10 Curious Biblical Lessons on Morality

1. 1. Joseph - September 10th, 2007 at 10:20 am

   I read and write in biblical Greek and I have to say: these are really bad traslations and really out of context. It’s important to mention that Jesus abolished the practice of stoning. The book of Apocalypse isn’t even cannonized.

2. 2. JT - September 10th, 2007 at 10:24 am

   There’s a story in one of the Gospels (I think Luke), where Jesus is on is way somewhere and comes across a fig tree. He asks the fig tree for some fruit, but it’s off season and the tree is not bearing anything. Jesus gets so angry that he curses the fig tree so that it may never produce figs again and storms off.

   I thought this was quite ‘curious’, and if someone can find the passage would make an interesting addition.

   Also, I’m pretty sure there are only 2 Kings… I could be wrong, but you might want to check it out.

3. 3. Leo - September 10th, 2007 at 10:55 am

   Those bible verses are so out of context…it’s hard to understand the point of the post. Whoever reads it and have some basic bible knowledge will know what I mean that it doesn’t make any sense at all…

4. 4. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 10:57 am

   Joseph: What, exactly, is the problem with the translation? Additionally, if you read and write Biblical Greek surely you must know that the Book of Apocalypse is canonized and has been since the earliest biblical lists.

   Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεός, δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ[…]

   As you read/write Biblical Greek, I am certain that you will recognize the verse above, and the implication it has for your comment.

5. 5. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 10:58 am

   Leo: I am a fairly religious person - I posted the list because I thought that some of the users here would enjoy reading them. Isn’t the whole problem of divisions in Christianity all over sections of the Bible being taken out of context?

6. 6. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 11:01 am

   JT: I am aware of that story. As far as the “only two Kings” - it depends on the version of the Bible you use:

   1 Kings = 1 Samuel
   2 Kings = 2 Samuel
   3 Kings = 1 Kings
   4 Kings = 2 Kings

7. 7. Justin Anthony Knapp - September 10th, 2007 at 11:04 am

   Needless to say, there are intelligent responses and contextualizations of all of these passages, but number seven is most problematic as it occurs within a parable; the Messiah isn’t even speaking for himself here, but a character in a story. For shame List Verse…

8. 8. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 11:05 am

   Justin: I wasn’t meaning to infer that - I was referring to the fact that it was Christ speaking. I don’t believe that he was suggesting that someone be brought before him and killed For shame for not trusting List Verse!

9. 9. Barney F. McClelland - September 10th, 2007 at 11:17 am

   The bible is nothing more than a collection of bronze age fairy tales and it should be more surprising that anyone would put any stock in it at all.

10. 10. JT - September 10th, 2007 at 11:31 am

    jfrater: You wouldn’t happen to know the reference for the fig story would you? I want to look it up and read it.

11. 11. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 11:38 am

    JT: there you go. It is Mark 11:12-14.

12. 12. soonerproud - September 10th, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Joseph:

    You probably will recognize The Book of the Apocalypse by the more common name in protestant circles as The Book of Revelation.

    Are you certain you are a biblical expert?

13. 13. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    soonerproud: my point exactly

14. 14. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Joseph: You may also be interested in the Council of Rome from 382 in which Pope Damasus I issued his decree on the list of books considered to be the full canon of the bible. You can read the full text here in English, though as a Greek scholar I presume you also know Latin and may prefer that original version here.

    You might also find interesting the section near the bottom in which Pope Gelasius condemns the so-called Gnostic Gospels which so many people these days seem to think are some exciting new discovery

15. 15. Bruno - September 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    1. I can’t find this passage at all. In the passage I find at Matthew 15:4, Jesus is specifically saying that it is shameful to not honor your mother and father. The verse you might be referring to is where Jesus says in so many words that you must love him more than your family, i.e. God is more important than anything else in your life.

    2. One must understand OT verse within the context of Israel and the ancient middle east. The short answer to this is simply back then, if you did not listen to your parents and were rebellious, you not only put yourself at danger but the entire tribe. Also, Israel was meant to be God’s representation on earth. Thus, strict regulations were needed to be kept to ensure the nation did not stray or merge with other cultures, hence eating regulations and rituals at the temple. Children back then (as they are still now) were seen as the future and thus extra care was needed to ensure the continuation of a culture.

    3. The story here is actually a sad one. The prophet here is Elisha, successor to Elijah. Shaving one’s head was a sign of mourning as Elijah had just died. The boys (or more accurately a bunch of thuggish teens) were mocking both Elijah’s being taken up into heaven “go on up” and Elisha’s shaved head of mourning. Mocking Elisha was tantamount to mocking God Himself. God does not like to be mocked and defended His prophet. Had God done nothing, it would’ve been disgraceful as the gang would have told everyone Elisha was not really God’s prophet. Again, this must also be read in the context of the ancient middle east.

    4. As God’s chosen nation, Israel was defended from aggressors and nations that wanted to corrupt the people of Israel. This nation that was conquered, Midian, had done just that. Specifically, they had led many astray into the worship of false gods, a severe offense that threatened to destroy the nation of Israel’s connection with God. Thus, war was declared and the nation’s culture (the men) were eliminated to prevent further danger of corruption. The women and children that had not been corrupted by the culture were spared.

    5 and 6. Gender roles are a touchy subject in our times but it must be noted that even in traditional marriages, even if the man is ‘more important’, say 60%, you still do not have the whole unit without the 40% the woman possesses. In terms of Paul’s letters, the first one is debatable as to whether it was a blanket statement or more of a specific problem the church of Corinth was experiencing, i.e. chatty women during church. As for the letter to Timothy, it is important to notice that Paul specifically says “I do not permit a woman to teach”, rather than “God does not”. Hence, Paul is advising women not to teach in this church rather than commanding that God says such a thing should be followed by all.

    7. Jesus is speaking in spiritual terms, not material. Also, this is at the end of a parable. The message of the parable is if you use the talents God has given to you for the glory of God and benefit of people, you will be blessed and given more. If you waste your talents and only enjoy them yourself, you will not be blessed.

    8. Similar to number 1, Jesus is reinforcing that one must love God more than anything or anyone else here on earth. Expanding on this, Jesus states that this will cause conflict, a metaphorical sword that will cut people apart, even families. John puts it better, after the most popular verse, John 3:16, the gospel reads “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
    Inevitably, if one comes to save everyone, some people will reject the invitation and thus produce conflict.

    9. You strung two verses together that aren’t consecutive. However, a response to this number begins with the understanding that homosexuality is a controversial and divisive issue today but was not back then. I believe that this passage condemns homosexuality, as one of many examples of sexual immorality but some might want to interpret it leniently as simply an example of applauding someone else’s sins. The second verse also explicitly condemns knowingly sinning against God and delighting in it.

    10. This quote from Revelation is referring to a specific church and person. Apparently, in this church, there is a woman who is leading the congregation down a path of destruction towards sexually immoral acts and pagan rituals. Jesus refers to her as Jezebel, an evil woman from the OT who kills God’s priests. Jesus’ course of action is to lump her and her compatriots together and ask one more time for repentance. If they don’t, He will cut them off from the church for having led so many astray. Her “children” are those she has spiritually led astray, her offspring that she is responsible for. Thus, if her “children” do not repent, they too will be cut off. Mind you, this is probably a spiritual death, rather than a physical one

    Hope this clears some stuff up.

16. 16. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    Bruno:

    1. Matthew 15 - this contains the verse I have quoted - it is the Douay Rheims Bible - the Roman Catholic official English translation.

    9. You are correct - I forgot to include an ellipsis.

    10. The Apocalypse of Saint John - or as protestants call it - The Book of Revelations. It is part of the canon - it is called Apocalypse by Catholics and Orthodox (nearly 3/4 of Christianity) and Revelations by protestants. The name Apocalypse comes from the first word of the book: Ἀποκάλυψις (Apokalypsis). The first sentence translates as “The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ”.

    Thanks for taking the time to give the background of the verses.

17. 17. Bruno - September 10th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    Sorry for the double post, I tried changing my old post and it didn’t work. Please read the second one.

18. 18. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    Bruno: ah - I see you corrected number 10 in the second post - so you can disregard my comment on that in my last post. I will delete your first one.

19. 19. Bruno - September 10th, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    1. I’m working with the NIV translation here, sorry. Jesus is quoting OT law and pointing out that the Pharisees don’t follow them. In terms of dying because you don’t honor your parents, I pretty much answer this in number 2. Understand, Jesus isn’t commanding this, He is quoting the OT law.

    10. Sorry, I corrected this in the repost. It’s called Revelation, without the ’s’. We all make mistakes I guess, :-).

    P.S. If you can delete my post at #14, it would avoid that confusion, thanks.

20. 20. Bruno - September 10th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Haha, thanks.

21. 21. jfrater - September 10th, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Bruno: ah - I wonder why the NIV has excluded that portion of the text. Thanks for the correction on Revelation vs Revelations - I have only ever known it as the Apocalypse so I wasn’t sure what the official title was in protestant bibles.

22. 22. soonerproud - September 10th, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    jfrater:

    It is essentially the same name. The Protestants use the English translation of the word where the Catholic/Orthodox churches use the original Greek word with a English spelling. The name of the book in both cases comes from the exact same Greek word.

23. 23. Bruno - September 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    Excluded what? The NIV simply smoothes over the transition between the “honor thy mother and father” and “those who don’t should be put to death”. Again, Jesus is quoting the OT in a response to the Pharisees. The prior dialogue isn’t included in this list.

    Soonerproud, yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s two ways of saying the same thing.

24. 24. soonerproud - September 10th, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    A little history on the NIV.

    When it was translated they used older more recently discovered text of the Bible as the basis for deciding if something should or shouldn’t be included in the main text. Although these text were older, there is some debate if they are as accurate as the text used to translate the KJV, American Standard and the Douay Rheims versions. In those cases the NIV puts those verses in the footnotes instead of the main text.

    On a more personal note, I find the NIV to be pretty dry reading. The more poetic feel of the KJV or the New King James Version (The English has been updated but the poetic feel has been retained.) is much easier to read and much more interesting.

25. 25. splat - September 10th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    everything before kind david in the bible was writtena nd traslated in his court by two men. They altered a lot of the text to their liking especially decriminizing against women.

26. 26. soonerproud - September 10th, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    splat:

    What version of the bible are you talking about? If you are referring to the KJV, you are incorrect. The translation was funded by the King but the Scholars were equally split between the Anglicans and the Puritans. Both factions checked each others work to ensure that the translations were as accurate as possible with no bias towards anyones personal beliefs.

    The Puritans were absolutely not friends of the King and would never agree to alter the text to his liking. (It were the Puritans who were behind the English Civil War that lead to the dethroning of King Charles II and the installation of Oliver Cromwell as a dictator.) This myth that the King dictated what this translation should say has no basis in actual facts.

27. 27. Andre du Plessis - September 10th, 2007 at 11:59 pm

    Two things that I found interesting in Genesis was (although the whole Genesis apparently comes from the Sumerian tablets) - I am not sure how they are affected by translations though :

    Sons of God -
    GENESIS 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. 3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

    What did Noah offer ?
    GENESIS 8
    [17] Bring forth with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh — birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth — that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth.”
    [18] So Noah went forth, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him.
    [19] And every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves upon the earth, went forth by families out of the ark.
    [20] Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
    [21] And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.

28. 28. jfrater - September 11th, 2007 at 12:06 am

    Andre - regarding the sons of God:

    “The sons of God”… The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men.”

    Regarding the offering:

    “20. And Noe built an altar unto the Lord: and taking of all cattle and fowls that were clean, offered holocausts upon the altar.”

    “Holocausts”… or whole burnt offerings. In which the whole victim was consumed by fire upon God’s altar, and no part was reserved for the use of priest or people.

    It was a part of the Jewish religious ceremonies up until the destruction of the temple shortly after Christ died.

29. 29. Andre du Plessis - September 11th, 2007 at 12:37 am

    On the first response - I found statement that does not agree as a sample (which is why I find these 2 parts so fascinating, because no one has offered a probable explanation) :

    Sons of God -

    The contrast made in Genesis 6:2 is not between the descendants of Seth and the descendants of Cain, but between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men.” If by “sons of God” is meant “sons of Seth,” then only the sons of Seth engaged in mixed marriages, and not the daughters. And only the daughters of Cain were involved, and not the sons. And another strange assumption is implied: that only the sons of Seth were godly, and only the daughters of Cain were evil.

    The strangeness is compounded when one seeks for evidence that the sons of Seth were godly. We know from Genesis that when the time came for God to destroy the human race, He found only one godly family left among them–that of Noah. Where were all the other supposedly godly sons of Seth? Even Seth’s own son could hardly be called righteous. His name was Enos, meaning “mortal” or “frail.” And he certainly lived up to it! Genesis 4:26 reads, “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” That statement seems harmless enough, but what does it mean when it says that it was only now that men began to call upon the name of the Lord? Upon whom did Adam call? And Abel? And Seth himself?

    The second one - I was just actually wondering as he took the animals (2 of each) and he then made offerings afterwards ? And the Lord enjoyed the smell ? Very humanoid trait I’d say.

30. 30. jfrater - September 11th, 2007 at 2:27 am

    Andre: on the first point is it too complex for me! On the second point, the human trait is a reference to God being pleased - it is poetically speaking (I do not believe in a fundamental interpretation of the Bible). Also, the offerings will have come from either animals born aboard the Ark, or animals born after the landing - timing is not always clear in the old testament.

31. 31. Andre du Plessis - September 11th, 2007 at 2:40 am

    Hah Hah yes true - there was probably a lot of rabbits available

32. 32. jfrater - September 11th, 2007 at 3:04 am

    Andre: haha yes - and pigeons

33. 33. Che - September 11th, 2007 at 7:11 am

    If I take the KJV and babelfish it to Japanese, then babelfish that to Portuguese, then take that and babelfish it to Gaelic, and then back to English, it makes no sense.
    I’m re-interpreting the result to my own vision of the world as we speak.
    I’m not trolling, i’m just making a point.

34. 34. jfrater - September 11th, 2007 at 8:44 am

    Che: haha that is funny - I can just imagine the gems you will come up with.

35. 35. Che - September 11th, 2007 at 9:49 am

    “thou shalt not will other person face slap not other face you show all you need is love ta ta daa daa daaaah”

    I’m just getting the hang of this scriptural interpretation thingy. Bear with me, brethren.

36. 36. jfrater - September 11th, 2007 at 10:36 am

    Che: Brilliant!

37. 37. mix2323 - September 11th, 2007 at 11:05 am

    i love the bible and reading it

38. 38. jay - September 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am

    The Bible is book of collated 2,000 year old stories derived from heresay about a bloke called Jesus. Apart from the obvious common sense it shows the reader (why they can’t figure it out for themselves begs a question..) it also teaches values and supposed morality so outrageous by today’s (Western) standards that the church either denies their existence or plays the “figurative” card. I mean really, the old testament is pretty hardcore stuff… reads like Sephen King x10.

    Just see it as a nice little story and nothing more. The idea of Jesus and God is a whole different thing. The fact that a few blokes wrote about them after the fact and a couple of Popes signed off on them means nothing at all. Why get all worked up about it? I just don’t get it. A book of (mostly) fiction should have no bearing on your personal belief or way you run your life…

39. 39. jay - October 1st, 2007 at 10:56 am

    Why does nobody bite anymore?

40. 40. jfrater - October 1st, 2007 at 11:08 am

    jay: The Bible and teachings that lead to the Bible are so entrenched in Western society that I think it is not likely to go away in a hurry.

41. 41. mike - October 1st, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    Um…the Luke one is the parable of the “ten minas”…and is not a commandment…it is a lesson on spiritual growth and the downfall of trying to only protect one’s self…Google it, there are some good explanations

42. 42. mike - October 1st, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    whoops…I guess Bruno already mentioned what I posted…my fault

43. 43. Punjar - October 4th, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    Whenever I pray for bears to eat children it doesn’t work.

44. 44. jfrater - October 4th, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    Punjar: hmm, I wonder why?

45. 45. Bjesomar - October 26th, 2007 at 3:14 am

    No4. States that all male children, regarding of age, were to be executed.
    Does it mean that they were guilty of something? How can execution of male infants be justified? Bad genes??

46. 46. Bruno - October 28th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    Read what I wrote above, the Midian people were violent, aggressive, and most importantly, leading Israel to a path of apostasy. Today, in our comfortable lives (in the West at least) it is easy for us to say “That is so cruel! Executing so many people is uncalled for!” Along with passing culture that would continue to pollute the people of Israel, today we can still realize that being subjugated by another nation leads to bad vibes. In fact, it was common practice back then to exact revenge of all kind for the killing parents. Would you want that many ticking time bombs wandering around your country? Life back then was a lot harder than it is today and community was valued far more than the individual because if an individual is allowed to go off on his/her own, the whole community could suffer or perish because of it. This seems very backwards and bizarre to us today but back then it was the norm.

47. 47. Reg123456 - November 30th, 2007 at 7:52 am

    Some verses need to be taken in context which is something you cannot do by just reading that one verse on its own. One must make a distinction between what God says is good and what God says happened.

    To the guy who said that the Bible says things that are outrageous by today’s standards: What makes today’s standards the holy grail? If in a thousand years it’s ok to kill somebody, does that then make it ok to kill somebody just because it’s the ‘accepted’ standard of the day? That’s why we need to adhere to God’s standards, because our standards are subject to change.

    And lastly, these issues are all just to confuse the central issue which is that people are imperfect, and God being perfect did everything He could to make a way for his creation to have a relationship with Him.

48. 48. Will - December 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 pm

    Reg123456, “does that then make it ok to kill somebody just because it’s the ‘accepted’ standard of the day?” No it it does not. Why is it ok back then? You dont need God to tell you killing, stealing, lieing, or over indulging is wrong. Any person with half a wit can come to this conclusion.

49. 49. suzi - December 20th, 2007 at 1:54 am

    Yes, it really does help to know the context of these passages.
    The one about Elisha made me laugh. I raised 4 children, and whenever on of the spoke disrespectfully of an older person, I would warn them “the she-bears are coming…”

50. 50. sdggrant - December 20th, 2007 at 2:08 am

    Any person who needs a book to teach them what is right and what is wrong has issues to begin with.

51. 51. Rey - December 20th, 2007 at 2:37 am

    So you mean people who follow laws have issues to begin with?

    Weird.

52. 52. sdggrant - December 20th, 2007 at 3:11 am

    No No NO, It came out wrong. I mean that we know it is wrong to cheat, steal, kill, and lie. Those are just basic morals that can be found everywhere in the world, even in remote places that have never even heard of the Bible. Laws are a different matter, they are in place to make things run smoothly and safely, also to punish those who do wrong.

    My first statement was more geared towards the major moral issues such as murder and rape, things of that nature. Our conscience (spelling?) tells us that walking up to a person and shooting him in the head for no gosh darned reason is wrong. If you need a bible to tell you that is wrong, then yes, you have issues.

    I beieve in a supreme being, but I do not follow any bible, scripture, or religous organization, and I hate when some religous zealot (not necessarily a christian, but usually it is) tells me I’m a bad person for not following their religous text.

    Hopefully that clears up my first statement, which was short and ambiguous.

53. 53. God - December 24th, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    I’m getting a kick from these comments.

54. 54. Drogo - December 25th, 2007 at 2:27 am

    #2.[Deuteronomy 21:18-21] - I’d hate to be a kid with ADHD, back in those days!

55. 55. Jackie - December 25th, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    jfrater, your lists always inspire such intelligent convo fodder thats not even sarcasm there!

56. 56. JonnyB - January 6th, 2008 at 3:14 am

    Rey: Since when is the bible (yes, lowercased just to piss you off) a book of laws that govern everybody? If you believed any of those scriptures that were posted literally happened, you are sadly mistaken. Here’s a thought, go a read a science book and actually learn something worth while. Now tell me I’m going to hell, I’m going to go and enjoy my coke and bon-bons.

57. 57. Shakespeare’s Girl - January 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Jonny B, if you must post disparaging comments, could you at least follow basic grammar and punctuation rules? You change tenses in the middle of sentances and needlessly insult. If you want to start a discussion, please, at least post something quasi-intelligent instead of derogatory and purposly inflammatory.

58. 58. Tardly - January 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am

    The majority of bible stories have basis in much older myths. Basically all of the religious texts of the world tell the same story, all with their own forms of ethnocentric propoganda. But why is it just that a voice booms down from the sky and tells you secrets, that that voice is always assumed to be the voice of the universal creator? Couldn’t it just be an ET with a sense of humor, or a malignant hyper-terrestrial entity with a lust for power? And why is it that context is so important to so many people, when god tells you to murder and entire race of people does it really matter why?

59. 59. HandyMandy - January 25th, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Every knee shall bow down before him. Notice that does not say “Only those that recognize him as God.” Better read and learn peeps, cause the day is coming whether we want to admit it or not.

60. 60. Jesus - January 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Suzi: LOLz, man it’s so clever how you teach your children to fear because of a fictional book you probably force on them as fact… teeheehee… good luck with your child abuse!

61. 61. Drogo - January 29th, 2008 at 12:14 am

    I’ll bet ya that ain’t the real Jesus^.

62. 62. Ruben - January 31st, 2008 at 1:00 am

    To think, Huckabe wants to alingn the constitution to the bible. Thank you for such a wonderful website!

63. 63. Tate - February 7th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    this a great stuff….
    *bookmarks*

64. 64. Stutz - February 12th, 2008 at 12:53 am

    I find it funny that when people point out the seemingly horrific aspects of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, believers are quick to say that you have to read it in context, or understand the original Greek/Hebrew/whatever, or Jesus rescinded this or that. Yet atheists supposedly have no basis for their morals and are adrift in an ocean of relativism. Either it was just as wrong to slaughter children back then, and God is bad, or it was okay for those ancient societies but not for us, and believers are the ones with the moral relativism problem.

65. 65. Sarah - February 20th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    Personally speaking, just the fact that the Bible has been retranslated and edited over the centuries immediately makes me skeptical of it’s truth.

    I think that men twist everything in the Bible to fit their needs. By the way, don’t bother flaming me; I don’t care to argue with single-minded people over my opinion. And I don’t ask anyone to agree with me either.

66. 66. Matt - February 28th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    You are going to hell, JonnyB

67. 67. treypole - May 18th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    I think you can get some of these on t-shirts over at Landover Baptist. (not a real baptist site).

68. 68. smg45acp - June 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Several commeters have already done a good job of explaining what the context of the listed scriptures are saying, so I won’t rehash the entire list.
    But let me add a little bit of historical insight.
    When Paul was talking about women keeping silent in the church he was addressing a problem of women asking questions to their husbands during the preaching and teaching. Remember many of the Christians were former Jews and still seated the women and men on separate sides of the church. So women are yelling questions out loud to their husbands sitting 10 to 50 feet away. So Paul is just saying be quiet during the service and if you have a question ask it at home so you don’t disturb everybody else.

    All of the other listed items have similar logical explanations.
    You can take any written work, no matter how brilliant, and pull a few lines out of it and it will seem silly without the total context or some background information.

69. 69. gguy - June 12th, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    Good list. It is interesting, as you noted in a response here, that the problem with so many of these is that they are taken out of the context in which they were written and judged without regard for the fact that many biblical writings were addressed to a very specific group at a very specific time for a very specific purpose, and are therefore not necessarily intended to be applicable to a modern reader in a literal way.

70. 70. colin - July 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 am

    i really do admire you mr jfrater, i do, i do, i do

71. 71. Ghostdog - August 25th, 2008 at 9:36 am

    A severe one was missed. Psalms 137:9

    “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

    Kind of an involuntary post-birth abortion. But seriously, what could cause such a hateful, abhorrent statement? Let’s examine the verse prior…(my emphasis)

    “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.”

    So…the Babylonians took the Hebrew children and threw them against the rocks? Sounds pretty brutal. And then, their captors demanded them to sing songs about their beloved (and now destroyed) homeland (verse 3).

    So in regards to number 4, yeah, I can see that. Not sure which happened first, but if your enemy is going for complete annihilation of your whole nation, then it’s kill or be killed. Even without God to direct them, I don’t see how any other nation would have acted.

    Sounds a lot like what’s happening now over in Isreal. It’s OK if paramilitary groups send shells and rockets into Isreali villages, but when they go on the offensive to root out these terrorists, they are demonized. And all the rhetoric from Iran about Isreal being wiped off the face of the earth or something…they must be God’s people or else they would have died out by now.

72. 72. nyarltep - August 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am

    have fun being slaves to a god that doesnt exist.

73. 73. thereisnogod. - August 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    THERE IS NO GOD.

74. 74. ghost - September 5th, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Sorry smg45acp, but I’ve got to call BS on your post.

    How exactly do you know about this “problem” of women “yelling questions out loud to their husbands sitting 10 to 50 feet away”. What’s your source on that? How would anyone know that was going on? Is there some reliable historical documentation of these problems at the church Paul was addressing?

    Sounds like an apologist pulling something out of thin air to explain away an inconvenient bible passage.

    The fact is, that the Bible expresses a lot of troublesome morality with respect to issues such as slavery and the equality of women. It reflects the culture of the period during which it was written, and the attitudes of the men who wrote it.

    There are some good things in it, and taken as a whole, Jesus’ message is admirable. The key is to read it in the context of “this is what people thought expressed the will of God at the time they wrote it”. Our understanding of morality and of God’s will has evolved. We didn’t stop growing as a people when the ink dried on the Bible. God is not dead or a historical figure. The moraliy of God shows evolution even between the Old and New Testaments. Neither God nor Jesus ever said “well that’s it, that’s all I’m going to reveal to humanity, I’m never going to enlighten you again.” Our understanding of what is good and right continues to improve to this day.

    To often, the Bible is used selectively by people who want to validate a position they are already disposed to hold. People read verses the way they want to read them. People focus on some things and ignore others, to suit their ego. They also use it to avoid any meaningful moral introspection. “I hate gays because the Bible tells me to.”

    The Bible has been used to justify slavery, denying women the right to vote, banning interracial marriage and Lord knows how many wars.

    At the end of the day, it’s just a book. Your relationship with God is personal. If the book helps you understand and develop your relationship with God, great. If the book, as it can do, becomes a handicap to your spiritual growth and moral development, then you should put it away. Everything in the Bible that is truly good stands on its own, it does not need the authority of the book to be “right”. It stands against aggressive deliberative challenge and dissection. The stuff in the Bible that is “cultural static”, the stuff that was more reflective of the views of men than the will of God, crumbles like dust.

    God may be perfect, but the men who wrote the Bible were not. Biblical inerrancy is a difficult position for an objective, thinking person to defend.

    And perhaps the point of this list was to illustrate this very issue.

75. 75. NiMur90 - September 13th, 2008 at 3:27 am

    #1 Is a quote from Moses, not Jesus

76. 76. m0nk3yhum0r - September 26th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    People take verses and they use them way out of context. You can take any verse and use it in a wrong way.

77. 77. xdr - September 30th, 2008 at 6:58 am

    ghost: Have you been to village church lately? Did you notice something? Yes they do have those giant speekers! So you can imagine in those times that a little harmless chatter would be audible. I’m not implying that the women are to blame (I myself talk during mass on more than one occasion)
    Guess it’s the squeaky voices

78. 78. MrBungle - September 30th, 2008 at 7:32 am

    Arguing with Christians about the Bible is like arguing with a retard about nuclear physics. No matter what you say, they’re just not going to get it and even if you win the argument, you only beat a retard.

Tell us what you think... [Commenting FAQ]