Zakuska Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 TTBOMK Yeshua bar Yosef didn't kill anyone. But far too many people have claimed that Yeshua bar El told them to.He sure let a lot of people die. Ones reported to have "stank to high heaven." before he did anything.
Sevenbak Posted October 20, 2015 Author Posted October 20, 2015 TTBOMK Yeshua bar Yosef didn't kill anyone. But far too many people have claimed that Yeshua bar El told them to.You're going to have to convince me that Yeshua bar Yosef didn't really need that murdering Moses to appear to Him on the Mount of Transfiguration, and that Peter James and John really didn't witness and bear record of it, before I will believe that. Or that millions of Jews are just simply wrong about the Passover.
Sevenbak Posted October 20, 2015 Author Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) I guess you can pick and choose what bible or parts of the bible you want to believe in. I don't think that's how we do things. Joseph Smith already translated the bible through revelation, he didn't change or alter the murdering Moses and Joshua. I have yet to see any modern prophet or GA dismiss that element of the exodus and genocide and settlement of Canaan. Edited October 20, 2015 by Sevenbak
bluebell Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 I guess you can pick and choose what bible or parts of the bible you want to believe in. I don't think that's how we do things. Joseph Smith already translated the bible through revelation, he didn't change or alter the murdering Moses and Joshua. I have yet to see any modern prophet or GA dismiss that element of the exodus and genocide and settlement of Canaan. Do you believe that God condones rape like the OT says He does? You keep ignoring some parts of my posts, even though they are important to my point. If you want to discuss this, then we have to discuss all the relevant parts and not just the ones you find easiest to refute. 1
Sevenbak Posted October 20, 2015 Author Posted October 20, 2015 What exactly are you referring to, so I can look at it in its context. And the discussion has to work both ways too.
Gray Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) While I agree with the general premise, the Scriptures are not a smorgasbord buffet... we can't pick and choose what we like. If you have evidence that genocidal wars of Moses and Joshua were mistranslated, I'd be interested to see it. As the scriptures on a literal level are self contradictory, you cannot do anything but pick and choose. Which things you keep and which things you disregard or which things you reinterpret will depend on your personal criteria. Edited October 20, 2015 by Gray
bluebell Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) What exactly are you referring to, so I can look at it in its context. And the discussion has to work both ways too. There are many examples during the time that the Israelites were taking captives and killing babies, but one specific verse which illustrates what I'm talking about is Deut. 21: 10-13. I know there are some who (very strangely) argue that because the man is supposed to marry the girl first, then it's not rape. I think most normal people though would understand that a captive would not want to voluntarily sleep with a man who had just killed her whole family and took her as a slave a month before, regardless of whether or not someone forced her to marry him. It's also interesting that some people use the command that the man can't ever sell her as a slave if she doesn't please him as evidence of God's care for the girl, even though in the same statement God allows the man to throw the girl away after sleeping with her, if he wants to. Deut. 22 is another chapter that presents God as being completely callous to the feelings of His daughters. This chapter outlines the punishment for raping a woman (or being raped in the wrong location). According to the law of moses, if a woman is raped in a field, and she's betrothed to another man, then the rapist is killed but not the woman. If a betrothed woman is raped in the city, both she and the rapist is killed (because theoretically, she didn't resist enough or someone would have come to her aid). If a virgin is raped (wherever it happens) then the man has to pay the girl's father some money and he must marry her. Then, everything's just fine. Edited October 20, 2015 by bluebell 1
riverogue Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I think those verses are *clearly* "errors of men" that made their way into the textDeleted. Read the board guidelines.
thesometimesaint Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I guess you can pick and choose what bible or parts of the bible you want to believe in. I don't think that's how we do things. Joseph Smith already translated the bible through revelation, he didn't change or alter the murdering Moses and Joshua. I have yet to see any modern prophet or GA dismiss that element of the exodus and genocide and settlement of Canaan. We all pick and choose. Even JS did it.SEE 1
Sevenbak Posted October 25, 2015 Author Posted October 25, 2015 There are many examples during the time that the Israelites were taking captives and killing babies, but one specific verse which illustrates what I'm talking about is Deut. 21: 10-13. I know there are some who (very strangely) argue that because the man is supposed to marry the girl first, then it's not rape. I think most normal people though would understand that a captive would not want to voluntarily sleep with a man who had just killed her whole family and took her as a slave a month before, regardless of whether or not someone forced her to marry him. It's also interesting that some people use the command that the man can't ever sell her as a slave if she doesn't please him as evidence of God's care for the girl, even though in the same statement God allows the man to throw the girl away after sleeping with her, if he wants to. Deut. 22 is another chapter that presents God as being completely callous to the feelings of His daughters. This chapter outlines the punishment for raping a woman (or being raped in the wrong location). According to the law of moses, if a woman is raped in a field, and she's betrothed to another man, then the rapist is killed but not the woman. If a betrothed woman is raped in the city, both she and the rapist is killed (because theoretically, she didn't resist enough or someone would have come to her aid). If a virgin is raped (wherever it happens) then the man has to pay the girl's father some money and he must marry her. Then, everything's just fine.You are lumping the minutiae of the Mosaic Law in with the whole of biblical history. That's dangerous. And you're still picking and choosing, and applying today's standards to them of old. Every one of your examples has the rapist being killed according to law, except when marriage would save the future and reputation of the wronged woman, and even then, the rapist was punished and held to a strict recompense. A woman in that culture would have been shunned and cast away, after such a thing. Can't you see how the law helped those in that position to move on and have a semblance of a life? It was there to protect the woman, not the other way around as you seem to say it is. Of course it's wrong by today's standards, but so is the matter of fact laws discussing the day to day dealings with polygamy, which is included right after the verses you mentioned.
Sevenbak Posted October 25, 2015 Author Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) We all pick and choose. Even JS did it. JS didn't make changes to the bible unless it needed to be done. Corrections to the Deuteronomy chapters were made by Joseph Smith for Chapters 2, 10, 14, 16 and 34. The fact that he didn't change content in other parts might be troubling to some, but to say that he picked and chose what he would tackle is just a witch hunt. Edited October 25, 2015 by Sevenbak
thesometimesaint Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) JS didn't make changes to the bible unless it needed to be done. Corrections to the Deuteronomy chapters were made by Joseph Smith for Chapters 2, 10, 14, 16 and 34. The fact that he didn't change content in other parts might be troubling to some, but to say that he picked and chose what he would tackle is just a witch hunt. JS never finished his translation of the Bible. Just look in your Quad. Do you really belive we should kill for wearing clothes of different fabrics ? Edited October 25, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Sevenbak Posted October 26, 2015 Author Posted October 26, 2015 He certainly went through the Pentateuch including Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These are the foundational books for the Jews, they make up the Torah. Consequently, all of bible believing Christendom use them also foundationally. Are you suggesting he just selected random Deuteronomy references in the 5 chapters he did make changes to? Do you have evidence he skipped Chapters in Deuteronomy? We believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly... NOT: ...as far as it is translated correctly to our point of view.or...as far as we think Joseph might have translated it.or...as far as it is politically correct in our modern era. There are, that I can find, 2 references against mixing wool and linen, except for use by the High Priest. Neither of which require death, as far as I can tell. To what are you referring?
bluebell Posted October 27, 2015 Posted October 27, 2015 You are lumping the minutiae of the Mosaic Law in with the whole of biblical history. That's dangerous. It's not dangerous, it's reasonable. The Mosaic Law is a part of biblical history. You can't logically separate the two if that is your subject. And you're still picking and choosing, and applying today's standards to them of old. Of course i am. If rape is wrong today, then rape was wrong back then too. If you believe that God would never condone forcing someone to marry their rapist today, then why would we believe that He would write it into their laws a few millennia ago? He cares about the mental and emotional well being of women more now than He used to? Every one of your examples has the rapist being killed according to law, except when marriage would save the future and reputation of the wronged woman, and even then, the rapist was punished and held to a strict recompense.A woman in that culture would have been shunned and cast away, after such a thing. Can't you see how the law helped those in that position to move on and have a semblance of a life? It was there to protect the woman, not the other way around as you seem to say it is. First, this is not correct. Every one of my examples did not have the rapist either killed or punished. One of my examples was where God allowed Israelite men to marry a woman he took as a slave (after killing her family) against her will, sleep with her, and then discard her if he wants to. Second, that culture is Israelite culture, which--if we want to believe that everything they did was based on commandments from God as you say--was determined by God. A woman did not have to be shunned and cast away after such a thing. All God would have had to do was to command that such women NOT be shunned and cast away. A few commandments about how such women were not to blame and were still to be treated as chaste virgins and those women would have been protected from further harm after having to deal with an already horrible violation. But instead of God giving commandments that protect women from surrounding cultural influences that might harm them we have commandments that encourage women to be treated as objects, with no emotional needs, who's lives only matter to the degree that they serve and/or honor men. Of course it's wrong by today's standards, but so is the matter of fact laws discussing the day to day dealings with polygamy, which is included right after the verses you mentioned. Some things are wrong because the law says they are wrong, or a culture says they are wrong, and some things are wrong because God has declared them to be morally wrong. When we are talking about things that are morally wrong (like rape), there is no such thing as presentism. God doesn't ok moral sins because a culture wants to do them and then later makes those acts sins again because a society has finally caught up with His commandments. God isn't morally relative. His morals don't change. The israelites claim, in these passages we are discussing in the bible, that all their laws come from God. If we believe that God would not condone the rape of women (or women being forced to marry their rapist, or being killed for being raped in the wrong location) today because such acts are immoral, then we have to believe that God would not have condoned such immorality in the past either. 3
Kyle Kenley Kopitke Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Columbus was a great man. He was inspired by God. How inspired and how good a man is based on your views of which tone of history you want to believe in. For me, I find I am happier when I look for the good in others. I sure hope when I cross on over and stand before the Christ, that He will see the good in me. Columbus has been a great American Hero. Now you know satan can't stand for that, so he seeks to destroy all that is good and noble. The claims that he did this or did that, which place him in a negative light, are words written hundreds of years ago by his critics. Do critics ever praise? Are critics ever wrong? Critics seldom build or ever discover anything. Go Christopher!
MiserereNobis Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Columbus was a great man. He was inspired by God. How inspired and how good a man is based on your views of which tone of history you want to believe in. For me, I find I am happier when I look for the good in others. I sure hope when I cross on over and stand before the Christ, that He will see the good in me. Columbus has been a great American Hero. Now you know satan can't stand for that, so he seeks to destroy all that is good and noble. The claims that he did this or did that, which place him in a negative light, are words written hundreds of years ago by his critics. Do critics ever praise? Are critics ever wrong? Critics seldom build or ever discover anything. Go Christopher! Did you read the thread? There are ample quotes from his own letters and diaries chronicling the terrible stuff he did. I assure you that Satan was VERY pleased with Columbus's actions towards the natives. 4
The Nehor Posted November 5, 2015 Posted November 5, 2015 Columbus was a great man. He was inspired by God. How inspired and how good a man is based on your views of which tone of history you want to believe in. For me, I find I am happier when I look for the good in others. I sure hope when I cross on over and stand before the Christ, that He will see the good in me. Columbus has been a great American Hero. Now you know satan can't stand for that, so he seeks to destroy all that is good and noble. The claims that he did this or did that, which place him in a negative light, are words written hundreds of years ago by his critics. Do critics ever praise? Are critics ever wrong? Critics seldom build or ever discover anything. Go Christopher!There is a difference between focusing on the good and blatantly ignoring huge parts of someone's life. For example remembering Mussolini as "that guy who finally got the trains to run on time" might be focusing on the positive but it is also not representative. 4
Recommended Posts