Cut off her hand...

[PennEd]

My dear PennEd, you seem to be missing the point. I do have an understanding of genetics, but you, it seems, do not. Genes may result in physical traits being passed down the generations. Some can miss a generation for the reasons described in your post. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that moral traits can be transferred by genes. They cannot.
We are not speculating here about people who bred with angels. On this subject, you may be right.
I am discussing human beings.
In recent times, it has been argued that people may possess genes that incline them towards crime. A warrior gene. Such dispositions are exacerbated by childhood abuse or frontal cortex injuries, but these apply to individuals, not whole nations.
God destroyed the nations he destroyed because they were immoral as a culture and it was culture not genes that passed on this immorality.
Certainly a refusal to marry a dead brother’s wife or marrying her and spilling his semen were violations of the law, but were not, in my opinion, the result of a genetic corruption.

Hmmm.... The sins of the father to the 3rd and 4th generation... I saw a vid of a secular geneticist show exactly how moral traits is passed on to children. I'll try and find it.

But there is something vital we should all understand. Issues, such as the one you bring up about grabbing genitals in the Law, or any other, do not sit out there in isolation. They are interconnected to each other and are necessary to understand each other.

This is why we need to have the background related to WHY god did not want a man's genitals damaged.

But I'm sorry if I came off as sarcastic. Be Blessed

 

[Scrobulous]

My view is be careful, Paul tells us in Romans,

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Daniel says,

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”

I understand where you're coming from, but I would advise to tread very lightly saying things like "the above command strikes me as utterly disgusting.", and "that surely no merciful God could condone it". Who are YOU oh man to stand in judgement over God? The same God that sent His Son (the only innocent man ever BTW) to the death on the cross to die for ALL these "disgusting" acts you are so appalled by. I wouldn't be so quick to elevate what "I feel is right", with what God decrees is just.

Again I understand what you mean, but you just don't have any authority behind it for it to really mean anything. I really hope this doesn't sound too harsh, I do not mean it that way at all, but the same exact thing applies to all of us.

Thank you for your post. I fully take on board what you are saying. If you read my replies on this forum (if you have the time and patience!) I think you will see my position. I am concerned for God’s reputation against the charge of being cruel or indifferent to cruelty. Other posters have been concerned for God’s reputation in the veracity of the law. On this forum we do not fight each other on the greatness of God, only on how we can understand him correctly.

 

[trofimus]

No not at all. I know exactly what I believe - I think get thee behind me Satan
is the correct response to that comment.

So, can you tell me clearly what "all Scriptures" means and what "breathed by God" means?

 

[Scrobulous]

Hmmm.... The sins of the father to the 3rd and 4th generation... I saw a vid of a secular geneticist show exactly how moral traits is passed on to children. I'll try and find it.

But there is something vital we should all understand. Issues, such as the one you bring up about grabbing genitals in the Law, or any other, do not sit out there in isolation. They are interconnected to each other and are necessary to understand each other.

This is why we need to have the background related to WHY god did not want a man's genitals damaged.

But I'm sorry if I came off as sarcastic. Be Blessed

Thank you, Sir!
Present genetic theory is fairly clear that genes carry physical characteristics, but the issue is complicated. The structure and wiring of the brain must be the result of the genes, that is combinations of genes working together, and the structure of the mind, for an atheist, is the whole man. We don’t believe this. We think there is a spirit in a man and that personality rides on top of our multicellular body rather like music rides on the top of the wooden frame and metal wires of a piano.
My understanding is that sin and our attitude towards it is not physical, otherwise we would have no choice, our bodies would determine our destiny. This seems unfair. I think our real self is the spirit in a man and that we control it.
As for the sacred nature of a man’s testicles, I am trying to see your position. I am inclined towards protection of the woman, but I don’t stick to this. God may have His reasons. If He tells me, I’ll post it on the Forum!

 

[trofimus]

First, don't tell me how to respond, not to do it this way or that way, it's disrespectful and smug.

I believe God commanded it for a reason. I haven't studied it out but I'm not going to dismiss it as rubbish, from men, not of God, unloving among other emotional sentiments as others are foolishly doing with God's word.

I'll leave that up to them.

There is this interesting comment on the subject, and, with this I'll suggest there are some things we simply do not know, so we shouldn't rush to dismiss God's word so quickly as many foolishly do today:

This is the only place in the Old Testament where mutilation is seemingly specifically prescribed as a punishment because of the dreadful mutilation that she caused, although it was assumed in the lex talionis as the ultimate measure. Thus she would never again be able to caress her husband.

Indeed the ‘cutting off’ of the ‘hand’ may actually refer to some action which also made it impossible for her to conceive, cutting off her ability to bear children in retaliation for her act of preventing the man having children, which would be seen as fulfilling the law of lex talionis (an eye for an eye). ‘Hand’ is sometimes used as a euphemism for the sexual organ, and the word used for ‘hand’ in verse 12 differs from that for ‘hand’ in Deu_25:11 suggesting that some distinction might be made.

But the mutilation itself, in retaliation for the mutilation she had caused, would be a constant proclamation of what kind of woman she was. It would be her greatest shame. - Dr. Peter Pett (lol, no pun intended!!!!)

So, your "nice" solution to the problem is, that instead of her arm cut off, it can mean that her sexual organs will be somehow cut off?

Please, stop such "defense". Better say nothing than such terrible ideas.

Also, you frequently involve yourself in circular reasoning - Bible is perfect because everything in it is perfect and everything in is perfect because its in the Bible.

 

[preacher4truth]

My question on the other thread was simply that. A question. You may consider it naive, but there was no agenda to sow discord. I really do not know if there is a scripture in the OT that suggests God always intended to offer eternal life after the fall. One can certainly infer that this was the plan and many OT saints were convinced of it, but they seem to have obtained this revelation out of their experience of God, rather than any specific promise in the scripture.
I asked the question because I was imagining myself living under the old covenant as a foreigner and wondering about my future. What could I reasonably hope for? So, I posted to the forum.

Fair enough brother, but you were still begging the question. The answer, as are many answers, is or are not always contained in a verse as you well know.

There are too many "verse-ologists" in my honest opinion, too many who know what a Scripture says, not what it means (when using it to prove their errant stance aside from its contextually exegeted meaning) and too few who can use a 2 Timothy 2:15 methodology to make Biblically sound deductions from God's word.

 

[Scrobulous]

Fair enough brother, but you were still begging the question. The answer, as are many answers, is or are not always contained in a verse as you well know.

There are too many "verse-ologists" in my honest opinion, too many who know what a Scripture says, not what it means (when using it to prove their errant stance aside from its contextually exegeted meaning) and too few who can use a 2 Timothy 2:15 methodology to make Biblically sound deductions from God's word.

The letter kills, the spirit gives life. I agree. There are extremes to be avoided at both ends of the spectrum. I have really struggled with the issue of why, given that all christians have the spirit, they can come to so many different conclusions. I guess everyone is at different levels with different experiences and emphases. I take comfort from the gospel itself. The word of life really is so simple that no sincere person could miss it. We can disagree about almost anything. It doesn't really matter. If we agree that christ is the Lord and that He rose from the dead for us, then that is enough. Everything else will become clear in the fullness of time!

 

[Laish]

In Deuteronomy 25 we have the following:
11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

When reading the OT law, it is important to realise that although, by our standards, the events are pretty barbaric, we are dealing with divine judgment and being educated to understand the deadliness of sin and God’s attitude towards it. Genocide is a last resort and the means by which God judges the nations of the middle east. There are indications, Gen 15:16 that God waits generations before judging in this way. We are, in fact, instructed to love the law and to dwell on it night and day Ps 1:2.
It seems to me that the law is an imperfect means of structuring a society along godly lines, but in spite of all this, the above command strikes me as utterly disgusting.
I am appalled too, at commands to stone animals, like bulls who gore people to death. Stoning is a means of killing so painful, slow and disgusting, that surely no merciful God could condone it. Why the cruelty?u
I have to say such things really upset my faith.
Does anyone have a view on this?

Hello Scrobulous
First the law as handed down by God is good ,and perfect. The important thing to keep in mind is our imperfections . We seek to judge things as we see them ,and how they affect our feelings.
Take the verse in Deuteronomy you posted . We are not talking about a below the belt kick or punch. The act is grabbing in the middle of a fight. A act that can affect the ability to have children. She is not just defending she is intent on doing damage that could cause the man to be childless an without support of future children in his old age. The consequences are far reaching. It’s not just that the man is embarrassed or publicly humiliated. It’s not a cruel punishment for something that could cause the man to not have a wife or ,children. Remember a family with children was your way to put food on the table and ,retirement Also if he is a Levite affect his ability to be a priest .
Concerning stoning yea it’s harsh . The stoning is also carried out by the community it puts whole process on public display. It drives home the seriousness of what is being done ,and why . It’s all to easy to sterilize the process to feel better about it .
Our fallen nature has consequences. They are spelled out in scripture. The law is Like the shepherd’s rod and staff. It guides us and prescribes what happens when fail to heed the guidance.
Blessings
Bill

 

[Scrobulous]

Hello Scrobulous
First the law as handed down by God is good ,and perfect. The important thing to keep in mind is our imperfections . We seek to judge things as we see them ,and how they affect our feelings.
Take the verse in Deuteronomy you posted . We are not talking about a below the belt kick or punch. The act is grabbing in the middle of a fight. A act that can affect the ability to have children. She is not just defending she is intent on doing damage that could cause the man to be childless an without support of future children in his old age. The consequences are far reaching. It’s not just that the man is embarrassed or publicly humiliated. It’s not a cruel punishment for something that could cause the man to not have a wife or ,children. Remember a family with children was your way to put food on the table and ,retirement Also if he is a Levite affect his ability to be a priest .
Concerning stoning yea it’s harsh . The stoning is also carried out by the community it puts whole process on public display. It drives home the seriousness of what is being done ,and why . It’s all to easy to sterilize the process to feel better about it .
Our fallen nature has consequences. They are spelled out in scripture. The law is Like the shepherd’s rod and staff. It guides us and prescribes what happens when fail to heed the guidance.
Blessings
Bill

Hi Bill. Thanks for your post.

A few years ago I saw a cartoon. A guy was sitting in the dentist’s chair and the dentist was set to go with his drill. The patient had him by the crotch and said ‘we aren’t going to hurt each other are we?’

Now, if the scripture had said, if a woman siezes a man by the genitals and by so doing renders him childless, or injures him severely, that would be a different matter. But I get no sense that the women did this. The verse says that the act of seizing the man, even with the laudible aim of stopping a fight, means she should not be pitied and must suffer the terrible pain of amputation.

I can’t see Jesus sitting by and allowing such a thing. I think this is one of those scriptures tolerated because of the hardness of heart of the Israelites.

 

[LPT]

I asked why the law of God demands amputation and the stoning of bulls in the situations described in Deut 25:11-12. I have been told these laws were intended as a deterrent. In which case, society should suggest boiling people in oil for not returning their library books, after all this is a crime against the whole community and how about hanging and disembowelling people who park their cars in the wrong place? If the laws are savage enough, no one commit crime at all, right? Saudis amputate the hands of thieves and we think them pretty barbarous, but the effectiveness is undisputed. Not many steal in Saudi, but some do and they suffer amputation. They are given anaesthetic. Imagine if they were not. So why don’t we go down this route? Because we recognise that the law is an expression of our aspirations. We are defined by our laws.
How can I obey Psalm 1:2 ?
The implication of this is that I will reevaluate how I interpret the bible. The bible is written by men. Many parts of it are inspired by God and some parts are not. Working out which are and which are not is actually no big deal. One can smell the bits that come from men, the divorce laws and the stoning of animals easily enough.

That's because you have convinced yourself, it is about physically cutting off a hand.

things can happen the wrong way if it's God will that something happens and we humans try to intervene.

eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, testicle for hmm well .....Er..... ya hmmm now what, cut off the hand in a Levirate marriage.

the hand in hand in marriage with a string wrapped around the both hands is biblical.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

What I am afraid of when people trying to figure out which verses are inspired and which are not(like we have ‘spidey sense’) the Bible bends to us and not vice versa.

It’s a self-defeating stance. Give a new convert a bible and tell them it’s not entirely inspired and you’ve put doubt in their minds they can fully trust it.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Another thing I fear is the assault on the sufficiency, inspiration, and inerrancy of the scriptures could cause some to rethink the necessity of the scriptures. If I had such the low view of them as some on here have, I would chuck all my bibles in the garbage and never read them again. If I can not trust one verse, one single verse in the bible, then I can not trust them as a whole, seeing I could not tell which verses are true and which are not.

 

[trofimus]

What I am afraid of when people trying to figure out which verses are inspired and which are not(like we have ‘spidey sense’) the Bible bends to us and not vice versa.

It’s a self-defeating stance. Give a new convert a bible and tell them it’s not entirely inspired and you’ve put doubt in their minds they can fully trust it.

This is exactly what happened during canonization. People were figuring out which books are inspired and which are not, according to the Holy Spirit in them and according to Church teachings and according to apostolic tradition.

There is no Bible without Christians. Christians are discerning what is the word of God and what is not.

 

[trofimus]

Another thing I fear is the assault on the sufficiency, inspiration, and inerrancy of the scriptures could cause some to rethink the necessity of the scriptures. If I had such the low view of them as some on here have, I would chuck all my bibles in the garbage and never read them again.

There is no need for such two extreme positions. Its not "this or that".

Its not "either every word in my Bible is inerrant or I must throw the Bible in the garbage".

Various levels of inspiration and usefulness for various places of the Bible are obvious. The NT quotes Isaiah or psalms in most cases, but never for example Song of Songs or Esther.

 

[Scrobulous]

That's because you have convinced yourself, it is about physically cutting off a hand.

things can happen the wrong way if it's God will that something happens and we humans try to intervene.

eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, testicle for hmm well .....Er..... ya hmmm now what, cut off the hand in a Levirate marriage.

the hand in hand in marriage with a string wrapped around the both hands is biblical.

Well, I am one of those old fashioned guys who when they read ‘you shall cut off her hand, show her no mercy’ draw the conclusion that cutting off a hand is what the verse means. If I don’t assume this, I cannot read the bible at all. It could mean anything. So, I am sticking with the principle that I read the bible like any other text and I take what it says seriously.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

This is exactly what happened during canonization. People were figuring out which books are inspired and which are not, according to the Holy Spirit in them and according to Church teachings and according to apostolic tradition.

There is no Bible without Christians. Christians are discerning what is the word of God and what is not.

However, you guys are taking what was deemed inspired and are picking them apart. You are going one step further.

Seriously, my friend, if the bible you read is not all inspired, and can have some false doctrines in it, why read it? How can you know for 100% certainty that which you deem to be inspired is really inspired? It makes zero sense to read the bible it you can not fully trust it.

 

[Scrobulous]

However, you guys are taking what was deemed inspired and are picking them apart. You are going one step further.

Seriously, my friend, if the bible you read is not all inspired, and can have some false doctrines in it, why read it? How can you know for 100% certainty that which you deem to be inspired is really inspired? It makes zero sense to read the bible it you can not fully trust it.

No one is picking it apart. One should read the bible as the inspired word of God. There are 23,145 verses in the bible. We are concerned that 2 or 3 maybe a few more, may be uninspired insertions or concessions made by God in the light of man’s hardness of heart. Jesus himself said that divorce was never part of God’s plan, but it is in the law. What does this mean? Christ was certainly not against the law. Similarly when asked about stoning the adulterous woman, Christ revealed that although this measure is definitely in the law, there is a bigger picture.
So, when I ask about two verses in Deuteronomy, that recommend stoning a poor bull and cutting off a woman’s hand, I am asking whether these are in the same class of dubious scriptures, I do not undermine the bible, I seek to understand it.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

No one is picking it apart. One should read the bible as the inspired word of God. There are 23,145 verses in the bible. We are concerned that 2 or 3 maybe a few more, may be uninspired insertions or concessions made by God in the light of man’s hardness of heart. Jesus himself said that divorce was never part of God’s plan, but it is in the law. What does this mean? Christ was certainly not against the law. Similarly when asked about stoning the adulterous woman, Christ revealed that although this measure is definitely in the law, there is a bigger picture.
So, when I ask about two verses in Deuteronomy, that recommend stoning a poor bull and cutting off a woman’s hand, I am asking whether these are in the same class of dubious scriptures, I do not undermine the bible, I seek to understand it.

Regardless, we should never question the word of God. Just because we can not grasp every verse in the bible, it does not mean we are to brush it aside by saying, "Well, that verse, or passage of verses, are not inspired". We do not have that authority, my friend.

 

[trofimus]

However, you guys are taking what was deemed inspired and are picking them apart. You are going one step further.

Seriously, my friend, if the bible you read is not all inspired, and can have some false doctrines in it, why read it? How can you know for 100% certainty that which you deem to be inspired is really inspired? It makes zero sense to read the bible it you can not fully trust it.

Church was canonizing books, not every verse in them or every word in them. Also, the Old Testament IS NOT preserved in a good condition. So, how can you even believe that you can trust it fully? What do you even mean by that?

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Church was canonizing books, not every verse in them or every word in them. Also, the Old Testament IS NOT preserved in a good condition. So, how can you even believe that you can trust it fully? What do you even mean by that?

The church was a group of ppl who, as a whole, did this. Not some guys in today's world who are taking it upon themselves to decide what to accept and what to chuck out the window.