Interpretation of Texts (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 24, 2010, 12:06 (4982 days ago) @ dhw

Responding to two posts here, sorry its so long-To my knowledge, I have not said, or even insinuated that I think that all the dialog stated between man and the bible were true, nor did I disagree with your statement that they were written by men. I stated that the BIBLE claimed, i.e. that one of the writers of the book made the claim, to be 'inspired of God and beneficial'. 2 Tim 3:16, I would also be remiss if I did not point out that it doesn't say only the bible, Torah, Koran, etc is inspired of god and beneficial. -
Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but you have no idea how many times I have heard that same scripture used to justify all sorts of negativity. And while I do not think this is the case with you, that verse is most often used by people who only know how to quote mine the bible. Instead of answering with my interpretation, I will give you the words of Paul.-The apostle Paul said this. (Galatians 3:10-22) 10 For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: "Cursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them." 11 Moreover, that by law no one is declared righteous with God is evident, because "the righteous one will live by reason of faith." 12 Now the Law does not adhere to faith, but "he that does them shall live by means of them." 13 Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: "Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake." 14 The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham might come to be by means of Jesus Christ for the nations, that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith. 15 Brothers, I speak with a human illustration: A validated covenant, though it is a man's, no one sets aside or attaches additions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: "And to seeds," as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: "And to your seed," who is Christ. 17 Further, I say this: As to the covenant previously validated by God, the Law that has come into being four hundred and thirty years later does not invalidate it, so as to abolish the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is due to law, it is no longer due to promise; whereas God has kindly given it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.--Here, according to the BIBLE, the Law was as hard as it was because there had been no sacrifice made that could atone for all the sins of man. The Bible also says "The wages sin pays is death." (Romans 6:23) So yes, the death penalty was a big part of the law under the Mosaic law covenant, even for what we would consider today as minor transgressions. I would also point out again, and this is for Xeno, that there is some misrepresentation of the scripture he quoted in Deut. due to the fact that he has removed it from its context. In Israel, a woman was supposed to be a virgin when she married. In fact, it was so serious an issue that if she were not a virgin when taken to her marriage bed, she could be put to death. Now, if a virgin is raped, under that law, her life is in jeopardy, because if she marries, her husband could have her killed for not being a virgin. By forcing the rapist to marry her, it does a double service, though modern day thinking would disagree I'm sure, of sparing her life because the man can not make a claim against her virginity, and can not divorce her so therefore must provide accommodation for her for life. So that law that you interpret as so bad saves the woman's life, and offers some pretty serious discouragement to a man to prevent him from raping a woman. Paying off a pissed off father, 50 sheckles, a pretty hefty sum. Being married to a right bitch the rest of your life, priceless.