|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5864 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
first off, apologies to ringo. i have to differ with you here, for a change.
No one is assuming anything of the sort; what I am saying is that the Bible clearly reveals the concept of marriage with Adam and Eve - an argument supported by Scripture itself - not conjecture; ringo argued above that this is simply interpretation, but i do not see that as the case. such is actually a bit of a short-sighted view of what the bible is. it starts with "we have the bible, and it says ___." and then presumes that any meaning is drawn on top of the literal text. indeed, this is how we should read the text -- BUT. we should not forget that bible exists for a reason. while you undoubedly agree with my conclusion here, i understand that you will take great exception to the details of the argument itself. when we read the bible, part of the key to understanding it is learning the cultural context, background, and function of the text. genesis in particular is a collection of historical and traditional mythology and etiological tales. the explain how things go to be as they are now (eg. the time of authorship). it is, functionally, a book of origins, written to explain things that already existed. this means, essentially, that the story of genesis 2 primarily exists, and indeed was probably written as an explanation for the practice of marriage. it defines the reason for marriage -- that without a wife man is alone. and so you're actually right, genesis 2 does indeed define the concept of marriage. marriage was not invented when someone penned genesis, marriage was practiced long before that and genesis explains why. the problem, however, with your argument, is that it doesn't rely on having two genders. in fact, it relies on the fact that woman is like man, not that she is different than man. the similarity, not the difference, is the argument. even more curious is that god tries animals, first. but adam's not into that sort of thing. there's actually a very strange argument i read that regards this story as the origin of gender, though. it you'd like, i'll go into that in the next post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
sure. let me quote my chumash's footnotes, from chapter 2. (third time today!)
quote: like the other two times i've quoted from these footnotes, i feel obliged to mention the problems. but i'll start with with a pro first: in my somewhat educated opinion, (adam) is a false singular. look at, for instance, genesis 1:27:
quote: it points to adam, "man," as a plural, with the word "them." i think a better translation, in some cases at least, is "mankind." but "adam" certainly refers to both men and women. or at least one man, and one woman. but the next down point should be obvious, i hope. genesis 1:27 uses the word "THEM" for adam. "them" is not a singular, hermaphroditic entity, it is multiple entities. god also does create by separation -- but in genesis 1, not 2. this story is about joining not separating. the other point (one under constant debate) regards whether genesis 2 takes place after genesis 1, during genesis 1, or if it's just a completely separate story that bears no relation. i often argue the last point, because the case is good -- but they have been editted together very well. just badly split into chapters (genesis 1 ends about 3 verses too early). this argument sort of relies on the first point, that genesis 2 takes places after genesis 1, and god first "creates" and then later "forms" things. you can see my rebuttal to that point in the appropriate thread. but i do not see this case as likely. however, if it's true that they are separate, un- or barely-related stories, the technicality of the plural in genesis 1 need not matter. but even in a good reading of that, the usual presumption is that adam, in genesis 1, refers to mankind, while the adam in genesis 2 is a more localized and special creation, or a more ethno-centric story. there are problems with this, too, like the naming of eve. but that's an odd entry, because later the author seems to not care that there are other people around (both for cain to marry, and for cain to fear). anyways, i feel that genesis 2 is not about the origin of gender, from a hermphroditic neutral gender adam. to read it as such is a very ad-hoc attempt to reconcile the two chapters as one story, where such a connection probably does not exist. there are other such attempts, too, such as the story of lilith. but adam's wife is called (ishah, "woman") because she was taken from (ish, "man"). the story hinges contextual on the similarity of the genders. adam says:
quote: man exist, and woman is named for her similarity to mankind -- more similarity than god's first try with the animals. men and women marry, because fundamentally, women are like men in that they are human. in other words, i see nothing in the story that neccessarily specifies gender as a requirement, only similarity. and men are more similar to other men than women are. however, it would be a mistake to think that the authors meant this. such a union seemed utterly outside their cultural context. rather, the implication of the story is that they view men as independent entities, and that women were made for men (this is what happens in the story, afterall). women are defined by their role for men, but not vice-versa. so there is an implication of gender roles, as you no doubt already quoted from paul. i don't mean to make a point here, exactly, other than that the hermaphrodite reading is out. just trying to provide the pertinant information to both parties. make of it what you will. but homosexuality in the form of marriages was certainly the last thing of the minds of whomever wrote genesis 2. Edited by arachnophilia, : additonal thought
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
and when Scripture spells something out for you in more than one place i'd also like to point out that paul's usage of arsenokoites for homosexuals, in every other place in greek literature, refers to pederasty, not the kind of consentual relationship between adults that we have today. such a relationship would have been pretty foriegn to the culture. see this page for some more info. but i also don't know any greek. just a little hebrew here and there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Okay. So, in Leviticus, certain foods were "unclean" but by Acts, some or all of them had been "cleansed" - I'm guessing that you're going to say they were cleansed by Jesus' death and resurrection.... quote: sounds like a double-entendre to me. how about you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ok, triple entendre it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The Hebrew word "ishshah" translated as wife in this verse can also be translated as woman or female, just as the Hebrew word "iysh" which is translated man in this verse can also be translated as husband or male. I don't know Hebrew to know what nuances determine whether it is translated woman or wife. My guess is that it is possessive. First: just because a word in Hebrew has different English meanings, you can't just use whichever meaning suits your purpose.. haha, i think i'm gonna like you. however.
Lacking any knowledge that the translators misinterpreted the word given the context, the word must remain.. as you probably picked up from my above messages, i do know a little hebrew here and there. (ish) is indeed the common word for "man" and (ishah) is indeed the common word for "woman." i'm actually unaware of any "context" that implies they are neccessarily husband and wife, unless possesives are used. this is also a reason that you shouldn't try to "retranslate" stuff with a concordance. concordances catalog root words, and contain no grammar, and are actually not very useful for translating. in any case, genesis 2 refers to adam and chavah, in verse 25 as:
quote: the implication of "his woman" is "wife" and so it's perfectly acceptable to translate ishah as "wife" in this instance if you're using an idiomatic translation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I didn't. I looked at the way it was used. There has to be something in the way that it is used, that determined which English word was used. I can understand why the English word "wife" was used. Eve was Adam's mate and vice versa. see Message 31 Oddly enough male and female were thought by some to already be literally one flesh (Genesis 1-Male and Female) before God took the female part of Adam and made Eve. see Message 22 Having sex does not equal being married. If you want to say that making a pledge to the other person is what constitutes a marriage, that's fine, but no pledge was made in the Adam and Eve story. no sex is actually mentioned, either, unless you really twist the meaning of , (etz ha-daat, tree of knowledge). rather, i think it's important to not that genesis 2 seems to be the cultural explanation of marriage itself, not just the bit read at weddings. see Message 18 I always thought it was strange that the verse stated that a man would leave his father and mother and cleave to the woman, but makes no mention of the woman's family. But if you look at ancient marriages, it seems that the woman actually leaves her family and not necessarily because she wants to (Tamar). women were non-objects, and genesis 2 is simple male-centric. no surprise there -- the man exists, and woman is created for him. Edited by arachnophilia, : evil broken tag
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Sorry I hadn't read your post about the combined male and female aspects. I think that arises from people trying to reconcile them in the order they appear in the Bible. yes, something i pointed out. i just thought you'd be interested, since you seemed to be contending (above) that the "male and female" aspect refered to a single individual. perhaps i misunderstood.
I feel that cleaving has sexual implications. Not as obvious as the uncovering the feet approach, but that's the impression I get you mean you get the impression it's an idiom for sex? interesting, i hadn't thought of that. the word in question, ‘ (dabaq) literally means "adhere" or "attach." the noun form means "glue," or (colloquially) "leech" (person, i think, not the animal). i imagine "attach" could have sexual implications, such as the modern english "hook up." but i think there is just as good argument for marriage. one literal meaning -- and a pun.
but I don't feel the story is mandating legal marriage. Marriage was already a part of the culture when the story was written down. yes, of course. i think i said as much too -- but i do think it functions as an explanation for that practice.
I'm really glad we got you guys out of that mode lol did you now? Edited by arachnophilia, : typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Just something I remembered reading, although, I think it was a Jewish writing. Of course the idea of the "one flesh" being a child also came from a Jewish reading. So I guess they compliment each other. Separate so they can procreate. hmm, yes, that might makes sense -- however. there is nothing in the story that even hints at procreation until this verse. there's a reference to "be fruitful and multiply" in chapter 1 -- but that doesn't happen in chapter 2 (an independent story anyways). it still might be a valid reading, as long as you're aware that it says "man is lonely, therefor we screw." actually, that might even be kinda funny...
I can accept it as a description of what was, but not a decree of what must always be. oh, no, of course. clearly, the patriarchs married multiply wives, so their idea of marriage was a little more flexible than modern christianity's.
There isn't enough said in Genesis 2:24 to be an umbrella concerning all sexual relations. yes, this is true.
If you read the 613 Mitzvot, you will find no laws were pulled from Genesis 2, but "to be fruitful and multiply" was pulled from Genesis 1:28. well, that's only because it takes commandments given directly by god, and probably only ones that are still valid. "don't touch my tree" doesn't really make much sense anymore, and i don't think god gives any other commandment in gen 2. but i'm sure there are groups of judaism that read "be fruitful" as knocking homosexuality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
yes, that's what pd was pointing out. i see how it could work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, i doubt "fruit" was used in that particular way...
but this book is just full of double entendres, aint it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
it doesn't say that the women leave their families for a reason, imo. jewish culture is matrilineal (the mother's line determines kinship... you're only a jew if your mother is a jew). i imagine it used to be matrilocal (families live with their maternal relatives) as well. however, some of the importance of this seems to have been lost on the actual writers of the bible... especially those with the paternal begats everywhere. nearly every single example i can think of for families in the old testament involve children and even grandchildren living under their father's roof. the women marry into a family, not the men. the only counter-example at hand is jacob, who lived under laban's roof, and worked for him as a dowery for this wives. but that was out of trickery, not custom -- and in the end, jacob flees and takes his wives with him. and a bunch of sheep, too. mothers determine heritage, yes. but fathers determine families, line of kings, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i suppose i didn't emphasize how "used to" i meant. i meant before the bible was written down. i think it's possible, even likely, that the jews started as matrilineal/matrilocal and then evolved due to outside influence. they simply kept the heritage bit out of habit. i doubt it.
i'm just saying that the writers were either making shit up, or they had forgotten the earlier connotation of such things. cultures evolve. it's what they do. right, but read the way you guys are reading it, it's a very, very out of place reference. and anyways, the next chapter -- part of the SAME source document -- explains subjugation of women. i don't see this as an accidental inclusion that hints at an earlier form of society. i think a more sensible reading is that it doesn't even treat women as people. the man leaves his mother and father -- and starts his own family. the woman is inconsequential, so there's no need to mention her family. she was just property to them anyways.
and this proves what, precisely? 1. the stories are how accurate? no, but the context and content do tell us something about the society that wrote them, and women were bartered over, as property. the only time in all of the stories where a man lives under his wives' parents roof is as a servant in trade for the wives. not as part of the family.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Tell me, how is that cherry picking different than any other denomination? do you suppose it's even possible to keep to an entirely literal reading of the bible that is totally inclusive -- and does NOT cherry pick?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
but you know as well as i how many out of place sentences there are in the bible. true -- and this MIGHT be an addition by the redactor.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024