Shocking Verses from the Bible

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Johnny your reply has all the ramblings of a nephilim.

Thanks...I always appreciate a compliment

Does that mean I should get a haircut?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Haircut?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dbf2553255aa.jpg[/atsimg]

I don't think I said anything that calls for foul language.

No Johnny
Please, you appear to be a big guy by your avatar. Dosn't mean that's you. But your reply seems to foollow along
the same line as the rants Goliath used. Please if anything it is a compliment .

Don't hit me.:

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Haircut?
I don't think I said anything that calls for foul language.

No Johnny
Please, you appear to be a big guy by your avatar. Dosn't mean that's you. But your reply seems to foollow along
the same line as the rants Goliath used. Please if anything it is a compliment .
Don't hit me.

:

Well...your hair's a little shorter than mine, mustache a little longer...but we have the same computer desk.
Hit you? Saints be praised... we could be kin!

Originally posted by Bokaforo
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
2 Kings 2:23-24

The good Lord knew how to deal with gang bangers back in the day. I assure you these youths had done far worse that call poor old Elisha baldy. We have a whole generation of failed directionless youths thanks to liberals and their hatred of the Bible. If some of those flash mob gangs had gotten mauled by a few bears it would send a great message.

Originally posted by SevenThunders

Originally posted by Bokaforo
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
2 Kings 2:23-24

The good Lord knew how to deal with gang bangers back in the day. I assure you these youths had done far worse that call poor old Elisha baldy. We have a whole generation of failed directionless youths thanks to liberals and their hatred of the Bible. If some of those flash mob gangs had gotten mauled by a few bears it would send a great message.

Lol. Like I said in my post, I think they were getting ready to kill Elisha. It's at least a possibility.

The town that they were going to, Bethel, was essentially Baal worshipers. The reason they were mocking him is because of Elisha's religion.

Earlier in the Bible Jeroboam had made two golden calves and sent one to Bethel where Elisha was headed, and the other Dan. He did this so they would worship the calves as false gods to stop them from quote, "returning to the house of David" or in other words, so they wouldn't return to worshiping Yahweh. And they didn't. They worshiped the calves. People even went out of their way to visit the golden calves.
See 1 Kings 12:26-30.

His mentor the prophet Elijah had just been taken UP in a whirl wind to Heaven. And now Elisha was heading UP to Bethel where these "youth" (if you translate the word that could mean as old as 30) went out of their way to come out of their town to Jeer Elisha and call him Bald. And by the time Elisha got there they had probably done a lot of cow worshiping in 2 Kings. Could they have been evil?

But you must pay attention to the connotation of the word UP. Elijah had just been taken up into the Heavens and Elisha was going UP to Bethel. When they were saying go up, go up it had a double connotation. They wanted him to go UP to Heaven like Elijah did. They wanted him dead because of the works he had done in the name of the Lord.

Now think about it? He was going UP to Bethel? Where did they tell him to go? All these youths came out of the town and started threatening him, GO UP, GO UP. If they hated him so much why were they telling him to go to their town?

Now put yourself in his shoes. If you were about to enter a town and a bunch of residents that didn't like you met you at the edge of town and said, "Oh yeah, go ahead. Go into town! Go!" What would you think was about to happen? If they didn't like you, wouldn't they be telling you to LEAVE their town? Why they are telling him to go INTO their town? What are they planning?

They're planning murder. They were going to send him UP to Heaven because of his religion. They were getting ready to commit a hate crime. Murdering him because of his religion. They wanted him gone just like Elijah.

reply to post by SevenThunders


Yeah, and maybe it would be good to rape them and smash their infants on rocks in front of them as well eh? Well, if you defend one verse, how about defending the ones that I posted.

reply to post by Bokaforo


Many questions arise when reading the Scriptures; this doesn't mean these questions don't have answers. But you cannot find what you are not looking for. Somehow, someway, and somewhere inside of you - you understand the truth of this statement. Selah.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


I think you're going over too much stuff here. Probably should start a new thread not to get off topic.

I think you may be misreading this stuff. The Bible says if the man rapes a women he must die, and the women is innocent. They were only to get married if it was consensual sex.

"But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman". How was the women supposed to marry a dead rapist? Obviously people have misread this.

It's easiest to read if you just use the NLT even though I don't prefer that translation. Either way, not the NIV lol. That version doesn't make any sense. It says to kill the rapist and then the women is supposed to marry the rapist. No women is being forced to marry her rapist here. It's two different sections. The NIV version is crap and I think they're translating the word as rape as to mean sex before marriage. But whatever, if you go back to the KJV the word rape isn't used at all. As in other translations the term cried out is used instead. If she cries out it's rape, if not it's consensual.

Also, God isn't saying to take captives as wives. This is something they just did. First of all the book of Deuteronomy is not a book of the Bible like the other books are. It's sort of a book of speeches that Moses gave. In other words it is Moses talking.

However, it was a cultural thing. Moses was just putting restrictions on things they did anyway. Later in the Bible Jesus explains that Moses would have banned any type of sexual relationship that wasn't one man, one women married and divorce. But he couldn't because of quote, "the hardness of your hearts". In other words they were too stubborn. So it's not God to blame, it's people again.

Now this is important because soldiers would probably want to be married before going into battle. They wouldn't want to die before producing offspring. Any captive wives were probably not first wives. So Jesus is also explaining to us how Moses would have banned this too if he could have.

Basically, marriage was a completely different institution in those times than of how we think of marriage today and Moses knew that wasn't going to change instantly. However, again, Jesus tells us this was Moses' decision, not God's.

God's plan all along from the first page of the Bible was one man and one women. But people started taking multiple wives and so on against God's plan. Moses was just trying to put some restrictions back on it so we could slowly overtime get back to where we're supposed to be.

After all, if you banned it instantly what would the guys that already had multiple wives do? Oops lol. But God never planned it that way. The people just did it, and so Moses allowed it until Jesus banned it again.

Also, I'm not sure I could find the exact quote in the Bible about smashing babies heads against the rocks except in Psalms 137. You must understand that Psalms isn't part of the Torah. It's a book of songs and prayers written by believers and some of the songs are laments. In other words someone feels real bad about something. Sad, angry or whatever and they write a sad or angry song. They didn't have iTunes back then. They wrote their songs on this thing called paper and well....You get the point.

In Psalms 137 the author is just angry at the exile of the Jewish people after being conquered by Babylon. This isn't God telling anyone to do anything. It's just the author is angry and writes a song saying that Babylon is doomed to be destroyed by someone, it doesn't say who, but whoever does it will smash their babies heads against the rocks and be happy about it.

Note that the author isn't saying that's what he's going to do. Obviously the author thinks it's a bad thing. That's why he uses it as imagery in his lament lol.

But like I said, all you brought up really deserves it's own thread. I'm not even sure that's the part of the Bible you're referring to cause there's so many questions. Make sure you write the verse numbers so we can be sure to look at the context of it all.

EDIT: Made a typo on the NIV part.

reply to post by Q:1984A:1776


You do realise what you're asking right ? Actually I just thought of something myself. God, The Bible, even Christians have never needed defending. The time of the gentiles did just end. It might actually be up to each believer to keep on fighting the good fight trying to help others see. Based on his own weights and measures. Hmmm.

You might actually get your way very soon.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by Q:1984A:1776

 

The NIV version is crap.

OMG I have to literally quote myself. How dumb. But however I made a typo so I thought I would go into this more. The NIV version isn't crap per-se, it's just how you look at it.

There's two schools of thought on this issue. The first is that yes women do have to marry their rapists. This is the view that say the NIV version takes.

In historical context the reason they believe this is because nobody would marry a women that wasn't a virgin. In other words, once someone raped a women that's basically who she had to marry because she wasn't going to be marrying anyone else. Nobody would marry her.

That's not really the view everyone takes. If you look at the KJV it doesn't use the word rape. It's two different things. In the first section it says if a rapist rapes an engaged women and she "cries out" the man must be put to death.

In the second section it just says if a guy has sex with a girl that's not engaged they have to get married. It doesn't exactly bring rape up here or say anything about crying out so we don't really know. It says, lay hold of. does that mean rape? Some people translate it that way and some people don't.

Here's a good commentary on the issue. The OT and Rape Then you can decide which translation you want to go with, and therefore find the explanation for that translation lol.

Anyway, if women were forced to marry their rapists, two things to consider. It was simply the only way they knew how to solve the problem because no one else would marry her. And also, it's Deuteronomy and therefore it's Moses just trying to solve various problems the best way he knows how.

reply to post by tinfoilman


It is you who is blatantly misreading the text. In all versions of the translations it comes to the same conclusion. If a man rapes a woman in the city and she doesn't cry out, it was consensual and they are both to be put to death. If he rapes her outside of the city where nobody could hear her scream, then she isn't necessarily at fault so only the man is to be put to death. Both of those instances were if the woman was married or pledged to be married. If she was not pledged to be married, then the man has to marry her and pay her father for her because he would have been able to sell her as a sex slave if she were still a virgin. (Want to question that one? There is a provision in the mosaic law for selling your daughters as slaves for sex, I can look it up for you.) If you would like, I can break down the verses in their original Hebrew, as I have studied the Abrahamic religions for decades. If you want to get very technical, the words translated as rape are taphas -to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize... and shakab -to lie down. It is blatantly obvious to me, and all translators of the bible, (except the King James Version and New Living Translation [apparently, you are only familiar with those translations, as they are the only ones that I am aware don't use the word "rape"]) that those words mean to have sex with someone forcibly and were the exact same words used in each verse. .

Also, in response to you saying "it was just Moses doing his best" or whatever; I couldn't agree more. It WAS JUST one MAN writing this, contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16 which says that all scripture was God-breathed. As far as Moses writing Deuteronomy, how was it that he wrote about his own death eh? Just thought I'd throw that one in there for ya too...

These are all examples of the OLD Testament. These are writings considered to be important from a scholarly point of view but are not what modern Christianity is based on.

Keep in mind, the powers that "were" a while back took it upon themselves to edit the bible, changing passages and removing entire chapters and even books they felt challenged their base of power. Based on what little I've read from these missing parts thanks to the discoveries of copies of them in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Christian religion would probably be quite a bit different than it is today were things left intact.

These writings everyone is getting so bent out of shape over describe a time in history that no longer exists and customs which are no longer practiced (except by traditional Muslims and Sharia law, oddly enough). Comparing the modern religion to these writings is about as apples and oranges as it gets.

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

It is you who is blatantly misreading the text.

It is blatantly obvious to me, and all translators of the bible, (except the King James Version and New Living Translation)

Did you like just contradict yourself there? Hey, like yo. I don't know if you know this. But like I didn't write the NLT. For that matter I didn't write any translations of the Bible at all. So, don't accuse me of blatantly misreading anything. Go accuse them lol.

I'm just telling you what another translation said. As I go by the KJV which is confusing on this issue. So, confusing in fact that everyone is still arguing about it today. So, obviously it's not that clear. Some translations translate it one way and some another. However, like I said, if women were married to their rapists, there was a reason. All I was saying is that not everyone reads it like that.

I can break down the verses in their original Hebrew

You could, but since I already posted a link that did that, I'm not sure how that would help?

Also, in response to you saying "it was just Moses doing his best" or whatever; I couldn't agree more. It WAS JUST one MAN writing this contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16 which says that all scripture was God-breathed.

But that's what I'm trying to tell you. Was Deuteronomy scripture? Deuteronomy was a speech that Moses gave. It's more like a transcript of a speech. Anyway, that's not the point. Jesus already covers this.

Matthew 19-7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

That doesn't mean Moses was wrong, which what you're trying to imply. It just means it's not the way God planned it, but MAN WOULDN'T LISTEN. You're trying to put on God and blame God for things that are man's fault. It was supposed to be one man, and one women because quote "from the beginning it was not so".

But it was because, quote "hardness of your hearts". Man wouldn't listen. That was never the way God intended though, however even though humans are jerks Moses and God still had to find workable solutions.

Originally posted by Bokaforo
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
2 Kings 2:23-24

This would have sounded much more harsh if you used the KJV instead of the NKJV, which is translated as "little children" in the former - however, because it is technically "youths", that being young adults (around 20 years old), and the fact that it states "forty-two" of them were mauled, indicate this was more than a couple of kids picking on a bald guy. It should be clear that when 42 young adults gather, they usually have an agenda - and that, in this case, was mocking a man of God.

It's also clear that the severity of the punishment should also equal the severity of the crime - although it seems they were just teasing him, "go on up you baldhead" is more than what it seems - most likely, it was an epithet of scorn and contempt, Elijah not being literally bald. The phrase “go up” likely was a reference to Elijah, Elisha’s mentor, being taken up to Heaven earlier in 2 Kings chapter 2:11-12. These youths were sarcastically taunting and insulting the Lord’s prophet by telling him to repeat Elijah’s translation.

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 23:1

Again, because of your choice of book, it would seem more horrid if you choose the KJV over the NKJV, as this one says "wounded" in place of "crushed", which would normally imply the case of an accidental injury to the groin, but as it stands, "He that is wounded" is a phrase denoting a eunuch.

"Shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord" - Basically, they shall not be admitted to honours and offices either in the church or commonwealth of Israel, and/or, be allowed inside the temples which are deemed "The House of God".

Simply put, this would be equivalent of saying a Homosexual cannot become a Pastor (inb4 Catholic Priests, remember the context and timeframe we're speaking of).

I don't see anything "shocking" about this.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.

Genesis 38:8-10

Because Onan chose to disobey the law, which at the time, required a man to lay with his brother's wife should she be a widow, he was indeed seen as a criminal (not to mention the masturbation), not only to man, but also to God, in which case He saw fit to punish him.

Then Saul said, “Thus shall you say to David, ‘The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king’s enemies.’” Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the time had expired, David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.

Samuel 18:25-27

First off, Saul had set the task to David because it was a dangerous task and he hoped that David would be killed by a superior military force, and as is shown, that planned failed.

Secondly, the foreskins were much like scalps in early America - or like rat-tails in modern-day India. They acted as proof that the enemy soldier had indeed been killed (as a living soldier was PROBABLY not likely to allow his enemy to perform a circumcision).

Again, this is out of context, so you could easily ask several other questions regarding this one.. but I'll leave it at this, unless you directly ask me.

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Ezekiel 23:19-20

Umm.. I don't understand the confusion with this one. It is an account of Oholah, and her sister Oholibah, both prostitutes, and speaks of their treachery and.. lust.

Ezekiel 23:48 “So I will put an end to lewdness in the land, that all women may take warning and not imitate you. 49 You will suffer the penalty for your lewdness and bear the consequences of your sins of idolatry. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign LORD.”

If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

When the wife grabbed the assailant's genitals to protect her husband she breached an unspeakable law of defiling the sign of the covenant between God and Israel - his circumcised penis. In a world very much different from ours, signs were significant to comprehend spiritual things.

These are just a few I came across. Are there any preachers out there preaching this stuff. Some of these verses are hard to interpret. I am sure there are more verses as vulgar as these. Just don't have anymore time to indulge myself into the bible. I am not a Christian.

Thanks for sharing these with us, and I fully understand where you're coming from. I may not be a preacher, and although I still may be classified as a 'teen' (Just of note, I'm of legal adult age), I believe I have commented on these to the best of my ability, and although there are more verses that may seem as objectionable as these, I can assure you that if you take into consideration the context of the text, you will be able to decipher many important factors, including if they are speaking metaphorically or literally (and in these cases, they were literal).

Again, I thank you for showing such interest in the Bible, because correct me if I'm wrong, but you wouldn't have posted this thread if you weren't looking for some form of clarification for these verses; either that, or because of your claim that you are not a Christian, you are simply trying to support your belief that the Bible is wrong, and what is the point in that? If you believe in something (or don't), you don't need any more support for it - rather, you should be looking for reasons why your beliefs are wrong - because if you can't find any, it only strengthens your belief, but if you find reason to believe you're wrong, it only helps you in the long run.

If you don't challenge yourself, you'll only be walking a broad road of deception.

Anyways, I'm to willing to continue commenting on any more verses you, or anyone else, might have to share. Personal verses you found controversial, or any off of Anti-Christian websites you might have copy+pasted (people do this, a lot. It's annoying. Think for yourselves.), I'd be happy to comment on them.

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

(Want to question that one? There is a provision in the mosaic law for selling your daughters as slaves for sex, I can look it up for you.)

You mean Exodus 21-7? Like I said you can't just keep making new claims. If you want to do that create another thread. Let's focus on what you already brought up first as not to ruin someone else's thread. Be polite to others. If you want to start your own crusade start your own thread.

"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters."

Stop reading evilbible.com. It takes things out of context. Yes forms of slavery were allowed, but this is a maidservant. A live in maid which some people still have today. Not a sex slave lol. Sex outside of marriage wasn't allowed in the Bible. And Biblical slavery was very different than modern day racist slavery. Some people even sold themselves into slavery.

They didn't have what we call employees today. Keep that in mind. If you needed labor done you could get a slave. Again something all the cultures did. Remember where the Israelites came from? They were slaves themselves from Egypt remember? So, the Egyptians were evil too right? Yes of course because humans are jerks. It didn't say you HAD to have a slave.

But to better understand slavery you'd need a new thread. The Bible gets into slavery and how we're all slaves to God anyway and so it doesn't matter. But like I said, that's way outta context for all this. What did matter in the biblical sense was how one treated their slave.

Like I said, the Bible placed regulations on many things that people were doing anyway and couldn't be stopped right away. Some things had to change over time as the culture itself changed.

But betrothed means to be engaged. These weren't sex slaves lol. We're talking about marriage here.

You do remember how marriage was done back then and is still done in some parts of the world right? Back then your parents chose who you would marry. It was arranged marriages. It wasn't like today where you choose your spouse. They use to marry off their daughters like property. That's just the way it was done back then.

This is the part of the Bible where God starts putting restrictions on those things, telling the master he cannot sell her to foreigners and so forth that don't follow the same slavery laws. Like I said, not everything about their culture would change instantly. When Jesus came it was explained it was never meant to be this way. Again, trying to put on God what is man's failure lol.

at the end of the day all religion is just a form of mental illness, they gather weekly at the local institution for the drugs that keep them trapped in a cycle of fear and false hopes

reply to post by CLPrime


You wrote:

["Fallible men make it a habit to judge the ways of God. We have to remember, men are fallible...God is not."]

Disregarding fallibility for the moment, I would like to concentrate on the either endless ignorance or the endless arrogance in assuming everyone must relate to a set of self-proclaimed mythological 'absolutes' and the bizarre premises associated with them.

Quote: ["What right is it of ours to judge His methods?"]

That the whole thing, in totality or in details, is a fabulation perhaps.....

Quote: ["God has all power and all authority. If He sees fit to destroy a city, who are we to judge Him?"]

That it's all about power and authority is commonly known amongst non-christians. But it's always nice to hear some evangelist say it straight out. The sugar-coating missionary is just tons of empty words. This is an open defense for the' god'-pretending demon called Jahveh.

Quote: [" He has never done so without purpose."]

And said purposes are, convenient for missionaries, 'mysterious'.

Quote: ["God is loving and merciful, but He is also jealous, vengeful, and strong,..."]

That's what rational non-christians would call a schizoid sociopath; but there you go...perspective is everything.

Quote continued: ["...and He has every right to be"]

Only according a circle-argumenting religious manual and those believing it. Not for the rest of us.

Quote: ["We're the ones who don't understand His methods...how can we judge God from our ignorance (not to mention our arrogance)"]

Concerning ignorance and arrogance..speak on your own behalf.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by AlreadyGone

 

What these scriptures are, and there are many more like these, they are life examples or traits of characters or examples of things that happened from the Bible. They are more reflective of the cultures and traditions of the times and peoples that were recorded.

Eactly they speak of the horrible places and things that sin can lead us to or leave us with. They are lessons learned the hardn way. Written here in the Bible no matter how pornographic or anything else. God must deal with it. And he still will. Even today.

Long live the THE KING .

Starting from the answer and later adapting the situation, so it 'proves' the answer. Ever the missionary-theist way.

Twisted logic will fill the emptying churches again, I'm sure.

reply to post by SevenThunders


You wrote:

["We have a whole generation of failed directionless youths thanks to liberals and their hatred of the Bible."]

In spite of being 65+ myself, and thus not being a "directionless youth", I can as a representative of the alleged "bible-hating liberals" legitimately present my comment here.

I doubt, that the "hate" ascribed to us from the tactical 'persecuted christian'-position really is hate per se. It's more like a general strong distaste for circle-argumented fascistic ideology missioned at mankind.

And from where 'directionless' ofcourse means not following the missionary's directions.

Quote: ["If some of those flash mob gangs had gotten mauled by a few bears it would send a great message."]

You seldom have to scratch very deep, to find violence in fanatics.

Originally posted by Firefly_

Originally posted by Bokaforo
If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

If there is one verse in the bible that conclusively proves that the bible was written by men, then this is it.

edit on 20-7-2011 by Firefly_ because: (no reason given)

Wow, you're right, men are terrible! *blinks twice* With all the "shocking" things going on in the world today, lets ignore all of that and focus on the wierd customs that happened over two thousand years ago, criminalize the ancestors of the middle east. Soo worth it.