Eye for eye, tooth for tooth

[Castle]

I'll try to dig more up if you like...but as explained in the previous posts, this was how it was understood by the Hebrews through oral tradition and oral law.

Oh, I'm not complaining. You've convinced me. It's just that at first glance, your evidence doesn't seem to support your conclusion.

[Rawkhard]

In the New Testament, the Bible says that the old law (old testament law) is gone forever.

Although, we still have a list of sins that we can comit (10 commandments), we can recieve forgivness for those sins.

[Rawkhard]

The question that must be asked in this argument is, "What is the purpose of the Old Testament Law?"

My answer is the same as Jesus' answer to the Chief Priests while Jesus' disciples were doing "work' on the Sabbath by picking and eating grain in a field. Jesus told the Priests that "the Old Testament law had been written to guide the people," not, "The people of God were created in order to obey the law."

This simply means that the Old Testament law was not written as judging device. It was actually written to point out how completely unable the Hebrew people, in their humanity, were to be Holy and Blameless like God. It was written to show the huge rift that is created between us and God that is caused by our inability to obey the law.

[Sigfried]

This simply means that the Old Testament law was not written as judging device. It was actually written to point out how completely unable the Hebrew people, in their humanity, were to be Holy and Blameless like God. It was written to show the huge rift that is created between us and God that is caused by our inability to obey the law.

What do you base that opinion on?

Most scholars I've listened to say only that Jesus said the ceremonial laws were no longer in force but all moral laws were eternal. The ceremonial laws were past because Jesus was fulfillment of the covenant so the animal sacrifices and such were no longer necessary.

[Zhavric]

IT'S ALIVE!!!




Seriously, this is a 2006 thread.

No... Apok's opening post is simply a treatise on the fact that morality is subjective. The old testament tells people to take an "eye for an eye" and the NT tells people to "turn the other cheek".

Modern Christians do neither.

You guys just make up your own morality by picking and choosing what you want to believe or ignoring things altogether. In the end, your morality comes from the same societal basis as everyone else's.

[Apokalupsis]

Seriously, this is a 2006 thread.

No... Apok's opening post is simply a treatise on the fact that morality is subjective. The old testament tells people to take an "eye for an eye" and the NT tells people to "turn the other cheek".

Modern Christians do neither.

You guys just make up your own morality by picking and choosing what you want to believe or ignoring things altogether. In the end, your morality comes from the same societal basis as everyone else's.

Try again. This time read the op prior to responding. If you still maintain such a flawed position, then support your argument.



No trolling Zhav (read our rules).

I find it rather amusing...that still...after nearly 2.5 years of me saying the following...you've proven that the following still rings true...

I'd love for once, to see the atheist present some actual argumentation from scholars, historians/archeologists/anthropologists, etc... At least then we'd finally see a promotion into the criticism heirarchy. Debating the "critic" it seems, is nearly always a waste of time. It's like trying to debate the relevancy of the theory of relativity with a 5 year old. Pointless until the kid grows up (intellectually).

Nearly two and half years go by...and still no actual evidence...facts...logic...able to be applied Zhav? Really?

[Rawkhard]

What do you base that opinion on?

Most scholars I've listened to say only that Jesus said the ceremonial laws were no longer in force but all moral laws were eternal. The ceremonial laws were past because Jesus was fulfillment of the covenant so the animal sacrifices and such were no longer necessary.

I base this opinion on my own understanding of the Bible as I have studied since i was a child. I have compared the two testaments in what they generally say.

Old testament: lays down laws that one must follow.

New testament: says that if we disobey these laws, all we must do to be forgiven is to accept that Jesus paid the price for all of the times we break the law.

So since God is outside of time and knew that he would eventually send Jesus to destroy sin, then i assume he knew that the people of Israel could not possibly follow every law that he gave in the OT. So the only reason I see for God giving these laws is to make people realize the rift between them (sinfulness) and God (perfection).

The scholars you have listened to have misinterpreted the bible in my opinion. But i must also state that your argument is rather ad hominem as you are referencing sources who are not absolute authorities.

Yes your statement about the animal sacrifices is valid.

Are you saying that Jesus said the Old Testament laws are void?

[Sigfried]

Here is some Christian reading on the subject Rawkhard. It's rather windy but at the end it tries to sum things up.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

[Rawkhard]

Here is some Christian reading on the subject Rawkhard. It's rather windy but at the end it tries to sum things up.

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

this passage is merely agreeing with myself. it says that, through jesus, the old system of religion was overruled. true, but that doesn't wean that these moral guides, codes and laws aren't still valid.

the talk about the sabbath also agrees with me. it says that God, understanding that we need rest, gave us a day to rest and fellowship with our christian brethren. the sabbath was intended as a privilege and guide.

[ceejay2005]

I believe the Bible serves as a tool of communication/interaction/knowledge with God in that the more involved we are with God, the more we want to learn. And the more we learn, the more we are involved. God desires this. He didn't want to give you "See Spot Run" book...He wants us to be challenged (for those willing to BE challenged) so that we may grow closer with Him and develop that relationship.

__________
az cosmetic dentistry

[JohnLocke]

When I first heard the phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", I had never thought of the idea of the person who is being punished punishing the one who was the original victim.

This led me to great confusion when I first heard the opposite line of "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind", as is exhibited in the confusion of my previous sentence. Shouldn't "an eye for an eye" mean just that, not "an eye for an eye, for an eye, for an eye, for an eye" times infinity?

Take this absolutely fictional and primitive story, for instance:
Individual A is mad at individual B. He is so mad, he takes a club and breaks individual B's nose. By "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" law, the chief decides to break individual A's nose in the same manner with the same club, and he does. Matter solved.

In my little story, there was a crime and a punishment. That is all that "an eye for an eye" should be. A hurts B, leaders hurt A as much as he hurt B.

[TexasAggie2013]

The explanation for this is simple. The Hebrew phrase here uses things unique to the Hebrew language that do not translate over well into English. What the meaning of the phrase is in Hebrew is not, take an eye for eye, but rather allow the punishment to fit the crime, do not allow disproportionate responses such as death for an eye.

[Frame]

GoldPheonix knows what hes saying. In the words of Ghandi, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Why get revenge? It only provokes more revenge and then the world is full of angry people who can't trust anyone.

The Context - The Times

[/B][/COLOR]The ancient world was a time where the most radical forms of paganism was practiced. The societies of which wallowed in the most primitive and debased emotional darkness. The law as practiced by that world was simply: (1) If you kill my child, I will kill you, your family, and your whole generation. (2) If you knock out my tooth, I will knock out all of yours and gouge out your eyes in additional! Obviously, not a "healthy" legal or social environment.

Imagine this scenerio: You and your family live in a place with no police force, no courts, no local, state, or federal government – no king or other authority ruling over you or the people around you. Then one day as you are going about your business, you are shocked with the news that one of your neighbors had intentionally and maliciously hit your daughter so hard that four of her teeth are permanently knocked out. What would you do? There is no authority to report it to – to seek justice. What if the situation was worse, and your child was intentionally killed? You would probably want to take the matter into your own hands and seek retribution, maybe even to the point of blood revenge. Perhaps you would try to impose the same type of injury on the attacker that he imposed. Maybe you would even want to punish him in greater degree than his offense. After you take revenge, the attacker’s family may feel that they have been mistreated and may want to respond, setting up a cycle of retaliation and revenge between you and them – the Hatfields and the McCoys so to speak.

What you seem to be forgetting, Apok, is that this is not just some law that the Jews made up...God Himself approved of it, and that's why non-Christians frequently target it. If God was there frequently interfering in the Israelite's lives, why not actually teach them something good (rather than sending them plagues or selling them into slavery?) I can't help by be amazed that, rather than being like a wise old grandfather and teaching them from His vast stores wisdom, God acts like a petulant two year old with a flamethrower, throwing temper tantrums and frying people for minor offenses.

Never once to we hear any philosophy from the LORD, only violent hate-speech from a power-mad narcissistic spiritual fascist with zero empathy or compassion. Certainly the "most radical forms of paganism" were practiced during the time period, but with God on the Israelites' side, one would expect them to have a very advanced and civilized law code, with police, just punishment, jail, maybe even democracy, all taught by the LORD, who, of course, knows everything. Instead of making them more enlightened and civilized, God descends to their savage level, approving of their barbarism, and nastiness and frequently participating in it. We would expect God to be like one of the Good Roman Emperors, like Trajan or Hadrian (ie, possessing an extreme amount of power, but using justly to advance and safeguard his people.) Instead, God acts like Caligula or Nero (ie ego-maniacal, cold and ruthless, mad with power, killing people for minor infractions, killing people for no reason, encouraging rape, pillage and murder, and unconcerned for his people's welfare).

Christians, though they don't view them as applicable any longer, still revere these hopelessly asinine declarations of ignorant, savage Israelite leaders and continue to view them as prophets, holding their hopelessly outdated, often brutal and disgusting laws and customs as pure, divine, and will defend them to the death (just like Apok is doing in this thread). If their laws are no longer relevant, what on earth are they doing in the Bible, which is meant as a spiritual guide for the entire planet, now and forever? We cannot call something irrelevant to to present day and put it in a book we claim is relevant to present day. It's the moral equivalent of proudly framing one's childhood blankie that one has clearly outgrown, and hanging it above the mantle of one's fireplace. We've moved past Israelite idiocy. It's not even humane, let alone divine.

I don't have any malice towards the Israelites, or modern Christians. I am merely calling a spade a spade. If I've called God violent it is because He frequently kills and He's proud of His killings. If I've called Him hateful and without compassion it is because He clearly hates people and is frequently ruthless. If I've called Him petulant, it is because He becomes livid at the slightest offense. If I've called Him narcissistic it is because He demands obedience and animal sacrifice for His glory. These are the words the English language uses to describe someone who exhibits these characteristics, and I am merely doing justice to Yahweh, by accurately describing the Lord Most High.

[Apokalupsis]

What you seem to be forgetting, Apok, is that this is not just some law that the Jews made up...God Himself approved of it, and that's why non-Christians frequently target it. If God was there frequently interfering in the Israelite's lives, why not actually teach them something good (rather than sending them plagues or selling them into slavery?) I can't help by be amazed that, rather than being like a wise old grandfather and teaching them from His vast stores wisdom, God acts like a petulant two year old with a flamethrower, throwing temper tantrums and frying people for minor offenses.

This is wholly irrelevant to the post. You are free to attack Christian doctrine, but do it either in your own thread or the appropriate thread please so as to not steer this thread off course.

As far as "teaching something good", the entire history of Israel in the OT is just that (how to live a righteous life). And as the correct rendering of this passage is argued in the op (and not refuted thus far), it results in God limiting what is acceptable punishment, a good thing is being done here (it disallows abuse).

Please read the op again. Your response seems confused as to what the thesis is in the op.

*edit*
After discussing this issue in private with both Khan and staff, I have concluded that opinions given in the introduction can lead one off-topic and away from the intent of the op. I have therefore removed such conjecture to allow for a more streamlined discussion.

This thread focuses only on the the correct understanding of the passage. Discussions involving the nature of God, His goodness or justice, are to be held in separate threads.

[0001]

In the New Testament, the Bible says that the old law (old testament law) is gone forever.

Although, we still have a list of sins that we can comit (10 commandments), we can recieve forgivness for those sins.

The bible also says that once God says something, like a law, he never reverses his words.
Mind you, scriptures do show him breaking his word even while in Eden. Quite the poorly written myth. Or damned well written if looked at as a book of wisdom.

Further, a new covenant would mean that there was something wrong with the old one in the first place.

Regards
DL

---------- Post added at 09:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------

The question that must be asked in this argument is, "What is the purpose of the Old Testament Law?"

My answer is the same as Jesus' answer to the Chief Priests while Jesus' disciples were doing "work' on the Sabbath by picking and eating grain in a field. Jesus told the Priests that "the Old Testament law had been written to guide the people," not, "The people of God were created in order to obey the law."

This simply means that the Old Testament law was not written as judging device. It was actually written to point out how completely unable the Hebrew people, in their humanity, were to be Holy and Blameless like God. It was written to show the huge rift that is created between us and God that is caused by our inability to obey the law.

Not much use as laws if no one can follow them. I guess God should have just done a better job of creating us.

Regards
DL

---------- Post added at 10:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------

Why are you posting this?

Why are you posting this?

Matthew 5:38-39

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

It is rhetorical rubbish.

What would you do if someone raped your wife, offer your daughter as a next.

See how foolish that rhetorical nonsense is?

Regards
DL

---------- Post added at 10:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 AM ----------

An eye for an eye goes way back to Egypt and the book of the dead. It is not Christian in origin.

What it means and what secular law interpret from it has nothing to do with physical harm or the exchange of body parts.

It just means that the penalty should suite the crime.

From a religious standpoint and its ideals of compassion and forgiveness it says that this is a starting point of judgement and a compassionate society who recognizes that we all contribute to the evil within people and that that is part of the reason eye for an eye should be less than an eye for an eye. Society thus pays it's dues. Sinners are not born. They are created by society.

Proof of this is here below.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...rality-100511/

Regards
DL