Yes, go up baldy! go up!
what an amusing little story
Could you expand on this?
To the best of my knowledge, archaeological evidence shows that child sacrifice did indeed take place over in Carthage - but I don’t know about ancient Palestine, hence my question.
Bold mine, who is ‘he’?
Jesus did condemn the sentence, and in oneness with the Father.
God didn’t impose or carry out the sentence, but respected the authority of the people of that land to do so (answer for why their is evil in this world). Once the extent of their authority was over and Jesus was out of the Roman’s jurisdiction, and shorty thereafter out of death, God’s ruling prevailed.
OTOH, it doesn’t matter what words are used. The problem is - as we see with the misquoted “thou shalt not kill” - that the nuance of various words does not translate easily. That’s the problem also with the quoted Exodus text. Reading the new translations, they imply “she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury…” whereas the KJV is more ambiguous “so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow.”
Again, the former implies live birth, the latter encompasses miscarriage. What exactly does “mischief” encompass? (Don’t want to turn this into an abortion debate, but is there a possibility that the translation is influenced by how it relates to modern social issues?) The original text, from what I’ve read about the debate, is even more ambiguous.
So to get back to the OP - the Bible no matter what you believe is the oral tradition and oral history of the Jewish people from long before they started writing things down. It contains their dirty history, their embellishments analogous to “George Washington and the cherry tree” (The George Washington Principle - “It’s easy to tell the truth when you’re the one holding the axe.”) It contains laws that reflects the morality of the times; note the rules relating to taking female slaves who have marital duties, multiple wives, cursing your father merits the death penalty, etc. The rules in primitive society were simpler - between nations, it was kill or be killed. If a people were conquered and then the conqueror walked away, there was always the risk the defeated would come back and attack in turn. It was always important to show the attackers meant business.
Also, prison as a punishment is a relatively new concept. Few ancient governments could afford or organize that. So punishment was simple - fines, disfigurement, or death. Similarly, someone had to support everyone, there was no “move to the next town and find a job”, unattached women were unprotected from rape etc., so someone had to take care of them.
I hate to hijack but…what’s the formal? I ask because I’d always thought “thee” derived from the Germanic “sie”, which IS formal. And “you” from “du” which is familiar.
You is the formal, thee is the familiar.
See Joshua 6 (description of the siege of Jericho):
Verse 17
And the city shall be devoted (i.e. cursed- NP), even it and all that is therein, to the LORD; only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.
Verse 21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Verse 27
So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was in all the land.
Nonsense.
Rape has been a felony in Common Law jurisdictions since the Middle Ages.
I think it may be confidently supposed that most other legal systems have also proscribed it.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/802-2-kings-2-23-25-elisha-and-the-lads-of-bethel
First, the rendition “little children” is unfortunate. The Hebrew word is naar, a generic term which can encompass anyone from an infant to a mature man — the context being the deciding factor. Joseph was called a naar when he was thirty years old (cf. Genesis 41:12,40,46). Joshua was a naar when he was forty-five to fifty years of age (Exodus 33:11; Joshua 24:29).
You took this entirely out of context.
What DrDeth said.
The point is that, until quite recently, things that we today would definitely consider “rape” were considered legally acceptable. To give an example, rape by one’s spouse.
My argument is that such examples do not indicate that “rape is okay”, either in the early 20th century, or in biblical times. They do indicate, to I assume nobody’s surprise, that attitudes towards such things as the rights of women, and what is considered “felonious” sexual activities, have changed over time.
I did no such thing.
Here is the entire post (#50 this thread, my insertions in square brackets, and my emphasis in bold):
If additional quotation had been necessary I would have supplied it.
DrDeth was mistaken.
One example of questionable prevalence does not come close to making the case for you.
This constitutes a retraction of your original comment in post #50: “rape” was “okay” untill fairly recently.
Please try to focus on the specific crime under discussion.
Steken:
They weren’t “children,” they were hoodlums. They were above the age of personal responsibility.
Where is their age stated? And where is it stated that they were hoodlums (which implies they regularly committed other offenses?)
You simply aren’t getting what I am saying here.
The logic is ‘one example, or even several, of something being okay in specific circumstances does not make it generally okay’.
The part you are missing is the “if that is the question, then …”. I am not, and never have been, of the opinion that rape was actually “okay” until recently, and that isn’t what my quote says if you actually read it in context.
I am not sure I misinterpreted what you said as written, but otherwise it seems we agree after all.
It wasn’t. “The Hebrew word is naar, a generic term which can encompass anyone from an infant to a mature man — the context being the deciding factor. Joseph was called a naar when he was thirty years old (cf. Genesis 41:12,40,46). Joshua was a naar when he was forty-five to fifty years of age (Exodus 33:11; Joshua 24:29).”
Someone decided the “naar” were kids- they could have been 'youths" teens or even kids- or even pretty much any non-married man who isnt “old”.
Basically, naarly dudes.
The fictional deity you spoke of in the post I quoted.