Those rules were burned in stone by God. Perhaps there’s a reason they were burned in stone instead of God relying on his Earthy servant’s interpretations of his word.
Malthus, I think you raise a good point. I agree with Colibri, I read the OP as asking something along the lines of “are there any places/verses in the OT in which rape and baby killing are condoned.” I still maintain that the answer to this is clearly yes. However, his exact question is a little ambiguous, so it would be helpful if the OP clarified. If he meant “condoned at all times,” then the answer is just as clearly no.
I don’t think he’s been back to this thread though.
This being GQ, unless you can produce some archaeological evidence supporting this statement, it has no bearing on the discussion. If you want to witness about your religious beliefs, take it to Great Debates.
As I said, anybody with any knowledge of the Bible at all wouldn’t think that it condoned rape and baby killing in general, and no one would reasonably make a bet to that effect. I think the OP simply worded his post poorly. Whether he wins his bet or not depends on whether he worded it just as poorly.
This is often cited as the reason Jewish religion does not condemn abortion. The wording is ambiguous, in the original language not specifying clearly whether the passage means the child is born alive and survived, or miscarried. But the implication is that the death of a baby is a property crime, punishable by fine - as opposed to murder, punishable by death or the famous “eye for an eye…” quote.
Don’t forget, too, the wisest of Israeli Kings, Solomon, offered to cut a baby in half to solve a lawsuit - although that may have been a bluff.
Well, definitely bluff. But not a hollow one, or else the fake ma would have protested as well rather than being ready to go along with it. Which begs the question: at what point after being born does a kid change from damageable property to murderable person?
Speaking of Biblical kings - one of the things I find interesting about the OT accounts is that they are typically not portrayed as stainless heroes. Even the best of them are depicted, deliberately, as monsters of vanity, greed and violence.
Indeed, the whole notion of kingship is held questionable (no doubt because the book was redacted by priests!). Samuel is scathing on this score, when the Israelites ask him to install a king:
This being GQ, it is surely acceptable to consider references made in context as to which of the laws were said to have been burned into stone by God versus written down by men, without anyone having to step up and say “Nuh-uh, you can’t say ‘God’ did anything unless you can show me your ‘God’ on a microscope slide”.
Technically I suppose this should be in ATMB but ain’t no-one got time for that.