Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No u missed THE LEASON. Read carefully. This book tells that God killed a person for NOT bearing illigal child with wife of his brother....... Read again & u'll know.
In other words, if he would have "completed" sleeping with his brother's wife till the passage of SEED , then, according to this leason, God would be happy with him (God forbid).
The testimony given in your opinion is not a lie. The results vary from person to personTrue. But my point is this. The testimony given is not a lie, the result is of the same (in the bible).
what moral lesson u get.That when wife of ur brother dies without a child , then it is ur duty to impregnate his wife, otherwise u'll be sinful ?????????
For God sake admit these r human additions/alterations & these CAN NOT be words of God.
u need to learn singular & pleural again.
Seriously Jawhawes, why don't you form your own opinion? You seem to do alot of scripture quoting for an answer.
You have free will, why not use it rather than letting the "Word of God" do your thinking for you? Living as a robot doesn't seem very appealing to me.
Or like asking a cook to follow the guidlines of a recipe, but to personalize it to tasteSeriously, this is like asking a chemist to rely on their opinion and not consult Bielstein's Handbuch or the Journal of the Am. Chem. Society.
(I must be a robot scientist because I refer to JACS all the time rather than make my own stuff up to suit my feelings or needs of the time. Go figure.)
Not at all, details are very important more to some than others. In a police investigation small descepancies create suspiscion. And the message is dependant on the person reading it, we dont all walk away from it with the same message. And their are plenty of small problems, from simple counting to number of children, to number of witnesses, from time of day, to time of year. The message you claim it represents is not universal, this is clearly seen by the wide gap between churches and followers
And why must you fulfill those laws? Or why do you even care to fulfill them?
Seriously Jawhawes, why don't you form your own opinion? You seem to do alot of scripture quoting for an answer.
You have free will, why not use it rather than letting the "Word of God" do your thinking for you? Living as a robot doesn't seem very appealing to me.
Have no impact? Each person recieves it differently, the impact is individual. The end product is destroyed due to lack of continuity for some. And things are written for many reasons, to sway and convince and control are some of those reasons as well. There is no appropriate conclusion, only hypothisised delusionI understand that; however, when these small differences have no impact on the end product then the time spent can be lost. If you are looking for the "Truth" then larger issues must be addressed first. Meaning that, it is first important to look at the big picture. Initially, I looked at the unimportant matters because it seems that human nature sways mankind to prove something wrong. Atleast this was my first response when I heard Christians referring to the Bible as amazing (when I was an atheist). But the more you apply your knowledge about ancient history and the reasons why docuements were written, the better you are able to come to a more appropriate conclusion.
Have no impact? Each person recieves it differently, the impact is individual. The end product is destroyed due to lack of continuity for some. And things are written for many reasons, to sway and convince and control are some of those reasons as well. There is no appropriate conclusion, only hypothisised delusion
High degree? I dont see it. The number of authors grows daily and the accounts are changing even to this day. Amazing? yes it is, but not in its accuracyOkay - I was going to insert that "people view things differently, etc..." which is very true; however, even outside this discussion, the first response of so many is to try to disprove something without even looking at the product in full.
And as far as the Bible is concerned - it is truly amazing that there is such a high degree of continuity. I mean, look at the number of authors and the timeframe between such accounts.
Everybody has some insight/excuse to justify.Huh? I don't see how a lack of 100% certainty regarding the author of some books increases the authors daily or how accounts change daily. Accuracy in what regard?
Give me a few examples of accuracy and I might have insight
Everybody has some insight/excuse to justify.
"The whole earth was of one language." - 2400BCE multiple languages are evident.
Philistines didn't arrive in the region of Canaan until around 1200 BCE -- 800 years after Abraham's supposed migration from Ur.
How did the slaves of egypt build the storehouses of Ramses 300 years after they fled Egypt?
Get my facts right, your funny.Get your facts right....
1) When the whole earth was of one language- it predates recorded history.
2) Abraham met peopleliving in the Cannan area who later became known as Philistines
3) There is more than one Ramses, which one are you referring to?
Get my facts right, your funny.
1. Gen 11. - plenty had already occured buy this time. It predates nothing but your opinion.
2. That is assumtion, but archeology does point to Philistines not being in the region until later. That is not an assumtion.
3. Exodus in suposedly 1446 B.C, Five Pharaoh's contridict the 2 of the Bible. [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Thutmose III reigned too long to be the Pharoh of the Exodus, Ex. says that all the Egyptians drowned included the Pharaoh, Thutmose reigned 53 years. Also Thutmose led his army's most successful military's victories 10 years after the Exodus. Zoan, not Pi-Rameses is the capital of Egypy in Mosesday.Numbers 13:22 and Psalm 78:12,43 imply that Zoan (Tanis) was the capital of [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Egypt when the plagues fell on Egypt. Ramses II reigned too long to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Pharoah of Exodus must have reigned less than 10 years, Ramses II reigned 67 years. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]1 Kings 6:1 - 480 years vs 430 years in GALATIANS 3:16-17 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
How rude! Dont really understand, do you realize how many different versions say the same about each other? I know ministers that will say others dont have a clue till their blue in the face. You obviously are no different, and anything I were to say wont change your resolve or your claims to who does and does nopt understand scripture1) It's not opinion. Genesis 1-11 is not recorded history outside the Bible.
2)
3) The Bible does not say that all the egyptians died but that the men of the egyptian army died...but Pharoah did not die, he continued to reign after the Exodus. i dont have time to teach you scripture, learn it first...i really dont have time to waste here with people who keep quoting things they dont really understand...:sleep:
Benign - Do you not realize what you are doing? You are trying to find small contradictions even though there are none - and neglecting to look at the consistent messages given throughout the Bible. When two people record an event, there will be differences. If someone asked me if I went to the movies today, I could say "yes" or "yeah I went with Tom" (because Tom seemed more important to me) or "yes I went with a group of friends."
The Bible has 40 some authors spanning over a 1000 years and its truly amazing that the fundamental message is the same throughout. If you want to keep looking for small things then go for it but you are lacking perspective.
I'm pretty sure that under Jewish law daughters can inherit if there are no sons. However, a woman with no father, husband or son was left on the fringes of society, with no status.Because the alternative would be to leave his brother's family, his wife and any female children, in poverty, as there was no MALE to inherit the land allotted to his deceased brother.