|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-18-2006, 03:16 PM
|
#31 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The recesses of Zaphon
Posts: 969
|
Quote:
The author of Isaiah 40 agreed with you. Genesis 1:26 God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness” Compare … Isaiah 40:18 To whom can you compare God? To what image can you liken him? |
|
|
|
03-18-2006, 03:26 PM
|
#32 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The recesses of Zaphon
Posts: 969
|
Quote:
The author of Isaiah 46 agreed with you. Genesis 1:26 God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness” Compare … Isaiah 46:5 "To whom can you compare me, equate me, to whom claim I am similar, or comparable?" |
|
|
|
|
03-18-2006, 03:46 PM
|
#33 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The recesses of Zaphon
Posts: 969
|
Quote:
Psalm 104 in turn, has many parallels with the Egyptian "Great Hymn to Aten" from the Tomb of Ay. |
|
|
|
|
03-18-2006, 08:28 PM
|
#34 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Quote:
Judaism holds some peculiar traditions with respect to its "Torah", and while translations into foreign languages are accepted as a convenience, these 'versions' are never accorded the level of respect and reverence that is reserved exclusively for an actual Torah that has been prepared and written in the Hebrew, in accordance with all of the rituals and regulations required. Simchat ha'Torah is not celebrated with a copy of the Septuagint, or with any other 'translation' for several reasons. We are certain that many of the ancient Hebrews DID pitch a fit over the Greek 'versions' readings supplanting their actual Torah, particularly those latter versions that replaced ha'Shem, and the divine titles with generic pagan terms, but then the Jew's of that time were well known for their pitching of fits over all manner of causes trivial to the rest of the world. Ancient Israelite religious documents from the B.C. era are of course extremely rare, and what has been recovered does not necessarily reveal everything 'that was going down' or that 'went down', and a certain amount of reasoning is required even to interpret the significance of the evidence that we do have. So let me put it this way, while there were undoubtedly some Jews, (perhaps even a majority) who were willing to compromise or to settle for any 'version' of their books that might appeal to foreign powers, or be advantageous for political purposes, not all would be so minded. Today there is a similar situation, regardless of how willing and eager some are to accept these substitutions, there are people from many languages and nations that are resisting that compromising syncretisim. |
|
|
|
|
03-19-2006, 06:22 AM
|
#35 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 7th Heaven
Posts: 406
|
Quote:
Frankly, to me, these theories appear to be historical speculation not based in evidence. I have a critical edition of the LXX and I have access to the DSS biblical texts of the OT in the DJD volumes, so if you can point me to evidence for your theories, I would appreciate it. |
|
|
|
|
03-19-2006, 10:48 AM
|
#36 | ||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you carefully compare the text of your "critical edition of the LXX", with that of the same texts as found among the DSS a great many differences may be noted, not just limited to the occurrence of haShem, but in the organization, order and length of these earlier LXX texts. A "critical edition" of the LXX" as it existed five hundred years latter in the Christian editions, only serves as a comparison of how far the latter text actually deviates from the older mss. Further even these older DSS mss. show deviations amongst themselves. In my view, there is an over zealous stress being laid on the exact wording of the text, by both the "fundamentalists" who want to believe that every word is inerrant, and also by the unbelievers and critics of religion, who would like to believe that certain texts, if they can be 'glued in place', or be presented as though they were "carved in stone" and immutable, may be employed as 'proofs' to destroy faith. However, "Faith", as it is believed and practiced, is the responsive and organic experience of individuals to the situations that life throws at them, recourse to the written word is only an adjunct to that experience, and each individual will draw from the written word what is applicable to their own peculiar situation, and each will interpret what has been written in a manner that gives a 'deeper' explanation and meaning to what they are experiencing. Then again unbelief provides that same opportunity, as is strongly exemplified by Loomis in these threads in how he is able to find his 'deeper' meanings and the 'explanations' for his theories, and for his beliefs. We will both read an identical passage, and may even agree on its correct translation right down to the very last letter and to the tiniest inflection, Yet we will, and cannot help, seeing it from our own individual perspectives, so what to Loomis may be a "proof text" supporting his unbelief and his theories of how religion developed, that same text is understood and employed in an entirely different manner by me, and others who are of a like persuasion and faith. My father was wholly illiterate his entire life, and whom, though he could not read or write even as much as a single sentence, was a man of great faith, with deep convictions, that were based upon what he had experienced and what he had heard, nothing at all upon what he had read, or on exactly how some particular ancient phrase, line, or poem was rendered or was spelled within the books. His word was "Amen" to the faith, like those Israelites of old, who were of all ages, levels of learning, of experience and status, Whom, when the Torah was read unto them, did not argue over word after word, or over line after line. Each one, no matter how great or how small, only required to reply one single word of affirmation, "amen". I do not expect unbelievers to "amen" (believe) the words of YHWH, I do not expect unbelievers to "amen" (believe) Moses, I do not expect unbelievers to "amen" (believe) the prophets of YHWH, I do not expect unbelievers to "amen" (believe) the Son of YHWH, or His Messengers, or His disciples. But I expect of men who know themselves to be ignorant, who know themselves to be foolish, and who know themselves to be weak, to from the heart speak one word to receive ALL of the promises pledged by YHWH to them that "amen" (believe) in Him. |
||
|
|
|
03-19-2006, 05:57 PM
|
#37 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart
Posts: 10,326
|
This isn't mine and I can't remember where I got it from.
Gods mentioned in the OT Bible (and a couple from the NT):
|
|
|
|
03-19-2006, 07:31 PM
|
#38 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Georgia
Posts: 718
|
Maybe some of you who have some knowledge of ancient languages--as I do not--might comment on another verse in Genesis? 3:22: "Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become <bold>like one of us</bold>, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.'" (Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd ed.) I've always wondered to whom God was speaking here. And isn't there a psalm or something that praises God as the greatest in the council of gods?
Craig |
|
|
|
03-19-2006, 09:19 PM
|
#39 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A place in the Northern Hemisphere of Planet Earth
Posts: 1,250
|
The "us" in the Old Testament is God talking with Jesus. This further proves the inspiration of the Bible. Jesus was mentioned in one of the first verses. Seriously, what else do you think it means?
|
|
|
|
03-19-2006, 09:23 PM
|
#40 | |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: auckland nz
Posts: 18,090
|
Quote:
:thumbs through copy of KJV: nope, it can't see the word 'Jesus' anywhere in Genesis. which line exactly does it say Jesus? Maybe I am reading the wrong verse? I though God was Jesus anyway? so why was god talking to himself? Does he have split personalities? |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
