in leviticus 11:6, it tells us that the rabbit chews the cud.
they don't chew the cud.. in leviticus 11:20 it tells us that insect walk on four leggs.
they don't......they have 6 leggs.. why the problem?.
I think I understand your point, Narkissos. You're saying we shouldn't be viewing the original text through the eyes of modern science? This does seem to happen too often. My personal pet peeve is related to that: the judging of ancient people by modern, western, civilized-world standards of justice and fairness and morality.
Did you just take all the wind out of Gumby's sails?
in leviticus 11:6, it tells us that the rabbit chews the cud.
they don't chew the cud.. in leviticus 11:20 it tells us that insect walk on four leggs.
they don't......they have 6 leggs.. why the problem?.
This is all very interesting, but I imagine by now Gumby is ready to shoot his monitor. You see, he isn't satisfied that just anyone made a mistake--it has to be Jehovah, or at least Moses.
For me, the explanation in the link provided by Deputy Dog, and re-discovered by Listener, gives a pretty good explanation. As for the objections raised by Pete, some of the animals he mentions can be covered by other prohibitions, such as mice and rats in v.29, and other animals can be eliminated because they did not inhabit the region the Israelites were entering.
As for Paduan's position, I think many scriptures have multiple meanings.
I was hoping someone would post what the rabbis (not rabbits) said about this.
Does anyone know when the second stomach was first associated with rumination? Non-Israelite societies would have known about the similiarities and differences between the internal organs of cows and rabbits. In fact. Moses, having come from Egyptian high society, would have known something of animal science. And if you argue for later, anonymous authorship, it could have been known by them, especially if you have Hellenistic influence. So, if you want to make rabbits unclean, why not just devise a separate prohibition and avoid the problem?
Another - the Bible will yet be vindicated, we just don't know how yet. An archeological find in 1927 exhonerated the Bible on a minor error. So, eventually all errors will be fully understood. Have faith.Here's a hare-brained possibility: what were called hares in that region at that time were a species that actually did ruminate, but because the Israelites left them alone, the Cannanites hunted them to entinction, leaving the world with the species we have now, which was not native to that area. Gumby, will you buy that?
if i remember correctly, many christians have been tortured and killed through the centuries.
their enemies killed them.
none of them that i know of ever had power over rattlesnakes or scorpions to the extent these critters never bit them.........so.......did jesus lie that they would be immune to deadly critters, and that they wouldn't ever be harmed,.....or did god allow a spurious scripture in his spirit directed holy word that could have caused the death of many if they trusted this scripture?.
I ain't talkin bout nuthin till I find out whether Jesus fibbed or not. I ain't eatin , I ain't sleepin , I ain't talkin, and I ain't even poopin .
Getting back to the original issue, I'd agree with Hondo. These statements were made to a specially-commissioned group of 70 or 72 deputies. There is no indication that it was ever meant to be applicable to all believers for all times. Also, there is no indication of how long this protection was to be in effect, although it would appear to be limited to no more than the time remaining before the crucifixion. Finally, it may not even have been unconditional. Jesus told them their names were written in heaven, but if you include the twelve in this group, what about Judas?
The best way to handle this is not to demand more from the text than it actually says.
So, a one-word answer is "No."
if i remember correctly, many christians have been tortured and killed through the centuries.
their enemies killed them.
none of them that i know of ever had power over rattlesnakes or scorpions to the extent these critters never bit them.........so.......did jesus lie that they would be immune to deadly critters, and that they wouldn't ever be harmed,.....or did god allow a spurious scripture in his spirit directed holy word that could have caused the death of many if they trusted this scripture?.
This is just another example of why people become disillusioned with the bible.....and another reason why we have 50 freakin billion religions. You or I could have done a better job at writing a book if we knew it was to guide to our children we created. God gets a big fatass F for failure in "communication skills" in my book!
Hey Gumby,
I find this scripture interesting:
In Matthew 13, right after Jesus tells a large crowd the Parable of the Sower, starting with verse 10...
The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"
He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
Though hearing, they do not hear or understand."
In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'"
Not only did the general population not understand the parables, but even the close disciples usually did not understand; Jesus had to spell it out for them.
So much for them trying to figure it all out. If they did, they would have turned from sin and God would have been obligated to save them.
as a jehovah's witness you have been taught from the bible and the watchtower organization.
instead, you must trust what it tells you about its own false prophecies.
the watchtower organization tells you what to think and what to do.
On the surface, there is nothing to indicate this is an "apostate" site. I was surprised to find most people here were disillusioned ex-JWs.
Will Non-JW stay? Or is he/she an intererent preacher like nedryerson and "Free Will" danielweatherlee? You know--leave a tract and move on?
I read some of the long thread about 06-06-06. Between the other posts and those from TheWord, it looks like you all have been well-warned.
14for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are (l)holy.
what in the world does he mean?
countless commentaries have struggled to make sense of the word "holy" in this context.
Narkissos,
Thanks for the reply.
If I had either you or Paduan as a teacher, I think I'd have to stay after school on this one.
14for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are (l)holy.
what in the world does he mean?
countless commentaries have struggled to make sense of the word "holy" in this context.
He encouraged the believing mate not to leave the unbeliever
So what is the WT position in the case of a member married to one who persists in remaining outside?
A young child who is faithfully taught God?s Word will no doubt progress in knowledge and understanding, and in time reach the point where God?s spirit motivates him to make his own dedication to Jehovah and to request baptism. (1 Pet. 3:21)
Any examples here of cases where this didn't work out?
predictions for the end of the world have been going on since the time of christ, and in every century since then.
during the past 100 years there have been more predictions for the end of the world than have been made in all the previous centuries combined.
many of these prophesied dates have since come and gone.. people look around and see the possibility of many different natural or man-made disasters by which the end could come.
The nature of things is that everything acts pretty much the way it has acted in the past.
Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah,
They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." (2 Peter 3:4)
A fundamental flaw in reasoning: It hasn't happened in my experience, therefore, it never has happened that way for anybody, and it never will happen.
Sorry Terry. Not picking on you in particular.
14for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are (l)holy.
what in the world does he mean?
countless commentaries have struggled to make sense of the word "holy" in this context.
Sorry, Narkissos, but I can't see the circular reasoning. I checked this verse in several translations, and then in the original Greek (of which I don't admit to being any kind of scholar). The most literal rendering seems to be:
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified by the brother; since then the children of you are unclean, but now they are holy."
All translations use the word "otherwise" to connect the phrases, which says to me that the children are holy BECAUSE the unbelieving spouse is sanctified because the partner is a believer, that is, the status of the children is based on the status of the parents, not the other way around.
Also, in a practical application, I see at least four possible situations that would evoke concern:
1. Children born when both parents were unbelievers, and subsequently one became a believer,
2. One of the natural parents has died, and the believer has remarried an unbeliever,
3. One spouse became a believer and then children were subsequently born,
4. One spouse became a believer with no children yet born, but are anticipated.
So, does it apply to children already alive--are they "set apart" when at least one of the parents becomes a believer? And up to what age does this apply? One or more of these situations may have applied to an individual family. All of these issues would have been relevant.
(In denominations that practice infant baptism, isn't a special dispensation imputed to the child based on at least one parent's profession of faith until they reach an age of accountability? Could this passage be the basis for that doctrine?)
This issue may have arisen out of a concern by believers for the status of their children in the eyes of God, considering the other parent was not a believer. It would have been inconsistent with Paul's teaching that a person could marry into the faith (as some in the article have suggested). I don't know what the earliest church teaching was in regard to the spiritual status for infants and small children, but consider the relatively high mortality rate for children back then.
this is my story... please give me some advice.
i am 25 years old.
i'm a single mother of a beautiful 8 year old daughter.
A single post and now she's gone. I wonder what happened?
I don't know if this is the case with Krissi, but some people don't really want advice, they just want support for a decision they have already made. Well, if her decision was to stay with this guy, she didn't get it here.
Maybe she'll come back later and give us an update.
