|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Joralex and Yaro, open to comment. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Joralex Let us examine what you are placing together as a basis for examining the Bible.1)You insist that God employs HIS definitions not ours.The Bible was written by men who cannot,by definition, know what God was talking about (since his definitions are not ours).So now we will have to question in depth the validity of even the ten commandments.2)Context is very important. Since context is the surroundings lending clarity to the meaning of word or sentence we cannot have clarity if the the definitions themselves are never to be clear to us.The purpose of language is communication.
3)God's purpose may not always be transparent or even revealed.How does one know if one is correct?We must pray? Again how do we know when we are correct?4)Consistency within all of scripture (OT & NT) must be maintained.And who determines when Gods definitions within the context of the scripture are consistent or not? My question is how do you prevent yourself from fooling yourself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
On another topic:
In the Yaro vs. Joralex thread, a sub-topic about what the bible says is rape or not is developing. I thought I'd interject something (without cluttering what was intended to be one on one, I think.) Rei and Yaro, I guess I'm really asking this of you: is it possible that the Bible is trying to draw a distinction between coerced sex and voluntary sex later characterized as "rape"? As in, the Bible isn't trying to say "if you don't scream, it's not rape" but rather say that "if you have voluntary sex, you can't call it rape afterwards to escape punishment." (Not that I believe that voluntary sex needs to be punished, but potentially the writers of the bible may have believed so.) Now, don't get me wrong - the text of the Bible doesn't make this clear. But could you interpret it that way? Would such an interpretation make more sense? Or, is it always rape when the woman says it is, and the Bible is simply way off?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Hmmm... if what you say is true crash, then it says alot about what the bible thinks of women.
Basicaly saying: you didn't screem, so you must be lying now. But anyway you slice it, it's still pretty messed up stuff. Again, you draw a logical interpretation. How many logical conclusions have we drawn from this verse? Three! So how on earth can the bible only have one deffinet meaning. Sorry had to say that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Basicaly saying: you didn't screem, so you must be lying now. Well, I was trying to imply that it was saying: "absent evidence of coercion, rape claims are suspect." I'm not sure that's totally unreasonable, is it? I mean it's not like nobody's ever made a false claim of rape, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
You're right! I was overinterp. Isaiah. That was how I interped it when I was a fundamentalist! Some things take time to wear off! If Jorlax is given exlusive rights on interp. what God means, then Yaro is at a distinct unfair disadvantage in any debate. Fundamentalists have consistently interpreted bible verses to fit a particular theology. Jesus' virgin birth has been take as a literal historical event, because Matthew refers back to Isaiah 7:14 and interprets "woman" to be "virgin"; but of course there's a continuing squabble among bible scholars over this, because of something(I can't recall at the moment what) to do with the Hebrew and Greek languages. Anyway, a Jewish friend of mine says that the fund. christian's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
That's what it's all about; fooling yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
The poor woman could have been knocked out before she was raped. No screaming there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
First off, that only covers a special case. Again, what about the general case - such a woman is raped with a knife to her throat? Under biblical law, that woman either has to marry her rapist, or be stoned to death. There's no exception, even if it was somehow "designed for lying women". It's an atrocity - I'm surprised you, of all people, are trying to justify an atrocity for an exception.
Besides, the Hebrew uses the words "chazaq" (force) and "taphas" (grab hold), so the connotation is apparent. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
In fairness to Crash, attempting to understand the reasoning behind something is a far cry from trying to justify it.
Once you can understand the mindset behind something loony like this idea, it can be argued against more effectively.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
The squabble over virgin birth is the use of the word "parthenos". "Parthenos" has a meaning akin to "maiden"; it can either imply virgin or not. The prophecy in Isaiah refers to "almah" (in Hebrew), which also is best translated as "maiden"; Isaiah could have used the more technical term "bethusaleh" (sp?) which specifically means virgin, but it was not used. Note that this *is* the word used in Dt. that we've been discussing. In short, there is some ambiguity about whether Mary was a virgin or not. Of course, since biblical times, parthenos has evolved to specifically mean virgin (in fact, it is where we get the word "parthenogenic" from - but in ancient times, it was more ambiguous, and the hebrew even moreso).
------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Good point... my apologies, crash.
------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Rei has handled the basics, but I'll add a couple of points.
According to Robin Lane Fox (_The Unauthorised Version_) the Greek version of Isaiah is a pretty poor translartion - so it could easily be an error on the translators part. Although there was a big push to translate the Torah the other books of the Tanakh (the Jewish form of the Christian "Old Testament") were translated later (because the "Septuagint" is used to refer to both the Greek translation of the Torah and the complete Tanakh some people assume that the whole Tnakah was translated in one single effort). If you read Isaiah 7 (preferably with Isaiah 8) it can be seen that your friend is correct. The child of Isaiah 7 is a sign - the birth means that the predicted events will occur over the next few years. Those events include the defeat of Syria and Israel - but by the time Jesus was born Syria was a Roman province and Israel had vanished from history - the "Lost Tribes". The child has no other importance to the prophecy at all. which raises the point that for the prophecy to be correct the birth must have occurred not long after the prophecy was given - and no Christian has ever in my hearing suggested that there was a virgin birth in Judah during the reign of Ahaz.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's cool. Don't sweat it.
It sounds like you're right, though - the verse in question is worded too poorly to support my interpretation. Although I see it as possible that my interpretation was their intent - after all the Bible, even if it was not the word of God, was written to tell some people how to behave - it's just that they failed at finding an appropriate wording. I guess they didn't have lawyers in the ancient days...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: And, oddly enough, that authority isn't God or the Bible, but whomever is interpretting it-- puts a lot of power in mortal sweaty palms, maybe hairy palms. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Prozacman Inactive Member |
And, not just who is interpreting it. There are two more related problems for us(and the bible scholars) to contend with(subjects for other threads).1. Who wrote it and when? 2. How it's oral and written forms were changed over time. The assumption I used to make: the bible was quite literally the written down words directly from God, as if the people who wrote it were willingly posessed by God to write it. It has been several years since I believed that, thank God!,especially since hairy and sweaty palms can mess up a newly-written document!
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-25-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024