Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the
voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have
chastened him, will not hearken unto them;
19. Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him

unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place:
20. And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is

and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a

21. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die:

shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and
fear.

18. If a man have a stubborn. What God had previously adverted to in two
clauses, tie now embraces in a general law, for it cannot be doubted but
that by rebellious children all are designated who are abusive or

to their father and mother. For if it be a capital crime to be disobedient
to parents, much more is it to strike, or beat them, and to assail them

reproachful words. In sum, Moses declares that those are deserving of

who are of such a stubborn and intractable disposition as to reject the
authority of their father and mother, and to hold them in contempt. Whence
also we infer what it is to honor our father and mother, for the

is only denounced for the transgression of the Commandment. When,

the law delivers over to death all who contumaciously rebel against the
discipline of their parents, it follows that they have refused them their
due honor. An admirable means, however, of moderating the severity of the
law is introduced, when God requires the case to be decided on the

of the father and mother; and commands that it should be publicly heard,

that none may be condemned at the will of private individuals. By the

law the power of life and death over his children1 was given to the

because it was not probable that fathers would be carried away by such
senseless inhumanity as to deal cruelly with their own bowels; but, since
sometimes fathers are found who are not unlike wild beasts, and examples
show us that many, blinded by hate or avarice, have not spared their own
children, this concession of the Roman law is justly to be repudiated. I
allow, indeed, that those who desired to inflict punishment on their
children called their friends into council; but, whereas, the walls of a
private dwelling conceal many disgraceful things, God imposed a much

restraint on parents when He did not suffer them to go further than to lay
the information and to give their testimony. For, although he would have
credit given to their testimony, still, when the children were brought to
the tribunal of the judges, a legal trim undoubtedly ensued; and this form
of proceeding is prescribed, viz., that the father and mother should bring
their son and make their complaint before the judges of his incorrigible
stubbornness. It is true that the sentence is immediately subjoined; yet

must infer, nevertheless, that the judges pronounced it before the

was stoned, else it would have been ridiculous that they should sit there
like cyphers. The very mention of a trial, therefore, implies that the son
was heard in his defense, so as to clear himself of the crime, if he was

guilty of it: for, suppose the moroseness of the father and mother were
notorious; or that the father accused the son by the instigation of a
stepmother; or that any unworthy spite were discovered; or that the father
and mother had conspired to destroy their son in a fit of passion: the
defense of the cause is, therefore, implied in the adverb then,2 for it
would have been more than absurd that the son should be condemned without
being heard. Especially, when he was to be stoned by the whole people, it
was necessary that he should be first convicted; and on this ground he was
brought forth publicly, that he might be allowed to plead his cause. But
although those were condemned who were addicted to other vices also, yet
Moses expressly mentions gluttons and drunkards, to show that, although no
capital crime were alleged, still, dissolute profligacy was sufficient, if
the son could not be corrected by his parents; for it is plain that those
are in a desperate state who have so east away submissiveness and shame as
to receive no profit from the admonitions of their parents. From the end

the verse we gather what was the twofold object of the punishment -- that
the earth should be purged of the sins whereby it was in a manner,

and that the death of him who had transgressed might be an example to all.

While you have not presented a 'contradiction' rather just an example of
punishment here is one explanation that even compares the punishment to that
of the Romans which was harsher. I suspect that you like to reject the bible
since it reveals that such a strict punishment was EVER imposed. Perhaps it
is beyond anyone's ability on a forum such as this to explain to you why
that is no reason to reject Christianity. That would require study on your
part. That requires again, a level of sophistication that perhaps you are
unwilling to develop.

Surely God is smart enough to have provided enough
"easy outs" for those so inclined to reject His Word. You can take them if
you want, it is your loss.

God did not just 'fix' mankind with His own might
in one second as soon as the Fall occurred. The Bible shows the evolution of
his plan for mankind over the years culminating in the coming of Jesus who
is prophesied many times in the OT so much so that it is mathematically
impossible that anyone would have accidentally fulfilled all those
prophesies as Jesus did. Another case to consider is the instance where God
commanded that the Israelites destroy the Baal worshipping Canaanites to
cleanse the land so that the Israelites could continue to develop their
culture worshipping God free of the evil influence. Today people like you
say that killing those pagans makes God evil and the Israelites evil. The
problem you have is not accepting that there is good and evil or that God
can meet out whatever punishment or punishments suit him. You are not the
judge.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18. If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the
voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have
chastened him, will not hearken unto them;
19. Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out
unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place:
20. And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn
and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.
21. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so
shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and
fear.

18. If a man have a stubborn. What God had previously adverted to in two
clauses, tie now embraces in a general law, for it cannot be doubted but
that by rebellious children all are designated who are abusive or insulting
to their father and mother. For if it be a capital crime to be disobedient
to parents, much more is it to strike, or beat them, and to assail them with
reproachful words. In sum, Moses declares that those are deserving of death
who are of such a stubborn and intractable disposition as to reject the
authority of their father and mother, and to hold them in contempt. Whence
also we infer what it is to honor our father and mother, for the punishment
is only denounced for the transgression of the Commandment. When, therefore,
the law delivers over to death all who contumaciously rebel against the
discipline of their parents, it follows that they have refused them their
due honor. An admirable means, however, of moderating the severity of the
law is introduced, when God requires the case to be decided on the evidence
of the father and mother; and commands that it should be publicly heard, so
that none may be condemned at the will of private individuals. By the Roman
law the power of life and death over his children1 was given to the father,
because it was not probable that fathers would be carried away by such
senseless inhumanity as to deal cruelly with their own bowels; but, since
sometimes fathers are found who are not unlike wild beasts, and examples
show us that many, blinded by hate or avarice, have not spared their own
children, this concession of the Roman law is justly to be repudiated. I
allow, indeed, that those who desired to inflict punishment on their
children called their friends into council; but, whereas, the walls of a
private dwelling conceal many disgraceful things, God imposed a much better
restraint on parents when He did not suffer them to go further than to lay
the information and to give their testimony. For, although he would have
credit given to their testimony, still, when the children were brought to
the tribunal of the judges, a legal trim undoubtedly ensued; and this form
of proceeding is prescribed, viz., that the father and mother should bring
their son and make their complaint before the judges of his incorrigible
stubbornness. It is true that the sentence is immediately subjoined; yet we
must infer, nevertheless, that the judges pronounced it before the criminal
was stoned, else it would have been ridiculous that they should sit there
like cyphers. The very mention of a trial, therefore, implies that the son
was heard in his defense, so as to clear himself of the crime, if he was not
guilty of it: for, suppose the moroseness of the father and mother were
notorious; or that the father accused the son by the instigation of a
stepmother; or that any unworthy spite were discovered; or that the father
and mother had conspired to destroy their son in a fit of passion: the
defense of the cause is, therefore, implied in the adverb then,2 for it
would have been more than absurd that the son should be condemned without
being heard. Especially, when he was to be stoned by the whole people, it
was necessary that he should be first convicted; and on this ground he was
brought forth publicly, that he might be allowed to plead his cause. But
although those were condemned who were addicted to other vices also, yet
Moses expressly mentions gluttons and drunkards, to show that, although no
capital crime were alleged, still, dissolute profligacy was sufficient, if
the son could not be corrected by his parents; for it is plain that those
are in a desperate state who have so east away submissiveness and shame as
to receive no profit from the admonitions of their parents. From the end of
the verse we gather what was the twofold object of the punishment -- that
the earth should be purged of the sins whereby it was in a manner, polluted,
and that the death of him who had transgressed might be an example to all.

"Alun Harford" <alunharford@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bqfrf2$h49$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...

"derng" <derng@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqfo7d0175e@enews4.newsguy.com...

They are actually only 'contradictions' to those with an extremely
unsophisticated understanding of the verses in question. Typically any

study

beyond even the most brain-dead reading of the sole verses in question
resolves the contradiction very quickly. Hope that helps.

PLEASE give me some 'sophisticated understanding' of Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

Alun Harford

Part of the problem for those coming to the Bible LOOKING HARD, DESPERATELY
SEEKING, REFUSING TO ACCEPT OTHERWISE, contradictions, is that there is
plenty there to trip them up. The fact of the matter is it really can't be
fully understood until the Holy Spirit moves someone. The starting point is
to being studying the Bible with an OPEN MIND (something that some find
IMPOSSIBLE to even attempt) and then with prayer and time wait for the day
when you 'get it'.

Matthew 27:5 tells us that Judas died by hanging himself. Acts 1:18 tells us
that Judas fell onto some rocks and his body burst open. Is there a
contradiction here?

No. Both accounts are true. Apparently Judas first hanged himself. Then, at
some point, the rope either broke or loosened so that his body slipped from
it and fell to the rocks below and burst open. (Some have suggested that
Judas didn't do a very good job of tying the noose.) Neither account alone
is complete. Taken together, we have a full picture of what happened to
Judas.

Did Judas die by hanging or by falling onto some rocks?

Matthew 27:5 tells us that Judas died by hanging himself. Acts 1:18 tells

that Judas fell onto some rocks and his body burst open. Is there a
contradiction here?

No. Both accounts are true. Apparently Judas first hanged himself. Then,

some point, the rope either broke or loosened so that his body slipped

it and fell to the rocks below and burst open. (Some have suggested that
Judas didn't do a very good job of tying the noose.) Neither account alone
is complete. Taken together, we have a full picture of what happened to
Judas.