Protestants strictly follow the text of the Bible. do they follow these instructions? if not then why?

Protestants strictly follow the text of the Bible. do they follow these instructions? if not then why?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. Atheism is abhorrent and gay.
      >he thought he was going to get a diversionary argument and wriggle out of this
      Now answer the question.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. Atheism is abhorrent and gay.
      >he thought he was going to get a diversionary argument and wriggle out of this
      Now answer the question.

      Not what it says.
      Unironic atheists changed it to say that.

      here's what it actually says:
      >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;
      >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.

      which is a parallel to Exodus 22:16
      >And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

      "lay hold" is just assumed to be a forcing.
      and "humbled" is misunderstood because new versions are "translated" by libtards who dont understand that losing your virginity in fornication IS humbling and defiling.

      Protestants are just atheists with extra steps.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Funny, the Romans said the same thing about you guys...

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Evangelical Christians are the last group of people keeping Christianity alive
        Papists are cucks who try to LARP as tradcaths but worship a senile pope that supports liberalism and homosexuality
        Orthodogs are drunkards who failed to defend their religion from Muslims and Bolsheviks and now fight each other instead of defending their religion
        Mainstream Prots are just liberals and gays who don't read the bible, go to church once a month and think they can just go to heaven by doing nothing
        Evangelicals, (while very flawed) seem to be the only ones who are actively evangelizing and defending Christianity in the 21st century, this is why they are the only one still growing
        Saying this as an atheist btw

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Evangelical Christians are the last group of people keeping Christianity alive
          there is a small problem, they are crazy

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I know but the other ones are either LARPers or too weak

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            do you really think they believe they speak in tongues? then let them try a snake bite or drink poison, it will not affect them

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Saying this as an atheist btw
          You come from an Evangelical family, you are an Evangelical in my eyes

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not having to be told how to live my life because a israeli book told me so is worth the compromise of dealing with a few freaks.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It makes sense for a women to marry the man who took her virginity, rather than become a prostitute who lets a bunch of different men pump and dump her.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If they strictly followed the text of the Bible they wouldn't worship Jesus as God or eat shellfish.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But can they eat cephalopods? They are shellfish with internal shell. Can they eat slugs? They are shellfish without shell.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No shelfish, period.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus is god in the bible

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And Christ is in you, so you are One

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      1. We had a council about that.
      2. Ceremonial purity laws were fulfilled and we must not judge according to observance of them (See Colossians 2:16)

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not what it says.
    Unironic atheists changed it to say that.

    here's what it actually says:
    >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;
    >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.

    which is a parallel to Exodus 22:16
    >And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

    "lay hold" is just assumed to be a forcing.
    and "humbled" is misunderstood because new versions are "translated" by libtards who dont understand that losing your virginity in fornication IS humbling and defiling.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Unironic atheists changed it to say that.
      Atheists aren't the ones pushing out Bible translations you dumb schizo
      This is what the ESV says in fact
      >28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In the same chapter two different scenarios are described with two different verbs.
        in the case of the man who "lays hold" it is a different verb than the man who "forces" who ought to be put to death.

        And the verb "humbled" means "humbled" and not "violate"
        Translating this word to "violate" is a purposeful manipulation that ADDS meaning that's not there.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, okay. So why is one translation right and the other wrong? Really, why, and would you like to tell us which exact translation is the true one, so we can skip the part where you shriek and dance and try desperately to not name what you actually think in case you have to answer to one of the many contradictions?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I already told you. KJV is the right one. Semantically the words in each of these translations can* mean the same thing but pragmatically the new translations work together to mean something different and which is contradictory to the chapter itself.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can you not read? Sorry, I know you already answered that one. I asked why it's the right one, moron.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            its the right one because its the most neutral language and doesnt lead you to add anything to the semantic meaning.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What the actual frick are you talking about? Neutral language?! Are you sure you're not confusing the fact you don't speak in 1600s dialects and don't understand the nuances of it?
            It's also not correct anyway, because it would mean that your preferred translation is superior to the Greek or Hebrew Torah that Jesus Christ consumed. I'm sure you don't believe that Jesus knew the word of God less than you, so why the frick are you gainsaying him?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            illiterate dumb ass

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What the actual frick are you talking about? Neutral language?! Are you sure you're not confusing the fact you don't speak in 1600s dialects and don't understand the nuances of it?
            It's also not correct anyway, because it would mean that your preferred translation is superior to the Greek or Hebrew Torah that Jesus Christ consumed. I'm sure you don't believe that Jesus knew the word of God less than you, so why the frick are you gainsaying him?

            Sorry, I completely fricking lost my train of thought there and thought I was talking about something else. Ignore that second line; although I stand by it in principle, it's clearly not what you meant and I am wholly at fault for being moronic.
            My objection to what you actually said and were talking about, and again I apologise for having some kind of stroke, is that you're not comprehending that seeing a lack of nuance or vagary in the text is not proof of it being correct. It's also not even proof of it not being vague, or of the bible being more true the less circumspect it is. It's taking the conclusion that it's correct, then picking an aspect of it that's highly subjective at the best of times as your proof, or else you should point to a children's bible with the most unambiguous language conceivable as the true word because of that.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, but:
            >Translated by an english monarchy council not a Bible making company like ESV
            >Translated directly from Greek/Hebrew/Latin by highly trained English scholars
            >Time tested, so not been weeded out on mistakes like many other 1600s/1700s translations which now are determined to be more commentaries than authoritative scripture
            >Used by all denominations, even many Catholics admit its a good translation

            Either read the NRSV (Catholic Bible), KJV, or maybe the Geneva Bible if you must be a hipster about it. Other translations are just very poor.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Translated by an english monarchy council not a Bible making company like ESV
            I don't understand. You're implying an ulterior motive in spreading the word in one instance, but not the other? It's also not a point in favour of KJV but rather against commercially sold bibles in general, which of course the KJV was as well.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bible companies make their money by creating a "new" and "updated" translation. They often just change words around to avoid copyright and resell their "new" bible.

            King James Version was made by a medieval council by the English monarchy before copyright existed. There were some other translations but they were largely incomplete or very poor in general. The entire purpose of the council was to create one authoritative version of the bible in English.

            Technically the Geneva bible already existed at the time, but it was only 50 years old and therefore not widely accepted by the scholars yet at the time. The fact both translations read so similarly shows that both were made earnestly and not like modern translations that are lazy cash grabs.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >were some other translations but they were largely incomplete or very poor in general

            Douay Rheims would like to have a chat.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >King James Version was made by a medieval council
            >medieval
            >1611
            probably not.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            well, it was convened by a king in a legitimate line of succession dating to the Medieval period

            and it was certainly long before the Act of Union between the so-called parliaments of England and Scotland under the unfortunate Queen Anne, even if James the VI and I did unite their crowns on his accession of the realms

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      humbling means offending moron.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The NIV says rape

      But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her. he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >implying Somali and Indian economic migrants who commit said crimes have 25 ounces of silver they can or would give to the father as compensation

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    are you implying this is a reason to be catholic instead of protestant or something?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don’t know, but Catholics and Orthodox have a simpler attitude towards the text of the Bible

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > Catholics and Orthodox have a simpler attitude towards the text of the Bible
        Exactly, they just ignore it and kiss images and pray to dead people.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And? their church service is more interesting than that of Protestants

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're right, which is why they should just recognize that they're a pagan religion and be done with it instead of wasting time with Protcope.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every religion is pagan

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How is it simpler? They talk in circles for hours about basic questions.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody else would want her, every man has access to virgins to marry, so why would they marry a raped woman with other man's semen in her? He is her only chance.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What if God commanded his people to have compassion for rape victims and not hesitate to marry them, the same way he tells them to provide charity to the poor and widows etc.? Wouldn't that be more moral than encouraging fathers to marry their daughters to rapists?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Thank God OP is here to rescue us from misinterpreting the Bible in a non-scientific approved way! He is the savior of the human race from the darkness of religion! Hail science and reason!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Luckily He has! Through His church.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its not rape, the rape cases are mentioned as the woman screaming, as seen in the previous verses:

    "if the man encounters a betrothed woman in the open country, and he overpowers her and lies with her, only the man who has done this must die. 26Do nothing to the young woman, because she has committed no sin worthy of death. When he found her in the field, the betrothed woman cried out, but there was no one to save her."

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And this, also no yelling, they both die:
    If a young woman that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
    24
    Then you shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones so that they die; the young woman, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife: so you shall put away evil from among you.
    But if a man find a betrothed young woman in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

    In the OP case he doesnt die because she consented at least by seduction.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The original in the Bible

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I was about to say, the LXX reads βιασάμενος.

      Sounds like force to me.

      >Translated by an english monarchy council not a Bible making company like ESV
      I don't understand. You're implying an ulterior motive in spreading the word in one instance, but not the other? It's also not a point in favour of KJV but rather against commercially sold bibles in general, which of course the KJV was as well.

      >commercially sold bibles in general, which of course the KJV was as well.

      KJV wasn't translated to sell bibles. It was commissioned as an official government document for the state church to use liturgically.

      What the actual frick are you talking about? Neutral language?! Are you sure you're not confusing the fact you don't speak in 1600s dialects and don't understand the nuances of it?
      It's also not correct anyway, because it would mean that your preferred translation is superior to the Greek or Hebrew Torah that Jesus Christ consumed. I'm sure you don't believe that Jesus knew the word of God less than you, so why the frick are you gainsaying him?

      The KJV is modern English, you illiterate.

      If you think the modified version is hard, you'd never stand a chance of reading the original 1611 version.

      This isn't middle or old English, pleb. I bet you think Shakespeare is difficult to read too.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My point is that it's not simple enough language for you, since you're taking "lay hold" to mean something other than coercion, without any justification. You've assumed also that "humbled" can't be a euphemism for rape, but it can be a euphemism for deflowering, and I can't understand why. All I can see is you applying current day morality to it and refusing the idea that the KJV would be circumspect about the matter.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          "lay hold" doesnt mean coercion. it doesnt. you are mistaken. it COULD. just like "take" could mean coercion as well.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're not reading what I'm writing. If you discount the KJV having euphemisms then you must discount the KJV being an accurate bible, because if so it fails to translate the hebrew correctly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            its not a euphemism.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can you try reading my fricking words, Black person?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    It's generally considered that the Levitical law was fulfilled by Jesus sacrifice on the Cross. It's also considered that the Levitical law was considered applicable only to the israelites, and not to the later Gentile converts to the Way of Jesus.
    Modern israelites don't follow those laws either, except usually the dietary laws.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They notionally do, but rabbis "interpreted" away most of the ones that are too cruel so that in practice they never apply.
      It's probably that the woman has the right to force the rapist into marriage if she wants or something.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Protestants have a lot of things to do

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What if your city has no gates?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        just go to the town border marker

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What if you live on an island?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stone them on the beach.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Build

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Remember

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    First of all, you clearly don't know what the frick a Protestant is, dumb ass.

    Second of all, this is a very common practice in every culture. moron fricks like you don't seem to remember sex often ended in pregnancy.

    Rape didn't mean "the girl didn't consent!". It means that a man fricked a woman he had no right to frick i.e. the woman was being provided for and taken care of by men, now was pregnant with a baby which required care, and it also made her a shit deal to marry.

    It's not ideal to put the man in jail, he can't work or take care of his new kid / wife from there. You put the man into a marriage to take care of the woman he "stole" so he can work it off.

    This is commonly called a "shot gun wedding" in the USA

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you clearly don't know what the frick a Protestant is
      >Second of all, this is a very common practice in every culture
      and who are they in reality?

      So should this be done or not?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >and who are they in reality?
        Lets consult the ... Dictionary

        Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
        Prot·es·tant
        /ˈprädəst(ə)nt/
        noun
        a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.
        adjective
        relating to or belonging to any of the Protestant Churches.
        "the Protestant religion"

        tl;dr ... Protestant means not Catholic. This could be applied to super traditional Lutherans ( surprise, they're not very traditional anymore,

        "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, allows for LGBTQ+ marriage and ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy"

        To Mormons, who have "The Book Of Mormon". The "Unification Church" or Moonies who think their preacher is God etc...

        The only groups that still force women to marry their rapist would probably be Amish? Then Muslims?

        >So should this be done or not?
        I think it boils down to your societal belief structure. If you want strong families and procreation, you need to do something to keep sex a serious thing and a binding union.

        If you're ok with going extinct and mass depopulation, then birth control and treating sex like a casual event is great.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If you want strong families and procreation, you need to do something to keep sex a serious thing and a binding union.
          Do you personally want to marry the person that raped you, born babies from him and live whole your life with him?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Rape" in this context means "sex without the consent of the parents", so the question is really
            >Do you personally want to marry the person that you had sex with without first asking for both of your parents' permission, bear babies fir him, and live your whole your life with him?
            Presumably the anon in question is male so this is sort of a wrongheaded question, so we can reword this:
            >Do you personally want to marry and raise kids with a woman that you have had sex with, despite the fact that you did not ask for your parents' mutual permission first?
            The answer is probably yes. The anon in question is most likely White, and he's a tradlarper so he's on the left half of the bellcurve, which means he has an IQ of about 90. That means that he's smart enough to be capable of empathy and abstraction, but his time preference isn't so high as to get bogged down in the details. If he wants to frick a woman, he's not going to do a fling, he's going to be okay with marrying her. This is not necessarily to say that the marriage will work, just that he's not going to go around pumping and dumping random chicks.

            >but rape!
            It's not rape, it's having sex without parental consent. Actual rape in the Torah is punished by death via torture, the same as it was in Greece, in Rome, in Germania, etc at the time.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but his time preference isn't so high
            Sorry, low. His time preference isn't so low as to get bogged down in the details. Just smart enough to plan ahead, just stupid enough to follow the plan unflinchingly.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Rape" in this context means "sex without the consent of the parents
            Do you have any proves for your words?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Presumably the anon in question is male so this is sort of a wrongheaded question, so we can reword this
            Do not reword, do you want your sister or daughter marry a rapist?

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    here's one nice thing about the Douay Rheims that the KJV misses

    28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment:

    29 He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sicles of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life.

    >and the matter come to judgment

    Note, nobody here is *forcing* the girl to marry her abuser. This line here means that IF her family brings the matter to court, then the court can compel the *man* who raped her to provide damages and take her as a wife.

    Moreover, he would NEVER be able to initiate divorce proceedings. Ever.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/xQ37JOu.jpeg

      The original in the Bible

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        from the Vulgate
        "et adprehendens concubuerit cum ea"

        to apprehend means to take or capture
        this is roughly the meaning of βιασάμενος, as I mentioned

        I was about to say, the LXX reads βιασάμενος.

        Sounds like force to me.

        [...]
        >commercially sold bibles in general, which of course the KJV was as well.

        KJV wasn't translated to sell bibles. It was commissioned as an official government document for the state church to use liturgically.

        [...]
        The KJV is modern English, you illiterate.

        If you think the modified version is hard, you'd never stand a chance of reading the original 1611 version.

        This isn't middle or old English, pleb. I bet you think Shakespeare is difficult to read too.

        the Greek word has more forceful or violent overtones

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          there is a massive range in pragmatic meaning between "take" and "capture" despite semantic similarity.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            apprehend always means to grab someone when used in this sense

            the clear implication here is that the girl is being manhandled, and it isn't consentual
            this makes perfect sense in context of the previous verses

            look, it's pretty obvious to me that the courts would not compel her father to marry her to the rapist if that were against his wishes

            this ruling is to be prescribed at the behest of the plaintiffs, not against their wishes
            it would make sense to me that sometimes the monetary damages alone would be awarded, and that marriage is not necessarily part of the ruling unless it is specifically requested by the prosecutors

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Im not saying that's NOT what it says.
            at this point I'm explaining why choosing more pragmatically neutral language is better for translation.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most Christians are under the impression that the old law, such as Deuteronomy in the OP, is just a covenant with ancient Israelites. Not applicable to you if you aren't an ancient Israelite. That Christians are only under the new covenant. If Jesus did not repeat something, it is not applicable.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If Jesus did not repeat something, it is not applicable.
      except the ten commandments.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        dude

        Jesus definitely quoted the ten commandments.
        A few times.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          a few. mostly saying they are incorrect and here's the improved rule.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus directly said that he came to fulfill the law of Moses, which the israelites distorted and stopped fulfilling

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Protestants strictly follow the text of the Bible
    stopped reading there

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >NIV

    lol
    lmao even

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the NIV is fake?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The fact they released Today's New International Version should tell you all you need to know

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's a real stack of paper, if that's what you mean

        not very well composed, or even scholasticly sound
        kind of amateurish, appeals to middle school reading level I suppose

        part of the general pattern of people patenting new translations of the bible to sell IMO

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What exactly was mistranslated? did you read the original to compare?

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Protestants
    >Why don't they follow my instructions.
    Do you know what the word protest means?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Protest against the pope

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So why do some Bible translations say rape but others not? WTF is up with that?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      imagine trying to live like a Christian all your life, and then not going to heaven because of a translation error.
      SAD

  22. 2 weeks ago
    DoctorGreen

    >strictly follow the text of the Bible.
    except they don't

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There was no usage of the word "rape" or any word of that sort in that passage.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/xQ37JOu.jpeg

      The original in the Bible

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *