Mikeyavelli

Nuthin in the Constitution says that you have to rent to deadbeats, even if they are (surprise!) Black people. That's all democrat racial pressure, designed to bring down private landlords and turn property over to the government.
All bullmueller.

ghostgotcha Loc: The Florida swamps

What you liberals have yet to grasp is; President Trump is much smarter than you and he plays the i***ts in the news media by giving them things to b***h about which mean nothing -- as long as the American people see their lives getting better and this nation prospering again.

What fools you are for following the national news who he misdirects each and every day !

How pathetic the liberals insanity.

Mikeyavelli

Liberals h**e America, they want the changes obama was making.
A borderless one government world with Islam as the preferred religion. One feed trough, one language, and one religion policing the world with its Sharia Law.
Total obamanian utopia.

bdamage Loc: My Bunker

Ah....so it's YOUR party, eh?
So glad I'm a registered Indie.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Atheist have scoured dozens of Bible t***slations in the effort to find wordings to attack Christians /Christianity. NIV, KJV, ESB, NKJV, and dozens of others. However it is incumbent of the reader when "Studying" God's word to know what the t***slators took from the Hebrew - Old Testament, Aramaic /Greek-New Testament (original transcripts) because of idioms, cultural, historical ect. Differences in the English language. The only version NIV or New International Version has long been negatively looked upon by Bible Theologians for its many inaccuracies, even leaving out complete text and in the case of your quoting it gets it wrong. Question... Check it. It's easy, Google the side by side Hebrew /English Bible and compare word for word t***slations. Another way to verify would be to get a commentary from a Jewish Rabbi, after all they are "Experts" on Old Testament Law which equates to "getting it from the horses mouth".

Here is a head start on the law of the old Testament from Hebrew t***slation from the original transcript. I'll add notes in a second reply.

Numbers 5:11–31. The Trial of Jealousy
This law for determining the guilt or innocence of an adulterer is puzzling in many respects. At first it seems heavily biased against the woman for there is no similar requirement for the man. A close examination of the law will show what was involved in it and why the Lord revealed it.

“The rabbins who have commented on this text give us the following information: When any man, prompted by the spirit of jealousy, suspected his wife to have committed adultery, he brought her first before the judges, and accused her of the crime; but as she asserted her innocency, and refused to acknowledge herself guilty, and as he had no witnesses to produce, he required that she be sentenced to drink the waters of bitterness which the law had appointed; that God, by this means, might discover what she wished to conceal. After the judges had heard the accusation and the denial, the man and his wife were both sent to Jerusalem, to appear before the Sanhedrin, who were the sole judges in such matters. The rabbins say that the judges of the Sanhedrin, at first endeavoured with threatenings to confound the woman, and cause her to confess her crime; when she still persisted in her innocence, she was led to the eastern gate of the court of Israel, where she was stripped of the clothes she wore, and dressed in black before a number of persons of her own sex. The priest then told her that if she knew herself to be innocent she had no evil to apprehend; but if she were guilty, she might expect to suffer all that the law threatened; to which she answered, Amen, amen.

“The priest then wrote the words of the law upon a piece of vellum, with ink that had no vitriol in it, that it might be the more easily blotted out. The words written on the vellum were, according to the rabbins, the following:—‘If a strange man have not come near thee, and thou art not polluted by forsaking the bed of thy husband, these bitter waters which I have cursed will not hurt thee: but if thou have gone astray from thy husband, and have polluted thyself by coming near to another man, may thou be accursed of the Lord, and become an example for all his people; may thy thigh rot, and thy belly swell till it burst! may these cursed waters enter into thy belly, and, being swelled therewith, may thy thigh putrefy!’

“After this the priest took a new pitcher, filled it with water out of the brazen bason that was near the altar of burnt-offering, cast some dust into it taken from the pavement of the temple, mingled something bitter, as wormwood, with it, and having read the curses above mentioned to the woman, and received her answer of Amen, he scraped off the curses from the vellum into the pitcher of water. During this time another priest tore her clothes as low as her bosom, made her head bare, untied the tresses of her hair, fastened her torn clothes with a girdle below her breasts, and presented her with the tenth part of an ephah, or about three pints of barley-meal, which was in a frying pan, without oil or incense.

“The other priest, who had prepared the waters of jealousy, then gave them to be drank by the accused person, and as soon as she had swallowed them, he put the pan with the meal in it into her hand. This was waved before the Lord, and a part of it thrown into the fire of the altar. If the woman was innocent, she returned with her husband; and the waters, instead of incommoding her, made her more healthy and fruitful than ever: if on the contrary she were guilty, she was seen immediately to grow pale, her eyes started out of her head, and, lest the temple should be defiled with her death, she was carried out, and died instantly with all the ignominious circumstances related in the curses.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Notes from first reply

Several points should be noted.

Although this ritual focused on the woman, it in no way implied that men who committed adultery were to be excused, for the law clearly stated that adulterers of both sexes were to be stoned (see Leviticus 20:10).
In a way, the law provided protection of two different kinds for a woman. First, without this law it is possible that a husband could unjustly accuse his wife of infidelity. If his word alone were sufficient to convict her, she would be in a terrible state indeed. Putting the determination of guilt or innocence into the hands of God rather than into the hands of her husband, or even other men, ensured that she could vindicate herself if she were innocent. The second positive benefit is more subtle but probably is of even greater value. If a husband suspected his wife of adultery, one result would be a terrible strain in the husband-wife relationship. In today’s legal system, with no witnesses to prove her guilt, the court would probably declare her not guilty. But the basis for her acquittal would be a lack of positive evidence of her guilt rather than proof of her innocence. Such a legal declaration, therefore, would do little to alleviate the doubts of the husband and the estrangement would likely continue. Neighbors and friends also would probably harbor lingering suspicions about her innocence. With the trial of jealousy, however, dramatic proof of God’s declaration of her innocence would be irrefutable. The reputation of the woman would be saved and a marriage relationship healed. Thus, true justice and mercy were assured, and the whole matter would be laid promptly to rest.

Those who ask why there was no parallel test a woman could ask of her husband should remember that if the accused woman refused to undergo the trial by drinking the water, her action was considered a confession of guilt. Thus, she and her partner in the evil act would be put to death (see Leviticus 20:10). If she attempted to lie and pass the test, but brought the curses upon herself, this result too was considered proof of the guilt of her male partner. It is possible that a wife who believed her husband guilty of infidelity could ask that his suspected partner be put to the trial of jealousy. The outcome would immediately establish the guilt or innocence of her husband as well as that of the other woman. Thus, in a world where the rights of women were often abused, the Lord provided a means for protecting their rights as well as seeing that evil was put away and justice done.

Thus, in a world where the rights of women were often abused, the Lord provided a means for protecting their rights as well as seeing that evil was put away and justice done.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Here is a Hebrew Bible and no where does it say a******n, it lends that the women becomes unable to bare children, nor that she is with child a complete error found only in the erroneous NIV.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9933/jewish/Chapter-5.htm