EvC Forum: Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 14 of 82 (321672)
06-15-2006 12:26 AM

Reply to: Message 13 by mjfloresta
06-14-2006 11:41 PM

Re: Why Dredge Them Up?

mjfloresta writes:

and they shall be one flesh...the same terminology used today at marriage ceremonies...

Umm... the terminology is used today because it's in the Bible. You can't project today's marriage concepts all the way back to the garden.

And "they shall be one flesh" is a rather obvious reference to their offspring, is it not?

...for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his WIFE!! his what?

Would "his woman" have the same connotations for you? Would it remove some of the white-dress/maid-of-honour/best-man/wedding-cake/honeymoon confusion?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 13 by mjfloresta, posted 06-14-2006 11:41 PM		mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 15 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 12:46 AM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 16 of 82 (321687)
06-15-2006 1:12 AM

Reply to: Message 15 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 12:46 AM

Re: Why Dredge Them Up?

mjfloresta writes:

you tell me that today's marriage concepts can't be projected back to the garden but you also tell me that today's marriage terminology comes from the Bible (Aka Adam and Eve)...which is it?

We can look back at the stories in the Bible and borrow concepts from them. For example, we can use the term "and they shall be one flesh" in our wedding ceremonies because it was used in the Bible.

But we can not assume that all of our marriage concepts came from that source. For example, the white dress, maid of honour, best man, wedding cake and honeymoon do not come from the Adam and Eve story.

You are projecting your ideas of "marriage" back to Adam and Eve, when the text doesn't support that view.

How do you get that it refers to their offspring?

Well, let's see... What happens when males and females come together? They produce babies, don't they? Their genes are mingled in one new person.

I know you can put a woo-woo mystical interpretation on "one flesh", but that too is a projection of your ideas onto the text.

I'll use Scripture to provide the answer: Paul in Ephesians 5:28-31

Sure, Paul drew a symbolic meaning from the text, just like our modern wedding ceremony draws a symbolic meaning from the text. That doesn't indicate that the symbolism is the meaning.

For example, a rainbow is symbolic of God's promise to never destroy the earth again with a flood. But in reality, a rainbow is a natural phenomenon, a natural consequence of water droplets in the air.

Similarly, it is possible to use Adam and Eve's relationship as a symbol of our concept of marriage, but the reality is that they had a procreative relationship, not a modern marriage.

Your projection of modern marriage concepts onto Adam and Eve is invalid. Therefore, your objection to homosexuality on those grounds is unfounded.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 15 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 12:46 AM		mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 17 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 1:36 AM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 20 of 82 (321711)
06-15-2006 1:57 AM

Reply to: Message 17 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 1:36 AM

Re: Why Dredge Them Up?

mjfloresta writes:

...when Scripture spells something out for you in more than one place, your conjecture doesn't have much of a leg left to stand on....

You're going to find out around here that you can't just use Paul to change every other text in the Bible.

First and foremost, Genesis says what Genesis says.

Now, if we can inch-worm back toward the topic:

mjfloresta writes:

(Message 8) All of the Levitical laws pertaining to sexual relations fall under the umbrella of this "creation ordinance of marriage", including the prohibition of homosexuality...

You have not shown that Adam and Eve's relationship was intended as the be-all and end-all example of every relationship between two people (and that is quite possibly beyond the scope of this thread).

But the point of the thread is more like: why this law and why not that one? Let's agree for the moment that homosexuality is naughty-naughty. What about eating shrimp? Can you explain to us, using the same line of reasoning, why eating shrimp is "okay" today but homosexuality is not?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 17 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 1:36 AM		mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 21 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 2:15 AM		ringo has replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 23 of 82 (321720)
06-15-2006 2:38 AM

Reply to: Message 21 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 2:15 AM

mjfloresta writes:

There are clear scriptures which talk about all foods being made clean by God and therefore acceptable

Okay. So, in Leviticus, certain foods were "unclean" but by Acts, some or all of them had been "cleansed" - I'm guessing that you're going to say they were cleansed by Jesus' death and resurrection....

Then the obvious question is: why were they "unclean" in the first place? In the context of the OP, why was something "wrong" at one time, and then Jesus made it "right"? And why is it that only some of the things that used to be "wrong" are now okay?

Can you give us a formula which we can use to take an Old Testament law and calculate whether or not it is still in effect?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 21 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 2:15 AM		mjfloresta has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 06-15-2006 2:49 AM	ringo has replied
	Message 29 by ramoss, posted 06-15-2006 9:15 AM	ringo has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 26 of 82 (321725)
06-15-2006 2:53 AM

Reply to: Message 25 by arachnophilia
06-15-2006 2:49 AM

arachnophilia writes:

" Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him"

sounds like a double-entendre to me.

Would it make a difference which end of the digestive tract it entereth?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 06-15-2006 2:49 AM		arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 06-15-2006 3:19 AM		ringo has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 39 of 82 (322213)
06-16-2006 11:06 AM

Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
06-16-2006 5:26 AM

Re: One Flesh

purpledawn writes:

I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be.... There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say, too.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 06-16-2006 5:26 AM		purpledawn has not replied

ringo

Member (Idle past 441 days)

Posts: 20940

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 58 of 82 (326782)
06-27-2006 10:34 AM

Reply to: Message 55 by purpledawn
06-27-2006 8:18 AM

Re: Purpose is Over, But Still Holds

purpledawn writes:

... I do feel they may have been more matriarchal in the ancient tribal times.

I have often wondered about some of those stories about the "patriarchs".

Isaac was Abraham's heir, but he was Sarah's firstborn, not Abraham's.

And it was Rebekah who chose which of her twins would have the birthright. It's true that she had to resort to a ruse to get the decision past the patriarch - but what I find interesting is that God approved the decision. Jacob became the father of God's chosen people, so Rebekah's choice must have been the right one.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
	Message 55 by purpledawn, posted 06-27-2006 8:18 AM		purpledawn has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

5 online now:	CosmicChimp, DrJones*, nwr, PaulK, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2