The Bible does not condemn self defense

[Xue Sheng]

elder999 do you even have much knowledge of the Bible? What is your background on that?

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here....ok....it really not much of a limb......he knows considerably more that you and it is with much less bias too

 

[Tez3]

elder999 do you even have much knowledge of the Bible? What is your background on that?

Have you read any of the posts on here? I mean c'mon, you should read the posts before commenting.

 

[elder999]

Have you read any of the posts on here? I mean c'mon, you should read the posts before commenting.

Seriously, from page 2:

Oooh, boy.

Here's the scripture:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:38-42,KJV

Where it's part of the Sermon on the Mount-in Luke, it's part of the injunction to "love your enemies." This is important: at that time, "your enemies," for Jesus's principally Hebrew audience, were the Romans.
It's said by some that at that time, striking those perceived to be of a lower class was done with the back of the hand to assert authority-thus, the Romans would strike Hebrews with the back of the hand- and used their left hand for "unclean purposes," that is to say, to wipe their asses....if they were confronted by a Hebrew who turned their cheek, they were confounded: presented with a dilemma whereby they could strike with their open hand or fist:treating the Hebrew as an equal-in fact, the entire Sermon on the Mount is somewhat politically subversive in nature.


It also-since it's coupled with the verse from Deuteronomy about "an eye for an eye"-could be an injunction against vengeance, rather than self-defense. People used the verse from Deuteronomy to justify vengeance-thus the "you have heard it said, rather than the more conventional, "it is written" when referencing scripture.

It's also worth noting (for those who seem to think it's some sort of pacifist statement) that Jesus doesn't say to stand there and keep turning your cheek-he's pretty specific about the act.

Lastly, we have to note that Jesus told his followers this:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”Luke 22:36

Amazing to me how some people "read" the Bible, without actually READING the Bible.

Note the last sentence in that one, in re: "reading comprhension."

From page 3:

If My people who are called by My name humble themselves, pray, seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.—II Chronicles 7:14

From page 7:

Two things, really-alma means "young woman," or "maid," not "Virgin. "Nubile", pubescent or "of marriageable age."

The Hebrew word for "virgin" is betulah

.We've had the whole KJV discussion before-it's not at all a good translation-its developers didn't even follow any sort of proper translation protocol.....they did the best they could, though, and came up with some damn fine prose in the idiom of the time-they just got a few key things wrong, though-admittedly, things that Christianity had gotten wrong since its inception: almah to "virgin" is a mistranslation that dates back to third century translations of Hebrew to Greek.

Of course, you are entirely free to believe whatever you like, @oftheherd1 , but these are the facts.

"Virgin birth" is called parthenogenesis-it occurs frequently with reptiles and amphibians-there's an entire species of lizard in New Mexico that reproduces this way. It occurs in turkeys and chickens. It occurs with fish. It occurs under the right circumstances in most vertebrates, though, until recently, wasn't known to occur in mammals at all.

It's an extreme rarity, but it apparently does occur in mammals-at least, it's been induced in mammals, which implies that it could occur naturally.

The only thing miraculous about Jesus's "virgin birth" was that he was male-across nature,given that their genetic makeup comes from an entirely female source, the offspring of parthenogenesis are always female.

I dunno, from like the day before yesterday?

I was raised a Christian. My dad was an Episcopal priest. His dad was an Episcopal priest. Ialmost went to seminary. I've nothing but love and respect for teachings of the rabbi Yeshua. I have no "dislike" towards any faith: they are all full of beauty and truth, as is the King James Bible-no where have I ever said or implied otherwise.

It is, however, a poor translation, and some of the stuff in it is pure b.s. This is, of course my opinion, no "great dislike of 'Christianity'" involved-as I've said (repeatedly) you can believe what you want. I simply cannot believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God: I'm the victim of a classical education- I studied Latin, Greek and Hebrew in high school......I studied Koine Greek and Aramaic in college-I have, as I've said (repeatedly) a degree in religious studies, and I can see the hand of man writ large throughout the KJV in its various mistakes. Sorry.

And this post from ten years ago:

Early on I earned a degree in religious studies; my father, grand father and great-grand father were all ministers, though they also practiced other trades. I managed to dodge that bullet, and wound up working in commercial nuclear power, earning degrees in mechanical and nuclear engineering, and advanced degrees in nuclear engineering and, more recently, my doctorate in applied physics.

By "early on," btw, I mean at age 16. You know-about your age.....

 

[PhotonGuy]

So you don't agree with the King James Bible. That's your choice. And no the KJB is not the inspired Word of God. The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter and all the different men that God used as scribes. I simply like to use the KJB as the best English translation. You have a right to disagree and use whatever Bible you want but there is no point in us trying to change each other's minds on this.

 

[elder999]

The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter and all the different me that God used as scribes.

In that respect, all translations are pretty much terrible.

I simply like to use the KJB as the best English translation. .

Actually, it's one of the worst of a bad lot, but it sure sounds pretty.......

 

[Tez3]

So you don't agree with the King James Bible. That's your choice. And no the KJB is not the inspired Word of God. The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter and all the different men that God used as scribes. I simply like to use the KJB as the best English translation. You have a right to disagree and use whatever Bible you want but there is no point in us trying to change each other's minds on this.

So Peter and Paul wrote ALL the Bible, gosh and we thought Methuselah was old...

Do you actually know what the 'original Bible' is?

No one is trying to persuade anyone of anything actually, we are each putting our opinions and points of view ( with citations) of what we study, what we think and in some cases what we believe. You are the one making statements which I have to say are coming across as arrogant.

 

[Tez3]

In that respect, all translations are pretty much terrible.



Actually, it's one of the worst of a bad lot, but it sure sounds pretty.......

It has given the English language some very good phrases. It's a notable milestone in the language along with Chaucer, Shakespeare et al. The story of previous English translations is also interesting from an historical point of view as well as (or rather than) a theological one.

 

[Xue Sheng]

So you don't agree with the King James Bible. That's your choice. And no the KJB is not the inspired Word of God. The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter and all the different men that God used as scribes. I simply like to use the KJB as the best English translation. You have a right to disagree and use whatever Bible you want but there is no point in us trying to change each other's minds on this.

Define best? If by best you mean most correct then well...no. But, if by best you mean following the guidelines set by King James to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy....then sure...whatever....

But you are not talking the inspired word of God in your reference to it or the best translation of the "inspired word of God". You are talking history and using it as your proof of Roman authority in the time of Jesus... and it is not. Now there is a rather fascinating field of study that compares the bible to history but this is not what you are doing either.... you are using it to back up your statements

 

[elder999]

Define best? If by best you mean most correct then well...no. But, if by best you mean following the guidelines set by King James to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy....then sure...whatever....
ts

QFT

 

[Xue Sheng]

Do you actually know what the 'original Bible' is?.

Well it could be....if it were not for..... Emperor Constantine, the Council of Nicaea, Martin Luther, and King James to name a few

 

[PhotonGuy]

So Peter and Paul wrote ALL the Bible, gosh and we thought Methuselah was old...

Do you actually know what the 'original Bible' is?

No one is trying to persuade anyone of anything actually, we are each putting our opinions and points of view ( with citations) of what we study, what we think and in some cases what we believe. You are the one making statements which I have to say are coming across as arrogant.

Apparently you didn't read the second part of my sentence. As I stated, "The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter AND ALL THE DIFFERENT MEN THAT GOD USED AS SCRIBES." Now whose got bad reading comprehension? Paul and Peter were just two of the scribes that God used. I would have to check up on this but I believe God used 40 different men to write the Bible including Paul and Peter.

Now with these statements Im making, Im just stating my beliefs. I never said you have to believe them too. You take what I say the wrong way.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Define best? If by best you mean most correct then well...no. But, if by best you mean following the guidelines set by King James to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy....then sure...whatever....

Well I just like to use the King James Bible, but that's just me. When I say its the best English translation that is only my opinion. You don't have to take what I say as if its scribed in stone.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Apparently you didn't read the second part of my sentence. As I stated, "The inspired Word of God is the original Bible as it was written by God through Paul and Peter AND ALL THE DIFFERENT MEN THAT GOD USED AS SCRIBES." Now whose got bad reading comprehension? Paul and Peter were just two of the scribes that God used. I would have to check up on this but I believe God used 40 different men to write the Bible including Paul and Peter.

Now with these statements Im making, Im just stating my beliefs. I never said you have to believe them too. You take what I say the wrong way.

So...where in this 40 different "men" do Emperor Constantine, Martin Luther, King James and the Council of Nicaea fit in?

 

[Tez3]

Are you making bits up as you go along? There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension by the way but an awful lot wrong with your written English.
You are indeed making statements. Still waiting for you to tell us what the 'original Bible' is...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well I just like to use the King James Bible, but that's just me. When I say its the best English translation that is only my opinion. You don't have to take what I say as if its scribed in stone.

What is interesting here is I really don't care what bible you use. You made this statement

My credible source is the King James Bible and that's what I use for researching history of the area and the discussion about the apostles carrying swords.

Fact is, as a solid historical source...it ain't one since King James pretty much set down the guidelines in stone as to what it was suppose to be about. So your statements on Judea in the time of Jesus and the Romans has no real historical backing

 

[Tez3]

I'm sure someone will correct me ( by that I mean someone who knows) but my understanding of the New Testament is that it's about a specific person, their teachings and their lives so the writers even divinely inspired ones wouldn't have been interested in detailing the minutiae of life under Roman occupancy. I think I'm right to in thinking the New Testament isn't a book for people to study history with rather one for people to use in their faith.
If King James translated had it translated exactly word for word, ( which contemporary records say he didn't, he had a purpose in mind) it still wouldn't be an account of Roman life, practices and customs. Xtian scholars looking for background use contemporary historians writings and academic writings. A great deal of archaeology goes on in Israel leading to a wealth of knowledge of life under the Romans as well as earlier and later times.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Are you making bits up as you go along? There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension by the way but an awful lot wrong with your written English.
You are indeed making statements. Still waiting for you to tell us what the 'original Bible' is...

What part of "And all the different men that God used as scribes," don't you understand? That's what I said back in post 184 so I am not making things up as I go along.
As for what I consider the original Bible, I said that before as well. I consider the Bible as it was written by all those different men piece by piece in Greek and Hebrew including Paul and Peter but not limited to just them.

 

[Tez3]

Good sense is both the first principal and the parent source of good writing. Horace.

 

[Tez3]

What part of "And all the different men that God used as scribes," don't you understand? That's what I said back in post 184 so I am not making things up as I go along.
As for what I consider the original Bible, I said that before as well. I consider the Bible as it was written by all those different men piece by piece in Greek and Hebrew including Paul and Peter but not limited to just them.

Ok, did you miss Aramaic out on purpose then? And only written by men eh, no wise women around?

 

[Tez3]

Different Perspectives on the Authorship of the Torah - My Jewish Learning