Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The First Questions In The Bible
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 151 of 161 (419311)
09-02-2007 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by arachnophilia
09-02-2007 12:52 AM


Where could we find a 2200 year old copy of the Septuagint? If such a thing exists, I am packing my bags to go study it(no joke).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by arachnophilia, posted 09-02-2007 12:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by arachnophilia, posted 09-02-2007 2:52 AM pbee has not replied
 Message 158 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 11:59 AM pbee has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 152 of 161 (419317)
09-02-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by pbee
09-02-2007 1:55 AM


Where could we find a 2200 year old copy of the Septuagint? If such a thing exists, I am packing my bags to go study it(no joke).
the library of alexandria.
the oldest document we actually have first hand is kind of a good question. i'll have to look into that. we know about when the septuagint was translated from other historical documents, and we know the contents of it (book-wise), so we know these texts were in existence. the DSS add some credibility that the text was mostly how we know it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by pbee, posted 09-02-2007 1:55 AM pbee has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 153 of 161 (419319)
09-02-2007 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by arachnophilia
09-01-2007 11:58 PM


Re: euphemisms
arachnophilia responds to me:
quote:
your argument was that the life-cycle was already in place
And I provided the specific references from the Bible to justify it: The punishment of Eve is that the pains of her childbearing will be increased, not that she will suddenly become fertile and start having children. Ergo, she was already fertile and was going to have children. God panics that Adam and Eve might eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. Ergo, they were going to die at some point.
quote:
in fact, they are not even aware of the fact they are naked until they eat from the tree -- what makes you think they knew how to use the genitals they weren't particularly aware of in the first place?
Because they were merely innocent, not stupid. They knew they weren't wearing anything...they just didn't know it was wrong. When you go to a foreign country, you become an innocent. You know exactly what you're doing...you just don't know that it's wrong.
quote:
so yes, it is used that way.
I never said it wasn't. For crying out loud, how many times do I have to say it before you remember it?
Yes, "yada" in Hebrew has two meanings, one of which is to have sex. But, in order for it to mean "have sex," it has to be phrased in a certain way. If that phrasing isn't there, then it is wrong to substitute that meaning for the more direct meaning.
The word "screw" has multiple meanings in English. One of which is to have sex. But if we're talking about how you forgot to turn in your report, my looking at you and saying, "You're screwed!" is not an indication that you're going to have sex. And if in the process you get upset and retort, "Screw you!" that is not an actual request for me to go and have sex.
quote:
quote:
It's more than that and you know it! Oops! Did I just say you were going to have sex? "Know" means "have sex" in English, after all.
it's funny, because i went through that entire last post without ever once using the word "sex." yet, you seem to have understood me.
And you have misunderstood me. The word "know" in English also means "to have sex." Therefore, I was poking fun at your insistence that "yada," which means "know" in Hebrew, necessarily means "to have sex" when context is clear that it means anything but. And since I used the word "know," that must mean I meant "have sex," by your logic.
The point you're missing is that the phrasing used in Gen 19:5 is more than just "it's in the future tense." It is phrased as a request, not a demand or a declaration. Don't you think that would have some bearing on how we ought to interpret the passage?
quote:
no, not fun. humiliation. think about that one a little more. think "abu ghraib" not "freddy mercury."
Um, did you bother to read Genesis 14? The word "humiliate" is my term to describe what Abraham did. You're trying to make "humiliate" another term for "have sex." Abraham did not have sex with the Bera, king of Sodom. Instead, he maligned the integrity as a just ruler:
Genesis 14:23: That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
In short, "I'm not going to be in debt to you."
quote:
no, they are angry that lot means to protect the visitors they plan the humiliate.
"Humiliate"? Where did "humiliate" come into it? Surely you're not going to trot out that canard that somehow it was a ritual for strangers to submit to being anally raped when visiting a town, are you?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by arachnophilia, posted 09-01-2007 11:58 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 09-02-2007 3:50 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 154 of 161 (419320)
09-02-2007 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by arachnophilia
09-02-2007 12:23 AM


Re: gen 19
arachnophilia responds to me:
quote:
be careful of religioustolerance.org. they are not very discriminant in their use of sources.
(*chuckle*) Spoken like a fundamentalist. You seem to have misunderstood their point: They want to present what all sides think, even those that some people consider ludicrous. So of course they're going to present conflicting reports. They even directly state that their sources conflict.
That's the point.
quote:
but the problem is that when it's retold in judges, it means rape.
No, it doesn't. It means the same thing: Bring them out so that we may know (not "have sex with") them. He then tries to bribe them with sex and they deny the first round but take it the second time.
The setup in both is the same:
1) Stranger comes to town.
2) Locals want to know what's going on.
3) Attempt to bribe locals is made.
In Genesis, the crowd doesn't bite. In Judges, they do.
quote:
why would lot feel the need to protect his guests, if they simply wanted to make sure the guests weren't looters?
Because inhospitality doesn't mean "rape." Just because Lot knows that the town is going to mistreat his guests doesn't mean he thinks they're going to rape them.
quote:
why would he offer them sex, if he didn't think that's what they wanted?
Because if you don't want someone to do action A, you try to distract them with action B. If I don't want you to take my money, do I give you my money? No, I give you something else that I think will distract you.
quote:
rape as a mean to humiliate the visitors, get them leave, and to tell their looter friends not to go there.
Huh? Where on earth do you get that idea? "Humiliate"? Where did that come from? Tell me you're not trying to toss out the canard that strangers were routinely subjected to rape in order to sojourn, are you?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by arachnophilia, posted 09-02-2007 12:23 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by arachnophilia, posted 09-02-2007 4:00 AM Rrhain has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 155 of 161 (419322)
09-02-2007 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Rrhain
09-02-2007 3:17 AM


Re: euphemisms
And I provided the specific references from the Bible to justify it: The punishment of Eve is that the pains of her childbearing will be increased, not that she will suddenly become fertile and start having children.
er, no. read it again
quote:
Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'
god will make her work harder and more painful -- he'll make her have children, in pain, but at the same time make her attracted to her husband. you really don't think that's about the introduction of child-birth? it doesn't "i'll make childbirth hurt more" it says "i'll make your life hurt more: you'll have kids." there's a difference.
and why is it only after this we're told about that eve is the mother of all living, as part of the punishment litany?
God panics that Adam and Eve might eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. Ergo, they were going to die at some point
i had not argued that point.
I never said it wasn't.
yes you did! you said in post #146, and i quote:
quote:
The exact phrasing used in Genesis 19:5 is used over a hundred other times in the Bible and not once in those other times is it interpreted to mean "have sex." So what's so special about this one time?
i presented you with not only the exact phrase, but the exact sentance, in the exact context, in almost exactly the same story! i am forced to believe that you are simply a dishonest debator now. you snipped the entire portion relating to that story, simply ignoring it, and saying "i never said that." well, you did, and i showed you that this precise phrasing CAN mean sex, and DOES in at least one other place.
Yes, "yada" in Hebrew has two meanings, one of which is to have sex. But, in order for it to mean "have sex," it has to be phrased in a certain way. If that phrasing isn't there, then it is wrong to substitute that meaning for the more direct meaning.
again, judges 19 contains the VERY SAME PHRASING in an almost identical story! you can't just pretend that it does not. you said that nowhere else is this phrasing used to mean sex, and here it rather clearly is -- and the story probably has the same origin. you are wrong, and now it is plainly obvious that you are simply unable to admit to the tiniest fault.
And you have misunderstood me. The word "know" in English also means "to have sex." Therefore, I was poking fun at your insistence that "yada," which means "know" in Hebrew, necessarily means "to have sex" when context is clear that it means anything but. And since I used the word "know," that must mean I meant "have sex," by your logic.
you clearly misunderstood me. please go back and illucidate my previous post, the first one titled "euphemism" and prove to me that every last one of the euphemism i used MUST be mean "sexual intercourse." because, evidently, you understood what i said to mean "sex." why? maybe i didn't.
The point you're missing is that the phrasing used in Gen 19:5 is more than just "it's in the future tense." It is phrased as a request, not a demand or a declaration. Don't you think that would have some bearing on how we ought to interpret the passage?
er, no, it's an ordinary future tense, literally, "we WILL know them." not "may." it's not asking permission, and it's not tentative -- vagueries introduced by the KJV's older usages of english. in hebrew, it's a normal future tense -- it's declarative.
Um, did you bother to read Genesis 14? The word "humiliate" is my term to describe what Abraham did. You're trying to make "humiliate" another term for "have sex."
rape is certainly one way to humiliate people. and no, i wasn't saying that's what abram did to the king of sodom -- i'm saying that they inhabitants of sodom intended to humiliate visitors, especially lot's visitors, in return. and saying "hello" isn't humiliating. raping is.
"Humiliate"? Where did "humiliate" come into it? Surely you're not going to trot out that canard that somehow it was a ritual for strangers to submit to being anally raped when visiting a town, are you?
no, it was a way for sodomites to scare off visitors. who the hell knows if they even really intended to actually rape foreigners. i know if i showed up in a place, and the entire town showed up and wanted to rape me, i'd get the hell out of there pretty quickly. even if they did actually do it once or twice, or alot, it's sure to cut down on the popularity of the place as a tourist destination.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Rrhain, posted 09-02-2007 3:17 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by ringo, posted 09-02-2007 11:29 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 156 of 161 (419323)
09-02-2007 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Rrhain
09-02-2007 3:32 AM


Re: gen 19
(*chuckle*) Spoken like a fundamentalist. You seem to have misunderstood their point: They want to present what all sides think, even those that some people consider ludicrous. So of course they're going to present conflicting reports. They even directly state that their sources conflict.
That's the point.
sure. real debate and contradictory interpretation is one thing. reposting outright lies, false information, and the sort of thing twelve seconds of research clears right up... well. that's a little different. it's not about "some people consider [something] ludicrous" it's about posting stuff that's about the quality of timecube, without bothering to present the "i did some research" side of things.
seriously, find the jesus-horus comparison page. research the claims yourself, in non-biased, non-apologetic sources.
No, it doesn't. It means the same thing: Bring them out so that we may know (not "have sex with") them. He then tries to bribe them with sex and they deny the first round but take it the second time.
The setup in both is the same:
1) Stranger comes to town.
2) Locals want to know what's going on.
3) Attempt to bribe locals is made.
In Genesis, the crowd doesn't bite. In Judges, they do.
really? they just wanted to say hi, but hey, free pussy. might as well, right? nevermind that this particular verse describes them as "perverse" beforehand? yeah, that has nothing to do with it.
Because inhospitality doesn't mean "rape."
no, raping visitors means inhospitality.
Because if you don't want someone to do action A, you try to distract them with action B. If I don't want you to take my money, do I give you my money? No, I give you something else that I think will distract you.
er, no. that's not the right analogy. it's more like, "here's a hundred bucks, don't rob the bank i work at."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Rrhain, posted 09-02-2007 3:32 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2007 3:24 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 157 of 161 (419355)
09-02-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by arachnophilia
09-02-2007 3:50 AM


arachnophilia writes:
it doesn't "i'll make childbirth hurt more" it says "i'll make your life hurt more....
Either way, it's interesting to note that the emphasis is on "more". Pain was "increased" or "multiplied" - it wasn't introduced.
The knowledge of good and evil includes the good and evil sides of pain: Pain tells us there's a problem but too much pain can be a bad thing.
An increase in knowledge goes hand in hand with an increase in pain. We become more aware of pain, especially the pain of others.
So, questioning God led to empathy, a supposedly Godlike quality.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by arachnophilia, posted 09-02-2007 3:50 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 158 of 161 (419357)
09-02-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by pbee
09-02-2007 1:55 AM


I noticed you are interested in Origins. I wanted to point you in this direction without interrupting the thread with a bare link. That is why I asked you to contact me by email. Here's the link http://EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy -->EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy
Sorry for the interruption...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by pbee, posted 09-02-2007 1:55 AM pbee has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 159 of 161 (419673)
09-04-2007 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by arachnophilia
09-02-2007 4:00 AM


Re: gen 19
arachnophilia responds to me:
quote:
they just wanted to say hi, but hey, free pussy. might as well, right?
Huh? Who said they "wanted to say hi"? I distinctly recall saying they wanted to interrogate the strangers. I don't know why this is so difficult to remember. You seem to be saying that if the crowd outside the door was up to no good, then it necessarily is the case that the no good they were up to can only be rape, despite the fact that the text doesn't imply that at all.
Surely you're not about to bring up the canard that strangers to town were routinely expected to submit themselves to rape, are you?
Do you truly not understand what the word "distraction" means?
quote:
nevermind that this particular verse describes them as "perverse" beforehand?
And why does that mean rape? Be specific. As we know, the people of Sodom were also "perverse," but the sin of Sodom wasn't sex.
quote:
yeah, that has nothing to do with it.
Who said it had nothing to do with it? I challenge you to find me a single quote where I said or even implied that the population were nice, innocent people.
I'm simply asking why it is you seem to think that if the town is considered bad, they must necessarily be a rape gang.
quote:
no, raping visitors means inhospitality.
Indeed, but you haven't shown that the town was intent upon raping the visitors. Surely you aren't about to drag out the canard that visitors to strange towns were routinely subjected to rape, are you?
quote:
er, no. that's not the right analogy. it's more like, "here's a hundred bucks, don't rob the bank i work at."
So please explain why the townspeople of Sodom, when offered the very thing they wanted, refused it. If they were there for sex, why did they become outrageously offended at Lot's offer of sex, declare him to be a traitor, and announce that they were going to do worse to him than they had ever planned on doing to the strangers?
Surely you're not about to say that strangers were routinely raped when going to new cities, are you?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by arachnophilia, posted 09-02-2007 4:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by arachnophilia, posted 09-06-2007 2:37 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 160 of 161 (420082)
09-06-2007 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rrhain
09-04-2007 3:24 AM


Re: gen 19
rrhain -- i'm going to propose a new topic for this. i think it's sort of off-topic here.
edit: the new thread is now going full force, and i have responded to your previous post there. please feel free to contribute.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rrhain, posted 09-04-2007 3:24 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 161 of 161 (439891)
12-10-2007 7:24 PM


Questioning God's heart towards man
Yes. The first question in the Bible was the question of did God say something.
"Did God really say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?" (Gen. 3:1)
The first question was a question about the speaking of God. Did God REALLY say .... ? This was asked by one who was "more subtle, or crafty" ... "Now the serpent was more crafty ..."
When you think of human sorrow you may trace it back to this first questioning of God's words. When you think of wars, death, disease, rapes, broken families, addictions, bad leaders, religious hypocrisy, persecutions, racisms, thefts, lies, tears, agony, loneliness, dispair of all kinds, conflicts between nations, conflicts within families, and all that plagues the human race, you can trace it all back to this initial questioning of God's word.
The implication of the question:
Does God really have the authority?
Does God really love us?
Does God really care about our welfare?
Is God concealing something good from us?
Is God out to hem us in, box us up, limit us, jail us, enslave us?
All these suspicions were unleashed in the human hearts from the initial questioning of God's word and God's will.
"Did God really say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden? ... You shall not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil." (See Gen. 3:1-5)
No, God knows that you will surely die. He knows all about life. God is the Divine uncreated and eternal life - self existing and infinite.
And He really said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for we would surely die.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024