OT Laws [Archive] - Christian Guitar Forum

Luke

11-01-2001, 10:42 PM

This is the Word of God:
<center>"And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19, NASB)

"And he became hungry, and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11and he beheld the sky opened up, and a certain object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13And a voice came to him, "Arise, Peter, kill and eat!" 14But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." 15And again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." (Acts 10:10-15, NASB)

"Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him." (Romans 14:1-3, NASB)

"Eat anything that is sold in the meat market, without asking questions for conscience' sake; 26for the earth is the Lord's, and ALL IT CONTAINS. 27If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat anything that is set before you, without asking questions for conscience' sake." (1 Corinthians 10:25-27, NASB)

"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; 5for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:1-5, NASB)</center>

Karen M

11-01-2001, 10:49 PM

Wow, lol

Thanks for that really well versed reply Luke, But I just wanted to know if some of it was interpretation is all :)

Basically, I'm trying to find out this:

I have looked though the Bible to find every verse condemning homosexuality, and the only verses i can find specificly condemn having homosexual SEX, but it I have never seen a verse that condemns having feelings for another of the same gender.

Therefore, would it be safe to conclude that homosexuality in itself is not wrong but homosexual SEX is wrong simply because it is sex out of marrage?

Just wondering if this makes sence :)

Karen

Luke

11-01-2001, 10:55 PM

That's a good question. Scripture tells us to take every thought captive to Christ and to think about things that please Him. I don't necessarily think it's a sin to have the idea pop into your mind (but...ugg...gross.....) but to continually entertain such ideas is not pleaseing to Christ.

This is the Word of God:
<center>We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5, NASB)

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. (Philippians 4:8, NASB)</center>

Karen M

11-01-2001, 10:59 PM

Luke, those do have a point, but the point is not to think about bad things in general. Therefore, heterosexual lustful thoughts would be just as sinful as homosexual ones under those verses, correct? :)

Nate

11-01-2001, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Karen M
Therefore, would it be safe to conclude that homosexuality in itself is not wrong but homosexual SEX is wrong simply because it is sex out of marrage?

Let's follow this train of thought a few years down the road. Let's say the U.S. passes a law making homosexual marriages perfectly legal in all states. Now, if two homosexuals get married, does it mean that if they have sex it's no longer a sin???? Obviously not!!! The Bible clearly condemns homosexual behaviour (sexual relations).... the fact that it is a sin has NOTHING to do with whether they are married or not.

Luke

11-01-2001, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Karen M
Luke, those do have a point, but the point is not to think about bad things in general. Therefore, heterosexual lustful thoughts would be just as sinful as homosexual ones under those verses, correct? :)

Yes.

Karen M

11-01-2001, 11:05 PM

Greetings Keyboard :)

>>>Let's follow this train of thought a few years down the road. Let's say the U.S. passes a law making homosexual marriages perfectly legal in all states. Now, if two homosexuals get married, does it mean that if they have sex it's no longer a sin???? Obviously not!!! The Bible clearly condemns homosexual behaviour (sexual relations).... the fact that it is a sin has NOTHING to do with whether they are married or not.<<<

Yes, thats why I was asking if the OT Laws being repealled were mostly interpretation or scriptural. For example, did you know that they condemn wearing clothing made of more than one substance? Most people don't follow this rule because they believe it is now obsolete, and they believe it is obsolete because they have interpreted WHY it was put up in the first place :)

Basiclly, what if the reason homosexual sex was condemned in the first place was simply because it was sex out of marriage?

Karen M

11-01-2001, 11:08 PM

Luke:

>>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Karen M
Luke, those do have a point, but the point is not to think about bad things in general. Therefore, heterosexual lustful thoughts would be just as sinful as homosexual ones under those verses, correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.<<<

Exactly, therefore, why are homosexuals condemned and mistreated so much more often than people having pre-marital sex?

Luke

11-01-2001, 11:11 PM

I'm against both actions equally.

studentofGod

11-01-2001, 11:13 PM

**Off subject of the current conversation...but applying to OT laws**

What does it mean in Leviticus 19:28 when it's talking about cutting yourself because of dead people? What's that all about?

Luke

11-01-2001, 11:13 PM

I don't know off hand, but I can find out if it's important.

Nate

11-01-2001, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Karen M
Greetings Keyboard :)

Greetings!! :D

Yes, thats why I was asking if the OT Laws being repealled were mostly interpretation or scriptural. For example, did you know that they condemn wearing clothing made of more than one substance? Most people don't follow this rule because they believe it is now obsolete, and they believe it is obsolete because they have interpreted WHY it was put up in the first place.

Yes, I see what you're saying. However, the clothing of different substances is NOT condemned in the NT...... homosexual relations ARE. (1 Cor. 6:9, Rom. 1:26-27) It is called "shameful", "against nature", and an "error."

Basiclly, what if the reason homosexual sex was condemned in the first place was simply because it was sex out of marriage?

See above. It's against nature. It goes against everything that God has designed regarding human relations.

Nate

11-01-2001, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Karen M
Exactly, therefore, why are homosexuals condemned and mistreated so much more often than people having pre-marital sex?

The world today is beginning to treat both of them as acceptable. The church (for the most part) is still against both of them. However, the tolerance for pre-marital sex is seeping into the church more readily than the tolerance for homosexual behaviour is. Pre-marital sex is simply not seen as wrong by most people today. That's why offenders are not condemned as much as homosexuals. Homosexuality (for the most part) is still seen as wrong my most Christians. [They do tend to get carried away in their "condemning" though]

BTW, I'm with Luke.... I'm against both actions equally.

Luke

11-01-2001, 11:23 PM

The reason for this has to do with empathy--people idenify with those struggling with heterosexual lusts because they themselves do as well (usually). Not so for homosexual relationships. This is a human bias and is not right.

Nate

11-01-2001, 11:25 PM

Well.... I think I disagree on the "reason for this"....... but the main point still stands. It's a human bias, and it's wrong.

I'm signing off for the night. Don't have too much of a debate without me!! ;)

Karen M

11-01-2001, 11:28 PM

Hello again Keyboard :)

>>>Yes, I see what you're saying. However, the clothing of different substances is NOT condemned in the NT...... homosexual relations ARE. (1 Cor. 6:9, Rom. 1:26-27) It is called "shameful", "against nature", and an "error."<<<

In 1 Cor. 6:9 it just condemns evil things in general but does not single out homosexuality as any worse than pre-marital sex(fornification).

And in Rom. 1:26-27, this may be my reading skills, but it sounds like he is punishing this specific group of people by "giving them up" to homosexual actions. Therefore, this group of people is claimed evil because they warshiped false Gods so God makes them homosexuals, but I don't believe it goes the other way around that all homosexuals necissarily worship false Gods :)

Therefore, neither of these condemn homosexuallity any more than heterosexual sex out of marriage is condemned.

Basiclly, my point is that people are murdered and beaten simply for being homosexuals, and that does not usually happen for people who only have sex out of marriage. My question is, where in the Bible does it ever say homosexuallity is so much worse than sex out of marriage that it requires this type of retaliation? :(

Karen

Karen M

11-01-2001, 11:30 PM

whoops, I was still typing that b4 you posted all of the stuff about how people should NOT be treating homosexuals any worse than heterosexuals in pre-marital sex :)

Bryan

11-02-2001, 12:38 AM

I don't know of anywhere in the bible that is says that Homosexual relations are worse than premarital heterosexual relations.

The reason that homosexuals have been beaten, killed, persecuted, is the same reason for blacks, indians, and jews. They were different from the majority. And people did not understand them, and people fear what they do not understand. So out of fear, they developed a hatred for the different and persucuted those who were different from the majority.

And about marriage, what the government says or some other person says about two people mean nothing. Marriage is a covenant between two people and God. It does not matter whether a priest, judge, captain of a ship, or anybody else pronounces you man and wife.

Now, liberal christians will say that any reference to homosexuality in the bible is refering to a forced homosexual relationship, gay pediophilia, or gay prostitution. They claim that nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is a sin for two consenting males/females to have sexual relations. So if you ask a liberal christian they will say that it is not a sin for two men who love each other to consensually have sex with each other.

Nate

11-02-2001, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Karen M
Basiclly, my point is that people are murdered and beaten simply for being homosexuals, and that does not usually happen for people who only have sex out of marriage. My question is, where in the Bible does it ever say homosexuallity is so much worse than sex out of marriage that it requires this type of retaliation? :(

Looks like you misunderstood me in this post.... but then you understood me in the next post. Anyway.... let me make it perfectly clear.

Homosexuality is wrong. Premaritel sex is wrong. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Treating a homosexual differently than a person who has premarital sex or sex outside of marriage is wrong.

JerryLove

11-02-2001, 02:07 PM

luke - "Many of the laws in the Old Testament were for the purpose of symbolizing things to come and were no longer needed once those events were fulfilled in Christ. In the case of animal sacrifices, for example, Christ became that very sacrifice."

Yes, I think the sacrifice rules are pretty clearly abriged by Jesus, I'm personally interested in secular laws (like the ones I have been citing on rape and killing your children and killing people who work on the sabboth). I presume that these must be good solutions to these crimes as God instructed us to do it, but I don't see many Christians supporting that rapists should marry their rape victims. Why?

luke - "Premarital sex still is. Dating is addressed nowhere in Scripture."

Let's be honest, the punishemnt for a man having premarital sex is... nothing. (unless it was a rape, in which case he needs to marry her and pay 40 sheckles)

The punishment for a new bride not being able to proove her virginity (presuming she is not a widow / divorced) is death by stoning for dishonoring her father.

Karen - "I have looked though the Bible to find every verse condemning homosexuality, and the only verses i can find specificly condemn having homosexual SEX, but it I have never seen a verse that condemns having feelings for another of the same gender."

Keyboard - "The Bible clearly condemns homosexual behaviour (sexual relations).... the fact that it is a sin has NOTHING to do with whether they are married or not."

It's more specific than that, Luke and I have gone over the word tranlated as "homosexual" and the Greek word only clearly referrs to men.

luke - "The reason for this has to do with empathy--people idenify with those struggling with heterosexual lusts because they themselves do as well (usually). Not so for homosexual relationships. This is a human bias and is not right."

I agree.

bdan - "They claim that nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is a sin for two consenting males/females to have sexual relations. "

I'd have to re-look it up, but there is a passage clear on male-male sex being sinful. There is an unclear passage by Paul that seems to frown on female-female.

DaveJes1979

12-05-2001, 02:34 AM

OK, just a few things I can't let go.

Jerry: It's more specific than that, Luke and I have gone over the word tranlated as "homosexual" and the Greek word only clearly referrs to men.

Dave says: actually Romans 1 quite specifically talks about female homosexuality, and condemns it. It is not "unclear" except to modern liberal feminists (surprise surprise!). If you actually follow Paul's logical train of thought in this chapter, you have to be downright dishonest to deny this teaching here.

Jerry: like the ones I have been citing on rape and killing your children and killing people who work on the sabboth). I presume that these must be good solutions to these crimes as God instructed us to do it, but I don't see many Christians supporting that rapists should marry their rape victims. Why?

Dave says: OK, I REALLY have to correct this. First of all, the Bible NOWHERE commands any rapist to marry the rape victim. It does command (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) that for men who fornicate with women they are not married to. Most people misunderstand the English rendering of the Hebrew in 28-29, which more literally reads "lay hands on"(tapas) and "to humble" (anah). This can, but most likely does not (see vs. 24!) indicate rape. It is consensual - but probably indicates that there is seduction invovled. A different, stronger Hebrew word is often used for "rape" (Hebrew "patah", see Amnon and Tamar). The NIV, and perhaps some other translations err here, but the best scholarship (James Jordan, Greg Bahnsen, Meredith Kline, Matthew Henry, J.A. Thompson, Charles Kent, and Keil and Delitzsch) support this idea.

As for the civil laws that taught that Israel should kill their children for certain crimes - I would say that these are not normative to the Church today. These commands were given to God's theocratic kingdom, Israel. God gave Israel the sword. The Church is not called to do this (although there is a unity in spiritual bondship to our Lord, as descendenats of Abraham by faith). The Church is called to suffer as our Lord Jesus did. We certainly retain the moral law of the Old Testament, and the spirit of both the civil and ceremonial law. But the Church is not God's agent of penal retribution.

So why do we still address homosexuality as a sin? Because, although the tasks of the people of God have changed (the theocratic kingdom of Israel vs. the evangelistic church), the nature of humankind created as man and woman, and the nature of the marriage/sexual union HAVE NOT CHANGED. Thus, it is justified that the Old Testament admonitions against homosexuality carry over to today. This, of course, is coupled with the Apostolic testimony in the New Testament.

Cheers,

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

JerryLove

12-05-2001, 08:53 AM

Dave says: actually Romans 1 quite specifically talks about female homosexuality, and condemns it. It is not "unclear" except to modern liberal feminists (surprise surprise!). If you actually follow Paul's logical train of thought in this chapter, you have to be downright dishonest to deny this teaching here. No, Romans 1 says the the woman performed "unnatural acts". It does not declare these sinful, and is not specific as to what they are. Though there is a good probability they are sexual in nature. Also, Paul (who seems to be the founder of Christian dogma) describes in Corinthians why any sex act is bad, and why celebacy is preferred. So if you really want to follow paul, become a eunich.

OK, I REALLY have to correct this. First of all, the Bible NOWHERE commands any rapist to marry the rape victim. The work "shakab" is used. The problem here is that a woman willinging sleeping with a man is put to death (Deut 22:20). Also, look at the preceding section (23-26). Even if I accept your assertion that the translators of most versions have a poorer grasp of tranlating than you do, I am left with deut 22:28 applying to both rapes and consentual sex.

As for the civil laws that taught that Israel should kill their children for certain crimes - I would say that these are not normative to the Church today. "Certain crimes" being not paying attention when diciplined (failure to "honor your father and mother").

The Church is not called to do this (although there is a unity in spiritual bondship to our Lord, as descendenats of Abraham by faith). The Church is called to suffer as our Lord Jesus did. We certainly retain the moral law of the Old Testament, and the spirit of both the civil and ceremonial law. But the Church is not God's agent of penal retribution. So a Christian theocracy would have no punishable crimes? Or you would make them up from some abstract non-God standard?

Enobmurt

12-05-2001, 06:31 PM

No, Romans 1 says the the woman performed "unnatural acts".

Just wondering what translation of the bible you use Jerry

JerryLove

12-05-2001, 08:59 PM

It varies. But NIV, NASV, KJV, and Young's Literal all agree on the verbage. I would not have made the "fabrication" accusation without checking several sources and seeing no variance.

The Greek manuscripts say

metallasso (excchange) phusikos (physical / natural) chresis (employment of the body for sex) ice (into) ho (it / something) para (beside) phusis (growth / natural growth).

Enobmurt

12-06-2001, 01:00 AM

Alright...well it isn't specific about saying that the women were involved in sexual relations, we do both seem to agree that at least he was probably talking about it, cause the NIV says the women went from "natural relations" to "unnatural ones"

I've been thinking a little bit more about those civil laws in the old testament and does it say somewhere that these laws were inspired by God? How do we know these laws weren't just made by men for that time to help that particular society run smoother?
We know moral laws such as the ten commandments were made by God.
We know sacrificial laws were made by God to help atone for sins.
But I'm just curious as to where it says these civil laws about children and rapists were made by God.

Karen M

12-06-2001, 07:48 AM

Hello Eno,

>>>Alright...well it isn't specific about saying that the women were involved in sexual relations, we do both seem to agree that at least he was probably talking about it, cause the NIV says the women went from "natural relations" to "unnatural ones"<<<

Natural is modivated by biological instinct. Therefore, for homosexuals, "natural" is going with the same sex, and for heterosexuals, "natural" is going with the opposite one. Perhaps it is a rally against all women who go against their natural homosexuality? ;)

>>>I've been thinking a little bit more about those civil laws in the old testament and does it say somewhere that these laws were inspired by God? How do we know these laws weren't just made by men for that time to help that particular society run smoother?
We know moral laws such as the ten commandments were made by God.
We know sacrificial laws were made by God to help atone for sins.
But I'm just curious as to where it says these civil laws about children and rapists were made by God.<<<

I would mention that the homosexual "crime" is also mentioned under these civil laws. Either God didn't write them and homosexuality in males is not immoral, or God did write them, and he does think women should marry their rapist and that children should be stoned to death.

later,

Karen

JerryLove

12-06-2001, 09:26 AM

Alright...well it isn't specific about saying that the women were involved in sexual relations, we do both seem to agree that at least he was probably talking about it, cause the NIV says the women went from "natural relations" to "unnatural ones" Yes, I believe that Paul was just anti-sex (and a masogonist too old to function sexually anymore). So when Paul want's to talk about sin, he talks about sex.

I've been thinking a little bit more about those civil laws in the old testament and does it say somewhere that these laws were inspired by God? To my knowldge they are directly from God (often from his meetings with Moses in the tent). There are some cites (like when Jesus talks about why God allowed divorce) that imply OT law is the word of God.

Of course, here is the other issue with that logic. If the laws were not "from God", then we must apply that to NT morals too (at least ones not directly from Jesus). Now you can view the writings of Paul as just the writing of Paul, a man who never even saw Jesus.

How do we know these laws weren't just made by men for that time to help that particular society run smoother? Well, I think they were. But Biblically, there are a few supports of "God commands" and "God allowed" in there.

guitarman

12-06-2001, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by JerryLove
Let's be honest, the punishemnt for a man having premarital sex is... nothing. (unless it was a rape, in which case he needs to marry her and pay 40 sheckles)
Haven't read too much, but this caught my eye. Premarital sex is prohibited in the NT. Don't know if that means anything in this debate ('cause it seems pretty scattered), but it is prohibited:).

Aaron

DaveJes1979

12-06-2001, 08:57 PM

Jerry: The work "shakab" is used. The problem here is that a woman willinging sleeping with a man is put to death (Deut 22:20).

Dave says: are you talking about 22:28-29? That word is not in the word used for "lay hold of". Tapas is used. And "humbled/afflicted" is anah.

Actually, you accuse me of thinking that I am a better translator than most Bible versions. Actually, the only Bible translation (which is actually more of an interpretation-driven paraphrase) that necessarily supports the idea of rape in 22:28-29 is the NIV. Most translations are ambiguous, in that they translate these words more generally or literally. IN any case, I am not drawing off of my own scholarship (what "scholarship" are you drawing from?). I actually listed the commentators who agree with me. On top of that, I also gave exegetical reasons for NOT interpreting anah or tapas as "rape" in light of the fact that a DIFFERENT Hebrew word is used in the case of the rape of Tamar.

Jerry: No, Romans 1 says the the woman performed "unnatural acts". It does not declare these sinful, and is not specific as to what they are.

Dave says: thanks, Jerry, for proving my statement correct when I said that liberal scholars cannot consistently follow Paul's line of argument in Romans 1. You picked out a SINGLE PHRASE amidst a very weighty theological argument that Paul was expositioning. And that is BAD literary criticism (biblical or secular). Its not honest. You can't prove your point by using (abusing) a Greek lexicon.

Look at what Paul is saying. He is talking about the RESULTS OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN MAN APOSTACIZES FROM GOD, when man exchanges the truth of God for a LIE. Homosexuality is included amidst the results that follow. And what does Paul say about this - that because of these things "God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper...Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approve to those who practice them." This is not an ethically-neutral description.

The contention that an "unnatural act" is simply something that goes against one's raw impulses is not warranted either. The unnatural interaction Paul speaks of here is by nature male-male and female-female relationships. You have to read in (for your liberal bias, of course), any condemnation of the thought of male (but the male REALLY likes females)-male relationships. Paul has no room for "be true to thyself" concepts in his theology. Of course, that is YOUR theology. But is it really sound exegesis to read your theology into someone else's writings??

Jerry: So a Christian theocracy would have no punishable crimes? Or you would make them up from some abstract non-God standard?

Dave says: actually, my point is that I don't support a Christian theocracy. That is not the place of the Church. I do believe that the moral law of God should be reflected in our government's laws - yes. But that is a wholly different matter from a theocracy.

Jerry: Yes, I believe that Paul was just anti-sex (and a masogonist too old to function sexually anymore). So when Paul want's to talk about sin, he talks about sex.

Dave says: actually, Paul wrote that a husband and wife should not deprive each other of sexual intercourse in Ephesians. Nice try, though!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Enoburt - ALL OF SCRIPTURE, the civil law, sacrificial law, and moral law, is God-breathed according to II Timothy 3:16. Similarly, Jesus taught that "heaven and earth will pass away," but not one IOTA of God's Word would. Jesus also said that He did not come to do away with the law, but to "confirm it".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Karen: Natural is modivated by biological instinct. Therefore, for homosexuals, "natural" is going with the same sex, and for heterosexuals, "natural" is going with the opposite one. Perhaps it is a rally against all women who go against their natural homosexuality?

Dave says: well, it seems very natural for mankind to destroy each other as well, as the bloody history of mankind has shown. So is it WRONG for us to resist our natural urges for bloodlust? If we are to deny ourselves homosexual lust, why not indulge in bloodlust as well?

Of course, you are simply following your OWN idea of what is natural. The question is - does PAUL's theology see it that way? Again, you are making Jerry's error. You are imposing your own view of morality on the text. You cannot be honest enough to read Paul on his own terms. Paul was a Hebrew who LOVED God's law (read the rest of Romans). So he saw an "unnatural" thing - not as something that simply goes against one's carnal impulses, but as something which violated God's design for sex and marriage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Gadbois

JerryLove

12-07-2001, 12:47 PM

Dave says: are you talking about 22:28-29? That word is not in the word used for "lay hold of". Tapas is used. And "humbled/afflicted" is anah. NASV "seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered"
NIV "rapes her and they are discovered"
NLT "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged,"
KJV "and lay hold on her, and lie with her"
YLT "and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,"

They seem pretty consistant that the sex is forced.

Actually, you accuse me of thinking that I am a better translator than most Bible versions. Actually, the only Bible translation (which is actually more of an interpretation-driven paraphrase) that necessarily supports the idea of rape in 22:28-29 is the NIV. See above

I also gave exegetical reasons for NOT interpreting anah or tapas as "rape" in light of the fact that a DIFFERENT Hebrew word is used in the case of the rape of Tamar. It's a good reason to take a close look, but that "forced intercourse" and "rape" are not the same words in English does not mean they lack the same meaning.

I said that liberal scholars cannot consistently follow Paul's line of argument in Romans 1. You picked out a SINGLE PHRASE amidst a very weighty theological argument that Paul was expositioning. And that is BAD literary criticism (biblical or secular). Its not honest. You can't prove your point by using (abusing) a Greek lexicon. Straw man, I'm not making a literary criticism of the bible, I am disputing the translation offered of that specific line. It would be absurd to quote the entire passage when there is only one part being discussed.

But is it really sound exegesis to read your theology into someone else's writings?? You have no understanding of my theology and are making assumptions. You are also presuming to know what Paul thought based on your theology. Pasul was a massagonist turned celebate who though that sex was bad, I'm sure he opposed homosexuality for both genders as much as he opposed heterosexuality. But that's pretty irrellevent. Instead ot throwing stones at me, you should defend your argument.

actually, Paul wrote that a husband and wife should not deprive each other of sexual intercourse in Ephesians. Nice try, though! thanks, Dave, for proving my statement correct when I said that Christian scholars cannot consistently follow Paul's line of argument in Corinthians. You picked out a SINGLE PHRASE amidst a very weighty theological argument that Paul was expositioning.

Paul says that everyone should be celebate, but since not all are gifted to resist their heterosexual impulses, they can get married and make like rabits with their spouse. And they should not niglect their spouse (whom they married because of that lust for sex) because if they do, they are engouraging the (worse) sex outside marriage.

SnapCase

12-07-2001, 03:49 PM

Paul says that everyone should be celebate,

Again..unsupported.

I'm still waiting for you to defend this in the thread you started and never finished. :D

JerryLove

12-07-2001, 04:08 PM

You are just not paying attention...

1Cor7:1-2 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband."

1Cor7:8-9"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

1Cor7:27"Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife." (admittedly, this is in relation to some "present crisis")

1Cor7:32-38 "I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife--and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."

Matt 19:10-12 "The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.""

DaveJes1979

12-07-2001, 06:38 PM

NASV "seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered"
NIV "rapes her and they are discovered"
NLT "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged,"
KJV "and lay hold on her, and lie with her"
YLT "and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,"

They seem pretty consistant that the sex is forced.

Dave says: the NASV is ambiguous. "Seizes" does not necessarily mean rape. Same with the KJV and YLT. The NLT is a paraphrased interpretation, not a translation. Same with the NIV.
Again, translations are meant to be guides for laymen. Serious exegetes do not rely on them, or let them overturn the much more critical scholarship of commentators (such as the ones I listed).

Jerry: It's a good reason to take a close look, but that "forced intercourse" and "rape" are not the same words in English does not mean they lack the same meaning.

Dave says: its HIGHLY unlikely given that the two words are used in the same chapter. The author woudl have used the same word had he intended the meaning to be exactly the same.

Jerry: Straw man, I'm not making a literary criticism of the bible, I am disputing the translation offered of that specific line. It would be absurd to quote the entire passage when there is only one part being discussed.

Dave says: well, you are indeed trying to interpret the meaning of this portion of Scripture. That is one of the tasks of literary criticism. And I never said that you needed to quote the entire passage. But in order to properly translate and determine the meaning of any given phrase, you certainly have to taken into account the rest of the passage. You don't just open a Greek/Hebrew lexicon and blindly put your finger down on any one of the given definitions of a word.

Jerry: You have no understanding of my theology and are making assumptions. You are also presuming to know what Paul thought based on your theology. Pasul was a massagonist turned celebate who though that sex was bad, I'm sure he opposed homosexuality for both genders as much as he opposed heterosexuality. But that's pretty irrellevent. Instead ot throwing stones at me, you should defend your argument.

Dave says: actually, you have quite clearly revealed some of your theological prejudices simply in the posts you have written. And, YES, I do presume to know what Paul thought based not only on his own epistles, but based on his Hebrew and Old Testament background.

Jerry: thanks, Dave, for proving my statement correct when I said that Christian scholars cannot consistently follow Paul's line of argument in Corinthians. You picked out a SINGLE PHRASE amidst a very weighty theological argument that Paul was expositioning.

Dave says: actually, I was referring to Ephesians. No matter. I Corinthians still proves my point nicely.

Jerry: Paul says that everyone should be celebate, but since not all are gifted to resist their heterosexual impulses, they can get married and make like rabits with their spouse. And they should not niglect their spouse (whom they married because of that lust for sex) because if they do, they are engouraging the (worse) sex outside marriage.

Dave says: to say that Paul wrote that "everyone should be celebate" is a gross oversimplification. But indeed, those who are gifted with celibacy should be celibate. I have no qualms with that - and I (and Paul) can still uphold the beauty, and sanctity of sex. In any case, this is a long way from showing that Paul was "anti-sex". The concerns that he brings up concerning marriage, which are valid ones, have nothing to do with sex, but have to do with devoting oneself to God and other pragmatic considerations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

JerryLove

12-08-2001, 12:16 AM

Dave says: the NASV is ambiguous. "Seizes" does not necessarily mean rape. Same with the KJV and YLT. The NLT is a paraphrased interpretation, not a translation. Same with the NIV. All are interpretations, translations would not form proper sentances in English. And no, seizes could mean that the rule only applies of she is grabbed during sex, and sex with the woman on top would require a different rule. To me, "seizes" in this context is a strong indicator of forced sex. I've also pointed out that a virgin who has pre-marital sex is stoned to death (and cited so) and that in this passage, the woman involved is *not* stoned to death. Either the OT rule is inconsistant, or the circumstances are different (a rape vs consentual sex).

Again, translations are meant to be guides for laymen. Serious exegetes do not rely on them, or let them overturn the much more critical scholarship of commentators (such as the ones I listed). Again we are back to you insulting the abilitys of large boards of well-reknown translaters and Biblical scholars who created these translations, and asserting that your own view is more correct than theirs without any real support.

Dave says: its HIGHLY unlikely given that the two words are used in the same chapter. The author woudl have used the same word had he intended the meaning to be exactly the same. In your opinion... I see it happen all the time in news articles and legal procedings. I don't see any reason to believe it could not be true here. I believe that your theological predjudice (it matters to you which outcome is correct as it affects your worldview, it is unimportant to me) is causing you to try to force one interpretation over another.

Dave says: well, you are indeed trying to interpret the meaning of this portion of Scripture. That is one of the tasks of literary criticism. Go back to your original accusation that I was focusing on one part, and compare it to your admission that only that part was being discussed and see if that sounds reasonable. If the critique still seems appropriate, seek help.

And I never said that you needed to quote the entire passage. But in order to properly translate and determine the meaning of any given phrase, you certainly have to taken into account the rest of the passage. You don't just open a Greek/Hebrew lexicon and blindly put your finger down on any one of the given definitions of a word. Why don't you enlighten me by quoting the same passage and putting down what you feel the appropriate translations are. I'll wait.

actually, you have quite clearly revealed some of your theological prejudices simply in the posts you have written. You are confusing opinion with theological belief. I have not discussed my theological beliefs (beyond my disbelief in Jehovia). Since that disbelief is irrellevent to a discussion of proper interpretation of the Bible (in fact, would remove predjudce on how this fictional God should behave) I would say it puts me in a far more objective place than you are.

to say that Paul wrote that "everyone should be celebate" is a gross oversimplification. That is exactly what he said. It's not overly simple, it's literally correct.

I have no qualms with that - and I (and Paul) can still uphold the beauty, and sanctity of sex. In any case, this is a long way from showing that Paul was "anti-sex". The concerns that he brings up concerning marriage, which are valid ones, have nothing to do with sex, but have to do with devoting oneself to God and other pragmatic considerations. Marriage is bad because it detracts from God. Marriage exists soely to give a legal outlet for uncontrollable lust. Lust is bad. I've supported every peice of this.

DaveJes1979

12-08-2001, 03:27 AM

All are interpretations, translations would not form proper sentances in English.

Dave says: indeed, all translation does involve some interpretation. But literal translations leave the words in their literal, ambiguous forms, and do not attempt to convey a "thought for thought" meaning as paraphrases (such as the NLT and NIV).

Jerry: And no, seizes could mean that the rule only applies of she is grabbed during sex, and sex with the woman on top would require a different rule.

Dave says: but seize does not simply mean "grab". Seize is a very embiguous word. It can be used for something as small as seduction, or it can be used for physical force. Obviously, the idea that this word implies a distinction between "woman on top" and "man on top" seems rather foreign to the context, or that the original audience would have even thought of such a thing.

Jerry: To me, "seizes" in this context is a strong indicator of forced sex. I've also pointed out that a virgin who has pre-marital sex is stoned to death (and cited so) and that in this passage, the woman involved is *not* stoned to death. Either the OT rule is inconsistant, or the circumstances are different (a rape vs consentual sex).

Dave says: actually, BETROTHED virgins are to be stoned.

Jerry: Again we are back to you insulting the abilitys of large boards of well-reknown translaters and Biblical scholars who created these translations, and asserting that your own view is more correct than theirs without any real support.

Dave says: its not an insult. It is simply realizing that it is not the scope of translators to do issue-oriented exegesis of the text. They are focused on translating entire books, not wading through the minor nuances of a single phrase.

Jerry: In your opinion... I see it happen all the time in news articles and legal procedings. I don't see any reason to believe it could not be true here. I believe that your theological predjudice (it matters to you which outcome is correct as it affects your worldview, it is unimportant to me) is causing you to try to force one interpretation over another.

Dave says: it would be rather arbitrary (like today's technical-jargon court system) for our Hebrew author here to use two different words to describe the same thing. The reason he used two different words in the same chapter must be to convey two meanings. Otherwise, the author here would simpy be confusing (again, like much legalese). That is a basic rule of literary interpretation.

Jerry: Go back to your original accusation that I was focusing on one part, and compare it to your admission that only that part was being discussed and see if that sounds reasonable. If the critique still seems appropriate, seek help.

Dave says: your sentence here is a bit vague. I said you were focusing on one phrase out of context of the larger. But when did I say "only that part was being discussed". What are you referring to?

Jerry: Why don't you enlighten me by quoting the same passage and putting down what you feel the appropriate translations are. I'll wait.

Dave says: I didn't object to the literal translations at all. "Seized" or "lay hold of" are fine. They are ambiguous, and should reflect the ambiguity inherent within the literal meaning of the Hebrew. That will leave the interpretation more up to the exegete.

Jerry: You are confusing opinion with theological belief. I have not discussed my theological beliefs (beyond my disbelief in Jehovia). Since that disbelief is irrellevent to a discussion of proper interpretation of the Bible (in fact, would remove predjudce on how this fictional God should behave) I would say it puts me in a far more objective place than you are.

Dave says: well, if you disbelieve in Jehovah, then you obviously do not accept the testimony of the Hebrew prophets. Then you are assuming your own ethical autonomy. So your entire theological/ethical framework is completely foreign to Paul. And when you read Paul, you impose your framework on his writings, rather than reading it in terms of Paul's framework.

Jerry: That is exactly what he said. It's not overly simple, it's literally correct.

Dave says: well, to be more exacting, he said "I wish" everyone was celibate. It was not put in the form of a command.

Jerry: Marriage is bad because it detracts from God. Marriage exists soely to give a legal outlet for uncontrollable lust. Lust is bad. I've supported every peice of this.

Dave says: again, the word "bad" did not come up in connection to marriage in Paul's writings. And, no, he never said it exists "solely" to give a legal outlet for lust. The fact that it provides this outlet is certainly part of it, but not all of it. And, YES, lust is indeed bad when it is not done on God's terms.

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

JerryLove

12-08-2001, 07:23 PM

indeed, all translation does involve some interpretation. But literal translations leave the words in their literal, ambiguous forms, and do not attempt to convey a "thought for thought" meaning as paraphrases (such as the NLT and NIV). There is no version which does not at minimum try to choose the literal translation. When I say "the tree was hard as a rock" do I mean hard as in "difficult" or hard as in "not soft"? Do I mean "rock" as in a mineral or "rock" as in "rock and roll". You cannot translate without interpreting. But we are digressing. With the exception of the NLT, we are discussing word-for-word translations.

but seize does not simply mean "grab". Seize is a very embiguous word. It can be used for something as small as seduction, or it can be used for physical force. Obviously, the idea that this word implies a distinction between "woman on top" and "man on top" seems rather foreign to the context, or that the original audience would have even thought of such a thing. I was with you at the beginning, and you lost me at the end. The Jewish people of 5000 years ago would not have thought of woman-on-top sex?

actually, BETROTHED virgins are to be stoned. You are thinking of the wrong cite. Try Deut 22:13-22

its not an insult. It is simply realizing that it is not the scope of translators to do issue-oriented exegesis of the text. They are focused on translating entire books, not wading through the minor nuances of a single phrase. From the documentary on the creation of the ASV and NSAV on the Discovery Channel, I would disagree. There was quite a bit of debate about many individual passages.

it would be rather arbitrary (like today's technical-jargon court system) for our Hebrew author here to use two different words to describe the same thing. The reason he used two different words in the same chapter must be to convey two meanings. Otherwise, the author here would simpy be confusing (again, like much legalese). That is a basic rule of literary interpretation. "He assulted the jogger. After the rape wass over he...". "He raped one girl in her home then forced himself on another outside". Tell me why either of those is unreasonable. I understand that this is your opinion, you seem to refuse to accept that it may be wrong.

I didn't object to the literal translations at all. "Seized" or "lay hold of" are fine. They are ambiguous, and should reflect the ambiguity inherent within the literal meaning of the Hebrew. That will leave the interpretation more up to the exegete. But you are objecting to my interpreatation. And you are doing so in an absolute tone and with no more support than on that translation.

well, if you disbelieve in Jehovah, then you obviously do not accept the testimony of the Hebrew prophets. Then you are assuming your own ethical autonomy. So your entire theological/ethical framework is completely foreign to Paul. And when you read Paul, you impose your framework on his writings, rather than reading it in terms of Paul's framework. Only in the event that I either have a presupposition on Paul to support, or that I am trying to morph Paul into support for my own theological or moral beliefs. Since I believe the Bible to be fiction, it is irrellevent to me what Paul said in terms of affercting my own theology, therefore I have no reason to impose a theology on his writings, it would be like trying to impose my theology on what Hemmingway ment with "the old man and the sea". Ditto my moralistic overview. I don't believe Paul and I shared similar morals. It would not harm me if we did, so I am not "out to prove" that we did not, nor would it harm me that we do not.

You on the other-hand believe that Paul spoke for God, and that you share God's morals. Therefore, it is important you your world-view that you and Paul agree. This means that there is little room for you to change your preconception on what Paul is saying. If you think sex is good, and Paul really ment to say sex is bad, than for you to admit that would mean that your view of sex was not in line with your perception of God's view of sex, and by extention that your view of Christianity was incorrect. You have a vestment in theologic ideology, I do not.

well, to be more exacting, he said "I wish" everyone was celibate. It was not put in the form of a command. That is correct and I have never stated otherwise. Paul is quite explicit in saying that celibcy is not a commandment. He did say it was preferred, and better than the alternatives, and that he would like everyone to be celebate.

Dave says: again, the word "bad" did not come up in connection to marriage in Paul's writings. And, no, he never said it exists "solely" to give a legal outlet for lust. The fact that it provides this outlet is certainly part of it, but not all of it. And, YES, lust is indeed bad when it is not done on God's terms. "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2) "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Cor 7:9) "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (Matt 19:12)

You should get married *because* of the immorality. You should mary *if* you cannot control your lust. Paul seems rather clear (and in the many other passages I posted)

DaveJes1979

12-09-2001, 03:50 AM

Jerry: There is no version which does not at minimum try to choose the literal translation.

Dave says: well, as you point out, the NLT is indeed a paraphrase. And I would say that NIV's "dynamic equivalency" philosophy is not much different from this (it is "thought for thought", as they put it).

Jerry: I was with you at the beginning, and you lost me at the end. The Jewish people of 5000 years ago would not have thought of woman-on-top sex?

Dave says: it seems to me that the perception of this DISTINCTION within God's commandments would not exist. I doubt you will find any conception of this in the ancient Jewish commentaries on this verse.

Jerry: You are thinking of the wrong cite. Try Deut 22:13-22

Dave says: the verses you quote deal with two different situations, but they are all in connection with 1. a married woman who lied about her virginity (13-21), and 2. a man sleeping with a married woman. In either case, it has to deal with women in the context of marriage.

Jerry: From the documentary on the creation of the ASV and NSAV on the Discovery Channel, I would disagree. There was quite a bit of debate about many individual passages.

Dave says: there is always some debate, but some verses simply get taken for granted and passed over for what the translators consider "larger" translational problems. Translators simply do not have the time to go into the detail that commentators do, when they have entire books to translate.

Jerry: "He assulted the jogger. After the rape wass over he...". "He raped one girl in her home then forced himself on another outside". Tell me why either of those is unreasonable. I understand that this is your opinion, you seem to refuse to accept that it may be wrong.

Dave says: each of those senteces is dealing with the same event. The two different words in chapter 22 of Deuteronomy are dealing with two seperate case laws, so it is highly unlikely that different words would be used to convey the same meaning.

Jerry: But you are objecting to my interpreatation. And you are doing so in an absolute tone and with no more support than on that translation.

Dave says: I am objecting to your interpretation, not only based on the ambiguous literal translations (to which I do not object), but on further word-study analysis.

Jerry: You on the other-hand believe that Paul spoke for God, and that you share God's morals. Therefore, it is important you your world-view that you and Paul agree. This means that there is little room for you to change your preconception on what Paul is saying. If you think sex is good, and Paul really ment to say sex is bad, than for you to admit that would mean that your view of sex was not in line with your perception of God's view of sex, and by extention that your view of Christianity was incorrect. You have a vestment in theologic ideology, I do not.

Dave says: I am not drawing my idea that "sex is good" from my own preconception, except insofar as my preconceptions are formed by the same authority that Paul's were: the Old Testament.

Jerry: You should get married *because* of the immorality. You should mary *if* you cannot control your lust. Paul seems rather clear (and in the many other passages I posted)

Dave says: how does any of that refute the point I made? Yes, you should get married "because" of immorality. That is ONE reason. But it is not the sole reason. Again, nothing about marriage/sex being "bad" or anything like that.

--------------------------------------------------------

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

JerryLove

12-09-2001, 09:23 AM

it seems to me that the perception of this DISTINCTION within God's commandments would not exist. I doubt you will find any conception of this in the ancient Jewish commentaries on this verse. They enforced a law with out a clear idea of when and to whom it applied?

the verses you quote deal with two different situations, but they are all in connection with 1. a married woman who lied about her virginity (13-21), and 2. a man sleeping with a married woman. In either case, it has to deal with women in the context of marriage. No, it has to deal with killing a girl for costing her father her value as a brideand killing a woman and her lover for dihonoring her husband. In case 1, the woman was not (neccessairily) betrothed at the time of intercourse. She is killed for simply not being a virgin later.

there is always some debate, but some verses simply get taken for granted and passed over for what the translators consider "larger" translational problems. Translators simply do not have the time to go into the detail that commentators do, when they have entire books to translate. Are you familiar with the incredably large number of man-hours poured into them (at least the ASV?). Have you really take a look at the process involved in that work? I don't get the impression you have.

each of those senteces is dealing with the same event. The two different words in chapter 22 of Deuteronomy are dealing with two seperate case laws, so it is highly unlikely that different words would be used to convey the same meaning. Case law, now you are falling back into legalese, something that you dismissed applying a few posts ago. Why do you think the word "sieze" appears in the text? Why not just "has sex"? Since you feel it's not an indicator of sex under compulsion what do you think it means? and why do you think it carries a different (arguably lesser) punishment than not being a virgin? Give me an alternate scenerio I can compare to the scripture.

I am objecting to your interpretation, not only based on the ambiguous literal translations (to which I do not object), but on further word-study analysis. Perhaps your explanations of the verbage (or offering of less ambiguious translations) will show me a new angle on it that I can accept.

I am not drawing my idea that "sex is good" from my own preconception, except insofar as my preconceptions are formed by the same authority that Paul's were: the Old Testament. You formed an opinion at some point. As a Christian, that opinion is not just an abstract one, but one associated with your worldview. You also feel that Paul speaks for God. That means that if Paul deviates from your opinion, than your worldview is affected. For me this is an acedemic discussion. Other than some "being right" motivation, I have no reason to stick to my interpreation, and loose nothing by changing my mind. If you want an objective argument on predjudice, you are on far more shaky ground than I.

how does any of that refute the point I made? Yes, you should get married "because" of immorality. That is ONE reason. But it is not the sole reason. Again, nothing about marriage/sex being "bad" or anything like that. It's the only exception offered to the "should not get married". Can you offer Biblical support for other reasons? Or is this sheer speculation on your part?

DaveJes1979

12-14-2001, 03:44 AM

Jerry: They enforced a law with out a clear idea of when and to whom it applied?

Dave says: I didn't say that the original audience could not make ANY distinctions at all, I said that SUCH a distinction (a rather arbitrary and obscure one, that being a difference between sexual positions) would not have come to their minds. I doubt you will find even SPECULATION on this point in the ancient Hebrew commentaries on the Torah.

Jerry: No, it has to deal with killing a girl for costing her father her value as a brideand killing a woman and her lover for dihonoring her husband. In case 1, the woman was not (neccessairily) betrothed at the time of intercourse. She is killed for simply not being a virgin later.

Dave says: but, as I said, this is in connection with marriage any way you slice it. No death is required for an unbetrothed virgin who loses her virginity, unless sometime in the FUTURE she marries after having lied about it.

Jerry: Are you familiar with the incredably large number of man-hours poured into them (at least the ASV?). Have you really take a look at the process involved in that work? I don't get the impression you have.

Dave says: actually, I am quite aware. They will spend a few years translating the Bible usually. But again, they have a different AIM from commentators (who address specific theological isses) in translation (trying to make the text linguistically accessible to let readers pass their own interpretational judgments). And commentators will usually spend years, and quite often their entire LIVES on just a SINGLE BOOK that they specialize in.

Jerry: Case law, now you are falling back into legalese, something that you dismissed applying a few posts ago. Why do you think the word "sieze" appears in the text? Why not just "has sex"? Since you feel it's not an indicator of sex under compulsion what do you think it means? and why do you think it carries a different (arguably lesser) punishment than not being a virgin? Give me an alternate scenerio I can compare to the scripture.

Dave says: simply noting that there are two differing events taking place in this chapter is not "splitting hairs" as legal experts play arbitrary semantic games today.

You also say "why doesn't is just say 'have sex?' Does it EVER just say that ANYWHERE in the Hebrew Bible? Seldom, if ever. It usually uses one euphemism or another to describe it ("he/she lay with so and so").

What I interpret this particular verse to me, is that "seize" is simply the act of seduction and sexual intercourse by two non-married/betrothed people. It carries a lesser punishment than 1. a non-virgin lying to her husband about her virginity and 2. a betrothed or married woman having sex with someone else - both of these scenarios deal with a sexual violation in the context of a marriage or betrothal.

Jerry: Perhaps your explanations of the verbage (or offering of less ambiguious translations) will show me a new angle on it that I can accept.

Dave says: I like to keep translations ambiguous. They are supposed to be merely a linguistic tool so that the reader can contextually interpret the text for themselves - not so that the reader can be spoon-fed (either true or false) interpretations.

Jerry: You formed an opinion at some point. As a Christian, that opinion is not just an abstract one, but one associated with your worldview. You also feel that Paul speaks for God. That means that if Paul deviates from your opinion, than your worldview is affected. For me this is an acedemic discussion. Other than some "being right" motivation, I have no reason to stick to my interpreation, and loose nothing by changing my mind. If you want an objective argument on predjudice, you are on far more shaky ground than I.

Dave says: I deny that there is such a thing as "objective" interpretations - even in the realm of academia. I do believe that Paul speaks for God - and you presuppose otherwise. Thus, we both have our biases. But since I submit my biases to the claims of the text itself, I am on proper ground - the proper bias - to interpret Paul's message. An analogous situation would be to try to interpret Plato in terms of a framework that one has derived from Ghandi! Of course, if one imposes such a framework on Plato, you are no longer being true to Plato's message. You are filtering it through an imposed, outside worldview, instead of taking Plato on his own terms.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how does any of that refute the point I made? Yes, you should get married "because" of immorality. That is ONE reason. But it is not the sole reason. Again, nothing about marriage/sex being "bad" or anything like that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the only exception offered to the "should not get married". Can you offer Biblical support for other reasons? Or is this sheer speculation on your part?

Dave says: in Genesis it talks about Adam being given a wife becase Adam was lonely and needed a helper - "it is not good for man to be alone." It also helps man to take dominion over the earth, and to propagate the human species ("be fruitful and multply"). God Himself designed marriage, and said that "it is for this reason that man will leave his father's house and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Of course, Solomon in the Song of Songs also shows the great majesty and sheer joy of the spiritual and sexual union of marriage. And it is for all of these reasons that God commanded (and Jesus reiterated) that man shall not seperate what GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER (referring to divorce).

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

Unregistered

12-14-2001, 09:25 PM

Hello Dave :)

>>>Jerry: They enforced a law with out a clear idea of when and to whom it applied?

Dave says: I didn't say that the original audience could not make ANY distinctions at all, I said that SUCH a distinction (a rather arbitrary and obscure one, that being a difference between sexual positions) would not have come to their minds. I doubt you will find even SPECULATION on this point in the ancient Hebrew commentaries on the Torah.<<<

You keep talking about how these phrases about "grab" and "seize" are so ambiguous and that we shouldn't actually take them for their implied meaning in English, but of course, when it comes to the "unnatural" lines about female-female sex, then, of course, it doesn't matter that its ambiguous and we just arn't reading the implications correctly? ;)

>>>Jerry: No, it has to deal with killing a girl for costing her father her value as a brideand killing a woman and her lover for dihonoring her husband. In case 1, the woman was not (neccessairily) betrothed at the time of intercourse. She is killed for simply not being a virgin later.

Dave says: but, as I said, this is in connection with marriage any way you slice it. No death is required for an unbetrothed virgin who loses her virginity, unless sometime in the FUTURE she marries after having lied about it.<<<

Even IF your interpretation is correct, this point was originally about unfair or sexist laws, remember? :) This is still pretty low. So now, instead of marrying rape victims, we have moved upward to taliban style....if there is an affair, kill the woman, fine the man.

>>>Jerry: Are you familiar with the incredably large number of man-hours poured into them (at least the ASV?). Have you really take a look at the process involved in that work? I don't get the impression you have.

Dave says: actually, I am quite aware. They will spend a few years translating the Bible usually. But again, they have a different AIM from commentators (who address specific theological isses) in translation (trying to make the text linguistically accessible to let readers pass their own interpretational judgments). And commentators will usually spend years, and quite often their entire LIVES on just a SINGLE BOOK that they specialize in.<<<

If they spend their lives on single books, don't you think they would learn to translate them as accuratly as possible? :)

>>>Jerry: Case law, now you are falling back into legalese, something that you dismissed applying a few posts ago. Why do you think the word "sieze" appears in the text? Why not just "has sex"? Since you feel it's not an indicator of sex under compulsion what do you think it means? and why do you think it carries a different (arguably lesser) punishment than not being a virgin? Give me an alternate scenerio I can compare to the scripture.

Dave says: simply noting that there are two differing events taking place in this chapter is not "splitting hairs" as legal experts play arbitrary semantic games today.<<<

Do you deny that the most implicit most likely meaning of the words is that of rape?

>>>You also say "why doesn't is just say 'have sex?' Does it EVER just say that ANYWHERE in the Hebrew Bible? Seldom, if ever. It usually uses one euphemism or another to describe it ("he/she lay with so and so").

What I interpret this particular verse to me, is that "seize" is simply the act of seduction and sexual intercourse by two non-married/betrothed people. It carries a lesser punishment than 1. a non-virgin lying to her husband about her virginity and 2. a betrothed or married woman having sex with someone else - both of these scenarios deal with a sexual violation in the context of a marriage or betrothal.<<<

Again, I still think its interesting how when its ambiguous, but implies female-female sex is bad, it automatically means what you think is most likely, but when ever we try to show the most likely meaning of the sex punishment phrase, then, of course, its ambiguous. :)

Also, even if this does mean what you say it means, its still an extremely sick law, and, at best, it is taliban.

>>>Jerry: Perhaps your explanations of the verbage (or offering of less ambiguious translations) will show me a new angle on it that I can accept.

Dave says: I like to keep translations ambiguous. They are supposed to be merely a linguistic tool so that the reader can contextually interpret the text for themselves - not so that the reader can be spoon-fed (either true or false) interpretations.<<<

Once again, your interpretations are better than the interpretations of the people you claim spend their entire lives just translating one single book?

>>>Jerry: You formed an opinion at some point. As a Christian, that opinion is not just an abstract one, but one associated with your worldview. You also feel that Paul speaks for God. That means that if Paul deviates from your opinion, than your worldview is affected. For me this is an acedemic discussion. Other than some "being right" motivation, I have no reason to stick to my interpreation, and loose nothing by changing my mind. If you want an objective argument on predjudice, you are on far more shaky ground than I.

Dave says: I deny that there is such a thing as "objective" interpretations - even in the realm of academia. I do believe that Paul speaks for God - and you presuppose otherwise. Thus, we both have our biases. But since I submit my biases to the claims of the text itself, I am on proper ground - the proper bias - to interpret Paul's message. An analogous situation would be to try to interpret Plato in terms of a framework that one has derived from Ghandi! Of course, if one imposes such a framework on Plato, you are no longer being true to Plato's message. You are filtering it through an imposed, outside worldview, instead of taking Plato on his own terms.<<<

Jerry has no emotonal or moral issues at stake, you do. Therefore, I'm sorry, but you have more reason to want the passage to turn out the way you wish it too rather than what it actually says. :(

>>>Dave says: in Genesis it talks about Adam being given a wife becase Adam was lonely and needed a helper - "it is not good for man to be alone." It also helps man to take dominion over the earth, and to propagate the human species ("be fruitful and multply"). God Himself designed marriage, and said that "it is for this reason that man will leave his father's house and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Of course, Solomon in the Song of Songs also shows the great majesty and sheer joy of the spiritual and sexual union of marriage. And it is for all of these reasons that God commanded (and Jesus reiterated) that man shall not seperate what GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER (referring to divorce).<<<

Can you name any place in the Bible where Paul has acknowledged this? Because Paul seems to think marriage is just the better of two evils(either getting married or having sex out of marriage). If Paul doesn't acknowledge that marriage is not evil, then I think this is a bit of a contradiction. ;)

Good Night,

Karen

Karen M

12-14-2001, 09:26 PM

^^^That was me! :p

JerryLove

12-15-2001, 11:15 AM

I disappear for a day and Karen beats me to the reply ;)

I didn't say that the original audience could not make ANY distinctions at all, I said that SUCH a distinction (a rather arbitrary and obscure one, that being a difference between sexual positions) would not have come to their minds. I doubt you will find even SPECULATION on this point in the ancient Hebrew commentaries on the Torah. Remember my original post. You are arguing that weather "seizes" would be apply to weather the woman was "grabbed" would be a distinction. The reason I doubt there is any speculation is because I'd imagine that the verbage is considered clear, and rape is being referred to (I'll make sure to ask my Jewesh relatives how the Torah is applied here when I see them over Christmas).

Dave says: actually, BETROTHED virgins are to be stoned. Unless they are slaves (Lev 19:20) or raped (Deut 22:25) or "seizes" (Deut 22:28). Adding in that simply being found to be a non-cirgin warrents death (Deut 22:20-21) and there is no death sentance carried out (on the woman) for rape; And since there is no death sentence handed out in Deut 22:28; there is a great deal of support for the opvious assumption (and one accepted by the tranlators of at least several of the English Bibles) that they are referring to rape.

its not an insult. It is simply realizing that it is not the scope of translators to do issue-oriented exegesis of the text. They are focused on translating entire books, not wading through the minor nuances of a single phrase. Having watched two hours of interviews with the people you are discussing, I disagree entirely. Many versions (the ASV / NASV comes to mind) were the result of great debate on the nuance of intent.

it would be rather arbitrary (like today's technical-jargon court system) for our Hebrew author here to use two different words to describe the same thing. The reason he used two different words in the same chapter must be to convey two meanings. Otherwise, the author here would simpy be confusing (again, like much legalese). That is a basic rule of literary interpretation. The use of more than one word for the same act (as you may remember me pointing out) occurs in modern context in conversation, on TV, in the news, in the courts, with the police, in letters. The convention you are applying, if applied to most any modern English work would yield incorrect beliefs about the text involved. Also, the large group of aknolwdged experts who translated the Bible disagree (as to I looking at such reasources as Strongs) with the semi-anonymous text you offer as counter evidence. Since your entire argument is predicated on your authority (and half-assed insults as my bias) they fail in light of whom you are arguning against.

your sentence here is a bit vague. I said you were focusing on one phrase out of context of the larger. But when did I say "only that part was being discussed". What are you referring to? Paul, Corinthians, and "unnatural acts".

I didn't object to the literal translations at all. "Seized" or "lay hold of" are fine. They are ambiguous, and should reflect the ambiguity inherent within the literal meaning of the Hebrew. That will leave the interpretation more up to the exegete. OK, to me, they clearly mean "forced".

well, if you disbelieve in Jehovah, then you obviously do not accept the testimony of the Hebrew prophets. Then you are assuming your own ethical autonomy. So your entire theological/ethical framework is completely foreign to Paul. And when you read Paul, you impose your framework on his writings, rather than reading it in terms of Paul's framework. This is silly. Why would I attempt to imply my moral framework to someone whose morals are irrellevent to mine. What I WILL do is judge his morals by the standard of my own, but that hardly gives me any reason to interprete his meaning any differently. It makes no difference to me weather any portion of the Bible's morals are in concert or discord with my own moral beliefs. Therefore I have no cause to retranslate them. You do.

well, to be more exacting, he said "I wish" everyone was celibate. It was not put in the form of a command. And he says "it is better not to marry" (and so does Jesus). And a great deal of slightly less direct commentary on the subject.

again, the word "bad" did not come up in connection to marriage in Paul's writings. And, no, he never said it exists "solely" to give a legal outlet for lust. The fact that it provides this outlet is certainly part of it, but not all of it. And, YES, lust is indeed bad when it is not done on God's terms. Matt 19:12 "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

1Cor 7:1-2 "...It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife..."

1Cor 7:5 "Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

1Cor 7:8-9 "...It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry..." emphasis mine

1Cor 7:32-33 "I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife--"

There are quite a few more. I think the last one there directly addressed your question of "bad"... Unless you consider being unable to please the Lord "good".

DaveJes1979

12-16-2001, 03:21 AM

Karen:You keep talking about how these phrases about "grab" and "seize" are so ambiguous and that we shouldn't actually take them for their implied meaning in English, but of course, when it comes to the "unnatural" lines about female-female sex, then, of course, it doesn't matter that its ambiguous and we just arn't reading the implications correctly?

Dave says: there is no grabbing or seizing in consensual sex?

Also, I would note that a word like "unnatural" in Romans 1 is also surrounded by other words - mainly words like "those who do such things are worthy of death".

Jerry: Unless they are slaves (Lev 19:20) or raped (Deut 22:25) or "seizes" (Deut 22:28). Adding in that simply being found to be a non-cirgin warrents death (Deut 22:20-21) and there is no death sentance carried out (on the woman) for rape; And since there is no death sentence handed out in Deut 22:28; there is a great deal of support for the opvious assumption (and one accepted by the tranlators of at least several of the English Bibles) that they are referring to rape.

Dave says: I fail to see how any of those verses goes against what I have already explained. Lev 19:20 does not even deal with a girl in any marital context. How does any of this deal with my comment "betrothed virgins [in adultery] are to be stoned"?? And how does the "obvious assumption" that vs. 28 is referring to rape come from the fact that no death sentence is handed out in vs. 28? Verse 25 hands out a death sentence, and vs. 28 does not. They are two different conditions.

Karen:Even IF your interpretation is correct, this point was originally about unfair or sexist laws, remember? This is still pretty low. So now, instead of marrying rape victims, we have moved upward to taliban style....if there is an affair, kill the woman, fine the man.

Dave says: actually, I have been saying that this verse does NOT teach that the men are to marry the rape victims. They are to marry the unbetrothed virgins that they had consensual sex with.

Karen:If they spend their lives on single books, don't you think they would learn to translate them as accuratly as possible?

Dave says: commentators are not translators (necessarily). Those are two different disciplines.

Karen: Again, I still think its interesting how when its ambiguous, but implies female-female sex is bad, it automatically means what you think is most likely, but when ever we try to show the most likely meaning of the sex punishment phrase, then, of course, its ambiguous.

Dave says: and, again, I don't think it is ambiguous at all, if you actually bother to read the lines below and above the particular word you are analyzing. It is such a classic exegetical fallacy to run off to a lexicon/dictionary (or translation) before weighing contextual considerations first. I can harmonize all of the verses in the Torah that deal with sexuality, based on my interpretation. But under the other interpretation, there arise inconsistencies. You end up with vs. 25 teaching that death is warranted for the rapist (which it does), and vs. 28 teaching that death is no warranted for the rapist. Certainly Moses was not so dumb as to directly contradict himself in the space of 3 verses. Clearly the fault lies with you.

Karen:
Can you name any place in the Bible where Paul has acknowledged this? Because Paul seems to think marriage is just the better of two evils(either getting married or having sex out of marriage). If Paul doesn't acknowledge that marriage is not evil, then I think this is a bit of a contradiction.

Dave says: Paul's endorsement of marriage is implicit in his Hebrew background - which he explicitly professed. Paul would not have diverge from the OT teaching on the matter. He did not explicitly say "marriage is good" because he would have presumed that his audience knew where he was coming from. He did not have to reinvent the wheel and write in every epistle "I believe in Creation, the Flood, Marriage, etc etc etc." So your demand for explicit evidence is an arbitrary one - and it any silence on Paul's part logically cannot be proven to be a "contradiction."

Jerry:You are arguing that weather "seizes" would be apply to weather the woman was "grabbed" would be a distinction. The reason I doubt there is any speculation is because I'd imagine that the verbage is considered clear, and rape is being referred to

Dave says: I cannot make out what your point is in the first sentence. In any case, I don't mind either the translation "seize" or "grab", because both seizing and grabbing take place during sex, consentual or not.

Jerry:Having watched two hours of interviews with the people you are discussing, I disagree entirely. Many versions (the ASV / NASV comes to mind) were the result of great debate on the nuance of intent.

Dave says: again, only certain verses are going to get heavily scrutinized. The translation of the Johannine uses of "monogenes" is going to consume far more effort than a word in OT case law.It is simply beyond the scope of any translation (even one that takes a few years to put together) to heavily scrutinize every phrase in the Bible. Deut 22 is certainly a more obscure corner of the Bible.

Jerry: It makes no difference to me weather any portion of the Bible's morals are in concert or discord with my own moral beliefs. Therefore I have no cause to retranslate them. You do.

Dave says: welll, it seems that you want to make Paul out to be a bad guy. But if you actually take him on his own terms - his confession of loyalty to the teachings of the Old Testament concerning marriage, then you cannot conclude that Paul thought marriage was bad - because the OT does not teach that.

Jerry: The use of more than one word for the same act (as you may remember me pointing out) occurs in modern context in conversation, on TV, in the news, in the courts, with the police, in letters. The convention you are applying, if applied to most any modern English work would yield incorrect beliefs about the text involved. Also, the large group of aknolwdged experts who translated the Bible disagree (as to I looking at such reasources as Strongs) with the semi-anonymous text you offer as counter evidence. Since your entire argument is predicated on your authority (and half-assed insults as my bias) they fail in light of whom you are arguning against.

Dave says: again, the distinct words are dealing with different events/cases. Vs. 25 is dealing with a death penalty case. Vs. 28 is not. So those two words are not even talking about the same thing, so much less should we assume they MEAN the same thing.

As to the translators supposedly disagreeing with me - I fail to see how they disagree with me. Again, I don't mind any of the literal translations. Only the NIV and NLT explicitly disagrees with me - and they do so in the face of the commentators I quoted. I would also point out that the literal translations, such as the NASB, actually use two different English words to translate the distinct words in vs. 25 ("force") and vs. 28 ("seize").

Jerry:Paul, Corinthians, and "unnatural acts".

Dave says: what I have done, in noting the distinctions in cases between vs. 25 and vs. 28, in no way contradicts the fact that I can interpret a word in Romans 1 in light of the whole chapter. Th book of Deuteronomy is largely composed of numerous different events/cases, and addresses how they are to be dealt with. Romans 1, however, is a theological discourse on the doctrine of the depravity of man - you cannot slice it up into seperate "case laws". The context of Romans 1 is a coherent train of thought. Deuteronomy 22 is composed of distinct case laws.

Jerry:There are quite a few more. I think the last one there directly addressed your question of "bad"... Unless you consider being unable to please the Lord "good".

Dave says: I fail to see how any of those verses prove your point. Concerning I Cor 7:22-23, it nowhere teaches that a married man NECESSARILY cannot please the Lord. It is just that, in marriage, his attention is divided.

--------------------------------------------

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

JerryLove

12-16-2001, 11:51 AM

there is no grabbing or seizing in consensual sex? Now you are moving from ambiguious to literalism. We are back to what I said and you dismissed earlier.. So the law is different based on weather there was any grabbing involved?

I fail to see how any of those verses goes against what I have already explained. Lev 19:20 does not even deal with a girl in any marital context. "If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man" Now you are going to start reinterpreting "promised"? Fine, the Hebrew word is "charaph" which means "betrothed". So how does Lev 19:20 not deal with a marital context again?

How does any of this deal with my comment "betrothed virgins [in adultery] are to be stoned"?? And how does the "obvious assumption" that vs. 28 is referring to rape come from the fact that no death sentence is handed out in vs. 28? Verse 25 hands out a death sentence, and vs. 28 does not. They are two different conditions. Every time a woman has consentual sex with a man that is not her husband under any conditions (the possible exception being an unmarried widow) she is stoned. The only way she avoids stoning is if she is forced. If she is a slave, or if she is raped. vs28 does not stone the woman, and uses specific language that I find an obvious reference to physical compulsion (rape).

commentators are not translators (necessarily). Those are two different disciplines. And the translators of the ASV / NASV were a large group of multi-disciplined religious and Biblical scholars who did in fact "sweat the details".

and, again, I don't think it is ambiguous at all, if you actually bother to read the lines below and above the particular word you are analyzing. And you are a hypocrite in light of your unwillingness to accpeth the logical understanding of the rape reference in Leviticus because it clashes with your beliefs while jumping to a conclusion in Corinthins because it is your belief.

You end up with vs. 25 teaching that death is warranted for the rapist (which it does), and vs. 28 teaching that death is no warranted for the rapist. Certainly Moses was not so dumb as to directly contradict himself in the space of 3 verses. Clearly the fault lies with you. No, 25 teaches that sex with a married or betrothed woman warrents death (weather consentual or not) for the man. And 28 shows that rape of an unmarried and unbetrothed woman requires you marry her to maintin her father's honor.

Paul's endorsement of marriage is implicit in his Hebrew background - which he explicitly professed. Paul would not have diverge from the OT teaching on the matter. Wow, that support is lame. That he would not have believed in Jesus is also implicit in his hebrew background. Just as Jesus stoning the prostitute is implicit in *his* hebrew background.

I cannot make out what your point is in the first sentence. In any case, I don't mind either the translation "seize" or "grab", because both seizing and grabbing take place during sex, consentual or not. Face it, under your belief, the inclusion of the language "seizes" is just dumb, and creates an artifical loophole "well honey, as long as we don't grab each other, it's OK".

again, only certain verses are going to get heavily scrutinized. Dozens of scholars spent over a decade on the tranlastion. The later update alone was 30 man=years of work.

welll, it seems that you want to make Paul out to be a bad guy. But if you actually take him on his own terms - his confession of loyalty to the teachings of the Old Testament concerning marriage, then you cannot conclude that Paul thought marriage was bad - because the OT does not teach that. That assumes a great deal of unproven facts. I am taking Paul as he presents himself. I've cited a dozen or more comments by Paul on this subject.

again, the distinct words are dealing with different events/cases. Vs. 25 is dealing with a death penalty case. Vs. 28 is not. So those two words are not even talking about the same thing, so much less should we assume they MEAN the same thing. The difference is weather the woman is married/betrothed or not. There is no other difference.

what I have done, in noting the distinctions in cases between vs. 25 and vs. 28, in no way contradicts the fact that I can interpret a word in Romans 1 in light of the whole chapter. And that doesn't make your interpretation of what Paul means any less speculative. The fact is that there is no clear intent.

I fail to see how any of those verses prove your point. Of course you do, you dissertation on religious bias has revealed the depths of your own. You have not even considered the possabliity because you are certain you know what God wants, and you are certain the Bible is the word of God. So for anything in there to conflict with what you believe would mean that you were wrong on one conclusion or another.

Karen M

12-16-2001, 12:22 PM

Hello Again Dave :)

I’ll try not to re-answer what Jerry already got.

>>>Karen:Even IF your interpretation is correct, this point was originally about unfair or sexist laws, remember? This is still pretty low. So now, instead of marrying rape victims, we have moved upward to taliban style....if there is an affair, kill the woman, fine the man.

Dave says: actually, I have been saying that this verse does NOT teach that the men are to marry the rape victims. They are to marry the unbetrothed virgins that they had consensual sex with.<<<

Please read my response :) I did not claim that you were saying that it was saying that men should marry rape victims; I claimed that even IF that interpretation was correct, your Holy Book is still sexist, which was the original point. As said on many other threads, it even puts women in under with the rest of the “property” in the 10 commandments; I have yet to get a good response to this.

You also forgot to answer: Do you deny that the most implicit meaning of the words is that of rape?

Thanks,

Karen

DaveJes1979

01-02-2002, 08:27 PM

And after the winter break...I'm back.

--------------------------------

Karen: Please read my response I did not claim that you were saying that it was saying that men should marry rape victims; I claimed that even IF that interpretation was correct, your Holy Book is still sexist, which was the original point. As said on many other threads, it even puts women in under with the rest of the “property” in the 10 commandments; I have yet to get a good response to this.

Dave says: sorry, my mistake on misreading your post. But in any case, under your definition of "sexist", I guess the Bible is sexist. But I don't believe there is any injustice in biblical "sexism." It does not demean anyone. And one's spouse is a TYPE of possession - not that a spouse is like EVERY other possession. This hardly implies that a spouse is of the same value as a table or chair, or should be treated as such.

Karen: You also forgot to answer: Do you deny that the most implicit meaning of the words is that of rape?

Dave says: I think you mean to say that "rape" is the most EXPLICIT (or apparent) meaning of the words here. Yes, I do deny that this is the most explicit meaning. One does "grab", "lay hold of" or "seize" the other person during NORMAL sexual intercourse.

--------------------------------------------------------

Now you are moving from ambiguious to literalism. We are back to what I said and you dismissed earlier.. So the law is different based on weather there was any grabbing involved?

Dave says: there is "seizing", or "grabbing", or "laying hold of" in any consensual sex. Once again, this verb (tapas)does not denote violence - it is used in connection with handling a harp, flute, sickle, oars, shields, and swords in the rest of the OT.

Jerry: "If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man" Now you are going to start reinterpreting "promised"? Fine, the Hebrew word is "charaph" which means "betrothed". So how does Lev 19:20 not deal with a marital context again?

Dave says: well, it was my mistake. The NASB says "acquired", and I took that to mean a legal transaction at first glance. Indeed, the death penalty is not required in this instance.

Jerry: Every time a woman has consentual sex with a man that is not her husband under any conditions (the possible exception being an unmarried widow) she is stoned. The only way she avoids stoning is if she is forced. If she is a slave, or if she is raped. vs28 does not stone the woman, and uses specific language that I find an obvious reference to physical compulsion (rape).

Dave says: here you are simply assuming that the there is no distinctions between the betrothed woman and the unbetrothed. But in the death penalty cases it always makes it clear that the woman is indeed betrothed or married. Again, there is no good reason for the verb change from the case in vs. 25 to the "weaker" verb in vs. 28 unless there is an intended shift in meaning.

Jerry: And the translators of the ASV / NASV were a large group of multi-disciplined religious and Biblical scholars who did in fact "sweat the details".

Dave says: again, they did not sweat ALL of the details. Only some. I am sure that they gave far more time to a detailed study of the Greek term "monogenes" in the New Testament than they did to the more obscure Hebrew case laws. I know you think you are an expert now since you have watched a 2-hour special on PBS, but give me a break.

Jerry: Wow, that support is lame. That he would not have believed in Jesus is also implicit in his hebrew background. Just as Jesus stoning the prostitute is implicit in *his* hebrew background.

Dave says: how is not believing in Jesus implicit in having a Hebrew background? Any consistent application of the Hebrew Scriptures would lead to a Christian view of Jesus.

Jerry: Face it, under your belief, the inclusion of the language "seizes" is just dumb, and creates an artifical loophole "well honey, as long as we don't grab each other, it's OK".

Dave says: again, seizing is pretty much involved in any sexual intercourse. I don't see how you can get around "seizing" or "handling" or "laying hold of" your mate in some way if normal intercourse is to happen.

Jerry: Dozens of scholars spent over a decade on the tranlastion. The later update alone was 30 man=years of work.

Dave says: I know, but it still holds true that every phrase cannot be picked apart with the same sort of scrutiny. Some details will be sweated over. Others will be relatively taken for granted. And updates usually concentrate on modernizing the language or looking at textual variants - not as much of retranslating for the sake of meaning.

Jerry: That assumes a great deal of unproven facts. I am taking Paul as he presents himself. I've cited a dozen or more comments by Paul on this subject.

Dave says: Paul presents himself as someone who affirms the divine authorship and truthfulness of the Old Testament.

Jerry: The difference is weather the woman is married/betrothed or not. There is no other difference.

Dave says: so you assume.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what I have done, in noting the distinctions in cases between vs. 25 and vs. 28, in no way contradicts the fact that I can interpret a word in Romans 1 in light of the whole chapter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry: And that doesn't make your interpretation of what Paul means any less speculative. The fact is that there is no clear intent.

Dave says: "...those who do such things are worthy of death" is not clear?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave says: I fail to see how any of those verses prove your point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry: Of course you do, you dissertation on religious bias has revealed the depths of your own.

Dave says: it would be nice if you could actually demonstrate a logical connection between this verses you simply "threw out" and the arguments you are making.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

David Gadbois
djgadbois@csupomona.edu

JerryLove

01-03-2002, 08:21 AM

Dave says: there is "seizing", or "grabbing", or "laying hold of" in any consensual sex. Once again, this verb (tapas)does not denote violence - it is used in connection with handling a harp, flute, sickle, oars, shields, and swords in the rest of the OT. That would hold more weight except it would A. Make the law misplaced in reference to the non-virgin-bride law, and B. make the added word superfluious. An unmarried girl (the possible exception being a widow) who has sex is stoned (Deut 22:14).

here you are simply assuming that the there is no distinctions between the betrothed woman and the unbetrothed. But in the death penalty cases it always makes it clear that the woman is indeed betrothed or married. Again referring to Deut 22:14, there is no requirement that the girl's loss of virginity occurd while betrothed, nor that it is proven. Only that a new Bride be unable to prove she was a virgin, and is therefore stoned.

I know you think you are an expert now since you have watched a 2-hour special on PBS, but give me a break. You have yet to offer me any reason to believe your knowledge is more detailed. You have made admitted (thanks for acknoweledging) mistakes on the translations discussed here already, and are now discussing meaning. For these passages I have looked at several translations and strongs, and yes, my impluse is to accept the interpretation of acknowledged Biblical scholors over yours; some of them actually use the word "rape".

how is not believing in Jesus implicit in having a Hebrew background? Any consistent application of the Hebrew Scriptures would lead to a Christian view of Jesus. So now every Jew in the world is inconsistant with their own scripture?

again, seizing is pretty much involved in any sexual intercourse. I don't see how you can get around "seizing" or "handling" or "laying hold of" your mate in some way if normal intercourse is to happen. Since it makes the difference between forced marriage and nothing (according to you) I'd sort it out. It's silly and supurflious in a manner that is not consistant with the rest of the writing. Why is it there at all if not to convey a meaning?

I know, but it still holds true that every phrase cannot be picked apart with the same sort of scrutiny. You are making the counter claim that your source (as I recall a single person) using what must have been less than several lifetimes of his work (and therefore less than the original translation team) would have such time.

And updates usually concentrate on modernizing the language or looking at textual variants - not as much of retranslating for the sake of meaning. Silly me, I thought that a Christian translating the Bible would be interested in the meaning of the words.

so you assume. No, that difference is explicit, any other differences must be assumed. As mentioned, I've given many cites from Paul supporting his dislike of marriage.

"...those who do such things are worthy of death" is not clear? It's been a while, this establishes Paul's meaning in 1:26 how?

it would be nice if you could actually demonstrate a logical connection between this verses you simply "threw out" and the arguments you are making. I doubt any non-Christian would have any difficulty making the connection.

Karen M

01-03-2002, 04:36 PM

Hello again Dave :)

>>>Dave says: sorry, my mistake on misreading your post. But in any case, under your definition of "sexist", I guess the Bible is sexist. But I don't believe there is any injustice in biblical "sexism." It does not demean anyone.<<<

It doesn't? Would you like to explain how having no legal rights, being claimed that the only thing you are good for is cleaning a house and having babies, and being treated like property isn't demeaning? :)

>>>And one's spouse is a TYPE of possession - not that a spouse is like EVERY other possession.<<<

It is implied that a woman is like every other possetion. It is in the property comandment about not wanting anyone elses "things."

>>>This hardly implies that a spouse is of the same value as a table or chair, or should be treated as such.<<<

It implies it everywhere. Even when a woman is rapped, the father is considered the hurt party and not the woman.

>>>Dave says: I think you mean to say that "rape" is the most EXPLICIT (or apparent) meaning of the words here.<<<

No, implicit. Comes from the base word "imply." Though explicit works too.

>>>Yes, I do deny that this is the most explicit meaning. One does "grab", "lay hold of" or "seize" the other person during NORMAL sexual intercourse.<<<

And an holy book of God would find it necessariy to specificly describe actions during sexual intercourse rather than just saying "if a woman sleeps with a man" when it continually denounces it as evil? If they included grabbing, why didn't they include moaning and orgasm discriptions too?

Have a nice day :)

Karen

DaveJes1979

01-25-2002, 03:59 AM

Karen: It doesn't? Would you like to explain how having no legal rights, being claimed that the only thing you are good for is cleaning a house and having babies, and being treated like property isn't demeaning?

Dave says: NO legal rights? Not true. Not the SAME legal rights, maybe. And where does it say that the ONLY thing that women are good for is cleaning house and having babies? And, once again, women are not treated as MERE property. They are a TYPE of property, but not in the same class a objections and things.

Karen: It is implied that a woman is like every other possetion. It is in the property comandment about not wanting anyone elses "things."

Dave says: I fail to see how this is implied. Simply because the word "things" is used does not demonstrate that. "Things" is used because it is the most general term that can cover all types of posessions.

Karen: It implies it everywhere. Even when a woman is rapped, the father is considered the hurt party and not the woman.

Dave says: actually, the father is simply representative of the family. The whole family is hurt.

Karen: And an holy book of God would find it necessariy to specificly describe actions during sexual intercourse rather than just saying "if a woman sleeps with a man" when it continually denounces it as evil? If they included grabbing, why didn't they include moaning and orgasm discriptions too?

Dave says: it "continually denounces it as evil"??? That is just silly. Only in sinful contexts (outside of marriage) is it denounced. And I don't think that to use the word "grab" or "seize" or "lay hold of" are especially explicit words to use.

Jerry: That would hold more weight except it would A. Make the law misplaced in reference to the non-virgin-bride law, and B. make the added word superfluious. An unmarried girl (the possible exception being a widow) who has sex is stoned (Deut 22:14).

Dave says: I don't know if you meant to cite Deut 22:14, because that deals with a woman in the context of a marriage, and is dealing with the husband falsely accusing her. In any case, I fail to see how this is an "added" or superfluous word. I also don't follow how that would make the law "misplaced in reference to the non-virgin bride law."

Jerry: Again referring to Deut 22:14, there is no requirement that the girl's loss of virginity occurd while betrothed, nor that it is proven. Only that a new Bride be unable to prove she was a virgin, and is therefore stoned.

Dave says: Yes, she may not have been betrothed at the time of the loss of virginity. But this issue cannot even come to court unless the girl is married and has made a claim to virginity. So the loss of virginity by itself does not constitute a death penalty case. There must be some (if future) connection with marriage to incur that penalty.

Jerry: You have yet to offer me any reason to believe your knowledge is more detailed. You have made admitted (thanks for acknoweledging) mistakes on the translations discussed here already, and are now discussing meaning. For these passages I have looked at several translations and strongs, and yes, my impluse is to accept the interpretation of acknowledged Biblical scholors over yours; some of them actually use the word "rape".

Dave says: actually, I am drawing from scholarship beyond my own abilities now. I cited the interpreters who sided with me, all who were dealing with the original languages. You simply are not going to find finer Hebrew exegetes than Keil and Delitsch (German scholars from last century), or modern interpreters like Greg Bahnsen. The only difference is that I can look at the varying opinions from scholarship, weigh the differing cases, and come to my own informed conclusion. And I can actually defend it with specific reasons.

By the way, my knowledge goes far beyond a 2-hour PB