Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Please someone answer me this;

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Eans View Post
    Christians such as yourself, make it more difficult for the little ones. The formula you provide makes it more difficult to understand the more important things. While you don’t realize it, you are adding to the Bible, which is a no no. The subject you use in the formula is a mind crowder. The time period you use was dealing in miracles. God being with them, there are many things that happened that are not written. I will bring to your attention the fact that the shoes they began the forty years with, were in as good a shape at the conclusion. The walked in a circle it makes no difference how big the circle, God was punishing them. He could have done them in right away to save time, but time was what God had the most of. Thank you. Fred Eans
    Who are you talking to?

    Please use the "Reply with Quote" button when responding to a post, or if you're on Tapatalk, select the post you're replying to, then hit the reply button.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Eans
    replied
    Christians such as yourself, make it more difficult for the little ones. The formula you provide makes it more difficult to understand the more important things. While you don’t realize it, you are adding to the Bible, which is a no no. The subject you use in the formula is a mind crowder. The time period you use was dealing in miracles. God being with them, there are many things that happened that are not written. I will bring to your attention the fact that the shoes they began the forty years with, were in as good a shape at the conclusion. The walked in a circle it makes no difference how big the circle, God was punishing them. He could have done them in right away to save time, but time was what God had the most of. Thank you. Fred Eans

    Leave a comment:


  • JudgeRightly
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    There are several ways one can look at the text:
    1. With the 'understanding' that it is God's Word, and therefore perfect. In which case everything can and must be explained somehow.
    2. With the 'understanding' that it is a flawed human document, and every inconsistency proves that it is flawed and full or errors, and thus the Bible is basically useless
    3. With the 'understanding' that is is ancient, holy and authoritative, even though it is largely authored by humans
    4. With no presumptions at all, and see where it takes you
    1 is a false dichotomy because you're assuming that because it's God's word it must therefore be perfect or it isn't God's word.

    2 is wrong because it wrongly assumes that everything that has errors in it is useless, which is not the case at all.

    3 is mostly correct, but you're forgetting that only God could write a book using 40 men over such a long period of time and have the details line up so well. (In other words, try getting 40 authors together in one room today and try to have them write a 66 chapter story that flows well from one chapter to the next.)

    4 is only possible if one is intellectually honest, and can get an overview of what it is that he is reading. If so, it leads to an understanding of the following...

    That you're forgetting a fifth option, one that I have stated previously:

    5. We can look at the text with the understanding that it is God's word, authored across a period of about 1600 years, by men inspired by God, perfect in it's original manuscripts, but corrupted by time through errors made during transmission of the texts to preserve them and through changes in spelling and grammar, none of which renders the Bible inaccurate or unreliable, because the Bible is a thick book that tells a story, where the message of the story has remained the same since it was originally written, that God created the universe and everything in it, that man, His ultimate creation, rebelled against him, that the earth was destroyed in a catastrophic flood, that God set apart a nation to be His own, and that through that nation a Savior would come to save the nation and ultimately the world, that the nation rejected their Messiah and were cut off and the world grafted in, and that eventually the Messiah would return to graft His nation back in again, that the world will end, the wicked shall be judged, and those who love Him shall live with Him forever.

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    ...

    Let me say it better: There is a difference in agenda between trying to figure something out that is bothersome, vs. attributing a label of 'error.' ...
    I don't think I've used the term 'error', but let's leave that alone for now.

    There are several ways one can look at the text:
    1. With the 'understanding' that it is God's Word, and therefore perfect. In which case everything can and must be explained somehow.
    2. With the 'understanding' that it is a flawed human document, and every inconsistency proves that it is flawed and full or errors, and thus the Bible is basically useless
    3. With the 'understanding' that is is ancient, holy and authoritative, even though it is largely authored by humans
    4. With no presumptions at all, and see where it takes you

    You are in category 1, though you pretend that you are in 4. You are making assumptions about the text, and then get riled up in your arrogant way about those who make other assumptions.
    I was in category 1 in my youth, shifted to 4 for a while (or at least thought that I did- it is nearly impossible to really do so), and now I am in 3. This is this most reasonable approach.

    If you are in #1, you must explain every problem (in your terms 'apparent problem', or 'what ignorant people think is a problem') in the text somehow. There have been several mentioned in this thread (like who killed Goliath, and who tempted David. Care to explain those?). You can convince yourself like this, but it is a game for those who start out totally convinced of the Bible being God's Word to start with. A claim that the Bible doesn't make for itself, by the way.

    Reality is #3. It is an uncomfortable reality for those who require absolutes in their life, but so it goes.


    Please do both of us a favor, stop talking down to me. I am not ignorant, not a German Bible Critic, and not a liberal progressive non-traditional Jew who barely finished his Bar Mitzvah lessons.

    I think you are intellectually dishonest. Your claim of "Investigating" and waiting out the truth is the actual academic standard." is not convincing when you 'know' in advance what the answer is.

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    I realize there are some points you could take as banter or accusation or just schoolyard bullying but as I said, some of this is simply for the thread and more to a propositional you, than you, you and some of it is rather a comparison to 'higher critics' for the topic's sake, rather than a stab at you. I will apologize, if you'll point out in quote, what specifically bothered you, though there is/was no intention.
    There has been some arrogant bullying from your side:

    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    While the layman Jew may have 'some' insight into contradictions, Maimonides defines Orthodox Judaism. Unorthodox Jews exist of course (apparently you).
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    Ah, so you've passed your bar mitzvah.
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    In our (Christian) camp, we call these biased and unlearned.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    It is rather curious that you have jumped to all sorts of conclusions about my personal knowledge, background, beliefs and practices, based on the fact that I disagree with you. You are plain wrong about me.

    I started studying Hebrew in first grade. That was 54 years ago. I've been studying the classic Jewish texts ever since. I'll admit that my Talmudic Aramaic is rusty, but I am a far cry from the ignorant progressive Jew you imagine. There are those who know and doubt and question and still stick to our traditions. Perhaps it doesn't fit in with your concept of "I'm right, anybody who disagrees with me is ignorant", but so it goes. You owe me an apology for mislabeling me.
    I realize there are some points you could take as banter or accusation or just schoolyard bullying but as I said, some of this is simply for the thread and more to a propositional you, than you, you and some of it is rather a comparison to 'higher critics' for the topic's sake, rather than a stab at you. I will apologize, if you'll point out in quote, what specifically bothered you, though there is/was no intention. I have to stay opposed to the value of higher criticism.

    "For the most part, you can EITHER look for resolution OR doubt. "
    no. one can doubt and look at the same time.
    Let me say it better: There is a difference in agenda between trying to figure something out that is bothersome, vs. attributing a label of 'error.' The two are incompatible and one desire to preserve the authority and claims of the text. The other fails and often is nowhere near as academic as the one who reads for solution. You, yourself, come up with a better 'inductive' (vs. deductive) approach that does no damage to the text.

    Originally posted by chair View Post
    I don't blindly follow the 'classic' German Bible criticism. I haven't even read much of it.
    This doesn't distance from it well, blindly or not.

    Originally posted by chair View Post
    I am just quite aware of what the text actually says- something which your prefer to ignore.
    I don't believe so. You make mention of a better answer than 'incorrect' in a moment and I'll point it out. More, that it HAS to necessarily be and remain the better answer. To me, it is good that you are the one to bring it up, but it is the opposite of concluding an error. "Concluding, assessing," or in any other way asserting an error is deductive rather than inductive in approach. It means it necessarily is an assertion upon the text instead of a reality drawn from it. It is an imposition upon it. It is held in the mind of the reader and not anywhere substantiated 'by' the text. Barring proof, it is but a reasonable/unreasonable drawn conclusion.
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    There are differing views among traditional Jews as to who wrote the Bible, or which parts were written by who. The Ibn Ezra comes to mind, as well as some discussions in the Talmud. But of course, as an expert you are aware of that. What isn't in question is that they are authoritative.
    I appreciate the shared value of their authority. "Expert?" I simply said I'm educated. I'd guess this is where you were thrown off. Do you claim to be as versed, lets say, as your Rabbi? Certainly not all laymen Jews would make that claim? Where (please) is the offense? None was intended. If it is of any note or weight, I generally enjoy discussing things on TOL with and have learned a thing or two. I've never been to Israel, for instance.

    Originally posted by chair View Post
    I chose the Noah and the birds issue as an example because it is one of the first ones in the Bible, and because numbers are clear-cut. One can claim that there is a difference between clean and unclean birds, and 'resolve' the issue, but then one has to say that something is missing from the text.
    There. you said it better right here. "...something missing..." then, is not a contradiction. It is a better assumption (and I concur) but for both of us, still an inference. Rather it is the better inference because it isn't malicious or questioning the veracity of the text. It is simply noticing two things are different for 'whatever' reason.

    Originally posted by chair View Post
    There are many other examples of these types of textual difficulties. If one is willing to consider that the text was written by inspired humans, and that it isn't Gods Literal Word, these are of no concern. And there is no theological need for it to be God's Word. Not for me, at least.
    Hebrews 11:1 Not sure if it speaks to your concern nor how much awareness you have of the New Testament (not a slam, just not sure how read you happen to be). Inerrancy,,however, isn't peculiar to Christians (back to Maimonides discussion). Psalm 19 comes to mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • annabenedetti
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    There is a nation called the Jews. The Jewish nation has a religion, which in modern times is called "Judaism". Judaism is action-oriented. Jews who are more traditional and observe the Jewish laws are called "observant", or sometimes "sabbath-observant". They aren't called "believing Jews".
    Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
    I didn't know that. Would you mind elaborating on it sometime?
    There is a nation called the Jews. The Jewish nation has a religion, which in modern times is called "Judaism". Judaism is action-oriented. Jews who are more traditional and observe the Jewish laws are called "observant", or sometimes "sabbath-observant". They aren't called "believing Jews".

    Leave a comment:


  • annabenedetti
    replied
    Originally posted by jmibnorthern
    Chair is correct. They dont have to believe anything. They believe their bloodline saves them no matter what they do...
    With all due respect, I'll wait for Chair to answer.

    Adam Sandler, Jerry Springer, Sacha Baron Cohen, Been Stiller. These are the only people that come to mind when I think of the holocaust.
    Why are they the only people who come to your mind?

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by jmibnorthern
    They were walking in circles. They only walked from the pyramids in Cairo to Isreal. 129 hr walk if it were around the Red Sea. (Google Maps.) They stayed at Mt Saini for a very long time. God was purging them for 2 generations because they kept grumbling. God didn't give them their promise until they were right with him. Same as God does to everyone.
    The salvation of the apostle Paul proves you wrong on your last claim.

    Leave a comment:


  • annabenedetti
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    For the record, I am an observant Jew. I do not like the term "Orthodox" which implies that Judaism is a belief-based religion like Christianity. It isn't.
    I didn't know that. Would you mind elaborating on it sometime?

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    Ah, so you've passed your bar mitzvah. I didn't say I was an 'expert.' I said I was versed. We were talking rather about what 'contradictions' you were certainly not 'versed' in (not your Hebrew instruction). Well, unless you had an very progressive Rabbi? From what I understand, the exception and rare. ... -Lon
    It is rather curious that you have jumped to all sorts of conclusions about my personal knowledge, background, beliefs and practices, based on the fact that I disagree with you. You are plain wrong about me.

    I started studying Hebrew in first grade. That was 54 years ago. I've been studying the classic Jewish texts ever since. I'll admit that my Talmudic Aramaic is rusty, but I am a far cry from the ignorant progressive Jew you imagine. There are those who know and doubt and question and still stick to our traditions. Perhaps it doesn't fit in with your concept of "I'm right, anybody who disagrees with me is ignorant", but so it goes. You owe me an apology for mislabeling me.

    "For the most part, you can EITHER look for resolution OR doubt. " no. one can doubt and look at the same time.

    I don't blindly follow the 'classic' German Bible criticism. I haven't even read much of it. I am just quite aware of what the text actually says- something which your prefer to ignore.

    There are differing views among traditional Jews as to who wrote the Bible, or which parts were written by who. The Ibn Ezra comes to mind, as well as some discussions in the Talmud. But of course, as an expert you are aware of that. What isn't in question is that they are authoritative.

    I chose the Noah and the birds issue as an example because it is one of the first ones in the Bible, and because numbers are clear-cut. One can claim that there is a difference between clean and unclean birds, and 'resolve' the issue, but then one has to say that something is missing from the text.

    There are many other examples of these types of textual difficulties. If one is willing to consider that the text was written by inspired humans, and that it isn't Gods Literal Word, these are of no concern. And there is no theological need for it to be God's Word. Not for me, at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    so you're an expert on Judaism. I gather that you know Biblical Hebrew, unlike the "layman Jew".
    Ah, so you've passed your bar mitzvah. I didn't say I was an 'expert.' I said I was versed. We were talking rather about what 'contradictions' you were certainly not 'versed' in (not your Hebrew instruction). Well, unless you had an very progressive Rabbi? From what I understand, the exception and rare.
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    And you're aware that Judaism existed long before Maimonides, and the the term "Orthodox Judaism" was only invented recently.
    ONLY because of progressive and liberal departures. The terms are rather a demarcation 'from' those no longer following those traditions. The rift is the cause of the labeling of camps. I'm not aware of many 'ancient' Jews that questioned the veracity of scriptures. Some? Sure. We all have our liberals and/or nare-do-wells. It is only when it becomes necessary that we create an identity of difference. The Catholics have Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 disclaimers. It isn't that either is a new condition, but rather that the clash became stark. As I understand it, this is similar with 'orthodox' vs. 'unorthodox' Jews.

    Originally posted by chair View Post
    What is notably lacking from your post is any explanation of how the verses are consistent. It sounds like you are appealing to blind faith. "It can't possibly be contradictory, therefore it isn't". Maybe that works for you, but not for me.
    It 'sounds' like you are quite a layman without really knowing the extent of discussion in 'theology' circles, both Jewish and Christianity by nature. Head in the sand? This problem has been extensively addressed, (on Google even! ). In our (Christian) camp, we call these biased and unlearned. You are going to have to forgive us, the German liberal 'higher (so called) criticism' left us rolling our eyes, especially when all the accusation was clearly unsubstantial. "Questioning" veracity, afterall, is a negative intellectual capacity. "Investigating" and waiting out the truth is the actual academic standard. These so-called 'higher' critics were nothing of the sort and proven wrong simply by Dead Sea Scrolls and archaeology. Will we find evidence of a mass Egyptian exodus? Yeah, I think we will. In my lifetime? Doesn't matter. It is a very limited myopic skeptic to demand it. At the very least, in my camp (Christian), we've worked alongside Jewish historians and scholars to show much of skepticism simply isn't rational let alone warranted. Why? Because the 'history' of such skepticism proves out wrong in the end. We DID find the Scrolls. We did find archaeology supporting, etc. etc. It is simply naught but unfounded (unfoundable) skepticism with little to no academic prowess (let alone effort) behind it (not sure where you fall in any of this, but I think addressing the history of liberal skepticism is appropriate for thread and topic).

    For the most part, you can EITHER look for resolution OR doubt. This, btw, is the discussion point in thread, but I enjoy/appreciate the peripheral discussion and I think it adds to the thread topic. Simply 'thinking' there is a discrepancy is not a problem but trying to say their is an 'obvious' contradiction isn't academic to me. It nearly always implies and points to a posture 'about' the scriptures before you or I ever got here. The address and response to the number of animals is more than satisfactory to anyone but a staunch position otherwise. The answer is acceptable because it actually 'works' WITH the scriptures for the explanation. Of course, for 40 days and nights, there was going to need to be ritual and food. The amount then would apply specifically to the animals to be gathered and the animals already gathered. Even to the most skeptical, this IS reasonable and fits the text. You don't have to 'like' it, but then we are talking 'preference' rather than academics at that point, aren't we?
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    For the record, I am an observant Jew. I do not like the term "Orthodox" which implies that Judaism is a belief-based religion like Christianity. It isn't. Despite Maimonides.
    I'm in a discussion over metaphysics and proofs in another thread so it is interesting you'd say this. If you would, I'd like to hear this explained a bit further. My initial reaction is "wrong, nuh-uh Habakkuk 2:4" but that's just knee-jerk. I need to know more precisely what you mean by it, if you would (thank you). -Lon

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by Lon View Post
    Again, I've read them. I'm versed in the languages of them. While the layman Jew may have 'some' insight into contradictions, Maimonides defines Orthodox Judaism. Unorthodox Jews exist of course (apparently you). From what I've read, there is just as much a problem between Conservative/Liberal Jews, as between Conservative Orthodox and liberal Christians. The Conservative questions (rightly) the reinterpretation of situational ethics.

    Genesis 6:19-20
    Genesis 7:2-3

    Absolutely NO contradiction. Some get caught up in 'apparent' that they can't or won't think out of the box they are in. "WHY" is more important than the fact one is caught in such over the disagreement. I find most often, it is 'agenda' thus confirmation bias that steers this whenever I've encountered it.
    so you're an expert on Judaism. I gather that you know Biblical Hebrew, unlike the "layman Jew". And you're aware that Judaism existed long before Maimonides, and the the term "Orthodox Judaism" was only invented recently.

    What is notably lacking from your post is any explanation of how the verses are consistent. It sounds like you are appealing to blind faith. "It can't possibly be contradictory, therefore it isn't". Maybe that works for you, but not for me.

    For the record, I am an observant Jew. I do not like the term "Orthodox" which implies that Judaism is a belief-based religion like Christianity. It isn't. Despite Maimonides.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lon
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    There is a God.
    The texts are contradictory. Period.
    Again, I've read them. I'm versed in the languages of them. While the layman Jew may have 'some' insight into contradictions, Maimonides defines Orthodox Judaism. Unorthodox Jews exist of course (apparently you). From what I've read, there is just as much a problem between Conservative/Liberal Jews, as between Conservative Orthodox and liberal Christians. The Conservative questions (rightly) the reinterpretation of situational ethics.

    Genesis 6:19-20
    Genesis 7:2-3

    Absolutely NO contradiction. Some get caught up in 'apparent' that they can't or won't think out of the box they are in. "WHY" is more important than the fact one is caught in such over the disagreement. I find most often, it is 'agenda' thus confirmation bias that steers this whenever I've encountered it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X