Dumb stuff in the Bible?

Apparently gryphons didn't make it onto the ark. 

Semi, no insects have eight legs, only six. I'm not sure how fowl is used here, but I have read the insects crawling on four legs was referring to those who used their front two legs to jump.

Try these: You can eat gra-s-s-h-o-ppers but not beetles.

 

Leviticus 11:20-21

New King James Version (NKJV)

20 ‘All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. 21 Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth.

Leviticus 11:20-21

New Century Version (NCV)

 20 " 'Don't eat insects that have wings and walk on all four feet; they also are to be hated.

 21 " 'But you may eat certain insects that have wings and walk on four feet. You may eat those that have legs with joints above their feet so they can jump.

Leviticus 11:20-21

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

 20 " 'Be sure to avoid every flying insect that walks on all fours. 21 But you can eat some creatures that have wings and walk on all fours. Their legs have joints so they can hop on the ground.

I love this topic Semi. There really are some crazy(way out there...) scriptures in the bible. This should be interesting.

They'll be here soon to say "we know what it says and it means what it says but it doesn't mean what it says, you just don't have the insight to understand what it says".

__________________________

Sorry I didn’t clarify for you, Fire, but I won’t argue the issue with you. I know insects have 6 legs, and I know that Arachnids have 8 legs, & for clarification, arachnids are not insects.

Spiders have 8 legs, an adult centipede can have between 15 and 177 pairs of legs. Any kind of small bug that crawls or flies, I call an insect. This topic is supposed to be fun, not in any way to compete over words.

 

Here's another one for all of you.

In Genesis 32: 24-27, God, after wrestling with Jacob, asked him his name. If God is omniscient, why didn't he know Jacob's name already?

Deuteronomy 23:1

ESV

No one whose ********s are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

KJV

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

EDITED: since the rules do say you should not subvert the censors.

Surely I won't get banned for quoting the bible?

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now my question is this, why did he put it on there if he wanted it cut off??  There's even a little "shout out" in favor of slavery.

 

(and he that is bought with thy money)

Genesis 6: 4

In those days as well as later when the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters of mortals and children were born to them, the Nephilim were on the earth; they were the heroes of old, people of renown.

-----------------

Who are the gods spoken of here I wonder?

Aliens dark?

The whole Book of Revelation is a laugher.

Aliens dark?


That was my first thought too. I dunno. I must admit much(most) of the old testament seems very barbaric, strange and often otherworldly humorous to me.

What about the men that asked Lot to bring them men “so they may know them”.

Instead Lot told them of having two daughters “which have not known men” & asked that they let him bring his daughters to them.

Now why would a Father offer his two virgin daughters to men that preferred men?

Of course, as it turned out the men were angels sent by God to protect Lot but he still offered his daughters as a consolation prize. (Genesis 19:4-8)

 

Chuck Missler says they are aliens.

 

He also says the universe is a hologram.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

KJV

When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Did it say anything about kicking him in the "secrets"?

Isn't it wonderful how God uses his Word to get even non-believers talking about HIM. Even though they don't believe, they still have to speak His name.

Well gingee, it'd be kinda hard not to talk about religion/your god. After all it is a huge intrusion into every aspect of our lives whether we want it or not. That is one thing atheists are working for, to push it back where it belongs.

===

I guess God thinks it's wonderful to get bad publicity for doing/saying dumb things then to be ignored. Such a petty, insecure god.

_________________________________

I don't believe in unicorns but I have to say Unicorn when speaking of them. 

 

I would suggest that all scriptures be regarded as belonging to a different time and different culture.

The KJV is the most difficult version to understand at it's best.

 

But do have fun.

I would agree with you 100% b50m! It was written by men of the bronze age. Totally different mind set and morals as we have evolved to now. I find it really strange that so many people still try and make it fit into modern, current times. It is no longer needed (if it ever was) as any kind of moral guide. We have much better now. Matter of fact if someone is still using the bible as their moral compass today, they are more than likely not very moral by today's standards.

___________________________________________

It was in the Old Testament that God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai.

 

I did not mean that this topic was a way to make fun of the Bible but to have fun in the way some of these scriptures come across. The religion forum is usually so full of judgment & so much anger, that I thought to ligthen things up a little. 

It is still a good moral guide, but the NT is what we are to adhere to in this age, not the OT.

 

The reason it makes no sense today is the prevailing ideas of a standard of treatment for strangers, that women were always second class, that land ownership and name recognition was only for males, that any form of crime was met with an equal retribution, and that the connotations of words and terms were different.

 

As we saw in the first example, 'fowl' was used to refer to insects not birds.

 

It was in the Old Testament that God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai.

 

 

It was, but they were repeated in the NT, in various places.

 

I agree some of the scriptures seem really off the wall until you do a little research on them. It's all a matter of context, connotation, and century.

===

In other words, "apologetics" . What an embarrassing word. Who's choice was that??

 "we know what it says and it means what it says but it doesn't mean what it says, you just don't have the insight to understand what it says".

An atheist, I'm sure.

 

It's not like science has ever been wrong in it's  past.

 

 

It's more of: 'we have studied what it meant at the time, and it had a different meaning than it does today, but it takes many years of study and cross references to arrive at the original intent of the meaning for this day and age.'

Actually AR:

The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In the Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria (κατηγορί&alpha, and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia meant making a formal speech or giving an explanation to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates' defense.

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that presents a rational basis for the Christian faith, to defend the faith against objections and misrepresentation, and to expose error within other religions and world views.

 

The defense rests.

__________________________________

 

LOL Really now.....My goodness all this time I thought that the word of God never changed I had no idea that it does or can as time goes on. Seeing as how there has been no sight of him for some time now, wonder how he got that new message to his believers. I seem to remember a passage in the NT where it said not to add or take away. I guess even that can be interpreted to mean what you want it to. How convenient.

 

How much you want to bet that in 50 years Christians will have decided that being homosexual is not only ok, but looked on as pleasing to the lord their god. LOL

The word of God has not changed. Mankind has changed.

 

Nothing is added or taken away, just clarified for a new culture that does not understand the old.

 

More like re-writing Shakespeare in new language instead of old English. Defining terms that are not used today, and giving what the original meanings were.

 

If the Bible is translated into German, it does not change it's meaning. If 'fowl with jointed legs for jumping" is changed into insects, the original intent is kept and confusion is alleviated.

 

I don't see anything that needs "interpretation or seeking any original intent". It's pretty clear what they wrote, meant, and what their intent was. What "study" do any of the things posted require? It states quite plainly what is meant. I think it's more of a matter of trying to change the meaning to make it more appealing.So we go once more to: "we know what it says and it means what it says but it doesn't mean what it says, you just don't have the insight to understand what it says".

 

 

Then you go with that fowl referred to birds and that birds have  4 jointed legs for hopping?

 

Or that the code of tending to travelers was held in higher regard than one's own family members?

 

Or a woman's hand was cut off for touching a man's privates?

From a Jewish site. Hillarious.


http://greenash.net.au/thought...and-the-word-of-g-d/



Ball-grabbing

Here's the situation. You're a married woman, and you and your husband are out with mates for the evening. Your husband gets into a heated debate with one of his male friends. The heated debate quickly escalates into a fistfight. You decide to resolve the conflict, quickly and simply. You grab your man by the nuts, and pull him away.

According to the torah, in this extremely specific situation, that's a crime that will cost you a hand (presumably, the hand responsible for said ball-grabbing). For, as it is written:

    [11] When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets; [12] then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity.

    Deuteronomy 25:11-12

As a man, I think this is a great rule. I am all for explicitly prohibiting my future wife from resorting to sack-wrenching, as a means of intervening in my secret mens' business.

However, as a rational human being, I am forced to conclude, beyond any doubt, that this verse of the Torah simply cannot be the Word of G-d. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense that G-d didn't have time to mention anything about chemical warfare, or about protection of the endangered Yellow-browed Toucanet in Peru; yet he found the time to jot down: "By the way, ladies, don't end a brawl by yanking your man's nads."

Our Sages™ explain to us that this verse shouldn't be taken literally, and that what it's actually referring to is a more general prohibition on causing public shame and humiliation to others. They argue that, thanks to this verse, the Torah is actually ahead of most modern legal systems, in that it explicitly enshrines dignity as a legal concept, and that it provides measures for the legal protection of one's dignity.

Sorry, dear Sages, but I don't buy that. You can generalise and not take literally all you want. But for me, there's no shying away from the fact that the Torah calls for cutting off a woman's hand if she goes in for the nut-grabber. That's an extreme punishment, and honestly, the whole verse is just plain silly. This was clearly written not by G-d, but by a middle-aged priest who'd been putting up with his wife's nad-yanking for 30-odd years, and who'd just decided that enough was enough.

Written by superstitious old men that treated women less than cattle. I doubt it was written by anyone who had been having his "nads" grabbed. No argument from me that no god wrote or inspired it to be written, that's kinda the whole point. Any god capable of creating the universe would most certainly have put more than two people on earth, and in flying cars to boot. He would  not have created man and left history in the hands of ancient superstitious people with only the "basic" so some say, ways of putting it down on record.

The religion forum is usually so full of judgment & so much anger, that I thought to ligthen things up a little. 








Can I get an amen?