Tweet
What does this passage teach us about reading a passage?
Link
----------
Is this pregnancy condition against women? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
In Leviticus 12, we have a rule about pregnancy. The woman who gives birth to a male will be unclean for seven days. The boy is circumcised on day eight and then the woman is unclean for thirty-three days. If she has a daughter, each of those counts is doubled.
Much like the case of cooking a goat in its mother’s milk, we don’t know the exact reason for this rule. At this point, for some reason, skeptics of Scripture like to jump up and down with glee as if having total understanding of the Bible shows it’s not divine. Why is never explained. However, just because we don’t know, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t know.
Some people might think this is sexist, but if it is, could it not be sexist against boys instead of girls? After all, girls when they are born are actually given extra time to be with the mother. Boys instead as soon as they are a month old are counted in the census. Could it be that maybe the girls are given extra time with their mothers because the mother especially needs to spend extra time with the girls because her future will be to majorly influence that girl to show her what she is to be as a woman?
Now I cannot prove this, of course, but if we are unsure as to which way to read something and one position makes the claim look sexist and the other doesn’t and there’s no overriding reason to choose one over the other, why should we choose the one that makes the Bible look sexist? If we are reading with the principle of charity in mind, shouldn’t we go with the one that doesn’t do that? Do you think I would apply the same to the Book of Mormon or to the Koran? You bet I would!
The last time I tried reading through the Book of Mormon, I would look up various items mentioned in there, like steel or scimitars and see if they were around then. If they were, then I would not make any note of this. I never finished this because it was frankly boring reading through the Book of Mormon again and other interests came on board. For the Koran, we normally point to Sura 4 to show that the Koran denies the crucifixion, but I read a Christian commentator who said early Muslims did not deny the crucifixion and this could be the text having Allah say to the Jews, “You didn’t kill Jesus. I was behind it all along.”
Now I cannot prove the reading of the Koran, but I do give it to show that I am trying to be consistent. Those who are skeptics of the Bible should try to do the same. Sadly, too many of them love to jump for the interpretation that puts Scripture in the worst light, which I find reveals very little about Scripture and reveals a lot more about them.
Don’t be like that.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)
Link
----------
Is this pregnancy condition against women? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
In Leviticus 12, we have a rule about pregnancy. The woman who gives birth to a male will be unclean for seven days. The boy is circumcised on day eight and then the woman is unclean for thirty-three days. If she has a daughter, each of those counts is doubled.
Much like the case of cooking a goat in its mother’s milk, we don’t know the exact reason for this rule. At this point, for some reason, skeptics of Scripture like to jump up and down with glee as if having total understanding of the Bible shows it’s not divine. Why is never explained. However, just because we don’t know, it doesn’t mean that they didn’t know.
Some people might think this is sexist, but if it is, could it not be sexist against boys instead of girls? After all, girls when they are born are actually given extra time to be with the mother. Boys instead as soon as they are a month old are counted in the census. Could it be that maybe the girls are given extra time with their mothers because the mother especially needs to spend extra time with the girls because her future will be to majorly influence that girl to show her what she is to be as a woman?
Now I cannot prove this, of course, but if we are unsure as to which way to read something and one position makes the claim look sexist and the other doesn’t and there’s no overriding reason to choose one over the other, why should we choose the one that makes the Bible look sexist? If we are reading with the principle of charity in mind, shouldn’t we go with the one that doesn’t do that? Do you think I would apply the same to the Book of Mormon or to the Koran? You bet I would!
The last time I tried reading through the Book of Mormon, I would look up various items mentioned in there, like steel or scimitars and see if they were around then. If they were, then I would not make any note of this. I never finished this because it was frankly boring reading through the Book of Mormon again and other interests came on board. For the Koran, we normally point to Sura 4 to show that the Koran denies the crucifixion, but I read a Christian commentator who said early Muslims did not deny the crucifixion and this could be the text having Allah say to the Jews, “You didn’t kill Jesus. I was behind it all along.”
Now I cannot prove the reading of the Koran, but I do give it to show that I am trying to be consistent. Those who are skeptics of the Bible should try to do the same. Sadly, too many of them love to jump for the interpretation that puts Scripture in the worst light, which I find reveals very little about Scripture and reveals a lot more about them.
Don’t be like that.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)