If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Times of Israel)   God called. He wants his "Definitive Bible" back   (timesofisrael.com) divider line 41
    More: Interesting, Hebrew Bible, Bibles, Israelis, Torah, Jewish laws, Egyptian Army, Torah Scroll, Bar-Ilan University  
•       •       •

10715 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2012 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-08 12:37:04 PM
7 votes:
The problem with the idea of a "Definitive Bible" of course, is that the scholar Menachem Cohen is relying on a 1000 year old codex as the basis for his version of the Old Testament. There could be a ton of errors introduced between the time of writing of each piece of commentary and text and 1000 AD.

Not to mention that at one time, what was Judaism was a polytheistic religion and the original versions of the Old Testament reflected polytheistic roots. It wasn't until much later that the monotheistic cult within proto-Judaism came about and edited the original version of the Old Testament into a book that only reflected a monotheistic religion.
2012-08-08 01:36:51 PM
3 votes:

ltdanman44: RexTalionis: The problem with the idea of a "Definitive Bible" of course, is that the scholar Menachem Cohen is relying on a 1000 year old codex as the basis for his version of the Old Testament. There could be a ton of errors introduced between the time of writing of each piece of commentary and text and 1000 AD.

Not to mention that at one time, what was Judaism was a polytheistic religion and the original versions of the Old Testament reflected polytheistic roots. It wasn't until much later that the monotheistic cult within proto-Judaism came about and edited the original version of the Old Testament into a book that only reflected a monotheistic religion.


wat


If you look at the text of the OT, it is a revisionist mess - it is, quite frankly, worse than what some of my freshmen have turned in after a late-night Wikipedia cut-paste-and-thesaurus session. Strip out the later stuff, and what you get is a fragmented account of a fairly bog-standard polytheistic faith. The monotheistic stuff is all in the Wikipedia bits.

Also, despite us going on about religion based on ancient shepherds, most of the OT was written by urbanized white-collar types pining for a past that never was - basically, Manhattan hipster-douche office assistants writing about a Disneyfied, mythical Plymouth Rock.
2012-08-08 01:31:47 PM
3 votes:

hdhale: What indeed. One of the things that made the Hebrews different from other Semitic tribes was their monotheistic belief system. I'm not sure where that's coming from.


I'm pretty sure he's saying that Jews weren't monotheistic, until they became monotheistic Jews and wrote their holy book. So um. Thanks?
2012-08-08 04:46:53 PM
2 votes:

Farktastic:
Jesus tittyfarking christ, maybe it is just time to get rid of these fairy tales for adults. The reason we don't get anywhere as a species on this planet is directly due to religion. If we spent as much time, money and effort on eliminating this disease of the mind as we do on cancer, the world would instantly be a better place.


Gee, I think we've come pretty far as a species. So how have other species not burdened with religion done? Any other apes visited the moon or mapped the human genome? Nope, just still flinging poo at the zoo. And calling religion a disease (or rather, virus, if you want to parrot Dawkins accurately) sounds good, in the same way that saying something is a privilege and not a right sounds good, but it's still bullsh*t. But keep repeating it and people will tend to believe it. Weak-minded people.
2012-08-08 04:07:14 PM
2 votes:

Dr Dreidel: Gyrfalcon: It's why there are so many references to other gods in the Pentateuch, as in the story of Babel when God says "Behold, man is become LIKE US." Since God never refers to himself in the royal plural anywhere else, this is interpreted to mean God is talking to other gods.

Genesis 2:1 (IIRC): "Let US make man, in OUR own image..."


I often wondered about the "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", which seems to simultaneously acknowledge the existence of other gods, while affirming that he was taking supremacy among them.
2012-08-08 02:14:16 PM
2 votes:

Kuroutesshin: hdhale: ltdanman44: RexTalionis: The problem with the idea of a "Definitive Bible" of course, is that the scholar Menachem Cohen is relying on a 1000 year old codex as the basis for his version of the Old Testament. There could be a ton of errors introduced between the time of writing of each piece of commentary and text and 1000 AD.

Not to mention that at one time, what was Judaism was a polytheistic religion and the original versions of the Old Testament reflected polytheistic roots. It wasn't until much later that the monotheistic cult within proto-Judaism came about and edited the original version of the Old Testament into a book that only reflected a monotheistic religion.


wat

What indeed. One of the things that made the Hebrews different from other Semitic tribes was their monotheistic belief system. I'm not sure where that's coming from.

There is evidence, through archaeological research in other Levantine and Semitic religions as well as the Documentary Hypothesis of the Bible, that the Israelite tribes developed true monotheism rather late. The bible even contains references to this in Josiah's reforms where he cleans the temple and shutters the other "shrines" in Israel.

The Bible is one of the largest and most successful pieces of religious and political propaganda in the world. Don't imagine that the Jews were always, from time immemorial, monotheists, because it's not archaeologically or historically true.


phalamir: If you look at the text of the OT, it is a revisionist mess ― it is, quite frankly, worse than what some of my freshmen have turned in after a late-night Wikipedia cut-paste-and-thesaurus session. Strip out the later stuff, and what you get is a fragmented account of a fairly bog-standard polytheistic faith. The monotheistic stuff is all in the Wikipedia bits.

Also, despite us going on about religion based on ancient shepherds, most of the OT was written by urbanized white-collar types pining for a past that never was ― basically, Manhattan hipster-douche office assistants writing about a Disneyfied, mythical Plymouth Rock.


Gyrfalcon: Mr Guy: hdhale: What indeed. One of the things that made the Hebrews different from other Semitic tribes was their monotheistic belief system. I'm not sure where that's coming from.

I'm pretty sure he's saying that Jews weren't monotheistic, until they became monotheistic Jews and wrote their holy book. So um. Thanks?

Most Biblical scholars are pretty much in agreement that early Judaism was never a fully "monotheistic" religion, and instead venerated their God as superior to and separate from the neighboring religions' gods; but without the "One True God" cant that emerged later. It's why there are so many references to other gods in the Pentateuch, as in the story of Babel when God says "Behold, man is become LIKE US." Since God never refers to himself in the royal plural anywhere else, this is interpreted to mean God is talking to other gods. There's also somewhere a reference to "Yahweh and his Ashera"; Ashera was a Babylonian goddess, and in early pantheons all "god" avatars had a female and a male aspect, so this is possibly a time when the Hebrews were transitioning from a single superior god to One God.

It wasn't until much much later that the idea emerged that there was only One God and all other "gods" were by default demons or aspects of Satan.


RexTalonis may have meant "henotheistic." A henotheistic religion worships only one god, yet acknowledges that others exist for other nations, but that theirs is the biggest and baddest. Echoes of this still exist in the Bible, for instance in Judges Chapter 11 (key verse 24) in which Jephthah sends heralds to the Ammonite king to inform them that the Israelites feel as entitled to the lands that their god YHWH ("the LORD") gives to them as the Ammonites do with the lands that their god Chemosh gives to them. They said nothing about Chemosh not existing.

(Do read that whole chapter ― something truly interesting happens towards the end!)

Also, in Deuteronomy 32:8−9, there's a fascinating tidbit: it seems that "the Most High" (Hebrew: Elyown) was a different god from YHWH, and moreover, was a "god of gods," not worshiped by humans, but by the lesser gods of individual nations (including YHWH)! According to this passage, Elyown assigned various nations to various gods! Israel neé Jacob was YHWH's portion of humanity ("the sons of Adam") assigned to Him as a "lot of His inheritance" by Elyown!

Other passages do equate YHWH with the Most High.

Anyway, a truly polytheistic religion has a pantheon of deities actually worshiped by a single tribe or nation. Each god or goddess has specific functions, similar to Roman Catholic Saints today (many accuse them of a form of polytheism for this reason).

Mormonism, infamous for believing that multiple gods exist in the cosmos, would qualify as henotheistic, not polytheistic, since they believe that only the Godhead (not Trinity) of Elohim, YHWH (Jesus), and the Holy Host has anything to do with us.

To Gyrfalcon: it's interesting to note that in Satan's first appearances by name (in Job, and also in the Book of Jasher which the Bible twice mentions as being part of it yet which is not in the Bible as we have it today), Satan is not an enemy of God, nor a fallen angel (that would be Samael), but rather God's prosecutor, basically His D.A.! His job was to accuse people of sin, not tempt them to commit sin! The only entity Satan is shown to have actually tempted back then was God Himself, by His own admission ("...although thou [Satan] movedst Me [YHWH] against him [Job], to destroy him without cause." ― Job 2:3, KJV).

Later, the Chronicles account of David's disastrous census of Israel says that Satan tempted David to do that (I Chronicles 21:1), but the Samuel version (generally considered superior, and the older, more original account) flatly says that YHWH moved David to do that (II Samuel 24:1)! That chapter then has YHWH severely punishing Israel (making David choose from one of three horrific punishment options, and David choosing God Himself hoping for some mercy, but God then slaying tens of thousands by plague) for what He Himself moved David to do!
2012-08-08 02:04:03 PM
2 votes:

Gyrfalcon: much later that the idea emerged



Psalms 82 (old testament)

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations
2012-08-08 01:40:06 PM
2 votes:

hdhale: What indeed. One of the things that made the Hebrews different from other Semitic tribes was their monotheistic belief system. I'm not sure where that's coming from.


Oh, they became monotheistic, just about 500 years after the Revised Director's Cut Collector's Edition (With Bonus Scenes!) says it happened.
2012-08-08 01:39:19 PM
2 votes:
That's actually pretty cool.
2012-08-08 01:39:11 PM
2 votes:

hdhale: ltdanman44: RexTalionis: The problem with the idea of a "Definitive Bible" of course, is that the scholar Menachem Cohen is relying on a 1000 year old codex as the basis for his version of the Old Testament. There could be a ton of errors introduced between the time of writing of each piece of commentary and text and 1000 AD.

Not to mention that at one time, what was Judaism was a polytheistic religion and the original versions of the Old Testament reflected polytheistic roots. It wasn't until much later that the monotheistic cult within proto-Judaism came about and edited the original version of the Old Testament into a book that only reflected a monotheistic religion.


wat

What indeed. One of the things that made the Hebrews different from other Semitic tribes was their monotheistic belief system. I'm not sure where that's coming from.


There is evidence, through archaeological research in other Levantine and Semitic religions as well as the Documentary Hypothesis of the Bible, that the Israelite tribes developed true monotheism rather late. The bible even contains references to this in Josiah's reforms where he cleans the temple and shutters the other "shrines" in Israel.

The Bible is one of the largest and most successful pieces of religious and political propaganda in the world. Don't imagine that the Jews were always, from time immemorial, monotheists, because it's not archaeologically or historically true.
2012-08-08 01:34:05 PM
2 votes:

Tatsuma: *writes 'colour' instead of 'color', claims to have corrected the Bible*


IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW, THANK YOU BASED TATSUMA
2012-08-08 01:32:49 PM
2 votes:
If God actually called, we probably would have a definitive Bible.
2012-08-08 01:29:37 PM
2 votes:

ltdanman44: RexTalionis: The problem with the idea of a "Definitive Bible" of course, is that the scholar Menachem Cohen is relying on a 1000 year old codex as the basis for his version of the Old Testament. There could be a ton of errors introduced between the time of writing of each piece of commentary and text and 1000 AD.

Not to mention that at one time, what was Judaism was a polytheistic religion and the original versions of the Old Testament reflected polytheistic roots. It wasn't until much later that the monotheistic cult within proto-Judaism came about and edited the original version of the Old Testament into a book that only reflected a monotheistic religion.


wat


What indeed. One of the things that made the Hebrews different from other Semitic tribes was their monotheistic belief system. I'm not sure where that's coming from.
2012-08-08 01:27:26 PM
2 votes:
I didn't realize that fiction could be "definitive."
2012-08-08 01:21:38 PM
2 votes:
David shot first!
2012-08-08 01:17:48 PM
2 votes:
He never should have given Lucas creative control.

"Meesa say love you God bestest mostest of all!"
2012-08-08 05:28:16 PM
1 votes:
Hmmm. I wonder if the tiny little problem of misunderstanding over a misplaced jot in Zechariah 5 will finally be cleared up:

Let's see what makes more sense from the following two translations...

Zechariah 5: 1 - 11
Then again I lifted up my eyes, and saw, and, behold, a flying scroll! And he [the messenger/angel] said unto me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; the length thereof is twenty cubits [thirty feet], and the breadth thereof ten cubits [fifteen feet in diameter]. Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole land: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off on the one side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off on the other side according to it. I will cause it to go forth, saith YHWH of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name; and it shall abide in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof. Then the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto me, Lift up now your eyes, and see what is this that goes forth. And I said, What is it? And he said, This is the ephah [measure/basket/vessel] that goes forth. He said moreover, This is their appearance in all the land [world]; (and, behold, there was lifted up a talent* of lead metal); and this is a woman sitting in the midst of the ephah [measure/basket/vessel]! And he said, This is Wickedness: and he cast her down into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof. Then I lifted up my eyes, and saw, and, behold, there came forth two women, and the wind was in their wings; now they had wings like the wings of a stork; and they lifted up the ephah between earth and heaven. Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah? And he said unto me, To build her a house in the land of Shinar [traditionally located near modern Iraq]: and when it is prepared, she shall be set there in her own place.

The word being translated here as "woman" [ishshah נָשִׁים ], which sits very closely to two other variations of the word, for example, move a single letter and it becomes eshshah, which means simply "fire" in the traditional sense, or keep the original word ishshah and move a jot and not only does it become "fire" but a sacrificial, or Holy Fire, you know, like the one we get our word "Holocaust" from. Now, lets go back and replace "woman" with "Holy fire", and women" with regular "fire" and see how that pans out.

Then again I lifted up my eyes, and saw, and, behold, a flying scroll! And he [the messenger/angel] said unto me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; the length thereof is twenty cubits [thirty feet], and the breadth thereof ten cubits [fifteen feet in diameter]. Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole land: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off [written] on the one side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off on the other side according to it. I will cause it to go forth, saith YHWH of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name; and it shall abide in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof. Then the angel that talked with me went forth, and said unto me, Lift up now your eyes, and see what is this that goes forth. And I said, What is it? And he said, This is the ephah [measure/basket/vessel] that goes forth. He said moreover, This is their appearance in all the land [world]; (and, behold, there was lifted up a talent* of lead metal); and this is a Holocaust Fire sitting in the midst of the ephah [measure/basket/vessel]! And he said, This is Wickedness: and he cast it [the fire] down into the midst of the ephah; and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth thereof. Then I lifted up my eyes, and saw, and, behold, there came forth two fires, and the wind was in their wings; now they had wings like the wings of a stork; and they lifted up the ephah between earth and heaven. Then said I to the angel that talked with me, Whither do these bear the ephah? And he said unto me, To build it a house in the land of Shinar [traditionally located near modern Iraq]: and when it is prepared, it shall be set there in her own place.

So, in one translation you get a flying scroll with a container with a wicked woman in it, carried by two other flying women. Crazy shiat, huh? Those wacky prophets!

However, the other translation suddenly makes a lot more scary sense... a flying scroll (tube), that carries a holocaust fire inside, sealed in a lead container, that can destroy houses of the wicked and the stones thereof, a fire that is declared to be wicked, that flies when lifted up by two fires under stork-like wings... and they all pretty much look like this throughout the whole of the world.

Suddenly an ignored prophesy about future judgement seems to make a whole lot more sense when a simple grammatical and solitary translation error are corrected, because what you have here is a bronze-age prophet describing nuclear missiles well over two thousand five hundred years ago, specifically ones that pretty much fit the description of the ones made in Pakistan, which is awfully close to the land of Shinar (Iraq), and honestly, don't all missiles pretty much look the same across the whole wide world?

Think twice before you laugh at the Bible. The Bible says that the houses of the thief and the liar will be completely consumed. Sadly, it doesn't say which thieves and liars. Maybe the White House? maybe your house? Who knows?? Best not to be a thief and a liar then.

* a talent was the heaviest measuring weight known to Israel at the time. Nuclear warheads aren't exactly light, and the very first atomic bomb weighed in at almost five tons.
2012-08-08 04:58:08 PM
1 votes:

buckler: Dr Dreidel: Gyrfalcon: It's why there are so many references to other gods in the Pentateuch, as in the story of Babel when God says "Behold, man is become LIKE US." Since God never refers to himself in the royal plural anywhere else, this is interpreted to mean God is talking to other gods.

Genesis 2:1 (IIRC): "Let US make man, in OUR own image..."

I often wondered about the "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", which seems to simultaneously acknowledge the existence of other gods, while affirming that he was taking supremacy among them.


Could be that the Biblical author uses the term "other gods" to mean "another object of worship". There's a belief that The Golden Calf (one of many "other gods" mentioned in the text) was built by the Hebrews because they felt they couldn't replace Moses (who, you recall, had disappeared up a mountain) as their intermediary to god. They built this idol to focus their prayers (a good intention), in effect "creating a new god".

There is also the idea that there are named powers that control the universe - in Judaism, angels serve as messengers of god's will (since god has no corporeal form, all the times god reaches into the physical world, it's through an angel). They have more "power" than people, so they can be thought of as "other gods" with God at the helm. These deserve no worship, as all of their power comes from God anyway.

Assuming you believe in any of that...
2012-08-08 04:24:01 PM
1 votes:

hdhale: Declaring it total fiction is simply intellectually lazy.


Would you prefer this?

THIS BOOK
IS BASED
ON A TRUE STORY
2012-08-08 03:21:13 PM
1 votes:

SpaceBison: [i11.tinypic.com image 450x600]


The only revision needed is that sticker.

So, theoretically, if the Bible came from god in the first place and it's wrong, that should be evidence of an imperfect god. Or, if for centuries people have been studying an imperfect text shouldn't they all be in hell or smited? Shouldn't this heretic who is rewriting the perfect book in his image be smited? Shouldn't the jews be enacting holy war on his ass for screwing with their supposedly perfect book? Is there anyone in the entire jewish religion who can't see the logical fallacy in this?

Jesus tittyfarking christ, maybe it is just time to get rid of these fairy tales for adults. The reason we don't get anywhere as a species on this planet is directly due to religion. If we spent as much time, money and effort on eliminating this disease of the mind as we do on cancer, the world would instantly be a better place.
2012-08-08 02:57:42 PM
1 votes:

Tatsuma: This is silly, it's like alternate spellings of words and stuff, he is not 'correcting' anything.

*writes 'colour' instead of 'color', claims to have corrected the Bible*

Ridiculous.



Yes, Bibles are ridiculous.
2012-08-08 02:54:48 PM
1 votes:

Surool: This will do until the next person gets around to revising it.

[www.cheese-magnet.com image 850x519]


"Bible's broken".
2012-08-08 02:34:07 PM
1 votes:

COMALite J: To Gyrfalcon: it's interesting to note that in Satan's first appearances by name (in Job, and also in the Book of Jasher which the Bible twice mentions as being part of it yet which is not in the Bible as we have it today), Satan is not an enemy of God, nor a fallen angel (that would be Samael), but rather God's prosecutor, basically His D.A.! His job was to accuse people of sin, not tempt them to commit sin! The only entity Satan is shown to have actually tempted back then was God Himself, by His own admission ("...although thou [Satan] movedst Me [YHWH] against him [Job], to destroy him without cause." ― Job 2:3, KJV).

Later, the Chronicles account of David's disastrous census of Israel says that Satan tempted David to do that (I Chronicles 21:1), but the Samuel version (generally considered superior, and the older, more original account) flatly says that YHWH moved David to do that (II Samuel 24:1)! That chapter then has YHWH severely punishing Israel (making David choose from one of three horrific punishment options, and David choosing God Himself hoping for some mercy, but God then slaying tens of thousands by plague) for what He Himself moved David to do!



Or, since there's dick all for context, we can look at the text, see that David is convinced of his own might, and wants to see how powerful he is. His most trusted general tells him not to be so arrogant, and he does it anyway. Could this perhaps be warning about the arrogance of a powerful leader, especially since David, on multiple occasion, does arrogantly jerky things, and has to be punished for it. Seems much more like a story warning about ignoring what's right, even in the face of good advice.
2012-08-08 02:32:48 PM
1 votes:
FFS, It's been done:

www.bibles.com

And is being done again.

smh.
2012-08-08 02:16:59 PM
1 votes:

ciberido: Kuroutesshin: hdhale: ltdanman44: RexTalionis: Even in the story of Elijah and Baal (1 Kings 18), Elijah never says Baal doesn't exist.


Err, edit fail. It was me who said, "Even in the story of Elijah and Baal (1 Kings 18), Elijah never says Baal doesn't exist." I incorrectly pasted it at the wrong point, making it appear that I was quoting someone else, accidentally putting words in someone else's mouth. Sorry about that.
2012-08-08 02:14:35 PM
1 votes:

ciberido: It doesn't say they don't exist. It says not to worship them.


upload.wikimedia.org

Agrees that you don't want to go messing around with the Other Gods.
2012-08-08 02:12:17 PM
1 votes:

Kuroutesshin: hdhale: ltdanman44: RexTalionis: The problem with the idea of a "Definitive Bible" of course, is that the scholar Menachem Cohen is relying on a 1000 year old codex as the basis for his version of the Old Testament. There could be a ton of errors introduced between the time of writing of each piece of commentary and text and 1000 AD.

Not to mention that at one time, what was Judaism was a polytheistic religion and the original versions of the Old Testament reflected polytheistic roots. It wasn't until much later that the monotheistic cult within proto-Judaism came about and edited the original version of the Old Testament into a book that only reflected a monotheistic religion.

Even in the story of Elijah and Baal (1 Kings 18), Elijah never says Baal doesn't exist.


wat

What indeed. One of the things that made the Hebrews different from other Semitic tribes was their monotheistic belief system. I'm not sure where that's coming from.

There is evidence, through archaeological research in other Levantine and Semitic religions as well as the Documentary Hypothesis of the Bible, that the Israelite tribes developed true monotheism rather late. The bible even contains references to this in Josiah's reforms where he cleans the temple and shutters the other "shrines" in Israel.



God may have had a wife.

"Some biblical scholars now accept that Yahweh (the national god of Israel) once had a consort. The evidence includes, for example, an 8th century combination of iconography and inscriptions discovered at Kuntillet Ajrud in the northern Sinai desert where a storage jar shows three anthropomorphic figures and an inscription that refers to "Yahweh ... and his Asherah". Further evidence includes the many female figurines unearthed in ancient Israel, supporting the view that Asherah functioned as a goddess and consort of Yahweh and was worshiped as the Queen of Heaven."

It's also interesting that (so far as I know) nothing in the Old Commandment says that there weren't other gods. In fact, even the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt have no other gods before me ...Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God." It doesn't say they don't exist. It says not to worship them.
2012-08-08 02:01:23 PM
1 votes:

Tatsuma: This is silly, it's like alternate spellings of words and stuff, he is not 'correcting' anything.

*writes 'colour' instead of 'color', claims to have corrected the Bible*

Ridiculous.


So did he just lay to rest all of those read one way/said another (kri u'ketiv) parts? As I recall, some of those have significance (like using a vav in the male pronoun when talking about god to imply that both genders are present in the "godly mind" (l'havdil, as you might say).

But yeah, this is like cleaning up Chaucer's grammar.
2012-08-08 02:00:41 PM
1 votes:

kronicfeld: Is this like another version of Blade Runner?


Well, there's a naked chick with a snake, but it's much more violent, queer and racist.
2012-08-08 01:59:34 PM
1 votes:

Mr Guy: hdhale: What indeed. One of the things that made the Hebrews different from other Semitic tribes was their monotheistic belief system. I'm not sure where that's coming from.

I'm pretty sure he's saying that Jews weren't monotheistic, until they became monotheistic Jews and wrote their holy book. So um. Thanks?


Most Biblical scholars are pretty much in agreement that early Judaism was never a fully "monotheistic" religion, and instead venerated their God as superior to and separate from the neighboring religions' gods; but without the "One True God" cant that emerged later. It's why there are so many references to other gods in the Pentateuch, as in the story of Babel when God says "Behold, man is become LIKE US." Since God never refers to himself in the royal plural anywhere else, this is interpreted to mean God is talking to other gods. There's also somewhere a reference to "Yahweh and his Ashera"; Ashera was a Babylonian goddess, and in early pantheons all "god" avatars had a female and a male aspect, so this is possibly a time when the Hebrews were transitioning from a single superior god to One God.

It wasn't until much much later that the idea emerged that there was only One God and all other "gods" were by default demons or aspects of Satan.
2012-08-08 01:59:18 PM
1 votes:

phalamir: hdhale: Except that not all the characters are fiction, everything in there actually happened or plausibly could have happened even if the stated reason may not be true and at no point is anything a mere coincidence. Indeed there's some pretty compelling arguments that even how things were written down was purposely done to hide additional text for unknown reasons.

So it is all real, but the writers all intentionally chose - despite being from several different centuries and intellectual/theological strains of Judaism - to write it as if it was a series of non-factual stories that are obviously heavily and badly edited and re-edited and re-re-edited? That is ... "impressive"


No, but if you look at some of the copies or fragments of copies of various Old Testament books that were written over many, many centuries you discover that they match up.

There are stories in the Old Testament that are likely allegory, and the Jews didn't particularly separate pure history from allegory, so when people are marched into ovens in ancient Babylon and they don't burn, we don't know with 100% certainty whether that happened in reality or not--we do know however that the Book of Daniel is a wonderful testament of faith and that we would do well to live by his example.

Too many people get caught up in the stray threads that hang off the tapestry and forget there is something wonderful there that should have shared. I don't discourage Biblical scholarship or increasing our understanding of the history and archeology of the ancient Middle East by any means, but faith or lack of it shouldn't depend upon it.
2012-08-08 01:58:49 PM
1 votes:
A definitive version of the bible?
I'm sure everyone will agree on this matter.
Excuse me while I dig a bomb shelter.
2012-08-08 01:51:08 PM
1 votes:

Prank Call of Cthulhu: "This book is a work of fiction. All characters in this book are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."

/So many problems solved.


Actually, if you simply consider it a description of true events.
A collection of observation & interpretation of things not often understandable or experienced first-hand
at the age & time of relating.

And the valueset as a guide rather than a literal.

Then that would solve the problems too,
without considering it a work of total fiction

/to preserve whatever your own sense of reality & truth is
2012-08-08 01:50:01 PM
1 votes:
Just got off the phone with God. He says that every believer that doesn't jump off a bridge by 8/10/2012 is going to Hell. Just wanted to get the word out.
2012-08-08 01:43:20 PM
1 votes:

hdhale: Prank Call of Cthulhu: "This book is a work of fiction. All characters in this book are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."

/So many problems solved.

Except that not all the characters are fiction, everything in there actually happened or plausibly could have happened even if the stated reason may not be true and at no point is anything a mere coincidence. Indeed there's some pretty compelling arguments that even how things were written down was purposely done to hide additional text for unknown reasons.

Declaring it total fiction is simply intellectually lazy.


Lots of movies & stories mention real life people and events in them, based in the very real culture of the time period of that particular story, and they're still considered fiction.
2012-08-08 01:39:40 PM
1 votes:

danielscissorhands: I didn't realize that fiction could be "definitive."


This is more like a Special Edition/Director's Cut/With Extra footage kind of deals. I think it also comes in a limited edition box set with a Moses action figure.
2012-08-08 01:37:12 PM
1 votes:

Prank Call of Cthulhu: "This book is a work of fiction. All characters in this book are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental."

/So many problems solved.


Except that not all the characters are fiction, everything in there actually happened or plausibly could have happened even if the stated reason may not be true and at no point is anything a mere coincidence. Indeed there's some pretty compelling arguments that even how things were written down was purposely done to hide additional text for unknown reasons.

Declaring it total fiction is simply intellectually lazy.
2012-08-08 01:31:21 PM
1 votes:
Are the right-wing nut cases still the only ones who get to decide which parts need to be followed to the letter and are entirely literal and which parts can be ignored or are metaphorical/allegorical?

And will they be able to perceive the cognitive dissonance that occurs when they tell you ALL of it is entirely literal and then proceed to explain that the parts they disagree with are just metaphorical?

Because if this guy managed to pull THAT off, then kudos to him.
2012-08-08 01:20:20 PM
1 votes:

RexTalionis: The problem with the idea of a "Definitive Bible" of course, is that the scholar Menachem Cohen is relying on a 1000 year old codex as the basis for his version of the Old Testament. There could be a ton of errors introduced between the time of writing of each piece of commentary and text and 1000 AD.

Not to mention that at one time, what was Judaism was a polytheistic religion and the original versions of the Old Testament reflected polytheistic roots. It wasn't until much later that the monotheistic cult within proto-Judaism came about and edited the original version of the Old Testament into a book that only reflected a monotheistic religion.



wat
2012-08-08 01:07:51 PM
1 votes:

kronicfeld: Is this like another version of Blade Runner?


Yes, but it requires more suspension of disbelief than Blade Runner does.
2012-08-08 12:46:12 PM
1 votes:
Is this like another version of Blade Runner?
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report