• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Christian Apologetics in Action...

NietzscheKeen

NietzscheKeen

Well-Known Member
I found this verse several months ago and have had a lot of fun with it, especially with Baptists.

Proverbs 31:6-7

Ask them about this verse and watch them scramble and just wait for the incredible BS they try to convince themselves of.

Usually the first question is.. "what translation is that?" For some reason any translation will do most anytime, except when it comes to this verse... then it has to be King James Version... otherwise it just doesn't count.

Then they usually say try to twist the words around to mean something else, saying that I'm taking it out of context, but the verse is VERY clear and straightforward about what it means. Read the surrounding verses.

The next argument is the "fruit of the vine" argument. "Wine back then wasn't like the wine we have now. It was really just juice."

Then finally the more informed ones will say Solomon wrote the book of Proverbs and he had hundreds of concubines, etc. etc. implying that his wisdom should be questioned. Well,... then you might as well chuck the whole book of Proverbs then yeah? And if one book is discredited... then maybe the entire book ISN'T inspired by God. You don't get to pick and choose, lol. Also. it's in the old testamwnt so it doesn't apply anymore... but the ten commandments do?

Hope you guys and gals have fun with this one. It's brought me hours of fun.
 
Murfy

Murfy

Well-Known Member
super easy-

it's not even worth the time. out o fcontext it's almost meaningless. it's you who lack the understanding.
 
Murfy

Murfy

Well-Known Member
ya-

you beat me up good. solommon fell. read the whole thing. it's you who have the blinders.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
...keen, do you have an interpretation of what it is saying? The ridicule is all well and good, but what's your take on it? You haven't provided that. For a second forget that it is in a collection of books and see what you come up with. Should be easy since you've already trashed the rest of the stack.

...is it a face-value statement?
 
Murfy

Murfy

Well-Known Member
no-

it means intoxicate the ones who are willing. they have turned from God, and Him from them.give them the comfort due to them in this world, as it is all they can recognize. those who can recognize the reality of the Salvation, will not need the comfort of the intoxication as they believe their suffering is a sacrament, with an obvious reward.
 
C

Chartreuse Spruce

Active Member
well, if the scribes of long ago could pick and choose which books made it into the Bible, then I can pick and choose what to believe. The Bible was not intended to be taken literally in its entirety. Some of it is literal, some symbolic, some poetic. Like our writer Solomon here. I'm not sure what the big deal is here. Doesn't seem like such a mystery or even anything interesting to talk about. King Solomon was devastated when his Black Queen had to go back to Ethiopia. He got drunk a lot. And if you want to be a king, you can't be a drunk. But being a drunk is not for kings because I guess it inhibits decision making abilities when needing to rule a country. But shit, she probably took all the cannabis with her because it was a 7 year treck thru the desert. And who the hell wants to ride on a camel hump for 7 years with nothing to smoke? When the love of your life left you, did you drink? Hell yes, it helps! lol.
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
One of the many verses that prove to me that the bible is not a thing meant to be taken solely on face value:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

If you get rape, and aren't engaged. Guess what? The bible says you should be married to your rapist forever. I figure there's two options here: Take it literally. Or, remember that women were once property, and that is a product of a different time.
 
C

Chartreuse Spruce

Active Member
those girls were sluts just like we are, don't think for a second that men were going around raping everyone. Those chicks were wanting it. These were early early barely civilized people though. There weren't many words to use in those days. vocabulary was limited. Moses could not just type away with a copper claw at his stone tablet, "if you sleep around before you get married you will get itchy things on your parts". That girl Dinah. They called that rape. That had to be really scandalous in those days because a whole villiage got sacked because she was a whore. Her brothers and father were like 'the family to know' so no one would risk their life for that girl like that unless it was love. Other 'villiages' or tribes just found it more acceptable to have sex before marriage, just like we do today. Its accepted in this culture and in India it is not. That's why they have no AIDS.:joint:
 
kpmarine

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Chartreuse Spruce said:
those girls were sluts just like we are, don't think for a second that men were going around raping everyone. Those chicks were wanting it. These were early early barely civilized people though. There weren't many words to use in those days. vocabulary was limited. Moses could not just type away with a copper claw at his stone tablet, "if you sleep around before you get married you will get itchy things on your parts". That girl Dinah. They called that rape. That had to be really scandalous in those days because a whole villiage got sacked because she was a whore. Her brothers and father were like 'the family to know' so no one would risk their life for that girl like that unless it was love. Other 'villiages' or tribes just found it more acceptable to have sex before marriage, just like we do today. Its accepted in this culture and in India it is not. That's why they have no AIDS.:joint:
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
C

Chartreuse Spruce

Active Member
and for some irony for the guys in my thread that like irony and talk dick skin all night long...that whole town got slaughtered just after all the men got their foreskin cut off.
 
C

Chartreuse Spruce

Active Member
kpmarine said:
:confused:
Click to expand...
lol. what? just an fyi. lol but you see, the Bible doesn't say stay with your rapist forever. It is kinda saying if you sleep with someone you will marry them. Rapist were punished in those days with death just like other crimes. Death. and not just death for the offender. Death for the whole family and extended family.
 
NietzscheKeen

NietzscheKeen

Well-Known Member
How are verses like the laws in Deuteronomy and wisdom in Proverbs supposed to be taken if not literally? I think it was rather irresponsible of God to write lifes instruction manual in a style that needed to be interpreted. I mean, the verse I mentioned is quite clear and not taken out of context. Is it not?

If that is the case that the bible must be interpretted, then it either was meant for only the intellectually elite of the time or for the elite to interpret it for the illiterate. That's putting a lot of power in the hands of people who would have to be trusted on blind faith. I don't think God meant for us to have 100 different denominations of Christianity, but that's where interpretation gets you.

I mean, I get if you mean it doesn't apply to out time anymore, but if it isn't ok now... why should it have been ok then?
 
NietzscheKeen

NietzscheKeen

Well-Known Member
I'm teasing. I'm not the type to say hurtful things about others, so if I ever say anything mean you can rest assured it is said in jest. But I really don't understand what you are trying to say half of the time.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Murfy said:
no-

it means intoxicate the ones who are willing. they have turned from God, and Him from them.give them the comfort due to them in this world, as it is all they can recognize. those who can recognize the reality of the Salvation, will not need the comfort of the intoxication as they believe their suffering is a sacrament, with an obvious reward.
Click to expand...

[video=youtube;B9RAa5OqAJc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9RAa5OqAJc&feature=share&list=PLC2913D3CC 17D811E[/video]

Atheists-Experience-Tracie-Harris.jpg
 
Murfy

Murfy

Well-Known Member
i won't debate with you heisenberg-

he simply announced it as an unanswerable proposition and it wasn't. as i am sure you are aware, there are many reasons. would you build a damn, and not allow water to be in it's presence for fear of erosion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top