Please someone answer me this;

[chair]

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.

 

[annabenedetti]

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?

 

[Right Divider]

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.

 

[annabenedetti]

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?

 

[chair]

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".

 

[annabenedetti]

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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[chair]

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:

While the layman Jew may have 'some' insight into contradictions, Maimonides defines Orthodox Judaism. Unorthodox Jews exist of course (apparently you).

Ah, so you've passed your bar mitzvah.

In our (Christian) camp, we call these biased and unlearned.

 

[chair]

...

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.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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.

 

[Fred Eans]

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

 

[JudgeRightly]

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.

 

[chair]

Chair. This is not bullying. Youre impying that the only thing we can stand on never existed.

If the Bible is flawed at all there is no basis for anyone's belief in your religion or ours. We're better off practicing witchcraft which will at least give us some sort of power over the temporal life.

I've sworn off witchcraft and the cesspool in the hopes of getting my soul back into the eternal hands if he'll take me back at all. And others here and I don't appreciate anyone who tells me that the bible is flawed in any way.

If other non observant Jews are just like you I question the purpose for their existence and what they base any sort of credibility on.

Chair, if the Bible is significantly flawed, what is the basis of your credibility as a Jew?

Hasn't your Judaism actually become something else entirely if it's not based on the Bible or Torah?

In which case, call it something else.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

First of all, I am not a "non-observant Jew".

I follow my people's ancient traditions. Some of these are oral, some were written a thousand years ago, and the core text, teh Torah, was written 3,000 years ago. All of these are holy, the Torah (OT of the Bible) being the oldest, holiest, and most authoritative.

For me, as a Jew, this is very straightforward.

Those who insist that the Bible is God's Literal Word need to think: "how do you know this?" There is no proof of this. The Bible itself doesn't claim this.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Those who insist that the Bible is God's Literal Word need to think: "how do you know this?" There is no proof of this. The Bible itself doesn't claim this.

Sure it does:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. - Romans 3:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:1-2&version=NKJV

 

[chair]

Sure it does:

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. - Romans 3:1-2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:1-2&version=NKJV

1. For me Romans isn't the Bible. It is a letter that Paul wrote
2. All that verse proves is that Paul thought that the "oracles of God" were committed to the Jews. Whatever the "oracles are
3. what are the "oracles of god?" could be a few things....
4. You can try using that verse to prove something about the OT, but not the NT.

 

[Aimiel]

1. For me Romans isn't the Bible. It is a letter that Paul wrote
2. All that verse proves is that Paul thought that the "oracles of God" were committed to the Jews. Whatever the "oracles are
3. what are the "oracles of god?" could be a few things....
4. You can try using that verse to prove something about the OT, but not the NT.

Your disregard of Paul's letters (about 2/3 of the New Testament) don't change the fact that they are Holy Scripture. You don't get to decide what is or isn't God's Word.

 

[Lon]

There has been some arrogant bullying from your side:

While the layman Jew may have 'some' insight into contradictions, Maimonides defines Orthodox Judaism. Unorthodox Jews exist of course (apparently you).

Let me understand: Are you saying you have an equal grasp as your Rabbi? The 'apparent' was more of a guess/question not a slam. Maybe English is different on this side of the ocean? There is no implied slam, but there are camps/groups that hold to certain positions.

Originally Posted by Lon
Ah, so you've passed your bar mitzvah.

Probably another bit of odd humor that slipped by. In the U.S., lawyers pass their 'bar' exam. I also was trying to say I recognize that all Jewish boys learn Hebrew by 13. It wasn't supposed to be more than saying I'm aware that you've had to have had Hebrew. I'd dare say, you are better versed than I, but that wasn't the original reason I brought it up. I brought it up simply to say I'm at least educated a bit to be able to hang with you through any of the language difficulties (if it were brought up). That point was further to just indicate that I'm read/versed in many of the problematic passages.

In our (Christian) camp, we call these biased and unlearned.

Look at the context again, I went on to say who I was talking about: The so-called higher critic. There is a bit of addressing you within contexts of the discussion but ONLY (as I've said a couple of times) for the larger discussion. We have 'higher' critics and atheists and such on TOL. I don't only engage you, but also am engaging the larger context of this discussion.

At that point, if there is anything you have in common with the so-called higher critic, I simply cannot apologize for what I believe is a dismal education. It simply will not do, when they've been proven over and over again to be arrogantly ignorant. The early Germans can be forgive a bit in ignorance because the Dead Sea Scrolls etc. hadn't been found yet. I was watching that video I linked "Patterns of Evidence" and was amazed yet again, that a 'so-called' archeologist was saying the Exodus couldn't have happened. That guy, also, I'm more than convinced, will be found wanting but sadly he'll be long dead by the time someone 'could' have called him on the carpet for his bold-faced assertions.

Even today, it simply does not make sense that anybody would lie about captivity in Egypt. It doesn't bode well for the critic/skeptic. It makes no intelligent sense. What those guys SHOULD be saying is, 'we haven't found any evidence at this time' like the better scholars and archaeologist are saying.

 

[Lon]

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.

Sort of. I WAS in category 4 THEN shifted to 1 (opposite of you). I've become MORE certain the text is authoritative (first) and because of that, that it certainly must seen as infallible. When the scripture tells you to honor your father and mother, you probably (like me) knew your parents were fallible. However, I didn't understand their fallibility until I myself matured. Even in that, there is an 'expectation' from God that you 'follow' instruction, not correct it. It brings a WHOLE other difference to the way we read those scriptures 'if' one is reading them and readily keying in upon errors: In the same way it'd be wrong from me to itemize my parent's failures before you (not honoring), it'd be wrong for me to point out any problem in the text 'if there even were any.'

I'm not saying I have grown to ignore problem texts. Rather, I've learned to put them in what I believe is an appropriate and God-given God-demanded perspective. Now, after all that, I'm convinced that your former observation is the correct one: We simply aren't always told everything, it hardly necessitates 'mistake' though it does mean 'mystery' and I prefer it because it doesn't assert what is impossible to prove or disprove. It simply says "I don't know" and I believe it is the correct stance (and again, it comes from you as well thus imho, is the better if not best position). If you will, it is where 'we laymen' best fit as well. It keeps us from being audacious.

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.

Er, it does, but we are handicapped proving the point with only the OT with you (why I pointed to Psalm 19). The Jews who wrote the New Testament books are much stronger on this point.

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

It may seem that way, but there are two problems 1) That authority of God and His prophets is a respect and not a 'correction' issue and 2) that the N.T. (which you'll have to forgive, I can't get away from) asserts much more.

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.

Again, are you saying you are as learned as your Rabbi? I've been in church my whole life, so I've had about the English equivalent, but I'd never have said that I was anything but a layman. After attending seminary, the difference is pronounced (I learned a LOT).

I simply must ask if you are as educated and learned as your Rabbi.

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

After doing this more than 100 times? :nono: I don't think so. Now who is belittling who? As I said "YOU" came up with a better answer, even, than this. "Something missing/not told" is an incredibly better answer. How in the world could I be less honest than AGREEING with you on that notion??? :idunno:

 

[Lon]

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.

I think he's addressing the O.P. (had me wondering too):

I know there are some who think that I am being facetious but 40 years to walk 1,500 miles ? And leave no trace of passage?

 

[JudgeRightly]

1. For me Romans isn't the Bible. It is a letter that Paul wrote

Do you think that what the Apostle Peter wrote is Scripture?

2. All that verse proves is that Paul thought that the "oracles of God" were committed to the Jews. Whatever the "oracles are
3. what are the "oracles of god?" could be a few things....

https://www.gotquestions.org/oracles-of-God.html

So, what do YOU think Paul meant by "oracles of God" (the greek literally means, "words of God")

4. You can try using that verse to prove something about the OT, but not the NT.

Why not?