Cut off her hand...
- Thread starter Scrobulous
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I figured this was your M.O. This is why, in your other thread I asked by assertions whether your question was ingenuous. You never responded and I figured you wouldn't when your agenda was pretty much figured out.
Here is the response I gave in your thread "Before the beginning of time:"
Of course, zero response, and I'm fairly certain as to why: You're not really here for the answer (which isn't in a verse, mind you).
You are begging the question in your OP's and are here to sow discord or doubt, intentionally or not. Cultural political correctness has a lot to do with your doubts cast upon God's word and ways as seen up above in your statement, and can also be seen in the above mentioned thread. But even in a differing culture in another age you'd find a problem, or, let's say God's word would reveal the problem in you. No worries, his word does that to all of us in some fashion or another, but, he sent his Son to save us from our sins; Matthew 1:21, to grant us faith; Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 1:19; and to bring us to repentance; 2 Peter 3:9.
Here is the response I gave in your thread "Before the beginning of time:"
Are you looking for a verse that says something like: "I God, before the foundation of the earth, promise eternal life to all saints. Amen!" 
If you are being ingenuous in your quest, you know you'll never find it in your exacting terms. I see this as an example of begging the question.
If you are being ingenuous in your quest, you know you'll never find it in your exacting terms. I see this as an example of begging the question.
You are begging the question in your OP's and are here to sow discord or doubt, intentionally or not. Cultural political correctness has a lot to do with your doubts cast upon God's word and ways as seen up above in your statement, and can also be seen in the above mentioned thread. But even in a differing culture in another age you'd find a problem, or, let's say God's word would reveal the problem in you. No worries, his word does that to all of us in some fashion or another, but, he sent his Son to save us from our sins; Matthew 1:21, to grant us faith; Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 1:19; and to bring us to repentance; 2 Peter 3:9.
-
1
- Show all
Of course you are free to believe whatever you like. People can not accept that 2+2=4. That's fine. But it doesn't make the truth that 2+2=4 any less true.
gene (n.)
1911, from German Gen, coined 1905 by Danish scientist Wilhelm Ludvig Johannsen (1857-1927), from Greek genea "generation, race," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget." De Vries had earlier called them pangenes. Gene pool is attested from 1946.
Here is how corrupted genes can skip a generation, allowing some genetic defect to miss some offspring:
Why can a genetic defect appear in generation but skip the next generation and then reappear in a diffrent generation?
Brandon Colby:I am the author of the book "Outsmart Your Genes", which discusses genetic testing and the personal genomics revolution. I am also the CEO & Medical Director of Existence Genetics, a company that provides comprehensive genetic testing services to healthcare professionals. I practice Predictive Medicine in Los Angeles, California.A genetic trait or disorder can appear to 'skip' a generation, only to reappear in a future generation, for many different reasons. One reason is that the gene that determines this trait or disorder may appear on the 'X-chromosome'. Since men only have one X-chromosome, if there is a genetic mutation on the X-chromosome in a man then he may have a specific trait or disorder. Then if that man has a daughter, she will have two X-chromosomes (since females have two X-chromosomes) - one she inherited from her father, that will have the mutation, and one she inherited from her mother, who does NOT have the mutation. The X-chromosome that does not have the mutation may then cause the daughter to not have the trait or disorder. If that daughter then grows up and has a son, that son has a 50% chance of inheriting the X-chromosome without the mutation and a 50% chance of inherited the X-chromosome with the mutation, which means that son will have a 50% chance of having the trait or disorder, just like his grandfather did. Thus, it would appear that the trait or disorder "skipped" a generation and went from grandfather to grandson.
A partial but instructive list: Cain murders Abel, corruption of human race in Genesis 6, Judah's son refusing to procreate to raise seed for his brother and spills his seed on ground,
gene (n.)
1911, from German Gen, coined 1905 by Danish scientist Wilhelm Ludvig Johannsen (1857-1927), from Greek genea "generation, race," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget." De Vries had earlier called them pangenes. Gene pool is attested from 1946.
Here is how corrupted genes can skip a generation, allowing some genetic defect to miss some offspring:
Why can a genetic defect appear in generation but skip the next generation and then reappear in a diffrent generation?
Brandon Colby:I am the author of the book "Outsmart Your Genes", which discusses genetic testing and the personal genomics revolution. I am also the CEO & Medical Director of Existence Genetics, a company that provides comprehensive genetic testing services to healthcare professionals. I practice Predictive Medicine in Los Angeles, California.A genetic trait or disorder can appear to 'skip' a generation, only to reappear in a future generation, for many different reasons. One reason is that the gene that determines this trait or disorder may appear on the 'X-chromosome'. Since men only have one X-chromosome, if there is a genetic mutation on the X-chromosome in a man then he may have a specific trait or disorder. Then if that man has a daughter, she will have two X-chromosomes (since females have two X-chromosomes) - one she inherited from her father, that will have the mutation, and one she inherited from her mother, who does NOT have the mutation. The X-chromosome that does not have the mutation may then cause the daughter to not have the trait or disorder. If that daughter then grows up and has a son, that son has a 50% chance of inheriting the X-chromosome without the mutation and a 50% chance of inherited the X-chromosome with the mutation, which means that son will have a 50% chance of having the trait or disorder, just like his grandfather did. Thus, it would appear that the trait or disorder "skipped" a generation and went from grandfather to grandson.
A partial but instructive list: Cain murders Abel, corruption of human race in Genesis 6, Judah's son refusing to procreate to raise seed for his brother and spills his seed on ground,
Do you personally believe that its just and love to cut off hand of a woman who tried to save life of her husband and used the thing very recommended for any girl in danger, i.e. attack on man´s private parts?
Do not preach about Bible or God, just tell me, if you do or do not... And if you do, what is your comprehension of the thing, other than just "its good because its in the Bible".
Do not preach about Bible or God, just tell me, if you do or do not... And if you do, what is your comprehension of the thing, other than just "its good because its in the Bible".
-
1
- Show all
You sound a fairly judgmental type.
The reason I did not respond to your post on the other thread is that I am multitasking and simply haven't got around to it. I am being systematic and dealing with issues one at a time. Posting on this site is a hobby, my time is taken up mostly with work.
I have no agenda.
I have made my case and discussed various aspects of it with the more polite members of the community.
If you have a specific point to make, on the issue, then make it. It would be preferable to your conspiracy theories.
-
1
- Show all
Brothers, I don't believe the "Adamic blood" is the culprit for the sin nature of man. Not at all. The fact Christ was placed in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit shows us he had no earthly father, but was begotten of God, is God, is "that holy thing," The Son of God, Luke 1:35, &c.
I don't believe it was to avoid contamination from Adams platelets, cells, hemoglobin (blood!) as if he then would inherit a sin nature. It had a higher purpose than this, as he was the seed of the woman; Genesis 3:15, not the seed of man or having an earthly father, showing forth his holiness, divine origin, eternality &c. He was born via the lineage of David, through a woman, God being his Father.
Of course I could be completely wrong and am awaiting evidence to the contrary.
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.
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.
Discerning, not judgmental.
Or we could go with judgmental if we can use a consistent measure in each of our corresponding posts which would make you culpable to being judgmental as well.
I made a point, it was crystal clear, let's not be disingenuous.
Since you "missed" it, are you looking for a verse you know doesn't exist to refute your OP? Yes, because your OP in that thread is merely begging the question.
Or we could go with judgmental if we can use a consistent measure in each of our corresponding posts which would make you culpable to being judgmental as well.
I made a point, it was crystal clear, let's not be disingenuous.
Since you "missed" it, are you looking for a verse you know doesn't exist to refute your OP? Yes, because your OP in that thread is merely begging the question.
-
1
- Show all
Well, that’s not the whole story is it?
If you steal a cookie and live your whole life afterwards rejecting christ and ignoring the pleading of the spirit, convicting you of the theft of the cookie, then you go to hell.
It is rejecting christ that is the real sin.
Of course, the sin itself is a crime and as you say, this alone would condemn you. And this sorry state of affairs is the reason Christ came and suffered.
He hated the fact that a stolen cookie could have such a consequence and He did EVERYTHING he could to make sure that this doesn’t happen.
It is important, always, to make the point that God does not want anyone to perish.
If you steal a cookie and live your whole life afterwards rejecting christ and ignoring the pleading of the spirit, convicting you of the theft of the cookie, then you go to hell.
It is rejecting christ that is the real sin.
Of course, the sin itself is a crime and as you say, this alone would condemn you. And this sorry state of affairs is the reason Christ came and suffered.
He hated the fact that a stolen cookie could have such a consequence and He did EVERYTHING he could to make sure that this doesn’t happen.
It is important, always, to make the point that God does not want anyone to perish.
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!!!!)
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!!!!)
-
1
- Show all
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all
Yes salvation can be had by anyone who accepts the gift of salvation..
But still just one sin no matter how minor disqualifys us from entering into God perfect eternal existence, God is perfect and nothing imperfect will share eternity with Him.. The Atonement of the LORD Jesus Christ if accepted makes on perfectly acceptable to God..
But still just one sin no matter how minor disqualifys us from entering into God perfect eternal existence, God is perfect and nothing imperfect will share eternity with Him.. The Atonement of the LORD Jesus Christ if accepted makes on perfectly acceptable to God..
M
No not at all. I know exactly what I believe - I think get thee behind me Satan
is the correct response to that comment.
If I want a straight read through I use the new living translation.
If really want to get into the full meaning the amplified version.
Other translations I use the new king James, that because I was raised on the
king James so many memory verses were learnt from that version but I find
all the thees, thoughs, thys get in the way. So switched to the new king James.
Plus a few others all for various reasons.
Regardless of what version (which are influcenced by changes in language
structure and/or have a specific ways of bringing out the original language).
The word of God is still inspired.
If you are suggesting that we can’t trust the Bible unless read in the
Original Hebrew and Greek, then I’m sure God disagrees, I would think nothing
makes God happier, that potentially every language and culture can have
acces to His word. It was His mandate to the early disciples to preach the
gospel into all the world.
If you think some parts were incorrectly translated than instead of arguing against
the bible that it’s not inspired by God. (Which is to contradict God Himself).
Why not just answer the OP question by bringing us the original Greek/Hebrew
and posting what you think the verses actually say. The impression I got is that
it wasnt a translation problem you have, but that you don’t believe the word of
God was written by people under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
If that was the case, then why are you a Christian if you think it’s all a man made
smorgasbord. You might as well become a Muslim, Mormon or a Hindu.
-
1
- Show all