What do Christians think of these Bible verses?

1) Regulations for the nation of Israel regarding the humane treatment of slaves, which were a reality in every culture of the day.

2)Regulations regarding confrontation of hostile nations in a time of war.

(Perhaps you have noticed war continues to this day - more being killed in war in the last century than in the previous 10 centuries combined)

3) Regulations concerning forced sexual assault. A woman losing her virginity in Bible times was stigmatized so as to have no chance of finding a husband to the day of her death.

It wasn't legislated to encourage rape, but to discourage it. It made the man liable for his actions for the rest of his life and gave the woman the best chance of becoming a mother, the goal of every woman in that day.

4) We have laws today that state treachery in time of war incurs an automatic death penalty.

God had laws against other things, like sleeping with animals, incest, murder, and all the other things wicked men practice.

Perhaps it never occurred to you that no laws at all are needed when men are by nature righteous.

You don't have to tell an honest man not to steal.

Law is only necessary when men are evil doers.

It is a reflection of the condition of mankind; not of God.

God just wants two things - that men would love God above all else and love their neighbor as themselves. When this is done, no law is needed.

Christianity is a principal based religion, not a rule based religion. The ethics and behavior of Christians is guided by two principals: Love the lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. And: Love thy neighbor as thy self. The bible is full of many rules, some of which actually contradict each other. As a result, many christians (liberals) use the above principals to decide whether certain rules are still relevelant or not. More conservative christians try to obey all the rules, even if they conflict each other. However, the Bible does says that women are supposed to cover their hair, at least when praying. Having women's hair covered is a Christian tradition dating back 2,000 years. That's why nuns cover their hair even today. However, it has fallen out of favor in recent times. For those who say it's a "local" issue, look at 1 Corinthians 17-26, the next passage. It's about the establisment of Communion, a major sacrement shared by all Christians. If women covering their hair is a "local" issue than so is Communion. Don't bother to pass the bread or share the wine. Communion was only for the congregation Paul was addressin thousands of years ago, not you. Technically, conservative, bible believing women should cover their hair, at least if they are praying. After all, they want to obey all the laws in the bible. More liberal christians probably wouldn't. They tend to interpret the bible, through a modern eye. They don't just do everything the bible says.

I'm well-aware of them, they come up on here all the time.

As for the first, yes, slavery was allowed. It wasn't encouraged, but it was allowed. The thing is, there were a lot of rules for it. For example, if a man beat one of his slaves and injured them badly (ruined an eye, broke a bone, et cetera), he was to have the same done to him. That's where the eye for an eye thing comes from. So a slave owner had to be very careful. Also, if a man owned a slave and his family, when it came time to let that slave go, he had to allow the man's family to go with him. He also had to send the man off with plenty of money, so that he would never be in slavery again. Slaves were to be released either after their debt was paid, or at the Year of Jubilee, which ever came first. A man caught kidnapping someone to sell them into slavery was to be put to death. Slaves were to be given at least one day off a week, and were to be fed and clothed. If a slave was being mistreated and ran away, if he was found, the person who found him did not have to return him.

When people think "slavery" now, they think of the Confederate South. But it wasn't the same at all.

Now, as for the terms of warfare, it seems harsh. But how often did the Israelites actually do it? Further, it's more than the Israelites themselves got from their attackers. There were no terms of peace, and often, their enemies slaughtered entire towns, no exceptions. The only times Israelites went and attacked other towns was because those towns attacked them first, or because the inhabitants of the town were particularly evil (as in, practicing child sacrifice, adultery, orgies, et cetera).

The passage in Deuteronomy 22 is one of the most misunderstood passages in the Bible. Verses 28-29 originally said nothing about rape. It says that if a man lays with a virgin, he must marry her. However, if it was indeed rape, the man was to be put to death. Nothing was to be done to the woman. The purpose of this was to protect both men and women. If the woman did not cry out for help, it was considered consensual, so the two would have to marry. That way, there could be no women who willingly had sex with a man, and then claimed it was rape afterwards, so they could get out of trouble. On the other hand, such laws protected women, because all they'd have to do is cry out for help, and the man who raped her would be put to death. That means that a man couldn't just rape a woman and be able to marry her. It actually makes sense when you look at it that way.

The last one seems harsh, but it had to be. The reason for such harsh laws was to keep order, and keep the Israelites pure. Remember that they didn't have a true judicial system back then, so law-breakers couldn't be imprisoned. They had to have some kind of threat in order to keep people from breaking the laws. Death did the trick.

I've perused evilbible.com before, and in my opinion, they take verses WAY out of cultural and historical (not to mention scriptural) context, and apply their own meanings to them, without considering the contexts. Really, they're just as bad as fundamentalist, legalistic Christians who tear a verse out of its context, and build doctrines around it.

Christians, especially the fundamentalists, will often tell you: "since Jesus fulfilled the Law those verses no longer apply." But this misses the point that at one time, they were the 'word of God' and the 'commandment of God.'

Actually for the standards of the day -- 'the day' being Canaan, three thousand years ago -- those laws you've quoted are humane. Nowadays we judge slavery and rape and the slaughter of civilians in war to be great evils, but ancient peoples would not have judged them so. Many ancient people would have taken slaves from among their own; would have utterly destroyed any towns they captured; would have given no rights to a raped girl. It would seem Moses imposed stringent laws on his people for the sake of justice, as he saw it. Or is it possible that God has tried over millenia to change the behavior of humanity only a little at a time? Jesus found many flaws in Moses' law and told the people of those flaws; he did not feel that Moses law went far enough in its demands. But he might have said of Moses: He did what he could.

As for the assumption that the original Hebrew said something significantly different -- that's absurd! BTW you should have asked your question of Jews as well as Christians, because to Jews, those laws are actively part of the Torah and in theory, are still in force.

ok i'll comment for you. take that nlt version and put it with the niv version. neither one even remotely conveys the meanings in the manuscripts.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

the right way is this.

Deu 17:12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.

big difference in meaning between the 2. so niv and nlt should be kindling. not used as a bible

it does not say should be put to death it says shall die. as in when God judges them.

btw this is just 1 of the problems with that version. evey single verse you quoted has a similar problem.

Well - first, I know of them and accept them.

However, the issue here is largely irrelevant to Christians, as even those things found here that are commands are not - and NEVER WERE - commands given to Christians.

Lev 25:44-46 - permission, not a command, to own slaves. Jesus tells us that divorce (for any reason) was something God permitted out of mercy to the sinful but did not approve. This probably falls under the same category.

Deu 20:10-14 - so, should the ancient Jews instead eradicated the population of enemy combatants? They had neither technology or wealth necessary for secure prisoner of war camps, and (of course) returning an enemy population intact to their homes after a war was simply re-populating the enemy army. They also didn't have the capability to attempt something like "the Marshall Plan" in those days. Eradication of the enemy combatants and slavery of the remainder was the most humane solution *available at the time* that guaranteed the safety of the Jews. I would also like to add that this command was provided for specific conditions - neighboring enemies only, I believe.

But, you tell me: was there a more humane but equally safe option available to the ancient Jews in such a situation? Or was this the most moral action that they could possibly take in such a situation?

Deu 22:28-29 (sigh) OK, let's see if I can find my answer to this...nope. OK...

In the ancient society of the Jews - and in many modern male-dominated societies as well - a woman's status (not legal rights) is wholly dependent on the status of her male guardian (husband or father, usually). Also, a woman who is not a virgin has generally little or no prospects for marriage in such male-dominated societies.

Why this is punishment for the rapist:

* his victim gains his status

* he must support his victim *and her children* his entire life

* he cannot escape this responsibility, though any other man in that society can on a whim (divorce required no legal proceeding)

Why this is beneficial to the woman

* her honor is preserved intact

* she is supported by her attacker for the remainder of her life, and all of her children for as long as they are juveniles

The alternative

* the woman is considered unsuitable as a wife, probably never marrying

* the woman may also be expelled from the care of her present guardian on account of promiscuity (a common occurrence in modern male-dominated societies that do not have this law). Such an act in such a society results in the woman either living in penury for the rest of her life and/or resorting to prostitution to survive

So - what's the better solution? Do you know a legal sentence that recompenses the woman in this situation more fully (and penalizes the attacker more completely)? I would like to add that the command to marry is given to the rapist - not the woman. She may (of course) refuse.

Deu 17:12 - in other words, contempt of court is punishable by death. Without the technology to build OR the wealth to maintain secure prisons, what is the better solution here?

These practices can only be viewed as "nasty" out of context AND when one refuses to consider the alternative (that is, the alternatives available or the consequences of such regulations being absent).

Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

You should read the whole chapters before making conclusions, verses can be taken out of context, also that was the old laws given to Israelites before. Jesus died for are sins and now there is a better way and we are not under the old law anymore, but the law of grace

The council of Nicaea and the cementing of the New Testament Gospels to Old Testament doctrine is the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity.

Wow, you sure rattled some cages. It truly amazes me, this 'holy book'. Doesn't reflect our times, indeed. That's not what they meant. You're reading it wrong. Rubbish. The LORD your God could have said

"As you approach a town to attack it, do not. Those among you who ask for war, restrain them. When the people open the gates to you, then treat them with respect, remember you are a guest in their town. Under no conditions will you attack the town, or allow any of your people to do harm."

Unfortunately, the LORD our God failed.

well...you found alot of stuff that portrays God as evil ....and wicked...some the translations you have used do not accurately reveal the original Hebrew and along with that the meaning you have attempted to persuade are tainted by your agenda....its ok...lots of folks do that....the truth of the entire matter is God made a covenant with abraham....and it was to protect the nation He gave.....the question for you is....if you are a parent....and your children were threatened by anything...wouldn't you do whatever necessary to protect them?....even if it meant killing someone else...?....yeah...you would.....we as humans look at God and apply our rationale and think He is wrong because of what we think...totally ignoring the invitation to know Him.....and in that relationship understanding what He did and is doing...its never too late....the invitation is open for you....you chose ....†