billvon 3,096 #76 April 2, 2007 > Genesis Chapter One: Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. So far so good. He created dinosaurs, cattle etc then created man later. But wait - here's Genesis 2! This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created. . . .The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. . . . And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. So man was created FIRST, THEN beasts! So why don't we remember them? Or is Gen 2 just plain wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #77 April 2, 2007 doesnt say anything about dolphins or three toed sloths either. Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #78 April 2, 2007 > doesnt say anything about dolphins or three toed sloths either. That's in a different place. --------------------- And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu . . . And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." --------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #79 April 3, 2007 This is still going on? Haha ....This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #80 April 3, 2007 It's "reminding" you that God had created the animals, and later gave Adam the opportunity to name them. The animals were made first. Just remember that the bible you're reading is in English. Before it got to that point it was in Greek or Latin (I forget) and before that parts of it were in Aramaic, and before that in Hebrew. So if something doesn't make sense you have the myriad misinterpretations and literary licence taken of each translator to thank. And just because something is translated dosn't mean the context of the original language is preserved which can get tricky when you are reading biblical Hebrew where even the shape of, or an additional sqibble added to the letter used gives it meaning that you would have to be a scholar to recognize. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #81 April 3, 2007 >The animals were made first. Actually, Genesis 2 says quite clearly that man came first. Are you arguing with - GOD?? I know someone else who argues with God - SATAN! Just kidding. I agree that the Bible is an oft-translated book that is rife with mistranslations from the original sources. Thus the danger of taking it at face value for scientific/historical purposes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #82 April 3, 2007 Quote>The animals were made first. Actually, Genesis 2 says quite clearly that man came first. Are you arguing with - GOD?? I know someone else who argues with God - SATAN! Quote I'm not arguing with God, only your misunderstanding of what is really written. What genesis 2 states is that God brought the animals(which had already been created on the 5th and 6th day-see [1:20 to 1:28]) before Adam(who was made after the 7th day[2:1 to 2:6]) to name. What you are confused about is when it says in (2:19) "Now, God HAD FORMED out of the ground every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call each one" Pay attention to the "HAD FORMED" not "formed" which is stating a past tense. They were already made, and now they were being gathered up to be categorized/named. Even in English the translation is clear, but you need to pay attention to the grammar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,096 #83 April 3, 2007 >(2:19) "Now, God HAD FORMED out of the ground every beast of the field" The NKJV has the translation: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" KJV version (generally considered the most authoritative english version:) "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" Looks like you have an "alternative" translation! Which is exactly the problem I've been talking about. >Even in English the translation is clear . . . Well, I guess that depends on which translation you use! Which one were you using? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #84 April 4, 2007 Pretty good question. I'd like some answers too - in my school we had all these pictorial dinosaurs roaming around, then some ice came along, and next thing you know there are hairy people running around sticking spears into woolly mammoths. Where did they evolve from? What was in between? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,584 #85 April 4, 2007 QuoteI'd like some answers too - in my school we had all these pictorial dinosaurs roaming around, then some ice came along, and next thing you know there are hairy people running around sticking spears into woolly mammoths. The extinction of the dinosaurs happened 65 million years ago. Modern humans have been on the scene for a few hundred thousand years. Thats one heck of a 'next thing you know!'Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #86 April 4, 2007 Exactly - it's a question remaining unsolved - what came in between? Nowadays on my telly it's an advert, and then.......cavemen. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,584 #87 April 4, 2007 QuoteExactly - it's a question remaining unsolved - what came in between? Nowadays on my telly it's an advert, and then.......cavemen. Timeline of Human Evolution.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #88 April 4, 2007 Shit source - still no answers either. Perhaps I should listen to the Mrs and suscribe to get Discovery after all. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #89 April 4, 2007 Quote>(2:19) "Now, God HAD FORMED out of the ground every beast of the field" The NKJV has the translation: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" KJV version (generally considered the most authoritative english version:) "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" Looks like you have an "alternative" translation! Which is exactly the problem I've been talking about. >Even in English the translation is clear . . . Well, I guess that depends on which translation you use! Which one were you using? I wasn't using a translation or a "Version," but the original thing. I would say the Hebrew Bible is the most authoritative, and considering I speak, read and write Hebrew, I can read it for what it actually says. For anyone not reading Hebrew the most authoritative translation is the English translation directly from Hebrew translated by Jewish scholars who understand the context and grammar of their native tongue without having to translate through a second or third translation (older versions of the bible or via Greek or Aramaic) and without guessing which might be the right word and which slant of translation might please the Bishop. The bible or more accurately “Torah” has been duplicated exactly the same way from the time it was written without “updates” and “versions” which is why no one Hebrew bible is different from the other no matter where in the world it was produced. Would you argue with the English version of the Mikado (Japanese Opera) compared to what the actual thing says in Japanese? How then can you do the same with the bible? What the original Bible says cannot be changed, and “NEW” versions are only getting farther away from what was actually said and by nature are subjective and flawed and cannot be relied upon to be accurate when you are reading regurgitated theological assumptions and biases that include blatantly substituting words and shortening entire verses which is what you will find in this so called “generally considered to be authoritative” NKJV. The NKJV is a badly corrupted version of the bible and is rife with mistranslations, and in which complete verses are cut in half and omitted, but you wouldn’t know to read the original to compare it to. It is not btw considered to be the most authoritative version of the bible except by enough people who think their “considering it to be anything” makes it validated by a few people who run with what they read in some Digest or off of some book review, and wind up being embarrassed when they try to quote the simplest of facts from it. The new version you are referring to is simply made to be understood in the “common man’s” tongue which further changes it’s original meaning and context especially when the authors try to “simplify” the grammar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,584 #90 April 4, 2007 Quotestill no answers either. What more did you want?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,096 #91 April 4, 2007 >and “NEW” versions by nature are subjective and flawed and cannot >be relied upon to be accurate . . . I think you will get some very vehement arguments about that from some people here! But I agree - the original is generally the more authoritative. But by that reasoning, the egyptian creation myth might be more authoritative still. Per the egyptians, in the beginning there was only water and darkness. Then the sun appeared. Some gods were created, and they separated the earth, the water and the sky. (Sound familiar?) And it predates the Genesis story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #92 April 4, 2007 Quote But by that reasoning, the egyptian creation myth might be more authoritative still. Per the egyptians, in the beginning there was only water and darkness. Then the sun appeared. Some gods were created, and they separated the earth, the water and the sky. (Sound familiar?) And it predates the Genesis story. I would agree (or at least believe) that there is truth in part in many of the older civilizations' beliefs. It would make sense that some had preserved one remnant of truth or another from ages long ago. As far as there being other beings or "Gods" there is the obvious reference when God says "Let US make Man in OUR image after OUR likeness." Someone else or a few Someone elses were there before man was created. Some people like to say he's speaking to the angels, but it doesn't say that’s what they were. Elsewhere in the Bible it states the word “messengers(i.e. angels)” very clearly but not here. They could have been but who knows for sure...Interesting stuff no doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #93 April 4, 2007 "I wasn't using a translation or a "Version," but the original thing. " Wow! you have an original copy of the Torah?Its my understanding that the oldest complete manuscript is the Leningrad Codex it dates back to 1008AD. So are you suggesting the Torah was written in 1008ad? Or do you have older originals? The fact is your Torah is most likely a copy of a copy of a copy etc. You dont know what the original said. It is not unlikely they were copied from oral traidtions givung us a furthher source of innacuracy. Most biblical shcolars believe the Genesis story even has more than one author. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #94 April 4, 2007 Quote>and “NEW” versions by nature are subjective and flawed and cannot >be relied upon to be accurate . . . I think you will get some very vehement arguments about that from some people here! But I agree - the original is generally the more authoritative. But by that reasoning, the egyptian creation myth might be more authoritative still. Per the egyptians, in the beginning there was only water and darkness. Then the sun appeared. Some gods were created, and they separated the earth, the water and the sky. (Sound familiar?) And it predates the Genesis story. As does the Sumerian mythology, which also includes a fall from "paradise", a flood, an an Eve-like mother figure, and of course, Babel.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #95 April 4, 2007 Quote"I wasn't using a translation or a "Version," but the original thing. " Wow! you have an original copy of the Torah?Its my understanding that the oldest complete manuscript is the Leningrad Codex it dates back to 1008AD. So are you suggesting the Torah was written in 1008ad? Or do you have older originals? The fact is your Torah is most likely a copy of a copy of a copy etc. You dont know what the original said. It is not unlikely they were copied from oral traidtions givung us a furthher source of innacuracy. Most biblical shcolars believe the Genesis story even has more than one author. To say what you just said tells me you don’t know a lot about the Torah/Bible either. So you know about the Leningrad Codex? what of it? The Leningrad Codex was written by so called theologians trying to understand the Torah academically. Theirs being what it is doesn’t change the fact that not a single letter has been changed in the Hebrew torah since since its creation. The Jews do not allow it. It would be impossible to convey the sanctity with which they show towards the Torah. Every bible in every synogogue is the same throughout the world without variation. If you don’t take my word for it, go do some research and get back to me once you see that this is the case. There are special people whose lives are dedicating to replicating the Torah exactly as it was given to them, and after which it is rigorously, and thoroughly inspected over and over again before it is allowed to be used. The Oral Tradition is something entirely different and if you knew anything about either one there wouldn’t be the confusion. These Oral Traditions give the scholars among the Jews an insight Christians have never had access to, and this includes their scholars. Unlesss you are thoroughly familiar with the Gamara, and the Talmud in the least you don’t know what you are talking about. Any Rabinical interpretations of the bible outside of what is plainly written is found in side interpretations that are found separately. The bible is as sanctified to the Jews as Jesus is to Christians if not more so, but as far as the “Torah” being changed in anyway throughout the ages. It’s not happening. If you would quote some sources to hold up your theses I’m sure the others would appreciate it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #96 April 4, 2007 "To say what you just said tells me you don’t know a lot about the Torah/Bible either. So you know about the Leningrad Codex? what of it? " Well it is the earliest complete manusript of the Torah. Thats what my Hebrew teachers told me at shul, maybe they are mistaken. You can back up your thesis that contempoary Torahs are the same as the orginals if you have the original. As I understand there are no original manuscripts so all you have is conjecture. Furthermore if you know your biblical scholarship you will be familiar with concept of the documentary hypothesis. This states there were at least 4 authors of biblical texts. Moreover genesis is considered to have at leats two authors.There was also controversey within rabbinical circles, you should look up Rabbi ibn Ezra views on Joshua he is more in line with the documentary hypothesis than other more traidtional rabbis, they are not shared by all,hence there is not the consensus amonst rabbis that you like to imply. More importantly many scholars believe Ezra was the editor of the bible, piecing together many different stories from several sources and traiditons, this defies your implication that there is one true original text. That is not agreed upon by scholars and the claim is not backed up by evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 77r 0 #97 April 4, 2007 Quote"To say what you just said tells me you don’t know a lot about the Torah/Bible either. So you know about the Leningrad Codex? what of it? " Well it is the earliest complete manusript of the Torah. Thats what my Hebrew teachers told me at shul, maybe they are mistaken. You can back up your thesis that contempoary Torahs are the same as the orginals if you have the original. As I understand there are no original manuscripts so all you have is conjecture. Furthermore if you know your biblical scholarship you will be familiar with concept of the documentary hypothesis. This states there were at least 4 authors of biblical texts. Moreover genesis is considered to have at leats two authors.There was also controversey within rabbinical circles, you should look up Rabbi ibn Ezra views on Joshua he is more in line with the documentary hypothesis than other more traidtional rabbis, they are not shared by all,hence there is not the consensus amonst rabbis that you like to imply. More importantly many scholars believe Ezra was the editor of the bible, piecing together many different stories from several sources and traiditons, this defies your implication that there is one true original text. That is not agreed upon by scholars and the claim is not backed up by evidence. Well I guess I know my bible since I know of the “hypotheses” having to do with the authorship of the Bible. But then that has nothing to do with knowing the bible, but knowing what others have said in their hypotheses regarding it. As far as implications go, I did not imply anything relative to Rabinical consensus. I never mentioned it. In fact none of what you just wrote has even been touched on, so how did I implying anything? I know full well how the rabbis disagree with each other relative to views on “INTERPRETATIONS” of various sorts, and I said nothing about them being of one mind relative to “interpretations” of the bible. They are of one mind in not altering the WORDING of the Bible as it has been passed down through the generations in the WRITTEN TEXT. You’re mixing up interpretation with the actual written word. What I said is that the rabbis have access to a more thorough understanding of the text through the oral tradition (which they may interpret or take at face value in it’s own right as an interpretation) unless you know of someone who had the bible and a tradition surrounding it before the Jews did? As “The Original” bible is unavailable for scrutiny it is futile to get into how “Original” the Torah in Hebrew is. I shouldn’t have to argue that with you. It’s enough that the Christian bible came from the Hebrew Bible and not the other way around. The bible the Jews have is as original as you are going to get without getting “The Original” one. I am familiar with Rabbi Ibn Ezra, and all of the theories you mentioned. And more still. But that’s all they are. Theories. What the scholars “Believe” or have mused about doesn’t “defy” my “implication,” since I haven’t made any “implications” as to the authorship of the Bible. Again I haven’t said anything relative to that subject. (?) I don’t however think that any of them would disagree with me that the Hebrew Torah is closer to the actual text (or compilation of texts that you like to imply ) than a translation of it into another language. As far as codexes go, there are as many codexes as there are groups of scholars willing to study/compile them. What you are saying does not again “defy” anything that I’ve said. There are no updated “Versions” that change the wording of the Torah. The Sumarians attempted it and screwed up the sequence of code (Gematria) that you will find only in the Torah in Hebrew. If you can disprove that you are welcome to try. Ask your rabbi to join the forum if you’d like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #98 April 5, 2007 Well then we are at an agreement then that you dont have the original Torah, what you have in your own words is "as original as you are going to get". I agree with that. That is not the same as having the original though. Now this may seem like a trivial point if we are treating the bible as literature. But if we are treating it as some kind of divinley inspired book then it is a very importnat. Lets say that the book is divinley inspired then the fact that the text we have now may be different to what it was orignally is a majjor problem for literalists. The documentary hypothesis is also a major problem. If there was a fallible man putting bits of the Torah together well after they were written, possibly putting bits from many different traditions together then we cannot trust the text we have now as anything more than a human construct of its editor and contributors. Anothe point: the bible before the Jews? I think there is some evidence that some stories form the bible may have come from traditions older than the Jews. The flood stroy may well be copied from the Epic Of Gilgmesh, many scholars believ that to be the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #99 April 5, 2007 QuoteTRue, but at the end of teh day, science is still a theory, which makes it a sort of belief. I do like that about science tho, even when they have plenty to call things fact, they carefully call them theories. Science is not a theory, it is a method of investigation, a way of thinking. Science is appealing to people who appreciate a system that corrects for quality of information. Other systems correct for profit, or maintenance of the status quo, or maximum pleasure, or . . . . I think a fun poll would be to ask people what their life corrects for." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #100 April 5, 2007 QuoteExactly - it's a question remaining unsolved - what came in between? Lots of other things." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,096 #83 April 3, 2007 >(2:19) "Now, God HAD FORMED out of the ground every beast of the field" The NKJV has the translation: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" KJV version (generally considered the most authoritative english version:) "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" Looks like you have an "alternative" translation! Which is exactly the problem I've been talking about. >Even in English the translation is clear . . . Well, I guess that depends on which translation you use! Which one were you using? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #84 April 4, 2007 Pretty good question. I'd like some answers too - in my school we had all these pictorial dinosaurs roaming around, then some ice came along, and next thing you know there are hairy people running around sticking spears into woolly mammoths. Where did they evolve from? What was in between? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,584 #85 April 4, 2007 QuoteI'd like some answers too - in my school we had all these pictorial dinosaurs roaming around, then some ice came along, and next thing you know there are hairy people running around sticking spears into woolly mammoths. The extinction of the dinosaurs happened 65 million years ago. Modern humans have been on the scene for a few hundred thousand years. Thats one heck of a 'next thing you know!'Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #86 April 4, 2007 Exactly - it's a question remaining unsolved - what came in between? Nowadays on my telly it's an advert, and then.......cavemen. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,584 #87 April 4, 2007 QuoteExactly - it's a question remaining unsolved - what came in between? Nowadays on my telly it's an advert, and then.......cavemen. Timeline of Human Evolution.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #88 April 4, 2007 Shit source - still no answers either. Perhaps I should listen to the Mrs and suscribe to get Discovery after all. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #89 April 4, 2007 Quote>(2:19) "Now, God HAD FORMED out of the ground every beast of the field" The NKJV has the translation: "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" KJV version (generally considered the most authoritative english version:) "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field" Looks like you have an "alternative" translation! Which is exactly the problem I've been talking about. >Even in English the translation is clear . . . Well, I guess that depends on which translation you use! Which one were you using? I wasn't using a translation or a "Version," but the original thing. I would say the Hebrew Bible is the most authoritative, and considering I speak, read and write Hebrew, I can read it for what it actually says. For anyone not reading Hebrew the most authoritative translation is the English translation directly from Hebrew translated by Jewish scholars who understand the context and grammar of their native tongue without having to translate through a second or third translation (older versions of the bible or via Greek or Aramaic) and without guessing which might be the right word and which slant of translation might please the Bishop. The bible or more accurately “Torah” has been duplicated exactly the same way from the time it was written without “updates” and “versions” which is why no one Hebrew bible is different from the other no matter where in the world it was produced. Would you argue with the English version of the Mikado (Japanese Opera) compared to what the actual thing says in Japanese? How then can you do the same with the bible? What the original Bible says cannot be changed, and “NEW” versions are only getting farther away from what was actually said and by nature are subjective and flawed and cannot be relied upon to be accurate when you are reading regurgitated theological assumptions and biases that include blatantly substituting words and shortening entire verses which is what you will find in this so called “generally considered to be authoritative” NKJV. The NKJV is a badly corrupted version of the bible and is rife with mistranslations, and in which complete verses are cut in half and omitted, but you wouldn’t know to read the original to compare it to. It is not btw considered to be the most authoritative version of the bible except by enough people who think their “considering it to be anything” makes it validated by a few people who run with what they read in some Digest or off of some book review, and wind up being embarrassed when they try to quote the simplest of facts from it. The new version you are referring to is simply made to be understood in the “common man’s” tongue which further changes it’s original meaning and context especially when the authors try to “simplify” the grammar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,584 #90 April 4, 2007 Quotestill no answers either. What more did you want?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,096 #91 April 4, 2007 >and “NEW” versions by nature are subjective and flawed and cannot >be relied upon to be accurate . . . I think you will get some very vehement arguments about that from some people here! But I agree - the original is generally the more authoritative. But by that reasoning, the egyptian creation myth might be more authoritative still. Per the egyptians, in the beginning there was only water and darkness. Then the sun appeared. Some gods were created, and they separated the earth, the water and the sky. (Sound familiar?) And it predates the Genesis story. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #92 April 4, 2007 Quote But by that reasoning, the egyptian creation myth might be more authoritative still. Per the egyptians, in the beginning there was only water and darkness. Then the sun appeared. Some gods were created, and they separated the earth, the water and the sky. (Sound familiar?) And it predates the Genesis story. I would agree (or at least believe) that there is truth in part in many of the older civilizations' beliefs. It would make sense that some had preserved one remnant of truth or another from ages long ago. As far as there being other beings or "Gods" there is the obvious reference when God says "Let US make Man in OUR image after OUR likeness." Someone else or a few Someone elses were there before man was created. Some people like to say he's speaking to the angels, but it doesn't say that’s what they were. Elsewhere in the Bible it states the word “messengers(i.e. angels)” very clearly but not here. They could have been but who knows for sure...Interesting stuff no doubt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #93 April 4, 2007 "I wasn't using a translation or a "Version," but the original thing. " Wow! you have an original copy of the Torah?Its my understanding that the oldest complete manuscript is the Leningrad Codex it dates back to 1008AD. So are you suggesting the Torah was written in 1008ad? Or do you have older originals? The fact is your Torah is most likely a copy of a copy of a copy etc. You dont know what the original said. It is not unlikely they were copied from oral traidtions givung us a furthher source of innacuracy. Most biblical shcolars believe the Genesis story even has more than one author. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #94 April 4, 2007 Quote>and “NEW” versions by nature are subjective and flawed and cannot >be relied upon to be accurate . . . I think you will get some very vehement arguments about that from some people here! But I agree - the original is generally the more authoritative. But by that reasoning, the egyptian creation myth might be more authoritative still. Per the egyptians, in the beginning there was only water and darkness. Then the sun appeared. Some gods were created, and they separated the earth, the water and the sky. (Sound familiar?) And it predates the Genesis story. As does the Sumerian mythology, which also includes a fall from "paradise", a flood, an an Eve-like mother figure, and of course, Babel.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #95 April 4, 2007 Quote"I wasn't using a translation or a "Version," but the original thing. " Wow! you have an original copy of the Torah?Its my understanding that the oldest complete manuscript is the Leningrad Codex it dates back to 1008AD. So are you suggesting the Torah was written in 1008ad? Or do you have older originals? The fact is your Torah is most likely a copy of a copy of a copy etc. You dont know what the original said. It is not unlikely they were copied from oral traidtions givung us a furthher source of innacuracy. Most biblical shcolars believe the Genesis story even has more than one author. To say what you just said tells me you don’t know a lot about the Torah/Bible either. So you know about the Leningrad Codex? what of it? The Leningrad Codex was written by so called theologians trying to understand the Torah academically. Theirs being what it is doesn’t change the fact that not a single letter has been changed in the Hebrew torah since since its creation. The Jews do not allow it. It would be impossible to convey the sanctity with which they show towards the Torah. Every bible in every synogogue is the same throughout the world without variation. If you don’t take my word for it, go do some research and get back to me once you see that this is the case. There are special people whose lives are dedicating to replicating the Torah exactly as it was given to them, and after which it is rigorously, and thoroughly inspected over and over again before it is allowed to be used. The Oral Tradition is something entirely different and if you knew anything about either one there wouldn’t be the confusion. These Oral Traditions give the scholars among the Jews an insight Christians have never had access to, and this includes their scholars. Unlesss you are thoroughly familiar with the Gamara, and the Talmud in the least you don’t know what you are talking about. Any Rabinical interpretations of the bible outside of what is plainly written is found in side interpretations that are found separately. The bible is as sanctified to the Jews as Jesus is to Christians if not more so, but as far as the “Torah” being changed in anyway throughout the ages. It’s not happening. If you would quote some sources to hold up your theses I’m sure the others would appreciate it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #96 April 4, 2007 "To say what you just said tells me you don’t know a lot about the Torah/Bible either. So you know about the Leningrad Codex? what of it? " Well it is the earliest complete manusript of the Torah. Thats what my Hebrew teachers told me at shul, maybe they are mistaken. You can back up your thesis that contempoary Torahs are the same as the orginals if you have the original. As I understand there are no original manuscripts so all you have is conjecture. Furthermore if you know your biblical scholarship you will be familiar with concept of the documentary hypothesis. This states there were at least 4 authors of biblical texts. Moreover genesis is considered to have at leats two authors.There was also controversey within rabbinical circles, you should look up Rabbi ibn Ezra views on Joshua he is more in line with the documentary hypothesis than other more traidtional rabbis, they are not shared by all,hence there is not the consensus amonst rabbis that you like to imply. More importantly many scholars believe Ezra was the editor of the bible, piecing together many different stories from several sources and traiditons, this defies your implication that there is one true original text. That is not agreed upon by scholars and the claim is not backed up by evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
77r 0 #97 April 4, 2007 Quote"To say what you just said tells me you don’t know a lot about the Torah/Bible either. So you know about the Leningrad Codex? what of it? " Well it is the earliest complete manusript of the Torah. Thats what my Hebrew teachers told me at shul, maybe they are mistaken. You can back up your thesis that contempoary Torahs are the same as the orginals if you have the original. As I understand there are no original manuscripts so all you have is conjecture. Furthermore if you know your biblical scholarship you will be familiar with concept of the documentary hypothesis. This states there were at least 4 authors of biblical texts. Moreover genesis is considered to have at leats two authors.There was also controversey within rabbinical circles, you should look up Rabbi ibn Ezra views on Joshua he is more in line with the documentary hypothesis than other more traidtional rabbis, they are not shared by all,hence there is not the consensus amonst rabbis that you like to imply. More importantly many scholars believe Ezra was the editor of the bible, piecing together many different stories from several sources and traiditons, this defies your implication that there is one true original text. That is not agreed upon by scholars and the claim is not backed up by evidence. Well I guess I know my bible since I know of the “hypotheses” having to do with the authorship of the Bible. But then that has nothing to do with knowing the bible, but knowing what others have said in their hypotheses regarding it. As far as implications go, I did not imply anything relative to Rabinical consensus. I never mentioned it. In fact none of what you just wrote has even been touched on, so how did I implying anything? I know full well how the rabbis disagree with each other relative to views on “INTERPRETATIONS” of various sorts, and I said nothing about them being of one mind relative to “interpretations” of the bible. They are of one mind in not altering the WORDING of the Bible as it has been passed down through the generations in the WRITTEN TEXT. You’re mixing up interpretation with the actual written word. What I said is that the rabbis have access to a more thorough understanding of the text through the oral tradition (which they may interpret or take at face value in it’s own right as an interpretation) unless you know of someone who had the bible and a tradition surrounding it before the Jews did? As “The Original” bible is unavailable for scrutiny it is futile to get into how “Original” the Torah in Hebrew is. I shouldn’t have to argue that with you. It’s enough that the Christian bible came from the Hebrew Bible and not the other way around. The bible the Jews have is as original as you are going to get without getting “The Original” one. I am familiar with Rabbi Ibn Ezra, and all of the theories you mentioned. And more still. But that’s all they are. Theories. What the scholars “Believe” or have mused about doesn’t “defy” my “implication,” since I haven’t made any “implications” as to the authorship of the Bible. Again I haven’t said anything relative to that subject. (?) I don’t however think that any of them would disagree with me that the Hebrew Torah is closer to the actual text (or compilation of texts that you like to imply ) than a translation of it into another language. As far as codexes go, there are as many codexes as there are groups of scholars willing to study/compile them. What you are saying does not again “defy” anything that I’ve said. There are no updated “Versions” that change the wording of the Torah. The Sumarians attempted it and screwed up the sequence of code (Gematria) that you will find only in the Torah in Hebrew. If you can disprove that you are welcome to try. Ask your rabbi to join the forum if you’d like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #98 April 5, 2007 Well then we are at an agreement then that you dont have the original Torah, what you have in your own words is "as original as you are going to get". I agree with that. That is not the same as having the original though. Now this may seem like a trivial point if we are treating the bible as literature. But if we are treating it as some kind of divinley inspired book then it is a very importnat. Lets say that the book is divinley inspired then the fact that the text we have now may be different to what it was orignally is a majjor problem for literalists. The documentary hypothesis is also a major problem. If there was a fallible man putting bits of the Torah together well after they were written, possibly putting bits from many different traditions together then we cannot trust the text we have now as anything more than a human construct of its editor and contributors. Anothe point: the bible before the Jews? I think there is some evidence that some stories form the bible may have come from traditions older than the Jews. The flood stroy may well be copied from the Epic Of Gilgmesh, many scholars believ that to be the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #99 April 5, 2007 QuoteTRue, but at the end of teh day, science is still a theory, which makes it a sort of belief. I do like that about science tho, even when they have plenty to call things fact, they carefully call them theories. Science is not a theory, it is a method of investigation, a way of thinking. Science is appealing to people who appreciate a system that corrects for quality of information. Other systems correct for profit, or maintenance of the status quo, or maximum pleasure, or . . . . I think a fun poll would be to ask people what their life corrects for." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #100 April 5, 2007 QuoteExactly - it's a question remaining unsolved - what came in between? Lots of other things." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
