Let's Talk About the Religious Right UPDATE 11/7/2020 - VINDICATION!!!

[The Fukin Prophecy]

christians can squirm and lie their way out of anything, including and up to the catholic church (one of god's kellyanne conways on earth) running a child molestation ring that would make hollywood blush

im curious if any christians in here would like to refute this passage surely the baby of a cheating wife is 'still just an innocent baby that deserves a chance ", right?

Most accurate description of the Catholic Church I have ever heard...

 

[Professor Emeritus]

TLDR: That translation takes a Hebrew passage that describes a curse on the the literal "belly" and "thigh" of the woman, and unjustifiably translates that as "miscarriage" even though no pregnancy is mentioned and no other Bible translation I know of translates it that way.

christians can squirm and lie their way out of anything, including and up to the catholic church (one of god's kellyanne conways on earth) running a child molestation ring that would make hollywood blush

im curious if any christians in here would like to refute this passage surely the baby of a cheating wife is 'still just an innocent baby that deserves a chance ", right?

Other than that single word that the NIV translates as "miscarriage", there's no indication anywhere in there that they were even describing pregnancy. No pregnancy or fetus is mentioned, and why would the test for adultery only apply to pregnant women? It's almost certainly a mistranslation by the version you used.

Body parts can be difficult translations in Hebrew, because ancient Hebrew often used euphemisms rather than refer to things scientifically, or use the same word to refer to two things close to each other. (Even in English there can be confusion - when someone says, "I got shot in the stomach", does it refer to their lower torso where the muscles are, or their actual digestive organ? If you say someone hurt their groin, did they strain their groin muscle or get kicked in the balls?)

But some translations are more likely than others. Whoever fed that passage to you used the NIV on purpose, because the NIV is the ONLY place I've ever seen that passage translated as "miscarriage". In every other translation it's a curse on the the women's belly or more specifically the womb (implying the woman wouldn't be able to have children again), not a curse on any baby. The words are actually literally "belly" and "thigh", but most scholars agree that "thigh" was used as a euphemism for the reproductive parts in Hebrew just like "groin" is used as a euphemism in English. But there's no word for "miscarriage" in there - that's something the NIV adds as a loose interpretation, probably without legitimate justification.

If you want to refer to the ancient Jewish Talmud, where the whole process is described in much more detail, they never once refer to pregnancy or miscarriage anywhere there either. So even 2,000 years ago that verse wasn't being interpreted in that way by the Jews who were actually using it. And the NIV translation wasn't done by anyone who had ever done that trial or ever would.


New Revised Standard Version (what I and many others consider the most competent, unbiased, direct translation out there):

When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall discharge, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become an execration among her people.

King James Version (if you're into the OG stuff)

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

American Standard Version

And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have committed a trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

English Standard Version

And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her womb shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become a curse among her people.

You can keep going - none of the other translations write that passage as "miscarriage". It's a new thing the NIV added.

The whole point of the passage is that if the woman has been cheating, and lies about it yet still agrees to be tested, that the priest will perform the test (giving normally harmless barley water) and God, with the approval of the couple, will judge. And the judgment will be in her inability to have babies again and social ostracization.

Of course, in practice it's completely irrelevant for Christians, as we don't even have Jewish priests nor are any of those rituals meant for us.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Good thing there's fifteen versions of the Bible so you can pick and choose which one you want.

That section is clearly an ancient Maury Povich situation.

 

[the next guy]

They're frauds.


Talk over.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Good thing there's fifteen versions of the Bible so you can pick and choose which one you want.

You ever translated anything? Not sure what alternative you're caping for. Jesus didn't speak English.

But there is a certain kinda bullshyt that people engage in when they pick-and-choose (haters and stans alike).

In this instance, who is playing the pick-and-choose game, me or cac? He's using the ONE translation that has that word it in, and doesn't justify it at all. I'm going with the opinion of the vast majority of translations, which also gels with the context of the passage.

Like I said, a straight literal translation is "belly" and "thigh". You have to stretch real, real hard to get "fetus" or "miscarriage" from that.

 

[the cac mamba]

TLDR: That translation takes a Hebrew passage that describes a curse on the the literal "belly" and "thigh" of the woman, and unjustifiably translates that as "miscarriage" even though no pregnancy is mentioned and no other Bible translation I know of translates it that way.





Other than that single word that the NIV translates as "miscarriage", there's no indication anywhere in there that they were even describing pregnancy. No pregnancy or fetus is mentioned, and why would the test for adultery only apply to pregnant women? It's almost certainly a mistranslation by the version you used.

Body parts can be difficult translations in Hebrew, because ancient Hebrew often used euphemisms rather than refer to things scientifically, or use the same word to refer to two things close to each other. (Even in English there can be confusion - when someone says, "I got shot in the stomach", does it refer to their lower torso where the muscles are, or their actual digestive organ? If you say someone hurt their groin, did they strain their groin muscle or get kicked in the balls?)

But some translations are more likely than others. Whoever fed that passage to you used the NIV on purpose, because the NIV is the ONLY place I've ever seen that passage translated as "miscarriage". In every other translation it's a curse on the the women's belly or more specifically the womb (implying the woman wouldn't be able to have children again), not a curse on any baby. The words are actually literally "belly" and "thigh", but most scholars agree that "thigh" was used as a euphemism for the reproductive parts in Hebrew just like "groin" is used as a euphemism in English. But there's no word for "miscarriage" in there - that's something the NIV adds as a loose interpretation, probably without legitimate justification.

If you want to refer to the ancient Jewish Talmud, where the whole process is described in much more detail, they never once refer to pregnancy or miscarriage anywhere there either. So even 2,000 years ago that verse wasn't being interpreted in that way by the Jews who were actually using it. And the NIV translation wasn't done by anyone who had ever done that trial or ever would.


New Revised Standard Version (what I and many others consider the most competent, unbiased, direct translation out there):



King James Version (if you're into the OG stuff)



American Standard Version



English Standard Version



You can keep going - none of the other translations write that passage as "miscarriage". It's a new thing the NIV added.

The whole point of the passage is that if the woman has been cheating, and lies about it yet still agrees to be tested, that the priest will perform the test (giving normally harmless barley water) and God, with the approval of the couple, will judge. And the judgment will be in her inability to have babies again and social ostracization.

Of course, in practice it's completely irrelevant for Christians, as we don't even have Jewish priests nor are any of those rituals meant for us.

come on breh, im just godless atheist scum you know im not gonna read all that

 

[Professor Emeritus]

come on breh, im just godless atheist scum you know im not gonna read all that

That's why I gave you the TLDR at the top, all the else was just receipts for those who care.

You seen me post before, you know I'm always thorough.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Like I said, a straight literal translation is "belly" and "thigh".

If those are literal translations, they are obvious euphemisms. Why does the man take his suspected unfaithful wife to the priest? To drink a magic potion? C'mon, son. But I don't know that you're describing literal translations here. I'd have to look at the methodology involved.

You'd think the Lord wouldn't let twenty different fukked up versions of his Word float around.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

If those are literal translations, they are obvious euphemisms. Why does the man take his suspected unfaithful wife to the priest? To drink a magic potion? C'mon, son. But I don't know that you're describing literal translations here. I'd have to look at the methodology involved.

Yes, "belly" is probably a euphanism and "thigh" certainly is. Like I said, I trust the NRSV which translates them as referring to a curse on the woman's actual reproductive system. But that still doesn't make it a miscarriage. There's literally no mention of a pregnancy or fetus anywhere.

And if there was proof that the woman was unfaithful, they do a different process. This ordeal is only for if the husband "suspects" it but there's no witnesses. In a sense it's compassionate towards woman - a man wasn't allowed to accuse his wife of adultery just because he "suspects" she's unfaithful, he has to have proof, and if he doesn't have proof, then he needs either go to the priest and let God decide (where she could happily drink some harmless water if she's been faithful) or drop the issue.

In the Mishnah and Talmud, it appears strongly that "the ordeal" was basically used primarily as a threat to scare the woman into confessing if she was actually guilty. From wikipedia:

According to the Mishnah, it was the practice for the woman to first be brought to the Sanhedrin, before being subjected to the ordeal. Repeated attempts would be made to persuade the women to confess, including multiple suggestions to her of possible mitigating factors; if she confessed, the ordeal was not required.[4][5]....The Mishnah mentions there could also be a suspension of the ordeal for one, two or three years.

Apparently the Jews themselves stopped doing the ordeal in the 1st century. The Christians never did it.

You'd think the Lord wouldn't let twenty different fukked up versions of his Word float around.

He ain't a dictator, let's us humans carry the message in our own faulty ways.

If the Church was completely dictatorial about it, only allowing one "official" translation that could never be changed and burning all the rest, there would be a lot of people complaining about that. And legitimately.

 

[jj23]

If the Church was completely dictatorial about it, only allowing one "official" translation that could never be changed and burning all the rest, there would be a lot of people complaining about that. And legitimately.

Knowing the history of the Catholic Church, the Protestant movement and the way heretics were tortured and killed for having differing opinions, it’s disingenuous to claim this.

They may not have been able to stop it, but that’s not to say they didn’t try.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

He ain't a dictator,

"The Lord, King of Kings, worship me!"

Yeah, ok.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Knowing the history of the Catholic Church, the Protestant movement and the way heretics were tortured and killed for having differing opinions, it’s disingenuous to claim this.

They may not have been able to stop it, but that’s not to say they didn’t try.

Do you not see how perfectly you just demonstrated my point?

Ya'all slip from arguing one extreme to the other with the smoothness, not even realizing that nothing could even potentially satisfy the mutually opposing demands you place on religion.

I didn't say that the church has not done evil things due to the corruption of power. That's what my very first post in this thread is all about. But for them to enforce what Hogan was asking for would have required FAR worse abuses, far more consistently, than anything that has ever happened in history. The instances you speak of were undertaken by a minority of the historical Christian leaders over time, and they were always wrong.

Yes, certain HUMAN leaders have been dictators at times, and a percentage of those have operated through the church. (Though contrary to what anti-religious people seem to assume, removing the church from the equation didn't exactly help mankind on the "avoiding dictators" front.) But God is very, very clear that that's not what He's about, and anyone who is acting as such is in violation of God's truth.

So Jesus called them and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” - Mark 10:42-45

That statement and others like it, not to mention the entire example Jesus set in his ministry, prove that Christianity was never meant to exert the kind of power you speak of. The very FIRST act of Jesus's ministry was to deny worldly power and worldly rule (Luke 4), and it's no mistake that the offer of such power came from the Satan. That ain't what following Jesus is supposed to be about.

"The Lord, King of Kings, worship me!"

Yeah, ok.

What is your argument?

You went from one line complaining that if God was really God, he wouldn't let people get away with making multiple translations of a book, and now you're complaining that God asks for worship?

If I came on this forum and started giving you orders, asking you to respect and obey me, it'd be a pretty bad look. But if you were a child and your father was asking you to respect and obey him, it would make perfect sense.

Yes, it's poor form for a human leader to call people to worship them. But God? You're gonna go from complaining about the lack of use of dictatorial power in translation in one comment straight to complaining about actual God even having a call to worship in the next comment?

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

What is your argument?

If you suspected your Israelite lady was cheating on you, it was probably with a man of a higher social standing. Like the priest.

So you take her to the priest, he thinks "Okay, I think I remember creeping with this bytch. Better give her the red potion."

Now nobody's the daddy because the woman miscarries, nobody has to get divorced, we can blame the woman, society remains intact.


Unless you believe ancient people didn't fukk around on each other.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

dbl post

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

tripl post