I was told by Berex here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070522134701AA6ftTl&r=w that I had twisted the meaning of a bible passage to fit what I wanted it to say. However, I simply assumed that slave meant slave rather than borrower and that master meant master rather than lender.
If this Berex person is right, shouldn't we interchange all unfavorable words in the bible with words that are more appealing?
I'll start: Matthew 13:42 "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
should really read: "And shall invite them to a party with a firewater: there shall be wailing guitars and thrashing of drums."
Sounds like a rockin' good time to me. Anyone else got one for me?
2007-05-22 10:20:29 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Misty4080, rest assured I have researched and studied the bible (probably more than you have), and I have a pretty decent knowledge of God. Now if you don't mind, I would like to get back to cherry-picking scripture and interchanging unfavorable words, as to not twist it and redirect from its actual meaning.
2007-05-22 10:29:27 · update #1
Grendel, I dislike pedophilia also and therefore do not practice it. Is that enough? I think not. Pedophilia is wrong, and those who practice should be stopped. If I am practicing bigotry, then you are practicing navel-gazing, which is wrong in my book.
2007-05-22 10:36:30 · update #2
No I think you had it right... for the most part. I also get the point Berex was trying to make and it's valid too. Basically, it seems like you were reading into the verse too much (it never says we should always have slaves) and he took it too lightly (there were slaves at that time). Conceptually, there are still slaves today... but that's a whole other subject! The key is: the Bible should be taken in context and that's where all the argument comes in. And I'm OK with that. It makes for great conversation, excellent study, and abundant growth! Be blessed.
2007-05-22 10:37:07 · answer #1 · answered by Cool Dad 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I examine it metaphorically. the venture I see appropriate to the Bible that’s unlucky is that it’s a tribally circumscribed mythology. It deals with a undeniable human beings at a undeniable time. The Christians magnified it to contain them. It then turns this society against all others, while the condition of the international immediately is this actual society that’s provided in the Bible isn’t even the main needed. This venture is nearly a ineffective weight. It’s pulling us decrease back as a results of fact it belongs to an until now era. we can’t smash loose and flow right into a prominent theology. between the great delivers of mythology is, with what social team do you perceive? How appropriate to the planet? to assert that the individuals of this actual social team are the elite of God’s international is a stable thank you to maintain that team jointly, yet seem on the outcomes! i think of that what could be referred to as the sanctified chauvinism of the Bible is between the curses of the planet immediately.
2016-11-26 02:05:28 · answer #2 · answered by nageotte 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."
Berex is right. In that passage slave refers to an indentured servant. That's why in the Jubilee (7th) year, if you know your bible as well as you claim to, slaves are supposed to be set free regardless of the remainder of their debt.
If a slave was, as current terms stipulate, a person one owned, then why set them free in th 7th year of their being with you?
I agree with you that these areas should say "indentured servant" But since so many bibles are written at the 6th grade level, the assumption is - people wouldn't understand what that means.
Some get very angry when bible translators use the term "virgin." The literal translation is maiden.
We assume that to be a young woman. These days girls as young as 11 years old are having sex. We've seen our youngest mother at 8 years old.
But back in the day, as it were, any - ANY - young woman who had never been married would be a virgin.
To be anything else meant she risked being killed. Something that is still done today in Middle Eastern areas.
So virgin is a more apt term.
damned if you do. damned if you don't
2007-05-22 10:55:26 · answer #3 · answered by Max Marie, OFS 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, you don't get to pick and choose your meanings. Many of the meanings are understood from reading the ancient texts in the languages they were written.
Also, some of the teachings are figurative and some are literal. It takes research, study, and a knowledge of God to be able to interpret scripture.
2007-05-22 10:25:34 · answer #4 · answered by Misty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand whatyour problem is. If you dislike Christianity,just don't practice it. I don't like Hinduism; I don't practice it. It's called religious freedom. What you are doing is called religious bigotry. Anyway,your avatar really sucks.
2007-05-22 10:30:17 · answer #5 · answered by Galahad 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the bible is meant as metaphor and should not be taken literally.
2007-05-22 10:27:22 · answer #6 · answered by MoonWater 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
watch out for Berex
2007-05-22 10:26:44 · answer #7 · answered by Dean D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no but humans did mess up and alot of is sins and historical stuff....that doesnt mean its all the way to live...but we can learn from it
2007-05-22 10:23:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What are you, a Baptist?
2007-05-22 10:35:40 · answer #9 · answered by NONAME 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋