25 February 2007

A duck with four legs: "It shall be an abomination unto you"

"Stumpy the four-legged duckling is basking in the spotlight after being unveiled to the world. The bird, now just eight days old, has suffered a rare genetic mutation which has left it with two legs behind the two he runs about on."

Okay, Stumpy is kind of cute. But he's an abomination to God and to all true Bible-believers. It's one of the few things that the Bible is clear about.

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:20

130 comments:

William said...

Hmm..I'm wondering if Levi also meant the Duckbill Platypus... I mean, I'm sure they wouldn't know the difference between fowl and mammals.

Anonymous said...

Double-check your reference. Lev 11:20 isn't talking about ducks.

Anonymous said...

Anon, what is Lev 11:20 talking about then?

Anonymous said...

Every translation except the KJV reads something like this: "All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you."

And when you read verses 21-24, it's easy to see the subject of verse 20 isn't a fuzzy, yellow mutated animal.

But he sure is cute!

Anonymous said...

Another example of the bible's stunning clarity.

jason said...

No, it's just another example of man's bias getting in the way of properly researching a topic before commenting on it.

This isn't difficult stuff. Look at the verse, look at the definition of the word in a concordance. What else do you want???

Steve Wells said...

"Look at the verse, look at the definition of the word in a concordance."

Okay, Jason. That sounds like fun.

Here's the verse:

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:20

And here's the definition of the word in the concordance:

"`owph: 1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds" Blue Letter Bible

"What else do you want???"

jason said...

That's really good, Steve. See how easy that was? Now, what's the Hebrew definition of the word "creep"? Now match this definition up with the kind of animal (which you've already listed) that most logically fits this description. And what do we have...?

Next, to really cement things, read verses 21 and 22. Is there a link between these two verses and verse 20? Which kind of animal is being talked about in these verses?

Dave said...

Jason, in prior conversations you said the bible was crystal clear and that all someone had to do was use a concordance. This is precisely what Steve did. Is the concordance now wrong, along with the King James Version? You keep talking about the following verses which “clearly” refer to insects (even though there is a blantant error that insects have four legs!) You fail to mention that verses 13-19 which lead up to the verse in question clearly refer to birds. And verse 20 is more logically tied to the previous verses than the following, because verse 21 starts with “Yet” which is commonly used as a break in the train of thought. Crystal clear? Baloney.

beepbeepitsme said...

Tsk tsk, did someone not play by the rules?

You're supposed to have FAITH. (Which is why catholics are not encouraged to read the bible - reading it is bound to turn you into an agnostic or an atheist.)

jason said...

Come on Dave, be intellectually honest here. Looking at a single word to find the answer to a problem isn't always the route to go. Sometimes (gasp) you might even need to look at two or three words.

Verse 13 - 19 is talking about birds. We both agree with that. But as for "yet" being commonly used as a break in thought...Huh??? Verse 21 joins itself with verse 20 with the word "yet" or "however". In other words, the structure of the section on insects (vs. 20-24 reads: "You're not allowed to eat these however you are allowed to eat these and even these. But everything else is off limits."

In verses 20, 21 and 23, "flying" and "creep" are exactly the same Hebrew words. This wouldn't make sense if both verses are talking about a completely different type of animal. Finally, consider also that the word "creep" is never used in conjunction with birds. For example, Genesis 1:26, 6:7, 6:20, 7:14, 7:21, 7:23, 8:17, 8:19, treat fowls and creeping things as two distinct types of animals.

What a bizarre post...

Dave said...

You know what, Jason, you are right. When you go to the original text, analyze the root Hebrew word, and look at the surrounding verses, you can very reasonably come to the conclusion that the biblical god definitely does not want you to eat four-legged insects. With your help I am really pleased to have finally figured out The Truth. Thank you.

jason said...

Does Leviticus 11:20 refer to four-legged ducks? This, after all, is the topic of the post.

Dave said...

Jason, let’s ALL be intellectually honest here. Steve isn’t being serious with his post about the 4 legged duck. They don’t normally exist. I’m not being serious about 4 legged insects. They don’t normally exist either. Steve is using the cute picture of a genetically defective duckling as a method to point out the absurdity of the picky details in Leviticus. God really caring whether we eat shrimp or not? Ridiculous.

Since you seem to revel in it, let’s get nit-picky about words here. How about we all concede that you are right about the verse in question referring to insects, not ducks. Great. Jason:1, Everyone Else:0. Now explain using your irrefutable logic, why the insects are referred to in the verse as having four legs. (Refresher: There is a scientific theory that insects have 6 legs.) In my concordance, the word “four” is represented by the word “arba”, which means, well, four. Unlike the “creepy” word we’ve analyzed to death and is abused by the KJV and concordances, “arba” has but a single meaning: four.

Seems like one of two things can be the case. Either the bible, even in its original Hebrew form, is, gasp, in error, or, well, I can’t think of another option. I’m sure you can enlighten us once again.

jason said...

Then you have my apologies, I mistakingly took this statement to be serious: "...he's an abomination to God and to all true Bible-believers. It's one of the few things that the Bible is clear about. "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:20"

This isn't a contest, Dave :) It isn't me against everyone else. A statement was made about a verse and I believe this statement was wrong. I attempted to point out why it was wrong. There is no "winner" or "loser". It's a friendly discussion and everyone is going to take from it what they want.

And why are you hung up on the "abuses" in the concordance and KJV? A single English word can have multiple meanings - why is it so wrong if Hebrew words are no different?

I take from your tone that I've somehow upset you. Why I don't know.

I'll leave you with this: Whoever it is you think wrote Leviticus, do you believe this person had access to six-legged insects?

Dave said...

Well, Steve said that statement, not me, so I don’t know if he was really serious or not. I assumed that his tongue was planted in his cheek. And we all know what “assume” does!

I know it’s not a contest, I was simply trying to settle the insect vs. bird issue, and give you tangible credit.

I’m “hung up” on the concordance/KJV thing because you have previously made the statement that anyone can easily interpret the bible correctly by using it and a concordance. We now have established that a concordance can be misleading too, and the verse must be analyzed in context using every meaning of the root words. This analysis is a good thing, and I will be doing that much more now.

You haven’t upset me in the least bit. I wouldn’t return here to become upset, I come to engage in friendly discussion as you have. I just tend to have a sarcastic tone in my writing that is oft interpreted as anger. Relax.

Your last question has me a bit puzzled. You asked “Whoever it is you think wrote Leviticus, do you believe this person had access to six-legged insects? Of course he would. And every insect he would run across would have 6 legs, not 4. The puzzling part is what difference would it make whether or not he had access to them? The words the author wrote would be coming direct from God anyway, right? Inerrant Word of God and all that. Jason, I respect your interpretation of the Bible, and I seriously would like to know how you rationalize this apparent error.

Jason said...

Didn't you say Steve was serious...? I'm confused. Steve, where are you???? :)

I don't want credit because the answer's are all there for everyone to see. It's not "my" solution. I didn't come up with it. But thanks anyway.

I don't know how the concordance can be misleading. If you find a dictionary misleading then, maybe yes, I can see where you're coming from. But...

My point about six-legged insects is if the author of Leviticus saw nothing but six-legged insects, why would he have written four? If it was by direction of God, and we're reading the verse correctly, then the Bible isn't inspired and God doesn't exist which takes us back to the original question. Do you see what I'm saying? There's no rational way to explain why anyone, God-inspired or not, would write "four" instead of "six" if "four" didn't exist. There must be something else going on here. Would you agree?

Anonymous said...

Extinct 4 legged insects.

Steve Wells said...

"Didn't you say Steve was serious...?"

Oh, I was serious, Jason. But I was also mistaken.

God does, if you believe the Bible, consider all sorts of four-legged, flying, creeping things to be abominations. Including Stumpy. And you should, too, if you believe in the Bible (and you do, don’t you, Jason?).

But God isn’t much of a biologist and he doesn’t give a damn about taxonomy. To him, if you’ve seen one flying, creeping thing, you’ve pretty much seen them all. Bats are birds, insects have four legs (and many appear to unless you look closely and actually count them, which God never does), and every species is classified into one of only two kingdoms: clean things and abominations. Forget about phyla, classes, orders, families, genera, or species. It’s either clean or unclean to God. Their burning sacrificial flesh either stinks or smells sweet to the ignorant creator or them all.

So poor Stumpy probably is an abomination to God. He’s just another damned four-legged, flying, creeping thing. God doesn’t know or care whether he’s a bird or an insect. He couldn’t care less and he couldn’t tell the two apart.

But I was wrong when I said, “It's one of the few things that the Bible is clear about.” The Bible isn’t clear about Stumpy. Leviticus 11:20 may, as you suggest, be referring to insects, not birds. But, to God, it’s a distinction without a difference. Stumpy is a four-legged, flying, creeping thing, and that’s all God needs to know to key him out to the kingdom Abominatia.

jason said...

Hey Steve, welcome to the conversation. A friendly suggestion would be to go back through the posts because we already went through the whole four-legged duck abomination thing.

You'll be pleased to know that no Christian thinks four-legged creatures are an abomination because we're not bound by the old law.

Steve Wells said...

"... we already went through the whole four-legged duck abomination thing."

What did you conclude, Jason? Which animals did God declare to be abominations in Lev.11:20?

"You'll be pleased to know that no Christian thinks four-legged creatures are an abomination because we're not bound by the old law."

So you disagree with the God of the Old Testament, then, eh Jason? You poor thing. Read Deuteronomy 28:15-68 to see what God has planned for you.

jason said...

Well Steve, it would appear that the animals mentioned in Lev. 11:20 were flying, creeping animals. It would also seem that after some analysis these flying, creeping things aren't birds. It appears they are more along the lines of the sorts of animals listed in verse 22.

Now where did you get that funny word "disagree" from? Did I say that? tsk tsk Deut. 28. Yes, phew, very powerful words indeed. God really made it clear to the Israelites, didn't He.

Hm, I wonder, do you think Christians today are bound by the old law?

Steve Wells said...

"… it would appear that the animals mentioned in Lev. 11:20 were flying, creeping animals. It would also seem that after some analysis these flying, creeping things aren't birds. It appears they are more along the lines of the sorts of animals listed in verse 22."

Oh, you mean "flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet"?

Do you have a name for these animals, Jason? I don’t know of any four-legged flying creeping things with legs above their feet. Are there any such animals? If so, what would they be called today?

(It would appear that you find it difficult to answer this question. It would also seem that after some analysis you are not willing to say what animals God is calling abominations in verse 20. It appears you are trying to use many words to say as little as possible.)

"Now where did you get that funny word "disagree" from? Did I say that? tsk tsk"

Well, yes, I think you did. God said this in Leviticus 11:20:

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

You disagreed with God by saying, "no Christian thinks four-legged creatures are an abomination."

God says these animals (whatever the hell they might be) are abominations. You say they are not. That’s a disagreement. Tsk tsk

"Hm, I wonder, do you think Christians today are bound by the old law?"

No, I don’t think anyone is bound by any of the laws in the Old Testament. I recommend that everyone stay the hell away from that cruel, nasty book.

But Jesus disagreed with me (and you).

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19-20

jason said...

Oh Steve, you’ve done such a masterful job at turning this around. ☺ This isn’t about me having to explain what Lev. 11:20 is talking about. This is all about your four-legged duck statement.

Once again, is Leviticus 11:20 actually talking about four-legged ducks and are four-legged ducks actually an abomination to 21st century Christians? Yes or no.

tiny tim said...

Steve, you don't believe the Bible was written solely for people living in the 21st century, do you? Because Jesus' words in Matthew 5 were directed as his disciples, not us. Once Christ died, the law was fulfilled and a new one implemented (read Hebrews 7). This is why Christians today don't, for example, offer animal sacrifices. This is also the reason why Christians today don't view four-legged flying creeping things to be an abomination. We're no longer bound by the old law. Not sure how many other ways it can be explained...?

Anonymous said...

So you also agree that the bible is useless book with an outdated way of thinking and morals.

That's why we should all forget about it.

tiny tim said...

lol No, I don't agree.

Anonymous said...

Lol. The passage is indeed probably about bugs, but it's funny to apply it when shit like this happens.

Oh poor freak duckie.

Dave said...

Whenever someone brings up how hideous the old testament is, a typical Christian will parrot “But because of Jesus it no longer applies”. So what? What the hell difference does that make? So its okay to worship a god that USED TO savor the smell of burning flesh? It’s okay to worship a god that USED TO effortlessly kill millions of innocent people, including babies? It’s okay to worship a god that USED TO condone slavery, humiliate women, and condemn his own creations as abominations? It’s okay to worship a god that USED TO command a man to slaughter his own child?

Isn’t the biblical god the same now as was and always shall be? Is the biblical god somehow politically correct now because he slaughtered HIS own son?

And Jason, you expect us to worship this beast?

Au-seti said...

Quack!

wow um, I'm not exactly sure how this post was taken over from a somewhat funny commentary on a cute picture of a four legged duck, to a fight about what god REALLY meant to say, to well.... whatever the heck just happened in the last few posts.

but I suppose that the human mind works in mysterious ways

Jason said...

If Bible critics would stop with the old "What a horrible book...", Christians wouldn't have to parrot the "Because of Jesus..." line. :) It's a two-way street. And then when someone makes a point like "Four legged animals must be an abomination to Christians", Christians must state the obvious rebuttal: The old law is no longer applicable.

And Dave, rest assured, I expect nothing from you.

Anonymous said...

Fuck you Jason

Dave said...

Um, Jason, I just wanted to quickly post and assure you that the FU response was not me! I love you, man!

Dave said...

I should clarify... that's an agape kind of love you know. And that doesn't mean I LIKE you. :-) Hey, how about those other 8 questions you ignored?

Jason said...

You also have a few questions you left unanswered yourself.

For me, I'm waiting to hear Steve's answers to my questions before a different topic is opened. Is Leviticus 11:20 actually talking about four-legged ducks and are four-legged ducks actually an abomination to 21st century Christians? This being the original subject of the post.

Dave said...

Jason, I think I’ve answered all the non-rhetorical questions asked of me. Your questions are for Steve, so I will bow out and bring up my hijack questions on my own blog.

And Steve, I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank you. Your Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is awesome. It has been a major resource for me that has come in mighty handy during my de-conversion process. You are therefore entitled to take some credit for my spiritual peace as an ex-Christian! I love you, man!

jason said...

The question about WHY the author of Leviticus would have written about four-legged insects wasn't rhetorical.

gary said...

It's sad to see that no one here has said something against the idiotic and immature comment by Anonymous.

Pathetic.

Anonymous, what did Jason do to piss you off? Talk about ducks???? You're an absolute moron.

tiny tim said...

Of course he's a moron. He talks tough but hides behind "anonymous". Real smooth. There are obviously some self-confidence issues he or she is trying to overcome...

Dave said...

Jason, I'm sorry, I thought I had answered the question of why authors of Leviticus would say four legged insects... I think they were simply sloppy. Kind of like rounding pi to 3. Four, six, eight legs, who cares? They're just bugs. Either that or the term "on all fours" has a more generic meaning that isn't related directly to the value of 4. One thing I do NOT believe is that there were ever 4 legged insects as mentionioned by one of our Anonymouses. Why do you think they wrote that?

jason said...

No worries.

I only ask the question because if the author did truly and literally mean four legs, then the Bible isn't inspired because such an animal doesn't exist. But that still leaves the question as to why someone would make such a glaring and silly mistake in the first place. The Jews today don't seem to have big problem with this verse and since they know the OT inside and out better then anyone, maybe this is saying something...?

Personally speaking of course, I'm apt to side with your comment about "on all fours" being a generic statement. And as with you, I also don't believe there were ever four-legged insects :)

Anyhow, this would be my explanation to Lev 11:20: There are several verses, translated in English, implying that insects have four legs. In reality, the Hebrew word sherets, translated as "insect" (or "creeping" in some Bibles), is not nearly as specific as it seems. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures, in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents, and in Leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles. It would seem that the term sherets was never intended as a specific biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive.

Were the writers of the Bible unaware that insects have six legs? This statement would seem rather silly, but as is apparent in this collection of posts, some actually make this claim... However, one of the verses seems to clearly indicate that these "four-legged" insects have six legs:

'Yet these you may eat among all the [sherets] which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth." (Leviticus 11:21)

The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six appendages are described.

Finally, the Jewish Encylopedia says this about "sherets": ("shereẓ," Gen. vii. 21; Lev. v. 2; xi. 10, 29; Deut. xiv. 19) applies only to animals that swarm, whether terrestrial, such as the weasel, mouse, lizard (Lev. v. 29); aquatic (Lev. xi. 10; Gen. i. 2; compare Ex. vii. 28 [A.V. viii. 3]); or even winged (Lev. xi. 20-23). The fundamental connotation of the verb and noun is undoubtedly the incalculably prolific multitudes of little animals which always appear in troops or swarms. The R. V. therefore gives the translation "breed abundantly" (Gen. viii. 17, ix. 7; compare Ex. i. 7).

Thoughts?

beepbeepitsme said...

Anyway, the bible says it is ok to eat locusts, so after that revelation, I will prefer to eat 4 legged ducks instead.

tiny tim said...

Not only are bugs are much higher in protein (40 to 50% as compared to 20% for beef) than steak, they pound for pound provide more usable "meat" than traditional sources such as beef and poultry. North Americans eat shrimp, lobster, frog legs, snails...what makes a grasshopper so repulsive? Africa, China, the Middle East and Australia have no qualms about eating insects...maybe we're the ones that are missing out :)

GAD said...

seems like there is an assumption that science was used in the Bible? The fact that the categories appear very loose implies that the knowledge used was based on simple observations and common tribal belief(s) e.g "a rabbit chewing it's cud". The Bible isn't precise because it is simply the reflection of human understanding of the world at the time it was written. This clearly (at least for me) shows that the Bible was written by men and not "a" God.

Every argument such as the one this thread is about is basically the same, finding passages in the Bible that only make sense in the context of being written by men and not a God. For me the Bible makes perfect sense if it was written by men, it makes no sense whatsoever if it was written by a God.............

Finally, it seems funny to me to say you need to go back to the Hebrew and use a concordance to distill the meaning Vs using the KJV of the Bible. 99.999% of Christians are Christian based solely on the KJV or similar modern translation of the Bible. Most probably don't even know there is a Hebrew test, or any issue with translation.............. I find that very funny.

my $0.02 on the subject

GAD

space said...

If I may...

Gad, do you think those 99% of Christians believe Paul wrote his letters in English? If they aren't aware of a Hebrew or Greek text, what language would you say they believe his letters were written in?

Secondly, looking at a concordance to find the original definition of a word is a logical, proper step in coming to an understanding of what was originally meant. You don't see people today criticizing a historical linguist for looking into the history of a language, or people laughing at an etymologist for studying the source of a word and how it's meaning has changed over time, or even a Websters dictionary for listing the original Latin or Greek words our English derives from. These are all 'allowed' by society, but when it comes to unlocking the meaning of Scripture, this manner of research is scoffed at. I have no answers when trying to figure out why.

There aren't too many Christians out there who would claim the modern day translations of the Bible were divinely inspired. We speak English. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. The Bible is an incredibly cohesive book and in those spots where some questions might arise, like the Leviticus discussion or the exchange earlier about Satan (which was left noticeably unresolved by the athiest team), a concordance is a most logical source of information.

Whether or not people want to verify their translation by using a concordance is completely up to them. It's not a fair statement saying most people don't know there is a Hebrew text because mass ignorance isn't grounds for refuting the Bible.

In all fairness to the original poster and to the critics of the post, this conversation has gone way off course. A sound argument has been made showing that a four-legged duck isn't included in Leviticus 11:20. There have been many immature attempts to change the topic and attack the critics, (why anyone would feel the need to curse in a forum such as this is uncomprehensible), but this has all been done in poor taste. Personal opinion has no bearing on the outcome of an argument, so criticizing the use of a concordance or original Hebrew words or Christianity serves no purpose. If you want to properly argue the facts, then offer some facts in return.

GAD said...

You flew right past most of my points.

"Gad, do you think those 99% of Christians believe Paul wrote his letters in English? If they aren't aware of a Hebrew or Greek text, what language would you say they believe his letters were written in?"

>> do a scientifically vaild survey and the results will favor my
opinion.

"Secondly, looking at a concordance to find the original definition of a word is a logical, proper step in coming to an understanding of what was originally meant."

>> Yes, agreed. But doing so with the Bible is the (rare) exception not the rule.

" You don't see people today criticizing a historical linguist for looking into the history of a language, or people laughing at an etymologist for studying the source of a word and how it's meaning has changed over time, or even a Websters dictionary for listing the original Latin or Greek words our English derives from."

>> Agreed.

These are all 'allowed' by society, but when it comes to unlocking the meaning of Scripture, this manner of research is scoffed at. I have no answers when trying to figure out why.

>> I'm not scoffing. My point is that nearly all Christians perceive the modern Bible as the definitive meaning of Scripture. They could care less about looking for any deeper meaning.

>> I also find it humorous that the Divine word of God has to be decrypted and interpreted to have meaning. What a God send for the Church.

"There aren't too many Christians out there who would claim the modern day translations of the Bible were divinely inspired."

>> One of us is in for a shock. Obviously I don't think it's me.


"We speak English. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. The Bible is an incredibly cohesive"

>> Only in the context of it being written by comparatively ignorant men. In any other context it is incoherent.............

" book and in those spots where some questions might arise, like the Leviticus discussion or the exchange earlier about Satan (which was left noticeably unresolved by the athiest team), a concordance is a most logical source of information."

>> Yes. But, again almost no ones cares, unless they absolutely have to.


"Whether or not people want to verify their translation by using a concordance is completely up to them."

>> yes, and they have chosen "or not".

"It's not a fair statement saying most people don't know there is a Hebrew text because mass ignorance isn't grounds for refuting the Bible."

>> that doesn't make it, not a fact. further mass ignorance may not grounds for refuting "points" of the Bible, but it is certainly is for the "Religions" based on the Bible!

"In all fairness to the original poster and to the critics of the post, this conversation has gone way off course. A sound argument has been made showing that a four-legged duck isn't included in Leviticus 11:20."

>> OK...........?

"There have been many immature attempts to change the topic and attack the critics, (why anyone would feel the need to curse in a forum such as this is uncomprehensible), but this has all been done in poor taste."

>> a common tactic, but one never used so well as it has been by the Religious.


"Personal opinion has no bearing on the outcome of an argument,

>>?? When talking about God there is nothing but "Personal opinion"

" so criticizing the use of a concordance or original Hebrew words or Christianity serves no purpose. If you want to properly argue the facts, then offer some facts in return."

>> as stated above, this was not my point. Your criticizing about criticizing the wrong thing.........

space said...

Do a scientifically valid survey. Sure, let me get right on that! No offense, but your opinion still counts for nothing unless you’ve already done one of these surveys yourself? You still didn’t answer the question: do you think those 99% of Christians believe Paul wrote his letters in English?

Do you know why most Christians don’t use concordances? Because they’re taught to believe that their priest or pope or whatever is the sole authority of the Bible and it’s only through him can the Bible be explained and taught. It’s the whole “the minority have the majority of power” concept… It’s a sad state of affairs. This is why so many Christians have it wrong. Purgatory, infant sprinkling, Lucifer, and the list goes on. If it weren’t for the strict control of church leaders, people would have no problem realizing these things aren’t taught in the Bible.

When talking about God, you believe it’s personal opinion. When a Christian talks about God, it’s fact. Until the end of time, this will always be the stalemate between the two groups.

GAD said...

The 99% refers to how many people believe what they believe based solely on modern translations of the bible. In this context they simply read and believe the passage in question (even though it doesn't make sense) without ever thinking there might be something sensible underneath it.

I believe that a survey would show at least as many people would say that Paul's letters were written in English as answered that Joan of Arch was Noah's wife, 80% was it?

Your next statement,

"Do you know why most Christians don’t use concordances? Because they’re taught to believe that their priest or pope or whatever is the sole authority of the Bible and it’s only through him can the Bible be explained and taught. It’s the whole “the minority have the majority of power” concept… It’s a sad state of affairs. This is why so many Christians have it wrong. Purgatory, infant sprinkling, Lucifer, and the list goes on. If it weren’t for the strict control of church leaders, people would have no problem realizing these things aren’t taught in the Bible."

is the EXACT argument I made that you have been going on about as being so wrong! See, you really agree me, you just don't want to admit it for some "personal" reason.

What you believe, maybe a million are so Christians believe out of 2 billion, so you are stating that 99.9995% have it all wrong because they don't look any deeper and just go with what the church says. Which is even more then what I said. So I happily accept your argument as it strengthens my position even further.


Lastly you state,

"When talking about God, you believe it’s personal opinion. When a Christian talks about God, it’s fact. Until the end of time, this will always be the stalemate between the two groups"

NO, it is not fact! It is FAITH! The fact that Christians believe it is fact, is in fact a fact that proves that they are delusional and dangerous to the health of humanity!

space said...

I completely agree, Christians are lazy people. They would prefer to be spoon-fed salvation instead of uncovering the truth for themselves.

Regarding Paul’s letters being written in English, we’re looking for a survey of Christians, not a mixed group of everyone and their mailman. Big difference.

If you made the exact argument as me then I obviously missed it. Once again, I completely agree in the same way I agree that the vast majority of Christians have it wrong. They’re being fed wrong information by religious institutions who have too much to lose if they admit to doctrinal mistakes made centuries and centuries ago.

Christians can find fact in things like archaeology and prophecy. This is their “fact” for the existence of God. It is what it is. They’re not any more dangerous to society than an atheist. Relax. Stop scaremongering.

GAD said...

Lazy is only part of it. As the word of god the bible is incoherent, killing babies, rules for raping your slave girls etc... Nearly everyone who reads it finds it impossible to reconcile with the idea of a good and loving god. It takes the church to magically turn horror into a beautiful thing that can be packaged and market it to the masses.

As the saying goes, the fastest way to atheism is to read the bible.

archaeology proves god in the same sense that geology (volcano's) proves Scientology. bible prophecy proves god about as much as calling a psychic hotline ( 1-900-take-my-$$-and-lie-to-me)proves there are psychics.

"scaremongering". Religion is the most powerful force on earth. It can literally dictate the course of humanity. History shows that left to it self it only leads to destruction.

You want to see what scares me, check at the below link. Please don't try and tell this is just some small isolated group. These types of things are going on in religions the world over in one degree or another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVgRpRoD4A0&mode=related&search=

space said...

This is an old argument and one that doesn't really say anything. You assume that Christians think God is nothing but love and you assume incorrectly. God is harsh in His judgments, God gets angry, God punishes, etc. etc. This is what the Bible says about God and anyone who says otherwise has a dusty Bible. I do think it's interesting though that critics only point to the OT to prove their point of an evil God...There's another more relevant section of Scripture, you know :)

You're a critic of prophecy as well, I see. This is the 'stalemate' I was talking about. :)

Left to itself history shows religion leads to destruction? Hm. Do you have scientific proof of this? I always thought the fastest way to destruction was to vote in another power-hungry American president. They seem to accomplish more death and destruction then a Christian ever could.

Still no comments from the masses about the latest four-legged duck post, I see :)

tiny tim said...

Yah, when's this thing going to get wrapped up? Any admissions from the pro-duck-in-leviticus crowd?

GAD said...

"God is harsh in His judgments, God gets angry, God punishes, etc. etc. This is what the Bible says about God and anyone who says otherwise has a dusty Bible."

>> Fantastic we agree on yet another major point of the bible! Are you sure not not an Atheist? :)

" You assume that Christians think God is nothing but love and you assume incorrectly"

>> I don't think so. Christians with your view are so few, that, well not to be mean or anything, are insignificant. When I assume "Christians think God is nothing but love" I assume correctly for 99.9995% of those who call them self Christians.

>> again not to be mean, but don't hurt your self patting your own back. You and the tiny few who believe as you, are only one in 30,000+ sects that say they have it right, so the odds are 1 in 30,000+ that you know more then the others and 29,999+ to 1 that you don't. Better then the lottery, but not so good to bet your soul on...........

"I do think it's interesting though that critics only point to the OT to prove their point of an evil God...There's another more relevant section of Scripture, you know :)"

>> it is the foundation, when it falls, the whole things falls. Let us also not forget that the Jews, gods chosen people, say that Christians hijacked their god and that the new testament isn't worth the paper it's written on.

>> Query, do you believe that the Quran and the book of Mormon are the word of god? careful, it's a trick question, if you say no then the Jewish case against the new testament is even stronger.

"Left to itself history shows religion leads to destruction? Hm. Do you have scientific proof of this?"

>> Read a history book...........

"I always thought the fastest way to destruction was to vote in another power-hungry American president."

>> All the American presidents have been Christian. George Bush, being a shining example!

space said...

I have to agree with your points about God getting angry, etc. because the Bible tells us quite plainly that God gets angry. And now I expect you to agree with me in saying that God is also loving and merciful and patient, because the Bible says this about God also.

I don't understand, "patting myself on my back"...? I haven't said I "have it right" only that the majority of Christians have it wrong. Even you would be able to make this statement when looking at the bizarre and unfounded doctrines out there. I mean, purgatory? Come on...

Do you think you've managed to destroy the foundation of the Bible because you've pointed out those times when God's anger is manifested? I suppose it's easier to attack and angry God then a merciful God... :) That's rather narrow minded, don't you think?

The Jews were prophesied as being a nation who would reject Jesus and the NT. Interesting eh?

The book of Mormon isn't inspired (and there are dozens of reasons why), same with the Q'uran.

Read a history book? I thought you wanted scientific surveys? All the American presidents may have been Christian but any history book (...) will tell you that none of them have fought for the sake of Christianity. They fight for oil, land, slaves, democracy, blah blah blah. And thus, my point.

You have trouble agreeing with me, don't you :)

GAD said...

"And now I expect you to agree with me in saying that God is also loving and merciful and patient, because the Bible says this about God also."

>> Yes, in the same sense that drug lords who do the most horrific things also give to the poor and build schools shows that they are loving and merciful and patient.

>> isn't it funny how the deeper your love is and the greater your mercy, the more horrific your acts have to be to prove it........ usually with the tag line "for the future of our children"........

>> with this kind of reasoning Hitler was a great man and justified in killing the Jews as long as he did it out of love for the children of Germany and the greater future of mankind.

"The Jews were prophesied as being a nation who would reject Jesus and the NT. Interesting eh?"

>> about as interesting as me predicting there will be wars and suffering in the future, but also great hope and joy. Or telling you that I predicted last weeks lottery numbers...... Of course the magic that allowed me to know the lottery number in advance, also prevents me from using the info or telling anyone else until after the fact, otherwise I lose the power. Which I apparently value more then $390 million dollars!

The book of Mormon isn't inspired (and there are dozens of reasons why), same with the Q'uran.

>> Sorry, that's little more then the Congressman calling the Senator corrupt. You can no more prove that the book of Mormon or the Quran is not inspired then you can prove that the bible is.........

>> what is a fight "for the sake of Christianity"? The saluter of Midian, the dark ages, the inquisition, the crusades?

"You have trouble agreeing with me, don't you"

>> I have no trouble agreeing with reasonable things, just unreasonable ones.

>> Space, your interesting to talk too because your views are not main stream, but in the end it's all the same. You have taken a different path, but you have arrived at the exact same destination as everyone you say has it wrong. You claim erroneously just as they do that whats in the bible is proof of god. It hardly matters if you read it in Hebrew or the KJV, in either case it is a faith statement, not a truth statement.

>> If the bible were proof of god, then it would be silly to not believe god exists. You seem to believe just like all the bad Christians that anyone who reads the bible and still says god is not real, are liars. Which is just bull! And all the funnier since almost none of them have ever read the dam thing! I have 5, have read it cover to cover twice, plus a large library of related historical books. The more you know the more you can see that the whole thing is nothing more then the mind of man.

>> If the earth stands still for a day and a voice heard the world over says, I the lord have done this so that you may know my power,then I'll believe! until then don't complain when you want to stone someone to death based on some bible verse, and I say thats crap! If god exists, he can provide infinitely better proof then the bible, which isn't good for anything except causing human conflict and suffering.........

space said...

I’m glad to see you found it in your heart to agree with me about something.

Okay, moving on.

The book of Mormon was written by a man supposedly inspired by God, correct? Every letter and word was given to him by God directly, correct? And yet there are numerous spelling mistakes and grammar errors in the text. How can this be? Around 15% of the BofM is copied directly from the KJV, including translation errors, even though it’s said the BofM was written 1200-2000 years before the KJV existed. Thirdly, there have been almost 4000 textual changes to the BofM since it was first published in 1830. The original Hebrew and Greek Biblical texts have remain unchanged since the earliest known copy.

The Quran was written long after the Bible, many of its stories and verses are carbon copies from what’s in the Bible, and the book contains no specific prophecies which have ever come true. But I’m sure you’ll have problems with all of this ☺

My original point regarding the President of the US is that him and his predecessors have done more to push the world to the brink of destruction (and keep it there) then Christianity ever has. Whether or not these Presidents were Christian is irrelevant because they weren’t making wars and killing their enemies and invading countries in the name of their religion.

I’ve arrived at the exact same destination as everyone else? Oh, I don’t think so. You have it backwards: I started off where everyone else has, and that is by believing the Bible is the inspired word of God. After that is when I go off down my own path, as have a few others here.

I admit, you do a wonderful job of putting words in my mouth. Where have I said everyone’s a liar if they don’t believe God? Quote me or keep these kinds of statements to yourself.

You say you’ve read the Bible cover to cover twice… tell me, why you think I would ever feel the need to stone someone to death?

GAD said...

You are correct, I'm not moved by your evidence on the BofM or the Quran. They are basically the same arguments that are made against the new testament. And there is certainly not one provable prophecy in the new testament that's not either an educated guess or more likely written after the fact. Can you prove one prophecy that wasn't?

I agree that our Presidents leave a lot to be desired. But you seem to imply that they alone are driving the world to the brink of destruction? If not them, then it would be someone else driven by the power of their god(s).

"I started off where everyone else has, and that is by believing the Bible is the inspired word of God. After that is when I go off down my own path, as have a few others here."

The end result is the same, they say 2+2=5 and you say 2+3-1=5...

Tell me, if a person really truly loves god, does it matter to god if that person hasn't read and studied the Hebrew and believes that a four legged duck is an abomination? In fact if you really truly love god and have it all wrong, but believe you are doing gods will, does he hold it against you? Or is this one of those magical things where if you really truly love god it's impossible to get it wrong......

"I admit, you do a wonderful job of putting words in my mouth."

Thanks! It's my pleasure!

"Where have I said everyone’s a liar if they don’t believe God?"

Well that was more of a categorical statement, not specifically an individuals statement. It's along the lines of, gods spirit is in all of us and when you hear his word you will know it is truth. The key part is that when you hear gods would "you will know it as truth". This has to be so, if it can be faked or can't be understood as truth, then the whole god complex falls to the ground.

So either I've never heard the word of god, or, I have and I know it, yet deny it. Would that not make me a liar?

"Quote me or keep these kinds of statements to yourself."

That wouldn't be nearly as interesting........ We both know where this is going, theres no KO at there end of this match. This is all about the journey not the destination. So enjoy ride, maybe we'll learn something, well really you more then me since I mostly know it all already :)

"why you think I would ever feel the need to stone someone to death?"

That is a good question! Why would I? I know why I think that main stream Christians feel the need. Is your belief that the new testament/covenant makes the old null and void, even to the point that no old law shall ever be resurrected?

space said...

Perhaps if you directed me to your blog, we could continue the discussion there. This really isn't the place to do it.

GAD said...

Well I really just wanted to join a party not throw my own. But maybe it'll be fun.

Heres the like.

http://theisttastelikechicken.blogspot.com/

I don't know if I set it up correctly, we'll just have to try it and see.

Anonymous said...

Well this was another fun, unresolved topic. What's next, thalidomide babies in Deuteronomy?

Steve Wells said...

Jason said: "I'm waiting to hear Steve's answers to my questions before a different topic is opened."

Sorry, Jason, for not responding before this, but I've been away for two weeks and just returned last night.

"Is Leviticus 11:20 actually talking about four-legged ducks and are four-legged ducks actually an abomination to 21st century Christians?"

Well, let's read the verse one more time. (You can't read this one too many times.)

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

The meaning of the verse seems clear enough: all four-legged, flying, creeping things are (or at least should be) an abomination to all (1st or 21st century) Bible-believers

Leviticus 11:20 is supposed to be a direct quote from God. He declared all four-legged, flying, creeping things to be abominations. He didn't say that they should be abominations only to the Hebrews of a few thousand years ago. He said (if you believe the Bible, which is always a bad idea) that they were to be an abomination to you (the "you" here is whoever is foolish enough to believe the words of the Bible).

So yes, Jason, 21st century Bible-believing Christians should consider all four-legged, flying, creeping things to be abominations.

But what about Stumpy, you ask? Would the Bible-God consider Stumpy to be a four-legged, flying, creeping thing with legs above his feet? Yes, I think he would. He's the type. But that's just my opinion. It's hard to imagine the thoughts of an imaginary being, especially one that communicates his thoughts so poorly.

So I leave it to you Bible-believers to figure out. Pray about it. Ask the Holy Spirit to explain what he, or his divine sibling, had in mind when he said that "all fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination to you." Clearly it was important to God (he seemed totally obsessed with abominable critters); it should be equally important to you.

Jason said...

...Seems like all the earlier posts looking at the Hebrew definition for "fowls" and "creep" was a rather pointless exercise. :) You've completely ignored them.

Secondly, in light of your belief that Christians are still under the old law & covenant, there is no doubt that Jesus' death and resurrection ushered in a new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6, Mat 26:28, Heb 7:22, Heb 8:6-10, Heb 9:15-20, Heb 12:24). As has been stated on this site numerous times, the implementation of the new covenant is precisely why Christians are never once told to offer animal sacrifices as a means of forgiveness, keep the Sabbath, get circumcised, keep the ancient Jewish feasts, tithe, maintain the Aaronic priesthood, and so on and so forth.

What will it take to help you understand?

Steve Wells said...

Jason said: "..Seems like all the earlier posts looking at the Hebrew definition for "fowls" and "creep" was a rather pointless exercise. :) You've completely ignored them."

Oh, I read them, Jason. I was just wasn't convinced by them.

It would help if you'd explain which animals God was referring to in Lev.11:20. Were they the same "flying creeping things, which have four feet" that God declared abominations in verse 23?

"... there is no doubt that Jesus' death and resurrection ushered in a new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6, Mat 26:28, Heb 7:22, Heb 8:6-10, Heb 9:15-20, Heb 12:24)."

No doubt, eh Jason? God never qualified any of his commandments. They were "an everlasting covenant," binding for "a thousand generations," until "heaven and earth pass" away. Here's what the Bible-God had to say about it:

"Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations." Deuteronomy 7:9

"But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee ...
The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart ...
Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her ...
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters ...
The tender and delicate woman among you ... her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them ...
If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book..." Deuteronomy 28:15-68

"Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant. 1 Chronicles 16:15

And here's what Jesus said:

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19-20

"It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17

You can ignore them if you like and follow Paul's teachings instead. Paul disagreed with both the Old Testament's God and the New Testament's Jesus. But that is not my problem; it's yours.

Jason said...

Of course you weren’t convinced by those definitions. It would have tarnished your reputation as a Bible critic had you agree with me. ☺

The animals being referred to are explained in verse 22: locusts, bald locust, the beetle and the grasshopper. There's definitely no sign of ducks…

Covenants
Just what was the old covenant? What laws are we talking about here? First, the core of the old covenant is the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13). As part of the old covenant, the people at Mt. Sinai also agreed to obey all the laws in Exodus 20, 21, 22 and 23. These additional laws became part of the covenant God made with Israel, and the covenant was then ratified with blood (Exodus 24:6-8).

This is the covenant that has been declared obsolete. It has no legal authority. Further, we cannot assume that any part of the contract is valid when the entire contract has been declared obsolete. We cannot assume that any particular group of laws must remain together.

What about the covenant with Abraham? This covenant was based on faith (Romans 7:6-7), and we are heirs of his promise (verse 29). The law was added to that covenant because of the transgressions of the Israelites (verse 19), but the law cannot alter the Abrahamic promises that we inherit.

Okay, on to your verses:

Deut 7:9. God keeps His promises and keeps His mercy with them that love Him. I don’t see any problems here...?

Deut 28:15-68. This is God outlining the punishments for the Israelites not following His commandments. Again, I’m not sure what the relevance of this is…?

1 Chronicles 16:16. God’s covenant is explained in verse 18. He promised Abraham and Isaac (and Jacob) that He would “give them the land of Canaan”. The promises made to Abraham are touched on above.

As for Matthew 5:19, this has already been examined on this site. “…till all be fulfilled” is the key in this verse. The old law couldn’t pass away until Christ had died and been risen. "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." Hebrews 9:16

Hebrews 7:22: “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.”

Hebrews 8:7: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”

Hebrews 8:8: “…Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:”

Hebrews 9:15: “And for this cause he [Jesus] is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

Hebrews 12:24: “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant…”

Paul’s teachings and the teaching of the rest of the apostles were in complete agreement with Christ and those things laid out in the OT. Jesus’ death signified the ending of the old law (not the promises made to Abraham, David, etc.) and an ushering in of a new law. This is why Christ told his disciples in Matthew 28 to go out and baptize people. This commandment to baptize would have been wrong to give (baptism was a foreign concept in the OT) if Christ believed the old law was still, and would still be in effect. Christ understood that a new law was implemented, as did Paul, and the disciples. The Jews were having a lot of trouble accepting Christ as savior, which is why so much time is spent explaining to them why the old law was null and void (sounds familiar! ☺).

Jason said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
space said...

Come on Steve, it's not good enough to say you're not convinced. The original statement in the original post is yours. The onus isn't on anyone to convince you, it's quite the opposite. It's up to you to defend your statement in light of the valid criticism that's come up and convince others what you originally said was true by offering something other then underhanded attempts to discredit individuals.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "Australia have no qualms about eating insects...maybe we're the ones that are missing out :)"

People in Australia eat insects? Not in my suburb they don't. Some traditional aborigines might eat witchety grubs, but these are not insects.


Anyway, a duck with four legs looks tasty. Let it grow up a bit, and serve it Duck AL'Orange.

BTW, how many legs does a duck need to have for it to be classified as a miracle? I figure 4 wouldn't be enough as many other animals have 4 lesgs. I figure that it would need 6 at least.

Then we could all pretend that it is an insect and a god given delicacy. Perhaps we would rename it the "Locust Duck" - so it fits in with the Holy Book of Babble.

Anonymous said...

It's well know that Australian Aborigines eat moths, grubs and bees. Moths and bees are instects, correct?

Steve Wells said...

Jason said: "The animals being referred to are explained in verse 22: locusts, bald locust, the beetle and the grasshopper."

So God's four-legged, flying, creeping abominations are locusts, beetles and the grasshoppers? You seem pretty sure about that, Jason. Have you read the verse?

"Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind." Lev.11:22

But 11:20 says this:

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Why would God call locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers abominations in verse 20 and then say we can eat them in verse 22?

Is it okay to eat things that are abominations?

Steve Wells said...

Space said: "... it's not good enough to say you're not convinced. The original statement in the original post is yours. The onus isn't on anyone to convince you, it's quite the opposite."

There's no onus on me, space. I'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything. But I do think that the Old Testament God, if he existed, would consider Stumpy an abomination. He (Stumpy, that is) is a four-legged flying thing and God thinks all four-legged flying things (except locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers) are abominations. You should, too, if you believe in the God of the Bible.

Do you consider any four-legged, flying things to be abominations, space? Or do you just ignore God on this one?

Steve Wells said...

Jason said: "Deut 7:9. God keeps His promises and keeps His mercy with them that love Him. I don’t see any problems here...?"

No problem here? Read it again, Jason. (You did read it, didn't you?)

"... God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations."

God loves those that "keep his commandments to a thousand generations." How many generations have passed since this verse was written? A couple hundred, at most. I'd say you still have another 10 or 15 thousand years in the deal.

Jason said: "Deut 28:15-68. This is God outlining the punishments for the Israelites not following His commandments. Again, I’m not sure what the relevance of this is…?"

No it isn't, Jason, and I bet even you can see the relevance. Read it again.

"... if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee." God will give you hemorrhoids, madness, and blindness. He'll have another man have sex with your wife. And then he'll force you to eat your own children. He will do all these things to you "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book."

God says clearly and directly that he will force you to eat your own children if you don't "do all the words of this law that are written in this book" -- but Jason doesn't see the relevance to this.

Jason said: "1 Chronicles 16:16. God’s covenant is explained in verse 18. He promised Abraham and Isaac (and Jacob) that He would “give them the land of Canaan”. The promises made to Abraham are touched on above."

Once again let's read the verse.

"Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant." 1 Chronicles 16:15

God said be "mindful always of his covenant" for "a thousand generations" as "an everlasting covenant." But Jason tells us that we can ignore all this because it referred only to Abraham and Jacob.

Jason said: "As for Matthew 5:19, this has already been examined on this site. '…till all be fulfilled' is the key in this verse."

Let's read the verse again.

"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19

Jesus said that the law would be binding on everyone "till heaven and earth pass" away. That "is the key in this verse." I don't know about heaven, but the earth is still here. Therefore (if you believe Matthew's Jesus) the law is still binding on all.

But then Jason and Paul know better than God and Jesus.

Jason said...

Whoa, a triple header. Nice work.

Lev. 11:20 is a statement. Verse 21 contains a qualifier ("yet") as does verse 22 ("even"). Verse 23 concludes ("But all other"). In modern day English, this kind of exchange might go something like this:

"You're not allowed to eat anything in fridge, except for the bread and the tuna, but nothing else."

Deut. 7:9 - Steve, you're like a nagging parent. Yes I read the verse. Anyhow, you're putting the emphasis in the wrong place in this verse. For example, this is how the NKJV reads "Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments;" Every other translation reads something similar.

Deut 28:15-68. I've read it and re-read it and it still says the same thing: God was warning the Israelities about what would happen if they broke the law. Am I an Israelite, Steve? Do you think these warnings are really for Christians: "The Lord will scatter these among all the people..." or "the Lord will bring you into Egypt again with ships"? Sounds awfully OT Israel- and nation-specific, does it not?

But then I guess when one ignores the verses in the NT talking about the implementation about the new covenant, these kind of misunderstandings naturally arise. You didn't read any of the verses I provided, did you. Or the little bit about the Abrahamic covenant. It's a two-way street here, Steve. Help me out a little.

1 Chronicles 16:15. lol No, no no. Verses 16-21 talk quite openly about the promises God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their generations. If you're interested in doing further research about this particular covenant, check out Genesis 15:18, Genesis 17:2, Genesis 26:3 and Genesis 28:13-14.

Matthew 5:18-19. Christ is saying that it's impossible for the law to be changed until all is fulfilled (i.e. his death). Luke puts an interesting spin on it: Luke 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

By the way, is there any reason why you're writing like you're speaking to a crowd? "Jason says..."

Steve Wells said...

So you don't like my "Jason said" posts, eh Jason. Sorry about that, but I don't know how else to respond to the things you say without quoting what you say. So here I go again.

Jason said: "Lev. 11:20 is a statement. Verse 21 contains a qualifier ('yet') as does verse 22 ('even'). Verse 23 concludes ('But all other'). In modern day English, this kind of exchange might go something like this:

'You're not allowed to eat anything in fridge, except for the bread and the tuna, but nothing else.'"

Are you saying that locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers are the abominations of Lev.11:20? Or was God telling us that some other animals are abominations. If you don't know, that's fine. Just say so.

beepbeepitsme said...

RE: "It's well know that Australian Aborigines eat moths, grubs and bees. Moths and bees are instects, correct?"

It is?

I haven't heard of them eating moths. They do suck the honey sack off the native honey ants, but they don't eat the ant itself, as far as I am aware. And I have never heard of them eating bees. They do collect honey from the hives of the native australian honey bee.

They do eat some types of grubs. (What are commonly called "witchety grubs.")

beepbeepitsme said...

No animal is an abomination if you use enough BBQ sauce and cook it long enough.

Are crocodiles off the menu in the Babble? What about snakes?

beepbeepitsme said...

There you go. let's argue about all the different translations.

NASB: All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you.
GWT: "Every swarming, winged insect that walks across the ground like a four-legged animal is disgusting to you.
KJV: All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
ASV: All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination unto you.
BBE: Every winged four-footed thing which goes on the earth is disgusting to you;
DBY: Every winged crawling thing that goeth upon all four shall be an abomination unto you.
JPS: All winged swarming things that go upon all fours are a detestable thing unto you.
WBS: All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination to you.
WEB: "'All flying insects that walk on all fours are an abomination to you.
YLT: Every teeming creature which is flying, which is going on four -- an abomination it is to you.

beepbeepitsme said...

The King James version applies:

22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

That duck is a flying creeping thing. It fits the description. That's the problem with the Babble, science it ain't.

GAD said...

"That's the problem with the Babble, science it ain't."

That's why it doesn't make sense from a scientific POV. But if you think about it from the POV of men, not god, writing it, I'm sure it made sense to them in the context of the time.

The writers may have been more ignorant of the world in which they lived in then we are today, but they weren't stupid. I'm sure this made sense to them and those who heard it at the time.

The fact that the bible writers could read, write, conceive and communicate complex theories about the world around them made the elite of their day. And some might say elite even today over the 2 billion Christians who have the available knowledge to know better.

The bible is babble only from the POV of it being from "a" god.

Jason said...

I was only curious about why you're writing like you're talking to a crowd. Don't be so defensive :)

Anyhow. Doesn't Leviticus 11:22 say which animals the Israelites were allowed to eat? I'm not sure where you're going with this...am I missing something?

Steve Wells said...

I don't understand your answers Jason.

Your first answer was clear enough: "The animals being referred to are explained in verse 22: locusts, bald locust, the beetle and the grasshopper."

But then when I pointed out that God seemed to be saying in verse 22 that locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers were not included in the list of abominable four-legged, flying creeping things, you changed your mind (it had something to do with what you can eat in the fridge or something).

So I'm not sure what you think about it anymore. Do you know which animals God said we must consider abominations in Lev.11:20? Here's the verse again. (I think the Bible-god and I like this verse more than you do Jason.)

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Leviticus 11:20

And my question again is this. What are the four-legged, flying, creeping things that God says should be abominations to us? You seem quite sure that God didn't have Stumpy in mind here. But he must have had something in mind? Do you have any idea what that was?

Anonymous said...

"The old law is no longer applicable."

Using a hypothetical scenario here:

If a neo-nazi were to claim that he had come into contact with Adolph Hitler in the afterlife, who had "mellowed out" on the whole "jew-thing" and made some adjustments to nazi beliefs, but still wanted this person to continue preaching about the benefits of neo-nazism, would this then be "ok"? Given that it comes from the same being, just with some liberal adjustments.

Jason said...

Ah yes, I see where I made my mistake. Humble apologies. But then, you already knew the answers to your own questions, didn't you. :) Low blow!

The locusts, etc. are the animals which are acceptable to eat.

As for which insects/creeping things the Israelities weren't allowed to eat, I don't know much about Middle Eastern insects but I would say whatever's common in the area and which exclude locust, grasshoppers and beetles.

Anonymous said...

That hypothetical scenario isn't hypothetical, it's preschool talk except with big words.

space said...

You're not interested in convincing anyone of anything??? Have you taken a look at your blog????

Steve Wells said...

Space,

My blog is just my thoughts about the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon. I'd like others to find out what is in these books, think about it, and then decide for themselves what to make of them.

The books speak for themselves. My opinions about them are unimportant. If you think it's a good idea to kill witches, homosexuals, disobedient children, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, unbelievers, etc. and then praise God for tormenting them forever in hell, you'll like these books. If not, you won't.

Once people find out what's in these books, they'll make the right decision. It's just a matter of time. And they won't need me or anyone else to convince them of anything.

space said...

Decide for themselves...lol "My opinion about them is unimportant" followed by "If you think it's a good idea to kill...". Do you think you offer an unbiased point of view with all the relevant facts presented for an individual to make an intellectual decision about "these books"?

Steve Wells said...

So you're not sure which four-legged, flying creeping things God told us to consider abominations, eh Jason? It wasn't beetles, locusts, or grasshoppers. And it wasn't Stumpy. Yet Stumpy is the only four-legged, flying creeping thing that anyone has discussed here so far.

Maybe Stumpy is the abomination that God was referring to in Lev.11:20. God knew that Stumpy would come along and he said the words of Lev.11:20 just for him.

So far I haven't seen anyone suggest a more likely candidate for God's mysterious and abominable four-legged, flying creeping thing.

Steve Wells said...

Space said: "Do you think you offer an unbiased point of view with all the relevant facts presented for an individual to make an intellectual decision about 'these books'?"

Yes I do.

Do you think it's a good idea to kill witches, homosexuals, disobedient children, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, unbelievers, etc. and then praise God for tormenting them forever in hell?
(You do acknowledge that all these things are in the books, don't you space?)

Anonymous said...

That hypothetical scenario isn't hypothetical, it's preschool talk except with big words.

And yet, you bothered to reply to it. Just a shame you couldn't actually give an answer in that reply. I thought my question was pretty legitimate, since the Third Reich was one of few regimes that managed atrocities of biblical proportions.

About the four-legged dilemma, could this be an example of a mercy killing? After all, if an insect gets two out of six legs snapped off, I'd assume it would be benevolent to put it out of its misery rather than hobble around disabled.

Jason said...

I readily admit I made a mistake. ☺ It’s all good.

1. The laws in Leviticus were written for the Israelites and only for the Israelites. We’ve been through this before, right? The old law was made null and void with the death of Christ so Leviticus 11:20 isn’t a prophecy of 21st Century Stumpy.

2. When were chickens introduced to the Middle East?

space said...

I'm VERY glad to hear your view is unbiased! I would therefore like to request you post a few positive thoughts about the love and mercy of God, the life of Christ, the salvation that's promised to the righteous, and perhaps a few character studies of individuals showing incredible courage, love, etc or even an examination of the Psalms. You know, to show both sides of your unbiased view.

(God tormenting people in hell. Question: How many instances are there in the OT of people being tormented in Hell)

And do I think it's a good idea for God to have done all those things? My opinion is irrelevant. God does what God will do. Regardless, you should really try reading the NT (FYI - the NT is the other half of the Bible). The new relationship that's described between God and man is relevant and practical to people today, unlike the OT.

Again, this would go a long way in showing your unbiased view of God and the Bible.

Steve Wells said...

Jason said: I readily admit I made a mistake.

Well, I made one, too, Jason. I was wrong when I said that Leviticus 11:20 clearly declares Stumpy an abomination. I'm not so sure about that. Stumpy is a four-legged fowl, so he might be an abomination in the Bible-god's warped mind. But the verse may (or may not) refer only to four-legged insects (which don't exist).

The laws in Leviticus were written for the Israelites and only for the Israelites. We’ve been through this before, right?

Oh yeah, we've been through this before. You ignore God and Jesus by following Paul.

So we can completely ignore all the laws in the Old Testament, every damned jot and tittle? Even the Ten Commandments? What the hell was Jesus thinking when he said:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19

Wouldn't Leviticus 11:20 be qualify as one of the least commandments? Then shouldn't we do and teach it in order to be called great in the kingdom of heaven?

I guess Jesus should have talked to you (and Paul) before making such a silly statement.

When were chickens introduced to the Middle East?

Chickens evolved in Asia and were first domesticated there around 6000 BCE. By the time the Leviticus was written (6th - 7th century BCE), chickens were domesticated throughout the Europe and the Middle East.

Jason said...

Surely you have a better argument then claiming that Paul’s writings, which make up half of the NT, didn’t come from God…

We can ignore all the laws in the Old Testament except for the ones repeated by Christ in the NT since it’s these laws he mentions as still being applicable. Are the 10 Commandments mentioned by Christ?

Matthew 5:19. I’ll just copy and paste. …this has already been examined on this site. “…till all be fulfilled” is the key in this verse. The old law couldn’t pass away until Christ had died and been risen. "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." Hebrews 9:16

When Jesus said those words in Matthew 5:19, he was telling the truth: nothing from the law could pass away UNTIL all be fulfilled. After these things were fulfilled (his death and resurrection), every jot and tittle could technically pass from the law. Leviticus 11:20 would definitely have been applicable during Christ’s time, but again, only up until the point of his death. Same goes for the requirement of a high priest to forgive sins, animal sacrifices, mandatory circumcision, etc. etc. etc.

Here’s a few more old law vs. new law verses:

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ…

2 Cr 3:14 But their [Jews] minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law…

Gal 3:24-25 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Leviticus was written in 600BC? I could have sworn Leviticus was written by Moses prior to the Israelites entering the Promised Land, and most certainly prior to the building of King Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:1)…

Steve Wells said...

Paul's writings didn't come from God, Moses didn't write Leviticus, and both Jesus and the Old Testament God are quite clear that the laws of the Old Testament are binding on everyone forever. But none of this has much to do with Stumpy and other four-legged, flying abominations.

Jason said...

Actually it has everything to do with Stumpy. What was your original statement? "Okay, Stumpy is kind of cute. But he's an abomination to God and to all true Bible-believers. It's one of the few things that the Bible is clear about."

This is why you're debunking Paul and half of the NT. He's a threat to your old law opinion. See, you keep talking about about how the OT laws are binding to everyone but you're not offering anything by way of facts.

I don't think I've ever seen an atheist voluntarily choose to side with God and Jesus. This is a first.

In terms of Jesus viewing the OT laws as binding, did Jesus ever command his disciples and followers to offer sacrifices as a means to forgive their sins? Why did Jesus command baptism? Did Jesus command his followers to seek out Levitical priests so they could forgive their sins? And what exactly did Jesus mean by this phrase in light of your opinion about the meaning of Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:24) and "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst." (John 19:28)

GAD said...

Hum......... So don't worry about the all the absurditys of the OT, we did a rewrite and cleaned them up in the NT. How convenient. Funny how quickly the OT it dismissed when it gets in the way, it's even funnier how quickly it is resurrected to prove to that the NT is real and not just made up by it's followers....................

Jason said...

Everything in Scripture ultimately points to Christ. The OT law was no different. These laws were never meant to be perfect in the sense that they couldn't completely take away sin. Sin offerings were required on a continual basis and while this process worked for the OT Israelites, it nonetheless hearkened forward to Christ's perfect sacrifice, a sacrifice which would never need be followed by another.

No one's dismissing the OT. What's being dismissed is the argument that the Mosaic law is still applicable to believers today. If these laws were still in place, believers today would still be sacrificing animals and the life, death and resurrection of Christ would be completely irrelevant.

Steve Wells said...

Jason said: This is why you're debunking Paul and half of the NT. He's a threat to your old law opinion. See, you keep talking about how the OT laws are binding to everyone but you're not offering anything by way of facts.

Paul is a threat to my old law opinion? Paul isn't a threat to anyone or anything.

I "keep talking about how the OT laws are binding to everyone" because that is what the Old Testament God and Jesus clearly say. As I've said before, I don't think the OT laws are binding on anyone. They are the cruel and absurd laws of an imaginary God. I strongly recommend that everyone stay the hell away from them.

I don't think I've ever seen an atheist voluntarily choose to side with God and Jesus.

I'm not taking sides here, Jason; you are. The OT God and Jesus say we must follow the OT law; you and Paul say we shouldn't. It's just one of the hundreds of contradictions found in the Bible.
Should Christians follow the Old Testment's laws?

Steve Wells said...

Jason said: Here’s a few more old law vs. new law verses:

Thanks, Jason! I added three of your verses to the Must
Christians obey the Old Testament's Laws?
contradiction.

Let me know if there are others I should add.

Jason said...

And yet you still choose to ignore the points that threaten your view that the Old Testament laws were binding...

Did Jesus ever command his disciples and followers to offer sacrifices as a means to forgive their sins? Why not? Didn't the old law revolve such a practice?

How could Jesus come to be High Priest if he wasn't from the lineage of Aaron?

Why did Jesus preach baptism as a means of forgiveness and salvation if it's not even hinted at in the old law?

And what exactly did Jesus mean by this phrase in light of your opinion about the meaning of Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:24)?

Or "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst." (John 19:28)

(You might as well add the last two to your growing list of contradictions...although they weren't written by Paul...hopefully that won't cause too much of a problem...?)

Steve Wells said...

space said...
I'm VERY glad to hear your view is unbiased!

I'm very glad you're glad, space.

I try to point out the Bible's good and bad stuff at the SAB. And I discuss them both here. It's true that there are more posts dealing with the Bible's bad stuff, but then there's a lot more bad than good in the "good book".

(God tormenting people in hell. Question: How many instances are there in the OT of people being tormented in Hell)

The Old Testament God doesn't torment people in hell. He hasn't even heard of hell. Hell is a Christian invention.

And do I think it's a good idea for God to have done all those things? My opinion is irrelevant. God does what God will do.

And what does God do, space? Does he tell people to kill witches, homosexuals, disobedient children, women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, unbelievers, etc.? Does he torment people forever in hell? Do you think these things are good ideas? Would you mark them "good" in your annotated Bible? (Your opinion is important and relevant. Or it should be, at least to you.)

...you should really try reading the NT (FYI - the NT is the other half of the Bible).

Oh, I've read it, space. And although it has a few good ideas, it is, on the whole, a rather silly book.

The new relationship that's described between God and man is relevant and practical to people today, unlike the OT.

Oh, the believe-or-be-tormented-forever-in-hell relationship? Yes, I need to address that more at the blog. Thanks for reminding me.

You say the Old Testament isn't relevant or practical?

Well I like the way you're thinking here, space. And I agree with you: the OT isn't relevant or practical anymore. It never was. It wasn't inspired by God and its laws and teachings are barbaric and immoral. But Jesus disagreed.

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17

space said...

Hm. Has the NT God heard of hell?

Oh, and here's why my opinion doesn't matter: Romans 9. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

I'll just copy and past from someone else's answers in reply to your bizarre instance that the old law is still relevant:

"Did Jesus ever command his disciples and followers to offer sacrifices as a means to forgive their sins? Why not? Didn't the old law revolve such a practice?

How could Jesus come to be High Priest if he wasn't from the lineage of Aaron?

Why did Jesus preach baptism as a means of forgiveness and salvation if it's not even hinted at in the old law?

And what exactly did Jesus mean by this phrase in light of your opinion about the meaning of Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:24)?

Or "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst." (John 19:28)"

GAD said...

I'd like to comment on this if I may.

First, you have no idea what if anything that Jesus ever said, and neither does the writer of Matthew because neither of you were there. And yes it is different then other events in history, so any argument that it is no different then any other event in accepted history is false.

I read this passage and have no idea how anyone can say that this means that all the old laws are done away with. Wishful thinking at best! The writers of the NT wanted to justify their ideas and beliefs and what better way to do so then to try and tie it to the OT foundation it was created from. They believed that Jesus was the messiah when those around them did not, what better way to try and prove that Jesus was the messiah then to try and tie him to as many passages in the OT as possible, even if you have to make them up.

Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

So from my view this passage does not say anything about doing away with the [any] old laws at all. The key phrase in "concerning me" i.e. all things that "prove" that I am the messiah, as written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, must be fulfilled as proof that I am [or any one else making a messiah claim] the messiah.

There are other passages in the NT that seem to loosen up some of the OT laws, but after 1000's of years of killing animals and each other for things like picking up sticks on the wrong day [with no real improvement in life to show for it], it is only normal that there would be a shift towards more enlightened and reasonable views of god. That same process continues today with women and gays in the church as prime examples of changing and enlightened views of god and his word.

space said...

If the authors of the NT wanted to justify their ideas and beliefs by tying them into the OT:

1. Why did they write Jesus in as a high priest when he wasn't from the line of Aaron?

2. How could NT writers justifying their beliefs without ever referencing animal sacrifices as a means to forgive sins?

3. Why instead would they write in the concept of "one man, one sacrifice"?

4. Where in the old testament is one sacrifice ever enough to forgive sins?

5. Where is baptism taught in the OT law and why was it taught as a means of salvation in the NT?

6. Why would a NT writer, supposedly justifying his beliefs by using the old law, write "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."? (Gal 3:24-25)

7. Where is circumcision taught as a mandatory practice by the NT writers?

8. Why would a pro-OT NT writer write in a chracter such as a Jesus who criticized his own people for hanging on to outdated laws?

9. Why would NT writers mock OT-based groups such as the Scribes and Pharisees if these people supported the very beliefs of the writers?

But then, if you had put a little effort into trying to answer your own questions first, you'd already have had these written down.

GAD said...

Good god, OK step back. It was stated that Matthew 5:19 is proof that Jesus did away with the OT laws (except the ones he specifically mentions, which can't be throw out because then the argument would be even sillier then it already is).

"Matthew 5:19: "...These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."

I gave a specific opinion on Matthew 5:19 here.

"So from my view this passage does not say anything about doing away with the [any] old laws at all. The key phrase in "concerning me" i.e. all things that "prove" that I am the messiah, as written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, must be fulfilled as proof that I am [or any one else making a messiah claim] the messiah."

And a larger opinion in the rest of my post.

In typical Christian fashion and misdirection your reply is all over the map and not in context to the opinion I stated. Then to add insult to injury you accuse me of not thinking of a better opinion to have.............. LOL

OK, I already went this far, why not waste another 60 seconds to answer these.

1. Why did they write Jesus in as a high priest when he wasn't from the line of Aaron?

Because it sounded better. They were stupid? What ever the answer it could not go against prophecy, otherwise he wouldn't be the messiah! Of course he wasn't high priest of anything except his cult of 12 followers.

2. How could NT writers justifying their beliefs without ever referencing animal sacrifices as a means to forgive sins?

Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.

3. Why instead would they write in the concept of "one man, one sacrifice"?

Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.

4. Where in the old testament is one sacrifice ever enough to forgive sins?

It never was for redemption, because there was none in the OT. This seems like the reverse of the argument you made with me on the other thread..........

and

Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.


5. Where is baptism taught in the OT law and why was it taught as a means of salvation in the NT?

Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.


6. Why would a NT writer, supposedly justifying his beliefs by using the old law, write "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."? (Gal 3:24-25)

Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.

7. Where is circumcision taught as a mandatory practice by the NT writers?

Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.

8. Why would a pro-OT NT writer write in a character such as a Jesus who criticized his own people for hanging on to outdated laws?

Because they wanted to change them to something that made more sense!!!

and

Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. In context of what I stated in the first place was a pointless point.

9. Why would NT writers mock OT-based groups such as the Scribes and Pharisees if these people supported the very beliefs of the writers?

All the above!

If you had put a little effort into trying to understand what I wrote first, you wouldn't have wasted both our time on these pointless points..... :)

space said...

First of all, there was no 'proof' statement re: Matthew 5:19. Second of all, Matthew 5:19 is part of a collection of similar verses all reading the same thing: “until all be fulfilled”. What we’re looking at is what had to be fulfilled before the old law could pass away. Now the book of Hebrews says Jesus was the mediator of the new testament and that a change in the testament could only come as a result of a death. Jesus’ death ‘killed’ the old testament/old law. Pretty straightforward, no?

Going through your responses, I see you haven’t answered anything in relation to your original comment. Every fundamental OT law such as circumcision, animal sacrifices, forgiveness and the priesthood is never taught or re-taught by NT writers. This in itself should be cause enough to look into things a bit deeper. In fact, many NT laws don’t have any foundation in the OT whatsoever (baptism, salvation, Christ as high priest, etc) and even Christ himself automatically made many of the OT laws null and void (the priesthood, animal sacrifices, etc.).

So in summary, your statement that the NT writers were justifying their ideas and beliefs by tying them into the OT is just plain wrong. There is no room, or point, for Christ if the old laws are still in place.

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.". (Gal 3:24-25)

Jason said...

No more Stumpy talk...?

:)

I agree with space. Gad, as admirable as your repetitious answers are, your point of view doesn't hold any water when you consider that none of the new testament writers ever repeated the importance of following the laws laid out in the old. I don't see how a new testament writer can prove Jesus was messiah on one hand while on the other he believes sacrificing animals is necessary to forgive sins. It just doesn't make sense.

And these writers weren't stupid. The scribes and Pharisees knew the old testament back to front; the writers of the new testament were no different. They would have known that a messiah couldn't exist as long as the old law was still in effect. It was literally impossible. Really, the old law had to be removed before any kind of proof could be presented that a messiah had come, one who preached very different things then what had been established thousands of years earlier.

GAD said...

So your primary argument is that because the NT writers [ Jews with new ideas and beliefs about god] throw out or rewrote nearly every OT law and added new ones never used before, that that is proof that Jesus was god! That follows right along with "it is absurd therefore I believe"! That's good info to know, when I write a new [lost] book of the bible I'll be sure to change all the NT laws as proof that it is really another book from god................

"So in summary, your statement that the NT writers were justifying their ideas and beliefs by tying them into the OT is just plain wrong."

Their goal was to prove that Jesus was the messiah. Thats the tying them into the OT part. After that he could say or change anything they wanted him to inline with their changing beliefs. Which they did, as you your self keep stating! You also jump through hoops to try and prove that the OT "prophecies" prove Jesus was messiah, but when I say it you ignore it?

We both agree that the that the OT "prophecies" are used to "try" and prove that Jesus was messiah. But then in the NT Jesus seems to disregard or change the OT laws and even adds new ones. That's a problem that wasn't expected (like the "second coming"), so you scan the bible for any passage that can be bent to possibly explain it, and to crown off this weak theory, you claim that they were changed is proof in it self of god!

"There is no room, or point, for Christ if the old laws are still in place."

Exactly! I think god chosen people, the Jews, back up me on this.....................

space said...

This topic has nothing to do with Jesus being messiah or prophecy. This is about Stumpy. And so I have to ask: Huh? “Jesus is god”? What’re you talking about? We’re establishing whether or not the OT laws regarding which animals were allowed to be eaten are still applicable today. My point is that the OT laws were done away with because of the vast number of NT verses proving they were done away with. There’s no mention of animal sacrifices, no mention of priests from the line of Aaron, no instructions on mandatory circumcision, etc. etc. etc and completely new concepts like baptism are introduced. Why? Because the OT was done away with!

You want to be backed up by the Jews on your opinion of OT laws vs NT laws? Then by all means.

2Cr 3:13 “And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.”

GAD said...

Jason said

"I don't see how a new testament writer can prove Jesus was messiah on one hand while on the other he believes sacrificing animals is necessary to forgive sins. It just doesn't make sense."

That's not what I said! Are you and Space the same person? You misread and misinterpret the same points, you take the same things out of context and you quote the same things even when they make no sense......... Bothers? Coworkers? IM buddies?

GAD said...

"We’re establishing whether or not the OT laws regarding which animals were allowed to be eaten are still applicable today."

Well, actually, this stated out as "Stumpy is kind of cute. But he's an abomination to God and to all true Bible-believers." Then the true believers tried to prove that that was not what the bible said. After going around and around trying to prove it, and failing, the true believers pleaded no contest and stated that it doesn't matter if it is sensible or non-sensible because the OT doesn't apply any more. Cheap cop out, but OK. The true believers then proceeded to try and prove that Jesus did away with the old laws with passages that did not say that in my view.

I gave a specific opinion on Matthew 5:19 here.

"So from my view this passage does not say anything about doing away with the [any] old laws at all. The key phrase in "concerning me" i.e. all things that "prove" that I am the messiah, as written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, must be fulfilled as proof that I am [or any one else making a messiah claim] the messiah."

And a larger opinion in the rest of my post.

You then say;

"My point is that the OT laws were done away with because of the vast number of NT verses proving they were done away with."

I say I don't see where Jesus does away with them per sa. In the NT Jesus seems to disregard or change the OT laws and even adds new ones. That's a problem that wasn't expected (like the "second coming"), and has to be dealt with by the NT writers after the fact, based on the oral stories of Jesus. You then can the bible for any passage that can be bent to possibly explain it, and to crown off this weak theory, you claim that they were changed is proof in it self of god! Which is absurd!

Now you throw out 2Cr 3:13 as proof? Which is written by Paul, which just takes this back to the argument earlier on this thread about following Paul's view not Jesus'...................... Also note that quoting Paul does not take away from my theory, but in fact adds support to it................... Yes, it does! Go back and reread the thread and see if you can't see that that is the case in fact!

space said...

Thanks for the summary :) Although I still have to ask: “Jesus is god”? Huh?

Your opinion on Matthew 5:19 is very nice and all but it has nothing to do with whether or not the old law is valid. Whoa. De ja vu.

Jesus disregards and changes the OT and adds new laws precisely because the old law was being done away with. He was the mediator of the new covenant. The new laws started with him. You’re starting to get it!!!

“That’s a problem that wasn’t expected...” lol That’s just too funny. It wasn't expected...", you say it like you just got off the phone with them! Didn’t these same writers also write in the story of Jesus? Why wouldn’t they have just changed Christ’s words to match their beliefs?

Oh yes, the old “Paul didn’t follow Jesus” view. It’s the most logical solution: when you’re all out of ideas, try discounting ¾ of the NT and cross your fingers. Lol Do you have anything substantial to back up this Paul vs. Jesus view?

I like 2 Timothy 3:16.

space said...

Co-workers? No. Brothers? In a sense, sure. :)

Jason said...

If I may: “The writers of the NT wanted to justify their ideas and beliefs and what better way to do so then to try and tie it to the OT foundation it was created from. They believed that Jesus was the messiah when those around them did not, what better way to try and prove that Jesus was the messiah then to try and tie him to as many passages in the OT as possible, even if you have to make them up.”

These are your words, gad. From the sounds of it, you believe the new testament writers wanted to justify their ideas and beliefs and thought that the best way to do so was by tying them to the OT foundation they were created from. Is this misreading and misinterpreting?

So in response, this is why I wrote, “I don't see how a new testament writer can prove Jesus was messiah on one hand while on the other he believes sacrificing animals is necessary to forgive sins. It just doesn't make sense.”

I say this because for anyone to believe Christ is messiah, the old testament laws must be of no affect since the two are at odds with each other. This is why a new law was established. And so back we go to Stumpy. At the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter if Stumpy was an ostrich or a snake or a chicken; there are no animals that are abominations to 21st century Christians.

Steve Wells said...

Jason said...
"Everything in Scripture ultimately points to Christ."

Really? You mean Malachi 2:3 points to Christ?

"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces."

How about Ezekiel 23:20?

"For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses."

Deuteronomy 25:11-12?

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her."

All the nasty, cruel, disgusting stuff in the Old Testament points to Jesus? I think I'd point it at somone else if I were you.

Steve Wells said...

Jason said...

No more Stumpy talk...?

I'd love to keep talking about Stumpy, Jason. Have you changed your mind? Is Stumpy a four-legged fowl? Is he an abomination to God? Should he be an abomination to all bible believers? If not what animals was God referring to in Leviticus 11:20? ("All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.")

Jason said...

The old law doesn't apply to 21st century Christians, Steve :)

Your questions have already been answered, some of them multiple times.

Steve Wells said...

Jason said...

"Your questions have already been answered, some of them multiple times."

Really? I must have missed them.

Could you tell me (again) what animals God was referring to in Leviticus 11:20("All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.")?

I never saw a clear answer from you on this, Jason. Is it just the four-legged fowls that aren't locusts, grasshoppers or beetles?

Would the four-legged fowls include only insects? Or would it include Stumpy, too?

Jason said...

Yes Steve, you did miss them :) The four-legged conundrum has already been "clearly" answered.

Steve Wells said...

Yes Steve, you did miss them :) The four-legged conundrum has already been "clearly" answered.

Well then what were your answers?

Here are the questions again.

What animals God was referring to in Leviticus 11:20 ("All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.")?

Is it just the four-legged fowls that aren't locusts, grasshoppers or beetles?

Would the four-legged fowls include only insects? Or would it include Stumpy, too?

Jason said...

---
...There are several verses, translated in English, implying that insects have four legs. In reality, the Hebrew word 'sherets', translated as "insect" (or "creeping" in some Bibles), is not nearly as specific as it seems. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures, in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents, and in Leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles.

It would seem that the term sherets was never intended as a specific biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive.

Were the writers of the Bible unaware that insects have six legs? This statement would seem rather silly, but as is apparent in this collection of posts, some actually make this claim... However, one of the verses seems to clearly indicate that these "four-legged" insects have six legs:

"Yet these you may eat among all the [sherets] which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth." (Leviticus 11:21)

The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six appendages are described.

Finally, the Jewish Encylopedia says this about "sherets": ("shereẓ," Gen. vii. 21; Lev. v. 2; xi. 10, 29; Deut. xiv. 19) applies only to animals that swarm, whether terrestrial, such as the weasel, mouse, lizard (Lev. v. 29); aquatic (Lev. xi. 10; Gen. i. 2; compare Ex. vii. 28 [A.V. viii. 3]); or even winged (Lev. xi. 20-23). The fundamental connotation of the verb and noun is undoubtedly the incalculably prolific multitudes of little animals which always appear in troops or swarms. The R. V. therefore gives the translation "breed abundantly" (Gen. viii. 17, ix. 7; compare Ex. i. 7).
---

Ryan said...

whoa whoa did this become a hebrew lesson or something?

So apparently what you're saying is that the English version of the bible can be dismissed as misleading and false? If not, then why the enthusiasm in bring Hebrew-English translations here? Shouldn't we all go learn Hebrew then, JUST to read the bible and be saved? Is the author of the English OT and NT NOT celestially enlightened? Is this fair?

But we'll let that one slide, since no one else (i'm assuming) here knows Hebrew. However, you said in one of your previous messages that:

The old law doesn't apply to 21st century Christians, Steve :)

Sigh...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Uh-oh...

And don't give us the "That is not a law" thing. Last time I checked, law in Christianity stood for a commandment or a revelation from God. If you consider God to be the absolute law-maker, then every word he says is a law, whether you like it or not. Like Reverend Hale said: "Theology, sir, is a fortress; no crack in a fortress may be accounted small." If you consider Genesis 1:1 to be valid, then all else is valid. There is no arguing on that one.

Jason said...

No one needs to know Hebrew to understand the Bible. Pick up a concordance. It does the work for you.

The law we're discussing, Ryan, is the law given to Moses, the same law that required animal sacrifices.

Exd 24:12 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them."

Hbr 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Thanks for your input though.

Ryan said...

Yes but I'm saying that the English version of the bible is solely dependent on its translator's discretion, in other words, NOT the exact meaning and wording as conveyed by the Apostles and god. (Like I said earlier, my grandmother could very well have written a translation of the bible and put in "in the beginning god created cheese".) So, misinterpretations and skeptical comments are unavoidable when it comes to interpretations of wording, just like Steve said: stumpy is considered a "...fowl that creep[s], going upon all four.."

And I'm sorry but I was talking about stumpy and didn't know that you were talking about Moses.

same question as the other post on the thread a little above this one:

what of the Puritans and the Fire and Brimstone evangelists? Do you think they are going to heaven or hell? If hell, then have they been forsaken by god? They believed in him, in his words, yet the only mistake was probably their misinterpretation or even lack of the NT.

I should start abridging my messages... They're turning into rants..

Jason said...

The original Hebrew and Greek is accessible to everyone.

(Here's the "going to hell" bit again) No one goes to hell since it doesn't exist so it shouldn't really be a concern for anyone.

Ryan said...

"No one goes to hell since it doesn't exist"

- o_o? Why do you say so?

Jason said...

Firstly, when people die, they all go to the same place: the grave. It's the whole "dust to dust" bit laid out in Genesis. "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Gen 3:19)

Plus:
"put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man...his breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish." (Ps.146:3-4). If there is a hell, no one's conscious of being there :)

"There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest...when they can find the grave." (Job 3:17,22) If there is a hell, people better start including the weary, prisoners, servants and the small and great as those worthy of suffering for eternity in agony.

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten" (Ecc. 9:5). This one speaks for itself.

Secondly, going to hell (or heaven) after death means there are two judgments: One immediately following death and another when Christ returns. However this concept isn't found anywhere in the Bible. Only ONE judgment is mentioned - that of Christ's.

Andrew said...

Jason, I'm confused. I thought the Bible talked about a place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the people will be tormented with fire and brimstone for ever and ever. Why would the Bible say this if it was not so?

gatogreensleeves said...

"In reality, the Hebrew word 'sherets', translated as "insect" (or "creeping" in some Bibles), is not nearly as specific as it seems..."

So what animals this verse refers to is "clearly" unclear? Good thing no-one wants to use the bible in science class... um... http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/florida-state-senate-bill-2692-the-we-have-no-scientific-standards-act/

gatogreensleeves said...

"The old law doesn't apply to 21st century Christians, Steve"

When Christians try to get out of the OT Law, at the end of the day, we are left with a collection of moral abuses that stand qualitatively as a record of what Yahweh likes and hates, evidenced by the relative punishments. EVEN IF one concedes that Christians are absolved of the OT via Jesus (which opens a huge Pandora's Box of issues in itself), the record of Yahweh's moral taste and the RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP OF PUNISHMENTS are "clearly" defined (why working on the Sabbath is worse than when you beat your slave and he dies after a couple of days), so ethical arguments STILL APPLY> Get it??