Aantares    Aantares BB  Hop To Forum Categories  Your Lifestyle & Culture  Hop To Forums  Religion & Spirituality    Biblical Scholar: Dont take Bible literally
      Page: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 37
Go To
Post
Search BB
Notify Me
TOS/Tools/Smilies
Reply
  
Biblical Scholar: Dont take Bible literally
 Login/Register
 
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by bluelamp:
The plagues were long before the exile and were a Hittite/Luwian history thing borrowed to create a uniting history for the exiled Jews.


Yet another of my frustrating communication failures.

The only plague I referred to there was the Davidic one, supposedly the price Israel paid for David's alleged anti-commandment census.

In fact there are two issues here. When one checks the earlier Bible there was nothing at all wrong with conducting any census, providing certain rituals were followed (the Jews had and have rules and regulations for every bloody thing, including the frame of mind one must achieve while making the most of being in bed with one's properly married wife).

No mention at all of David breaching those rituals, which is why I am suggesting the whole thing is a concoction knocked up by the priests to explain a perfectly natural disaster. Since their deity was in control of everything, they had to conjure up some sort of excuse for something their lack of knowledge of germs and viruses prevented them from explaining.

quote:
A: ...First you have Judaism. It began as a widespread cult of comet/storm god worship. It was reformulated to meet the needs of a dispossessed people and encourage solidarity among them. Christianity had a dual beginning. First was an apocalyptic cult of intolerance and violence. Second was a message of spiritual transformation based on the life of an extraordinary man full of mercy...
(Joe) So the worst of both Judaism and early Christianity would be intolerance and violence and storm god worship...
A: Yes
[/QUOTE]

Have serious issues with that one.

The Jews were nomadic desert goat-herders. They had no respect whatsoever for Mother Nature, given that in their opinion She did nothing for them, especially not providing rain storms. Judaism is based on a variety of notions they picked up much later on their travels throughout the Fertile Crescent.

(Joe) So the worst of both Judaism and early Christianity would be intolerance and violence...

That, though, has my 100% approval, however I'd delete the word early. I don't know of any religions other than the Abrahamic ones which have such a blood-soaked sinful still-current record, no matter what excuses any of the three of them come up with.

Really getting to like that Ancient Origins site, and may sign up as a member. It has an astonishing array of information choices, and according to its references they are properly qualified.
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Bhagworm:
I'd like to know why they removed Lilith from the Bible...and who removed her? I think she was sent or went free-will to the land of Giants.
And didn't Jesus throw someone off a roof and kill him when he was a young man? Where is that passage now?
HB


Lilith might have been deleted from the Bible apart from one arguable reference in Isaiah 34:11: The desert owl and screech owl will possess it; the great owl and the raven will nest there. God will stretch out over Edom the measuring line of chaos and the ... (She is the screech owl there.)

However, she flourished well and truly in later Kabbalistic Judaism.

Based, it seems, on a much earlier Sumerian reference, she became some sort of Jewish demoness, preventing women from having healthy babies or making them infertile and (need to say this quietly) creating countless other demons every time men had one of those "liquid" dreams (which is why Jewish men are not permitted to sleep alone in a house). As a result, archaeologists have found a multitude of ancient amulets preventing such happenings.

She rose enormously in Judaism around and after the Middle Ages. God's partner, Shekhinah, left him when the Jews were kicked out of Israel by the Romans and her home, the Temple, was destroyed. That's when Lilith moved in as God's sleeping partner.

If anyone thinks I am being unnecessarily coarse here, then they'd better not read the devout Jew Raphael Patai's The Hebrew Goddess. He is far more graphic than I'm game to be here.

As for Jesus as a child, I reckon this bloke's vocabulary should suit you fine Smile-Big   :D (he can't spell rein. as in rein in.)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/art...s-was-kind-of-a-dick
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Bhagworm:
What has transformed you is not the same thing that has transformed Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Jews, etc.
HB


As you know, for me you are being unfairly harsh on Vicki.

For real, I'll challenge you to prove that what has changed Vicki's life is not exactly the same as what transformed Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Jews, etc.

This time, though, we'll play by my rules, using my Skinnerian vocabulary and way of thinking Smile-Big   :D

In what way are the changes in the electrical impulses in Vicki's brain neuron modules which brought about this essential, necessary, improvement in her life different from the electrical impulses which brought about the changes in those other minds?

You on?
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
God didn't rise to the bait- the Satan did. God is the one who brought up the subject of Job. God knew his heart and declared Job righteous from the beginning. It is the Satan that is proved wrong. That could have been one of the points- showing the Satan that he is wrong. Another purpose of this story about Job could be to show that the Satan is the Adversary of faithful people, as he tempts them to curse God or otherwise be unfaithful. I can't help but think of the temptation of Jesus. What was the Satan's ultimate temptation? To worship the Satan. (Matthew 4:9-10)


Sorry, Vicki.

God himself states he responded directly to his loyal Adversary's challenge.

To say otherwise is to make a liar of God.

"...Yet you enticed Me against him."

I've spent a lifetime revelling in Scot's banter, and what is said here falls into exactly the same pattern. God deliberately makes a boast, knowing his Adversary must issue that enticement.

You should hear me at my football club when this former Proddy Dog (Protestant) and still Rangers' fan challenges a family of Glasgow Irish-Catholic Celtic supporters.

I can get away with it here in Australia, though the Aussies at the bar haven't a clue what I and my Fenian friends are up to.

I'd get my head in my hands to play with if I tried it in the Celtic Sarrie Heid pub in Gallowgate.

You'd never understand Billy Connolly's broad Scots brogue, but his story that there was a typo in the Bible, instead of Galilee Jesus held the Last Supper in Gallowgate -- just up from the Cross -- is brilliant.

That Cross is Glasgow Cross, a major road intersection where High Street, Gallowgate, London Road, Saltmarket, Trongate meet. No one on Connolly's audience misses the pun. I was at the Cross after a Rangers v Celtic football match, an experience I will never forget. The atmosphere was charged with humour but, as they were all well and truly under the influence, it would have take very little for it to turn into a dangerous brawl. Police everywhere, in cars, on horses, on foot, with one hell of a job on their hands. Boy, did they earn my respect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WgXPBDrd8s

Off to feed the birds. Will finish off later.
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Here to stay...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
The only plague I referred to there was the Davidic one, supposedly the price Israel paid for David's alleged anti-commandment census.


The Gnostic Jews in Alexandria used a much earlier Amarna period plague story from their library for their made up history. Yes there was an Amarna era plague effecting Hittites and Egyptians but there wasn't really an angel of the Lord with a sword; it was probably really a comet with a tail portent thing. David borrowed Omri, Jebusite/Hittite and who knows what else for his "history"; he probably also related to an actual though minor neo-Hittite ruler in Judah too but the census story wasn't about the Judah ruler.

quote:
The Jews were nomadic desert goat-herders. They had no respect whatsoever for Mother Nature

The Alexandria Gnostic Jews who created Judaism as we know it did things quite differently. Gnostic Christians had Peter and Paul flying through the air kind of Like Enoch had Satan flying through the air and Chronicles has the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with a sword drawn stretched over Jerusalem.

quote:
That, though, has my 100% approval, however I'd delete the word early. I don't know of any religions other than the Abrahamic ones which have such a blood-soaked sinful still-current record, no matter what excuses any of the three of them come up with.


They were talking origins for Christianity and Judaism; Judaism had a major re-write of religious history that wasn't even theirs while Christianity kind of started with and as you say kept their bad traits.
 
Posts: 1149 | Location: Tucson, AZ | Mbr Since: 04-23-2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Allan,

I understand completely if you need more time to reply. I'm sure you have as busy a life as I do and chances to read and respond on aantares must be fit into our schedules. I think you may be getting too worked up over the many different translations. I like to think of them as tools. Some are better than others in certain areas.


I didn’t undesrandAllan to be upset with multiple translations per se but rather that certain words are best translated withe phrases and still don’t quite mean the same. The one most are familiar with is agape, Eros et al. We have only one word, love, and yet none really include puppy love.

Similarly the Greeks wrote in a different style than the Hebrews how do you capture the meanings of the same word used differently in different cultures.

And to my point, I hope you had a Gay time in your celebration of the New Years.


Vicki:
That is why it is important to look at the context of what is written, the type of literature, etc. It is also why English translations need to be revised periodically because usage of English words can change even in one person's lifetime.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Allan,I understand completely if you need more time to reply. I'm sure you have as busy a life as I do and chances to read and respond on aantares must be fit into our schedules. I think you may be getting too worked up over the many different translations. I like to think of them as tools. Some are better than others in certain areas.


No, Vicki, it is not a matter of schedules. Most of it is my frustration at not being able to make myself clear. Hard to take, given my success in journalism. Pretty sure you mentioned the difficulty of communicating clearly on the Internet, something I recognised long ago and still have failed to master. That was why I created my Pub for my mob; we could metaphorically relax over a Guinness, Bailey's or cup of coffee and natter on, clearing up any confusion just as we'd do if sitting face to face.

Reed is right on track with this: I didn’t understand Allan to be upset with multiple translations per se but rather that certain words are best translated with phrases and still don’t quite mean the same. The one most are familiar with is agape, Eros et al. We have only one word, love, and yet none really include puppy love.

She brought something to mind. Let's say I have a group of people, give them pen and paper, and ask them to write a short story based on two words I write on the board -- pun untended Smile-Big   :D as the words are "It bores".

One person had been at a function the previous night, the topic being something they were not at all interested in.

So they write about how it bored them.

Another was a dentist, so writes about new equipment they were using.

Another was a miner, so wrote about huge drilling equipment used at the mine.

Another was going through a tough time and wrote about the weight they bore on their shoulders.

Another is a shooter, so writes about the bores of the different rifle used.

And so on.

Two simple words, yet understood in vastly different ways.

Check this: I want my get to get educated after I issue a (divorce) get to my partner. Get it?

Was completely baffled when I first came to one of these Internet forums when a post quoting the oldest known early Roman classic novel was repeatedly rejected no matter how often I rewrote it. Took a USA friend to point out that I may be quoting the title created by Saint Augustine for Metamorphoses of Apuleius, however the USA censor program could not accept the historic The Golden Ass.

Now let's turn that to the oral traditions and writings of cultures dating back thousands of years. What happens when someone much later, from an entirely different culture, tries to make sense of them?

One of the major problems I face is few people understand the word mythology the way I do after decades of reading some of the world's top experts on the subject.

If I start to talk about the Rainbow Serpent I am, so far as these others are concerned, talking nonsensical fairy tales told by "primitive savages". I'm not. I'm talking about stories with vital messages created by highly intelligent people who knew exactly what they were doing. We'd be far better off culturally had we kept updating those mythologies to meet the demands of our changing environments.

Have been spewing lately because I thought I'd lost a site which does a great job explaining just how much we have got the Bible wrong.

Eureka!

https://www.ancient-origins.ne...fferent-story-021833
All modern concepts of the Garden of Eden stem from a few verses in the biblical Book of Genesis, none of which is entirely free from ambiguity. The ancient Hebraic documents, from which the early part of the Book was compiled, contained simple and basic writing with very few vowels, and none of the modifying inflections which, later, gave flexibility to the language. The absence of vowels lead[sic] to this ambiguity; which is why, even today, after millenia of scholarship, no-one knows how the name of God was pronounced. As a result, our Churches vary in their interpretation of YHWH (Yod He Vov He) between the sounds of Yahweh and those of Jehovah — and these are only two of the possibilities.
Anther source of ambiguity lies in the fact that early Middle Eastern languages leant heavily on paronomasia to give variety to simple phrases — a form of punning which allowed several different meanings to be given to a single set of symbols. In speech, it is probable that slight inflections of tone differentiated between meanings, but in the written word there is no such indication to help us; and modern students of the Bible, like their predecessors, have to guess at the meanings of many words from the angle of their own preconceived notions of the context.
In all three of the basic, ancient Middle Eastern languages — Hebrew, Sumerian and Babylonian – a scholar with a secular bias would produce a different translation of the same text from that produced by a scholar with a religious bias. This may be very easily illustrated.
...These four widely-used quotations are taken from the Jerusalem Bible, first published in 1966 from deeply researched and modernized translations by the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem. We consider this magnificent work to be the most authorative and scholarly of all the modern translations . . . and yet these simple phrases, which hold the fundamentals of present-day Jewish and Christian teaching, are beset with traps of which the average Church member knows nothing. We shall open our bag of doubts by discussing three of them.

Now I've got that off my chest, let's see how I go this time.


Vicki:
I have studied Genesis chapter 1 in paleo Hebrew, which does not have vowel points, so I understand that the same combination of consonants can stand for different words. Context is important. Looking at other parts of the OT where the same words were used is helpful. It is possible to translate it accurately. Sure, a person could have fun with chapter 1 and come up with alternate words for the consonant combinations, but then it wouldn't make sense.

It truly is possible to accurately translate the Bible to English. I'm not saying there are not difficult parts that all scholars tussle with, but in any good commentary, those ambiguities, words only used once, and alternate translations are discussed.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
God didn't rise to the bait- the Satan did. God is the one who brought up the subject of Job. God knew his heart and declared Job righteous from the beginning. It is the Satan that is proved wrong. That could have been one of the points- showing the Satan that he is wrong. Another purpose of this story about Job could be to show that the Satan is the Adversary of faithful people, as he tempts them to curse God or otherwise be unfaithful. I can't help but think of the temptation of Jesus. What was the Satan's ultimate temptation? To worship the Satan. (Matthew 4:9-10)


Sorry, Vicki.

God himself states he responded directly to his loyal Adversary's challenge.

To say otherwise is to make a liar of God.

"...Yet you enticed Me against him."

I've spent a lifetime revelling in Scot's banter, and what is said here falls into exactly the same pattern. God deliberately makes a boast, knowing his Adversary must issue that enticement.

You should hear me at my football club when this former Proddy Dog (Protestant) and still Rangers' fan challenges a family of Glasgow Irish-Catholic Celtic supporters.

I can get away with it here in Australia, though the Aussies at the bar haven't a clue what I and my Fenian friends are up to.

I'd get my head in my hands to play with if I tried it in the Celtic Sarrie Heid pub in Gallowgate.

You'd never understand Billy Connolly's broad Scots brogue, but his story that there was a typo in the Bible, instead of Galilee Jesus held the Last Supper in Gallowgate -- just up from the Cross -- is brilliant.

That Cross is Glasgow Cross, a major road intersection where High Street, Gallowgate, London Road, Saltmarket, Trongate meet. No one on Connolly's audience misses the pun. I was at the Cross after a Rangers v Celtic football match, an experience I will never forget. The atmosphere was charged with humour but, as they were all well and truly under the influence, it would have take very little for it to turn into a dangerous brawl. Police everywhere, in cars, on horses, on foot, with one hell of a job on their hands. Boy, did they earn my respect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WgXPBDrd8s

Off to feed the birds. Will finish off later.


Vicki:
I believe you asked me earlier what word my translations used and I mentioned that God said he was incited by the Satan. That word has different definitions from enticed. The Satan's motivation isn't to be loyal to God. As I mentioned before, God doesn't need the Satan to tell Him what charges need to be brought up against people. He knows people's hearts, He knows the future. He knew that Job would pass this test without cursing Him, and Job would learn something very valuable about God's character and faithfulness, in the process.

When I read the book of Job, one of the highlights is Job's faith in his redeemer, who Job says will defend him and set things right, even in the face of his friends' accusations. According to the story, Job didn't know who else was accusing him (the Satan).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
I have studied Genesis chapter 1 in paleo Hebrew, which does not have vowel points, so I understand that the same combination of consonants can stand for different words. Context is important. Looking at other parts of the OT where the same words were used is helpful. It is possible to translate it accurately. Sure, a person could have fun with chapter 1 and come up with alternate words for the consonant combinations, but then it wouldn't make sense.


Why would it not?

Or do you mean it would not make the sense some people need it to mean?

How many years have you spent studying paleo-Hebrew? I ask because John Allegro, an acknowledged world expert in those ancient languages, lost his career because he offered alternate hypotheses which no one, repeat no one, was able to counter.

You did not address the perfectly appropriate comment: a scholar with a secular bias would produce a different translation of the same text from that produced by a scholar with a religious bias. This may be very easily illustrated.

Context is important.

You bet it is.

What was your response to my three questions on David's census? Alternatively, who made him conduct that census? God, his loyal Jewish Adversary, or the Christian Devil?

Nor did you comment on: Anther source of ambiguity lies in the fact that early Middle Eastern languages leant heavily on paronomasia to give variety to simple phrases — a form of punning which allowed several different meanings to be given to a single set of symbols.

Must admit I had to look up paronomasia. Ever watch Stephen Fry's QI? I often wonder how many USA viewers cope with him and his panellists.

How easy is it, do you think, for a native Greek or Latin speaker to fully comprehend the meaning of an Asian language?

You familiar with the comment attributed to either George Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde: The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language.

Given that obvious fact i.e. The Golden Ass, what makes you think anyone brought up on English can be guaranteed to understand what ancient languages really conveyed?

Try these:

A Scots patient was carefully seated in her chair and her dentist asked her: "Comfy?"

She replied: "Largs."

Or this one:

What do we Scots call an illegitimate insect? A wee fly b*stard.

What do these tell you?

quote:
It truly is possible to accurately translate the Bible to English. I'm not saying there are not difficult parts that all scholars tussle with, but in any good commentary, those ambiguities, words only used once, and alternate translations are discussed.


What makes you think it is possible to accurately translate the Bible to English given the all too real alternatives?

Have you checked the argument put forward in https://www.ancient-origins.ne...ferent-story-021833?
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
I believe you asked me earlier what word my translations used and I mentioned that God said he was incited by the Satan. That word has different definitions from enticed. The Satan's motivation isn't to be loyal to God. As I mentioned before, God doesn't need the Satan to tell Him what charges need to be brought up against people. He knows people's hearts, He knows the future. He knew that Job would pass this test without cursing Him, and Job would learn something very valuable about God's character and faithfulness, in the process.


So you have a problem straight away. Why did those translators select those different translations? I note the Jewish Chabad translation gives Yet you enticed Me against him.

Either way, what is the real difference?

entice
/ɪnˈtʌɪs,ɛnˈtʌɪs/
verb
verb: entice; 3rd person present: entices; past tense: enticed; past participle: enticed; gerund or present participle: enticing
attract or tempt by offering pleasure or advantage.
"a show which should entice a new audience into the theatre"
synonyms: tempt, allure, lure, attract, dangle a carrot in front of;

incite
/ɪnˈsʌɪt/
verb
verb: incite; 3rd person present: incites; past tense: incited; past participle: incited; gerund or present participle: inciting
encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behaviour).
"they conspired to incite riots"
synonyms: stir up, whip up, work up, encourage, fan the flames of, stoke up, fuel, kindle, ignite, inflame, stimulate, instigate, provoke, excite, arouse, awaken, waken, inspire, trigger, spark off, ferment, foment, agitate for/against;

Whether the Adversary incited or enticed God, God fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Who, then, was in control?

The Satan's motivation isn't to be loyal to God.

What, exactly, from the Jewish Bible are you basing that on?

quote:
When I read the book of Job, one of the highlights is Job's faith in his redeemer, who Job says will defend him and set things right, even in the face of his friends' accusations. According to the story, Job didn't know who else was accusing him (the Satan).


Does that matter?

God ordered his Adversary to put Job to the test, costing him his family and his fortune.

Why did God wish that on Job?
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
That is why it is important to look at the context of what is written, the type of literature, etc. It is also why English translations need to be revised periodically because usage of English words can change even in one person's lifetime.


Yet I have repeated shown that few believers have any idea of the context, the history, the culture of the Bible times.

That is one reason I am looking forward to your response to my questions on David's census.

What is known of the culture of the time, especially given there is no evidence at all of the existence of a king named David?
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
When I read the book of Job, one of the highlights is Job's faith in his redeemer, who Job says will defend him and set things right, even in the face of his friends' accusations. According to the story, Job didn't know who else was accusing him (the Satan).


Vicki, your comments, please. Note the authorities cited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
A figure known as "the satan" first appears in the Tanakh as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh, who prosecutes the nation of Judah in the heavenly court and tests the loyalty of Yahweh's followers by forcing them to suffer. During the intertestamental period, possibly due to influence from the Zoroastrian figure of Angra Mainyu, the satan developed into a malevolent entity with abhorrent qualities in dualistic opposition to God.
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vicki:
I have studied Genesis chapter 1 in paleo Hebrew, which does not have vowel points, so I understand that the same combination of consonants can stand for different words. Context is important. Looking at other parts of the OT where the same words were used is helpful. It is possible to translate it accurately. Sure, a person could have fun with chapter 1 and come up with alternate words for the consonant combinations, but then it wouldn't make sense.


Allan:
Why would it not?
Or do you mean it would not make the sense some people need it to mean?

Vicki:
I mean that it would not make sense. Let me see if I can give you an example, using other meanings for the same Hebrew word and other Hebrew words using the same combination of letters without vowels, to translate a passage into English, using my paleo- Hebrew/ English interlinear Torah.

Genesis 1:1
Chief ate One Mighty with sky against the land

(As you can see, one can have a lot of fun with it).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
You did not address the perfectly appropriate comment: a scholar with a secular bias would produce a different translation of the same text from that produced by a scholar with a religious bias. This may be very easily illustrated.
Context is important.

You bet it is.

Vicki:
I guess I missed that comment. Tell me which translation of the Bible is the secular translation? I would be interested in looking at it.

Allan:
What was your response to my three questions on David's census? Alternatively, who made him conduct that census? God, his loyal Jewish Adversary, or the Christian Devil?

Vicki:
And I notice that you didn't answer my question about your questions.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vicki:
When I read the book of Job, one of the highlights is Job's faith in his redeemer, who Job says will defend him and set things right, even in the face of his friends' accusations. According to the story, Job didn't know who else was accusing him (the Satan).


Vicki, your comments, please. Note the authorities cited:

Vicki:
I'm sorry. I assumed that you had read the book of Job and you were familiar with it. Am I incorrect? Would it help you if I cite the chapter and verses in Job that I am referring to?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vicki:
I believe you asked me earlier what word my translations used and I mentioned that God said he was incited by the Satan. That word has different definitions from enticed. The Satan's motivation isn't to be loyal to God. As I mentioned before, God doesn't need the Satan to tell Him what charges need to be brought up against people. He knows people's hearts, He knows the future. He knew that Job would pass this test without cursing Him, and Job would learn something very valuable about God's character and faithfulness, in the process.


So you have a problem straight away. Why did those translators select those different translations? I note the Jewish Chabad translation gives Yet you enticed Me against him.

Either way, what is the real difference?

entice
/ɪnˈtʌɪs,ɛnˈtʌɪs/
verb
verb: entice; 3rd person present: entices; past tense: enticed; past participle: enticed; gerund or present participle: enticing
attract or tempt by offering pleasure or advantage.
"a show which should entice a new audience into the theatre"
synonyms: tempt, allure, lure, attract, dangle a carrot in front of;

incite
/ɪnˈsʌɪt/
verb
verb: incite; 3rd person present: incites; past tense: incited; past participle: incited; gerund or present participle: inciting
encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behaviour).
"they conspired to incite riots"
synonyms: stir up, whip up, work up, encourage, fan the flames of, stoke up, fuel, kindle, ignite, inflame, stimulate, instigate, provoke, excite, arouse, awaken, waken, inspire, trigger, spark off, ferment, foment, agitate for/against;

Whether the Adversary incited or enticed God, God fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Who, then, was in control?

Vicki:
It is YOUR interpretation, from a secular viewpoint with a mythological basis "that God fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Who then was in control?" It is understandable that you would come up with such an interpretation since the human antics of gods, goddesses, semi-divine heroes are parts of mythology. They are easily fooled.

Vicki:
When I read the book of Job, one of the highlights is Job's faith in his redeemer, who Job says will defend him and set things right, even in the face of his friends' accusations. According to the story, Job didn't know who else was accusing him (the Satan).

Allan:
Does that matter?

Vicki:
Yes, it matters if you are going to read the book of Job for all of what it says, even on a secular basis.

Allan:
God ordered his Adversary to put Job to the test, costing him his family and his fortune.

Why did God wish that on Job?


Vicki:
It is at this point that I am wondering if you are understanding my posts or if I am understanding yours. It would really be helpful if you would answer my previous question about your questions. I have given various purposes for God allowing the Satan to do what he requested to Job, with certain restrictions along the way. It's as if you haven't noticed what I posted. What is going on, here?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vicki:
That is why it is important to look at the context of what is written, the type of literature, etc. It is also why English translations need to be revised periodically because usage of English words can change even in one person's lifetime.


Allan
Yet I have repeated shown that few believers have any idea of the context, the history, the culture of the Bible times.

Vicki
No, you haven't. You have demonstrated your bias against the education and knowledge of Christians, though.

Allan:
That is one reason I am looking forward to your response to my questions on David's census.
What is known of the culture of the time, especially given there is no evidence at all of the existence of a king named David?


Vicki:
Says the man who totally disregards the most ancient and detailed account of the life and reign of Kind David and his descendants, simply because it is a religious manuscript.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
I need to ask you a question about your questions. Are you asking questions in order to understand my answers and how I arrive at those answers? Or, are you asking questions in order to promote your thinking about those answers. I'm not trying to put down the latter approach. I'm just trying to understand how to better communicate with you.


A few reasons, Vicki.

While I relish the intellectual challenge, my overriding driver is a fear all too many believers today don't ask the right questions, so, as we see all too often, when they are faced with having to provide real answers they can't, and very often they lose their beliefs. The cost for that is too high.

Just look at the drop-out rate from all three religions, figures which I have posted to you.

It concerns me greatly that none of the Abrahamic religions' leaders seem to be facing this issue, none seem to be coming up with any strategy to combat reality.

I note you believe our planet was created six thousand years ago, that the first humans were created at the same time.

That simply cannot withstand scrutiny. Again my concern is all the Christian sites I read opposing an ancient world, opposing the Theory of Evolution, are proven liars.

That brings only contempt from those who know better. They are making a mockery of the Abrahamic religions. We can not afford this ridicule.

quote:
Reed pointed out something true about me- I was an atheist before I became a believer. I was not raised in any religion. I did not have a concept that the Bible was God's infallible Word. That was a conclusion that I came to after studying. I did not understand when I first became a Christian that Jesus is God in the flesh, although I came to understand that as I studied the Bible and thought of the implications of what he did for us on the cross. I did not believe in a literal creation of 6 days. That was a conclusion that I came to after much study around 2006.
So, I too ask questions. My church does not discourage asking questions. The idea that Christians believe what they are told to believe appears to be a misconception about us- at least about the Christians that I know, personally.


Given that you have stuck with me this long I have no doubt either about your faith or your commitment. With your acceptance of my questions, though, what happens when your enquiring mind accepts that science is on the right track? What support will you have then?

You may have seen I long presented myself as an atheist. My mob tore me apart on that, and I have no problem accepting the fact I am an agnostic; neither science, logic, nor reason can disprove the possibility of a Supreme Creator. My ASCs reinforce that. I wonder, though, if you understand what I mean when I talk about the Brahman concept? I don't know too many who understand Hinduism as the Brahmins see it.

I can go on for hours on why I am an atheist when it comes to the anthropomorphic deities. I leave it to your discretion on whether you want to tell me why you were an atheist.
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Allan: Obvious question: why did Christianity have to change what Judaism had taught from the word God gave to his Chosen People?
Let's begin with one simple fact: for thousands of years under the direct care of God, it has been *blasphemy for Jews to accept that any of God's angels could rebel against him.
Vicki: What verses in the OT say that this is blasphemy?


Think about it.

The question could never have arisen in Judaism.

quote:

Allan: They do have a loyal angel appointed to a particular role, that of challenger, adversary, accuser. Exactly like our Crown Prosecutor and your (Assistant?) District Attorneys.
Vicki:
If this is true, why does God bring up his own charges against His people and against Gentiles in the writings of the Prophets? You also find God bringing up his own charges in the book of Exodus and in Joshua. Why would He need an Assistant District Attorney? He knows people's hearts, already.


How much time do you have?

In fact, I invite you to ask yourself why virtually the entire Tanakh ...

No. It's 2am, so I'll take this one on after I've had a sleep.

[/QUOTE] Allan:
Again key question must be asked: what is the purpose of this story? What message does it give?
What do you think? Why did God provide this story, what was the message he was giving?
Vicki: I have answered this question, already. There are various purposes and messages in the book of Job. Did you not understand that I was answering this question earlier?[/QUOTE]

You did not address my question on the Jewish priests' need to tell the devout Jews why Marduk had defeated Adonai.
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Allan:
The priests even insist their deity anointed Cyrus as a christ/messiah when he decided to release his exiles, even though Cyrus himself was a worshipper of Ahura Mazda and went into a Babylonian temple to give his thanks to Marduk. I know why he did that. Do you?

Vicki:
It goes further back than that. God prophesied in Isaiah about Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28-45:13 being anointed to subdue nations, strip kings of their armor, to let Jerusalem to be built and for the foundations of the Temple in Jerusalem to be laid. This prophecy was given years before Jerusalem fell, the temple was destroyed and Judea was taken into exile.

This is what God says in Isaiah 45:5-6 that I think shows that God had His purpose for anointing Cyrus that didn't have to do with whether Cyrus acknowledged Him or not....

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me, I am the LORD, and there is no other."


A standard error.

Few Christians understand that a prophet's role is not just to "predict" the future but to explain the past.

When, exactly, do you think Isaiah said this, and what are your sources?

quote:
I think that we can perhaps both see the difficulty we are having in communicating since we have two very different views of the Scriptures. I am not understanding your points and you are not understanding mine.


I understand yours perfectly.

Obviously some personal details are not available, but I have understood your posts right from the beginning.

How well do you understand and accept that I have been asking questions, many at a professional level, all my life?
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Devoted...
posted Hide Post
Vicki, it's well after 2am, so I'll have to get back later.

Do you read and check the sources I make an effort to provide?

I check them.
 
Posts: 5046 | Location: Queensland, Australia | Mbr Since: 05-05-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
Given that you have stuck with me this long I have no doubt either about your faith or your commitment. With your acceptance of my questions, though, what happens when your enquiring mind accepts that science is on the right track? What support will you have then?

Vicki
First of all, thank-you for answering my question about your questions.

Now, let me explain how I find many of your questions- they contain unjustified assumptions that I find myself wanting to deal with more than I want to deal with the actual questions. This might be why you think that I am not answering your questions.

Allan:
You may have seen I long presented myself as an atheist. My mob tore me apart on that, and I have no problem accepting the fact I am an agnostic; neither science, logic, nor reason can disprove the possibility of a Supreme Creator. My ASCs reinforce that. I wonder, though, if you understand what I mean when I talk about the Brahman concept? I don't know too many who understand Hinduism as the Brahmins see it.

Vicki:
I can't claim to understand Hinduism from an insider's perspective, but I did study Hinduism in college.

Allan:
I can go on for hours on why I am an atheist when it comes to the anthropomorphic deities. I leave it to your discretion on whether you want to tell me why you were an atheist.

Vicki:
I was an atheist because I didn't believe in any deity or deities at all. I simply saw no reasons to believe. I didn't believe there was such a thing as a soul and that it survived the death of the body. I thought that people made up god(s), etc. because they were afraid of death and suffered loss when someone died, so they comforted themselves with thoughts of an afterlife.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Never goes away...
Picture of Reed N D Dark
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
quote:
Originally posted by Reed N D Dark:
quote:
Originally posted by Vicki:
Allan,

I understand completely if you need more time to reply. I'm sure you have as busy a life as I do and chances to read and respond on aantares must be fit into our schedules. I think you may be getting too worked up over the many different translations. I like to think of them as tools. Some are better than others in certain areas.


I didn’t undesrandAllan to be upset with multiple translations per se but rather that certain words are best translated withe phrases and still don’t quite mean the same. The one most are familiar with is agape, Eros et al. We have only one word, love, and yet none really include puppy love.

Similarly the Greeks wrote in a different style than the Hebrews how do you capture the meanings of the same word used differently in different cultures.

And to my point, I hope you had a Gay time in your celebration of the New Years.


Vicki:
That is why it is important to look at the context of what is written, the type of literature, etc. It is also why English translations need to be revised periodically because usage of English words can change even in one person's lifetime.


Without referencing the original text and the history of those times, I’m not sure that’s possible. And, I’m not even sure the history is totally accurate either although the History of thought probably is.
 
Posts: 12863 | Location: Central PA | Mbr Since: 05-14-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Settling in...
posted Hide Post
Allan:
While I relish the intellectual challenge, my overriding driver is a fear all too many believers today don't ask the right questions, so, as we see all too often, when they are faced with having to provide real answers they can't, and very often they lose their beliefs. The cost for that is too high.

Vicki:
Your questions are hoops that you think we Christians should jump through on our way to discovering your answers. Your questions don't accomplish what you are hoping for because you are operating under an extreme handicap- you do not believe that the God of the Bible exists.

This blinds you to understanding God's character when you read the Bible. This blindness gets you bogged down in such questions as the Jewish understanding of the Satan and the Christian understanding or whether the world was created in 6 days or billions. One does not have to believe in a 6 day creation, in order to be a Christian. One doesn't need a complete understanding of the Satan in order to repent of their sins.

Allan:
Just look at the drop-out rate from all three religions, figures which I have posted to you.

Allan:
It concerns me greatly that none of the Abrahamic religions' leaders seem to be facing this issue, none seem to be coming up with any strategy to combat reality.

Vicki:
I don't know about the other Abrahamic religions, but you are wrong that Christianity leaders aren't working at combating this reality.

Allan:
That brings only contempt from those who know better. They are making a mockery of the Abrahamic religions. We can not afford this ridicule.

Vicki:
No. What brings contempt to Christianity is that we believe and teach that Jesus, 100% man and 100% God, was born of a virgin, lived a human but sinless life, performed miracles and signs and preached about the life and light he was bringing, as promised in the Hebrew Scriptures. He died on the cross for our sins, just as the Hebrew Scriptures predicted and was resurrected, just as the Hebrew Scriptures predicted. He also will return to rule and to judge, also straight out of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The concepts of sin and judgment from God are what is ridiculed currently and far more than the belief of some Christians in a six day creation. The idea that God is worthy of our worship and loves us and sees each of us personally, is harder for many people to accept than a global flood. The idea that we are answerable to God is another one that people are objecting to these days.


Then there is the holiness of God, and that is even further out for people nowadays to accept.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vicki
 
Posts: 455 | Location: Idaho | Mbr Since: 05-01-2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Aavid
Picture of Holy Bhagworm
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Allan:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Bhagworm:
I'd like to know why they removed Lilith from the Bible...and who removed her? I think she was sent or went free-will to the land of Giants.
And didn't Jesus throw someone off a roof and kill him when he was a young man? Where is that passage now?
HB


Lilith might have been deleted from the Bible apart from one arguable reference in Isaiah 34:11: The desert owl and screech owl will possess it; the great owl and the raven will nest there. God will stretch out over Edom the measuring line of chaos and the ... (She is the screech owl there.)

However, she flourished well and truly in later Kabbalistic Judaism.

Based, it seems, on a much earlier Sumerian reference, she became some sort of Jewish demoness, preventing women from having healthy babies or making them infertile and (need to say this quietly) creating countless other demons every time men had one of those "liquid" dreams (which is why Jewish men are not permitted to sleep alone in a house). As a result, archaeologists have found a multitude of ancient amulets preventing such happenings.

She rose enormously in Judaism around and after the Middle Ages. God's partner, Shekhinah, left him when the Jews were kicked out of Israel by the Romans and her home, the Temple, was destroyed. That's when Lilith moved in as God's sleeping partner.

If anyone thinks I am being unnecessarily coarse here, then they'd better not read the devout Jew Raphael Patai's The Hebrew Goddess. He is far more graphic than I'm game to be here.

As for Jesus as a child, I reckon this bloke's vocabulary should suit you fine Smile-Big   :D (he can't spell rein. as in rein in.)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/art...s-was-kind-of-a-dick


As Meyer Lanski told Michael Corleone, you're a very thoughtful young man. I enjoyed that link on the possibly mischievous young Jesus. I'm not sure it answers my question, though. A number of powerful people in the last 2000 years went out of their way and murdered a whole lot of innocent people to make people "believe" what they wanted them to believe. Why they chose Jesus is not clear to me. He must've had some influential mojo-people rooting for him. I know that Charles Manson did too. Squeaky Fromme may become Mother Squeaky some day. Imagine 300 years from now, some idiots will be worshiping Charles Manson in a mass-terror way.

HB
 
Posts: 26544 | Location: 1 | Mbr Since: 08-11-2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata       Page: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 37 
 

    Aantares    Aantares BB  Hop To Forum Categories  Your Lifestyle & Culture  Hop To Forums  Religion & Spirituality    Biblical Scholar: Dont take Bible literally

© 2003-2020 Aantares Online LLC. All Rights Reserved.