What are the Degrees of Fundamentalism?

No, defiled does not mean pregnant. It never means pregnant. It means sullied by sin, and the test was supernaturally to determine her guilt or innocence. What you quoted is clear:"and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;" says she WAS defiled but NOT pregnant. "taken with the manner;" refers to pregnancy, saying clearly that she is NOT pregnant. {OK this is apparently wrong. Other versions just say it means not caught in the act. So there is no proof, and that is why the test is needed.}The test was considered necessary to protect her from her husband's continuing suspicions if she were innocent, and punish her if guilty. So there could be a clean slate. Closure. It isn't about pregnancy. It's about guilt for adultery. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, according to the talmud commentary, it is describing a miscarriage.I will trust those rabbi's living in the 2nd century and spoke hebrew much better than the evangalistic christians that were working off a translations of a translation any day.

More specifically, an intentional, drug induced miscarriage; an abortion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

so i guess it's okay to abort illegitimate children. to punish us for our sin by depriving us of our children. so unmarried women, have at!Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Well, no. That is not what Numbers 5 is talking about. Numbers 5 is a particular case involving a married woman who is accused by her husband of infidelity.I do agree that the basis of Number 5 is that if the woman is pregnant, she will have a drug induced miscarriage caused by the preparation made and administered by the priest, if not pregnant it's likely that the drug will have no effect (perhaps the origin of the "No harm No foul" rule). This was couched in terms of punishment from God, but the practical purpose was to get rid of an illegitimate potential heir.Let's not move this even further from the topic, but at least in the case of an unwanted pregnancy (in this case unwanted by the man), Numbers 5 certainly seems to say that abortion is not just an acceptable argument, it is the preferred recourse.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i'm quite aware. i was making a funny. especially since most single women would revel in being deprived of their blessed progeny.

Well, that is not what the interpretation of that is by the religious Jews. It is interpreted as there are reasons that we (as humans), can make life and death decisions. This is just a specific case that is discussed, and the concept of a husband subjecting a wife to the procedure is definately obsolete by modern standards.Now, if you noticed, the christian commentary for this passage is entirely different than the jewish one. It shows on how a passage can be interpreted with a preconceived bias. This bias changes the translation. As someone I know keeps stressing, translation is interpretation.One big difference between the 'Fundamentalist' mindset and the Jewish thought is that Fundamantlist christians seem to think there is only one correct interpretation of any specific passage (theirs of course), while one method of teaching Torah is to argue what the passage means, and to back up that viewpoint with various different commentaries by various rabbi's, who are often in disagreement about it. When the study method is arguing about what a specific passage means, it tends to reinforce the idea that there is just one viewpoint about any specific passage. The fundamentalists lack that flexibity.

Yeah I enjoy rabbinical commentaries occasionally and sometimes they do shed light on a passage, but other times they are out in LalaLand. How anyone can get abortion or miscarriage out of the picture of her belly "swelling up" is beyond me. But that is the result of the bitter potion, a swelling belly, not a shrinking belly, plus some sort of disease of the "thigh." Does NOT sound like a miscarriage.

Nonsense. It is quite common that a commentary or a preacher will review a number of different interpretations for a particular passage before giving the case for the one presently favored. The difference is that the rabbis are willing to entertain an amazing variety of sheer nonsense at times. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : grammarEdited by Faith, : changed offer to reviewEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The death penalty is obvious. "Whoever shall shed man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." This is a command, and the Law is full of commands to enact the death penalty besides that. Failure to enact it, at least in the case of murder, would certainly be to bring God's wrath on a nation. Even directly it punishes the nation, since it requires the nation to support people who shouldn't be allowed to live at all.

---

Do you support the stoning to death of disobedient children?What about aldulteresses?Witches?I also suppose that you reject that whole notion that Jesus, through his ultimate sacrifice, brought mercy and forgiveness of our sins to the whole world?I think you are actually a closet Jew, Faith. You seem to identify with the bloodthirsty, angry, jealous, vengeful God of the OT much more than the gentle, liberal, pacifist, "turn the other cheek" message of the Messiah in the NT.There's so little love in your posts on religion, and so much negativity and despair and bitterness.I thought that Christianity was supposed to be uplifiting and fulfilling?Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yeah I enjoy rabbinical commentaries occasionally and sometimes they do shed light on a passage, but other times they are out in LalaLand.

---

I'll bet the times they are out in LaLa land is where they disagree with your preferred interpretation of, isn't it?Amazing that you reject ancient rabbinical interpretation of an ancient text that was written by Jews, for Jews, in the Jewish scholarly tradition.

Don't fully grasp the theology involved in all this I must admit. It made sense in the theocracy of ancient Israel though, certainly not in a modern pluralistic society.Death penalty for murder, however, does make sense today.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Don't fully grasp the theology involved in all this I must admit. It made sense in the theocracy of ancient Israel though, certainly not in a modern pluralistic society.

​

Death penalty for murder, however, does make sense today.

---

Oh.So you do not actually take the Bible literally after all.Just as I've always said; everyone is a moral relativist, even you, Faith, a so-called Biblical literalist.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

I never claimed to take the Bible "literally" in the idiotic sense you appear to mean it.

quote:

---

I never claimed to take the Bible "literally" in the idiotic sense you appear to mean it.

---

I mean "literal" in the common sense way that most normal people mean it; that you do not interpret the words, and do not add or subtract anything from them, but read them as they were written in a straightforward, simple way. Nothing is to be taken as metaphor or symbol. You have stated that this is how you read the Bible, haven't you?Thus, when the Bible says that the Flood happened, you believe that a worldwide flood actually happened.Therefore, I am puzzled as to why, when we agree that the Bible quite clearly points out who should be killed, you suddenly depart from what the Bible so clearly directs if one is to read it in the same way that you read Genesis regarding the events of the Flood.According to the Bible, disobedient children, adulteresses, and witches should be stoned to death, just as it says that the Flood happened.If we are not to interpret the Bible in the light of modern knowledge regarding the Flood, why is it that we are permitted to do so regarding who is to be put to death?Edited by schrafinator, : to add a clarifying sentence.