>>>>>>>>>>>>The Bible DOES NOT contradict itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In Genisis 32:30 Jacob says "I have seen God face to face".
>>>>>>>>>>>In Exodus 33:20 God says "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As I've already stated, I sometimes need help with these passages - I'm not a Bible expert
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've you're not a bible expert, why do you so strongly state (using capitals) things like:
>>>>>>>>>- the bible does not contradict itself
>>>>>>>>>- the bible says marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It clearly doesn't say these things. Is it just wishful thinking? Guessing? You've been told this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>One can know something without being an expert. By "expert" I mean being able to intimately know its contents and to be able to defend it in its entirety without outside help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Were going to answer the question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought we'd already addressed those issues - but - here is a quick synopsis:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While the Bible does not specifically say that marriage must be between one man and one woman, we talked about how God's design (Adam and Eve) was a marriage between one man and one woman. We also talked about how just because the Bible does not specifically forbid something does not make it right (example of a man marrying a horse.) Remember?
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe the Bible doesn't forbid some things because God sees no problem with them. The problem here is that as I said before, you are predisposed to certain beliefs, and then the Bible is used to rationalise those beliefs. If the Bible doesn't say something is wrong, then how did you (whose entire belief system stems from the words of the Bible) come to the conclusion that they are wrong. Remember telling us that you believe every word in the Bible as written? How did you reserve to yourself the right to interpret the Bible beyond what it actually says?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>One has to be very careful when expanding beyond what it actually says. However, in the case of homosexuality, the Bible is very clear that it is a sin. I've already listed those verses here somewhere. If you want me to repeat them I will. I think I am on very stable ground in saying that God would not allow homosexual marriage (even though that is not explicitly stated) when He so strongly condemns the act itself.
>>>
>>>I read your reply to Evan and yes, it was clear (I think Evan's gone a bit off the deep end lately in this discussion). However, I still have a problem with the fact that you feel you have not just a need, but in fact, a right to interpret the Bible as you see fit. If the Bible says something, that should be enough to tell you the right or wrong of it. If it makes no comment on something else, then that should also be enough to tell you God didn't feel it was important enough to mention. You should not then say to yourself that even though the Bible doesn't say so, this 'whatever' is wrong because I'm sure that's what God would have meant had He brought the subject up.
>>>
>>>All this interpreting makes a bit of a mockery out of the concept of accepting the Bible at its word.
>>
>>I thought I was clear with Evan that one does have to be very careful about making sins of things that the Bible doesn't specifically mention (like a man marrying a man.) I also thought I was very thorough in pointing out that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Therefore, I have no problem connecting homosexual marriage to sin - since the act itself is a sin.
>
>And I'm arguing, not with your take on homosexuality, no matter that I disagree with the Bible's stand (for the record, I'm straight), but with your interpreting anything at all in the Bible. You've said many times that you read and interpret the Bible. You say that you 'must be careful'. Well, being careful is not the same as not doing it at all. Maybe the Amish have the right idea, don't mess with the words. Take them as written or not at all.
>
>Let me ask you something. When God commanded 'Thou shalt not kill', do you thing He was referring only to the killing of humans? If so, can you point me to the part of the Bible that says that? I was talking to someone at work who is a fundamentalist (maybe not quite to the extent that you are, but still..) and he swatted a fly with a magazine. I asked him why he did that, and he asked me if I never do. Truth is, I don't. My friends think I'm a bit wierd when I catch flies in the house and take them outside and let them go. He was taken a bit aback when he asked me what the problem was and I said "life is life." So; I was just wondering what your take on it was. After all, Noah did bring along mosquitoes and flies, no?
>
>Now, before you state the obvious rebuttle, yes, I'm kind of hypocritical about it. I eat meat and wear a leather belt and shoes. But I do see a difference between killing (as long as someone else is doing the killing, of course) for food etc, and killing just for the convenience of having something dead.
>
>I hope this doesn't sound like a facetious question. It's not intended as such. I'm really interested in how others, especially believers see that particular commandment.
>
>I saw a copy of the old testament recently that had the commandment as 'Thou shalt not murder'; which of course makes self-defense and war ok, while 'Thou shalt not kill' seems a bit more stringent. But 'Thou shalt not murder' seems to me to be one of those 'interpretation' things. I don't read Aramaic, so I can't know, but I still like 'kill' better than 'murder' in that context.

This would be a case where you need to take the Bible as a whole. In many places the Israelites were commanded to sacrifice animals. In Genesis, man is given dominion over the animals. Man is allowed to eat animals - so - in the context of the Bible as a whole, killing of animals is allowed.

One of the reasons (I think) that the killing of man is such a big deal is that man was made in the image of God - animals were not.

As for the original language (I don't know it either), my source says that word is "ratsach." It further states that that word is normally used to indicate murder or assassinate.