Bob Debates Keeping the Sabbath
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Here's what I noticed:
The Hebrew word for "genitals" in Deuteronomy 25:11 is "mabush" (Strong's #4016). Strongs lists the definition of that word as follows: From H954; (plural) the (male) pudenda: - secrets.
Does that mean specifically "testicles"? I'm thinking perhaps not because of the Hebrew word "eshek" (Strongs #810) found in Leviticus 21:20 which is specifically translated "testicles" in more than one translation. In fact the definition Strong's has for eshek is: "From an unused root (probably meaning to bunch together); a testicle (as a lump): - stone."
Leviticus 21:20 reads, "or crook-backed, or a crushed one, or who has a blemish in his eye, or a scurvy or scabbed person, or one with crushed testicles."
So, what this looks like it means is that the woman in Deuteronomy 25:11 was punished for . . .
Commentator Gill: "This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action, who on such an occasion are very passionate and inconsiderate."
Commentator Matthew Henry: "Perhaps our Saviour alludes to this law when he commands us in Mat. 5:30 to cut off the right hand that offends us, or is an occasion of sin to us. Better put the greatest hardships that can be upon the body than ruin the soul for ever. Modesty is the hedge of chastity, and therefore ought to be very carefully preserved and kept up by both sexes."
So granite, since you can't use the symbolic law (which has passed away) to explain that God was moral for commanding Deuteronomy 25:11,12 because crushed testicals kept one from entering the assembly (Deut. 23:1) then you need to provide a different explanation. So let's try it agian: Please explain why it was so moral of God to command Deuteronomy 25:11,12 and please do so without wading through the slime of situational ethics.
The Hebrew word for "genitals" in Deuteronomy 25:11 is "mabush" (Strong's #4016). Strongs lists the definition of that word as follows: From H954; (plural) the (male) pudenda: - secrets.
Does that mean specifically "testicles"? I'm thinking perhaps not because of the Hebrew word "eshek" (Strongs #810) found in Leviticus 21:20 which is specifically translated "testicles" in more than one translation. In fact the definition Strong's has for eshek is: "From an unused root (probably meaning to bunch together); a testicle (as a lump): - stone."
Leviticus 21:20 reads, "or crook-backed, or a crushed one, or who has a blemish in his eye, or a scurvy or scabbed person, or one with crushed testicles."
So, what this looks like it means is that the woman in Deuteronomy 25:11 was punished for . . .
Commentator Gill: "This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action, who on such an occasion are very passionate and inconsiderate."
Commentator Matthew Henry: "Perhaps our Saviour alludes to this law when he commands us in Mat. 5:30 to cut off the right hand that offends us, or is an occasion of sin to us. Better put the greatest hardships that can be upon the body than ruin the soul for ever. Modesty is the hedge of chastity, and therefore ought to be very carefully preserved and kept up by both sexes."
So granite, since you can't use the symbolic law (which has passed away) to explain that God was moral for commanding Deuteronomy 25:11,12 because crushed testicals kept one from entering the assembly (Deut. 23:1) then you need to provide a different explanation. So let's try it agian: Please explain why it was so moral of God to command Deuteronomy 25:11,12 and please do so without wading through the slime of situational ethics.
Jefferson wrote,
"The Hebrew word for 'genitals' in Deuteronomy 25:11 is 'mabush' (Strong's #4016). Strongs lists the definition of that word as follows: From H954; (plural) the (male) pudenda: - secrets."
Okay. So far so good.
"Does that mean specifically 'testicles'?"
Splitting hairs to justify mutilation, as far as I'm concerned. It means his genitals; we agree on that. How many different ways do you (or want to) need to explain what "private parts" mean? You have to squirm on this because you need to justify chopping off the hand of a defensive wife.
"So granite, since you can't use the symbolic law (which has passed away) to explain that God was moral for commanding Deuteronomy 25:11,12 because crushed testicals kept one from entering the assembly (Deut. 23:1) then you need to provide a different explanation."
Umm...testicles aren't the only thing mentioned in Deut. 23:1. (Can anyone else believe it's actually come to this?) It also refers to the fella's privy "member." Specifically. Look it up in Strongs yourself. The passage is talking about eunuchs who had a Bobbit job as well as those who had their grapes crushed, as it were.
My argument still stands: an attack on the privy--no matter what you want to call it--COULD, hypothetically, result in a man's exclusion from the assembly. Now, Deut. 25:11-12 doesn't say this DID happen from the wife's intervention, but MAY result in such a permanent injury.
You've yet to address potential abuses of this law. Or the place knocking an attacker--mugger, rapist, whatever--in the crotch has if a woman needs to defend herself. Or any other hypothetical questions I asked you don't want to answer because they're uncomfortable, and you don't like thinking about the consequences of your theology.
You keep squirming. First you say the woman's hand won't be CUT off, just disabled. Now you're blowing smoke and actually trying to dissect the parts of the male anatomy. For what? Get with the program, Jeff. You want a woman defending her husband to get penalized, you're saying nothing about the husband's attacker, and you have more in common--on this issue--with your Muslim opponents than Christians. This is saying more about you than me. Preaching about the slime of situational ethics is just deflection. Deal with the brutality you advocate.
"The Hebrew word for 'genitals' in Deuteronomy 25:11 is 'mabush' (Strong's #4016). Strongs lists the definition of that word as follows: From H954; (plural) the (male) pudenda: - secrets."
Okay. So far so good.
"Does that mean specifically 'testicles'?"
Splitting hairs to justify mutilation, as far as I'm concerned. It means his genitals; we agree on that. How many different ways do you (or want to) need to explain what "private parts" mean? You have to squirm on this because you need to justify chopping off the hand of a defensive wife.
"So granite, since you can't use the symbolic law (which has passed away) to explain that God was moral for commanding Deuteronomy 25:11,12 because crushed testicals kept one from entering the assembly (Deut. 23:1) then you need to provide a different explanation."
Umm...testicles aren't the only thing mentioned in Deut. 23:1. (Can anyone else believe it's actually come to this?) It also refers to the fella's privy "member." Specifically. Look it up in Strongs yourself. The passage is talking about eunuchs who had a Bobbit job as well as those who had their grapes crushed, as it were.
My argument still stands: an attack on the privy--no matter what you want to call it--COULD, hypothetically, result in a man's exclusion from the assembly. Now, Deut. 25:11-12 doesn't say this DID happen from the wife's intervention, but MAY result in such a permanent injury.
You've yet to address potential abuses of this law. Or the place knocking an attacker--mugger, rapist, whatever--in the crotch has if a woman needs to defend herself. Or any other hypothetical questions I asked you don't want to answer because they're uncomfortable, and you don't like thinking about the consequences of your theology.
You keep squirming. First you say the woman's hand won't be CUT off, just disabled. Now you're blowing smoke and actually trying to dissect the parts of the male anatomy. For what? Get with the program, Jeff. You want a woman defending her husband to get penalized, you're saying nothing about the husband's attacker, and you have more in common--on this issue--with your Muslim opponents than Christians. This is saying more about you than me. Preaching about the slime of situational ethics is just deflection. Deal with the brutality you advocate.
There is nothing that needs to be justified. There is more than one thing in the Bible that I have a moral knee-jerk reaction against. This law of chopping off (or mutilating a woman's hand) is one of them. But God's morality and clarity of thinking is so much higher than mine that I conclude that my sinful, human "feelings" and/or logic must be faulty. Therefore I always uphold and promote God's morality as I see it in scripture in spite of what I may feel about it personally. Another example is the concept of an eternal Hell. I don't understand why it's moral but I know that it is because God decreed it. I'll understand it when I see Jesus face to face. Then I will know even as I am known.
Yes, it refers to both the penis and the testicals.
This is why I don't think this law referrs to the possible result of causing the man to be in violation of symbolic uncleanness and hence excluded from the assembly. It seems that the if this was the reason, then the case law in Deuteronomy 25:11,12 would specifically say that actual physical damage was done to his genitals. But it doesn't say that. All it says is that she grabbed them hard enough to cause him to submit. In fact, it doesn't even say she grabbed them hard at all. Just the mere threat of squeezing them hard would certainly make a man submit. Therefore, this seems to be a moral law and not a symbolic law associated with Deuteronomy 23. If futher study shows that it does refer to Deuteronomy 23 and hence is symbolic afterall, then fine. I'd have no problem excluding it from recommended 21st century law.
It is not biblical to be convicted of a crime (eg. excessive use of force) while defending yourself against a capital crime. For example, the Bible says that if a man catches his wife commiting adultery and he kills one of them in a fit of rage, he should not be punished. Adultery was (and should be today) a capital crime. Therefore, if a woman was being raped (another capital crime) she would be allowed to use any means necessary (including violently squeezing the man's testicals) to defend herself against such a capital crime.
"There is more than one thing in the Bible that I have a moral knee-jerk reaction against."
Good! If you were gung-ho about this issue, I guess I'd be worried...
"But God's morality and clarity of thinking is so much higher than mine that I conclude that my sinful, human 'feelings' and/or logic must be faulty. Therefore I always uphold and promote God's morality as I see it in scripture in spite of what I may feel about it personally."
Well...I suppose I'd just call this thinking dangerous. To paraphrase Lewis on this issue, an inquisitor ignores his conscience as temptation, which makes him far worse than a robber baron tyrant ever could be. This kind of mentality--no matter what I feel, I think this is what God wants me to do--has been used to justify atrocities in the name of God throughout history, by Christians and others alike.
"It seems that the if this was the reason, then the case law in Deuteronomy 25:11,12 would specifically say that actual physical damage was done to his genitals. But it doesn't say that. All it says is that she grabbed them hard enough to cause him to submit. In fact, it doesn't even say she grabbed them hard at all. Just the mere threat of squeezing them hard would certainly make a man submit."
So you're saying you're willing to advocate mutilating a woman for THREATENING to use force? What if the threat's merely verbal? "Let go of my husband or you'll get a kick in the junk."
"If futher study shows that it does refer to Deuteronomy 23 and hence is symbolic afterall, then fine. I'd have no problem excluding it from recommended 21st century law."
Trust me, I'll dig into this even more over the weekend. I have no life.
"Therefore, if a woman was being raped (another capital crime) she would be allowed to use any means necessary (including violently squeezing the man's testicals) to defend herself against such a capital crime."
Thanks for the clarification. See? This is actually a very interesting discussion...
Good! If you were gung-ho about this issue, I guess I'd be worried...
"But God's morality and clarity of thinking is so much higher than mine that I conclude that my sinful, human 'feelings' and/or logic must be faulty. Therefore I always uphold and promote God's morality as I see it in scripture in spite of what I may feel about it personally."
Well...I suppose I'd just call this thinking dangerous. To paraphrase Lewis on this issue, an inquisitor ignores his conscience as temptation, which makes him far worse than a robber baron tyrant ever could be. This kind of mentality--no matter what I feel, I think this is what God wants me to do--has been used to justify atrocities in the name of God throughout history, by Christians and others alike.
"It seems that the if this was the reason, then the case law in Deuteronomy 25:11,12 would specifically say that actual physical damage was done to his genitals. But it doesn't say that. All it says is that she grabbed them hard enough to cause him to submit. In fact, it doesn't even say she grabbed them hard at all. Just the mere threat of squeezing them hard would certainly make a man submit."
So you're saying you're willing to advocate mutilating a woman for THREATENING to use force? What if the threat's merely verbal? "Let go of my husband or you'll get a kick in the junk."
"If futher study shows that it does refer to Deuteronomy 23 and hence is symbolic afterall, then fine. I'd have no problem excluding it from recommended 21st century law."
Trust me, I'll dig into this even more over the weekend. I have no life.
"Therefore, if a woman was being raped (another capital crime) she would be allowed to use any means necessary (including violently squeezing the man's testicals) to defend herself against such a capital crime."
Thanks for the clarification. See? This is actually a very interesting discussion...
I'm willing to refrain from arrogantly telling God my ways are more moral than His.
As the commentators I quoted above show, it's very possible that this has nothing to do with physical harm to the man's genitals but rather the embarrasing shame of having them grabbed and being submitted by a woman in this manner. To quote them again:
Commentator Gill: "This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action, who on such an occasion are very passionate and inconsiderate."
Commentator Matthew Henry: "Perhaps our Saviour alludes to this law when he commands us in Mat. 5:30 to cut off the right hand that offends us, or is an occasion of sin to us. Better put the greatest hardships that can be upon the body than ruin the soul for ever. Modesty is the hedge of chastity, and therefore ought to be very carefully preserved and kept up by both sexes."
Good. This will allow me to get back to mine. I've been putting some things off. Take your time.Trust me, I'll dig into this even more over the weekend. I have no life.
I'm enjoying it as well.
"I'm willing to refrain from arrogantly telling God my ways are more moral than His."
You're side-stepping another question because it makes you uncomfortable. That's convenient. I'll repeat: Are you willing to advocate mutilating a woman for THREATENING to use force?
"As the commentators I quoted above show, it's very possible that this has nothing to do with physical harm to the man's genitals but rather the embarrasing shame of having them grabbed and being submitted by a woman in this manner."
And as Zakath and I have said, this reveals this punishment to patriarchal, one-sided, and unfair. The double standard you advocate is appalling. So let me make sure I'm crystal clear on this issue: you want to cut off a woman's hand for EMBARRASSING the guy who is ATTACKING her husband. Oookay. Glad I cleared that up.
You just said the worst thing that happened was the guy's ego got bruised. No physical harm. In spite of this--not even injuring the guy--a woman, a wife stepping in for her husband, loses the use of a hand for the rest of her life.
Jeff, there is a disconnect here. And you need to deal with it.
You're side-stepping another question because it makes you uncomfortable. That's convenient. I'll repeat: Are you willing to advocate mutilating a woman for THREATENING to use force?
"As the commentators I quoted above show, it's very possible that this has nothing to do with physical harm to the man's genitals but rather the embarrasing shame of having them grabbed and being submitted by a woman in this manner."
And as Zakath and I have said, this reveals this punishment to patriarchal, one-sided, and unfair. The double standard you advocate is appalling. So let me make sure I'm crystal clear on this issue: you want to cut off a woman's hand for EMBARRASSING the guy who is ATTACKING her husband. Oookay. Glad I cleared that up.
You just said the worst thing that happened was the guy's ego got bruised. No physical harm. In spite of this--not even injuring the guy--a woman, a wife stepping in for her husband, loses the use of a hand for the rest of her life.
Jeff, there is a disconnect here. And you need to deal with it.
The Bible doesn't advocate the mutilation of a woman for just threatening to use force. It includes the circumstances in which she uses that force and also the kind of force she uses. Given those barriers, I'm willing to advocate the enforcement of God's Law. If that enforcement includes the above, then yes.
Have you told God you think this law of His is patriarchal, one-sided and unfair?
No, it's not just embarrassment, it's sexual humiliation. It appears to be considered to fall into the catagory of a "mild" (for lack of a better word) form of rape. Rapists get the death penalty.
I consider sexual humiliation far worse than simply getting one's ego bruised.
"The Bible doesn't advocate the mutilation of a woman for just threatening to use force. It includes the circumstances in which she uses that force and also the kind of force she uses. Given those barriers, I'm willing to advocate the enforcement of God's Law. If that enforcement includes the above, then yes."
Why isn't this mutilation mentioned for men? This gets back to the double standard. Keep in mind, as I've said before, that the husband's opponent takes a walk.
"Have you told God you think this law of His is patriarchal, one-sided and unfair?"
I don't think I need to "tell" him. If the Almighty can't read...well, he's not almighty then, is he?
"No, it's not just embarrassment, it's sexual humiliation. It appears to be considered to fall into the catagory of a 'mild' (for lack of a better word) form of rape. Rapists get the death penalty."
Knocking a guy in the crotch and buggering him are apples and oranges, Jeff. You're reaching. Where in the world do you get an idea that a blow to the groin in the heat of the moment constitutes "rape"? And what scriptural basis do you have for this idea? Splitting hairs between "embarrassment" and "humiliation" just shows how much you still need to squirm. Blowing more smoke.
Humiliating somebody doesn't really require you to mangle the person doing the humiliation, does it? Well, I guess so. Maybe this explains why Elisha called on a she-bear.
So, let's see if this follows: husband is fighting with Joe Blow. Wife intercedes. She "rapes" Joe Blow by nailing him in the crotch. Wife loses hand. Uh-huuuh.
"I consider sexual humiliation far worse than simply getting one's ego bruised."
Agreed. But there seems to be no consistent scriptural basis for punishing someone just for humiliating them.
Why isn't this mutilation mentioned for men? This gets back to the double standard. Keep in mind, as I've said before, that the husband's opponent takes a walk.
"Have you told God you think this law of His is patriarchal, one-sided and unfair?"
I don't think I need to "tell" him. If the Almighty can't read...well, he's not almighty then, is he?
"No, it's not just embarrassment, it's sexual humiliation. It appears to be considered to fall into the catagory of a 'mild' (for lack of a better word) form of rape. Rapists get the death penalty."
Knocking a guy in the crotch and buggering him are apples and oranges, Jeff. You're reaching. Where in the world do you get an idea that a blow to the groin in the heat of the moment constitutes "rape"? And what scriptural basis do you have for this idea? Splitting hairs between "embarrassment" and "humiliation" just shows how much you still need to squirm. Blowing more smoke.
Humiliating somebody doesn't really require you to mangle the person doing the humiliation, does it? Well, I guess so. Maybe this explains why Elisha called on a she-bear.
So, let's see if this follows: husband is fighting with Joe Blow. Wife intercedes. She "rapes" Joe Blow by nailing him in the crotch. Wife loses hand. Uh-huuuh.
"I consider sexual humiliation far worse than simply getting one's ego bruised."
Agreed. But there seems to be no consistent scriptural basis for punishing someone just for humiliating them.
It doesn't say men are excluded from this punishment. It only gives an example of a woman. I would apply it to both genders. Tell me, why do you think this mutilation is not mentioned for men?
He only takes a walk if he doesn't injure the husband to the point of causing him medical bills and lost wages. We've already covered this. If the wife does not intercede as described and neither man is seriously hurt, then they both take a walk. Boys will be boys afterall.
I don't know how many fights I've gotten into on the playground, basketball court, backyard football, stupid drunken parties. It's all years ago in my past but I'm glad no one ever got prosecuted for anything. Boys will be boys. :hammer:I didn't ask you if you think God is aware of what he wrote."Have you told God you think this law of His is patriarchal, one-sided and unfair?"
I don't think I need to "tell" him. If the Almighty can't read...well, he's not almighty then, is he?
I asked you if you told Him you think His law is patriarchal, one-sided and unfair.So is hand mutilation compared with the death penalty. So I'm not reaching.
It's not a "blow," the verse says she "lays hold" upon his genitals. You're twisting my words.
Once again, it's not a difference between embarrassment and humiliation. It's a difference between emabarrassment and sexual humiliation. I'm not blowing smoke. You, however, keep twisting my words to make them say what is easier for you to debate. You should really stop "squirming" like that.
It does if it's sexual humiliation.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status