I am keeping the verses in context. The verses you just quoted, which open the chapter in question, warn against specific acts that would bring defilement, or uncleanness, upon the priests, such as touching a dead body. (As mentioned in verse 1.)The disabled people in question were already disabled, so these warnings to avoid doing anything that would cause defilement didn't apply to their already present disabilities.

These verses also do not state that the disabled people who were here prohibited from priestly duties were defiled, and that that was why they were prohibited. It was all about appearances.

For example, allow me to quote from the Jamieson-Faust-Brown Commentary:

"As visible things exert a strong influence on the minds of men, any physical infirmity or malformation of body in the ministers of religion, which disturbs the associations or excites ridicule, tends to detract from the weight and authority of the sacred office. Priests laboring under any personal defect were not allowed to officiate in the public service; they might be employed in some inferior duties about the sanctuary but could not perform any sacred office."

Found an interesting "explanatory" of these verses.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:

Among his people — None of the priests shall touch the dead body, or assist at his funeral, or eat of the funeral feast. The reason of this law is evident, because by such pollution they were excluded from converse with men, to whom by their function they were to be serviceable upon all occasions, and from the handling of holy things. And God would hereby teach them, and in them all successive ministers, that they ought entirely to give themselves to the service of God. Yea, to renounce all expressions of natural affection, and all worldly employments, so far as they are impediments to the discharge of their holy services.
----

But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother,

Near to him — Under which general expression his wife seems to be comprehended, though she be not expressed. And hence it is noted as a peculiar case, that Ezekiel, who was a priest, was forbidden to mourn for his wife, Ezekiel 24:16, etc. These exceptions God makes in condescension to human infirmity, because in such cases it was very hard to restrain the affections. But this allowance concerns only the inferior priest, not the high-priest
-----

And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.

That is nigh him — That is, by nearness not of relation, (for that might seem a needless addition) but of habitation, one not yet cut off from the family. For if she was married, she was now of another family, and under her husband's care in those matters.
------

But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.

Being — Or, seeing he is a chief man, for such not only the high-priest, but others also of the inferior priests were. He shall not defile himself for any other person whatsoever.

To profane himself — Because such defilement for the dead did profane him, or make him as a common person, and consequently unfit to manage his sacred employment.

I'm sure Christ just wants us to know how much of a liar and evil worker the King of lies and Demonds of him are,before Christ lets us in on who God really is?THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!

How does age make it less viable? Does age make it less truth? If so, how and why? And maybe he has given us something solid, just since "science" has ruled out "God", the things in question that happened were just placed in the "freak of nature", placed in some "theory" or some category of such.

People are flawed, even the bible says it. We lie, we make stuff up. All that "proof" is words in a book made by man. Why believe in god and not in unicorns, dragons and other such fairy tales? I think that you believe in him not because the stories make sense or even because you see them as logically plausible but because it is a story of an all powerful being that loves you and it gives your life a false sense of purpose and you fear that without that, you would have nothing. Are you able to reflect upon that and still tell me that there's no way I'm right?

Yes, Sir. I read that one, too.

I don't imagine we are going to come to much of an agreement on this point, and I would just as soon move on to another example, so I'll just say that my thought on this example is that, while God certainly had the right to choose who he wanted to invite to his special party, barring people with deformities wasn't very loving. (Unless there actually were some good reasons, other than their appearance, for so doing.)

Well, Lazarus, it just so happens that the Bible does refer to unicorns and dragons!

Job 39:9-12

"9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?"

Psalm 29:6

"6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn."

Isaiah 34:7

"7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

Isaiah 27:1

"27 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

And, there are actually more verses that mention dragons, but I didn't feel like listing them all.

Oh, here's a bonus mythological creature mentioned in the Bible for you:

Isaiah 13:21

"21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

Cowboy will probably now tell me that this was just symbolic language, or a translation issue and that the unicorns mentioned weren't really unicorns, but possibly rhinos, or wild oxen, as many apologists do. But I couldn't resist mentioning these passages when I saw your post. Oh, and I should mention that, regardless of how some apologists want to explain away these passages, there are some fundamentalists who defend some of these passages as actually being legit, as translated.

My apologies, but I don't see how your assertion addresses the point of this thread.
Or, even what your point is, for that matter.
Could you clarify it?

Jesus, possibly. The Greek sentence structure allows for that reading. I realize that it's difficult for you to consider that, as it doesn't put God in a very good light, but don't blame me; I didn't write the passage. Let alone write it in an ambiguous way that could be interpreted in this fashion.



I agree. Please note that I also said "or, at least, allow."



The fact that you can ask this question demonstrates what I said earlier about how religion skews ones perception. How can an All-Powerful, All-Loving entity do nothing to end the suffering of sick and diseased people?
And, how can you defend said entity?



We'll see. (No pun intended.) But, why wait? He could cure blindness with but a thought, right? It's not loving to withhold relief from his children, that he supposedly loves, when it would be so easy for him to provide it.



That's assuming, of course, we actually have the opportunity to see eternity. That's another extraordinary claim. Have you any extraordinary evidence to support it?



OMG! Did you really just type that?! That's almost as bad as claiming that David's son was better off dying as an infant.

Sorry to inform you, but that would be incorrect. I believe in God because I have felt his presence first hand.

Sorry for disappointing you with not specifically saying it's symbolic language.

On Thursday, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the North Korea’s government mouthpiece, said scientists “reconfirmed” the location of the burial site of the unicorn ridden by King Dongmyeong, the founding father of the ancient Korean kingdom of Goguryeo (37 BC-668 AD).

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/

And that's not the only reference "source" for this found unicorn.

Nothing skewed, just have come too the acknowledgement this life isn't forever and but a blink of an eye. And have faith in my God to do as he said he will. I don't have to defend anything, God does that on his own. I myself am a disabled man from the age of 18. I don't blame God for placing this burden on me. I take it as a blessing, a blessing to use to hopefully better help someone else in the long run.

There is plenty of psychological explanations for that you know. I mean you're still just basing his existence on some extreme emotion you had.
As for unicorns and dragons, both plausible. We did have dinosaurs and do have horses after all, it's not a stretch. Like I said, the greatest of lies are born of truth.

There are thousands, perhaps millions of people screaming for god to give them proof, to talk to them not in some dusty old book but in real life and he gives them nothing. Far as I'm concerned even if he does exist(and that's one hell of a stretch) He is so condescending and rude that I want nothing to do with him. I mean he must not be a very good spirit in the first place considering the only way he can get people to choose him is by giving them a 2 step multiple choice. Choose him or burn in the fires of hell for eternity. He's like Hitler but worse... I mean sure, maybe I'm wrong and he is a loving god, a VERY loving god, problem is all that love is going directly into a mirror..

No problem. It was just a guess.:)
Well, I wouldn't get too worked up about that story just yet. Anything coming out of North Korea is at best suspect. Here's a couple of brief articles you might want to check out:
http://www.livescience.com/25208-real-story-north-korea-unicorn.html
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I missed any mention of actual unicorn remains in the grave.

Well, let me just say that I am very sorry to hear that you yourself are disabled. And, I salute you for maintaining a positive outlook, and for trying to help others in any way you can.

There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus.

If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time.

Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent.

Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P

Lol.

That would kind of beat the purpose of this life and the level of "love". We believe in God because we've seen and felt his presence, his love. We "choose" to obey God, follow after him and love him in all his wondrous ways. If he made some grand appearance, people wouldn't believe/follow out of "wanting to" or "faith"... they would believe because they had to, they would have no other choice. And we've seen how that obviously works with mankind, even personally knowing God. We still turned away from God and his desires, still was disobedient even knowing him first hand person to person.