|
3 registered members (Quad, Ayumi, AndrewAMD),
1,092
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100817
12/08/06 08:37
12/08/06 08:37
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Quote:
You also have to ask yourself if it is God's will, does that mean its necessarily a 'good' thing?
Well , I suppose the answer should be : Yes it is
Anyway I can partially accept your explanation about the necessity of killing also the children
The point is that in the Bible there are also examples of "pure" sadism
Again I am repeating what I have read in other books, I did not check the original source
There were harsh discussions , in the past, about these points, among theologists
They came up with the usual explanation
"The bible must not be understood " litteraly "
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: AlbertoT]
#100818
12/08/06 13:30
12/08/06 13:30
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
A.Russell
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
|
For someone who likes to apply Occams famous razor, JCL,　that is a lot of crap. To make things as simple as possible, what do you really think actually happened regarding the amazing peice of literature that has become/made it, to todays bloody Holy Bible?
Alberto (despite coming from SA) and Irish Farmer (although coming form southern North America) -you should be ashamed Alberto! I'm surprised your peers don't pick on you for the [censored] idiot you are!-, are obviously full of [censored], or shite, or bullshit, whatever. Oh ye of little faith! Watch your tiny world crumble around thee (you).
(I can undrstand for Iish Farmer, because nearly everyone from that region of the world is brain dead by birth right, as it seems. All the Scottish immigrants went straight to the south, where something in the water, not the lime that makes Scotch Whiskey famous, made them all insane religious fanatics).
Last edited by A.Russell; 12/08/06 13:46.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: AlbertoT]
#100820
12/08/06 23:39
12/08/06 23:39
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Well , I suppose the answer should be : Yes it is
Well, it can be both good and bad. Good in that its an act that will lead to the greater good, but bad in the sense that they killed kids. The bible doesn't gloss over the harsh realities of those times.
Quote:
The point is that in the Bible there are also examples of "pure" sadism
Well, I wouldn't give too much credence to that opinion just yet. I think its important to fully understand both sides of the argument (even if you don't like fundamentalists). I don't think I've heard of any argument set forth about God being unjust that has stood up to a counterargument. That doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means I haven't heard of one at this time.
Quote:
There were harsh discussions , in the past, about these points, among theologists
They came up with the usual explanation
"The bible must not be understood " litteraly "
Yeah, but many christians also started to question the bible over slavery, when it turned out they just misunderstood what was written in the text and added their own modern notions to ancient times.
The Church in general has done a terrible job of giving christians any kind of critical thinking ability (in regards to the bible), and for that matter any kind of real understanding of their own faith.
Quote:
For someone who likes to apply Occams famous razor, JCL,　that is a lot of crap. To make things as simple as possible, what do you really think actually happened regarding the amazing peice of literature that has become/made it, to todays bloody Holy Bible?
Alberto (despite coming from SA) and Irish Farmer (although coming form southern North America) -you should be ashamed Alberto! I'm surprised your peers don't pick on you for the [censored] idiot you are!-, are obviously full of [censored], or shite, or bullshit, whatever. Oh ye of little faith! Watch your tiny world crumble around thee (you).
(I can undrstand for Iish Farmer, because nearly everyone from that region of the world is brain dead by birth right, as it seems. All the Scottish immigrants went straight to the south, where something in the water, not the lime that makes Scotch Whiskey famous, made them all insane religious fanatics).
I would pin my location as being about in the middle of North America, actually. I suppose it depends on how you look at it, but its a stretch to say I live in the 'southern North America'.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 12/08/06 23:44.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100821
12/11/06 08:17
12/11/06 08:17
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Ok, JCL. As a throwback to the old days I've decided to include my ad hominem free rebuttle to your theory.
I just received my Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible Red Letter Edition (finally). That said, I still am not completely sure how to use the darn thing. Its a huge book, and you have to read the instructions in order to know what you're doing (I'll have to read the instructions several times before it sinks in), but so far its been pretty interesting.
After quickly reviewing the basic guidelines, I decided I wanted to do a test 'word study.' My first inspiration is my sister's church, which I consider to be a cult at worst, heretical at best. They have this strange doctrine about 'confessions' where you're not supposed to say things like, "I'm getting sick" because your words will make it happen. To me, I was immediately skeptical of this idea (I used to go to the church), but using the concordance I now know the preacher is more full of crap than I initially believed. As if humanity has God on a leash or something...
Anyhow, my second inspiration was your theory about elohim. I looked this up second of all and got some interesting information on it. The word Elohim is used 2,606 times.
However, the interesting facts lie in its use. Its actually still shrouded in some mystery as to its actual translation, so I don't claim to know for certain what its precise meaning is. However, there appears to be no evidence besides the plural structure of the word to imply that it means multiple gods.
Number one, elohim is used not only throughout both Genesis accounts, its used throughout most of the Old Testament. So apparently the contradiction doesn't lie just in Genesis, but throughout the entire writings of the OT.
Anyway, you could use this to claim that polytheism survived for quite some time. But there are other words used for God, so let's take a look at those first because they're inserted between the use of elohim.
In Genesis, Jehovah (...) or some variant is used a small number of times between the use of elohim. Its singular, meaning of course the self existent one. Strange that in the same text they could use a singular and plural word, and switch it up back and forth.
Ale (?) is also used, and means either power or can describe something as mighty or something along those lines. IE mighty God.
In Exodus, jehovah is switched up with elohim again.
In numbers, ale is again used. It goes on and on like this for some time. Elahh gets mixed in, in the book of Ezra (singular).
From quickly glancing over the rest of the usage before the NT, its just a mixed bag of what we've been seeing so far (with elohim dominating). Interesting to note is that elohim is used to refer to something that is "exceeding", refers to angels, means "goddess", "Godward", "godly". What's clear is that we have a somewhat limited picture of the exact nature of elohim. What is also clear however is that it takes a poor understanding of the bible to assert that this proves the Jews used to be polytheists. Simply saying that the word MUST mean what you think it means, without further examination is a pretty limited way of evaluating complex texts like the bible. I'm not trying to bash you here, since you never claimed to have studied the bible in depth. I'm just saying, whatever source you got your materials from should be checked.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 12/11/06 08:18.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100822
12/11/06 12:37
12/11/06 12:37
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
it takes a poor understanding of the bible to assert that this proves the Jews used to be polytheists
While its clear that all semitic poeples were polytheists of some kind of another in the distant past, i agree that this dosent PROVE it. However, its simply pointed out as a possible survival of polytheism, and nothing more.
Remember also that in the past poeples usually acknowledged the Gods worshipped by others, even if they did not follow them; even more interesting, it was a genreral habit in the Mediterranean world to equate other Gods with one's own.
For instance, Herodotus often refers to various semitic gods as analog-hybrids, like Zeus-Bel, etc.
In other words, to simply view the biblical texts in isolation, without regard to ancient religous and cultural practices is a mistake. After all the First Commandment says "thou shalt have no other god before Me", but this doesnt neccessarily deny that other gods may exist.
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100823
12/11/06 12:46
12/11/06 12:46
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
What is also clear however is that it takes a poor understanding of the bible to assert that this proves the Jews used to be polytheists. Simply saying that the word MUST mean what you think it means, without further examination is a pretty limited way of evaluating complex texts like the bible.
Poor understanding? If the bible had been more 'clear' in the first place you wouldn't even need a concordance book to 'find out what's really meant'. Apart from that, I think you tend to put to much trust in authors of the books you read.
Besides, there are plenty of 'interpretation' issues that are not 'solved' by the concordance, infact it makes it worse. Let me give you an example:
For example, the Divine name YHVH has been said to mean " Self existant one". The superficial definition of it in the strongs give it that meaning as well, but with a little determination one can use this book to discover that it doesnt mean that at all. Hava, or HVH in hebrew, means to breath and/or to become. YHVH then means He is causing breath. However, if you digg even deeper you will see that YHVH also has within it AVAH which means to desire, or wish for, showing Gods ability to simply desire a thing to be. So with all this we can see that YHVH means He who causes to breath, or He who causes to become through breathing, or even He who manifests his desires through breath. Of course, breath being a symbol of life and the actual meaning of Spirit, Ruach, Breath, and not some Phantasmic force, but Gods own voice is creating.
There's a great difference between 'Self existant one' and 'He who manifests his desires through breath' (the latter NOT being a correct translation, but a interpretation instead, people tend to confuse that a LOT!) They are making linguistic jumps all over the place when it comes to claims about the 'true meaning of words'.
Still, when you read that Strong's concordance or Zondervan's concordance for all I care, you will no doubt find out about how bad the KJV actually has been translated by scholars back in the 16th century.
Quote:
"thou shalt have no other god before Me", but this doesnt neccessarily deny that other gods may exist.
Infact, if there would be NO other Gods, why would the Bible even mention this? I do see this as a 'proof' of a somewhat polytheïstic view. I think the remnants in the bible of words or sentences which seem to imply multiple Gods instead of just one God adds too this as well, although it may not directly proof it, we all know we'd have to encounter multiple Gods to prove anything anyways, which makes 'proving' a bit irrelevant in this case. Still, a conclusion which assumes polytheism (or remnants of that) is very legit based on not just that,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: PHeMoX]
#100824
12/11/06 16:37
12/11/06 16:37
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Poor understanding? If the bible had been more 'clear' in the first place you wouldn't even need a concordance book to 'find out what's really meant'. Apart from that, I think you tend to put to much trust in authors of the books you read.
Well, they aren't unaccountable e-authors, but I guess with decades of experience, they certainly require my complete and utter distrust. 
I'll actually be receiving my more in depth Vine's dictionary, which includes the greek and hebrew in more depth. I ordered them both at the same time, but one wasn't directly from Amazon.
Quote:
For example, the Divine name YHVH has been said to mean " Self existant one". The superficial definition of it in the strongs give it that meaning as well, but with a little determination one can use this book to discover that it doesnt mean that at all. Hava, or HVH in hebrew, means to breath and/or to become. YHVH then means He is causing breath. However, if you digg even deeper you will see that YHVH also has within it AVAH which means to desire, or wish for, showing Gods ability to simply desire a thing to be. So with all this we can see that YHVH means He who causes to breath, or He who causes to become through breathing, or even He who manifests his desires through breath. Of course, breath being a symbol of life and the actual meaning of Spirit, Ruach, Breath, and not some Phantasmic force, but Gods own voice is creating.
Its interesting, because when I think about it I saw almost this exact same quote on the reader reviews at amazon.
Anyway, the superficial definition in Strong's does indeed say that. What they do is then go on to explain its initial use, and its roots. What the person you quoted fails to mention is that the actual word used, yehovih (?) is just a variant of the word yehovah (?), which can be traced to hayah, amongst other words. What is the meaning of hayah? to exist, or to be, or to become, come to pass. Then they go on to explain this word further, and it makes sense to consider jehovah to be the self existing one. I'm sure the specific trail that person followed to come to their conclusion also gives you a broader idea of the nature of God in the bible. Because its by his voice/breath that his desire is made manifest. So what he said isn't false, he just falsely claimed that there was no proper reasoning for calling the Lord the self-existent one.
Now, how this relates back to the KJV being a terrible translation, I don't know. Since there's no where in the bible that God is even referred to as self-existing one, and you haven't given any other examples, you've just plainly stated that its a bad translation, I'm kind of left in the dark here.
Quote:
Still, when you read that Strong's concordance or Zondervan's concordance for all I care, you will no doubt find out about how bad the KJV actually has been translated by scholars back in the 16th century.
In fact, I've come to a greater appreciation (so far) of what the scholars had to do to make a successful translation. I'm actually more impressed with their work now, than ever. Of course, I'm sure that could change, but thus far that's been the pattern.
Quote:
"thou shalt have no other god before Me", but this doesnt neccessarily deny that other gods may exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infact, if there would be NO other Gods, why would the Bible even mention this? I do see this as a 'proof' of a somewhat polytheïstic view. I think the remnants in the bible of words or sentences which seem to imply multiple Gods instead of just one God adds too this as well, although it may not directly proof it, we all know we'd have to encounter multiple Gods to prove anything anyways, which makes 'proving' a bit irrelevant in this case. Still, a conclusion which assumes polytheism (or remnants of that) is very legit based on not just that,
Don't you think you're taking a rather limited perspective here?
Number one, if you want to leave it at just this verse, then I could just as well state the the 'gods' referred to here are made up gods that would distract the people from their true Lord. Since you're leaving it so open to interpretation, there's no way to know who's right. Which is why looking elsewhere helps.
Quote:
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [jehovah], and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:10-11
Quote:
Thus saith the LORD [jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God [elohim]. Isaiah 44:6
Quote:
Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD [jehovah] he is God [elohim]; there is none else beside him. (Deut. 4:35)
Etc. Its pretty clear, when you look at the entire picture (as you should), its not open to interpretation. There's no way to reconcile a polytheistic view with a God who says there isn't even any other God besides him in the first place. Apparently, these ancients believed in multiple gods, but they only mention one God who apparently doesn't know about these other gods, and then they don't mention, worship, or otherwise praise these other gods.
I suppose you could be hyper-literal and say that these extra gods are somewhere except right beside the Lord.
Quote:
If the bible had been more 'clear' in the first place you wouldn't even need a concordance book to 'find out what's really meant'.
No, the problem is when so-called 'skeptics' come into play. The try and muddle the topic by reading the bible wrong, so it does take an in depth study to refute their 'skepticism'.
For thousands of years, people have been able to get the plain message of the bible without having to study it in depth, and there have been no problems. Its the "enlightened" folks of the modern era who seem unable to grasp the basic message of the bible, and thus require learned christians to really tear into the text to show them what the deal is. Not that this necessarily applies to anyone here, I'm just making a generalization about the interactions I've seen between 'skeptics' and apologists.
If only the skeptics would apply this same healthy skepticism to unaccountable internet sources. Ah, well. 
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 12/11/06 16:46.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#100825
12/11/06 17:19
12/11/06 17:19
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
I've just looked at the amazon page, yes it's the exact same, except they use it in a different way. Quote:
What the person you quoted fails to mention is that the actual word used, yehovih (?) is just a variant of the word yehovah (?), which can be traced to hayah, amongst other words.
Uhm, Jehovah is a modern reconstruction of the ancient Hebrew name for God but in itself it's an artificial word so you can't link through like that. Off course the word bears the same meaning now, but basically it's a modern version of the word Jehovih, so depending on your view it's simply spelled wrong  ...
Quote:
I'll actually be receiving my more in depth Vine's dictionary, which includes the greek and hebrew in more depth.
I thought you had the version which included those? Anyways, it doesn't matter, the Vine's dictionary is very interesting nevertheless.
Quote:
you've just plainly stated that its a bad translation, I'm kind of left in the dark here.
I'm talking about dozens of errors when looking at the ancient Hebrew and the translations in KJV, nothing special, search the web for some examples, I'm sure they can be found. I currently do not have the time to provide some.
Quote:
For thousands of years, people have been able to get the plain message of the bible without having to study it in depth, and there have been no problems.
I hope you're not claiming the understanding of the bible hasn't changed, because that's silly and definately wrong, just look at the religious sects or movements throughout history, believing in slightly different things. Infact the whole concept of 'church' doesn't quite originate in the bible, am I right? Well, eventhough I think they simply wanted/had power, they do claim to have been 'guiding the(ir) people'.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: The Bible Mystery: Solved
[Re: PHeMoX]
#100826
12/11/06 18:38
12/11/06 18:38
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Uhm, Jehovah is a modern reconstruction of the ancient Hebrew name for God but in itself it's an artificial word so you can't link through like that.
I put question marks after the words, because I didn't know if I was using the correct english equivelant. However, regardless, I was using the directly translated words. In other words, looking at the exact passage where the word "God" appears in english, finding its equivelant in the Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like the dictionary always provides the exact english word, just the pronounciation key or whatever its called. So I was tracing the original word, and attempting to the best of my ability to come up with the english for it, and then looking at its roots which is how I found the meaning of hayah. Whether or not I used the right spelling or whatever isn't relevant to what the word means.
Quote:
I thought you had the version which included those? Anyways, it doesn't matter, the Vine's dictionary is very interesting nevertheless.
It has the 'best of'. I wanted the original book to make sure I have the whole picture when possible.
Quote:
I'm talking about dozens of errors when looking at the ancient Hebrew and the translations in KJV, nothing special, search the web for some examples, I'm sure they can be found. I currently do not have the time to provide some.
I did a quick search, and all I could find were sites outlining the debate between people who think any translation besides the KJV was written by Satan, and people who don't think that.
Quote:
I hope you're not claiming the understanding of the bible hasn't changed, because that's silly and definately wrong, just look at the religious sects or movements throughout history, believing in slightly different things. Infact the whole concept of 'church' doesn't quite originate in the bible, am I right? Well, eventhough I think they simply wanted/had power, they do claim to have been 'guiding the(ir) people'.
You're right, which is why its important that at the very least, christian leaders are well equipped to refute error and heresy. Its also why, me being the person that I am, I want to know as much as possible about the original writings so I can critically examine these 'variants'.
That there are false doctrines, false teachers is an unfortunate truth. I've examined these different sects to a small extent, and to me its pretty plain to see why they're wrong. For instance, Mormons claim that Jehovah is the son, and Elohim is the father (two seperate entities). As you can see in the passages above, Jehovah claims to be Elohim. So which is it? I would take that to mean that the mormons are 'false teachers'. So I agree that perspectives and ideas change, but as I said that just shows the importance of understanding what you believe, and understanding the truth, so that you're not led astray.
I'm not specifically sure what you mean by 'church'. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I literally am not sure what you mean. Do you mean churches like church on the corner? Or the church as a whole, which just includes a metaphysical binding of all believers? Or the corporate existence of an entire church, ie the Catholic Church?
Either way, I'll have to admit that I don't know enough to give an answer. I'd have to look into it personally.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
