You still have not explained why she is to be considered unclean and why would this ritual purification right take longer if she has given birth to a girl child? And why must she not be allowed to touch anything considered “holy” until she is “cleansed”. Why do they refer to it as sin (twice) and why must she atone for something unless it is considered a sin?

Still waiting on that....

I think the one-eyed bandit stole the prize on this one.

No no. I don’t want any sympathy for this eye. It’s a routine surgery, nothing major. Cataract.

I’m still willing to debate this. If I’m wrong, great, show me. If it’s all about health and medical concerns for the mother, why then is payment required to a priest in order to "cleanse" her body after childbirth? Why can she not touch "holy" objects until this tidying up has been done? What would that have to do with any kind of healing process post partum? And WHY would her body require a longer time of healing for a girl as opposed to a male infant? That doesn’t make any sense. The verse there is telling you exactly what is going down and what will be expected of her. The writer is not even trying to be sneaky or hide it.

I wasn't giving you a "sympathy win".

I was just making a funny.

I think you nailed it fair and square.

unclean is used in the sense of the blood Krimsa.....Because everything was done through blood....animal sacrifices etc. That is all it means. And sin is only used in the context of sin offering....when anybody sacrificed an animal it was considered a sin offering....just as know we ask Christ to take our sin......same thing, except done with God himself in the old testament. As far as the girl and boy part of it......It's just the way in was in old testament days....It wasn't meaning that girls are sinful or more unclean.......it was just the law of that time. Now also remember that when Christ died on the cross for us....All the mosiac law was no more.....no more animal sacrifices were needed because God gave his Son to take the sin of the world.

Good point....Circumcision was always done on the 8th day......very significant......

All this shows is that the Jew were fanatic about their superstitions.

In fact, this just suggests that the doctrine was indeed just manmade demagoguery.

What genuine creator would be concerned with such petty nonsense.

It would be totally unreasonable for a creator to expect humans to be with out blemishes.

Especially physical ones. God is supposed to only be concerned with what is in a person HEART.

So this whole argument just supports another major CONTRADICTION.

The contradiction being that the Bible is supposed to be from a supreme being who is only concerned with man's SPIRIT.

Yet, here the Jew are making up all sorts of petty nonsense superstitions about physical flaws.

This is clear evidence that the Bible was written by superstitious men, because it's totally inconsistent with what the God is SUPPOSED to actually care about.

It is a total contradiction that a God who is supposed to be concerned with spiritual things would be worried about bruised and battered physical bodies.

Every justification given to support the biblical picture always turns out to be just another reason to deny it.

Wouldn't the author have simply made mention of the foreskin if that was the intended meaning? Why would they need to rely on people making up their own interpretations when its been clearly stated already. Read carefully.

"And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.

But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days."

I just don’t see where it says anything about the foreskin making up for half of the mother's sin quota or shortening the length of time she is to be "cleansed" and commence atonement. A detail like that would have probably been noteworthy and deserving of explanation. They seem considerably capable of directing these villagers into all of these ridiculous atonements and extorting gifts for priests dont they? Even if you bought that, it still would not explain the offerings, the payments to the clergy and why she can not touch holy objects. I am simply relying on what is written and you seem to be creating what is written in your own head in order to attempt to explain what is already written.

Okay - I can see where you are getting confused over the command to increase and multiply, then the perception that childbirth is a "sin". It might be easier to understand if you go back and read Lev 16. This chapter deals with Atonement.

To get a better understanding of what is going on at the time of the writing of Leviticus (which is essentially a book written to the tribe of Levi, who are the priests) the Law had been given to the Isrealites - because they were not aware of the extent of their unrightiousness. To put it plainly - they made wrong choices, an often sought the councel of men rather than the Lord. At this time - they had not entered the promised land, and were essentially living out in the desert - totally reliant on God for their survival. You've heard of the saying "scapegoat" I'm sure... well "sin offerings" and "burnt offerings" were a way to atone for the sins that were commited amoungst the Isrealites. A bull was used for the sin of all - other animals, such as the goat, doves, pigeons, etc. for sins of a personal nature.

In the example you've cited and asked about - the fact that a sin offering was requested of the woman at this time was for the cleansing of any sin she may have commited. It is not to say that giving birth is the sin itself - for that is contradictory to the command. However - as can be seen all throughout scripture - man is sinful by his very nature, and cannot go a day without sinning. (Remember - that this refers not just to sins of commision - but of omission as well) The
purpose of the sin offering is essentially a safeguard for the woman, in her weakened state and period of healing - so that she does not pass away in the unclean state without atonement. This is where the "health" part comes in. Obviously - the explination is a little more detailed in order to come to this understanding - but it is the ritual that was commanded by God so that they would be allowed in his presence were they to pass away during the healing process.

Now - before the rallying cries of whether or not this is unreasonable or not begin - that does nothing to clarify the argument. It's what God demanded of the Isrealites - and to disreguard this meant they would suffer the consequesnces of being alone in the wilderness without the favor of the Lord. Not recommended.

So - the "sin offering" was more like an insurance policy, than a direct action to a sinful act (that of giving birth).

Why it took longer for the birth of a female than that of a male to be purified - is not explained.
That is not to say that this may or may not be alluded to somewhere else in scripture - just, if it is, I do not know where it is.

You're concerns would only be valid if the book was indeed written by God.

That's the whole point. It wasn't written by God.

If the Bible was a book written by as supreme being to man, it would explain things better.

The fact of the matter is that it was written by the religious authorities telling people WHAT they must do, not WHY they must do it.

It's not mean to explain things to people. It's just meant to push them around and make them do what they are told to do.

Seriously. I'm not joking.

The idea that a supreme being would want people to go through all these rituals doesn't even make any sense. The rituals were just put into place to make the people feel dependent upon the priests and the church. The more rituals the better, it kept the people busy atoning for their sins.

Abra,

You are complaining that God wouldn't look at the blemishes, but you aren't looking beneath the skin of the argument.

If it is impossible for humans to have perfect flesh, then how can they make their spirits perfect? If humanities basic physical nature is "unclean" in God's eyes, then how much more so our basic spiritual nature? So much of the Old Testament law was intended to show the futility of works in making one worthy of salvation.

In reading my post, you missed the below sentences, which points out what I have explained above.

Krimsa;

Spider was just offering his logical perception of why it is half the time for a male than a female. The fact of the matter is - we don't know. What we do know is that the bible says the "life is in the blood" - so the sacrifice of the offerings was a substitution of the life of the sacrifice for the life of the sinner.

The reason why they were not allowed into the sanctuary was because that was where God dwelt, and no one could stand before God in an unclean state and live. (see Lev 10: 1-3)

Also - the animals that were given to the priests were not "payment" for services of the priests - but they were the animals that were to be sacrificed. The priests were just the ones to make the sacrifice.

Why is it you assume that the Isrealites did not know why they were doing these things just because you don't?

Alright, fair enough. I will look up the Jewish law and customs in this time period and maybe the foreskin thing is elaborated on but I still think its kind of misogynist in its tone. I’m not sure how many of you would still argue that. The bible is kind of known for this. There is also a contradiction there between Genesis and "be fruitful and multiply" and Leviticus. Leviticus, as awful as it sounds is mild in tone. I could start copying and pasting the horrible ones from the bible but that might become counter productive and upsetting.

"Nobody is "clean" enough to stand before God. What do warts have to do with sin? Nothing. The point is that the earthly things aren't "clean" enough to be in God's presence."

Sorry I couldn’t find who said this so I didn’t use a quote but it is kind of a sad statement. Why is God so hard on these humans he has supposedly created in his image? Especially the lady folk? Why does he distance himself from them and the Earth?

God isn't hard on humans (especially lady folk), he died so that they wouldn't have to. It's just hard making humans understand that God doesn't need them, they need God. So many religions believe that the unholy and impure can be made holy and pure by actions of the unholy and impure. Some people believe the following: If I mediate and don't eat meat and pray all day, i will eventually become pure. Christianity and Judaism don't accept those beliefs. No matter how much you wash a dirty white towel in mud, it's always going to be dirty. Only God can make us pure and holy, by separating us from our sins. That's the point that is being made.

According the great and mystical abra....pleazzzzzzeeeeee have you once ever proved that....nope. God is God and it was done in a time......to understand it is simple if you have God in your heart....you get it.....you don't and it will be like reading a foreign language every time...what a smart God.

And you think you are a religious authorities telling people WHAT they must do, Hate to break it to you....but you are not......Why is it abra that you fight so hard to stop the telling of something you so obviously DO NOT understand.....

The rituals were done as a way to thank God.......For God to clense, to bless. The rituals no longer matter because of Christ.....so this whole talk to a bunch of people who truly don't care about learning it is a waste...

The rituals DO NOT APPLY ANYMORE....HELLO ARE YOU LISTENING.