If you believe in an invisible man in the sky, minions with wings doesn't seem to be much of a stretch.

I really find those studies boring. Is it just a way to get a few easy grants, toss around and do nothing for months, then make something up at the end?

This is like the study that Mattan Torah on Mount Sinai was just the Jews hopped on LSD or some such nonsense.

Look, it happened 3,300 years ago, and there is no way you will ever be able to prove anything, one way or another.

Did some of these people see angels? Did they have epileptic fits? Did they have seizures? LSD-influenced hallucinations? Just made stuff up?

It's on a case-by-case basis and there's no way any scientist will ever prove it either way.

This just seems to me to be a waste of money, and the academic equivalent of pleasuring yourself.

Bucky Katt: If you believe in an invisible man in the sky, minions with wings doesn't seem to be much of a stretch.

Actually malachim are not physical entities, so they are not Dolph Lundgrens with long flowing hair and wings.

Do you know how many writers, translators, and editors there are between the word of god and your preferred version of the Bible?

I'm going to check the 'show ignored users' box, and will try to make an exception and discuss this rationally with people for once.

doyner: Do you know how many writers, translators, and editors there are between the word of god and your preferred version of the Bible?

Exactly 0?

I read it in the original Hebrew, so no writers (well, Moshe Rabbeinu and possibly Yehoshua for the last line's about Moshe's death), and certainly no translators and editors.

Grobbley: Angels (according to the Bible at least) don't have wings.

Yes and no.

Yechezkiel 1:5-9 And out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man. 6 And every one had four faces, and every one of them had four wings. 7 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot; and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass. 8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and as for the faces and wings of them four, 9 their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.

The thing is, we know clearly in Judaism that these are metaphorical descriptions related to deep spiritual concepts, not physical descriptions of actual angels.

That's because we have the Oral Torah, and xians don't. Thus the confusion.

It's stuff like this which makes me wonder what things about our era people will question several thousand years from now. I chuckle when I think of future texts talking about "rock music" and referring to the Beatles as being made up of John McCartney, Vladmir Lennon, George Marx, and Scottie Pippen and the guy who says "No, no, their names were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr" will get laughed at and shunned by all serious historians.

Jisaw: Have they discovered a complete (or complete enough) copy of the Old Testament dated to when it was written? I was under the impression that the earliest examples of either testament were dated to several centuries after the originals were written. I'm not trying to troll or be a dick, I'm genuinely curious and don't feel like wading through huge Wikipedia articles tonight.

We don't have a perfectly written and complete scroll from 3,300 years ago, no.

We do have some parts of scrolls that date back to 2,800+ years ago, and they are exactly the same as they are today.

There are literally no fragments of text that differ from the Torah we have today.

This is seriously due to the fact that we are very very very OCD about the way a Torah scroll is written. I'm not gonna go in details and bore you, but it basically ensures that not even a letter would be different from another Torah scroll ever. In all of Jewish history, there are basically 8 letters that are different between the Jewish world and Yemenite Torah scrolls, none of them that actually alter the meaning of the word, and it's only because Jews in Yemen were cut off from the rest of the Jewish world so it's probably when that happened.

But yes if you were to go back to the 10th century and look at a Torah scroll in Germany, a Torah scroll in Persia and a Torah scroll in the North Africa, they would be exactly the same. Not a single letter would be different. We know that, because we have some of them even today.

malaktaus: Genesis alone was taken from four separate sources and, yes, edited to its present form.

Except that this is patently false. The documentary hypothesis really is a load of rubbish and it's quite easy to disprove.

Look, even if there is a single author to Torah, you do not have to believe that it is Divine. Relying on outdated theories that have no understanding of Hebrew and Judaism is just ridiculous however.

malaktaus: Then there's the fact that many books of the Bible were passed down in oral form for centuries before being written down.

Again, no proofs of that whatsoever.

malaktaus: Some were clearly not the word of God or even, strictly speaking, an account of a man hearing the word of God, Kings and Chronicles for instance.

Sefer Melachim is a prophetic book, which is why it's in Nevi'im, the Prophets.

Divrei Yamim is not a prophetic book, though written by a prophet, which is why it's in Ketuvim, the Writings.

malaktaus: Your statement is absurd and objectively false; even if you're one of those tedious individuals who thinks God gave the Torah directly to Moses that says nothing about the later books.

.... I think it's fairly clear it's the position I hold based on what I wrote.

Tatsuma: I really find those studies boring. Is it just a way to get a few easy grants, toss around and do nothing for months, then make something up at the end?

This is like the study that Mattan Torah on Mount Sinai was just the Jews hopped on LSD or some such nonsense.

Look, it happened 3,300 years ago, and there is no way you will ever be able to prove anything, one way or another.

Did some of these people see angels? Did they have epileptic fits? Did they have seizures? LSD-influenced hallucinations? Just made stuff up?

It's on a case-by-case basis and there's no way any scientist will ever prove it either way.

This just seems to me to be a waste of money, and the academic equivalent of pleasuring yourself.

Go on...

mr lawson: yeah...you are batshiat crazy believing in invisible sky-wizards.
/but each to their own, i guess

You certainly have demonstrated your superior debating abilities, good sir.

strathmeyer: Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.

Is that trolling, or are you serious?

Tatsuma: I'm going to check the 'show ignored users' box, and will try to make an exception and discuss this rationally with people for once.

doyner: Do you know how many writers, translators, and editors there are between the word of god and your preferred version of the Bible?

Exactly 0?

I read it in the original Hebrew, so no writers (well, Moshe Rabbeinu and possibly Yehoshua for the last line's about Moshe's death), and certainly no translators and editors.

The fact that I somehow ended up on your ignore list makes me feel warm inside.

And "exactly 0" followed by a list of names of people who "penned" the "word" really does make the point better than I ever could have.

Fubini: doyner: Do you know how many writers, translators, and editors there are between the word of god and your preferred version of the Bible?

Just like how Geometry was originally developed in Greek, so our English manuscripts are invariably flawed, right?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just being obtuse.

The Southern Dandy: Fubini: doyner: Do you know how many writers, translators, and editors there are between the word of god and your preferred version of the Bible?

Just like how Geometry was originally developed in Greek, so our English manuscripts are invariably flawed, right?

Do you realize how stupid you look making that analogy? Maths can be proved, dumbass.

Protip: "maths" instead of "math". Lets everyone know you're oh-so-smart.

wallywam1: The Southern Dandy: Fubini: doyner: Do you know how many writers, translators, and editors there are between the word of god and your preferred version of the Bible?

Just like how Geometry was originally developed in Greek, so our English manuscripts are invariably flawed, right?

Do you realize how stupid you look making that analogy? Maths can be proved, dumbass.

Protip: "maths" instead of "math". Lets everyone know you're oh-so-smart.

Really, dude? English speakers from different places use different terms. The corollary of your argument is that you're a dumbass for where you're from.

Well this went downhill fast enough

Tatsuma: Well this went downhill fast enough

Such is the way of man when he claims to have insight as to what god wants.

Herb Utsmelz: [i711.photobucket.com image 528x288]

:D

doyner: wallywam1: The Southern Dandy: Fubini: doyner: Do you know how many writers, translators, and editors there are between the word of god and your preferred version of the Bible?

Just like how Geometry was originally developed in Greek, so our English manuscripts are invariably flawed, right?

Do you realize how stupid you look making that analogy? Maths can be proved, dumbass.

Protip: "maths" instead of "math". Lets everyone know you're oh-so-smart.

Really, dude? English speakers from different places use different terms. The corollary of your argument is that you're a dumbass for where you're from.

If "Southern" doesn't refer to Southern United States, then I'll eat my hat. Otherwise, I'm calling shenanigans.

wallywam1: doyner: wallywam1: The Southern Dandy: Fubini: doyner: Do you know how many writers, translators, and editors there are between the word of god and your preferred version of the Bible?

Just like how Geometry was originally developed in Greek, so our English manuscripts are invariably flawed, right?

Do you realize how stupid you look making that analogy? Maths can be proved, dumbass.

Protip: "maths" instead of "math". Lets everyone know you're oh-so-smart.

Really, dude? English speakers from different places use different terms. The corollary of your argument is that you're a dumbass for where you're from.

If "Southern" doesn't refer to Southern United States, then I'll eat my hat. Otherwise, I'm calling shenanigans.

"Shenanigans?" Are you Irish?