If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. "Depart" sounds like the fetus might have died. But in the New American Standard Bible, you have: If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. That sounds more like no injury to the fetus. But, in the King James 2000 Bible you have: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no mischief follows: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And that's pretty obvious that the fetus died.
http://books.google.com/books?id=FEfdoRL1rrgC&pg=PA69... "Men are the support of women, as god gives some more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth... As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively, then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing)." - Ahmed Ali, Princeton Edition "Men are in charge of women because god has made some excel the others, and because they spend some of their wealth... And for those women you feel might rebel, admonish them and abandon them in their beds and beat them." - Majid Fakhry, NYU Edition Read the whole passage. It's worth your time.
8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. Isn't this saying that Jesus has come to replace, rather than add to, what currently existed? If there are any Christians on here, I'd like to know how this is talked about. It seems that this is inconvenient to a lot of the more conservative Christian theology.
First, a bit on Jesus' fulfillment of the Old Testament. The justifications I've heard about why people quote from the Old Testament when we live under the New Testament (note I'm using the archaic definition[1] of Testament) usually pertain to how Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testament. Note in Matthew 5:17-18 [2] 17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. From this passage I've seen a few things argued but it comes down to what exactly Jesus fulfilled; some say that he only fulfilled part of the law and the rest is still binding. An interesting thing to note is that how one interprets this passage can be dependent on how one views the end of time/the world. I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of the rapture (which I'll note is one aspect of one view of end time theology, also known as eschatology) but the idea is that there is still work to be done on this earth before the ultimate judgment and the ultimate goal of all of creation being in a perfect relationship with God. So the problem is now, what exactly is still applicable and what was fulfilled? I glossed over a hell of a lot there, but I hope I you get the idea. Now as for how this is talked about, from what I've seen is that outside the colleges, it isn't. As this article suggests, positions such as pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc, are assumed and not much is preached about them - at least directly - from the metaphorical pulpit. Worse, there is a growing trend of people simply leaving churches when the leadership indicates a leaning to anything other than the assumed positions. My Intro to Christian Theology teacher told us a story of how people in the church he goes to had left their former congregation because the pastor spoke of evolution in a non-negative way. Add to this that a lot of zealotry for these assumed positions will also push away moderates and more liberal Christians; this results in a very conservative tone from most church leadership. In my opinion, it also hurts the conversation of theology in a way similar to a filter bubble[3]. For an example of this in action we need only look at the St. John’s Vancouver Anglican Church. This church split from it's bishop over his support for same-sex marriage and as a result had to move to a different location for their services [4]. Knowing that, try and read this[5] article about the move. Except for once in the backgrounder, the issue of same-sex marriage is only alluded to and wrapped in a lot of spiritual purple prose. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/testament [2] http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=196714694 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble [4] http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=079d4... [5] http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2011/09/22/largest-anglic...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7%3A27... One part I have always found interesting is this: 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. To me, that suggests that Christians ought to pray in private. But later on Jesus tells Peter to build a church. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. -Matthew 16:18 So, once again, you can take what you like. Catholics use this passage for the foundation of the Church, and the Pope. When you combine prevalent culture and political motivations with edits, translations, and the removal of entire books, it's not very difficult to see that the book can easily serve people, probably more easily than people can serve the book. IMHO it would be fascinating to see a group that lives by a literal (as possible) translation of the New Testament.
You really wanna see whackadoodledo, look at the history of the Book of Revelations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_revelation#Canonical_hi...