Interpretation of Texts (General)
BALANCE_MAINTAINED (under Ain't Nature wonderful): Interpretation of the bible is indeed tricky. I generally start with a few basic premises: A) The Bible does not contradict nature or accurate scientific knowledge. B) The Bible does not contradict itself. C) There are key words in the Bible that are clear indicators of figurative language when it is not otherwise stated. [...]-I'm starting a new thread with this, because I think we should leave "Ain't nature wonderful" to examples of wonderful nature.-To approach a text with such basic premises is already a problem in itself, and I wonder why you need them. The fact of the matter is that every reader will interpret texts in his own way, and there are no literary texts that aren't open to different approaches. Unlike yourself, most readers are unaware of the subjective elements they bring to interpretation, and that's why they're often surprised when other readers come up with completely different views. Not even the author's interpretation is final, because firstly very few writers are capable of expressing themselves unequivocally, secondly if they could, the text would probably be flat and boring and would not survive, and thirdly once the text is published, the fluid nature of language takes it out of the author's control. -All of this is self-evident when it comes to ancient texts like the Bible and the Koran, which is why colleges have been set up in order to interpret them. Just to make matters more complicated, these books are only known to most of us in translation, a translator is no less subjective a reader than any other, he is generally unlikely to be totally bilingual, no two translations are ever alike, and there is no one in authority to say which one is authentic. -I'm in no position to discuss all the finer details with you, and I'm full of admiration for your erudition, but I'm concerned when you come up with statements like: "It [Genesis] NEVER, and I can't make that any clearer, NEVER says that he created each species individually." All your subsequent posts on the subject make it clear that this is simply your interpretation. The translator's notes can easily mean that each species was created individually, and you yourself are now making qualifications and acknowledging the ambiguity of the words. With my own brand of agnosticism, I have no problem taking Genesis as one man's account of what might have happened (much like the thousand other creation myths), and I really don't care whether it does or doesn't fit in with evolution ... which I do believe happened, even though there are areas of the theory that I remain uncertain about. However, I become very uneasy when people insist (a) that these holy texts are the binding word of their God, and (b) that their interpretation of these man-made writings is the only one possible. Hence, in the case of the Koran, the murder of non-believers, or in the case of the Catholic Church the discrimination against women, homosexuals, and people who wish to avoid AIDS or unwanted pregnancy by using condoms. Text interpretation can be a dangerous exercise! Please don't misunderstand me. I'm finding your posts on this subject very enlightening, but I hope you in turn will see why I have misgivings about your approach.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Saturday, September 18, 2010, 13:31 (5179 days ago) @ dhw
I appreciate your skepticism, and I share it, which is the main reason I set those limitations to begin with. I.E. -Supposing there is a God, and this were his book, and he created the laws of nature, then there should be no conflict between his book and the natural order of the universe. -Again, supposing that this is his book, there can not be a conflict between the various chapters of it. -These actually set a very high standard and make it easier to *disprove* the bible, as violations of these rules would in fact make the whole castle crumble. That is why I inspect and cross-reference science and nature and anything else I can find while working my way through it. As I said in another thread, I am skeptical, so I am trying to approach it in a falsifiable way.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2010, 14:07 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I appreciate your skepticism, and I share it, which is the main reason I set those limitations to begin with. I.E. > > Supposing there is a God, and this were his book, and he created the laws of nature, then there should be no conflict between his book and the natural order of the universe. > > Again, supposing that this is his book, there can not be a conflict between the various chapters of it. > > These actually set a very high standard and make it easier to *disprove* the bible, as violations of these rules would in fact make the whole castle crumble. That is why I inspect and cross-reference science and nature and anything else I can find while working my way through it. As I said in another thread, I am skeptical, so I am trying to approach it in a falsifiable way.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2010, 14:31 (5178 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Supposing there is a God, and this were his book, and he created the laws of nature, then there should be no conflict between his book and the natural order of the universe. > > > > Again, supposing that this is his book, there can not be a conflict between the various chapters of it. > > > > These actually set a very high standard and make it easier to *disprove* the bible, as violations of these rules would in fact make the whole castle crumble. - I disagree with your thinking. Your suppositions are making the OT and the NT monolithic to put God's mantle over the whole set of books.(pun intended) The Bible is written by human beings. Scholars tell us that Genesis is composed of several authors contributions. There are two in-the-beginning tales. If this is God's book it is only through His received thoughts by prophetic and deeply inspired people, and is unchanged in transcription. This is the fundamentalist view. That view is taken on faith.-Secondly, both bibles are the result of committee work, discussion and human argumentation, except for the pentatuch. Works were added and works considered and removed. Again fundamentalists faithfully assume God's absolute guidance. So unless you think your suppositions are fruitful of some philisophic advantage to your own quests, to me it is a dead end.-Much of the OT is actual history with reasonable observations of the Earth, within the limited boundries of locality. The NT is entirely different, dwelling on one person, and for me lots of magic. The four Gospels disclose different facts. Were they repeated four times for emphasis or completeness, written so long ( the first one at the least 40 years) after the crucifiction? Why were other Gospels left out? Should they have been, considering what is contained in the Gnostic contributions? God's whim or human?
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 18, 2010, 14:44 (5178 days ago) @ David Turell
To some extent I agree with you. Which is why I do not discriminate between the excluded books. I still have a long way to go in my research, but where as some can give a cursory investigation and call it rubbish, there are enough fact to pique my curiosity, and give them a more thorough examination. Nor is that my only avenue of research, as I give nearly equal time to other ancient history/philosophy, earth sciences, cosmology, and biology. -Science has as many varied beliefs in its sphere as religion does, and just as many conflicting stories, just published under the titles of hypothesis and theory. -As to whether the research is fruitful or not, all I can offer is that following this trail has lead me down avenues of research that I would most likely not have even stumbled upon had I not been attempting to cross-reference all of it. For that reason alone, it is not a dead end to me. -As to the two accounts in Genesis, all I can offer is this, and you are free to make of it what you will. Again, this is a section of the translators notes that shed a little light on the situation.-9tn The Hebrew phrase אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת ('elle tolÿdot) is traditionally translated as "these are the generations of" because the noun was derived from the verb "beget." Its usage, however, shows that it introduces more than genealogies; it begins a narrative that traces what became of the entity or individual mentioned in the heading. In fact, a good paraphrase of this heading would be: "This is what became of the heavens and the earth," for what follows is not another account of creation but a tracing of events from creation through the fall and judgment (the section extends from 2:4 through 4:26). See M. H. Woudstra, "The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance," CTJ 5 (1970): 184-89.-sn The expression this is the account of is an important title used throughout the Book of Genesis, serving as the organizing principle of the work. It is always a heading, introducing the subject matter that is to come. From the starting point of the title, the narrative traces the genealogy or the records or the particulars involved. Although some would make the heading in 2:4 a summary of creation (1:1...2:3), that goes against the usage in the book. As a heading it introduces the theme of the next section, the particulars about this creation that God made. Genesis 2 is not a simple parallel account of creation; rather, beginning with the account of the creation of man and women, the narrative tells what became of that creation. As a beginning, the construction of 2:4-7 forms a fine parallel to the construction of 1:1-3. The subject matter of each תּוֹלְדֹת (tolÿdot, "this is the account of") section of the book traces a decline or a deterioration through to the next beginning point, and each is thereby a microcosm of the book which begins with divine blessing in the garden, and ends with a coffin in Egypt.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 18, 2010, 14:49 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
By the way, I should also add that I am in no way supporting the claims of young-earth creationist. I think are methods dating are inaccurate and our time lines are wrong, but make no claim whatsoever to believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2010, 16:34 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
By the way, I should also add that I am in no way supporting the claims of young-earth creationist. I think are methods dating are inaccurate and our time lines are wrong, but make no claim whatsoever to believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old.- Do you think 13.7 billion for the universe is correct? Houw about 5 billion for this solar system, and 4.5 billion for Earth?
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 18, 2010, 17:21 (5178 days ago) @ David Turell
How to even speculate on such a question. First, the dating methods used for both terrestrial and cosmological sciences are dependent on the constancy of the speed of light. As that constant is now being reanalyzed, and thus far found lacking, I find it hard to believe that such dates could be accurate. -For terrestrial radiometric dating, I see numerous issues with the method being used. The issue over the speed of light is just one of these. Other issues include fall out rates from meteoric sources, which are still in debate, contaminating the evidence, geological shifts contaminating the evidence, particle diffusion through the source rock, water deposit/removal of particles in the source rock, and known mismatches in the results from even a single area. - The universe could be 13.5 BY old, 35 BY old, or 3.5 BYo, it may in fact be timeless with no beginning or end. I don't know, and that's OK. In the mean time, we are stuck, for the most part, using our assumptions on the accuracy of these dating methods, regardless of how inaccurate they may be. I do think, however, that the scientific community should so a bit more of their self-proclaimed skepticism and reassess the questions and concerns that have been raised.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2010, 17:31 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > The universe could be 13.5 BY old, 35 BY old, or 3.5 BYo, it may in fact be timeless with no beginning or end. I don't know, and that's OK. In the mean time, we are stuck, for the most part, using our assumptions on the accuracy of these dating methods, regardless of how inaccurate they may be.-I thought the Earth's age was determined by uranium dating.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 18, 2010, 18:42 (5178 days ago) @ David Turell
Radiometric dating, in its may forms, measures the decay of a radioactive element into its new form(daughter). The rate at which this process occurs is variable in tandem with the speed of light. Look up Barry Setterfield who proposed the idea. Basically, radiometric decay is maintained at a constant rate that is intimately tied with the speed of light. If the speed of light changes, so does the rate of decay. His theory was that light traveled faster after the big bang and has been gradually slowing. -To quote Richard Feynman "...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c.-Now, normally, I would shrug this guy off as another young-earth nut, and he vary well may be, but at the moment, I can't complain about bad science on his part. He had his experiments on the speed of light peer reviewed and the data analyzed by an unassociated 3rd party statistical analyst. Even that I might not have accepted as enough to make me question my own long held beliefs that the dating's were for the most part reliable. The next article I found was from something fantastic. A model of the universe that doesn't require a big bang, dark matter, black holes, or any of that other madness. All that it requires is that the speed of light is not constant, and to look into new relationships between mass, space, and time.-As I said in an earlier post. My changing position is not because I am a young earth creationist, but because lots and lots of little tiny pieces are falling into position and painting a whole new picture that may make many scientific assumptions have to be reformulated.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2010, 20:51 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Radiometric dating, in its may forms, measures the decay of a radioactive element into its new form(daughter). The rate at which this process occurs is variable in tandem with the speed of light. Look up Barry Setterfield who proposed the idea. Basically, radiometric decay is maintained at a constant rate that is intimately tied with the speed of light. If the speed of light changes, so does the rate of decay. His theory was that light traveled faster after the big bang and has been gradually slowing. -The proposed changes in light speed have been very small. Therefore radiometric ages would only have very minor changes. > > To quote Richard Feynman "...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c. -I'm glad you are following Feynman. A great genius and a real character.-> > The next article I found was from something fantastic. A model of the universe that doesn't require a big bang, dark matter, black holes, or any of that other madness. All that it requires is that the speed of light is not constant, and to look into new relationships between mass, space, and time. > > As I said in an earlier post. My changing position is not because I am a young earth creationist, but because lots and lots of little tiny pieces are falling into position and painting a whole new picture that may make many scientific assumptions have to be reformulated.-I think you are overreacting to the 'stuff' you are finding. The blog notes a great problem. Where is the CRB? That is real and its almost exact form or irregularities were predicted by the Inflation Theory of Guth. Read his book , 'The inflationary Universe", and on page 243 he states, "the agreement was gorgeous!". As I said before, there are all sorts of wild and daring theories out there, most of which go nowhere. All the stuff has to fit! A series of findings should interlock. But the public doesn't trust scientific concensus:-http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2010/09/17/title_91-In regard to global warming, that's great. The climate fiasco is primarily 'one world' government politics, and 3rd World grubbing for money thru the UN.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 18, 2010, 21:12 (5178 days ago) @ David Turell
I am not accepting any of it as truth of fact, just possibilities. As I said, I am certainly not going to start running through the street naked except for my beard screaming that the end of the world is coming. But, I find it refreshing to see people challenging the institution. Science should be about exploring possibilities, not holding on to old beliefs.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 18, 2010, 22:05 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I am not accepting any of it as truth of fact, just possibilities. As I said, I am certainly not going to start running through the street naked except for my beard screaming that the end of the world is coming. But, I find it refreshing to see people challenging the institution. Science should be about exploring possibilities, not holding on to old beliefs.-It should: but it's manned by men. You seem like you'd be familiar with Kuhn as well?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2010, 16:32 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> 9tn The Hebrew phrase אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת ('elle tolÿdot) is traditionally translated as "these are the generations of" because the noun was derived from the verb "beget." Its usage, however, shows that it introduces more than genealogies; it begins a narrative that traces what became of the entity or individual mentioned in the heading. In fact, a good paraphrase of this heading would be: "This is what became of the heavens and the earth," > > sn The expression this is the account of is an important title used throughout the Book of Genesis, serving as the organizing principle of the work. It is always a heading, introducing the subject matter that is to come. From the starting point of the title, the narrative traces the genealogy or the records or the particulars involved. Although some would make the heading in 2:4 a summary of creation (1:1...2:3), that goes against the usage in the book. As a heading it introduces the theme of the next section, the particulars about this creation that God made. Genesis 2 is not a simple parallel account of creation; rather, beginning with the account of the creation of man and women, the narrative tells what became of that creation. As a beginning, the construction of 2:4-7 forms a fine parallel to the construction of 1:1-3. The subject matter of each תּוֹלְדֹת (tolÿdot, "this is the account of") section of the book traces a decline or a deterioration through to the next beginning point, and each is thereby a microcosm of the book which begins with divine blessing in the garden, and ends with a coffin in Egypt.-Landa uses 'this is the story of', a similar approach.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 18, 2010, 21:57 (5178 days ago) @ dhw
BALANCE_MAINTAINED (under Ain't Nature wonderful): Interpretation of the bible is indeed tricky. I generally start with a few basic premises: > A) The Bible does not contradict nature or accurate scientific knowledge. > B) The Bible does not contradict itself. > C) There are key words in the Bible that are clear indicators of figurative language when it is not otherwise stated. [...] > > I'm starting a new thread with this, because I think we should leave "Ain't nature wonderful" to examples of wonderful nature. > > To approach a text with such basic premises is already a problem in itself, and I wonder why you need them. ... and thirdly once the text is published, the fluid nature of language takes it out of the author's control. > > All of this is self-evident when it comes to ancient texts like the Bible and the Koran, which is why colleges have been set up in order to interpret them. Just to make matters more complicated, these books are only known to most of us in translation, a translator is no less subjective a reader than any other, he is generally unlikely to be totally bilingual, no two translations are ever alike, and there is no one in authority to say which one is authentic. > -Especially in the case of the bible, we have many issues pertaining to translation. (I hope balance reads this.)-I present exhibit A:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_primacy-I've watched this movement grow in Western civilization over the last ten years; and it makes some very stunning literary insights that would have resulted in altering the course of history. -First and foremost, Matthew 27:46 would be very different. "Eloi Eloi llama sabachtani" was translated as "why have you forsaken me." Considering that this caused deep problems for early Christianity, the dogma of "The Passion of the Christ" was concocted to deal with God, asking why God was forsaking him. -The word "sabachtani" is an aramaic word, and it is a semitic language that has more in common with Arabic than with Hebrew. This is key... because both of these languages are written with vowels. So the word that represents what we inherited as "sabachtani" can be translated into many different words. One of these words is "spared." -Inherited version: "Oh God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Aramaic version: "Oh God, my God, why have you spared me?" -While not completely solving the riddle of "God appealing to God," I think we can all agree that the Aramaic translation of spared makes more sense. -Aramaic primacy maintains that the native language of the apostles, Jesus, and others was aramaic, and that the translation from Aramaic texts to Greek texts can account for discrepancies such as this. This one just happens to be the most earth-shattering mistranslations in the history of religious texts. -I own a formal analysis provided to me by one of the scholars purporting aramaic primacy.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 18, 2010, 22:38 (5178 days ago) @ xeno6696
A wonderful link and thank you so much for sharing it. I read the wiki article and will start on the peshita.org the other one linked in the wiki tomorrow. Gives me something to do for a boring shift. :P-I have no doubt there are mistranslations throughout the bible, that is why I am going through verse by verse and carefully reading the notes and comparing them with other translators notes. I also have a friend that translates Hebrew. Shalome has been a great resource to me in this endeavor. - One of the things I noticed on my own was actually in Gen 1:1, there is one phrase that is translated as singular when it is supposed to be plural, and one that is not translated at all. i.e. Gods is plural, and - 3) The word Et is not translated.-ET. It seems innocuous enough. I mean, only two letters, how important can they be, right? Well, lets take a closer look at the two letters. the Hebrew letters used here, in the middle of this strange verse of the bible, are Alef and Tav. They are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The beginning and the end. The Alpha, and the Omega. Sound familiar? Still think they are so negligible that they should have been left out of the translation? Are they are used to represent Divine Unity, all encompassing, without beginning or end, having no boundaries or limitations?					- This is from a write up on a blog I where I was keeping notes on the translation of Gen 1:1. -In the original Hebrew, it literally read: In the beginning created Gods, ET(all) heaven and earth. - I have not found a translation yet that use these two characters, and multiple translators have refused to comment on them. When i asked about the plural form of Elohim, the cited God of gods, which still indicates a multiple number of gods, it just implies a Hierarchy. Oddly, this is more consistent with later usage of the word in the OT.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2010, 23:22 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
3) The word Et is not translated. > > ET. It seems innocuous enough. I mean, only two letters, how important can they be, right? 			 > > > This is from a write up on a blog I where I was keeping notes on the translation of Gen 1:1. > > In the original Hebrew, it literally read: In the beginning created Gods, ET(all) heaven and earth. > > > I have not found a translation yet that use these two characters,-Landa says, in discussion, it means "In the beginning of God's creation of all that exists (heaven and Earth)", although he reverts to "in the begining of God's creation of heaven and the earth" when he produces his version of a revised bible.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 19, 2010, 00:41 (5178 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
A wonderful link and thank you so much for sharing it. I read the wiki article and will start on the peshita.org the other one linked in the wiki tomorrow. Gives me something to do for a boring shift. :P > > I have no doubt there are mistranslations throughout the bible, that is why I am going through verse by verse and carefully reading the notes and comparing them with other translators notes. I also have a friend that translates Hebrew. Shalome has been a great resource to me in this endeavor. > > > One of the things I noticed on my own was actually in Gen 1:1, there is one phrase that is translated as singular when it is supposed to be plural, and one that is not translated at all. i.e. Gods is plural, and > > > 3) The word Et is not translated. > > ET. It seems innocuous enough. I mean, only two letters, how important can they be, right? Well, lets take a closer look at the two letters. the Hebrew letters used here, in the middle of this strange verse of the bible, are Alef and Tav. They are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The beginning and the end. The Alpha, and the Omega. Sound familiar? Still think they are so negligible that they should have been left out of the translation? Are they are used to represent Divine Unity, all encompassing, without beginning or end, having no boundaries or limitations?					 > > > This is from a write up on a blog I where I was keeping notes on the translation of Gen 1:1. > > In the original Hebrew, it literally read: In the beginning created Gods, ET(all) heaven and earth. > > > I have not found a translation yet that use these two characters, and multiple translators have refused to comment on them. When i asked about the plural form of Elohim, the cited God of gods, which still indicates a multiple number of gods, it just implies a Hierarchy. Oddly, this is more consistent with later usage of the word in the OT.-I must stress... I didn't catch this until now: Aramaic and Arabic are written without vowels... for some reason I forgot to type "out." -Gods could probably be translated as "angels and demons," perhaps. I once heard that a demon was simply an entity that god created and then rejected him at creation. (OT a bit, but interesting nonetheless.)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Sunday, September 19, 2010, 01:07 (5178 days ago) @ xeno6696
> I must stress... I didn't catch this until now: Aramaic and Arabic are written without vowels... for some reason I forgot to type "out." - So is Hebrew. They are implied.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 19, 2010, 03:52 (5178 days ago) @ David Turell
> > I must stress... I didn't catch this until now: Aramaic and Arabic are written without vowels... for some reason I forgot to type "out." > > > So is Hebrew. They are implied.-I assumed, but didn't want to state it or go look it up! Thanks for picking up my slack, lol.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 19, 2010, 12:47 (5178 days ago) @ xeno6696
I know about the lack of vowels in the early middle eastern language. I am not familiar with the writer you mentioned. That little snippet was a direct translation done by me. The ET caught my attention straight away because I couldn't find it translated in ANY of the translations. I was only speculating about it, but it is nice to see someone else had the same thought.-As far as the use of the word Gods as a plural it could mean a number of things. However, by cross-referencing the other books of bible, you actually see where his spirit and son are referred to as separate entities and are listed as being their prior to the creation of 'heaven and earth'. -The strange thing is how neatly this fits with other early religions. The tale of a triune of gods is not simply a christian thing by any stretch of the imagination. I would almost go as far as to say that it is one of the most universal teachings, even in sacred geometry and esoteric works.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 20, 2010, 03:43 (5177 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I know about the lack of vowels in the early middle eastern language. I am not familiar with the writer you mentioned. That little snippet was a direct translation done by me. The ET caught my attention straight away because I couldn't find it translated in ANY of the translations. I was only speculating about it, but it is nice to see someone else had the same thought. > > As far as the use of the word Gods as a plural it could mean a number of things. However, by cross-referencing the other books of bible, you actually see where his spirit and son are referred to as separate entities and are listed as being their prior to the creation of 'heaven and earth'. > > The strange thing is how neatly this fits with other early religions. The tale of a triune of gods is not simply a christian thing by any stretch of the imagination. I would almost go as far as to say that it is one of the most universal teachings, even in sacred geometry and esoteric works.-You don't by chance have any recommendations with sacred geometry do you? As a sort of mathematician I've always been interested in it. I'm familiar with some of the Kabbalistic geometry (I will use the cube of Metatron in my book) but I'm really interested in getting to something older...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 20, 2010, 12:27 (5177 days ago) @ xeno6696
Best I could say for that is look at the reference list at the back of Hall's book.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 18, 2010, 23:02 (5178 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Aramaic primacy maintains that the native language of the apostles, Jesus, and others was aramaic, and that the translation from Aramaic texts to Greek texts can account for discrepancies such as this. This one just happens to be the most earth-shattering mistranslations in the history of religious texts. > > I own a formal analysis provided to me by one of the scholars purporting aramaic primacy.-My impression from reading primarily Jewish scholars is that it is widely accepted that Aramaic was the curent language at the time of Jesus, and that the Hebrew Pentatuch texts were translated into Aramiac and then into Greek. Why the fuss?
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 19, 2010, 03:59 (5178 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Aramaic primacy maintains that the native language of the apostles, Jesus, and others was aramaic, and that the translation from Aramaic texts to Greek texts can account for discrepancies such as this. This one just happens to be the most earth-shattering mistranslations in the history of religious texts. > > > > I own a formal analysis provided to me by one of the scholars purporting aramaic primacy. > > My impression from reading primarily Jewish scholars is that it is widely accepted that Aramaic was the curent language at the time of Jesus, and that the Hebrew Pentatuch texts were translated into Aramiac and then into Greek. Why the fuss?-The fuss exists because from a very early time the leadership of early Christianity ended up falling to mostly educated Greek-speaking population. Couple that with Emperor Constantine and the very neophyte Catholic church--compounded by Greek assertion of cultural primacy--you get a very staunch and dogmatic fight. After awhile, it was simply Greek and that was it, because there's no way a non-Greek or Roman language would be considered civilized for your upper-crust Roman citizens. -All Christian Bibles therefore currently are based on Greek manuscripts, with the only exception being Syriac bibles. Coptic Christians have a bible that is based on a special dialect of Greek. -I've always thought this fight was a dumb one; Jesus spoke Aramaic. So did his early disciples; therefore it makes the most sense that the earliest scriptures were written in Aramaic, and translated to Greek later.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 19, 2010, 12:53 (5178 days ago) @ xeno6696
I stumbled across a quoted verse in the site you linked me that struck a pretty deep chord with everything I have been seeing lately around the world. 2 Timothy-People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. 6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth-That last line is the one that hit me hardest.
Interpretation of Texts
Under "The Far East", Balance_Maintained and Matt are discussing the geological implications of Noah's Flood and the Exodus from Egypt. I'm certainly not going to dip my toes in the geological waters, but can't help pointing out that many scholars dispute the historicity even of Exodus and the whole background that led to it. One would have expected the Egyptians to have kept some historical record of those events, and I have found an interesting article by Rabbi David Wolpe, who actually accepts that it's all a myth:-www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx-It once more raises the whole question of how we interpret texts. What is to be taken literally and what is to be regarded as fact? Who decides? If these allegedly historical sections of the Bible are mere myths, what basis is there for the religions built on them: Passover and Exodus for the Jews; virgin birth, miracles and resurrection for the Christians? Even if we allow for the possibility that Moses was involved in the writing of Exodus (also disputed by many scholars), how reliable was he? If Exodus never happened, what agenda lay behind the fiction? -As for the Word of God, who says that's what it is? The Flood is a third person narrative told by what we call an omniscient narrator (it even includes verbatim dialogues between God and humans), but how did the narrator know all this? Was he God's private secretary? How else would he have known? At least Mohammed and Joseph Smith had the decency to inform us that they had direct contact with the divine. (So too, we are told, did George W and Tony B. Not to mention the Pope.) -I know you're both agnostics and share my scepticism to varying degrees (emphatically so, I think, in Matt's case), but your posts seem to me to be leaving certain things unsaid, so I'm saying them!
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 18:58 (5174 days ago) @ dhw
Well, to answer the last point first. Even the bible claims divine intervention in the writing of it. "All scriptures are inspired of God and beneficial.."-Just earlier today and last night I linked models from non-creationist references proving that the parting of the red sea is in fact a physical possibility according to current research. There is a link tot he live science article in that post. A subsequent post had links to archaeological discoveries, though, at the time they are unverifiable due to interference from the local governments.-I am not claiming it is all true, but I have seen much recent evidences that points, at the very least, to the plausibility of some of the claims.
Interpretation of Texts
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: Even the bible claims divine intervention in the writing of it: "All scriptures are inspired of God and beneficial..."-You have not identified the source of the quote, but the Bible doesn't claim anything. Whoever wrote the particular text makes the particular claim.-But even this quote illustrates the point I'm trying to make. Intervention suggests direct participation. You have interpreted the words your way, whereas I would say that inspiration is not intervention. Sibelius is said to have been inspired by the landscapes and forests of Finland. That doesn't mean the animals, birds, wind and snow intervened in the composition of his symphonies and tone poems! He was the composer ... they weren't. The writers of the biblical texts may well have thought they were doing God's will, but so did Mohammed and Joseph Smith, and so do the Muslim suicide bombers. Such "inspiration" means nothing. Only God can tell us his will. -As for "all scriptures" and "beneficial", try this for size: "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: / Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of the city, and unto the gate of his place [...] / And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die [...]" (Deuteronomy 21, 18-21 ... the omissions don't change the message)-Inspired of God and beneficial? You may say that times change, and we must move with the times. But if this is the Word of God, who are we to say what needs to be changed? The Bible is a literary text, its history is suspect, its teachings are suspect, its sources are suspect, and its different translations and interpretations make one another suspect. The evidence you have referred to is interesting in itself, and I'm not criticizing the research that's going on. A figure much reviled by the scientific establishment, Immanuel Velikovsky, also studied myths, biblical stories, histories, geology, archaeology, cosmology and all other related disciplines in a fascinating attempt to put science and literature together to uncover the truth. (There are some historical references to the Earth having been turned upside down on more than one occasion. That might well have caused the flood you're looking to authenticate!) It reminds me very much of the archaeological quest for Troy, which almost certainly did exist and may well have been located. Does that mean we now have to believe in Homer's gods and goddesses?-I suppose what I'm really doing here is continuing my response to your statement that the Bible "is clearly not a book to be interpreted literally". Of course I agree, but now you say: "I am not claiming it is all true", which suggests you are claiming that some of it is true. And no doubt some of it is. But who decides? The meaning of the text depends ultimately on the interpreter.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 23, 2010, 14:36 (5173 days ago) @ dhw
I suppose what I'm really doing here is continuing my response to your statement that the Bible "is clearly not a book to be interpreted literally". Of course I agree, but now you say: "I am not claiming it is all true", which suggests you are claiming that some of it is true. And no doubt some of it is. But who decides? The meaning of the text depends ultimately on the interpreter.-In science, we would say that the measure of a theories validity is in its ability to predict the events of the past, present, and future that correspond with the observed data. (feel free to refine that as you see fit.) What I am doing is holding the Bible to the same rigorous standards that we hold science to. Namely, the measure of the Bible's validity is in its ability to predict the events of the past, present, and future that correspond with the observed data. -Computer models have shown that the parting of the Red Sea could happen as described. Supposedly, evidence has been found of chariot wheels and horse fossils on the sea bed from the right time period, though this is still under investigation pending cooperation from the regional governments.-Some very strong correlations have been found between different prophecies and actual recorded history. (Google the Prophecies of Daniel) Others bear an extremely strong resemblance to modern times(though, admittedly, they could well refer to anything as long as the data fit). Historical records have proved nearly all the mundane occurances listed in the bible, and now some of the more fantasic events are proving to be at least possible. These things are not a matter of interpretation, but archealogical fact. The miracles and such are harder to prove, but some of them are so fantastic that they would have had to have left some archaelogical evidence. That is what I am doing now. Seeing if the evidence fits the theory.-As to stoning your son, well, the ommissions do make a difference.-21:20 They must declare to the elders38 of his city, "Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say ... he is a glutton and drunkard." -One, notice that this is not a child of young age. This is talking about someone who is older, and given over to excess. Here it uses excessive eating and drinking, but as opposed to modern times, it could easily be excessive drug use, alcoholism, etc. Also, notice that it didn't say, don't try to help him, don't warn him, etc. The words stubborn and rebellious are a clear indication that the person clearly refused the help that was offered. So they weren't sympathetic to drunks and such. It is a mistake to try and twist the versus into indicating young children. In ancient Isreal, a person wasn't considered an adult until age 30.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Thursday, September 23, 2010, 16:26 (5173 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Some very strong correlations have been found between different prophecies and actual recorded history. (Google the Prophecies of Daniel) Others bear an extremely strong resemblance to modern times(though, admittedly, they could well refer to anything as long as the data fit). Historical records have proved nearly all the mundane occurances listed in the bible, and now some of the more fantasic events are proving to be at least possible. These things are not a matter of interpretation, but archealogical fact. - Having toured Israel with a sabra guide, who happened to be a reserve general in the tanker corps, I can attest to the archeological discoveries that match the Bible. He even demonstrated the sazp of a tree thought to be manna! Yes, some of the stuff was fanciful, but much was not.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, September 24, 2010, 04:36 (5173 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance > One, notice that this is not a child of young age. This is talking about someone who is older, and given over to excess. Here it uses excessive eating and drinking, but as opposed to modern times, it could easily be excessive drug use, alcoholism, etc. Also, notice that it didn't say, don't try to help him, don't warn him, etc. The words stubborn and rebellious are a clear indication that the person clearly refused the help that was offered. So they weren't sympathetic to drunks and such. It is a mistake to try and twist the versus into indicating young children. In ancient Isreal, a person wasn't considered an adult until age 30.-What about Deuteronomy 22:28-29-Depending on your bible translation, this is:- 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (NIV)-OR- If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.(NLT)-Clearly there is an issue here dealing at base with the underlying Hebrew word. -How can we base the Bible's validity knowing both that, and the possibility that the NLT translation seems downright barbaric? -And which is correct? The one which pleases us? Are the NLT translators liars?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: Historical records have proved nearly all the mundane occurances listed in the bible, and now some of the more fantasic events are proving to be at least possible. These things are not a matter of interpretation, but archealogical fact. The miracles and such are harder to prove, but some of them are so fantastic that they would have had to have left some archaelogical evidence. That is what I am doing now. Seeing if the evidence fits the theory.-I fear I'm trying your patience, and since I greatly admire any enterprise like yours, I hesitate to continue the discussion. However, I don't think you've quite understood the point I'm trying to make. Maybe some of the mundane occurrences did happen, and maybe some of the more fantastic ones too, but the Bible's slant on them is each writer's version of those events. Let's say there was a great flood. Does that mean you have to believe the narrator's story of Noah and his animals in the ark, and the intimacies of the dialogue between God and Noah? How did the narrator know all this? I've drawn a parallel between Troy and your biblical sites, and Homer's gods and the God of the Bible. The historical events (Trojan War, Flood) may have happened, but the poet embellishes and fictionalizes at will, especially if the events themselves have been relayed from long ago via generations. Many of the tales told by the Greeks and Romans about their gods may well have sprung from real events in Nature, turned into symbols. Most religions will offer you such accounts, plus their interpretation of them in terms of the gods they believe in. Every story-teller is a subjective human, and in the context of religion he will certainly have his own agenda. BALANCE_MAINTAINED: As to stoning your son, well, the ommissions do make a difference. 21:20 They must declare to the elders38 of his city, "Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say ... he is a glutton and drunkard." One, notice that this is not a child of young age. This is talking about someone who is older, and given over to excess. Here it uses excessive eating and drinking, but as opposed to modern times, it could easily be excessive drug use, alcoholism, etc. Also, notice that it didn't say, don't try to help him, don't warn him, etc. The words stubborn and rebellious are a clear indication that the person clearly refused the help that was offered. So they weren't sympathetic to drunks and such. It is a mistake to try and twist the versus into indicating young children. In ancient Isreal, a person wasn't considered an adult until age 30.-Unfortunately by focusing on the omissions and looking for some underhand motive on my part, you have again missed my point. I did not say the text dealt with young children. The omissions were for brevity, because the message that appals me is that a stubborn rebellious son (glutton, drunkard or even drug addict) should be stoned to death by the elders. I didn't think you would approve (cf. the international outcry against the proposed stoning of an Iranian woman for adultery), but it appears that you do, so long as the son is an adult! Deuteronomy is full of such barbarism (see Matt's post too). Anyone who tries to make a Jew worship a different God should also be stoned to death. Although some orthodox Jews go into mourning if someone leaves the faith, they do not stone them to death. And so apparently they are disobeying the Lord. If all scriptures are supposed to be "inspired of God and beneficial", who decides which bits are not inspired by God and are not beneficial? Again my point is that the teachings, just like the stories, are written by men and interpreted by men. For all the good things that have come out of religion, untold damage has been done by those who claim that the Bible (ditto the Koran) is the Word of God, and only their interpretation of it is correct.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, September 24, 2010, 12:06 (5173 days ago) @ dhw
Responding to two posts here, sorry its so long-To my knowledge, I have not said, or even insinuated that I think that all the dialog stated between man and the bible were true, nor did I disagree with your statement that they were written by men. I stated that the BIBLE claimed, i.e. that one of the writers of the book made the claim, to be 'inspired of God and beneficial'. 2 Tim 3:16, I would also be remiss if I did not point out that it doesn't say only the bible, Torah, Koran, etc is inspired of god and beneficial. - Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but you have no idea how many times I have heard that same scripture used to justify all sorts of negativity. And while I do not think this is the case with you, that verse is most often used by people who only know how to quote mine the bible. Instead of answering with my interpretation, I will give you the words of Paul.-The apostle Paul said this. (Galatians 3:10-22) 10 For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: "Cursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them." 11 Moreover, that by law no one is declared righteous with God is evident, because "the righteous one will live by reason of faith." 12 Now the Law does not adhere to faith, but "he that does them shall live by means of them." 13 Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: "Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake." 14 The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham might come to be by means of Jesus Christ for the nations, that we might receive the promised spirit through our faith. 15 Brothers, I speak with a human illustration: A validated covenant, though it is a man's, no one sets aside or attaches additions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: "And to seeds," as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: "And to your seed," who is Christ. 17 Further, I say this: As to the covenant previously validated by God, the Law that has come into being four hundred and thirty years later does not invalidate it, so as to abolish the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is due to law, it is no longer due to promise; whereas God has kindly given it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.--Here, according to the BIBLE, the Law was as hard as it was because there had been no sacrifice made that could atone for all the sins of man. The Bible also says "The wages sin pays is death." (Romans 6:23) So yes, the death penalty was a big part of the law under the Mosaic law covenant, even for what we would consider today as minor transgressions. I would also point out again, and this is for Xeno, that there is some misrepresentation of the scripture he quoted in Deut. due to the fact that he has removed it from its context. In Israel, a woman was supposed to be a virgin when she married. In fact, it was so serious an issue that if she were not a virgin when taken to her marriage bed, she could be put to death. Now, if a virgin is raped, under that law, her life is in jeopardy, because if she marries, her husband could have her killed for not being a virgin. By forcing the rapist to marry her, it does a double service, though modern day thinking would disagree I'm sure, of sparing her life because the man can not make a claim against her virginity, and can not divorce her so therefore must provide accommodation for her for life. So that law that you interpret as so bad saves the woman's life, and offers some pretty serious discouragement to a man to prevent him from raping a woman. Paying off a pissed off father, 50 sheckles, a pretty hefty sum. Being married to a right bitch the rest of your life, priceless.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 25, 2010, 05:22 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Responding to two posts here, sorry its so long > > To my knowledge, I have not said, or even insinuated that I think that all the dialog stated between man and the bible were true, nor did I disagree with your statement that they were written by men. I stated that the BIBLE claimed, i.e. that one of the writers of the book made the claim, to be 'inspired of God and beneficial'.-b_m try this on for size, a comment that George poo pooed, the fibonacci numbers:-http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/09/24/fibonacci_forever.thtml
Interpretation of Texts
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: To my knowledge I have not said, or even insinuated that I think that all the dialog stated between man and the bible were true, nor did I disagree with your statement that they were written by men.-Nor did I say that you said it. You have been discussing the Flood and the parting of the Red Sea, and have argued that "historical records have proved nearly all the mundane occurrences listed in the bible [...] are proving to be at least possible." All I'm trying to point out is that even if such events took place historically, they provide no evidence of God's existence (or Noah's for that matter), any more than discovering the historical site of Troy provides evidence for the existence of Homer's gods and goddesses. You have never responded to this point, so I don't know if you agree or not.-Thank you for the detailed defence you have offered for what I regard as the bigoted, barbaric laws laid down in Deuteronomy. I must confess I find Paul's arguments difficult to follow, though the gist seems to be that if you have faith in Jesus you needn't bother about the Law, which wouldn't exactly have helped those unfortunate stoned sons and raped virgins BC. Your own arguments are beautifully clear, and provide an excellent explanation, though not ... in my view ... a justification or an answer as to who decides, according to what criteria, whether or not these laws, supposedly given by God, can be disobeyed. (Nowadays not even orthodox Jews stone drunken sons to death.) Since you quote Paul, let me switch my complaints to the NT. The history of Christianity is littered with appalling offences against humankind, and the Catholic Church's bigotry continues to extend the suffering ... all based on interpretation of the scriptures. The vicious, destructive fundamentalism that led to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition has now passed to Islam, again arising from interpretation of the Koran. I get the impression ... perhaps this is wrong, but we have only just met! ... that for you the Bible provides the solutions, whereas I'm suggesting to you that the Bible and the Koran are the source of many of the problems. Do you agree? -Again, though, I need to stress that I'm not anti-religious, and I'm not closing my eyes to all the wisdom and beauty of these books ... they are great works of literature. But I am anti the bigotry and suffering caused by certain religious communities with their slavish devotion to texts that lend themselves to fostering the worst as well as the best sides of human nature.
Interpretation of Texts
A postscript. Your quotation from Paul mentions Christ being the seed of Abraham. Perhaps you can solve an old mystery for me. Matthew begins with a detailed genealogy, tracing the line from Abraham through David to "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ". However, Joseph was not Jesus's father, so why did Matthew bother with this genealogy, and how could Jesus be regarded as being the seed of Abraham and a direct descendant of David? It's not something that keeps me awake at night, but it would be nice to know the answer!
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 11:38 (5172 days ago) @ dhw
I will have to get back with you on the seed of Abraham part after I have time to do some research on it. -As for the bigotry of religion, you will get no argument from me there. However, I would like to point out a few things about that. First, the RCC started out on the wrong foot altogether, and one could say that from their very inception they broke the laws according to the Bible. Here are just a few small examples.-
- They changed the Sabbath
- They changed the 10 commandments (Removed number 2, split number 10)
- They quit celebrating the last supper (the only holiday madated in the bible)
- They knowingly took a pagan holiday for the Birth of Christ (winter solstice)
- They knowingly took a pagan holiday for the death of Christ (Spring Equinox)
- They violated the 2nd commandment
- Violated the instruction to 'be no part of the world'(the 'world' is used to intricate political entities..
- By claiming special priviledges with governments the violated the command to 'Give Caesars things to Caesar..'
etc etc etc... -So, my argument for what you said would be that men are the cause of all the atrocities. Not, the Bible or the Koran.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 11:56 (5172 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
As an add-on to the last post, I could clarify even further by saying that they all twisted what was said, and quote mined their texts, to meet their own agendas of greed for money and power. This can be done with anything, whether it is science, religion, philosophy, or politics. -So, for the record, I am not a supporter of religion in the sense of a man made organization, nor do I think that such an organization was ever the intent of the Koran or Bible.- As for the statement of the Bible proving or not proving God. I am not claiming that it does. In fact, it says that there can be no proof by the definition of the word faith. "Faith is the assured expectation of things to come, though not beheld."
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Saturday, September 25, 2010, 14:37 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> So, for the record, I am not a supporter of religion in the sense of a man made organization, nor do I think that such an organization was ever the intent of the Koran or Bible.- Interesting comment, as it fits exactly the thinking of born-again Christians. The Bible does not mandate the formation of religions. Simply study the Bible, and follow the teachings of Jesus.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 15:17 (5171 days ago) @ David Turell
> Interesting comment, as it fits exactly the thinking of born-again Christians. The Bible does not mandate the formation of religions. Simply study the Bible, and follow the teachings of Jesus.-You could have just as easily said study history and don't be a scumbag, it would equate to the same thing, really. The NT portion of the bible basically says to 'love thy neighbor', 'do unto others as you'd have done to you', 'don't judge people because you are no better then they are', and 'don't break laws unless the laws themselves are immoral'. At least, if you remove the metaphysical stuff from the book, that's what it says.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:10 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > Interesting comment, as it fits exactly the thinking of born-again Christians. The Bible does not mandate the formation of religions. Simply study the Bible, and follow the teachings of Jesus. > > You could have just as easily said study history and don't be a scumbag, it would equate to the same thing, really. The NT portion of the bible basically says to 'love thy neighbor', 'do unto others as you'd have done to you', 'don't judge people because you are no better then they are', and 'don't break laws unless the laws themselves are immoral'. At least, if you remove the metaphysical stuff from the book, that's what it says.-Yeah, but born-again's don't let you do that. They want to control the political system with just as much fervor as the Pope, and do it on the authority of God almighty. .
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:32 (5171 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Yeah, but born-again's don't let you do that. They want to control the political system with just as much fervor as the Pope, and do it on the authority of God almighty. -I'm married to a born-again. You are talking about the fundamentalist churches that follow their own interpretation of the Bible and are politically very conservative. True born-agains don't need churches, as I previously stated, and may be liberal or conservative or a combination of those philosophies.
Interpretation of Texts
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: ...my argument for what you said would be that men are the cause of all the atrocities. Not the Bible or the Koran.-I was afraid you'd say that. It's the old escape route when things get too hot for those who believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God (though I don't think they include you). However, the point I've been trying to hammer home is one that you've acknowledged: that the various books in the Bible were written by MEN. And they were men with an agenda: to bind the Jewish people to the Jewish God, and to bind the Christian people to the Christian God and Man-God. In other words, the authors (men) are just as much to blame for the atrocities as the interpreters (men).-You are a scholar of the Bible, and I'm a mere dabbler, so I'm going to take a nice easy way out because you'll certainly be able to lay your hands on texts I'd need yonks to find. The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and many disastrous missions were based on the principle that souls could only be saved by following the true path laid out by Jesus. Similarly, the Pope claims that his opposition to contraception, the ordination of women, and homosexuality is based on Christ's teachings. I'm not bothered with the piddly examples you've given of Catholics BREAKING the laws. What bothers me is that they and the Muslim fundamentalists base their actions on what they think is OBEDIENCE to God's will as set forth in their scriptures. So help me out here. What are the texts you think they and the Crusaders and Torquemada have misinterpreted, and how else would you interpret them? (This is asking a lot, but I'll be happy with just a couple!)-You wrote: "As for the statement of the Bible proving or not proving God, I am not claiming that it does. In fact, it says that there can be no proof by the definition of the word faith."-An excellent argument, but again not quite in line with the point I was making. Historical evidence of biblical events has also been offered to me by my creationist friend as proof that the stories themselves (e.g. Noah) are true, which in turn proves that God is behind everything. I wonder what you yourself are hoping to prove by showing that these events actually occurred, and that the Bible's authors do not contradict themselves or one another, and that their reported prophecies came true. While I'm in tune with your scepticism towards unproven scientific theories that masquerade as gospel truth, I remain highly suspicious of "gospel truth", and am curious about what lies behind your quest. You do not think that religion in the sense of a man-made organization "was ever the intent of the Koran or Bible". I wonder if Moses the lawgiver told his 600,000 men to do it their own way in the desert. And didn't Jesus himself teach in the synagogue and temple? Well, I'll take your word for it, though it might come as a shock to millions of Muslim, Jewish and Christian worshippers, preachers and teachers that they're going against God's wishes. -Finally, thank you for your patience in putting up with all my questions and for lighting so many interesting fires!
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, September 25, 2010, 23:08 (5171 days ago) @ dhw
> Finally, thank you for your patience in putting up with all my questions and for lighting so many interesting fires!-DHW, -No worries about all the questions, I love them.-So, the inquisition was actually not based on scripture at all. Period. No where in the bible is anyone given any directive to torture anyone. The closest might be considered stoning.-The Crusades were based solely off politics, not scripture. However, history and loyalty to the Church were in the favor of the Pope when he made the power play. I know you are looking for is a scriptural reason for what they did, but honestly, there was none. The large majority of people at that time were illiterate, and of those few that could read, most couldn't read Latin. At that point in time, the Church could have said, "Thou shalt eat Chinese Babies for breakfast, and Mongolians for lunch. So sayeth the Lord." and only a very very small minority would have known that the bible didn't actually say that. What they used to convince people of a spiritual basis to fight for the crusades though, was the fact that in the Bible Jerusalem is the land that was promised to the nation of Israel. Since the Church saw itself as the new Spiritual Israel, according to to their interpretation of Galations 6:16- 6:16 And all who will behave in accordance with this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on the Israel of God.-Despite the tenuous connection, they took it as their right to claim Jerusalem as their divinely gifted property, and because it was inhabited by Muslims, they painted them as vile infidels. At the end of the day though, it was all political, and had virtually nothing to do with any basis in scripture whatsoever. That just happened to be an easy excuse because virtually no one could tell them they were mistaken.->I wonder what you yourself are hoping to prove by showing that these events actually occurred, and that the Bible's authors do not contradict themselves or one another, and that their reported prophecies came true. While I'm in tune with your scepticism towards unproven scientific theories that masquerade as gospel truth, I remain highly suspicious of "gospel truth", and am curious about what lies behind your quest.-I am not trying to prove God exist, if that is what you mean. I am trying to prove that the Biblical writers were not crackpots that modern people have tried to imply. I think I posted this on another thread just yesterday or so. See Neanderthal man thread I think.-Saying that Men are responsible for their own actions is not the easy way out, it is the only honest statement about the situation that can be made. I'm sorry if you feel that I was trying to escape the argument. Far from it. But by that same token, they are also vindicated in their successes. Read up on the Purple Triangle in Nazi Germany. There are people out there, very good people, who believe strongly enough that they are willing NOT to fight, but to still die for those beliefs. Two sides to every coin.-To put it in a decent analogy. If you wrote a cookbook on how to make the perfect cake, and the baker failed to follow the instructions, or decided to change the ingredients, and messed up the cake, would you fault the instructions, or the baker?-> You do not think that religion in the sense of a man-made organization "was ever the intent of the Koran or Bible". I wonder if Moses the lawgiver told his 600,000 men to do it their own way in the desert. And didn't Jesus himself teach in the synagogue and temple? Well, I'll take your word for it, though it might come as a shock to millions of Muslim, Jewish and Christian worshippers, preachers and teachers that they're going against God's wishes. -Jesus also supposedly taught in the hillsides, at a well, on a boat, and standing on the water. Moses also didn't claim infallibility, and when he did rise above his appointed station he was chastised by Godly justice and only allowed to see the promised land, not enter it. The Pope obviously forgot that one. And the ancient Israelites did have a temple, but, they did not hold mass, or anything of the sort. The idea for a church came from a direct misinterpretation of the bible. Basically, all people everywhere that believed in Christ were considered the 'Church'. Though the term assembly is the literal translation, it had absolutely no relevance to a building or an organized structure of any sort. It would be analogous to saying 'Science', which implies a standard ideology, but no specific organization, such as the Royal Academy.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 23:43 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> > Finally, thank you for your patience in putting up with all my questions and for lighting so many interesting fires! > > DHW, > > No worries about all the questions, I love them. > > So, the inquisition was actually not based on scripture at all. Period. No where in the bible is anyone given any directive to torture anyone. The closest might be considered stoning. > > The Crusades were based solely off politics, not scripture. ... > -And don't forget the 800lb-Gorilla--economics. That period of time saw an immense flourishing of Arabic culture and power. Jerusalem was a center in that trade. - > Saying that Men are responsible for their own actions is not the easy way out, it is the only honest statement about the situation that can be made. I'm sorry if you feel that I was trying to escape the argument. Far from it. But by that same token, they are also vindicated in their successes. Read up on the Purple Triangle in Nazi Germany. There are people out there, very good people, who believe strongly enough that they are willing NOT to fight, but to still die for those beliefs. Two sides to every coin. > -I was completely unaware of this part of the Holocaust. Good stuff! At the same time this resurrects an old story from the Delian League. I forget the name of the town, but they were told to pay tribute to Athens or be conquered. The leaders of the city refused, and the town was absolutely leveled. -One of the worst parts of humanity is that which is willing to give up life for an abstract idea. -> To put it in a decent analogy. If you wrote a cookbook on how to make the perfect cake, and the baker failed to follow the instructions, or decided to change the ingredients, and messed up the cake, would you fault the instructions, or the baker? > -One of my arguments for NOT putting the 10-commandments in front of courthouses is the fact that people weren't following them immediately after they were given them. (Never make a law that can't be enforced!)-> > You do not think that religion in the sense of a man-made organization "was ever the intent of the Koran or Bible". I wonder if Moses the lawgiver told his 600,000 men to do it their own way in the desert. And didn't Jesus himself teach in the synagogue and temple? Well, I'll take your word for it, though it might come as a shock to millions of Muslim, Jewish and Christian worshippers, preachers and teachers that they're going against God's wishes. > > Jesus also supposedly taught in the hillsides, at a well, on a boat, and standing on the water. Moses also didn't claim infallibility, and when he did rise above his appointed station he was chastised by Godly justice and only allowed to see the promised land, not enter it. The Pope obviously forgot that one. And the ancient Israelites did have a temple, but, they did not hold mass, or anything of the sort. The idea for a church came from a direct misinterpretation of the bible. Basically, all people everywhere that believed in Christ were considered the 'Church'. Though the term assembly is the literal translation, it had absolutely no relevance to a building or an organized structure of any sort. It would be analogous to saying 'Science', which implies a standard ideology, but no specific organization, such as the Royal Academy.-I will support Balance here; Many Synagogues (especially towards the end of his career) were closed to Jesus. Add to it, his following had more people than could probably have fit in most of them. -Balance, you get around to checking out the failed prophecy in Ezekiel yet?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: No worries about all the questions, I love them.-Thank you. Some people take offence, and so I'm very wary of pushing too hard, but I'll go on pushing now as I know you're happy to push back!-Simple question first. You're not trying to prove that God exists, but simply that the Biblical writers were not crackpots. Why do you want to prove that they were not crackpots?-B_M: Saying that men are responsible for their actions is not the easy way out. [..] If you wrote a cookbook on how to bake the perfect cake, and the baker failed to follow the instructions [...] would you fault the instructions, or the baker?-I had asked you to quote passages from the scriptures that justified the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, disastrous missions, the Pope's attitude towards women priests, contraception, homosexuality. I've looked up the Crusades and you're right about the political purpose, although they began with a request from some Byzantine Emperor for help in defending Christianity against the Muslims. However, your cookbook analogy suggests that there are no instructions in the Bible to justify the savage treatment of unbelievers. Seek and ye shall find.-Let's start with my favourite source Deuteronomy, which sets the tone. Chapter 13, verses 6 ... 10 tell us what is to be done to anyone who tries to turn you away from the true (in this case Jewish) God: "[...] thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones that he die." It's all very well you saying: "No where in the bible is anyone given any directive to torture anyone. The closest might be considered stoning." I'm not really sure which I'd prefer ... being stoned, tortured, burned at the stake, but here we have God himself ordering the use of deadly violence against those who do not follow the true faith. And so to the New Testament:-John 3, 36: "He that believeth on the Son shall have everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."-Mark 16, 15: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."-I can't get inside the minds of the priests or the inquisitors, but if you've been told that God will be full of wrath and will damn those who don't believe in Christ, and you've also been instructed to tell the world about it, shouldn't you do your best to convert them? And wouldn't it be better to torture them into saving their souls than to let them go to eternal damnation by denying the true God? The instructions given by Mark certainly don't advocate violence, but they don't forbid it either, and since God himself orders that unbelievers should be stoned to death in Deuteronomy, and the onus is on you to save them from eternal damnation (which is even worse), why not give it a whirl? Now of course you will blame the interpreters for using the holy scriptures in this way ... though I can't see any other way to interpret Deuteronomy ... but who are you to say which is the right way and the wrong way? If only the texts themselves were unequivocal, like your cookbook with its clear instructions, we wouldn't have these problems. Who, then, do you blame for instructions whose lack of clarity can lead to such terrible consequences? -Incidentally, the laws laid down in Deuteronomy do not support your argument that religion in the sense of a man-made organization was not the intent of the Bible. You can't separate religion from society, and the instruction given above makes the identification crystal clear. Stay faithful to your Jewish God or your Jewish society will kill you. If that's not organized religion, what is?-You declined my invitation to support the Pope's bigotry with the scriptures, so here's a quote for you: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (1 Timothy 2, 11-12).-If a woman can't teach or have authority over a man, what chance women priests, eh? Timothy could hardly make the recipe clearer, and Timothy has been given his place in the Bible. Therefore the Bible is against women priests, and so the Pope is doing God's will. And no doubt the Pope will also have a few quotes to justify his opposition to contraception and to homosexuality.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 27, 2010, 12:25 (5170 days ago) @ dhw
First off, to clarify something about stoning.-"Execution by means of pelting the offender with stones afforded a mechanism whereby the whole community could share in it. In a very real sense it could be done not only in the name of the community and on its behalf but by its members."-Secondly, as I pointed out in another argument, this was part of the Mosaic Law covenant and clearly abolished with the death of Christ, a fact which the RCC chose to ignore. You can keep picking apart the Mosaic Law covenant, but you will never get past the fact that its punishments were abolished with the death of Christ. As the many atrocities of the RCC came after Christ, they have no excuse. Both of the references in John and Mark are specifically direct punishments from God, not from man, so they still do not give any justification for the actions of the RCC.-1 Timothy's line about women priest is a valid argument, but only in regards to the priesthood. Elsewhere in the bible, it also talks about women being in subjection to their husbands. However, it also talks about how their husbands should treat them. (Col 3:19, 1 Co 7:1-7) Ironically, the plight of women is one of the very first prophecies in the bible. (Gen 3:16)-As for the laws supporting organized religion, also recognize this. Aside from the above mentioned abolition of the mosaic law covenant, only one tribe out of 12 was structured as a priest hood, yet all of the 12 tribes were considered the nation of God. Now, groups such as the RCC would have you believe that if you are not a member, you are damned, which is not supported in the scriptures. In fact, belief and following the rules are the only things listed as requirements. (Tithing was also done away with whe the Mosaic Law was abolished.)
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, September 27, 2010, 15:22 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
It also might be worth checking out the story of Ruth, and the story of Rebeccah, and see how they match up to the opinion that the RCC has taken against women.
Interpretation of Texts
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: I am not trying to prove God exists, if that is what you mean. I am trying to prove that the Biblical writers were not crackpots that modern people have tried to imply.-I think we've both been pussyfooting, so I will now be direct. Every single book in the Bible is based on belief in God, and many of the writers claim direct contact with God, even to the point of recording conversations. If there is no God, these writers were deluded, so for all the wisdom and the poetry and the fascinating stories, "modern people" would have a point. Your whole case in fact rests on proving that God exists! There's nothing wrong with that, and as someone who honestly doesn't know what to believe, I welcome all approaches to the subject, and I'm already learning a great deal from yours. (I've just read your excellent piece under "Ontological Arguments", and will try to respond to you and Matt later.)-You wrote: "Execution by means of pelting the offender with stones afforded a mechanism whereby the whole community could share in it." Exactly. And since it was a capital offence to entice a Jew away from the true God, this is ample proof that organized religion was integral to Judaism.-The fact that the death penalty was abolished by the Sanhedrin in 30 AD wouldn't have been much help to those who were executed BC by order of Moses/God. If it was God's will that the death penalty should be carried out for betraying the faith, what divine right did the Sanhedrin have to abolish it? Alternatively, since their argument was that only God should execute the sinner, the death penalty couldn't have been God's will, so what right did Moses have to impose it? The stoning tradition is still going on in countries like Iran, Nigeria and Somalia, and I doubt that it would be enforced if the authorities felt there was no backing from their sacred scriptures, but I'm not going to hunt through the Koran to prove it. My point is that this slavish devotion to ancient texts can do enormous damage, and the texts provide direct support for the violence and bigotry indulged in by those who consider theirs to be "the true faith". -You write: "Both of the references to John and Mark are specifically direct punishments from God, not from man." But Mark tells his listeners to go and preach the gospel to every creature. Why? In order to save their souls from the eternal damnation which is the punishment for not believing in Jesus. Wouldn't ANYTHING be better than eternal damnation? Besides, I object in my puny human way to God damning all the good, kind, clean-living Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Dogon, Amerindians, Humanists etc. for thinking differently, or being brought up in a different society. -I'm glad you acknowledge that Timothy's line about women priests is a valid argument. The rest of your post concerning women simply supports my contention that you can find whatever you want in the Bible. Yes of course there are other more conciliatory passages and stories. My point is that there are texts in the Bible that actively encourage bigotry and violence, and it is no counter to argue there are other texts that say nice things. As I have pointed out, you can find virtually any message you want in there. But I don't trust a book that gives you virtually any message you want.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 15:17 (5168 days ago) @ dhw
Of course the Sanhedrin abolished the death penalty. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, the Mosaic Law covenant was done away with at Christs death according to the scripture. Also, "the wages sin pays is death". Regardless of whether a person dies by stoning or natural causes, according to the bible that is the price EVERYONE must pay since no one is perfect or blameless. Additionally, there are different ways to look at the damnation bit. First, according to the scriptures, hell doesn't exist, and neither does a soul that lives on past the body. *gasp* Genesis says that Adam *was* a soul, not that he *had* a soul. etc etc.. I have found that when you take the verses in their entire context, instead of picking and choosing, and you cross-reference them to the other text, it severely limits your ability to interpret them however you want. But granted, most people just pick and choose in order to get what they desire out of it.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 15:41 (5168 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Of course the Sanhedrin abolished the death penalty. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, the Mosaic Law covenant was done away with at Christs death according to the scripture. Also, "the wages sin pays is death". Regardless of whether a person dies by stoning or natural causes, according to the bible that is the price EVERYONE must pay since no one is perfect or blameless. Additionally, there are different ways to look at the damnation bit. First, according to the scriptures, hell doesn't exist, and neither does a soul that lives on past the body. *gasp* Genesis says that Adam *was* a soul, not that he *had* a soul. etc etc.. I have found that when you take the verses in their entire context, instead of picking and choosing, and you cross-reference them to the other text, it severely limits your ability to interpret them however you want. But granted, most people just pick and choose in order to get what they desire out of it.-Genesis in Hebrew says specifically that 'Adam (the human) became a 'living' soul'
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 16:07 (5168 days ago) @ David Turell
Exactly ... became a soul, not had a soul, or possessed by a soul, or in possession of a soul.
Interpretation of Texts
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: Of course the Sanhedrin abolished the death penalty. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, the Mosaic Law covenant was done away with at Christ's death according to the scripture.-There's still controversy over whether Christ was against the death penalty or not, but I'm happy to acknowledge that both Christians and Jews turned their back on many of Moses' laws. My point was twofold: 1) that these laws were in force for approx. 1500 years, and that doesn't seem to me to reflect too well on Moses/God, and 2) the communal stoning of the unfaithful proves that organized religion was not only intended but also integral to Jewish society.-B_M: Additionally, there are different ways to look at the damnation bit. First, according to the scriptures, hell doesn't exist...-Or perhaps according to your interpretation of the scriptures? But I never mentioned hell anyway. Nor did I mention a soul that lives on past the body. I don't know what John meant by the wrath of God or everlasting life (difficult to imagine if it's not something independent of the body, and in any case body + soul = identity, so I'd say you are and have both), and I don't know what Mark meant by being damned, or for that matter what Matthew meant when he talked of hellfire and the damnation of hell. But when Mark tells people to spread the gospel, and those who don't believe in Christ are damned, I can well understand folk getting the impression that drastic action may be required to save the souls of their fellow humans. And I'm still appalled in my puny way at the very idea of good Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. being damned for worshipping the wrong God.-In the context of my post about Timothy's bigoted views on women, you write: "I have found that when you take the verses in their entire context, instead of picking and choosing, and you cross-reference them to the other text, it severely limits your ability to interpret them however you want." Cross-referencing means directions given by the author to consult other texts. I'm not sure what you mean by "entire context" ... the whole Bible, every social history, every commentary? What "other text" are you referring to? In Corinthians 13, 34/35, Paul says: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame to let women speak in the church." (More evidence, incidentally, of organized religion.) In your analogy of the cookbook, you blamed men for disobeying instructions. I'm saying that the Bible sometimes issues clear instructions, and they do untold damage (as do its unclear instructions!). In Corinthians 6, 9, Paul announces that "[nor] effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind" will "inherit the kingdom of God". My modern translation makes it clear that the reference is to homosexuals. Can you tell me where Paul provides cross-referencing, or what is the "entire context" that demonstrates he didn't intend discrimination against women and homosexuals? -I'm aware that for someone who clearly holds the Bible to be sacred, my comments may seem offensive. Please don't take them personally!
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 18:08 (5167 days ago) @ dhw
> I'm aware that for someone who clearly holds the Bible to be sacred, my comments may seem offensive. Please don't take them personally!-I'm most certainly not offended, nor will I ever be in a debate unless it is reduced to personal insults, which I have not noticed out of anyone on this forum, which is truly incredible and I wish to thank and commend all of you for. I'm not sure sacred is the right word to describe my view of the bible, but in a way I suppose I do. The one thing I notice most when people attempt to pick it apart, is that generally are unable to do one very fundamental thing, which is, to let go of their preconceived notions of right/wrong and good/bad. I think the average person hunts for a religion or belief system that fits their idea of what a belief system should be, and it doesn't really work that way. I will detail that thought in a subsequent post, but for now, let me answer a few of your remarks. - >1) that these laws were in force for approx. 1500 years, and that doesn't seem to me to reflect too well on Moses/God, and 2) the communal stoning of the unfaithful proves that organized religion was not only intended but also integral to Jewish society.-One of the things I have always striven for when considering God, is to first and foremost not try to impose my standards on him, and secondly to try and understand him by the universe around me as, it being his work, it should reflect in someway his mind. -So, to say that His law only held for 1500 years or so and that his law didn't reflect well on him I think is a double foul, not because you question it, but because it seems you question from the wrong perspective and with preconceived notions of what's right and wrong. -To the second statement, I admit to finding that flat wrong. Making it a law that the community must perform its own executions does not specify an organised religion as a necessity. IF you mean by organised religion that there should only be one religion, then sure it suggest that. If by organised religion you mean that there should be a human head of the Church and a categorized hierarchal structure beneath it, then I think you out in left field a bit on this. -Now some have taken parts of the new testament to mean that there should be a Church, because it uses the word assembly a lot, and there is a line that says 'do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together..' or some such. But even today we say things like, "Surround yourselves with people you wish to be like." This does not mean to form an organised cult, but to keep people around you whose attributes you admire, who share the same values, and who you can count on to help you should begin to lose your way. The early christians were surrounded by Greeks and Romans, whom we well know had a long history of Polytheistic beliefs. It is understandable that they be admonished to gather together with people of like faith so that they did not get sidetracked from what they believed they should be doing. That does not mean that they should form a Church and have rank and file member ship and leadership structure. ->..those who don't believe in Christ are damned-16:15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.-Here is an example of how easy it is to mine a quote without meaning to. Notice that prior to being condemned the creature must be taught, and reject the teachings. - As a side note, I found this when I was researching the 'damned' comment: -Mat 23:15	 "Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves! (child of hell here literally means 'child of Gehenna'
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 18:24 (5167 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
As to my comment in the last post about custom fit religions and preconceived notions:- For a few moments, suspend everything you know about right and wrong, good and bad, human rights, and any other form of preconceived morality. Focus instead on known physical and mental health issues, community unity and moral, victims both intentional and unintentional.-Now, ask yourself a few questions:-Is homosexuality healthy? (from a purely physical standpoint) Is it more or less healthy in a world without prophylactics? Is bestiality healthy? Is promiscuous unprotected sex healthy? Is promiscuous sex mentally healthy? (Considering all psychology we currently know) Is adultery healthy to either the individuals involved, the family unit, or the community?-Is the life of the individual worth more than the life of the tribe?(again, no preconceived morals)-Is it conducive to a well functioning society to lie, steal, or sleep with another persons spouse?-If there are two people in a group, can two people lead that group, or should one follow the others lead, and the leader take the followers thoughts and feelings into account for any decision that is made, and bear the responsibility for those decisions?-Considering the following statement:"68% percent of males and 58% of females are rearrested, and 53% and 39% respectively are re-incarcerated"-And considering: $68,747,203,000 was the amount spent on incarceration costs in 2006 alone in the U.S.-Does it make sense for a society to rehabilitate people who violate their laws, when nearly 70% are not going to change?
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 22:19 (5167 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
As to my comment in the last post about custom fit religions and preconceived notions: > > > For a few moments, suspend everything you know about right and wrong, good and bad, human rights, and any other form of preconceived morality. Focus instead on known physical and mental health issues, community unity and moral, victims both intentional and unintentional. > > Now, ask yourself a few questions: > > Is homosexuality healthy? (from a purely physical standpoint) What's my operational definition of healthy? To me this is an act that carries a risk and isn't in itself "unhealthy," when "good health" is defined as my human body being fit. If however, unhealthy is described as "taking uncalculated health risks" than no it isn't. -> Is it more or less healthy in a world without prophylactics? What's my operational definition of healthy? Here you seem to be directly equating the taking of a risk as "unhealthy." I don't find risk-taking unhealthy. -> Is bestiality healthy? What's my operational definition of healthy? Bestiality is again, an act that carries no intrinsic issues on health. I think in documented literature I haven't heard of any cases where human partners in these couplings suffer long-term illness or diseases caught from the animals. -> Is promiscuous unprotected sex healthy? What's my operational definition of healthy? Again, I don't read "Risk taking" as "unhealthy."-> Is promiscuous sex mentally healthy? (Considering all psychology we currently know) Hard for me to answer; it depends so much on what the parties have in mind when they engage in it. Depends on the self-confidence of the participants; there is no cookbook solution to this. -> Is adultery healthy to either the individuals involved, the family unit, or the community? > Here you're using healthy in terms of psychology; this relies upon social norms in order to decide; you're asking me to make a moral claim based on health issues. We need clear definitions here if we're going to get concise answers. It's unhealthy if society's morals decree it unhealthy, and it is enforced implicitly or explicitly by members of the society. -Have you looked into open couples who are also open about what they do with their children? Penn and Teller have an episode of Bullshit where they tackle this exact issue. -> Is the life of the individual worth more than the life of the tribe?(again, no preconceived morals) > -Depends on the circumstance. -> Is it conducive to a well functioning society to lie, steal, or sleep with another persons spouse? > -Loaded question; Balance, you tell us NOT to bring in preconceived ideas of morals, but all of these issues you bring up are going to be shaded by what we think about morals.-1. What are the circumstances that the society is lying in? Sometimes lying is good. -2. Stealing can also be good, depending on the circumstances. -3. Sleeping with another person's wife is absolutely fine if that person and his wife are fine with the arrangement. -There is no cookbook answer for these questions. -> If there are two people in a group, can two people lead that group, or should one follow the others lead, and the leader take the followers thoughts and feelings into account for any decision that is made, and bear the responsibility for those decisions? > -Depends on the individuals; again no cookbook answer here. -> Considering the following statement:"68% percent of males and 58% of females are rearrested, and 53% and 39% respectively are re-incarcerated" > > And considering: $68,747,203,000 was the amount spent on incarceration costs in 2006 alone in the U.S. > > Does it make sense for a society to rehabilitate people who violate their laws, when nearly 70% are not going to change?-It makes more sense to advocate agnosticism and atheism if we're going to talk society, culture, and law. 85% of the United States professes Christianity. 2% atheist/agnostic. Our prisons contain a religious demographic of 85% Christian, 0.5% Atheist/Agnostic. Extrapolate the math and there is a 3:1 ratio of atheists/agnostics that don't go to prison for every Christian who goes to prison.-[EDITED]-Balance, ethics and morals are designed to guide us in making decisions when there is no clear-cut answer. In other words; they are pre-conceived by design. You need to separate healthy from moral. Nearly all of the issues you've raised here are moral issues and not health issues.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 04:09 (5167 days ago) @ xeno6696
Wow.. Ok.No.-The act of homosexuality (male male) caries a intrinsic greater health risk because of tissue damage during the act itself. The breakages in the skin expose the pair to direct blood/blood transfer, and any blood born pathogens by extent.- The same could be said for bestiality, not to mention that in this case some animals could carry blood borne pathogens that humans have no immunity to. --Promiscuity/Adultery in any society, particularly where there was no contraception has inevitably lead to an increase in STD's, unwanted pregnancies, (and normally abortions which carry their own health risks), and often, but admittedly not always, broken families.-These things are statistical and medical fact and have no bearing on morality at all. (except perhaps the broken family bit.)-What I was trying to point out is that many of the laws set out at the time were practical for the time. However, from a less Christian and more Esoteric standpoint, there is another reason. The relationship between man and woman is significant in two unique ways. First is that they comprise two sides of the same coin, complete each other, if you will. The other is that it is supposed to reflect the spiritual union, the vow between man and god.-Granted, much of this was not 'voted' into the bible by the RCC, but can be found in the texts that they excluded from the bible because it would have threatened their strangle hold on man.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, October 01, 2010, 02:36 (5166 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Wow.. Ok.No. > > The act of homosexuality (male male) caries a intrinsic greater health risk because of tissue damage during the act itself. The breakages in the skin expose the pair to direct blood/blood transfer, and any blood born pathogens by extent. > -Your assertion of these things being unhealthy comes directly from a moral perspective. -I say this because all things people do carries some kind of risk. Football players will suffer weekly bruises and strains; yet we don't say they're unhealthy. And in the grand scheme of things, if you choose to engage in the kind of behavior we're talking about, we're talking about a generally calculated risk that an adult takes on themselves for pleasure--just like hiking, swimming with sharks, or any other downright crazy things we do as humans. -> > The same could be said for bestiality, not to mention that in this case some animals could carry blood borne pathogens that humans have no immunity to. > -Generally speaking, aside from the fact that I have a distaste for the act, I view this similarly to what I discussed above. But you present no real evidence for pathogens; unstudied is unstudied. We have suppositions and anecdotes here.-> > > Promiscuity/Adultery in any society, particularly where there was no contraception has inevitably lead to an increase in STD's, unwanted pregnancies, (and normally abortions which carry their own health risks), and often, but admittedly not always, broken families. > -You need to chuck the broken families out of there. That perfect "nuclear family" you refer to has never really existed. Your case on adultery is much harder to prove, however. Hispanic culture has a strong tradition of men (especially affluent) seeking women outside of the marriage. Yet having spent time in Mexico, there's few things Mexicans love more than their children. There's also a tribe in South America where sex is freely given and no one "possesses" anyone.-> These things are statistical and medical fact and have no bearing on morality at all. (except perhaps the broken family bit.) > -Wrong. Or are football players unhealthy? -> What I was trying to point out is that many of the laws set out at the time were practical for the time. However, from a less Christian and more Esoteric standpoint, there is another reason. The relationship between man and woman is significant in two unique ways. First is that they comprise two sides of the same coin, complete each other, if you will. The other is that it is supposed to reflect the spiritual union, the vow between man and god. > -And the people I mentioned above began that policy in reaction to their own mystics; just as valid. -However if you had studied the "Left Hand" version of those same religions, you would see alot more of "all of the above," promiscuity, homosexuality, and even bestiality. If you go back to Rome, the legendary parties of Bacchus hadn't resulted in any massive "decline," only pointed to a culture that had so much excess that they could indulge in mass hedonism. Watch the full episode. -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npB4XfBTICA-Different strokes, for different folks.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, October 03, 2010, 15:32 (5163 days ago) @ dhw
I remember replying to this one, but my internet on board the boat is always flaky at best, so it might not have gone through. Or perhaps the answer was wrapped up together with another reply elsewhere in the thread, either way, I apologize for the delay.-When I spoke about cross-referencing the scripture, I meant cross-referencing the bible to the entirety of the Bible in terms of determining internal consistency.-In relation to proving it scientifically, it would of course require comparison to scientific/historical data.
Interpretation of Texts
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: I remember replying to this one, but my internet on board the boat is always flaky at best, so it might not have gone through. Or perhaps the answer was wrapped up together with another reply elsewhere in the thread, either way, I apologize for the delay. When I spoke about cross-referencing the scripture, I meant cross-referencing the bible to the entirety of the Bible in terms of determining internal consistency. In relation to proving it scientifically, it would of course require comparison to scientific/historical data.-There have certainly been no replies to my two posts of 30 September. It would be very frustrating for you (and me!) if your replies have got lost. I always write out my responses, save them, and copy and paste them as a precaution. You did, however, write a very interesting piece on the "hell" thread, which brings us both much closer together on the issue of religion.-Two queries from earlier posts that have also remained unanswered are 1) Matthew's genealogy "proving" Christ's descent from Abraham and David through Joseph, who was not Christ's father, and 2) your motive for trying to prove that the Bible writers were not crackpots. You had said that you were NOT trying to prove God's existence, and I pointed out that every writer who claimed to reproduce the words of God would have to be called a crackpot if God didn't exist (alternatively, a charlatan, which is even worse.)-As regards "cross-referencing" and "entire contexts", in support of your claim that there are no contradictions in the Bible, are you kidding? If I thought I'd found a contradiction, you could argue that I must read not only the whole Bible, but also every version (including the original), every translation, and every commentary. If I fail to do so, I have not proved there are no contradictions. However, this is a minor matter compared to the issue of God's justice and your/Matt's/my criteria for what constitutes right and wrong.
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, October 04, 2010, 15:51 (5162 days ago) @ dhw
Actually, it is ironic you mention all of those in one message. As I mentioned in another thread, I have just recently finished reading a copy of the Gnostic Gospels. Quite interesting really, but there were specifically some points that struck close to home with the conversation we have been having. -The first was that the Mosaic Law was not 'purely' Gods law. The writer makes a strong case for this argument. First he points out that the Mosaic law covenant was divided into three categories: God's Laws, Moses' Laws, and the Elders' Laws.-For example, he starts with divorce, which according to Genesis(reaffirmed later in the NT) that God's law is that marriage is permanent. However, Moses, according to Jesus, made a provision for divorce in order to protect his people from harming one another. I do not have the book in front of me(I loaned it to the medic to read) but in a few days I will try to link page numbers and authors and what not. I am not going to quote more until I have the references in front of me. But I promise to post more on this subject in the next week.-As for Jesus' genealogy, that was something else expressed in no uncertain terms. In a nutshell, it said that Mary could not conceive from the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is feminine. Elsewhere it says that the holy spirit is the feminine aspect of Jesus' spiritual form, since his spirit was considered to be androgynous in its original state. This would mean that Joseph was his blood father. I am particularly curious on this point myself. Some time back, and I forget where, I heard something about the early church altering documents to support the virgin birth etc.But I would need to look into that more, and I have not had the time yet. Also of note here, is the dispute over two genealogies between Mathew and Luke, though, it is suspected that one was his lineage through Mary, and the other through Joseph, which would have of course been different, yet reinforced his claim as 'King of the Jews'. -Why would I care enough to prove that the bible writers were not crackpots? This is probably the least rational of any of my arguments. The reason is simply, because I believe that they were telling the truth, at least insofar as they knew it, and I think that they, like the rest of our ancestors that accomplished amazing things, should get the credit and respect that they deserve. So often our society of gross materialism and idiotic superiority complexes scoffs at the works of people who were, in their own right, truly brilliant, and in my opinion much more so than is generally believed. -The second reason, and more personal of the two, is that despite what science says, I know there is something more. Ever since I was small I have known it more surely than anything else in my life. It has nothing to do with religion, because believe it or not, I abhor religion. However, the part of me that tells me what my eyes see, my ears hear, my tongue tastes, and my fingers feel, also tells me that it is aware of something that can not be defined by materialism, and the part of me that is tremendously aware of how little I know continues to push me to learn more so that one day I might understand it. While I don't think that the straight forward reading and literal translations of the bible and other texts are the answer, there are rare times when I read something and understand it to mean much much more than what is explicitly said. If that makes me sound like a nut, then so be it. At the end of my path, I am the only one that can judge whether it was all worth it.
Interpretation of Texts
by David Turell , Monday, October 04, 2010, 16:56 (5162 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> As for Jesus' genealogy, that was something else expressed in no uncertain terms. In a nutshell, it said that Mary could not conceive from the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is feminine. Elsewhere it says that the holy spirit is the feminine aspect of Jesus' spiritual form, since his spirit was considered to be androgynous in its original state. This would mean that Joseph was his blood father. I am particularly curious on this point myself. Some time back, and I forget where, I heard something about the early church altering documents to support the virgin birth etc.-Let me drop in to review the Jewish scholar point of view about Joshua ben Joseph, Jesus in Greek. His name was Joshua. In Matthew his Mother is referred to four times as a 'young woman' and once as a virgin. All itinerent preachers in Palestine at the time referred to themselves as 'sons of God'. All the Gospels, starting with Matthew, were written at least 40-80 years after Jesus death, all, therefore, hearsay. The passage in Josephus confirming that Jesus was 'one' true person and not a conglomerate story, is thought to be a forgery, because the style of writing does not match Josephus. And Josephus was born about the time of Jesus death, so his history of that period is from events told to him by others. The NT makes it quite clear that Jesus never asked to start a new church. Paul and others created a new theology around him and created a church of Jesus. The Golden Rule, do unto others, etc. was preached by Rabbi Hillel 100 years before Jesus.-Roman cruxifictions were their standard way to make an example and execute. The persons were put on a cross, head down, not as currently pictured.
Interpretation of Texts: current Jewish theology
by David Turell , Saturday, March 23, 2024, 20:07 (243 days ago) @ David Turell
From a rabbi:
https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ecSn9WQJf9NwYw83oYrN-WSJNewsPaper-3-23-2...
"'As one of the most frequently cited Talmudic teachings has it, “The Blessed Holy One desires the heart."
"Juddaism is not naive or Pollyannaish about human beings; it knows how often we go astray, embracing the expedient and the self-serving instead of the right and the good, choosing hate or indifference over blove. As the philosopher David Hume memorably put it, we have “some particle of the dove, kneaded into our frame, along with the elements of the wolf and serpent.” The deeply held conviction of Jewish tradition is not that we will choose the good but that we can do so—and the height of the good is love. A traditional rabbinic story imagines that when God was about to create Adam, the angels split into factions and began to argue. “Kindness said, ‘Let him be created, since he will perform acts of lovingkindness’; Truth said, ‘Let him not be created, since he is all lies.’” How does God respond to the debate? “God took truth and cast it to the earth.” Faced with a choice between love and other competing values, God embraces the former and rebuffs the latter. God risks a lot, and puts up with a lot, all in the name of love—both the love God has for us and the love God hopes that we will embody and bring into the world."
Rabbi Shai Held is president of the Hadar Institute. This essay is adapted from his new book, “Judaism Is About Love: Recovering the Heart of Jewish Life,” which will be published
on March 26 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Comment: this should put to rest dhw's terror of the original OT God he learned about as a child long ago. Ancient primitive Jews perhaps needed such a tough God to keep them in line. That guy is not necessary now. The God of the Talmud is today's Jewish God.
Interpretation of Texts
MATT: The second reason, and more personal of the two, is that despite what science says, I know there is something more. Ever since I was small I have known it more surely than anything else in my life. It has nothing to do with religion, because believe it or not, I abhor religion. However, the part of me that tells me what my eyes see, my ears hear, my tongue tastes, and my fingers feel, also tells me that it is aware of something that can not be defined by materialism, and the part of me that is tremendously aware of how little I know continues to push me to learn more so that one day I might understand it. [...] If that makes me sound like a nut, then so be it. At the end of my path, I am the only one that can judge whether it was all worth it.-Thank you for your honest and stimulating replies. I'll summarize my response to the other sections of your post concerning a) the various laws, b) the genealogy of Christ and c) the talents of the ancients: a)	In all honesty, I can't summon up much enthusiasm over whose laws are whose; my main concern is the biblical picture of God as a fearsome disciplinarian whose sense of justice appals me. A subjective view, of course, and that's why I'm so interested in your personal criteria for right and wrong (my post of 30 September).-b)	If the Gnostic Gospels pooh-pooh the concept of a virgin birth, good for them. Both genealogies end (Matthew) or begin (Luke) with Joseph as Jesus' father, so I don't see how it can be argued that one of them is Mary's. c)	I agree with you that the ancients were brilliant. The collection of biblical books alone is an astonishing achievement, as are many of the ancient buildings and artefacts. Out of curiosity I googled "prehistoric airplanes" and found a number of interesting sites which also cover some of the mysterious discoveries you've referred to. I don't know how all this links up with the question of God's existence, but it certainly suggests that we should be wary of accepting current views of human history. It only needs one sensational discovery to turn received wisdom on its head. . Your second reason does not make you sound at all like a nut, but the "something more" for me is not "despite what science says". In fairness to science, it says nothing. Only scientists say. Some do indeed talk as if they knew all about the things that matter most to us as individuals: consciousness, love, creativity, memory, imagination etc., but they haven't a clue, and I think many of them ... even Dawkins ... acknowledge that (see my post under Consciousness). The atheistic ones simply have their quasi-religious faith that they will one day be able to tell us how the universe, life and consciousness originated. I share your scepticism towards materialism, and also towards the established religions (I suppose that's why I've kept badgering you about your devotion to the Bible). If I actually believed in God, it would have to be my own concept of him, but that would be hugely influenced by the randomness of joy and pain in the world I see around me. As I've already mentioned, the simplest explanation for that would be the deist God or no God at all.-The "push to learn more" is what binds all of us on this forum. Maybe we're all nutcases together!
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, October 05, 2010, 15:00 (5161 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: The second reason, and ...-I'm Tony, but no worries :) > a)	In all honesty, I can't summon up much enthusiasm over whose laws are whose; my main concern is the biblical picture of God as a fearsome disciplinarian whose sense of justice appals me. A subjective view, of course, and that's why I'm so interested in your personal criteria for right and wrong (my post of 30 September).-I think part of any good study or research is sifting through and finding what was said or done by whom. It makes it a little easier to keep track of things, and gives us a little more insight into individual or group personalities.-> > b)	If the Gnostic Gospels pooh-pooh the concept of a virgin birth, good for them. Both genealogies end (Matthew) or begin (Luke) with Joseph as Jesus' father, so I don't see how it can be argued that one of them is Mary's. > > ... I don't know how all this links up with the question of God's existence, but it certainly suggests that we should be wary of accepting current views of human history. It only needs one sensational discovery to turn received wisdom on its head. -It is not a direct link to the existence of God, and I don't *think* I gave the impression that it did, or at least I didn't mean to. That discussion was more in the spirit of re-framing current historical and scientific paradigms to account for the ALL of the data, not just what they want to see. Part in parcel with that, is admitting that in ancient literature, there are things that can not be easily dismissed as fantasy because they *should* have lacked the frame of reference to even dream it up. -> ... I share your scepticism towards materialism, and also towards the established religions (I suppose that's why I've kept badgering you about your devotion to the Bible). If I actually believed in God, it would have to be my own concept of him, but that would be hugely influenced by the randomness of joy and pain in the world I see around me. As I've already mentioned, the simplest explanation for that would be the deist God or no God at all.-God should always be personal. However, just like three children can each have a different relationship with the same parent and take note of different aspects of that parent, various forms of spirituality will understand and acknowledge different aspects of God. I don't think that any one mind can comprehend God. As I note when talking about ancient writers, we simply have no frame of reference to even begin. Try visualizing nothing. No luck? Try visualizing everything.-> > The "push to learn more" is what binds all of us on this forum. Maybe we're all nutcases together!-It is always nice to be in good company, even when walking to the asylum.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 00:03 (5168 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > You wrote: "Execution by means of pelting the offender with stones afforded a mechanism whereby the whole community could share in it." Exactly. And since it was a capital offence to entice a Jew away from the true God, this is ample proof that organized religion was integral to Judaism. > > The fact that the death penalty was abolished by the Sanhedrin in 30 AD wouldn't have been much help to those who were executed BC by order of Moses/God. If it was God's will that the death penalty should be carried out for betraying the faith, what divine right did the Sanhedrin have to abolish it? Alternatively, since their argument was that only God should execute the sinner, the death penalty couldn't have been God's will, so what right did Moses have to impose it? The stoning tradition is still going on in countries like Iran, Nigeria and Somalia, and I doubt that it would be enforced if the authorities felt there was no backing from their sacred scriptures, but I'm not going to hunt through the Koran to prove it. My point is that this slavish devotion to ancient texts can do enormous damage, and the texts provide direct support for the violence and bigotry indulged in by those who consider theirs to be "the true faith". > -If I may interject here:-I read a book over the summer about the Jewish experience, and one thing that is very interesting to note is watching how Jewish thought changed over time. Jewish Rabbis promote debate, and going back before the time of Christ, every copy of the Torah always had large margins for the Rabbis to write their interpretations. It is a matter of Jewish faith, to continually reinterpret their texts to match with facts. He actually cites the slow progression towards modern law as one that could not have happened without God. -The few Jews I've known in life have been the most unobtrusive but also open-minded theists I've had the pleasure of meeting. I have an inclination to think that it really is a part of the culture. It is probably rash to assert that there is a slavish commitment in all Abrahamic faiths. (Not that they don't exist, mind...)
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
MATT: If I may interject here: I read a book over the summer about the Jewish experience, and one thing that is very interesting to note is watching how Jewish thought changed over time. Jewish Rabbis promote debate, and going back before the time of Christ, every copy of the Torah always had large margins for the Rabbis to write their interpretations. It is a matter of Jewish faith, to continually reinterpret their texts to match with facts. He actually cites the slow progression towards modern law as one that could not have happened without God. The few Jews I've known in life have been the most unobtrusive but also open-minded theists I've had the pleasure of meeting. I have an inclination to think that it really is a part of the culture. It is probably rash to assert that there is a slavish commitment in all Abrahamic faiths. (Not that they don't exist, mind...)-A very welcome and interesting interjection! But I would put the two sections together. The Jews, Christians and Muslims continually study their texts, and even set up theological colleges and madrasas to do so. This to me constitutes slavish devotion to texts and, appallingly, millions of lives have been and still are affected (and ruined) by the results of their labours. Writing was one of humanity's greatest inventions, but it wrought havoc on religion, and instead of oral traditions and rituals, there have been these endless disputes over the meaning of texts. Modern humans are capable of making and adapting their own laws to protect the society of their time, and in my view world disorder has nothing to do with godlessness and everything to do with human nature, which will never change. The world in biblical times was no less chaotic than it is today if the Bible is anything to go by, and the argument that 'if everyone followed Jesus it would all be OK' might just as well be 'if everyone followed humanism it would all be OK'. The texts, fascinating though they are, belong to a long-gone age and should not in my view be used for any kind of social guidance. As far as religion is concerned, people should be free to worship as they wish ... though I have to acknowledge that one of the weaknesses of human nature is the widespread desire to be led.-As for the open-mindedness of your Jewish acquaintances, like David I was brought up as a Jew (liberal not orthodox) and had very mixed experiences, as one does with any group. I hated the grimness and terror engendered by Judaism ... apart from some of the great OT stories ... and severed all ties with it as soon as I could. When I looked to Christianity, it wasn't long before I discovered just as much bigotry and just as much menace. Christ's cruel death seems to me totally pointless, as I've indicated in the "brief guide". I became an atheist in my late teens until I read Darwin (I tend to do things in unusual ways), and I have been decisively indecisive ever since. ---
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 03:27 (5167 days ago) @ dhw
DHW, -Have you by chance read the Gnostic Gospels?
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 30, 2010, 03:57 (5167 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
DHW, > > Have you by chance read the Gnostic Gospels?-I'm all ears on this one...-Many of those assert "Secret Teachings" of Christ...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 05:23 (5167 days ago) @ xeno6696
We will have to get together when I get back to Tx in a couple of weeks, I'll loan you my copy. But here is a quote I thought interesting in light of our recent discussions.- Light and darkness, life and death, right and left, are inseparable twins.-For the good are not wholly good, nor the wicked wholly wicked, nor is life merely life, nor death merely death; each will return to its primal source.-But those who transcend these apparent opposites are eternal; worldly names are full of deceit and delude our minds.-They muddy the distinction between right and wrong with words like father, spirit, son, life, light, resurrection and church. In the eternal world there are no such deceptions.-..... ....-Some claim Mary's conception was immaculate. They're mistakn; women cannot conceive from the Holy Spirit, which is feminine. It means that Mary was not defiled by dark powers, which defile themselves.- It talks a lot in great detail about the dangers of the 'Church' actually, and supports the statement I made about the assembly being just getting together with like minded people for support and to learn and help each other. (I made that comment before reading this, I just started the book a few hours ago.)
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:07 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I will have to get back with you on the seed of Abraham part after I have time to do some research on it. > > As for the bigotry of religion, you will get no argument from me there. However, I would like to point out a few things about that. First, the RCC started out on the wrong foot altogether, and one could say that from their very inception they broke the laws according to the Bible. Here are just a few small examples. > >
- They changed the Sabbath >
- They changed the 10 commandments (Removed number 2, split number 10) >
- They quit celebrating the last supper (the only holiday madated in the bible) >
- They knowingly took a pagan holiday for the Birth of Christ (winter solstice)-Minor clarification: Not the solstice, but the day celebrated as the God Mithras's birthday.->
- They knowingly took a pagan holiday for the death of Christ (Spring Equinox) >
- They violated the 2nd commandment >
- Violated the instruction to 'be no part of the world'(the 'world' is used to intricate political entities.. >
- By claiming special priviledges with governments the violated the command to 'Give Caesars things to Caesar..' >
> etc etc etc... > > So, my argument for what you said would be that men are the cause of all the atrocities. Not, the Bible or the Koran.-I would agree. Men with ambitions of power and wealth.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:03 (5171 days ago) @ dhw
A postscript. Your quotation from Paul mentions Christ being the seed of Abraham. Perhaps you can solve an old mystery for me. Matthew begins with a detailed genealogy, tracing the line from Abraham through David to "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ". However, Joseph was not Jesus's father, so why did Matthew bother with this genealogy, and how could Jesus be regarded as being the seed of Abraham and a direct descendant of David? It's not something that keeps me awake at night, but it would be nice to know the answer!-What a coincidence--I started rereading the gospels again this week for my novel, and this exact question jumped out at me... The line in this case should go through the matriarch. -Previously, Catholic Dogma bridged the gap on this question.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:19 (5171 days ago) @ xeno6696
Still researching this one. Will hopefully have something to post soon. I have been getting distracted with cosmological models :P
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 25, 2010, 23:57 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance, > ...I would also point out again, and this is for Xeno, that there is some misrepresentation of the scripture he quoted in Deut. due to the fact that he has removed it from its context. In Israel, a woman was supposed to be a virgin when she married. In fact, it was so serious an issue that if she were not a virgin when taken to her marriage bed, she could be put to death. Now, if a virgin is raped, under that law, her life is in jeopardy, because if she marries, her husband could have her killed for not being a virgin. By forcing the rapist to marry her, it does a double service, though modern day thinking would disagree I'm sure, of sparing her life because the man can not make a claim against her virginity, and can not divorce her so therefore must provide accommodation for her for life. So that law that you interpret as so bad saves the woman's life, and offers some pretty serious discouragement to a man to prevent him from raping a woman. Paying off a pissed off father, 50 sheckles, a pretty hefty sum. Being married to a right bitch the rest of your life, priceless.-But earlier in the exact same chapter (v 25) we have "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her. "--You also... took the wrong point. My overriding point was (like in instances purported by Aramaic Primacists) that there is clear instances where a slight shift in translation results in two different passages. Again, I quoted from ASV and the NIV verses. I realize that ethics have changed over time--I'm not trying to claim the Bible was barbaric--I am after all a moral contextualist--but that any claim of inerrancy or "to be read literally as truth" is relying upon a bed of nails--and every instance like this digs a hole in your back. But the NIV version reads more like "If you're caught having sex out of wedlock, guess what?" Whereas the other again, is downright barbaric to our standards. But without access to the original manuscript--and professional translators apparently have differing opinions--we cannot conclude with any certainty whether or not it applied to rape or sex out of wedlock.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, September 26, 2010, 00:17 (5171 days ago) @ xeno6696
I read that too, and didn't ignore it :) However, the context here is pretty clear given by the supporting sentence. In the passage you just quoted it is clearly a case of unwilling 'rape' by the modern definition. Even if you changed the translation of the word rape to "lies with' or 'has sexual relations with' the sentence still clearly implies rape by "the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her", where as the second one, when taken in context with all being said in this chapter, clearly implies mutual consent. -I also agree that a slight shift in translations causes problems, and I certainly agree that it would be MUCH better to have the original transcripts, but that is not a possibility, so we are stuck playing the role of historical detective. That is why I stated the original premise that I am using in my research of the text. -Basically, the Bible claims to be the word of God, and therefore without error. That would lead to certain testable conclusions:-A) If it is without error, then there can be no conflicts within itself. B) If God created everything, then his word can not conflict with reality.-Proving A or B wrong ultimately would mean that it is not the word of God, and is nothing more than a good read. -Point C that I use is mainly for my own benefit, but still holds true. Nearly all the biblical profits use certain keywords that can be cross-referenced against each other for verification of authenticity.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 26, 2010, 01:08 (5171 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I read that too, and didn't ignore it :) However, the context here is pretty clear given by the supporting sentence. In the passage you just quoted it is clearly a case of unwilling 'rape' by the modern definition. Even if you changed the translation of the word rape to "lies with' or 'has sexual relations with' the sentence still clearly implies rape by "the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her", where as the second one, when taken in context with all being said in this chapter, clearly implies mutual consent. > > I also agree that a slight shift in translations causes problems, and I certainly agree that it would be MUCH better to have the original transcripts, but that is not a possibility, so we are stuck playing the role of historical detective. That is why I stated the original premise that I am using in my research of the text. > > Basically, the Bible claims to be the word of God, and therefore without error. That would lead to certain testable conclusions: > > A) If it is without error, then there can be no conflicts within itself. > B) If God created everything, then his word can not conflict with reality. > > Proving A or B wrong ultimately would mean that it is not the word of God, and is nothing more than a good read. > > Point C that I use is mainly for my own benefit, but still holds true. Nearly all the biblical profits use certain keywords that can be cross-referenced against each other for verification of authenticity.-Alright, I'll get you the chapters from Ezekiel next time I sit down at the computer. God's Prophecy for Tyre unfulfilled...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 09:50 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
There is a very good write up on the so-called failed prophecy of Ezekial here.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 11:46 (5169 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
There is a very good write up on the so-called failed prophecy of Ezekial here.-I have actually read that site while researching my novel, but I'm quite certain that the author of the page is engaging in an intense reinterpretation of the text. In Jewish tradition--that's essentially a mandate. Scripture is always reinterpreted to account for new evidence and whatnot.-Do you agree with the site? I feel they are performing an equivocation on the word "they."
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 13:44 (5169 days ago) @ xeno6696
Whether they are playing with words or not, you have to admit that the degree of historical accuracy is quite remarkable. A number of nations did align themselves against Tyre. Here is another good article on that topic.
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 23:56 (5168 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Whether they are playing with words or not, you have to admit that the degree of historical accuracy is quite remarkable. A number of nations did align themselves against Tyre. Here is another good article on that topic.-I find it interesting that that website said that Nebuchadnezzar sacked Tyre, when Ezekiel clearly states that it was NOT Nebuchadnezzar. He did not successfully take the city. -I also find it noteworthy that the original city of Tyre still exists to this day, thus denying more of God's own prophecy about it.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 06:03 (5168 days ago) @ xeno6696
You seem to forget that this is the tale of two cities, as it were.-"The destruction of Tyre could have been plausible. However, the prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea, and its former location be scraped like the top of a rock seemed more than implausible. Yet both these prophecies were fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon besieged the city and conquered it. The inhabitants of Tyre, however, escaped to a nearby island. Nebuchadnezzar then rendered the city to ruins. For two and-a-half centuries, these ruins were a mute contradiction of the Bible.-When Alexander the Great conquered the Medo-Persian empire, long after Nebuchadnezzar's siege, the new island city of Tyre resisted his advances. Frustrated by their efforts, Alexander ordered his troops to build a causeway to the island by throwing the ancient ruins of mainland Tyre into the midst of the sea, and using the dust to create a way for his troops, thus fulfilling the prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea."-The map.- So what you are seeing is that BOTH accounts are correct. The original city was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the second city by Alexander. So Nebuchadnezzar would never have entered the second city(the island city version of Tyre.)
Interpretation of Texts
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 22:42 (5167 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
You seem to forget that this is the tale of two cities, as it were. > > "The destruction of Tyre could have been plausible. However, the prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea, and its former location be scraped like the top of a rock seemed more than implausible. Yet both these prophecies were fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon besieged the city and conquered it. The inhabitants of Tyre, however, escaped to a nearby island. Nebuchadnezzar then rendered the city to ruins. For two and-a-half centuries, these ruins were a mute contradiction of the Bible. > > When Alexander the Great conquered the Medo-Persian empire, long after Nebuchadnezzar's siege, the new island city of Tyre resisted his advances. Frustrated by their efforts, Alexander ordered his troops to build a causeway to the island by throwing the ancient ruins of mainland Tyre into the midst of the sea, and using the dust to create a way for his troops, thus fulfilling the prophecy that Tyre would be thrown into the midst of the sea." > > The map. > > > So what you are seeing is that BOTH accounts are correct. The original city was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the second city by Alexander. So Nebuchadnezzar would never have entered the second city(the island city version of Tyre.)-Again shows that every verse of the Bible is potentially loaded with misdirection; how else am I supposed to interpret that he was "unable to earn his wages" from Tyre? And the suggestion that the old city was tossed into the sea is first-rate sophistry... that the causeway was built from the old city serves to Alexander's feat of engineering, but is only worth a chuckle in terms of biblical apology. Either we're supposed to take it literally or not; if not--great! Than we can engage in any post-modern reconstruction to fit events with the good book, but if we are to take it literally--sorry, you lose!-It's a very weak defense. Tyre is Tyre--if you conquer half of a city, you don't conquer it. Tyre never fell. Ezekiel's prophecy is pretty clear that it is Nebuchadnezzar that destroys it; yet in history it was long past Ezekiel and fell to Alexander. Ezekiel didn't say it would fall to Alexander, but Nebuchadnezzar. -In modern terms, if an invading army captured Manhattan, we wouldn't say that New York City fell, only Manhattan. The bible didn't say that PART of Tyre would fall, it said ALL of Tyre would fall. In those times, for a city to have "fallen" it would either have to be paying you tribute, or be entirely and completely destroyed. Neither of these things happened. - Your play on words though--was absolutely fantastic!!!! I actually chuckled when reading that site, thank you!-[EDITED] And by "play on words" I was referencing your "two cities" comment. Brilliant!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Interpretation of Texts
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 30, 2010, 04:13 (5167 days ago) @ xeno6696
The one question I have for you then, is how do you rectify the fact that Ezekiel was clearly talking about too different groups?