Leviticus 20:14 is not the Word of God

[ZackMartin]

Conservative Christians generally subscribe to what I might call "full inspiration" - the whole of the Bible is inspired by God.

I believe in God, so I have no inherent objection to the idea of revelation or inspired scripture. And it is certainly possible to me that parts of the Bible are revelation or inspired scripture. So I can endorse the "partial inspiration" view - parts of the Bible, but not the whole of it, is inspired by God. But the remainder, is not divinely inspired, and is not the Word of God.

Let me give an example of this, with reference to a specific passage - Lev 20:14 (KJV) "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you."

1] As I interpret it, this is essentially a prohibition on a man marrying his mother-in-law or stepdaughter, and/or sleeping with them. As a moral prohibition, it is fair enough - I'm sure both scenarios most commonly just result in people getting hurt. So I can't really object to the prohibition itself. I can see why God might want to discourage or prohibit such behaviour.

2] The penalty is a different story though. My entire life, ever since I was a child, I have always believed that capital punishment was gravely wrong. As such, I cannot accept the idea that God would endorse it. Now, some people reading this will agree with me on capital punishment, and others will disagree with me. But if you don't agree with me, let me put it this way: Surely there is something (or probably several things) you are convinced in the bottom of your heart is wrong, and always have been. Like human sacrifice, child sacrifice, widow burning, whatever it is for you. Someone comes to you and says "God has revealed a new scripture to me". You read this new scripture, and find it endorses that thing you are convinced in the bottom of your heart to be wrong. Might you not reject the claim that this scripture was from God on that basis? Would that not be a good reason to do so?

3] But even among those who support the death penalty, most would agree that capital punishment should only be reserved for the most serious crimes. Is sleeping consensually with your mother-in-law or stepdaughter wrong enough to deserve the death penalty? Very few today would say yes. So this is another reason to believe this verse is not the Word of God.

4] Executing all three people involved also seems very questionable. The verse never says that the two woman must be aware of and consent to what is going on. So if your husband sleeps with your mother-in-law, without your knowledge and consent, you are to be executed? If a man sleeps with his step-daughter, the step-daughter is to be executed? Even if she is an adult, the ability of a stepdaughter to freely consent to sexual relations with her stepfather must be questioned; it is likely she is under his long-established influence in choosing to do so. So we should execute her? This seems utterly barbaric, and clearly not the Word of God.

5] Finally, even those who accept the death penalty, who would endorse capital punishment by burning? A painful and gruesome death. This is clearly not the Word of God.

So if it is not the Word of God, what is it? I can think of only two other possibilities: the Word of Man, or the Word of Satan.

[magellan004]

Conservative Christians generally subscribe to what I might call "full inspiration" - the whole of the Bible is inspired by God.

I believe in God, so I have no inherent objection to the idea of revelation or inspired scripture. And it is certainly possible to me that parts of the Bible are revelation or inspired scripture. So I can endorse the "partial inspiration" view - parts of the Bible, but not the whole of it, is inspired by God. But the remainder, is not divinely inspired, and is not the Word of God.

Let me give an example of this, with reference to a specific passage - Lev 20:14 (KJV) "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you."

1] As I interpret it, this is essentially a prohibition on a man marrying his mother-in-law or stepdaughter, and/or sleeping with them. As a moral prohibition, it is fair enough - I'm sure both scenarios most commonly just result in people getting hurt. So I can't really object to the prohibition itself. I can see why God might want to discourage or prohibit such behaviour.

2] The penalty is a different story though. My entire life, ever since I was a child, I have always believed that capital punishment was gravely wrong. As such, I cannot accept the idea that God would endorse it. Now, some people reading this will agree with me on capital punishment, and others will disagree with me. But if you don't agree with me, let me put it this way: Surely there is something (or probably several things) you are convinced in the bottom of your heart is wrong, and always have been. Like human sacrifice, child sacrifice, widow burning, whatever it is for you. Someone comes to you and says "God has revealed a new scripture to me". You read this new scripture, and find it endorses that thing you are convinced in the bottom of your heart to be wrong. Might you not reject the claim that this scripture was from God on that basis? Would that not be a good reason to do so?

3] But even among those who support the death penalty, most would agree that capital punishment should only be reserved for the most serious crimes. Is sleeping consensually with your mother-in-law or stepdaughter wrong enough to deserve the death penalty? Very few today would say yes. So this is another reason to believe this verse is not the Word of God.

4] Executing all three people involved also seems very questionable. The verse never says that the two woman must be aware of and consent to what is going on. So if your husband sleeps with your mother-in-law, without your knowledge and consent, you are to be executed? If a man sleeps with his step-daughter, the step-daughter is to be executed? Even if she is an adult, the ability of a stepdaughter to freely consent to sexual relations with her stepfather must be questioned; it is likely she is under his long-established influence in choosing to do so. So we should execute her? This seems utterly barbaric, and clearly not the Word of God.

5] Finally, even those who accept the death penalty, who would endorse capital punishment by burning? A painful and gruesome death. This is clearly not the Word of God.

So if it is not the Word of God, what is it? I can think of only two other possibilities: the Word of Man, or the Word of Satan.

Why do you read that as 'You, Zack Martin, must burn them.'?
If you read a law that says (say) 'Smoking on a train - penalty $100 ' do you see that as 'If you Zack, find a smoker you must charge them $100'?

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

Conservative Christians generally subscribe to what I might call "full inspiration" - the whole of the Bible is inspired by God.

I believe in God, so I have no inherent objection to the idea of revelation or inspired scripture. And it is certainly possible to me that parts of the Bible are revelation or inspired scripture. So I can endorse the "partial inspiration" view - parts of the Bible, but not the whole of it, is inspired by God. But the remainder, is not divinely inspired, and is not the Word of God.

Let me give an example of this, with reference to a specific passage - Lev 20:14 (KJV) "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you."

1] As I interpret it, this is essentially a prohibition on a man marrying his mother-in-law or stepdaughter, and/or sleeping with them. As a moral prohibition, it is fair enough - I'm sure both scenarios most commonly just result in people getting hurt. So I can't really object to the prohibition itself. I can see why God might want to discourage or prohibit such behaviour.

2] The penalty is a different story though. My entire life, ever since I was a child, I have always believed that capital punishment was gravely wrong. As such, I cannot accept the idea that God would endorse it. Now, some people reading this will agree with me on capital punishment, and others will disagree with me. But if you don't agree with me, let me put it this way: Surely there is something (or probably several things) you are convinced in the bottom of your heart is wrong, and always have been. Like human sacrifice, child sacrifice, widow burning, whatever it is for you. Someone comes to you and says "God has revealed a new scripture to me". You read this new scripture, and find it endorses that thing you are convinced in the bottom of your heart to be wrong. Might you not reject the claim that this scripture was from God on that basis? Would that not be a good reason to do so?

3] But even among those who support the death penalty, most would agree that capital punishment should only be reserved for the most serious crimes. Is sleeping consensually with your mother-in-law or stepdaughter wrong enough to deserve the death penalty? Very few today would say yes. So this is another reason to believe this verse is not the Word of God.

4] Executing all three people involved also seems very questionable. The verse never says that the two woman must be aware of and consent to what is going on. So if your husband sleeps with your mother-in-law, without your knowledge and consent, you are to be executed? If a man sleeps with his step-daughter, the step-daughter is to be executed? Even if she is an adult, the ability of a stepdaughter to freely consent to sexual relations with her stepfather must be questioned; it is likely she is under his long-established influence in choosing to do so. So we should execute her? This seems utterly barbaric, and clearly not the Word of God.

5] Finally, even those who accept the death penalty, who would endorse capital punishment by burning? A painful and gruesome death. This is clearly not the Word of God.

So if it is not the Word of God, what is it? I can think of only two other possibilities: the Word of Man, or the Word of Satan.

This presents the dilemma for those that follow ancient books alone as inspired word of God either partially or wholly in one form or another. Jews, Christians and Muslims face the same problems. Jews resolve it with extreme pragmatism, Midrash and keep the Torah in the closet, except for readings on holy days. Christianity and Islam take either a combative approach or a 'make things fit my view' approach to dealing with the conflicts.

Cherry picking ancient scripture from the human perspective to suit ones personal view or individual group view is always problematic. It is basically a humanist approach to scripture, and results in creating more churches, and a Doctor Jeckle and Mr. Hyde religion in the modern world. The problem is most apparent in dealing with science. As a matter of fact ancient religious scripture is not remotely compatible with science, nor is it compatible with a modern view of relationships with those who believe differently.

For the 'cherry pickers' it begins with what portions of the Bible are critical to confirming the Doctrine and Dogma they belief important to their belief system. From their they use ENRON book keeping to make the rest fit.

I prefer to consider that IF God exists and has a relationship with humanity, that I believe is universal, and the claim of Revelation has some value in this relationship, the scriptures of ancient religions represent to a large extent 'the human view' of this relationship.

[MaxVel]

This presents the dilemma for those that follow ancient books alone as inspired word of God either partially or wholly in one form or another. Jews, Christians and Muslims face the same problems. Jews resolve it with extreme pragmatism, Midrash and keep the Torah in the closet, except for readings on holy days. Christianity and Islam take either a combative approach or a 'make things fit my view' approach to dealing with the conflicts.

Cherry picking ancient scripture from the human perspective to suit ones personal view or individual group view is always problematic. It is basically a humanist approach to scripture, and results in creating more churches, and a Doctor Jeckle and Mr. Hyde religion in the modern world. The problem is most apparent in dealing with science. As a matter of fact ancient religious scripture is not remotely compatible with science, nor is it compatible with a modern view of relationships with those who believe differently.

For the 'cherry pickers' it begins with what portions of the Bible are critical to confirming the Doctrine and Dogma they belief important to their belief system. From their they use ENRON book keeping to make the rest fit.

I prefer to consider that IF God exists and has a relationship with humanity, that I believe is universal, and the claim of Revelation has some value in this relationship, the scriptures of ancient religions represent to a large extent 'the human view' of this relationship.

I feel very odd...


...for once I agree with most of what Shunyadragon has said.

[ZackMartin]

Why do you read that as 'You, Zack Martin, must burn them.'?
If you read a law that says (say) 'Smoking on a train - penalty $100 ' do you see that as 'If you Zack, find a smoker you must charge them $100'?

The issue is not who does the burning, it is the fact that the burning was done.

If someone introduced a bill to bring back burning witches at the stake, I'd oppose it. If they said to me "You won't personally be required to burn any witches", I'd oppose it all the same.

[fm93]

4] Executing all three people involved also seems very questionable. The verse never says that the two woman must be aware of and consent to what is going on.

It says "If a man marries..." Sex isn't even mentioned in Leviticus 20:14, and obviously two women have to consent to marriage.

5] Finally, even those who accept the death penalty, who would endorse capital punishment by burning? A painful and gruesome death. This is clearly not the Word of God.

Commentaries generally list two different understandings of this. One of them is that, in accordance with Joshua 7:25, the people are burned AFTER being executed via stoning. So they wouldn't technically be killed via burning. The other understanding is that the passage doesn't even refer to death--it could very well mean that the people are branded (which would require a fire to warm an iron or something), and thus are given a mark of shame.

[ZackMartin]

For the 'cherry pickers' it begins with what portions of the Bible are critical to confirming the Doctrine and Dogma they belief important to their belief system. From their they use ENRON book keeping to make the rest fit.

What's worse? "Picking cherries" based on your own conscience.... or ignoring your conscience in the name of "if the scripture says it, it must be right, my conscience be damned"

Since I think following our consciences is a good thing - they aren't perfect, but they are right more often than not - and some text which someone has claimed to be of divine origin has no guarantee of performing any better - I'll pick my own conscience over a claimed scripture every day.

[MaxVel]

Conservative Christians generally subscribe to what I might call "full inspiration" - the whole of the Bible is inspired by God.

I believe in God, so I have no inherent objection to the idea of revelation or inspired scripture. And it is certainly possible to me that parts of the Bible are revelation or inspired scripture. So I can endorse the "partial inspiration" view - parts of the Bible, but not the whole of it, is inspired by God. But the remainder, is not divinely inspired, and is not the Word of God.

Is it not also at least possible that the whole of the Bible is inspired?

Let me give an example of this, with reference to a specific passage - Lev 20:14 (KJV) "And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you."

Many other translations have 'both' in there... eg NIV

If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

It's also important to think about what the possible meanings of the Hebrew translated 'burned in the fire' / 'burnt with fire' are. Some commentators (eg. NET online Bible, footnote 28) mention that 'branded' is a possible meaning here.

1] As I interpret it, this is essentially a prohibition on a man marrying his mother-in-law or stepdaughter, and/or sleeping with them. As a moral prohibition, it is fair enough - I'm sure both scenarios most commonly just result in people getting hurt. So I can't really object to the prohibition itself. I can see why God might want to discourage or prohibit such behaviour.

I think it's a prohibition against a man marrying or sleeping with both at the same time. Some of the reasons God might have for prohibiting it would include:-

- maintaining a stable social structure. Life was very harsh for most of Israel most of the time, and a stable family unit was critical to the survival of individuals and society. Anyone who threatened that was endangering the lives of people - so committing adultery (say) wasn't just interfering in a relationship, it could also lead to social breakdown and ultimately the failure of the community to survive. Such behaviour actually could cost lives.

- maintaining purity and a distinct difference in values and behaviour between Israel and the pagan nations around them. Israel was chosen by God to bring forth the Messiah; and as 'God's people' their behaviour either brought honour to, or dishonoured God in the eyes of outsiders. (Note that honour was very important to most ANE cultures)

2] The penalty is a different story though. My entire life, ever since I was a child, I have always believed that capital punishment was gravely wrong.

I think this is the real crux of your position. What is your basis for thinking that?

Is it wrong for God to take someone's life?

If so, why? If not, why is it wrong for God to use particular people in particular given circumstances, to take someone's life?

As such, I cannot accept the idea that God would endorse it. Now, some people reading this will agree with me on capital punishment, and others will disagree with me. But if you don't agree with me, let me put it this way: Surely there is something (or probably several things) you are convinced in the bottom of your heart is wrong, and always have been. Like human sacrifice, child sacrifice, widow burning, whatever it is for you. Someone comes to you and says "God has revealed a new scripture to me". You read this new scripture, and find it endorses that thing you are convinced in the bottom of your heart to be wrong. Might you not reject the claim that this scripture was from God on that basis? Would that not be a good reason to do so?

I don't think it can be a good reason for rejecting a passage of scripture, unless you can be very sure that your particular moral intuition is correct, and that you fully understand all the circumstances (including possible future outcomes) so that your moral judgment is fully informed.

What you are doing is in effect saying that your moral judgment of the situation is as good as that of God, thus, if you find it morally wrong, God would too, and therefore He would never command that. While this is not impossible, we know that (a) we are morally flawed creatures - we don't make 100% correct moral judgments, always; and (b) we don't know every relevant fact and possible consequence - but God does. So I think that we must proceed with a lot of caution before making a definite judgment call.

3] But even among those who support the death penalty, most would agree that capital punishment should only be reserved for the most serious crimes. Is sleeping consensually with your mother-in-law or stepdaughter wrong enough to deserve the death penalty? Very few today would say yes. So this is another reason to believe this verse is not the Word of God.

(a) This approach leads to a slippery slope - you will need to buy a perforated Bible, because there are many moral commands in there that 'people today' would not agree with. Who made 'people today' the measuring standard of moral rectitude, anyway?

(b) worse than (a) you seem to be assuming that the possible consequences of the act are the same today and back then. Yet we know that their life was very different from ours - most people lived as marginal farmers and croppers, and needed a large, stable family / community to provide the labour for their food production and to provide protection from hostile outsiders, raiders and the like.

Further, the Levitical code is part of a Covenant - a 'treaty agreement' that the Israelites voluntarily entered into with God. They agreed that these punishments would be given for these crimes as part of that agreement - in return they got a raft of promises (Lev 26:4-13) of God's ongoing care and protection.

4] Executing all three people involved also seems very questionable. The verse never says that the two woman must be aware of and consent to what is going on. So if your husband sleeps with your mother-in-law, without your knowledge and consent, you are to be executed? If a man sleeps with his step-daughter, the step-daughter is to be executed? Even if she is an adult, the ability of a stepdaughter to freely consent to sexual relations with her stepfather must be questioned; it is likely she is under his long-established influence in choosing to do so. So we should execute her? This seems utterly barbaric, and clearly not the Word of God.

That seems like a most uncharitable reading of the passage. When you say "The verse never says that.." one could equally argue that 'The verse never says that Israel must execute both even if only one is aware (etc)'.

5] Finally, even those who accept the death penalty, who would endorse capital punishment by burning? A painful and gruesome death. This is clearly not the Word of God.

I don't see how this follows. 'God would never command any very unpleasant punishment'...? Where do you get that from?

So if it is not the Word of God, what is it? I can think of only two other possibilities: the Word of Man, or the Word of Satan.

[Sparko]

I find it humorous when someone makes themselves the arbiter of what God really said. They are placing themselves above God, and shoehorning God into a mold they have made for Him.

It usually starts with "I can't believe God would..." and ends with "...so the bible must be wrong" or something similar.

[Adrift]

Great reply Max. To add to your post, I believe that there is a difference in how grace is administered post-Christ, and this is why we see such harsh consequences pre-Christ. Before the coming of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sin, and the grace offered to all through Christ through his death and resurrection, people were living in a world so fallen, and so devoid of the spirit of God that only (what we perceive) the harshest penalties would suffice for an all just God. In fact, it could be argued that what moderns perceive as harsh treatment was, in fact, more grace than anyone deserved. The consequence of sin is death, and everyone in humanity has fallen short, but even before the all encompassing grace we now know through Christ, God offered a way out to those who lived by his commandments. It was certainly in God's right to wipe humanity off the planet completely (as he almost did in the flood story).

[headheart]

The issue is not who does the burning, it is the fact that the burning was done.

If someone introduced a bill to bring back burning witches at the stake, I'd oppose it. If they said to me "You won't personally be required to burn any witches", I'd oppose it all the same.

What makes any word specifically an authoritative word of a G-d?

Yet Christian fundamentalists right here on this forum are still burning witches with their words. Need I remind you of the thread I started in Wicca & Neo-pagan Religions: Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith., where even the Department Heads jumped in to carry away their pound of flesh? Is this the sorry state of Christian apologetics? It's done on an almost daily basis in the LDS - Mormonism forum and daresay on every forum where Christians here suppose that they have a mandate from their G-d to point out to them that they are not in line with the word of G-d.

What makes any word specifically an authoritative word of a G-d?

Peace,
Eric

[Sparko]

What makes any word specifically an authoritative word of a G-d?

Yet Christian fundamentalists right here on this forum are still burning witches with their words. Need I remind you of the thread I started in Wicca & Neo-pagan Religions: Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith., where even the Department Heads jumped in to carry away their pound of flesh? Is this the sorry state of Christian apologetics? It's done on an almost daily basis in the LDS - Mormonism forum and daresay on every forum where Christians here suppose that they have a mandate from their G-d to point out to them that they are not in line with the word of G-d.

What makes any word specifically an authoritative word of a G-d?

Peace,
Eric

why I just proposed burning you as a witch just a minute ago in that very thread. cool.

[Hamster]

If I could burn witches with my words I'd be a witch and I'd have to burn myself

[Sparko]

If I could burn witches with my words I'd be a witch and I'd have to burn myself

I would help you.

[Chrawnus]

What makes any word specifically an authoritative word of a G-d?

Yet Christian fundamentalists right here on this forum are still burning witches with their words. Need I remind you of the thread I started in Wicca & Neo-pagan Religions: Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith., where even the Department Heads jumped in to carry away their pound of flesh? Is this the sorry state of Christian apologetics? It's done on an almost daily basis in the LDS - Mormonism forum and daresay on every forum where Christians here suppose that they have a mandate from their G-d to point out to them that they are not in line with the word of G-d.

What makes any word specifically an authoritative word of a G-d?

Peace,
Eric

Seems like headheart is intent to infect every thread he comes across with his deluded nonsense.

He might just be the 2nd person I put on ignore.