Old Testament Horrors

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poof
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Poof

Guest
I’ve seen these questions being thrown at all over the net. Catholic Apologetics is something I’ve fallen in love with thanks to this forum but I’ve never seen this issue being tackled. How do we deal with this claim?

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.

DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.

MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.

LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.

MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.

DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
It’s under the fourth premise. And I know other horrible verses from the OT like women and rape, stoning, etc. Seems to me that the God of the Old Testament isn’t our God.
 
God says that young women that are raped must then marry the rapist and never be allowed to leave them because, hey, that’s logical:
— If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28)

Be careful when beating your slaves! Don’t go overboard and it’s totally OK to mess them right up:
— When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20)

Chivalry, according to the Bible:
— Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7)

Kill your family and closest friends without remorse and feel vindicated in doing so should they so much as suggest another religion:
— If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7)

Here are some more
 
Be careful not to thrust out 21st century morals onto ancient people. If you were to find a tribe of cannibals, who sacrifice their children, you would have to take things one step at a time to teach them. This is how God teaches us, step by step. The Israelites were learning to follow God, they failed many times, as we all do.

You asked,“MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.”
Deuteronomy gives guidelines for divorce, divorce was not “God’s original plan”, but the Israelites weren’t ready yet. As time went on, God showed them the evil of divorce, specifically with Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Re-marriage is forbidden throughout the NT. Divorce, dissolving a valid marriage, is not recognized. “What God has brought together, let no man put asunder”. So, Mark is kind of re-iterating the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount.

You said, “MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.”
This is addressing the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection. They were trying to trap Him in His own words. Since they only accepted the Torah, the Books of Moses, He used their standards against them. This quote is from the OT, but it is referring to the resurrection.

You said, “LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.”
I fail to see where execution is called for. Please reference the text. “Cut off from your people” is not death.

There is no God besides the one we belong to. There is no difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT. God loves us too much to let us fall away by our own devices, so much that He sent His Son to redeem us.
 
I’ll address just one, since I need to get to bed. But, the answer to “how we deal with these things”, is: present the truth of Scripture in full truth, in context with reason. Since Scripture itself is being attacked, and nothing relating to the Church or tradition, it is not wrong to engage in a sola scriptura defense, and a bit of OT work, as well as examining the full passage.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
Click to expand...
Let’s see what it actually says in full:
18** And there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection**. And they asked him, saying: 19 Master, Moses wrote unto us that if any man’s brother die and leave his wife behind him and leave no children, his brother should take his wife and raise up seed to his brother. 20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife and died leaving no issue. 21 And the second took her and died: and neither did he leave any issue. And the third in like manner. 22 And the seven all took her in like manner and did not leave issue. Last of all the woman also died. 23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? For the seven had her to wife. 24 And Jesus answering, says to them: Do not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven. 26 And as concerning the dead that they rise again have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him, saying: I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You therefore do greatly err.
Click to expand...
This verse, in context, renders as such:

The Sadducees, who did not espouse the doctrine of resurrection, came to Jesus to play word games with Him. First, they have no authority to ask such a question because 1) They do not have the fullness of truth in that they disbelieve from the get go of the Power of God
2) They do not have fullness of truth because they do not truly know the Scriptures. For if they did, they would have all the answers.
3) They ask a question that is asked from the perspective which they do not espouse in their own doctrine. They are looking for a way to trap Jesus.

The Sadducees are referencing Deuteronomy 25:5 and Genesis 38:8
 
Here they are:

Deut 25:5-10
5 When brethren dwell together, and one of them dies without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother: 6 And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel. 7 But if he will not take his brother’s wife, who by law belongs to him, the woman shall go to the gate of the city, and call upon the ancients, and say: My husband’s brother refuses to raise up his brother’s name in Israel: and will not take me to wife. 8 And they shall cause him to be sent for forthwith, and shall ask him. If he answer: I will not take her to wife: 9 The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother’s house: 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.
Click to expand...
So, what’s the point of this entire social law set forth? To make sure the family continues and there is no scandal in doing so. It is no different than if the deceased had a bunch of kids. His brother, who was single, would have taken over anyway as head of the house. In this manner, his brother is actually allowed a way to have his own kids, but they will be known by the name of their father who should have been. In this way, that man’s name is not lost because of his absence. It’s a concept that must be approached from a desert tribe mentality. Community was everything. A woman is not useless as a widow, but, if she is still of marrying/childbearing age, it is good for the community that she should be married and provided for and providing new resources of labor for the tribe.
But the point isn’t whose wife she is, but the children and who claims them as “his” at the resurrection. A resurrection which the Sadducees asking the question didn’t believe in.

So, we have the actual law and the fleshing out of what it was about, which was not who was married to who- it was all for the kids. Further, Jesus goes on to engage in more Scripture based rhetoric by reminding them of other aspects they overlooked. He basically engages in a verbal smack fest, whatever His actual tone of voice was.

Now, where did that law come from, and from what precedent did they draw it?

Genesis 38:1-10
1 At that time Juda went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Odollamite, named Hiras. 2 And he saw there the daughter of a man of Chanaan, called Sue: and taking her to wife, he went in unto her. 3 And she conceived, and bore a son, and called his name Her. 4 And conceiving again, she bore a son, and called him Onan. 5 She bore also a third: whom she called Sela. After whose birth, she ceased to bear any more. 6 And Juda took a wife for Her, his first born, whose name was Thamar. 7 And Her, the first born of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him. 8 Juda, therefore, said to Onan his son: Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, that you may raise seed to your brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing:
Click to expand...
So, Onan was married to Thamar, widow of Her, he too her on as his wife, had sex with her per law, even achieved orgasm, and then pulled out. Why? He obviously hated his brother so much that even in gaining a wife and potential children, he would deny himself and thus the community for hating his brother and envying that he would not get “credit”, as if everyone doesn’t know who actually fathered the kids. She was his wife, and post resurrection would would be no need for the perpetuation of marriage, as we will exist like the angels. Furthermore, they refer to the resurrected as dead, when they would be living, having been “dead”.

So, on that one verse alone, it’s actually quoting OT law which the gentiles were never held to, as they are not naturally in that covenant. As such, we are not bound to it. It’s a non issue and is not being raised as doctrine of the Church or even being espoused by Christ. It is, in fact, Jesus calling the Sadducees on their pasture puck question because it’s worthless and stupid.
 
Thank God we’ve been enlightened since, by the Love of Christ and the patience God has with his mortal men!:heaven:
 
Newsy said:
Be careful not to thrust out 21st century morals onto ancient people. If you were to find a tribe of cannibals, who sacrifice their children, you would have to take things one step at a time to teach them. This is how God teaches us, step by step. The Israelites were learning to follow God, they failed many times, as we all do.
Click to expand...
I see. But wouldn’t that be weird since God wrong morals on the people? Or this acceptable because there was no other way. Couldn’t he have just gone straight to no stoning no blah blah blah? Are there any good articles that explain the topic well?

To the other posters, are you saying atheists took some of these verses out of context to suit their agenda?
 
The rape one irked me.

It’s actually not about rape at all, if you go to the actual Hebrew (<<link) and earlier translations such as Douay-Rheims.

Here is the Douay Rheims-
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment : 29 He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life.
Click to expand...
Now, no mention of rape whatsoever. The key words here are “taking” and “humbled”. Basically, dude promised a while wide world of gold and unicorn farts and pixie dust matrimony or something equally dumb and very Romeo and Juliet. And then he knocked her up. And then it came to judgement and dude just earned himself a fornicating orgasm, a kid, and a wife. Or, just got caught.

This actually required going back to the full Hebrew:

biblos.com/deuteronomy/22-28.htm
biblos.com/deuteronomy/22-29.htm

However, the verses 23-29 are actually dealing with a number of things and must be read in the context of each other. They are NOT arbitrary laws, but dependent on circumstance.

23/24- Fornication or Prostitution. Not rape. You can’t hide screams in those tiny cities in that day. If you have ever been in the Middle East, particularly a more traditional area, there is no way to hide the screams of a rape victim or someone who was otherwise forced into something. The key thing to remember is she was married, though it was not yet consummated. Engagement was not the flippant thing it is today. It was as binding as the marriage contract. That’s why St. Joseph considered putting away Virgin Mary quietly. It would have required a divorce though they weren’t fully and totally super duper married married yet.

25/26/27- Giving woman benefit of the doubt. Particularly in a situation in the rural area where screams might not be heard in enough time to stop it, or at all.

28/29- No betrothal to break; congratulations Mr and Mrs Fornicators made Good! Ball and chain for life. This is the total single woman version of 23/24. The idea of rape is totally out of context and text entirely, once one gets rid of the piece of junk NIV and its ilk.
 
Poof said:
How do we deal with this claim?
Click to expand...
To be 100% sure, just respect the law in the OT and the NT, I personally have no problem respecting both…

However, most of the verses you quoted from the OT match this quote from the NT:

*(1 Corinthians 6:9-10):
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

*From the above NT quote it seems there are at least 10 types of people whom will not inherit the Kingdom of GOD.
 
Sam_777 said:
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10):
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

From the above NT quote it seems there are at least 10 types of people whom will not inherit the Kingdom of GOD.
Click to expand...
But we all know that these people can, unless only if they die unrepentant. We all know the bible isn’t meant to be taken literally and looking at the verse you posted, I think its obvious it shouldn’t be read in that manner (literally). These Old testament verses however, are explicit and I can only see them as something literal. But then Jon came so I’m assuming it’s all good. The entire thing isn’t clear from my POV yet.

Can someone explain what’s happening so I can get a general idea? What’s the problem with this atheistic claim? Where some of the verses I pointed taken out of context? Or should I go with the first poster who said we can’t enforce todays morals on people 2000 years ago, God had to change people slowly, etc. Or is it both? The way I’m seeing things right now, its both, but I’m not entirely sure.Thanks.

@Jon thanks for taking the time to respond, really appreciate it.
 
Thing is the ancient Jews were spiritual children…half wild…and had to be dealt with in proportion to their backwardness and lack of civility.

Irregardless…the message is that sex outside of one partner has great impact on society, a terrible impact and we have to look just in our own country to see the effects of the sexual revolution. There is so much violence against women now, adultery, fornication, pornography, human trafficking…if society as a whole had better moral standards, we would not be in the mess we are in now…just the infanticide…the abortions are very evil and cry out to God for justice.
 
It’s not just Atheists who use the OT verses, it’s the muslims as well.
 
Poof said:
But we all know that these people can, unless only if they die unrepentant. We all know the bible isn’t meant to be taken literally and looking at the verse you posted, I think its obvious it shouldn’t be read in that manner (literally). These Old testament verses however, are explicit and I can only see them as something literal. But then Jon came so I’m assuming it’s all good. The entire thing isn’t clear from my POV yet.

Can someone explain what’s happening so I can get a general idea? What’s the problem with this atheistic claim? Where some of the verses I pointed taken out of context? Or should I go with the first poster who said we can’t enforce todays morals on people 2000 years ago, God had to change people slowly, etc. Or is it both? The way I’m seeing things right now, its both, but I’m not entirely sure.Thanks.

@Jon thanks for taking the time to respond, really appreciate it.
Click to expand...
#1- don’t just take my word for it! Research all I have presented and then take it to your priest if you are still unable to reconcile it in regard to Church doctrine. My understanding of the concept and how I word it may not be your understanding of my words.

#2- What’s happening where for what general idea?

#3- What atheistic claim? Things which contradict, seemingly? There is no contradiction in context.

#4- Today’s morals hold true in those same verses. Jesus was constantly trying to get the people to get beyond the religion of the law and back to the reason for the Law, and how to achieve it- Love the Lord your God with all your heart. The punishment is really a side bar, but only if one chooses to not love God and break the Law.

It’s like a child, who hearing, “If you kill your brother, I’ll kill you”, focuses solely on their impending death penalty and they get all upset. Well, don’t kill your brother. Too easy. Durrr.

It was essentially the application of Mortal sin’s sentence on the society. It was a theocracy. There was no “oops! didn’t know! sorry!”. The moral understanding remains today, though the specific penalty is up to the government in a civil manner, but, remains judged spiritually. The key is not focusing on the penalty as then, but, the current need not to break those same moral codes. How? Love God with all your heart and seek Him.

The consequence of sin, which those passages address, is always death. That is the wages of sin. The difference is who judges that.

I’ll explore some more of the verses for fun, but again, don’t take my word for it.
 
Poof said:
How do we deal with this claim?
Click to expand...
By learning to rightly discern the meaning of Scripture, through the help of the Church. By learning the difference between Divine Law, the juridic code of the Israelites (the equivalent of civil law), and the ceremonial laws of the Jewish religion.

They are, of course, comingled in the Bible. They are distinct things though, and if you do not know how to properly read and interpret what you are reading you can draw erroneous conclusions.
Poof said:
Seems to me that the God of the Old Testament isn’t our God.
Click to expand...
Of course He is. There is only one God.
 
Newsy said:
Be careful not to thrust out 21st century morals onto ancient people. If you were to find a tribe of cannibals, who sacrifice their children, you would have to take things one step at a time to teach them. This is how God teaches us, step by step. The Israelites were learning to follow God, they failed many times, as we all do.

You asked,“MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.”
Deuteronomy gives guidelines for divorce, divorce was not “God’s original plan”, but the Israelites weren’t ready yet. As time went on, God showed them the evil of divorce, specifically with Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Re-marriage is forbidden throughout the NT. Divorce, dissolving a valid marriage, is not recognized. “What God has brought together, let no man put asunder”. So, Mark is kind of re-iterating the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount.

You said, “MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.”
This is addressing the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection. They were trying to trap Him in His own words. Since they only accepted the Torah, the Books of Moses, He used their standards against them. This quote is from the OT, but it is referring to the resurrection.

You said, “LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.”
I fail to see where execution is called for. Please reference the text. “Cut off from your people” is not death.

There is no God besides the one we belong to. There is no difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT. God loves us too much to let us fall away by our own devices, so much that He sent His Son to redeem us.
Click to expand...
But the Old Testament (along with the rest of the Bible) is supposed to be the inspired Word of God. According to that standard, how can anything in it be considered unfair or wrong?

Of course if its right and just, that means practices like slavery and killing rape victims (or forcing them to marry their rapists) must be considered right and just too.

However, as an atheist I reserve the right to dismiss it all as nonsense.
 
Poof said:
God says that young women that are raped must then marry the rapist and never be allowed to leave them because, hey, that’s logical:
— If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28)

Be careful when beating your slaves! Don’t go overboard and it’s totally OK to mess them right up:
— When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20)

Chivalry, according to the Bible:
— Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7)

Kill your family and closest friends without remorse and feel vindicated in doing so should they so much as suggest another religion:
— If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7)

Here are some more
Click to expand...
That is because a man’s daughter (and wife for that matter) was considered his property.
That’s why there are Biblical rules for selling your daughter into slavery.
 
jonbhorton said:
The rape one irked me.

It’s actually not about rape at all, if you go to the actual Hebrew (<<link) and earlier translations such as Douay-Rheims.

Here is the Douay Rheims-

Now, no mention of rape whatsoever. The key words here are “taking” and “humbled”. Basically, dude promised a while wide world of gold and unicorn farts and pixie dust matrimony or something equally dumb and very Romeo and Juliet. And then he knocked her up. And then it came to judgement and dude just earned himself a fornicating orgasm, a kid, and a wife. Or, just got caught.

This actually required going back to the full Hebrew:

Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man encounters a virgin who is not pledged in marriage, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered,
Deuteronomy 22:29 then the man who lay with her must pay the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she must become his wife because he has violated her. He must not divorce her as long as he lives.

However, the verses 23-29 are actually dealing with a number of things and must be read in the context of each other. They are NOT arbitrary laws, but dependent on circumstance.

**23/24- Fornication or Prostitution. Not rape. You can’t hide screams in those tiny cities in that day. If you have ever been in the Middle East, particularly a more traditional area, there is no way to hide the screams of a rape victim or someone who was otherwise forced into something. **The key thing to remember is she was married, though it was not yet consummated. Engagement was not the flippant thing it is today. It was as binding as the marriage contract. That’s why St. Joseph considered putting away Virgin Mary quietly. It would have required a divorce though they weren’t fully and totally super duper married married yet.

25/26/27- Giving woman benefit of the doubt. Particularly in a situation in the rural area where screams might not be heard in enough time to stop it, or at all.

28/29- No betrothal to break; congratulations Mr and Mrs Fornicators made Good! Ball and chain for life. This is the total single woman version of 23/24. The idea of rape is totally out of context and text entirely, once one gets rid of the piece of junk NIV and its ilk.
Click to expand...
What:confused:

Do you have anything to back up this absurd claim?
Do you have any idea how little rape is reported in the Middle East (because female victims are much more likely to be punished than male perps in many areas)?

I know a mother living in Jordan who is very glad that she didn’t have any daughters (only sons) for precisely this reason (and the simple fact that the status of a woman who gives birth to sons is higher than the status of a woman who has a lot of daughters there).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top