Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why the divine entity created humanity and then left it alone, with the only comfort of some texts almost incomprehensible
thanks in advance for your attention
When I awoke this morning, the very first thing i did, was the very first thing I do every single day of my life. I recite a prayer called "Mode Ani," which in a nutshell, thanks G-d for restoring my soul to me for another day. It may be different with you, but G-d is deeply involved with my every day doings, and I don't feel in the slightest that He has left me alone.
Quote:
I don't know where this leaves you with traditions, but to me, what Whoppers is doing is not arguing that the Bible is not inerrant, accurate history or the given word of God. Inerrancy is long gone as an argument, accurate historicity is out of the window and inspiration from God at least is looking far less likely than several writers with an agenda of their own.
What we have to do is not argue about whether it is was written by men at a relatively late late, but by what men, how late and what was in their minds when they wrote or rewrote it.
Arequipa, this may be a forgone conclusion to you, but I'm nowhere near ready for that conclusion.
Bravo with these words, you increased the value of your post.
I noticed that you're the only Christian who has ventured into this discussion.. I confess that I am very curious too, but it is not easy ..l guess that they will take me not seriously or perhaps they do not consider me able to understand, anyway I'll try it
Why the divine entity created humanity and then left it alone, with the only comfort of some texts almost incomprehensible
thanks in advance for your attention
Well, please tell us more of what YOU believe, and why, and ask anything you want.
I am a non-Christian and proud of it. I am a non-theist. Like everyone else on this planet, I do not have all the answers, maybe not even all of the questions. Nobody Does. But I enjoy learning and exploring.
I do not agree with everything Arequipa posts and he probably does not agree with everything I post but we seem to learn from each otehr and we share some good ideas.
As for the Thread, the OP asked about a current theory of authorship of the Pentateuch so we will be keeping this thread as much as we can on that topic, but feel free to start any thread and we will do what we can IF we have any background or interest on the subject. If we disagree, so be it. The important thing, and I stress this to no end, please bring reasons and facts and the how and why behind what you are saying. People will take you a lot more seriously then.
whoppers, I'm just a simple Yid who tries to live a Torahdik life. I'm trying to keep up in a discussion where I'm seriously out-gunned. And sorry if I was getting testy for suggesting throwing out any Chrsitian bibles. I'm still practicing hiding my disdain for the Chrstian versions of my bible.
That's alright...
I think one thing we can agree on regarding "bibles" is that every translation - whether Jewish or Christian - is a compromise with the original text, and can prove to be a rather large obstacle to understanding. That may be ironic, because the purpose of a translation is to make a text in one language accessible to readers of another language, but every translation makes its own decisions on how to render words that do not have euivalents in English.
What has usually happened is that the convenience of the reader has been favored, to the detriment of the original.
A good example is in the number of corresponding words two languages may share. Biblical Hebrew may have 12 different words for a concept, while English may have 5 - how does one translate these words without giving a sense of false reptition?
<<<< An example of the above is the standard translations of Psalm 147:12. Compare the English translations on this page, and notice that "Praise" is used twice, even though the Hebrew has two different imperatives (see here for a quick reference on the Hebrew).
Praise the LORD, O Jerusalem!
Praise your God, O Zion!
(NASB - 1995)
The NJPS translation gets it a little better and manages to show that two different imperatives are used - but in the process they create a perfect chiasmus where there is an partial one in the Hebrew; notice the changed word order:
O Jerusalem, glorify the LORD;
Praise your God, O Zion!
So which translation can claim correctness? Well..neither, completely. One can claim a closer approximation of the verbs used, but may perhaps be less than desirable for approximating word order in the original. >>>>
Biblical Hebrew may have words that have NO exact English equivalent, such as our initial focus in this initial part of the thread: torah. The word does not have an exact equivalent in English, as it has the combined meanings of "instruction", "teaching", "law", etc. in the earlier books of the Hebrew Bible - and choosing one equivalent over the other does not give it's complete, intended sense in most instances.
This does't even tackle the other meanings that arose (the "Five Books of Moses", a scroll used in a Synagogue, the complete corpus of oral and written practices in Judaism), whether from being used as a single word or as part of a phrase ("the Book of the Torah of Moses", for example). As I pointed out briefly in an earlier post, even the English word "Book" is highly anachronistic and incorrect: they did not have "books", and the word might better be served by "document" (though this has connotations in English that do not exactly match the Hebrew - again!).
Personally, I think that a biblical translation automatically implies the need for notes, or a commentary of some sort - for no translation can completely make the original's intent and meaning completely understood in and of itself, especially considering that there are thousands of years standing between us and it. Where the translation comes from shouldn't matter, as long as it serves the needs of the reader, without betraying the original text too much!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Not to worry. I'm an ordinary bod without a single certificate to conceal my hideous wallpaper and I am questioning to learn, rather than to instruct, here. Whopper's stunning erudition helps in showing that the Pentateuch or OT, as we Goys have it is not the simple written down by Moses one- piece reliable book but has many layers and some different and evidently contradictory input.
I don't know where this leaves you with traditions, but to me, what Whoppers is doing is not arguing that the Bible is not inerrant, accurate history or the given word of God. Inerrancy is long gone as an argument, accurate historicity is out of the window and inspiration from God at least is looking far less likely than several writers with an agenda of their own.
What we have to do is not argue about whether it is was written by men at a relatively late late, but by what men, how late and what was in their minds when they wrote or rewrote it.
Thanks for the compliment, Arequipa!
I am also learning, every day. If a day goes by without me learning something new, I feel as if I have wasted time or missed an opportunity. With the addition of my other interests, I regret the briefness of life - for it severely hampers my chances of comprehending or enjoying everything I set my mind upon.
I think the interesting aspect of looking at inner-biblical exegesis (like we did with the Chronicler's legal exegesis, which Fishbane puts under the category of Legal Exegesis with Verbatim, Paraphrastic, or Pseudo-Citatins in Historical Sources) is that it indicates that the Jewish tradition of midrash and rabbinic commentary, and the oral torah especially, can be found as far back as the Biblical period - especially in post-Exilic writings. I think Flipflop might find this interesting, seeing as rabbinic interpretation of Torah is a major part of the orthodox Jewish Tradition. The Chronicler was doing what - in essence - the later rabbis were doing in the Talmud, when they held long question and answer sections on what a particular biblical verse meant. This soon became it's own body of law and tradition. An analogy would be the way the constitution has been reinterpreted by later legal rulings and ammendments.
Another interesting factor is the transition from the prophetic "word of God/YHWH" to the written "word of God/YHWH" after the Exile. Judaism gradually became the "religion of the Book", and the idea of inspiration (that God spoke through the prophets and Moses) became extended to include ALL the books of the Hebrew Bible. This might entail us looking at how this happened, especially when the scibes declared that the "age of prophecy" was dead. Another interting thing we might have to deal with is the idea of authorship in the ANE, as well as scribal schools, and what book Jeremiah was condeming when he used his famous line "the lying pen of the scribes". It might be a book that is surprising to some!
At this point, there should be no clash of Tradition vs Secularism - for we have so far been dealing with phenomena that have been part and parcel of the Jewish Tradition. At least we're having fun so far, I hope, right?
When I awoke this morning, the very first thing i did, was the very first thing I do every single day of my life. I recite a prayer called "Mode Ani," which in a nutshell, thanks G-d for restoring my soul to me for another day. It may be different with you, but G-d is deeply involved with my every day doings, and I don't feel in the slightest that He has left me alone.
.
As an ex Christian I understand, many years ago I lost the confidence of those who represent an interpretation of the faith, beginning with a hypothesis of a different path where knowledge goes to replace the idea of a creative and inexhaustible force.
In every human being can not exist only two dimensions "spirit and materia" it is clear that the existence needs to exist more invisible forces.
I do not know the message of the 5 holy books, but I think they are an ancient knowledge proof that everything has already been and has already occurred and the eternity is behind us and not before, the missing link that allows to modern human being to connect the current perception of reality in my opinion is the solution to the divine hypothesis
The relationship between science and religious texts can be analyzed at various levels. One of these is to attempt to resolve the conflict between what is narrated in them and the findings of science. In particular, as is known, according to the first chapters of the main documents in the three monotheistic, ( we can't forget such as the admission of a W. Pope ones has given rise to the other two) the world was created in 6 days, and plant and animal species were created each individually and separately.
The rabbinic tradition also states that the creation occurred 5771 years ago. The current scientific theories hold that the universe has existed for about 14 billion years.
I think that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally, if my hypothesis is valid, the perceived sacredness in it becomes questionable, but according to the criteria of an ancient knowledge far into the past.
And it was ... the sound of creation, the divine entity created the visible and invisible dimensions in 6 days perhaps it alluded to six eternities and not only by a single entity but a multitude.
Don't you think that modern humans lack the ability to connect logic and knowledge at last even Albert E. failing to explain the existence of unknown forces beyond the human dimension ........ said that there are proof of a divine entity in everything
Well, please tell us more of what YOU believe, and why, and ask anything you want. I am a non-Christian and proud of it. I am a non-theist. Like everyone else on this planet, I do not have all the answers, maybe not even all of the questions. Nobody Does. But I enjoy learning and exploring.
I do not agree with everything Arequipa posts and he probably does not agree with everything I post but we seem to learn from each otehr and we share some good ideas.
As for the Thread, the OP asked about a current theory of authorship of the Pentateuch so we will be keeping this thread as much as we can on that topic, but feel free to start any thread and we will do what we can IF we have any background or interest on the subject. If we disagree, so be it. The important thing, and I stress this to no end, please bring reasons and facts and the how and why behind what you are saying. People will take you a lot more seriously then.
hey man
l'm almost in the same situation, the different is that l've too much to learn and nothing to teach.. very glad to know you
l agree that Arequipa is a good discussion partner, but sometimes he uses a deadly weapon ..the British sense of humor.. ..ahhh 4 o'clock in Italy it is time for a good cup of English tea
totally agree with you, even more the past Pope did consider the Israelites as mayor brothers in the spiritual sense...the bible comes from your cult
Thanks, I think!
What "cult" do you think I'm in, by the way? Are you referring to that party in Dunwich where we tried to resurrect the Old Ones? Man, that was a long time ago, and it didn't really work out for us.
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
It is my understanding that they were not to eat the meat cooked in water but roasted with fire:
Exo 12:9 Do not eat any of it underdone or cooked by being cooked in water, but rather roasted with fire, even its head along with its shanks and with its inwards.
2Ch 35:13 And they cook the passover with fire, according to the ordinance, and the sanctified things they have cooked in pots, and in kettles, and in pans--for all the sons of the people.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers Now include Deuteronomy 16:6-7 in that equation to find the same exact Passover procedure (concerning the preparation of the paschal lamb) with the prescription that they are to boil it. These two separate law codes (the ones in Exodus and Deuteronomy) conflicted, but the Chronicler cvalued them both as all part of the same over-all law-code and combined them to arrive at "boil" in "fire" - thus retaining (in a weird sense) both prescriptions.
The instructions are that the Passover is not to be boiled or cooked in water but roasted.
Deuteronomy 16:5-7 You cannot sacrifice the passover within any one of your gates which Yahweh
your Elohim is giving to you, (6) but rather only in the place that Yahweh your Elohim shall choose to
tabernacle His name. There shall you sacrifice the passover in the evening as the sun sets, the
appointed time of your going forth from Egypt. (7) Then you will cook and eat in the place that Yahweh
your Elohim shall choose, and you may turn around in the morning and go to your tents.
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
It is my understanding that they were not to eat the meat cooked in water but roasted with fire:
Exo 12:9 Do not eat any of it underdone or cooked by being cooked in water, but rather roasted with fire, even its head along with its shanks and with its inwards.
2Ch 35:13 And they cook the passover with fire, according to the ordinance, and the sanctified things they have cooked in pots, and in kettles, and in pans--for all the sons of the people.
The instructions are that the Passover is not to be boiled or cooked in water but roasted.
Deuteronomy 16:5-7 You cannot sacrifice the passover within any one of your gates which Yahweh
your Elohim is giving to you, (6) but rather only in the place that Yahweh your Elohim shall choose to
tabernacle His name. There shall you sacrifice the passover in the evening as the sun sets, the
appointed time of your going forth from Egypt. (7) Then you will cook and eat in the place that Yahweh
your Elohim shall choose, and you may turn around in the morning and go to your tents.
Check out the earlier posts to see why the word "cook" in Deut. 16:7 is better translated as "boil" in English. The specificity of the cooking method is important here, as the Chronicler realized. If not, his strange conflation "boil in fire" would have been unnecessary.
Check out the earlier posts to see why the word "cook" in Deut. 16:7 is better translated as "boil" in English. The specificity of the cooking method is important here, as the Chronicler realized. If not, his strange conflation "boil in fire" would have been unnecessary.
Your earlier post does not accord with what is written.
The passover was not to be boiled in water but cooked in fire. You can't just import your ideas into a passage of scripture so you make sure it makes it contradictory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
