Steven Carr

I know donkeys don't talk, despite the prima facie evidence of Holding's articles.

Has Haran learned Sanskrit or Mandarin Chinese? Does he reject religious works in Sanskrit, although he cannot read them?

Steven Carr

It is nonsense isn't it? Which idiots say it was settled at Nicaea?

Even today the canon of scripture is not settled. Catholics and Protestants have different Bibles (to say nothing of Mormons)

Steven Carr

Typical double-talk by Holding

Holding writes 'Why does this site need to link to some injudicious blunderbuss who claims that Lev. 25:23, which has God saying the land is "mine," has to be read figuratively because if it were literal, then it would cause problems because people would then covet the land owned by God and that would cause them to break the commandment against coveting?'

Yes, Holding it does have to be read figuratively, not literally.

God does not own the land in the sense that people buy it off him, pay rent for it, and exchange contracts withb Yahweh.


Notice that where Holding talks about an 'injudicious blunderbuss' saying stupid things about coveting, Till was actually being very sarcastic about Holding's position


http://www.theskepticalreview.com/landprom/where11.html is where Till commits this blunder Holding seizes upon.

Till starts 'I'll just let Turkel argue with himself.', and then points out the absurdity in HOLDING's views of the 'literallness' of God saying that something is his.


Holding, of course, never tells his gullible readers that Till is just ridiculing Holding's own logic here, and is not really arguing what Holding himself thinks is ridiculous. Indeed, Holding never dares to link to Till's article.....

But that is the sort of distortion Holding routinely packs into his articles.

Vorkosigan

:notworthy:

Haran

Aside from the fact that this Biblical story could have been allegorical, there is another explanation:

Mark 10:27
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

Indeed, actually believing in a God that created this earth and everything in it also enables one to believe that pretty much anything is possible.

Ok, well, I'm not so great with Sanscrit yet, my friend (who's from near New Dehli) has only begun to teach me. And it has been really hard to find the Baghavad Gita in the original Sanscrit, much less a critical edition. However, I do know some Arabic and have the Quran in Arabic (though I can't find a critical edition of it either).

As for Chinese, well, I'm working on that too because I may be going there...xie, xie.

Nobody can learn everything, so if someone wants to reject the Bible based on an English only, literal reading and on their intuition, then that is their prerogative. I do not believe in certain other religions for various reasons, some scholarly, some not so. However, I will not try to convince someone that their religion is wrong without really trying understanding their religion.

If someone wants to accept something at face value with an English reading that is fine for that person, but I wasn't made that way. If someone wants to convince me of their critique of the Bible, then they'd better know what they're talking about.

Steven Carr

It isn't difficult to critique the Bible, and pass this rather low hurdle..

BTW, did the author of 2 Peter take the talking donkey story literally?

Haran

Did you read what I wrote about this? Re-read the Bible verse. It will do you some good.

Either way, how do you know for sure that the author didn't consider it allegorical, kind of like the person who would refer to unfortunate lovers as Romeo and Juliet or to betrayers as Rosencranz and Gildenstern (possibly even referring to a little bit of the story in reference)?

Apparently it's a little higher than you thought. Unless you were thinking of a limbo bar, in which case it probably is pretty low.

rmadison

I accept the bible at face value, based on an English reading.

If the words in English do not correspond correctly with the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramic, etc, the fault lies with the translator, not with me.

If the bible means something other than what it says, then it is incorrect, and should be changed.

That's why I said earlier that I feel totally comfortable discussing the bible with you, or anybody else.

Steven Carr

2 Peter 14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed--an accursed brood! 15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey--a beast without speech--who spoke with a man's voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

Yes, 2 Peter was taking the story literally, as generations of Jews have done for centuries, until informed by Haran that it was allegorical.

Of course, 2 Peter is quite wrong to say that Balaam loved the wages of wickedness. Another error in the Bible, as Haran will be the first to recognise.


Numbers 22:18 But Balaam answered them, "Even if Balak gave me his palace filled with silver and gold, I could not do anything great or small to go beyond the command of the LORD my God. 19 Now stay here tonight as the others did, and I will find out what else the LORD will tell me."
20 That night God came to Balaam and said, "Since these men have come to summon you, go with them, but do only what I tell you."

So Balaam refused the money, obeyed the Lord and went with them simply because he was commanded to do so by the LORD personally.

It is baffling though that the LORD, just two verses later, was angry with Balaam for doing what the Lord commanded him to do, and the LORD then sends a 'satan' to oppose him.


The Bible really is full of self-contradictions.

Even Holding agrees on this one, and he is the one who says we cannot recognise contradictions.


http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BBJ.html

'Closer to the truth, I think, is the solution proposed by Spero [Sper.MM]. It fits in nicely with the archaeological data that seems to have confirmed that Balaam actually existed as a pagan divinver and prophet.'

'What he proposes is that in this story of Balaam, we have a quite intentional contradiction made for the purpose of poking fun at a very popular diviner who was no match for the true God.'

SO there ARE contradictions!

Haran

Steven,

It seems to me that Holding is proposing several options as I did. I notice you are still ignoring the fact that if God exists and created the world and everything in it, that making a donkey talk would not necessarily be beyond him... Ignoring this must come from your atheistic biases... To you there is no God, right?, so there is no point in considering this option. Unfortunately, you are trying to convince Christians who believe in God and the possibilities this creates.

Anyways, it appears that Holding leans toward Spero's view that, in Holding's words, "the narrative is interrupted for a few moments of satire". So, the donkey talking was a little fictional comic relief breaking the factual narrative, something that ancients would have recognized. Doesn't sound far off from the possibility of allegory that I mentioned, does it?

By the way, I know what 2 Peter says. I don't see why that could not be an allegorical reference, although it does not have to be.

It is easy to say, "Ha! That's a contradiction!", especially when one is prejudiced to think this way.

I've seen the arguments before, Steven. There are plenty of reasonable alternatives to contradiction in many places in the Bible. You'll have to do better.