If anyone has a question about what the Bible means when it says XYZ, please ask it here. I'm not really interested in debating anything here, just giving my explanation. If anybody does try to debate me, I will not likely respond. But, if anyone does have a genuine question, I would be happy to respond. So, ask away.
Blessings,
David
KJV BIBLE
| Quote: |
| Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; |
Where is this in Jeremiah? The only reference I find to thirty peices of anything is in Zechariah and is not contextually applicable.
Thanks Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Simple question. What the hell?
| BinahZ wrote: |
KJV BIBLE
| Quote: | | Mat 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; |
Where is this in Jeremiah? The only reference I find to thirty peices of anything is in Zechariah and is not contextually applicable.
Thanks |
Good question that shows careful reading of the Bible. I was going to try and boil down the reasoning in a few points, but I realized it would be more like ten. Instead, I am going to refer you to the book I was consulting, entitled Hard Sayings of the Bible (Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, Brauch).
Google appears to have the entire book available online. The explanation to your question is found on pp.399-400. If you have other questions, I would highly recommend this book. If you can't find it here, I will be happy to attempt an answer for you.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2eT5CbuJCWoC&pg=PA5&dq=hard+sayings+of+the+bible#v=onepage&q=&f=false
God bless,
David | liljp617 wrote: |
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Simple question. What the hell? |
@ farmerdave: I'm also interested in your explanation for this one.
I know it looks like a can of worms, but I am hoping you can shed some light on an otherwise bruised topic. | tingkagol wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Simple question. What the hell? |
@ farmerdave: I'm also interested in your explanation for this one.
I know it looks like a can of worms, but I am hoping you can shed some light on an otherwise bruised topic. |
Wow, sounds pretty horrible to me when I read the words. I can't imagine parents treating their children like that, sounds like real abuse to me bordering on public murder? And then to fear what and whom?The following, not to go over your head farmerdave is the Jewish commentary on the rebellious son verses. I agree that it is one that requires explanation. It is very harsh to think of such a thing with ones own child. I thought perhaps since it was a quote from Torah that the Jewish perspective might be helpful also.
http://www.uscj.org/Ki_Tetze_57646514.html the preceding is the link to the full article.
Parashat Ki Teitze:
| Quote: |
Derash: Study
Rashi: The stubborn and rebellious son is punished not for what he is, but for what he will eventually become.
The sages in the Talmud obviously had difficulty with this law. Their response was to legislate it out of existence: A minor cannot become a rebellious son… It must be a son and not one old enough to be a father… A son and not a daughter… He must be both a drunkard and a glutton... If one of his parents had a severed hand, he does not become a rebellious son… He is not liable unless he has a mother and a father… If one of his parents were lame he does not become a rebellious son… If one of them were mute he does not become a rebellious son… If one of them were blind, he does not become a rebellious son… If one of them were deaf he does not become a rebellious son… (Talmud Sanhedrin 68-71)
After limiting the case out of existence the Talmud then proclaims that such a case never occurred and never will occur. Why then was it mentioned in the Torah? So that one can study and receive reward for Torah study for its own sake.
Rabbi Salanter commented: This teaches us that the obligation to study the Torah is not only so as to know what to do and how to fulfill the commandments, but study for its own sake, even where one will never practice this or that particular law. (Torah Gems p 272)
The stubborn and rebellious son is one who rebels himself and who attempts to teach others (moreh) to follow his lead. That is the nature of the wicked who are not content with sinning themselves but wish to teach others to follow in their wicked path. (Gems p 273) |
[quote]
| Quote: |
For all those who have ever struggled with how to discipline children’s bad behavior, this week’s parashah, Ki-Teitze, offers an easy answer: stone them to death! (Deut. 21:18-21)
Thankfully, Jews have recognized for over a thousand years that this is an unacceptable solution to a common problem. In fact, we learn in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) that this apparent commandment of the Torah was never once carried out. Our Sages refused to interpret this verse literally, as it conflicted with their understanding of the holiness of each and every human life.
With this scenario in mind, let us look at another verse in our parashah: “A man’s clothes should not be on a woman, and a man should not wear the apparel of a woman; for anyone who does these things, it is an abomination before God.” (Deut. 22:5) Just as classical Jewish scholars reinterpreted the commandment that says rebellious children should be stoned to death, they also read this portion’s apparent ban on “cross-dressing” to yield a much narrower prohibition. |
Human life is greatly valued in Judaism and it is commonly accepted that preservation of life supercedes other obligations or commandments. | Indi wrote: |
For the record, most of the atheists are just as certain that what they say is true as the theists are. That's not the difference between them. The difference is how they expect to be responded to. Most of the atheists expect that when they say something is true, it will get challenged with rational points. Most of the theists expect that when they say something is true, that everyone will acknowledge the depth of their wisdom without question. This is a discussion forum. How much discussion happens in the first case? A lot. How much in the second? None, because they don't want discussion, they want confirmation. At the very most, they hope that people will bow before their guru like wisdom with questions for more and deeper explanation of their points... but not challenge them, oh no! Challenging their points by saying they might be wrong... oh goodness, we can't have that!
i don't really pity the second case for not getting what they want. What they want would make the forum dull and dead. |
PS. Not to be mean or anything but well I "HAD" to post this. | Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | For the record, most of the atheists are just as certain that what they say is true as the theists are. That's not the difference between them. The difference is how they expect to be responded to. Most of the atheists expect that when they say something is true, it will get challenged with rational points. Most of the theists expect that when they say something is true, that everyone will acknowledge the depth of their wisdom without question.This is a discussion forum. How much discussion happens in the first case? A lot. How much in the second? None, because they don't want discussion, they want confirmation. |
|
Atheists can only discuss that which is scientifically proven. Anything beyond that cannot be true for an atheist. So if you have a majority of atheists and a minority of theists, obviously there would not be much of a discussion other than nixing what the theists have to say. Theists do need confirmation of faith based subjects, and are willing to discuss that, but since atheists only want scientific evidence, that would not make it much of a discussion when theists are in the majority either. As theists do not have much to offer in terms of scientific evidence, other than to point fingers at what atheists can't prove with scientific evidence.deanhills said:
| Quote: |
| Atheists can only discuss that which is scientifically proven. Anything beyond that cannot be true for an atheist. So if you have a majority of atheists and a minority of theists, obviously there would not be much of a discussion other than nixing what the theists have to say. Theists do need confirmation of faith based subjects, and are willing to discuss that, but since atheists only want scientific evidence, that would not make it much of a discussion when theists are in the majority either. As theists do not have much to offer in terms of scientific evidence, other than to point fingers at what atheists can't prove with scientific evidence. |
It seems you see an insurmountable schism between science and being a theist, I personally disagree as do many notable men, the following is one prime example.
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., the director of the Human Genome Project. Said:
| Quote: |
I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.
As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan. |
The full article with Dr. Collins statments can be found at : http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html @above
I think it's fair to say that Collins is quite a minority in science across the board. There's clearly not an impenetrable schism between science and theism, but there is a pretty obvious barrier, for whatever reason.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Atheists can only discuss that which is scientifically proven. Anything beyond that cannot be true for an atheist. |
There are also philosophical arguments.
| Quote: |
| As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan. |
I wonder what God is trying to say through harlequin ichthyosis?
Oh well, guess I'll chime in with a legit question to David. This one isn't about any particular verse, but I'd be interested to know if there's a answer for it:
Why isn't God too keen on sacrifices anymore? | liljp617 wrote: |
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Simple question. What the hell? |
| tingkagol wrote: |
@ farmerdave: I'm also interested in your explanation for this one.
I know it looks like a can of worms, but I am hoping you can shed some light on an otherwise bruised topic. |
liljp617 and tingkagol,
I almost posted a response a few nights ago, but was so tired I couldn't think straight after having typed half of the response. I'm trying again. It's a lot earlier, so I think this will come out halfway understandable as opposed to halfway confusing. (dry sense of humor... if you didn't get it, just smile, pretend you did, and move on 
)
A few points off the bat. First, God is serious about the commandment: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you." (Exodus 20:12) This is the only one of the 10 commandments that has a promise accompanying it as reward for obedience. The reward is long life in the land flowing with milk and honey. The Deuteronomy 21:18-21 passage is something of a converse to Exodus 20:12. One promises blessing for honoring parents. The other promises a curse for dishonoring parents. So, the first main point is that God is serious about the commandment to honor our parents.
Secondly, God is serious about His people living holy lives. The second half of Deuteronomy 21:21 reads "So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear." He didn't rescue them from slavery in Egypt to bring them to a land of blessing so that they could live like the pagan peoples all around them. He said, " "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery..." [SO THAT] "you shall have no other gods before me... [AND SO] you shall not make for yourself a carved image... [AND] bow down and serve them... [AND SO] you shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain..." [BUT SHALL] "honor the Sabbath day and keep it holy... [AND] honor your father and mother [AND SO] you shall not murder [NOR] commit adultery [NOR] steal [NOR] bear false witness against your neighbor [NOR] covet [ANYTHING THAT IS] your neighbor's." (Condensed version of 10 commandments). The Lord stated in Leviticus 19:2 that "You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy." The most important point that can be gotten from the passage on stoning the rebellious child is simple: Holiness is a big deal to God, as is rebelliousness. Children, be warned.
Next, parents have a weighty responsibility to raise their children well. Like guardians preventing their children from going down the rebellious path, a loving parent will do all he can to prevent his child from casting off all restraint and running all out into sin. Parents should be warned from the passage that the cost for not raising their child according to God's standards is great, and that failure means destruction in the child's future. In this passage the destruction is physical. In others it is spiritual. Ezekiel 18:20-23 reads:
"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?"
Note it is the "soul" who sins that shall die. This text may have a double meaning. The wicked person may face divine retribution in this life, but, if not, he will surely face divine retribution when he dies. All of this is to say that parenting is not a task to be taken lightly and that parents are under the charge to raise their children to obey God's commandments. The New Testament states it this way "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."
As for the real question you are asking - is the Bible really endorsing stoning bad children??? I would say "yes" and "no". [Note: parents are not the ones in the passage doing the stoning, but the men of the city are.] So severe is the crime of repeated, callous rebellion to one's parents that the punishment is death. So, yes the Bible is endorsing this. However, as with many such sins requiring capital punishment, a ransom could be offered and likely was (see Numbers 35:31 giving a limitation on offering ransom). BinahZ confirmed what I believed to be true (I think I had read it somewhere once upon a time). That is, there is no such record that this ever actually happened, either in the Old Testament or in rabbinical sources from the period. Of course, to "legislate [God's Law] out of existence", as his source states, was and is unacceptable practice. No, the better thing to do was to offer the sacrifice or pay the ransom so that the son or daughter could be pardoned. Of course, all of this pointed to Christ who would one day become Himself the sacrifice to do away with the penalty of sins once and for all.
I apologize for the length, but the nature of the discussion may lend itself to long explanations from time to time.
God bless,
DavidMaybe I should have been a little more clear in my final analysis of Deuteronomy 21. I don't believe that God intended for parents to follow through with this as instructed here, but to apply the ransom principle instead. What Israelites were to pick up from this portion of commandments was the extreme importance of honoring and obeying parents, the extreme weightiness of parenting, and the extreme vileness and evil of sin, and, as a result, to live holy lives before the LORD.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Atheists can only discuss that which is scientifically proven. Anything beyond that cannot be true for an atheist. |
I don't know where you get this rather mixed-up picture from.
a) Atheists don't believe in God(s). That's it. They might believe in all sorts of 'non proven' things like pixies.
b) You are certainly confusing atheism with something - I suspect you are referring to logical positivism (at least, that fits your description above*). You should note that not all logical positivists are atheists and that not all atheists are logical positivists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
On the general point - if you are religious but don't believe that God intervenes in the material universe (in other words you are a Deist) then there is little to discuss, since the scientist and the Deist agree on everything up to the point of the BB, at which point the Deist takes the position that God kicked it off - something which science cannot currently disprove.
If, on the other hand, you are religious but NOT a Deist then of course the scientist can discuss this meaningfully. Any Deity that interferes in causality, or mucks around with physical laws, is doing something which can be observed and tested. Most scriptural sources refer to miracles, and most of them make historic claims (person X did action Y at time T). These can be tested. If you wish to assert that scriptures DON'T make testable claims, you are therefore saying that scripture is entirely metaphorical or 'parablic' (is that a real word, I wonder?).
* A logical positivist would say that there is no meaning in metaphysical terms and therefore would not use them. | farmerdave wrote: |
| Maybe I should have been a little more clear in my final analysis of Deuteronomy 21. I don't believe that God intended for parents to follow through with this as instructed here, but to apply the ransom principle instead. What Israelites were to pick up from this portion of commandments was the extreme importance of honoring and obeying parents, the extreme weightiness of parenting, and the extreme vileness and evil of sin, and, as a result, to live holy lives before the LORD. |
Err...this makes no sense. How can a child pay ransom? The parents would have to pay the ransom. So what you are saying is that we should completely re-interpret the passage - which otherwise appears to be quite clearly written and unambiguous - to read that a parent of a rebellious son should present him to the elders, who will then 'ransom' the child (which ransom would then inevitably fall on the parents)? Otherwise the child must be stoned? And we are supposed to get this interpretation from reading Numbers 35? | Numbers 35:31-32 wrote: |
31 Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.
32 Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a city of refuge and so allow him to go back and live on his own land before the death of the high priest. |
I think that is tenuous to the point of ridiculous...
The fact is that Deuteronomy sets out (in part) a legal code for the Hebrews. Some of it was rational at the time (advice on food, ploughing & planting for example) but much of it is now completely outdated, and some of it is bizarre, offensive, or both.
Look at Deut 22:5 for example: | Quote: |
| A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. |
or read the deeply sexist marriage rules in Deut 22;13 onwards.
Or read Deut23:19 which forbids Jews to charge interest to other Jews (but does not forbid Jews charging non-jews*).
The simple fact is that there was a reason for Deuteronomy as part of the OT - which is essentially a manual on Jewishness - it contains the creation myth, the folk history of the 'chosen people', the beliefs, laws and practices of Judaism...etc. To insist, however, as literalists do, that we should still adhere to the injunctions in Deuteronomy (and other OT books) is quite barmy.
* Ironically this was in large part responsible for the growth of the anti-Semitic view of Jews as 'despicable money-lenders'. | Quote: |
| 29But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. -Exodus 21:29-31 |
Bikerman,
The point I was trying to make is better illustrated by this verse. That is, the ransom principle was in the Old Testament and in place in ancient Israel in the event that a crime (other than murder) called for the death of the guilty party. Whether or not this principle was applied to the hardened, rebellious child is another story. Whether or not it is good exegesis to have applied capital punishment to the rebellious son is up for debate. All I have set out to do is to provide a reasonable answer to explain what the passage is saying. The passage deals with punishing an excessively rebellious child. Two major options are out there: either God has said to punish the son with death and there is no way out OR God has said to punish the son with death and there is a way out. The ransom would not have to be paid by the parents. It could be "whatever is imposed on him" (in this case, according to the elders), which would cover a lot more than money, and, perhaps, not immediate payment (but over the course of time). Also, I don't see any reason to believe the offender has to be of the age of a child. After all, he is a drunkard and a glutton. Typically, there aren't child drunkards in any culture. I would think this refers to a son that is, at the least, a little more advanced into the teenage years.
Whether this is acceptable to you or not, I can't control. But, I have offered a reasonable explanation of the passage as well as historical information that shows we have no reason to believe this was applied at simple, face value. Whether the Israelites correctly understood the passage or not, I can't say. The punishment for sin by God is always death (followed by eternal death, hell). That principle remains the same. There are times when the individual's sins are such that immediate death is the governmental penalty which must be meted out (murder being the most obvious example). In the event of murder, a ransom could not be offered. In the event of the hardened, disobedient child there may be room for debate.
Respectfully,
David | miacps wrote: |
| Why isn't God too keen on sacrifices anymore? |
Two thoughts: the sacrificial system was tied directly to the temple. The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Therefore, there wasn't a place to make the sacrifices any more. It was very important for sacrifices to be done according to how they were prescribed. Read Leviticus if you don't believe me. Therefore, destruction of the temple meant an end to sacrifices.
However, the sacrificial system was merely a foreshadow of the ultimate sacrifice to do away with the punishment for sin. See Isaiah 53 below:
Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Jesus came in fulfillment of this prophecy, as the one to whom the sacrificial system foreshadowed. After His sacrifice there was no need for further sacrifice. It is not simply coincidence that the destruction of the temple and the sacrifice of Christ were so close together in time. Sacrifices halted after the Sacrifice was given.
God bless,
David
