Jesus is God (page 3)

UnDisfellowshipped

I just read Numbers Chapter 31.

Numbers 31:18 does not say anything about child-rape.

It would have been completely 100% against the Law of Moses.

It is way, way more likely that the girls were taken as servants or slaves -- nothing is mentioned of child-rape in this Verse.

Numbers 31:18:

(King James Version) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

(American Standard Version) But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

(Revised Standard Version) But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

(World English Bible) But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

The fact that only the virgin girls were saved, is, I believe, because that would signify that they were not fornicators.

They may have just saved all girls under a certain age.

I am a Born Again Christian, and I don't consider myself to be rabid. I find that most biblical discussions with people who have no belief or faith in the bible are basically pointless. A better way to share the gospel with Atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses is to live what the gospel teaches. Display love at all times to your enemies and to your friends.

When people ask me why I am the way I am, I tell them its because of my accepting Jesus, and allowing the Holy Spirit to operate in my life.

Farkel, I think that is a bit of a stretch with the whole bible supporting child rape. While in our society a female is not considered a woman until 18, in ancient societies a female was considered to be a woman following her first menstrual period (which can occur as young as nine years old).

UnDisfellowshipped

At least JW's and Born-Again Christians agree on one thing. They both think rabid Atheists are wackos.

Just kidding.

Farkel

jesussaves,

: Farkel, I think that is a bit of a stretch with the whole bible supporting child rape. While in our society a female is not considered a woman until 18, in ancient societies a female was considered to be a woman following her first menstrual period (which can occur as young as nine years old).

READ NUMBERS 31 and then comment about it instead of talking out of your ass and bringing in a red herring into my argument. DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Either address it and face the consequences or wimp out and ignore the evidence, but don't change the subject from what I raised. Please.

Farkel

ozziepost

Swedish Chef,

May I make a suggestion? You will have seen that this is a db for all things related to JW. It seems provocative to post a Trinity dissertation on a JW board, don't you think?

It would be much better to introduce yourself and tell of your JW background. I presume you were once or still are a Dub?

If not, this topic is hardly relevant, is it? And that's why it's getting the "bagging" it is.

Ozzie

jesussaves

How did I try to change the subject? You spoke of CHILD rape. I defined CHILD. I would prefer that you did not use profanity when responding to me. I would not do that to you. I've read Numbers, BTW. Your profanity and insult slinging is the only red herring I see.

jesussaves

Farkel,

I believe this post is about the Deity of Christ. How did you get to Child Rape? Can anybody spell R-E-D H-E-R-R-I-N-G?

joannadandy

collection of 66 books written over 4000 years by over 40 different people. All attesting to the same message, God's redemption for mankind.

So the Bible is an anthology.

If you had to come up with a works cited page for your arguement so you could publish it you would just put the Bible you used as your work cited, not each individual book of the Bible with publication dates.

If I quote enitrely from one anthology, I would just cite the anthology, not go out and collect print data about the publication of each work within.

And when I turned it in, all the scholors and professors would laugh at me for just using one source for my arguement, explain to me while it may well be valid and interesting that it doesn't have any weight because of my reliance on one source.

Also you didn't respond to my point of credibility.

Mackin

I totally agree with Ozzie,

We on this board all share a common interest. We have all been affected in some way by the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses and for the most part that experience has been negative. In some cases, severely negative. This board exists for mutual support, sharing and hopefully healing the hurt inflicted upon us by the dubs.

We welcome diversity of belief and viewpoint, but please introduce yourself first. Making your first post "Jesus is God" consisting of nothing but quoted scriptures is what I call "rabid".

Mackin.

jesussaves

Mackin,

Thank you for explaining your view of 'rabid'. I wonder if the original poster is even an ex-jw. I know that if I was trying to get a JW or X-JW to covert to Christianity, the Deity of Christ would be the last topic I would discuss. The problem with most Christians is that they are offended by Athiests. I am not offended by someone exercising their own choices. As a Christian, I feel compelled to share the gospel of Christ, but there is a huge difference between share and 'ram down someone's throat'

Jesus is God

Share this