Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible should
be involved in the oath process, no exceptions. The judge that I was
talking about had the 10 commandments displayed openly in the walls of the
court room. Some people wanted those removed. I say too bad.
The bible is a printed book. Putting your hand on it is no different that
swearing on last month's issue of Popular Woodworking (keeping on topic).
If you believe in the words of the bible, you don't need it to swear to and
actually tell the truth. If you don't believe in the words of the bible,
laws at they are written, and have already committed a crime, putting your
hand on a book is not going to increase your morals and make you be honest.
The bible is a symbol, not a truth machine.
Not in the context I used it as a "process", which I clearly stated in the
above. Go back and read your Constitution:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following
Oath or Affirmation".
Simply because it is symbolic and a gesture that that person agrees in front
of every one that he will tell the truth.
It guarantees nothing but like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play.
I don't play the lottery but some people believe they will win.
Not totally unlike giving some one your word.
It is more about the higher standard of morals that the Bible represents.
How does a Bible represent a higher standard of morals, and higher
People who draw moral guidance from the Bible do so by careful
selection. The fact that so many people do, skipping over the
genocide and so forth is quite encouraging. It shows that most
people are fundamentally good by nature.
I'm an attorney, and so have been in court many times. I have NEVER
seen a judge require a witness to put his/her hand on a Bible (except in
the movies, but that's not an accurate portrayal of real life).
I personally am a Christian and believe in the Bible. James 5:12 says,
"swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any
other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall
into condemnation." I believe in that, and so when asked,I will
solemnly affirm that I will tell the truth under penalty of perjury.
But I will not swear an oath, because the Bible itself condemns it.
I am not going to disagree with any thing you have said here but would like
to point out that the word "swear" has several meanings. Some of those
meanings are positive and some are negative. The English version of the
Bible is an interpreted version of the originals. When translated
phrases/words were not always done so to capture the intent of the message.
Thou shall not kill is a common example. Words do not always have the same
meaning when translated. Like most any other language including English the
word can have a totally different meaning when used with other words. He
commonly "leaves" early, He raked the "leaves".
The passage you quoted above IMHO indicates that if you are not true to your
self/ believe what you say, others will recognize this and you will face
I only recall seeing the Bible in court. That was not recently and perhaps
is not the rule today.
At the wedding in Canaan (Luke 3) water was changed into grape juice,
according to the Greek text.
That makes a big difference to those who take that as a nod from Jesus
that you can catch a buzz if you feel like it.
There is a whole lot of creative interpretation of things written in
Then there are those who live by the Bible using it as guide, and then
there are those legalistic sunsabitches who use it as weapon.
I knew kids from my school who we NOT allowed to go swimming on
Yup, they were not allowed to float in God's warm water and glory,
bathe in the sunshine and find rest in that non-activity.
To paraphrase Carlin: "there are still people doing time for that
I digress and don't get me started....
Not sure where you got that information, but coming from a denomination
that diligently researches and uses the original languages (all of our
ministers must be able to read the scriptures from the original Greek,
Hebrew, or Aramaic in the proper historical meanings those words had at the
time they were written), I can tell you that is the first I have ever heard
of that interpretation. It further does not fit with the rest of the
context of the account where the master of the wedding makes the comment
about how the best wine was usually served first, then after the guests had
drunk too much, the lower quality wine brought out. Try
substituting "grape juice" in that sentence and you don't get the same
effect. Also doesn't work for the account of "new wine in new wineskins,
and old wine in old wineskins" comment that occurs elsewhere in the
gospels. Further, it doesn't work in the historical context; there was no
way at that time for grape juice to have been kept unfermented for any
period of time.
On the flip side, this was not an approval of drunkenness as the
admonitions against that are found throughout scripture.
That there is.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
The 'word' is oinos and can mean wine or grape juice. Fact.
The context, however, makes it clear that it probably was, in fact,
wine.... the fermented stuff that made the guests, after having drunk
My point was that some people wag their fingers and proclaim, NO NO NO
that wasn't booze, it was grape juice. Therefore NO amount of alcohol
And others use it as an excuse to get intoxicated, because it is
I wonder how peyote, pot, opium (all natural) rank on the 'cannot-do'
Kind of hard to make that argument based upon other passages, both Old and
Again, same thing, there are numerous admonitions, both Old and New
Testament against drunkenness.
They would easily fit into the admonition regarding drunkenness, has
nothing to do with the "naturalness" of the substance but the use to which
it is put. After all, hemlock is natural as well, it's still not good for
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
The wedding at Cana where Jesus changed water into wine is John 2:1
through 2:9. The Strong's Concordance list the original Greek word as:
A primary word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin [H3196]); “wine” (literally
The Hebrew [H3196] cross references to:
From an unused root meaning to effervesce; wine (as fermented); by
implication intoxication:—banqueting, wine, wine [-bibber].
It often debated but the with the custom of the time it is doubtful
unfermented grape juice was served at the wedding.
IIUC, you are saying that if a President choses to put his hand
on a bible when he takes his oath of office the rest of us should
be required to do the same when we testify in court?
Why shouldn't we have the same freedom when we take
an oath that the President has when he takes the oath of
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.