Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, that's what I'm leaning toward after reading this and other egregious passages that I refuse to believe could have anything to do with God's interests because of the subject matter. I used to think the whole Bible might be uninspired, but then I considered maybe it gets more compartmentalized; perhaps numerous writers were involved with the creation of a single book such as Ezekiel. We have this fanciful idea that Ezekiel the person sat down and wrote all this at his desk one night. More than likely a person named Ezekiel never lived; the name was adopted for use by the writers and several scribes threw in their two-cents in this chapter and then another scribe put in theirs on another and the book took various forms with editing until we got what we have today. Hence parts may be inspired and other parts may not and still other parts are definitely not inspired and this passage is one of them.
But inerrantists like God & His Word above I suppose cannot stand the thought that even a single passage could be thought of as not-God-inspired--that every single jot and tittle was written by God himself and that seems to include passages about large donkey genitals and buckets of their semen. I, however cannot go there. I think parts of the Bible are beautiful prose and there many be a tiny bit of reliable history in it, but for the most part, and this passage seems to prove it, the Bible is nothing more than the thoughts of men jotted down over centuries and edited and edited until a final form emerged in the Septuagint. Thus it is no more inspired than the Bhagavad Gita or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The differences is the parts of the world. In India the Bhagavad Gita is their Bible and nobody there has ever read the Western Bible. In Asia the Tibetan Book of the Dead is the Bible for Buddhist-dominated countries. And so on.
My priest is a pretty well-read scholar and he makes it a point to place the day's readings into the context of the time and place in which they were written. It's very informative and we learn a lot that way. For example, Isaiah appears written by three different authors over 150 years, and the different parts are written to the Jews based on what was going on, e.g., how to behave in exile, return from exile, etc. The context helps a lot.
The first year of the theological course I take covered the books of the OT, and the accompanying textbook helped. The prophets are always reprimanding the people for worshipping idols, and sure enough, archeological excavations in Israel keep turning up these fertility goddesses buried in places where the Israelites lived.
People taking what was written in a specific situation 3000 years ago and proclaiming this is God talking to everybody now aren't really thinking. Now we CAN learn and discuss and maybe apply things we read in Scripture to our own lives--don't we do that with modern, secular books or other media? The movie Pleasantville meant something to me at a time of turmoil in my life. Doesn't mean God produced the movie. The Bible is partly stories of some people's experience with their faith. We can read it and use it wisely without denying that it was written by humans like us.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 01-11-2016 at 09:46 AM..
It is a very descriptive way of stating the case. It describes how God's people chased after other gods, and other nations rather than him.
That's why marriage is so important to us -- because it is a object lesson in how God wants us to remain faithful. It's a covenant that we can't simply toss away when we want a new partner.
I agree whole-heartedly, but is it really necessary for God to get into how prostitutes lusted after extremely large genitals. I mean I've read about what women like--about how for some the bigger, the better. But for heaven's sake if God wants to make a point, how about just "She lusted after men who's equipment was larger than average"---something less graphic. We get the point. Why drag something as disgusting as donkeys into the picture. Same with the volume of semen. Who cares??? And you can really believe the Holy Spirit was whispering into the writer's ear, "Now let's get really lurid and inject some shock value into this."
Honestly Pastor Vizio, honest question: would you explain candidly to your 5 year-old daughter exactly what this passage is saying if she asked you innocently, "Daddy, I found this in my NIV what does it mean their genitals were as large as donkeys? And what is semen?" And if you, by now as red as a beet, did decide to explain to her what semen is what would you respond when she asked, "But what does that have to do with horses?"
Last edited by thrillobyte; 01-11-2016 at 09:53 AM..
The solution is simple:
(a) Remember that (in the original language) Scripture is the "Word of God" and
(b) Stop reading paraphrased translations
Wise Virgin, Pastor Vizio is standing by but he is too afraid to answer my question in post #12 so my ask you to answer in his stead? Vizio's standard MO, of course is to divert when a tough question comes along but truthfully I didn't think he'd enter the fray on this one. I posed an honest question to him in post #12 but I seriously think he won't touch it.
I think you're being a little dramatic. God couldn't care less if I call Him on a bad description. He's as angry at me as I would be a bacteria if it gave me an infection. He's a big boy (a VERY big boy, if you want to know) and can stand a stray opinion or two.
However you want to word it, what I'm saying is that God could have left it at "She doted upon her paramours." Do we really have to know the reason why she doted on them? As I said, we're reading holy writ to learn about God, not to hear about how a man could ejaculate more semen than a horse. Such details are purely extraneous and have nothing to do with the point. I repeat, if this were an ordinary man writing I couldn't care less. But this is God talking to us in explicit detail about why a woman got the hots for male prostitutes. Totally unnecessary, and I think God would agree.
Look, I don't want to argue about who is right or wrong. However, this is the Old Testament and written by one of the most influential prophets there were during this time. He was calling the wicked out about their sins and telling them that the fall of Jerusalem was inevitable. Once the Temple was restored, no one but Levites were allowed to come in and clean. The highest official would no longer be the king, but instead the high priestess. Therefore assuring that all things political would be subordinate to all religious ones.
Those words she referred to were not even God's DIRECT words. No, Ezekial said them.
And just because you mentioned it but then talked about bacteria, Why is God angry at you?(And I'm not being presumptuous or cocky)
No wonder parts of the Bible are strictly off-limits for Sunday School
Take Ezekiel 23:20 for example:
Is this really necessary? I'm speechless with horror.
It might have more to do with having sexual relations with animals:
Eze 23:20 And she dotes on their paramours, Whose flesh [is] the flesh of asses, And the issue of horses--their issue."
Most translations translate it as per the above. "Sarx" in the Septuagint is "flesh" not testicles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
