LittleNipper wrote:Someone taught you what you think.
No, someone taught me to think. I will not explain this to you again.
LittleNipper wrote:It didn't come out of thin air. You certainly didn't pick it up from reading the Bible on your own.
That's absolutely where it came from. I'm sorry that you cannot conceive of someone interpreting the text without someone telling them what it's supposed to say, but it's possible, particularly when you've been trained in the relevant languages and the literary, cultural, and historical contexts.
LittleNipper wrote:And maybe you should stop assuming that because people disagree with your "high opinions," that they are naïve and misrepresentations.
No, I conclude that about you because you post nothing by naïve and misrepresentative comments.
LittleNipper wrote:The simple fact is that God was demonstrating to everyone that they NEED A SAVIOR.
That's demonstrably neither a fact nor simple. That's an ideology, and one that has not been agree upon for millennia.
LittleNipper wrote:Even the "Righteous" are unable to fulfill the Law to the letter. This is what God is spelling out. Maybe you should try it sometime. Do everything the Bible says to do, the way it says to do it. You will fall flat. It isn't possible.
Largely because the Bible contradicts itself. For instance, you have a bunch of commandments about sacrifices and offerings in Exodus, but then in Jeremiah 7 you have God saying he didn't say a word about sacrifices and offerings when he brought Israel out of Egypt.
LittleNipper wrote:Only Christ perfectly fulfilled the letter of the Law in the only way it could be fulfilled. God gave himself as a ransom for many. The foundation of the Bible is not that of the Book of Mormon. The Bible contains history, but it isn't a history book. The Bible contains prophecy, but it isn't a about seeing the future. The Bible contains wonderful poetry, but it wasn't written for its artistic merit. The reason for the Bible is to bring to the world the how, why, and wherefore that Christ had to do what He did. It is a love letter for whosoever will. Education isn't just about going to a classes and hearing lectures, and doing reports. Very often an education is learning to walk by faith. And this is something you are not demonstrating.
In other words, do what you say because you say so. Ignore the facts and just obey. Brilliant.
Roger wrote:Here's what the commentary in my NEB says about it (Ez. 20:25-26):
"The surrender of the eldest sons as gifts to idols is seen as one of the laws from God, inasmuch as he directs even the evil deeds of men to their own good. Sacrifices of human infants are condemned in v. 31 and in 16:20; also in Lev. 18:21; Jer. 7:31"
This doesn't help much.
It's also a flagrant misrepresentation of what the text actually says.
Roger wrote:The commentators are acknowledging that "the surrender of the eldest sons as gifts to idolsis seen as one of the laws from God," but then qualify that with the "inasmuch as" statement. It seems that the best possible interpretation would have God commanding human sacrifice but only in response to "the evil deeds of men."
As we noted earlier, Ex. 22 reads in a very nonchalant way... as in do this, this and this, not okay, go ahead and sacrifice your first born and see how you like it.
Well, Ezekiel is trying to rationalize just like the NEB.
Roger wrote:To me the way 13:13 reads, as well as 34:20, it is clear that first born humans are to be redeemed. Yes, according to 22:29 they belong to God, but 13:13 has already stated that first born human males must be redeemed, whereas with certain animals it's optional. So I don't see a problem with the notion of redemption not appearing in 22:29 since it already appeared in 13:13. If it's a later addition, however, then that would be a problem. I don't know how we know for sure whether it is or not unless we stumble upon an original autograph of Exodus.
This is where the merits of source criticism become very important. We have multiple ancient texts in a variety of iterations and stages of development and can see exactly what kind of literary phenomena appear when texts are spliced together or added upon. These very phenomena appear all over the texts of the Pentateuch, and the Covenant Code is a perfect example. The Wright book I cited above is excellent, but for more methodology on the empirical evidence that guides the source critical endeavor, see the first chapter of David Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible.
LittleNipper wrote:Someone taught you what you think.
No, someone taught me to think.
"to think" --- unknown expresion for fundamentalists as LN.
maklelan wrote:I will not explain this to you again.
Yes, it would be lavishness...
BTWYou (maklelan) are a fundamentalist, too (for me) - a different way than LN. But, at least You know a lot... Knowledge wins.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Roger wrote: Here's what the commentary in my NEB says about it (Ez. 20:25-26):
"The surrender of the eldest sons as gifts to idols is seen as one of the laws from God, inasmuch as he directs even the evil deeds of men to their own good. Sacrifices of human infants are condemned in v. 31 and in 16:20; also in Lev. 18:21; Jer. 7:31" [quote="maklelan"] This doesn't help much.
It's also a flagrant misrepresentation of what the text actually says.[\quote]
And you determined that these commentators were flagrantly misrepresenting what this Bible text is actually implying, according to whose teaching? Or, did you come to this conclusion totally on your own?
2 Kings 12:1-21 Seven years after Jehu had become the king of Israel --- Joash became king of Judah. He reigned in Jerusalem for 40 years. (His mother was Zibiah, from Beersheba.) Joash did what was right because Jehoiada the High Priest instructed him. Yet even he didn’t destroy the shrines on the hills—the people still sacrificed and burned incense there.
One day King Joash said to Jehoiada, “The Temple building needs repairing. Whenever anyone brings a contribution to the Lord, whether it is a regular assessment or some special gift, use it to pay for whatever repairs are needed.” But by the 23rd year of his reign the Temple was still in disrepair. Joash called for Jehoiada and the other priests and asked them, “Why haven’t you done anything about the Temple? Now don’t use any more money for your own needs; from now on it must all be spent on getting the Temple into good condition.”
The priests agreed to set up a special repair fund that would not go through their hands so such wouldn't be applied to their personal needs. Jehoiada the priest bored a hole in the lid of a large chest and set it on the right-hand side of the altar at the Temple entrance. The doorkeepers put all of the people’s contributions into it. Whenever the chest became full, the king’s financial secretary and the High Priest counted it, put it into sacks, and gave it to the construction superintendents to pay the carpenters, stonemasons, quarrymen, timber dealers, and stone merchants, and to buy the other materials needed to repair the Temple of the Lord.
It was not used to buy silver cups, gold snuffers, bowls, trumpets, or similar articles, but only for repairs to the structure. No accounting was required from the construction superintendents, for they were honest and faithful men. However, the money that was contributed for guilt offerings and sin offerings was given to the priests for their own use. It was not put into the chest.
King Hazael of Syria went to war against Gath and captured it; then he moved on toward Jerusalem to attack it. King Joash took all the sacred objects that his ancestors—Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah, the kings of Judah—had dedicated, along with what he himself had dedicated, and all the gold in the treasuries of the Temple and the palace, and sent it to Hazael. Hazael called off the attack. The rest of the history of Joash is recorded in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah of Judah. But his officers plotted against him and assassinated him in his royal residence at Millo on the road to Silla. The assassins were Jozachar, the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad, the son of Shomer—both trusted aides. He was buried in the royal cemetery in Jerusalem, and his son Amaziah became the new king.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
1 In the seventh year of Jehu reigned hath Jehoash, and forty years he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother [is] Zibiah of Beer-Sheba,
2 and Jehoash doth that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah all his days in which Jehoiada the priest directed him,
3 only, the high places have not turned aside, still are the people sacrificing and making perfume in high places.
4 And Jehoash saith unto the priests, `All the money of the sanctified things that is brought in to the house of Jehovah, the money of him who is passing over, each the money of his valuation, all the money that it goeth up on the heart of a man to bring in to the house of Jehovah,
5 do the priests take to them, each from his acquaintance, and they strengthen the breach of the house, in all [places] where there is found a breach.'
6 And it cometh to pass, in the twenty and third year of king Jehoash, the priests have not strengthened the breach of the house,
7 and king Jehoash calleth to Jehoiada the priest, and to the priests, and saith unto them, `Wherefore are ye not strengthening the breach of the house? and now, receive no money from your acquaintances, but for the breach of the house give it.'
8 And the priests consent not to receive money from the people, nor to strengthen the breach of the house,
9 and Jehoiada the priest taketh a chest, and pierceth a hole in its lid, and putteth it near the altar, on the right side, as one cometh in to the house of Jehovah, and the priests keeping the threshold have put there all the money that is brought in to the house of Jehovah.
10 And it cometh to pass, at their seeing that the money [is] abundant in the chest, that there goeth up a scribe of the king, and of the high priest, and they bind [it] up, and count the money that is found [in] the house of Jehovah,
11 and have given the weighed money into the hands of those doing the work, those inspecting the house of Jehovah, and they bring it out to those working in the wood, and to builders who are working in the house of Jehovah,
12 and to those [repairing] the wall, and to hewers of stone, and to buy wood and hewn stones to strengthen the breach of the house of Jehovah, and for all that goeth out on the house, to strengthen it.
13 Only, there is not made for the house of Jehovah basins of silver, snuffers, bowls, trumpets, any vessel of gold, and vessel of silver, out of the money that is brought into the house of Jehovah;
14 for to those doing the work they give it, and they have strengthened with it the house of Jehovah,
15 and they do not reckon with the men into whose hand they give the money to give to those doing the work, for in faithfulness they are dealing.
16 The money of a trespass-offering, and the money of sin-offerings is not brought in to the house of Jehovah -- for the priests it is.
17 Then go up doth Hazael king of Aram, and fighteth against Gath, and captureth it, and Hazael setteth his face to go up against Jerusalem;
18 and Jehoash king of Judah taketh all the sanctified things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had sanctified, and his own sanctified things, and all the gold that is found in the treasures of the house of Jehovah and of the house of the king, and sendeth to Hazael king of Aram, and he goeth up from off Jerusalem.
19 And the rest of the matters of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?
20 And his servants rise, and make a conspiracy, and smite Joash in the house of Millo, that is going down to Silla:
21 yea, Jozachar son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad son of Shemer, his servants, have smitten him, and he dieth, and they bury him with his fathers in the city of David, and reign doth Amaziah his son, in his stead.
LittleNipper wrote:And you determined that these commentators were flagrantly misrepresenting what this Bible text is actually implying, according to whose teaching? Or, did you come to this conclusion totally on your own?
I'm guessing you are directing your question to mak although you do not specifically mention his name in your post. I reproduced the commentary from my New English Bible on Ez. 20:25-26. I like this particular translation because of the clarity in the way it reads and it also has commentary accompanying most of the verses and, at least from a layman's point of view, it appears as though the fellows who worked on this translation were good at their vocation.
mak can obviously speak for himself, but I would guess his answer would be something along the lines that he came to his conclusion in the same way most everyone does... by gathering as many facts as he can about the question at hand and then using his intellect to come to a conclusion. From what I can tell, he is in a better position than the rest of us here to make an informed decision about the text, because he has made a career out of studying ancient texts, and especially Biblical texts. Does that mean he can't be wrong? Of course not. But it does mean that we should at least give his opinion serious and respectful consideration.
All the best.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
So what, precisely, does that mean? Can it mean the author was inspired to record her own thoughts, or must it mean each and every word is directed by God?
I would rather leave it an open question. ; ) Reminds me of the conflict between the eyewitness accounts of the Book of Mormon "translation" vs. the D & C 9 "study it out in your mind" version.
Let's take Billy Graham as an example and let's assume he's a man who receives inspiration from God. Does that mean God gives virtually every word to Billy Graham that he says during a sermon? I wouldn't think so. Does that mean that Billy Graham's grammar has to be perfect as he's giving a sermon? I don't think so (but it would mean that if God was giving him every word). Does it mean that the reporter who makes a transcript of Billy's sermon can't make a mistake? No. Does it even have to mean that Billy's theology has to be 100% correct? That's debatable, but I would still think God could use Billy Graham to spread an inspired message even if Billy is human and makes a few honest mistakes. The overall message could still be "inspired by God." But we'd run into a big problem if Billy started proclaiming: "God spoke to me and told me he wants us to reinstitute child sacrifice."
The original composition of Acts 15:16-17 included a mistranslation of Amos 9:11-12.
Okay. Now I'm following you. I would still question how you know that since you don't have the original text.
Fair enough. I was going off the assumption you were dismissing outright the notion that it's all made up and YHWH doesn't exist.
I generally don't dismiss anything outright unless I have good reason to. It's certainly a possibility, although not the one I would like.
It always seems to come down to this, doesn't it? How do you know the Bible is inspired? Is it not a decision you made one day based on something someone told you?
I don't know it and no one does. We are asked to have faith that it is. Faith is promoted as a good thing to have. But it doesn't have to be blind faith. It can be faith based on evidence. The way the Bible has come together and has been preserved certainly makes it unique. And again, I go back to the resurrection of Christ as the pivotal question. If Christ rose from the dead, then any other potential conflict has a resolution, even if I can't see it.
So let me ask you, given that you indicate you are a Christian, do you believe Christ rose from the dead?
I prefer that to relying on dogmatism and tradition.
If by "that" you mean scholarship, I don't disagree, although there still may be some value in understanding the traditions and dogma.
Isn't the notion of the Bible's inerrancy just something you arbitrarily accept, anyway? I've asked people to give me a reason to accept inerrancy for years, and no one has ever come up with anything other than that I'm supposed to because the Bible says so (which it demonstrably does not).
I don't believe in Biblical "inerrancy" in the current texts. Obviously mistakes have been made down through the years otherwise there would be no variants. It seems to me there are two related questions:
1. Were the original texts inspired by God and if so, as you ask, what does that mean exactly?
2. Was the eventual emergence of a Biblical canon inspired by God?
There are a lot of things in the Bible that are weak. Many of Jesus' rhetorical dodges are quite weak, for instance.
Hmm. I find Jesus's "rhetorical dodges" to have been quite ingenious considering the traps his enemies were hoping he'd fall into.
I prefer to see what this human-produced text can teach me about Israel and how it related to deity. Even if the text was produced by a blasphemer I think it can teach me something about God, even if it only provides the raw materials for me to construct a lesson myself.
From a historical context point of view, it may be able to provide some useful information, but from a theological point of view I would think it would be worse than nothing at all. Why would you listen to someone who falsely has God commanding child sacrifice? And someone else who deceptively tries to gloss it over?
The Covenant Code as found in Exodus sure is, but a lot of it is drawn from other law codes. David Wright's Inventing God's Law explains the relationships, and how the authors drew from other legal corpora to produce the Covenant Code.
Sounds like an interesting book.
I can think of no other candidates.
C'mon mak. What are they paying you for?
All the best.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’