Leviticus
12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove,
for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
2007-10-30 05:36:44 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
OK people, it plainly states "for a SIN offering"
It's apparently a sin if it needs a sin offering
2007-10-30 05:48:36 · update #1
The idea is to put everybody in a position where, from the instant of birth, they start out OWING the Church. And the only way you can settle the debt is by going to THEIR church, saying THEIR magic words, and (most importantly) dropping cash into THEIR collection plate.
As someone much wiser than myself once said: if you want to know the real reasons for people's actions, FOLLOW THE MONEY; and when they insist that it's not about the money, it is ALWAYS about the money...
2007-10-30 05:40:31 · answer #1 · answered by The Reverend Soleil 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
In the days of Mosaic Law, to which you are referring, the sin was in the letting of blood.
People back then thought it was OK to kill someone they did not particularly like, and they also used blood-letting in rituals of other gods. Some people "decorated" their bodies in ways that cut the skin, and caused bleeding.
All of these things were to be abolished with the Mosaic Law, and blood-letting of any sort was considered a sin. For simplicity, blood was equated to life itself.
Since God made no exceptions, even for accidents and natural causes like childbirth, there had to be a way to redeem oneself from these types of sins.
The sacrifice of a dove or pigeon was probably the least significant type of blood sacrifice, which points out that this was just a nominal sacrifice, more of a technicality than anything else.
These were the laws of the old Hebrews. It is true that they are no longer in effect. Christians were given new laws to follow at the Pentacost following the resurrection of Jesus. Jews no longer make sacrifices any more, either. That came to a halt about 600 to 800 years after the Christians, when the Jews were dispersed.
We must be careful when reading the old history in the Old Testament. It is there for our learning, for examples, but is not our current law. Only the New Testament shows how we ought to be living today.
2007-10-30 13:07:26 · answer #2 · answered by Barry F 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Check the Bible for information on burnt offerings and sin offerings. This is old testament law, and Christ's death and ressurection freed us from these laws.
It does not say that childbirth is a sin, as you assert in your question.
2007-10-30 12:44:24 · answer #3 · answered by RedThread 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's my understanding that this law does not say childbirth is a sin. The sin offering is for the child and reminds us that we are born with a sin nature. Adam sinned and we inherited sin from him.
2007-10-30 12:45:48 · answer #4 · answered by MikeM 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That doesn't say that childbirth is a sin. On the contrary, it is a blessing. The Sacrificial system in Leviticus does not apply today because Jesus is the final sacrifice and Jesus paid the penalty.
2007-10-30 12:42:55 · answer #5 · answered by **Matt** 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Israelites had a real problem with women's blood. The only good thing I could see coming from it is that at least the mumbo-jumbo about being "unclean" during her menstruation gave the poor woman a few days off from her stinking goat herder husband's advances.
2007-10-30 12:41:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its not talking about childbirth being a sin it is speaking of the cleansing ritual afterwards for the woman who gave birth.
2007-10-30 12:44:19 · answer #7 · answered by angel_eyes8869 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yet another passage that can be interpreted 1,000 different ways... Sigh.
Why can't the book that is supposed to be "the truth" be written in a way where it's actually clear and understandable? Jeez.
2007-10-30 12:44:22 · answer #8 · answered by AngFlowr 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
eh..not a sin to bare children...........in fact it was ordered by God to do so.....
It was a sacrific for sin in thier lives..........
an atonement............
Aint ya glad Jesus Christ died for all of our sins...and He made an atonement for us all ............
Just for the unjust .............
For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God...
But..Thank God for Jesus Christ the righteous who hath bore our sins and the iniquity of us all !!
2007-10-30 12:43:02 · answer #9 · answered by hghostinme 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
that did not say childbirth was a sin.
2007-10-30 12:40:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋