Eric McNeil

One of the most persuasive arguments for this from my perspective is simply that the fallen angels view appears to be how the original audience understood the passage, and as a general rule we should endeavor to understand Scripture in terms of what the original author sought to communicate to the original audience. Moses was writing to a people who had grown up immersed in a cultural setting full of stories of the "great men of renown" who were children of gods/elohim. This was not an unusual concept for his readers.

I held the "fallen angels" view of Genesis 6 long before I read Heiser and I'm still most persuaded by this interpretation.

@Andrewnsnyder I feel like Lewis would have been enchanted by FFX for the story.

This guy is trying to troll me, but, unironically, what games would you show them? Tolkien would obviously be a Morrowind appreciator.

Aha- that makes more sense. I was actually referring to Deut 22:22, which you yourself posted above as "if a man is found sleeping with...". NIV agrees. ESV says "lay with", NLT outright calls it adultery. That verse is about adultery, not rape. Rape is covered in the later verses you cited.

@mcne2eri @Edenlife9 *"slept with" Dyslexia got me xD

To the Muslims in my comments trying to justify Muhammad’s rape commands by referencing the Bible, that’s another lie. All rape cases in the Bible were dealt with the utmost importance. In fact, there are 3 clear cases in the bible; all the perpetrators were killed, and in 2 out of 3 it led to the extermination of their communities. That’s how severe the crime was. Now, here’s an explanation of that verse you all like bringing up 👇🏽

Casuistic law isn't taking the laws as "suggestions", it is the method for applying a non-comprehensive law code to the endless variables that come up in real life. This is, again, the nearly monolithic stance of all Biblical scholars- even the secular ones who have no commitment to "defending" the source text. That's simply how ANE legal codes worked. Deuteronomy *is* divine law. Reading it in context in no way ameliorates that.

I'm not reading the laws incorrectly at all. I quite literally quoted directly from the Bible. Not sure which censored version you use that changes the language to "spelt with", but all the versions I've seen either straight up say "rape" or other language to imply forcefully taking a woman. And Deuteronomy wasn't a book of suggestions. That was god approved law passed down from Moses after the Ten Commandments. It's divine law. It's true that most Christians and Jewish people today don't pay it any mind. However, there are modern Christian and Jewish sects that still believe Deuteronomy to be divine law to this day. So, you can't convince me that no groups of people throughout history wouldn't have thought the same (without evidence). Maybe some communities took them more as guidelines, but clearly not all since Islam eventually came about from communities that clearly practised this divine law.

You're reading these laws incorrectly. These are case laws, meant to give a general guiding principle to the judges and elders who will be hearing the cases. (We know this from internal evidence, comparative analysis to other ANE law codes, and from looking at how these were historically applied within their own culture. It isn't really in question among Biblical scholars). Because of that, you are not meant to read these wooden as you've attempted to portray here. When a married woman comes before the elders and tells them she was raped, they will examine the situation and determine the law that comes closest to what is described. It won't be Deuteronomy 22:22, as that law describes adultery (sleeping with someone is not the same as raping them. They are different words for a reason). They will apply the rape laws, which call for the death of the offender only, unless there is some reason to believe that the charge is false, which is the principle captured by asking whether she called for help. Once again, we know this is true because we have records of these laws and similar laws actually being used this way. 22:28-29 is referring to an entirely different situation related to bride price, which is also easily verified per the actual scholarship.

But if this guy reads a bit father back he'd find: 22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. Translation: Kill married women who have had sex outside of marriage, along with the one they slept with, including in cases of rape. Go Israel! 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Translation: Kill raped virgins who are engaged to another, along with their rapist, if she was raped inside a settlement because clearly she wanted it if no one could hear her scream and prevent it. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her. Translation: If an engaged virgin is raped in the middle of nowhere, then only her rapist will die since no one could possibly save her. 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Translation: An unengaged raped virgin is damaged goods. You break it, you buy it. No returns. And, yes, different parts of the Bible do contradict others. But, beyond that, this guy really is a stereotypical Christian who interprets the Bible in whatever way fits his narrative. The reason why crying out for help was only mentioned in one part was because it was being used to differentiate an excuse from the part that followed. The victim was allowed to live because, even if she were to call out for help, there would have been no one around to save her. It says it quite clearly. Apparently, his reading comprehension is low. That must be why his takeaway from other versions saying a man "seizes" or "forces" a woman doesn't seem to register as rape :v

@DanGreenMN @conservmillen The other side are also blasphemers, who also happen to support the mass murder of infants. Politics tends to involve ugly choices on either side. We all choose the least bad option. Unfortunately, given what we had to work with, that was still Trump.

@conservmillen By taking away the other option, yes you are saying Trump is the only Christian vote. That’s your legacy. And when future Christians look back at this in horror - your name will be remembered as one of Trump’s greatest enablers. Congrats!

@farmingandJesus I honestly see PSA as being compatible with Christus Victor/Ransom theory, not opposed. It is simultaneously true that we were guilty before a just God (Romans 3) and also that we were in bondage to Satan (Hebrews 2:14-15). The Cross dealt with all of the multiple problems.

Penal substitutionary atonement? Yes or no and why? Scripture encouraged. 👇🏻 Actually, scripture required.

@Andrewnsnyder Rolled up to make the same points but you made them better. Thank you.

In THS, Lewis says that two of the seven genders "bear a certain analogy to the biological sexes and can therefore be in some measure understood by men." The other five genders are associated with the angelic Oyéresu of planets that do play prominent roles in the narrative. His point in saying this was merely that we can't fully comprehend the realities of Deep Heaven. However, the play between Malacandra and Perelandra in OotSP and Perelandra, which is united in Mark and Jane in THS, is entirely focused on the biologically instantiated reality that we can know.

The Pope: "God rejects all forms of violent conflict and does not listen to the prayers of those at war." Meanwhile our sermon text in church today was Abram raising his soldiers and attacking the King of Elam in order to set free the captives the Elamites (Modern day Iran) had taken. After he gets back, Abram is told that he had been blessed in the battle by God Most High. Interesting.

Deuteronomy 12:28 sits inside a section explicitly introduced in 12:1 as regulation and statues (huqqim u’mishpatim) concerning worship and sacrifice. That's not the sweeping 'gotcha' toward the whole of the law that you're presenting it as. But even if it were, it in no way undermines my point. The case law sections are also fully binding in the contexts for which they were given and are expected to be obeyed. It is simultaneously true that they are non-exhaustive situational precedents, and also true that they are good expressions of God's will in a particular cultural context.

@mcne2eri @megbasham Deuteronomy 12:28 "Be careful to obey all these regulations I am giving you, so that it may always go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is good and right in the eyes of the Lord your God." "Case law", huh?

I I I I….just. I don’t even know what to say to this level of biblical illiteracy that nonetheless confidently pronounces what’s in the Bible anymore. I’m speechless.

Fair. I would clarify that I believe an exceedingly strong case can be built that all of the necessary principles for reaching the conclusion that adultery was always *intended* by God to be equally applicable can be found within the Torah. But I will grant that in the hardness of their hearts, the people of that day and age were not likely or often actually understanding the word that way.

@mcne2eri @megbasham I’m not claiming that no sin had taken place against his wife/wives. I’m simply saying there is really no case to be made that anyone of that day and age, including the writers of the OT, believed adultery was a sin against a wife/wives.

This would be a bit of an argument from silence, as far as the actual text is concerned. These rulings do not comment on the marital status of the man involved one way or the other. Given what we know of ANE culture, it can be considered a reasonable inference that the law therefore does not care whether he was married, and thus his current wife/wives are irrelevant- but that is never explicitly stated here. However, even supposing that we grant this point and presume that the man here is married, it still doesn't follow that no sin is considered to have taken place against his current wife or wives. The Mosaic Law is case law and not exhaustive of all sin. Jesus makes this clear in His own teaching in the New Testament- but in fact, the Mosaic Law wasn't even exhaustive of all that was considered sin in Moses' own day. It simply legislated certain civil penalties. It must be remembered that their culture was not ours- the law was not exhaustive and didn't need to be. They were an honor/shame culture, and some of what was clearly reckoned to be sin was left to the realm of social sanction by shame rather than sanction by civil code. Much of what can be considered sinful and shameful is discerned through narrative subtext and through references in the wisdom literature. The narrative subtext in Scripture virtually always ascribes shame to polygyny, and the wisdom literature makes it outright clear that the wife of a man is sinned against even when he sleeps with an unmarried woman. It may not have drawn a civil penalty in all cases, but it certainly wasn't considered permissible behavior even by their patriarchal culture, and they absolutely reckoned it to be a sin against the wife.

@mcne2eri @megbasham I’m aware that women were considered valuable property that needed to be cared for. My point is more about who the sin was committed against, & that when a man committed adultery or slept with an unmarried woman, his current wife/wives were not considered the harmed party.

I would again caution nuance there- In passages like Ex 22:16-17 it is easy to read about, for example, the man needing to pay a bride price to the father of the virgin and conclude "He has stolen his property, so he pays him." But the actual situation is more involved than that. The father didn't (or at least wasn't supposed to) spend that money. It was put aside to support the bride in the event that her husband died prematurely, before she had any sons to support her in her old age (or to support her while a young son was maturing). The actual, more common situation being addressed by that law (as we know from both Rabbinical commentary and other ANE examples) is that young men, not wanting to have to pay the substantial bride price for a wife, would seduce the virgin and then essentially extort the father: "Waive the bride price or I reveal that your daughter is no longer a virgin, and she'll never be able to marry." The father would then have no choice but to give his daughter away without the bride price- putting the young woman into a very vulnerable position, as she now lacks the financial safety net her culture had established for her. So these passages are actually less about respecting the "property rights" of the father and more about protecting the most vulnerable party involved. A very consistent theme of God's law when compared to the rest of ANE law. Indeed, in other places in the OT Law we see women possessing rights that were exclusive to men in the surrounding cultures, such as the right to bring their own cases before the elders, and up to and including the right to actually inherit property themselves, which was otherwise unheard of. While the culture was absolutely patriarchal, we do see God planting the seeds of restoration toward His intended way all throughout.

@mcne2eri @megbasham Might also want to note that a married man sleeping with an unmarried woman was not considered a sin against his current wives (which is how we think of adultery today) but rather it was a sin against the unmarried woman’s father/household as it was considered theft of property…

I've already laid out why the word is interpreted differently between the two passages. I've additionally supplied the logic that guides those interpretations and inter-Scriptural references that control the hermeneutic. At this point, if you want me to continue going into detail, you're going to have to start actually engaging with anything I've already written.

@mcne2eri @TheLynx_1 @TheMuppetPastor What do you see in Genesis 2 that clues you into the idea that day is not literal there, but it can only be considered literal in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20?

I got geology books for my oldest and they talked about a 4.5 billion year old earth with fossils and geological eras. And she asked “But God created the world in seven days?” I sat down with her and said “Yes, he did. Whether that’s seven days that we know or seven days to God, He did.” And then I said “Look at the order of fossils you see. What animal comes first?” “They think Bacteria.” “Right. Before we even needed light, and after. What’s next?” “Plants.” Day 3 after he made heavens and earth. And next came the sun day four. Next. “A lot of clams and fish.” “Fifth day. Also remember dinosaurs are related to birds, and birds are day five.” “Wow I see dinosaurs and birds now!!” What’s next? “Day 6, animals.” “And what’s next after dinosaurs?” “Mammals!!” Day 6!! “Now what comes last?!” “People!!!” “End of day six.” “Wow, so the geologists are saying that life was created the exact same order God said?” “Yes. Did God lie to us?” “No way!! It’s the same order!” “So if it’s a human week, great. If it’s a week to God, who is outside of time and space, also great. Where some people look and see the Bible disproven, I look and see the creation order of Genesis one. And that is the takeaway. God made the universe and science agrees with the build order!” I respect young earth creationists and old earth creationists. Whether God intimately crafted every atom, or if He designed a universe where nature itself would do that for Him, He is still almighty and loving. God doesn’t need to meet my 2026 scientific standards for me to believe. I have seen the Grand Canyon and Mammoth Caves. God not only exists, He chooses to love even me. And the Bible isn’t “disproven” nor is it “errant” if earth is 4.5 billion years old. God designed the universe no matter what and expecting human authors born 4000 years before then scientific method to satisfy my modern curiosity is the height of arrogance. The Bible was written for us, but not TO us. We should endeavor to understand the culture it can from. Our pride demands it to fit our preconceived notions, but that is folly and sin. We are to understand the bible, not force it to become something it isn’t. God took us exactly what He wanted us to hear and know at a level He wishes us to understand. It’s like speaking to children, which we are. He made clear to Job that He doesn’t owe us an explanation of exactly how he designed the universe! Rather we are to trust and obey Him no matter what. And none of that somehow makes the Bible errant. No, it is exactly what God meant to say to humanity. Sure, it fascinates me that dinosaurs are now considered close relatives of birds, and that they were created before most mammals and humans, which explains day 5 and 6. But knowing that isn’t what made me want to love and obey God, either. Christians shouldn’t live in “fear” that science will disprove God. Remember, God created science, and the universe it studies. He will be just fine. He is just as real now as He was at the dawn of time, and nothing will ever disprove Him. Our pride does that, and you know what they say about that particular sin.

I interpret the words according to the same standards I apply to Genesis 1, which is to take into account the context, the author's intent, and the way the rest of Scripture looks at it. The fact that the use of the words is different in chapter 2 is not a "gotcha"- it strengthens the case for historical-grammatical hermeneutics because we can plainly see the differences in grammatical context. If I tell you "Back in my grandfather's day, the factory moved to town, and he got a job there. His first day on the job, he earned ten dollars." You already know that the use of "day" in the first sentence is different from its use in the second sentence. And in fact, the sentence would become grammatically incorrect if you were to try to swap the different uses of day out with each other. Because the surrounding grammar and context (such as the presence of an ordinal number) have limited the scope of available definitions. All of this remains true of Hebrew. (And even moreso of Greek, were we to venture into the New Testament). Moreover, our interpretation is aided by the fact that God's word is inspired and does not contradict itself, which means that if a later passage (like Exodus 20:11, which you have yet to engage with) supplies additional context for a given passage, we are able to use that as well. None of this requires that I be able to read the mind of the ancient author. (Although I would argue that when one spends enough immersed in the Scriptures while also studying the historical context of a given writing, the intentions of the author begin to feel very intuitive. But that, of course, is a subjective experience).

@mcne2eri @TheLynx_1 @TheMuppetPastor Actually, here's a question that will hopefully be more fruitful. How do you interpret the words day and die in Genesis 2?

@ben_jasperson @TheLynx_1 @TheMuppetPastor I've offered quite a number of reasons from Scripture itself to believe it was meant literally, none of which you've engaged with. I'll leave it at that unless you do end up addressing those points.

@mcne2eri @TheLynx_1 @TheMuppetPastor I'm not saying they didn't know what a day was. I'm saying they didn't agree whether Genesis was literal or not. We don't know what the author of Genesis had in mind because this debate is about as old as Genesis itself.

Your argument is that they somehow didn't know what a day was, because- what, they lacked watches? No one had invented the atomic clock yet? You don't need that level precision to know what a day is. And we know exactly what they meant by 'day' in Genesis, because it was called back to into the passage of Exodus I cited earlier. Which was written by the finger of God. And we know that they interpreted that as twenty-four hour days because it quite literally became the basis of their work-week. There is no question that a twenty-four hour day was what the author in Genesis had in mind when he wrote the text. Writing, as Scripture says, as he's carried along by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is how I know that he was correct- unless we're throwing out inspiration entirely while we're consigning all Scripture to realm of fairytales?

@mcne2eri @TheLynx_1 @TheMuppetPastor I appreciate your patience with me. It seems like you're saying ancient Jews and Christians taught six days meant 144 hours and that's why you know it's right. First, they didn't teach that. Second, even if they had, how can we be sure they were right?

I've frankly lost any confidence that the conversation can be fruitful by this point. You call this "my interpretation of Scripture" as if the stance that the words mean what they're saying is radically unusual. No one reads words like "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt" and then 'reasonably' concludes from those words that the one who spoke them is referring to an event that never actually happened. Yet this is one of the claims and events that you say above that you're entirely comfortable taking as allegory. Scripture does not present it that way. The people to whom the text was originally written did not receive it that way. Christ and the Apostles did not interpret it that way. You cannot approach a text in a manner contrary to its voice, authorship, audience, context, and Christological interpretation, and say "Actually in my view it could all be like this" and then demand that a natural reading of the text justify itself as if the two readings were anything resembling equally rational.

@mcne2eri @TheLynx_1 @TheMuppetPastor If you're willing to explain, I truly would like to understand what makes you so certain that your interpretation of Scripture is the only reasonable one.

It is a question of where truth and authority lay. In order for Scripture to have any value, it must be true. Even if those truths are communicated in allegory, they must be true in order to be useful at all. The position you have taken directly contradicts the truth revealed in Scripture. The Apostle Paul writes that if there was no physical resurrection, our entire faith is foolish, and we are to be pitied. You say it's not a problem. Which is true? If what you've indicated above is a valid viewpoint, then the Apostle Paul- writing in inspired Scripture- is wrong about our faith. If he's wrong in that regard, why would we trust him to be accurate in other regards? Your position trades the truth and authority of Scripture for a nebulous and arbitrary selection of whichever parts you happen to feel might be of value. That makes you the arbiter of truth, not Scripture, and not Christ. That means that you are lord in your view, and not Christ.

@mcne2eri @TheLynx_1 @TheMuppetPastor How is this at odds with my claim? I'm not arguing for a Christianity that preaches an unreal Jesus. I am suggesting that the Bible doesn't need to accurately describe the science and history of this world in order to be of value in my life and prepare me for the world to come.