, and then forward again. It would also argue that the revelation of scripture is 'progressive' and not giving the people 'too much they couldn't handle'.I believe that "they" could have handled it very well, seeing as there isn't a wholly massive cultural differentiation from the time of the exodus and the time of Jesus. It's better to teach it right the first time than to completely reverse your ideals and impose a completely different set of new ones on a people.