Total posts: 905
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That's a fine question. I will give 2 types of answers (and I can't vouch for the satisfying-ness of either one):
1. The "there is a bigger plan" answer. Suffering is necessary because of some larger goal or aim which we, as humans are not aware of.
2. The "punish you now" answer. If one is subject to suffering now, then his bad deeds will have been paid off before death and the soul will not be subject to any suffering later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
a standard answer is that the underlying definition of God as "loving" should not be seen through a human filter. When a parent punishes a child, or a doctor gives a child a shot, each is expressing care and "love" but not in a way that the child understands or would call "love." Suffering, if seen as something different (much like a shot, or a punishment) can be reconciled with (and, in fact, presented as a necessary function of) the idea of God's loving people.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I'm a theist. A really strong theist. I have heard, first-hand, of "miracles" that have happened to people. Do I expect these anecdotes to be persuasive? No, because that's not a miracle isn't simply a situation where the improbably/unlikely happens. Normally, I would say that a miracle is the suspension of the rules of nature at a specific and intentional moment so as to effect a delineated and desired result. But without God's waving and saying, "yeah, I done did that" it is hard to assess any event, no matter how improbable, and decide that it is the working of God, suspending the odds. If there are billions of people in the world who have diseases and conditions, and the odds against anything in particular happening are 100 million to one. then, over time, we SHOULD see an isolated case, the one. Just my thoughts on it.
If we hang our hats on what we can call "miracles" then we are vulnerable to a loss of faith when that miracle is explained rationally.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
maybe because I don't have the position that either science or nature is inherently wrong, or doesn't exist a a valid construct.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Are you saying that in Jewish thought, vocabulary or literature, idioms are never used
No, I'm saying that idioms have to make sense culturally (a culture that doesn't know what a bucket is won't have the idiom "a drop in the bucket"). If Judaism had no concept of possession by demons, why would it use the idiom to describe a physical state (unless the claim is that the phrase trickled in from surrounding cultures and isn't native). TO have the gospels claim that Jews said that Jesus was "possessed" and then explain that as "he isn't possessed but that was the vernacular idiom that the Jews picked up from people around them who also spoke their language" would then require that someone shows that in the contemporary parlance (possibly Aramaic) that was a known phrase. Lacking corroborative external texts makes that difficult.
It is certainly more sensical to see the language as figurative and assume that the figures of speech are simply borrowed from other religious cultures. I'm not doubting that. I just think that it is equally sensible to say that the use of those idioms shows the inaccuracy and inauthenticity of the text as a whole.
My statement that I don't know Greek was simply to point out that I have no way of knowing if this phrase is written in a way which makes it a common idiom or if the language somehow points to a non-literal reading or not. Since I don't know Greek, I refrain from judging on that level.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't know Greek and I don't know what was idiomatic in Greek 2000 years ago, so it is impossible for me to know what anyone (if anyone actually "said" what is written down in the gospels) said about Jesus. If someone said "he is possessed", for that to be idiomatic, there would have to be a level of belief, accuracy, parallel value or at least metaphorical relevance. My only point is that within Jewish thought, there really isn't a precedent which would lead one to using that as a figure of speech. I guess one can chalk it all up to figures of speech but it is impossible to know if people back then used these phrases in an idiomatic fashion or not.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Would this mean that the answer to your question in the original post is "they didn't think Jesus was possessed because they were speaking using euphemisms and idioms"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes and no. While one cannot ask a female slave (known as a shifcha) to do male-inherent commandments, there are still many ways by which a female slave is emancipated (and, as with the male slave, the anecdote's absolute statement against manumission is an example of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The issue of slavery is a complex one. If you want to read a brief discussion of the application of laws in that regard, you can start here and (with overlap and more) here.
Suffice to say, manumission's being prohibited was not as simple as that half anecdote suggests (though that anecdote was a responsa for finding a way to ensure freedom regardless of the apparent superficial prohibition).
The topic continues to be debated and its intricacies worked through such as in this exchange.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't recognize any of those. I can give you a different list if you would like (but there is a lot to be said about it --- just reading it linearly doesn't confer understanding of it necessarily).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
abiding by the various commandments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm a coward who hates leaving the house. I'm anti-everything.
it's even more important to figure out how accurately "manslaw" mirrors "transcendent morality" since there doesn't appear to be any margin of error.
But if all we have to worry about is what is asked of us, then we don't really need to worry about how it reflects anything else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
presumably one will get you 1% into heaven and the other will get you 95% into heaven, so, a pretty big difference
I don't understand that. If I do 100 of what is expected of me, regardless of how I compute it in relationship to the transcendent morality, then I earn my 100%.
re: Midian, The Children of Israel were wandering in the wilderness. They must have wreaked God's vengeance on whatever section of the Midianite peopple who were in the area in whcih they found themselves. The lesson, as it were, has to do with the vengeance, and the special position of immorality. But there is nothing in it which tells us to kill anyone now so we shouldn't slaughter anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I would suggest that nothing is changed. If we only had part of the picture originally, then we get more info in the form of later commands in other cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why would we try to determine any percentage of overlap (1 or 95 percent)? What good does that do?
I addressed your point about the prisoners in an edit to the previous post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Transcendent morality is the actual morality that drives things even beyond the world of man. Man's being limited by law very often mirrors that larger morality but not always. Man's law, for example, requires a legal process of witnesses and judges before a crime can be punished. A transcendent morality might indicate that a direct and divine immediate punishment is called for. We don't try to emulate that transcendent morality (we can't even always understand it) -- we try to follow the laws given to us to follow; that's enough of a challenge.
As a side note, I assume that you are referring to Num 31 and a fair question might be "God doesn't command to kill the women, so why do that? Is Moses guessing at the transcendent morality?"
The Chatam Sofer has a discussion of this question and explains by means of textual sources how the command to kill the women was part of God's original command which the soldiers chose to ignore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm suggesting that we shouldn't confuse a transcendent morality for the law imposed on human kind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is a fascinating discussion. The question of incest is equally interesting. First and foremost, one has to accept the idea that the "sin" status of incest was only established when God gave laws against it. So in pre-legal times, there is no reason to think that it was not allowed. This same explanation also is used to explain some other instances.
But in this case, there is an understanding that incest is not the desired way to go about things. To address that, the Jerusalem talmud discusses the issue. Here is a webpage which sumamrizes it and some other points.
Created:
1. Do we have contemporary writing from either Romans or "Hebrews" which would give an opinion?
2. What do you mean by "cult"? A religious sect, or a cult of personality?
As a younger person, I enjoyed reading "The Court Martial of Jesus" (https://www.amazon.com/Court-Martial-Jesus-Christian-Defends-Against/dp/0802110940) which makes the case that Jesus was a political threat, not a religious one, and was punished using a political execution style.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I promise -- I'm not just placating you. I try to avoid the discussions of Christianity and I let it be what it wants to claim it is. You wrote, "this is your chance to show the pseudo-christians, and myself as a TRUE Christian that follows and accepts ALL of the Bible, that they in fact do not have a Jesus character as Yahweh God incarnate!"
But I don't want to show anyone anything. If they have claims, I can discuss individual claims but I won't go out of my way to try to prove anything to anyone. I know the historical incongruities and the biblical inaccuracies but I'll let others trumpet them from the rooftops.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
But that just feeds into my point -- the gospels use a concept to label physical infirmity in a style that is inconsistent with Jewish thought. All that does it show a deep problem with the claims in the gospels.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"your serial killer Yahweh still exists in your way of thinking even though the Christians stole him for their god in the New Testament? Therefore, it's the Christians that "think" they have your Yahweh and got caught in holding the bag of a myth because you got Yahweh first? Am I close?"
Spot on, Bro D, spot on.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
"I personally hold the idea that in those ancient times one "being possessed by a demon" is simply what we today would call a metaphor for someone suffering an illness such as the epileptic in Luke's gospel that I mention at #9. "
What does the Greek text have for the phrase? In its conception, there is no precedent in Jewish thought so to have supposed Jews of the era using that figure of speech seems not grounded in anything.
Or a case of going against the grain and saying and doing unacceptable things as Jesus is said to have done many times. examples doing things on the sabbath and saying things the puppet priesthood didn't like.
Even moreso, the Jewish textual lexicon has terms for people who break laws or don't follow the hierarchical dictates. Introducing a foreign concept when describing seems very out of place.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
" isn't this the era when we Christians stole your serial killer Hebrew Yahweh God and made him into a Trinitarian god named Jesus the Christ, where comically to the Christian, you Hebrews have no god left because we are defining what Yahweh is now in our contradicting the New Testament. "
I guess that's the belief, but if I'm holding a lit candle and someone takes a picture of it and draws a mustache on the picture and calls it a firetruck, it isn't a fire truck and I still have the flame.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You had me at "rodents"!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
If I may just put one idea forward. As far as I understand, Judaism does not have a concept of "possessed by a demon." While there is some esoteric discussion of something akin to possession by a dybbuk, even that is not a highly regarded concept. So I'm not sure from what idea in Judaism any of the people you quote would be deriving their opinions.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not sure what you think of as being hypocritical. Judaism is a genetic ethnicity to some degree and a theological construct to some degree. That's its nature. The "same word" is used because it is the technical term for something larger than you want to think it is. If you think that a complex system must have discrete terms for its constituent elements then so be it, but then break down the term "American" so it doesn't refer both to someone born in the US and someone who is naturalized later in life.
Created:
A US citizen who murders is still a US citizen. A criminal might lose some rights as a citizen, he retains that identity and some of the perks that go with it.
In Judaism, one who is properly Jewish doesn't lose that label. He might commit certain acts which have him lose some of the communal rights of being Jewish, but identity is identity. If he acts in a way which is improper and claims that he is representing his religion by doing it, odds are that he will be denounced by some segments as not representing the whole (though in Judaism, there is no unified "whole", sadly, so there will be some who denounce and some who defend).
Created:
-->
@janesix
A dictionary has all the words in it. But I still write the story.
Is there a practical difference between "invented" and "revealed"?
If on Tuesday, no one had a sewing machine, and on Wednesday, someone did because he thought of it, designed it and built it, then denying him the title "inventor" and saying he is just a conduit for something that a supernatural being thought up doesn't seem to be really useful.
Of course, this isn't even really your argument so I shouldn't be asking you.
Created:
Posted in:
Faith is one of the silliest things around. This is true. And pop corn. That's also really weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The Hebrew word "shem" is translated into the English "name" but, just like the English word, it does not always mean "a personal indicator of identity" or something like that. We use the word "name" to indicate a title or a rank, or even a characteristic or excellence (he made a name for himself as an electrician). In this case, God is known by his attribute of being zealous (the word "kana" isn't simple human jealousy. Here is an explanation from about 1000 years ago:
"קנא שמו WHOSE NAME IS קנא — Who is zealous (מקנא) to exact punishment from the sinners and is not indulgent towards idolatry. This (the above) is always the meaning of the root קנא wherever it is used in connection with God. Consequently קנא שמו His name (His characteristic) is קַנָּא that of a zealot, implies: He maintains (insists upon) his superiority over other gods, and punishes His enemies (those who worship idols)."
Created:
I just read The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue.
Recommend.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I'll take your word for that, and their word for whatever they say if they say it. I worry about my religion and try not to hang my hat on rules and issues endemic to other groups.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
If I am understanding your statement correctly, you are positing that there is another text behind all the versions we have and since we don't know that original text said, we can't know which of the variants we have today represents that original best. OK, thanks.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
that tells me where, ideologically, the concept comes from, but not where in the course of translating the text, the choice to use those words INSTEAD of what is written, comes from.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I find that I know some things about Christianity as a whole, but less about the theological distinctions which separate the specific sub-groups. Judaism has similar subgorupings but fewer of them, and it is my job to keep those straight...
Created:
-->
@Mopac
That's the constant tension of language and of trying to express the infinite through the finite. That's an essential problem which Jewish mysticism deals with. God, limiting himself in this world.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I think that there is certainly room for discussion of the title -- the four letter structure in the Hebrew (often reduced to "yhwh" or something like that) is actually a creation designed to incorporate the 3 to-be tense words into one (past, present and future all mixed together) so it is THAT name which indicates the "forever" sense of God.
Judaism begins with the injunction to know God at this very moment, so the infinity of God is expressed in the belief that he will continue into the future which explains both the future tense of the verbs in Ex 3:14 and the more esoteric title for God, "ein sof" which means "has no end."
While we use words like "name" I fear that peoplpe might misunderstand this and think of the human, personal name. God has titles and labels but not a personal name.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
That may or may not be true.
Discussions like this https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/34203/what-parts-of-the-septuagint-are-and-are-not-reliable
and statements like this makes https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/demdfr/is_the_septuagint_more_reliable_than_the_masoretic/f32evn0?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
seem to cast a shadow over that. And the fact that the language in 3:14 is quoted in the talmud which dates to earlier than the manuscripts of the MT but confirms them indicates that the words as we have in the Hebrew today are authentic.
But just to understand your argument -- you are saying that the possibility is that the Hebrew we have in the current text is wrong, and that, pre-MT, the text of 3:14 was different so the particular translation of 3:14 into Greek might not be at odds with 3:12? That would also be claiming that the 3:14 text had a completely different grammar and structure as the second half would read "the being sent me to you" which would make no comment about "forever"
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The statement "I will be that which I will be" is a promise of future and continued existence whereas "I am that which I am" is a statement of current identity with no content pointed to the future. There is nothing in "I am" which is "forever."
Now, could the "forever" be read into the "I am"? I think so, yes, but then the question is "why shift the tense, requiring that the future part be an interpretation when, as written, the future part was the explicit meaning?"
I think one can get to the same place, but with additional steps and I'm wondering what prompted the choice to add those steps in. The Eh'yeh in 3:12 is έσομαι in the Greek (I will be) but the same Hebrew verb in 3:14 is translated as εγώ ειμι (I am). So there is a conflict in 3:14 with the Hebrew, and with 3:12 with the Greek. I'm just hoping that the change wasn't capricious and someone can explain the process for it.
Created:
Sure, like my Not saying I didn't understand the original, but you "imputed" to me. I used deductive reasoning, for how else would you know what I know?
I used deductive reasoning. So far you have yet to tell me that my reasoning led to an incorrect conclusion.
No one said it was.
You wrote, "the verb is be" when, in fact, the verb is "I will be" so by reducing that to "be" you have relied only on the root.
You take them out of context and insist they mean something different. Of course they do when hung on a clothes line. As used in the verses in question, the meaning they convey is the same.
I am using them IN context. I have provided the context. In Ex 3:12 and 3:14, the word is the same but the translation is different. You say "the meaning they convey is the same" but they are translated differently. If the meaning is the same, why not translate them the same? What meaning do you think is conveyed by the shifted translation and why do you think that?
What do you see as the context which drives the change in tense in the translation of 3:14 but not, for example, 3:12? In the verse, the words aren't explained, nor do they have a grammatical impact on the rest of the words, so what context are you positing? You have yet to provide any explanation for what exists, in this case, that drives a change in the tense from the translation of the same word elsewhere. You have yet to explain any context which would require the change in tense or why other translators wouldn't then be affected by that same context. You haven't cited any actual meaning that required the change.
I have no agenda other than understanding. I have presented one possible explanation (accord with John) but will be happy with any other that has more of a basis than my imagination. I welcome any explanation that you can provide that accounts for the word, the verse and the context of the translation. I don't have one and will be more than comfortable if no one can provide one because ultimately, it doesn't matter to me. I'm curious and seeking to be taught.
By the way, separate question -- you snipped my comment. I had written "That is because you think "is" and "will be" mean the same thing. That's your understanding."
You quoted the "That's your understanding" part and responded with
It also happens to be a simple fact.
Are you saying that it is a simple fact that "you think "is" and "will be" mean the same thing"?
Created:
The issue is as follows --
The Hebrew word "eh'yeh" is a first person, singular, future tense conjugation of the to-be root. It translates as "I will be."
Anyone can go into google translate and just copy this word into the Hebrew side and see what comes up in English
אהיה
Not only are there translations of the text of Ex 3:14 that translate it as "I will be" (as early as Tynesdale's translation) but even the KJV, which uses the "I am" translation for Ex 3:14 uses "I will be" for the exact same word in 3:12, 2 verses earlier. Therefore a choice was made in 3:14 to translate the word in a way different from the literal meaning of the word, shifting the tense from future to present in this one case.
I'm just trying to understand what directed the translators of the KJV to do that in this particular verse (and not elsewhere) if not to connect it to the text of John 8.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I addressed it's contents. You graciously DID NOT say you were omniscient, yet you know what I dont't know.
So I didn't say something that you then imputed to me. Got it. Meanwhile, I know Hebrew. Do you? If the answer is "no" then, yes, I know something you don't know.
The verb is "be" no matter which language you're using to carry the meaning. The meaning did not change.
Meaning isn't simply a function of root. "Car" is different from "cars," "ate" is different from "eat" and "is" is different from "will be." Tense matters in communication as if affects meaning. "The fish is alive" means something different from "the fish was alive" because the "to be" verb in each case is different.
And I have answered it 3 times now. But your agenda wants another answer.
Your answer is that the meaning wasn't changed. That is because you think "is" and "will be" mean the same thing. That's your understanding. You still could answer my actual question of what drove the translator who chose not follow the decision of other translators (and his own translation elsewhere) in this one case. Or maybe you can't. The facts speak for themselves. A particular word is translated in this one verse as something different from what it is translated as in other instances within a particular overall text. Therefore, there must be a reason. I have yet to see an answer other than "to make it connect to the Greek text of John."
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I don't recall claiming omniscience so swing and a miss for you, but feel free to correct me if you read, speak and write Hebrew. Am I wrong in my statement or are you only going to respond to the fact that I made the statement and ignore its content?
The verb is eh'yeh, not "to be". It means, quite specifically, "I will be." If you think that that is the same as "to be" then you will come to a different conclusion. In English, "to be" is not the same as "I will be" and it is the same in Hebrew (to be is l'hiyot).
The people who did the translation also spoke etc the original and in other cases, they translated that word differently. So what drove their decision here? It didn't drive other people. If you don't know, then that's fine, but that's the question I'm asking.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Don't we both agree that the name communicates that which always will be?
That idea does develop secondarily from the words, but words words say "I will be that which I will be" which might not, on the surface, point to that conclusion.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I don't think the meaning changed. You do.
That's because I speak, read and understand the original. You don't.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
There are two problems with that. The first is that the earliest versions of the text are from quotes of the text - we have talmudic reference to 3:14 which corroborates the Hebrew text that we have "eh'yeh asher eh'yeh" so unless you want to claim that 2000+ years ago, someone wrote something down inaccurately, you should rely on some baseline version.
The second is that since that time, no other tradition has claimed that the original was any different in that verse. If you ask the biblical scholar who translated from the Hebrew to another language what words were in the original, s/he will still say "eh'yeh asher eh'yeh" -- the change is IN the translation. No one would claim that the Hebrew source text is any different from what we have.
So if we are not working in translation, but looking at the Hebrew, then we have to justify a decision to change from the Hebrew meaning to a different meaning in another language.
Or, one could claim that the entire underlying Hebrew language as we speak it, teach it and explain it is a lie and/or a conspiracy.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
That might be true, but the question then is "should we be looking at the tense relationship in the translation, or in the original?"
I can accept all sorts of agendas. I'm just trying to identify the one that pushes a translator to move from the literal. The only reasoning I can find stems from the later Greek text.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
So the words might be different, and have a known meaning, but the decision to abandon that known meaning and adopt another meaning to validate a later text makes sense to you? My process is to look at the words for what they mean. If that doesn't work for you, then you have an agenda which is driving you to change what the text states.
Created: