07 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNot to put too fine a point on it, but I'd be interested to know how/what you define as an "absolute truth".
There's no engaging someone who simply makes outlandish statements and thinks they are the absolute, infallible truth. Let me coin a phrase for your theology "Holding Your Breath Till You Turn Blueism". (HYBTYTB)
07 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrNo, you can't argue with that logic. Unless you have good empirical evidence that lasting influence warrants ascriptions of genius.
No, you can't argue with that logic. Unless you have good empirical evidence that lasting influence warrants ascriptions of genius.
There are any number of factors that lead to Hitler's "success". Read a book on the topic.
The Pharisees aren't the only folk in the NT that referred to Jesus as 'rabbi', and that's irrelevant to the point of the example anyway (as was mentioned above).
That type of thinking cannot be reasoned with, was the intention. But, smarty you, you already knew that, didn't you?
There are any number of factors that lead to Hitler's "success". Read a book on the topic.
There are a number of areas wherein one's genius may be manifest. Read a book on the topic.
The Pharisees aren't the only folk in the NT that referred to Jesus as 'rabbi', and that's irrelevant to the point of the example anyway (as was mentioned above).
That His followers called Him rabbi is not significant enough to confer Him an authority on Judiasm. There were (and have been) a plethora of rabbis (so-called), all come and gone. My lack of scholary acumen fails me: any of them the pivotal person in human history?
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by HalitoseNot to put too fine a point on it, but it doesn't include reading passages in ancient writings in a way that makes them fit into the Procrustean bed of HYBTYTB.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd be interested to know how/what you define as an "absolute truth".
07 Apr 06
Here's an expanded version of the passage No1 is attempting to contort and otherwise add his noise to:
Exodus 21
...
"but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
...
If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye.
And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.
If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.
If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded.
This law also applies if the bull gores a son or a daughter."
Not quite the barbarianism No1 would have us believe, it appears.
07 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI asked before; what Bible translation are you using? I guarantee it's a recent one which was "tweaked" to "fix" these little problems.
Here's an expanded version of the passage No1 is attempting to contort and otherwise add his noise to:
Exodus 21
...
"but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
...
If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for th ...[text shortened]... es a son or a daughter."
Not quite the barbarianism No1 would have us believe, it appears.
How many times does it have to be explained to you that the point isn't how "barbarous" the laws are, but how stupid and asinine they are? An ox being "stoned to death"? Surely your almighty, all-powerful God could have come up with some laws that were slightly less retarded.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDude. I've told you before, it really doesn't matter what translation you use, as they all point to the same thing: death in the first part, injury (not death) in the second part. Pick any translation you want, read the same passage (all the way through the same verses), and you will get the same result. Only your obstinance will keep you from reading it in the normative sense, and I can't argue with obstinance.
I asked before; what Bible translation are you using? I guarantee it's a recent one which was "tweaked" to "fix" these little problems.
How many times does it have to be explained to you that the point isn't how "barbarous" the laws are, but how stupid and asinine they are? Surely your almighty, all-powerful God could have come up with some laws that were slightly less retarded.
An ox being "stoned to death"?
Lessee... a bear mauls and eats a camper. Do we:
a) Keep the hell away from that bear
b) Rehabilitate the bear using hand signals and assorted bear treats
c) Make the bear watch a complete season of "Grizzly Adams"
or
d) Shoot that bear dead
Now I know, if God were truly omnipotent, He would have given AK-47's to the Jews when He gave them these Laws. That way, they wouldn't have had to resort to throwing rocks at an ox until it was dead.
Can you see how silly you are sometimes, or are you just having sport?
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA fine example of HYBTYTB. It is only your obstinance that is attempting to read a passage in a manner clearly contrary to the plain meaning of its words. I can get Jewish commentary on this provision; would you like to read it? It is entirely consistent with my view and the plain wording of the text.
Dude. I've told you before, it really doesn't matter what translation you use, as they all point to the same thing: death in the first part, injury (not death) in the second part. Pick any translation you want, read the same passage (all the way through the same verses), and you will get the same result. Only your obstinance will keep you from reading i ...[text shortened]... it was dead.
Can you see how silly you are sometimes, or are you just having sport?
It doesn't say the ox is to be "killed"; it says it's to be "stoned to death" i.e. executed in a legalistic manner like a person who murders. The implication being that it is guilty of some moral wrongdoing and deserves punishment. That is retarded; it's an ox! If you were going to kill it for safety reasons, you'd just slit its throat; you wouldn't have the community "stone" it. I can't tell if you're being purposefully disingenous or just flat out stupid.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course it matters what translation you use. Translations are about
Dude. I've told you before, it really doesn't matter what translation you use...
conferring meaning; a good translation will try to reflect that
original closely, a bad translation will simply be a word-for-word replacement,
(which we know does not work). Translators have to be familiar with
idioms, turns of phrase, usage, vernacular and so many other things in
order to provide a good translation. As Biblical scholars learn more, they
become more able translators. By necessity translations of the
17th century cannot be nearly as close as ones in the modern era,
for the reason mentioned above and, even more glaringly, because the
language used back then is not the same as the language used today.
So, I disagree with your contention that 'it really doesn't matter;' it
very much matters.
I'd be interested in how you think a just and compassionate God would
provide Leviticus 21:9 (in the context of 7-15, of course). Verse 9
reads:
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and
thereby dishonors her father, shall be burned to death.
Nemesio
07 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMy guess is that he checked a bunch of translations online and took the one he found most favorable. Kinda like what a few xians here do with online dictionaries.
I asked before; what Bible translation are you using? I guarantee it's a recent one which was "tweaked" to "fix" these little problems.
How many times does it have to be explained to you that the point isn't how "barbarous" the laws are, but how stupid and asinine they are? An ox being "stoned to death"? Surely your almighty, all-powerful God could have come up with some laws that were slightly less retarded.
Edit: Actually, the one about "get up after a day or two" is the NIV. So maybe he didn't do what I accused him of.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEven though I am no1's clanmate and we're both atheists, I don't like his style of debate/argument and I never have, though I do appreciate its power. However he does have good points which you aren't addressing in this case and you're avoiding that fact by focussing on how annoying he is.
Quite the contrary. No1 has again shown his propensity for raising what seems to be a valid argument, which reality exposes as otherwise. He wishes to contort and twist the language to mean something unintended, argue from that standpoint and conclude the lunacy (idiocy/contradictory nature/ad nauseum) of God.
As the passage does not sup ...[text shortened]... really doesn't care: his goal was simply to add noise to the confusion. Mission accomplished.
07 Apr 06
Freaky -
Here he has not done the same. I disagree.
He has been answered in full, at least by me. I must have missed that. Would you remind me where that response is?
The issue in salvation is Jesus Christ; namely, what say you of Jesus Christ? As Jesus is claimed to be God, and God is the one who made these laws which will tend to drive people away from trusting him (unless one becomes an expert on ancient sociology you appear to be claiming), these things are very relevant.
Apparently, you suffer the same condition as does No1: lack of reading comprehension. Resorting to vaguely insulting my intelligence? That's pretty sad.
Thinking about what, exactly? Thinking about whether or not the God you worship is worthy of worship. How does one come to love and the Xtian God if we're not allowed to evaluate his words and actions to see if he deserves our love? I can see worshipping a god out of fear, greed, etc, but Xtians talk about love all the time. You can't love someone if you think they are a vile being no matter how powerful you think they are.
07 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is only your obstinance that is attempting to read a passage in a manner clearly contrary to the plain meaning of its words.
A fine example of HYBTYTB. It is only your obstinance that is attempting to read a passage in a manner clearly contrary to the plain meaning of its words. I can get Jewish commentary on this provision; would you like to read it? It is entirely consistent with my view and the plain wording of the text.
It doesn't say the ox is to be "killed"; it it. I can't tell if you're being purposefully disingenous or just flat out stupid.
You asked for it, you get it.
Here are several translations of v21:
NIV: "but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
NASB: "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property."
Message: "But if the slave survives a day or two, he's not to be avenged--the slave is the owner's property."
Amplified: "But if the servant lives on for a day or two, the offender shall not be punished, for he [has injured] his own property."
NLT: "If the slave recovers after a couple of days, however, then the owner should not be punished, since the slave is the owner's property."
KJV: "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
ESV: "But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
CEV: "However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property."
That's a pretty good sampling of the varying translations.
Here's how the same translate v27:
NIV: "... he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye."
NASB: "... he shall let him go free on account of his eye."
Message: "...the owner must let the slave go free because of the eye."
Amplified: "...he shall let him go free for his eye's sake."
NLT: "... then the slave may go free because of the eye."
KJV: "...he shall let him go free for his eye's sake."
ESV: "...he shall let the slave go free because of his eye."
CEV: "...the slave must be set free."
In light of a slave being set free for losing an eye (or a tooth), is it reasonable to accept that a slave owner was free to kill his property? Is it not more reasonable to accept a translation which treats the passage as the language intended? The first part of the verse presents death as a result of beating, the second part of the verse presents a beating which results in injury without death.
The issue is made more perspicuous six verses later, when a slave owner receives cautionary advice: beat your slave to the point of losing a tooth, and you will lose him as a slave. Further, Levitcus 25:43 admonishes the slave owner thusly:
"You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God."
With respect to the ox, God put the fear of man in the nostrils of all animals. Murder is a boundary which they are not to cross. When an animal trespasses that line, they suffer the fate of any other boundary-breaker for similar offences.
08 Apr 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm not an atheist; I'm a shaky agnostic.
Even though I am no1's clanmate and we're both atheists, I don't like his style of debate/argument and I never have, though I do appreciate its power. However he does have good points which you aren't addressing in this case and you're avoiding that fact by focussing on how annoying he is.
08 Apr 06
Originally posted by NemesioIt doesn't matter in this case, unless you stop at verse 21 and go no further. You know I am a proponent of allowing Scripture to interpret itself, and a scant five and six verses from these two yield the answer to whatever confusion one may find themselves here.
Of course it matters what translation you use. Translations are about
conferring meaning; a good translation will try to reflect that
original closely, a bad translation will simply be a word-for-word replacement,
(which we know does not work). Translators have to be familiar with
idioms, turns of phrase, usage, vernacular and so many other thi ...[text shortened]... mitting fornication and
thereby dishonors her father, shall be burned to death.
Nemesio
Although 20 and 21 are making a distinction between a beating that ends in death and one that ends in injury, 26 and 27 reveal how much injury a slave owner is allowed to cause without losing his slave to freedom: an eye or a tooth!
With respect to Lev. 21:9, do you think the burden of responsibility on a priest was light? How about the punishment for an incorrigible child? Given the punishments, was there a parent who took their duties to their children lightly?
What is just? Should God allow anything less than His perfection to exist? Why does He? How does He?