Cut off her hand...

If one or two are flawed how do you decide which one or two? There are millions of verses in the Bible... 66 Books which one or two are wrong?

G-d is perfect!!! ALL 66 BOOKS ARE G-D BREATHED AND ACCURET OR IT IS EQUAL TO THE KORAN!!! FALSE!!!!

If one or two are flawed how do you decide which one or two? There are millions of verses in the Bible... 66 Books which one or two are wrong?

G-d is perfect!!! ALL 66 BOOKS ARE G-D BREATHED AND ACCURET OR IT IS EQUAL TO THE KORAN!!! FALSE!!!!

The implication of this is that I will reevaluate how I interpret the bible. The bible is written by men. Many parts of it are inspired by God and some parts are not. Working out which are and which are not is actually no big deal. One can smell the bits that come from men, the divorce laws and the stoning of animals easily enough.

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.

I do not accept that one can read Noah’s uprightness as having anything to do with his genes.

The genes are the chemical and biological means of constructing your body, they have nothing to do with your morality. In fact your argument is unbiblical. God always intended to save people from every race. There are no genetic pariahs. God would have been delighted if some Amalekites or Philistines converted and became citizens of Israel. They were not barred by their genes or race, but by their refusal to repent, by their sins.

As for this seed and bloodline theory of yours: It too is unbiblical. The bloodline of Christ WAS corrupt! That’s the point. Christ came to redeem fallen humanity. He would not be stopped by his bloodline. It is error to think some are worse than others. I have no doubt that even the son of a demon would be accepted if he repented. You have a case if you say that because he was the son of a demon, he could not repent. I have no idea. Such discussions are outside the scripture, so I will not comment. But I am not talking about the Nephilim I am talking about the men of the nations that surrounded Israel.

In my view, God wiped out some nations because he had to. It was done reluctantly. These nations would not turn and were simply filling up the pit of hell. God does not take pleasure in wrath. His wrath is simply his reaction to men who refuse to be saved.

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.

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.

Why is grabbing a man by the genitals a sin at all, in these circumstances? She is trying to save her husband and stop a fight. What should she do? Punch him in the face? Tickle him? Are these sins too? Are they worthy of an amputation?

I do not accept that one can read Noah’s uprightness as having anything to do with his genes.

The genes are the chemical and biological means of constructing your body, they have nothing to do with your morality. In fact your argument is unbiblical. God always intended to save people from every race. There are no genetic pariahs. God would have been delighted if some Amalekites or Philistines converted and became citizens of Israel. They were not barred by their genes or race, but by their refusal to repent, by their sins.

As for this seed and bloodline theory of yours: It too is unbiblical. The bloodline of Christ WAS corrupt! That’s the point. Christ came to redeem fallen humanity. He would not be stopped by his bloodline. It is error to think some are worse than others. I have no doubt that even the son of a demon would be accepted if he repented. You have a case if you say that because he was the son of a demon, he could not repent. I have no idea. Such discussions are outside the scripture, so I will not comment. But I am not talking about the Nephilim I am talking about the men of the nations that surrounded Israel.

In my view, God wiped out some nations because he had to. It was done reluctantly. These nations would not turn and were simply filling up the pit of hell. God does not take pleasure in wrath. His wrath is simply his reaction to men who refuse to be saved.

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,

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,

You sound a fairly judgmental type....If you have a specific point to make, on the issue, then make it. It would be preferable to your conspiracy theories.

Stealing a cookie deserves the punishment of being cast into the eternal lake of fire..

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.

Stealing a cookie deserves the punishment of being cast into the eternal lake of fire..

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".

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.

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.

In Deuteronomy 25 we have the following:
11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

When reading the OT law, it is important to realise that although, by our standards, the events are pretty barbaric, we are dealing with divine judgment and being educated to understand the deadliness of sin and God’s attitude towards it. Genocide is a last resort and the means by which God judges the nations of the middle east. There are indications, Gen 15:16 that God waits generations before judging in this way. We are, in fact, instructed to love the law and to dwell on it night and day Ps 1:2.
It seems to me that the law is an imperfect means of structuring a society along godly lines, but in spite of all this, the above command strikes me as utterly disgusting.
I am appalled too, at commands to stone animals, like bulls who gore people to death. Stoning is a means of killing so painful, slow and disgusting, that surely no merciful God could condone it. Why the cruelty?
I have to say such things really upset my faith.
Does anyone have a view on this?

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.

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..

I understand what you are saying but that actually proves that you do not support "all Scriptures are inspired" in the meaning you used it, i.e. in the meaning "every sentence you read in your Bible is from God".

You realize there are different translations. But there are also much deeper problems than various translations and I mentioned some of them in my posts.