Bible Questions?

Did Noah's children and grandchildren practice incest?

 

Oh, man. Get serious. You'll never catch him with questions like that. Even if you come up with what appears to be a clear contradiction in the Bible, he'll just say it looks like one to you, but it really isn't, and you're just to dumb to understand, and its just your opinion. If you just read Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic and understood the true meaning, it all would be clear. Actually, the whole thread is a ploy to trap unwary atheists and progressive Christians into investing their time in endless pointless discussions while their lives slowly drain away into nothingness. Try taliking to the wall. You'll get farther.

 

Perhaps this can help put everything into perspective, then again perhaps not...

iggy:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEcEwPszfrE&feature=related:piggy:

 

rofl

Dancing it up over hurr

 

Yes, Noah's children and grandchildren did practice what we today would call incest.

 

I think you may be in the wrong thread. This thread is for questions about the Bible that you may have wondered about. There is a thread for contradictions but this isn't it.

 

The Book of Leviticus lists prohibitions against sexual relations between various pairs of family members. Men are prohibited, on pain of death, from having sexual relations with their daughters, sisters, mothers, aunts, and various other relations. (Father–daughter incest is covered by a prohibition on sexual relationships between a man and any daughter born to any woman he has had sexual relationships with, thereby prohibiting his incest not only with his own daughters but also with women who could be his stepdaughters by marriage.)(Lev 18:6–18)

 

Yeah, but that was post-Moses. It doesn't apply retroactively!

 

Was Jesus without sin?

 

Yes.

 

Why was he baptized then?

 

Just like how we empty ourselves (Kenosis) for God, Jesus empties himself for us.

 

This is the explanation I found:
Jesus is no stranger to John. And John knows that his baptism is not for Jesus. It is for those repenting of their sins, but Jesus is without sin. Yet, despite John’s objection: “I am the one needing to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?”, Jesus insists: “Let it be, this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.”

Why is it right for Jesus to be baptized? Because Jesus’ baptism is a symbol, not of repentance for sins, but of his presenting himself to do the will of his Father. Jesus has been a carpenter, but now the time has come for him to begin the ministry that God sent him to earth to perform.

 

John 1:36
36 And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, “Behold the Lamb of God!”

John 1:29
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

But after John's imprisonment he doesn't seem as sure that Jesus was a savior...

Luke 7:18-23 (New King James Version)
Then the disciples of John reported to him concerning all these things. 19 And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus,[a] saying, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?”
20 When the men had come to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, ‘Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?’”

If he supposedly knew that Jesus was a son of a god and without sin(using his spider sense?) upon baptizing him why the doubt later?

 

So here are the questions OWB says belong here. Maybe now he'll explain to us how the context of the Bible makes them any better than they appear to be? If you've already done that somewhere else, tell us where.

"Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don't work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord." (Colassians 3:22)

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)

While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)

 

First I just wanted to explain why it seems that I’ve been neglecting this thread, it’s because I have been. My desktop computer died and most of my research materials were on that and so I’ve been using my laptop and have been just posting to threads that I can post to without having to do a lot of research but I was challenged to answer these, so here goes.

I’m assuming that the term “Slave” and the expression “obey your human masters” is the problem here, seeing as no expression of why this is offensive is stated.

Seeing as Christians are to be slaves of God and Christ the term “Slave” itself should not be necessarily be offensive to Christians.

But usually these days when the word “slave” is used, one thinks of the slavery typified by the harsh slavery that took in the southern United States but is that true of the slavery spoken of in the Bible?

So let’s take a look at the words used in the Bible that are associated with the word “Slave”.

The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ‛e′vedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (‛e′vedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ‛E′vedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God’s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar.—Jer 27:6.

The Greek term dou′los corresponds to the Hebrew word ‛e′vedh. It is used with reference to persons owned by fellowmen (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word syn′dou·los [fellow slave] appears); and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or corruption (2Pe 2:19).

The Hebrew word na′‛ar, like the Greek term pais, basically means a boy or a youth and can also designate a servant or an attendant. (1Sa 1:24; 4:21; 30:17; 2Ki 5:20; Mt 2:16; 8:6; 17:18; 21:15; Ac 20:12) The Greek term oi·ke′tes denotes a house servant or slave (Lu 16:13), and a female slave or servant is designated by the Greek word pai·di′ske. (Lu 12:45) The participial form of the Hebrew root sha·rath′ may be rendered by such terms as “minister” (Ex 33:11) or “waiter.” (2Sa 13:18) The Greek word hy·pe·re′tes may be translated “attendant,” “court attendant,” or “house attendant.” (Mt 26:58; Mr 14:54, 65; Joh 18:36) The Greek term the·ra′pon occurs solely at Hebrews 3:5 and means subordinate or attendant.

So we see that in the Bible the term slave has a much wider meaning.

So now let’s take a look at some of the things the Bible says about 1st century slavery.

(1 Corinthians 7:20-24) 20 In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21 Were you called when a slave? Do not let it worry you; but if you can also become free, rather seize the opportunity. 22 For anyone in [the] Lord that was called when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he that was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23 YOU were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24 In whatever condition each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it associated with God.

(Ephesians 6:5-9) 5 YOU slaves, be obedient to those who are [YOUR] masters in a fleshly sense, with fear and trembling in the sincerity of YOUR hearts, as to the Christ, 6 not by way of eye-service as men pleasers, but as Christ’s slaves, doing the will of God whole-souled. 7 Be slaves with good inclinations, as to Jehovah, and not to men, 8 for YOU know that each one, whatever good he may do, will receive this back from Jehovah, whether he be slave or freeman. 9 Also, YOU masters, keep doing the same things to them, letting up on the threatening, for YOU know that the Master of both them and YOU is in the heavens, and there is no partiality with him.

(Colossians 3:22-4:1) 22 YOU slaves, be obedient in everything to those who are [your] masters in a fleshly sense, not with acts of eye-service, as men pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, with fear of Jehovah. 23 Whatever YOU are doing, work at it whole-souled as to Jehovah, and not to men, 24 for YOU know that it is from Jehovah YOU will receive the due reward of the inheritance. SLAVE for the Master, Christ. 25 Certainly the one that is doing wrong will receive back what he wrongly did, and there is no partiality. 4 YOU masters, keep dealing out what is righteous and what is fair to [your] slaves, knowing that YOU also have a Master in heaven.

(1 Timothy 6:1-2) 6 Let as many as are slaves under a yoke keep on considering their owners worthy of full honor, that the name of God and the teaching may never be spoken of injuriously. 2 Moreover, let those having believing owners not look down on them, because they are brothers. On the contrary, let them the more readily be slaves, because those receiving the benefit of their good service are believers and beloved.. . .

(Titus 2:6-10) 6 Likewise keep on exhorting the younger men to be sound in mind, 7 in all things showing yourself an example of fine works; showing uncorruptness in your teaching, seriousness, 8 wholesome speech which cannot be condemned; so that the man on the opposing side may get ashamed, having nothing vile to say about us. 9 Let slaves be in subjection to their owners in all things, and please them well, not talking back, 10 not committing theft, but exhibiting good fidelity to the full, so that they may adorn the teaching of our Savior, God, in all things.

A number of things seem to come to the fore.
The Bible seems to acknowledge the fact that slavery was legal at that time and thus a fact of life.
That if the opportunity availed itself to become freemen, then they should and not by running away but by legal means.
That all people are equal in the Christian congregation, whether free or slave, rich or poor.
That a person, under slavery, had the opportunity to adorn Christ’s teaching by being obedient to their master.
It’s pointed out that the important thing was to do as much as possible to do God’s will in what ever circumstance they found themselves and not to be overly worried about what those circumstances were.
Christian slave masters were to treat their slaves decently. One might ask why not just release the slaves but that would be ignoring the fact that that might be more of a hardship on those slaves, who would have no other home or job, than continuing to provide food and shelter in a loving manner until such time as they would want to leave on their own.

 

Again no comment on why this is offensive, so :

Paul wrote to the Christian congregation in Corinth: “As in all the congregations of the holy ones, let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak.” (1 Corinthians 14:33, 34) In order for us to understand this correctly, it is helpful to consider the context of Paul’s counsel.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 14, Paul discussed matters relating to meetings of the Christian congregation. He described what should be discussed at such meetings and recommended how they should be conducted. (1 Corinthians 14:1-6, 26-34) Further, he stressed the objective of Christian meetings—“that the congregation may receive upbuilding.”—1 Corinthians 14:4, 5, 12, 26.

Paul’s instruction to “keep silent” appears three times in 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Each time, it is addressed to a different group in the congregation, but in all instances, it is given for the same reason—that “all things take place decently and by arrangement.”—1 Corinthians 14:40.

First, Paul said: “If someone speaks in a tongue, let it be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns; and let someone translate. But if there be no translator, let him keep silent in the congregation and speak to himself and to God.” (1 Corinthians 14:27, 28) That did not mean that such a person was never to speak at meetings but that there were times when he should be silent. After all, the objective of the meetings—to upbuild one another—would not be attained if he spoke in a language no one understood.

Second, Paul stated: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern the meaning. But if there is a revelation to another one while sitting there, let the first one keep silent.” This meant, not that the first prophet was to refrain from speaking at meetings, but that he had to be silent at times. Then the one having the miraculous revelation could address the congregation, and the objective of the meeting—that “all be encouraged”—would be achieved.—1 Corinthians 14:26, 29-31.

Third, Paul addressed Christian women only, stating: “Let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection.” (1 Corinthians 14:34) Why did Paul give this command to sisters? To preserve order in the congregation. He says: “If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation.”—1 Corinthians 14:35.

Perhaps some sisters were challenging what was said in the congregation. Paul’s counsel helped sisters to shun such a disorderly spirit and humbly accept their position within Jehovah’s headship arrangement, particularly with regard to their husbands. (1 Corinthians 11:3) In addition, by keeping silent, sisters would show that they did not aspire to be teachers in the congregation. When he wrote to Timothy, Paul showed that it would be improper for a woman to assume the role of teacher: “I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.”—1 Timothy 2:12.

Does that mean that a Christian woman must never speak during a congregation meeting? No. In Paul’s day, there were occasions when Christian women, perhaps impelled by holy spirit, prayed or prophesied in the congregation. On such occasions, they acknowledged their position by wearing a head covering. (1 Corinthians 11:5) Further, in Paul’s day and today, sisters along with brothers are urged to make a public declaration of their hope. (Hebrews 10:23-25) Besides doing this in the field ministry, sisters declare their hope and encourage others during congregation meetings by giving well-thought-out comments when invited to do so and by accepting assignments to share in demonstrations or student talks.

Hence, Christian women “keep silent” by refraining from trying to assume the role of a male and instruct the congregation. They do not raise argumentative questions that could challenge the authority of those who teach. By fulfilling their proper role in the congregation, Christian sisters greatly contribute toward an atmosphere of peace in which “all things [at congregation meetings] take place for upbuilding.”—1 Corinthians 14:26, 33.

I hope this answers what you had in mind but if not please restate the question.

 

Please remember that the entire nation of Israel had stood as one and had agreed to obey the Law that was given to them. This man was one who had stood and agreed. That Law plainly states that the penalty for breaking the Sabbath was to be death. (Ex 31:14, 15) So now here is someone who plainly knows the Law and it’s penalty and yet breaks it anyway. What should be done, if he is just let go and nothing is done then that makes the whole Law meaningless. So to show that the Law is to be followed and not just discarded on a whim, the penalty is carried out and he is put to death.

But that still begs the question that it seems like such a little thing to be put to death for. Please keep in mind that the world we live in with it’s beatings, torture, hatred, bigotry, robbing, murder, rape and wars all started with a little thing, the eating of a piece of fruit and none of those things would exist today if it wasn‘t for that little thing.

Also keep in mind that when the nation or people individually followed the Law they were blessed by it and when they didn’t, the result was calamity.

Another thing to keep in mind is that man is sleeping in death (unconscious, not frying or flying) and will get a second chance when he is resurrected in the future on to the paradise Earth and no matter how long he’s been dead it will seem like only seconds have past while he was sleeping in death.

 

Thanks for replying to my inquiry. Let me first remind you that these were originally not my questions. They were asked by another particiapant on another site, and you replied simply that if we understood the context all would be morally comprehensible. So that was what I was asking you to explain--the context that would make these statements acceptable. You've made a good faith effort to do that, but I still have reservations.

Yeah, I think that's a good assumption. We modern folks have developed a distaste for the idea that it's okay for humans to own other humans. I guess I should have spelled it out, but I was assuming you might share that sensibility.

In the context in which Paul seems to be using it, it hardly seems likely he was intending it in this way.

The passage in question was written at a time when the institution of Roman slavery was well-established and was, in most respects, as "harsh" as slavery in the United States.

The Old Testament does seem to authorize the enslavement of non-Israelite captives in battle,(Deut. 20:10-16), participation in the slave treade (Lev. 25:44-46) and treatment of non-Israelite slaves as inheritable property (Lev. 25:44-46).

I don't think Roman law would have prevented keeping them around as freed houseguests or hired help.

 

Thanks and I expected you to have reservations, because this is what I believe are the answers but anybody is free to give other answers to these questions or disgree if they want.