Tod

So you have "little confidence" in any extant translation. You are a "sceptic" [sic]. Your faith is not in "old paper" or "words engraved in stone." Your "texts are all inaccurate and undependable." "[T]he books...oft contain outright contradictions...if not outright lies."

So why the heck have you been arguing with Amlodhi for the last couple of weeks? It seems the only point you were trying to make is that people interpret verses differently. Duh... We'd all grant you that!

The point that I, and presumeably Amlodhi, try to make is that the books of the Bible are not infallible and do contain errors and contradictions. You seem to support that position in no uncertain terms using highly explicit language. I don't see the point of arguing against charges you agree with.

Doctor X

It is merely an attempt to preserve a faith in the face of contradictory and, sometimes, absolutely wrong texts.

--J.D.

Sheshbazzar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tod
[B]

So why the heck have you been arguing with Amlodhi for the last couple of weeks? It seems the only point you were trying to make is that people interpret verses differently. Duh... We'd all grant you that! [Q]

Tod, The point I have been endevoring to make, beginning with my initial post to this forum, Is that the VERSE (singular) Exodus 6:3, which you referenced in your initial post to this thread, has always been the subject to two interpretations. there was no indication that you recognised or were aware of this in your post.
Amlodhi certainly has been in no hurry to "grant" or to concede to any such thing.
So, my simple question at this point is, Are you and/or Amlodhi, NOW granting or concedeing that Exodus 3:16 has at least two possibal interpretations?

Along this same line, in the straight-forward narrative accounts of Genesis 15:7-8, and 28:13-21 (with the proper Name restored) The Name Yahweh, is an integral element of the explanation of how and why Jacob chooses Yahweh as his Elohim ( rather than elohim of other names) and it is only by an awareness of this history that the children of Israel in their oppression would have been moved to cry".... unto Yahweh"( Numbers 20:16) BEFORE Moses came to them in that Name in answer to their prayers.
For just as surely as some assert that the Name was not known prior to its "revelation" to Moses, These Israelites assert that they were "crying unto Yahweh " before Moses spoke to them in the Name. In other words it took an accepted history to be the basis of accepting Moses and his athorithy (Ex.3:16)
To place a greater value or emphases on a verse that has been considered "enigmatic" ( Ex. 6:3) for the the purpose of undermining entire the text violates the very concepts of "Logic" and "Reason". It should be rather obvious that the writer of Ex.6:3 would not be intending to contadict all of the very history he was at such great pains to establish. That is why there is such a thing as context.
Throughout history men have made errors in speeches and in writings, and context has always been the rule for determining the interpretation of the words, U.S. presidents have made many errors in communication, but we do'nt attempt to erradicate all U.S. history on the basis of one disputed paragraph.


The point that I, and presumeably Amlodhi, try to make is that the books of the Bible are not infallible and do contain errors and contradictions. [Q]


If that truely is your position, then Exodus 6:3, or indeed any other verse written becomes very questionable ground to build your arguments upon.
Respectfully, Zerubabble

Tod

Originally posted by Sheshbazzar
Originally posted by Tod

So why the heck have you been arguing with Amlodhi for the last couple of weeks? It seems the only point you were trying to make is that people interpret verses differently. Duh... We'd all grant you that! [Q]

Tod, The point I have been endevoring to make, beginning with my initial post to this forum, Is that the VERSE (singular) Exodus 6:3, which you referenced in your initial post to this thread, has always been the subject to two interpretations.

You have indeed claimed this. I haven't seen you support it, however.

there was no indication that you recognised or were aware of this in your post.
Amlodhi certainly has been in no hurry to "grant" or to concede to any such thing.
So, my simple question at this point is, Are you and/or Amlodhi, NOW granting or concedeing that Exodus 3:16 has at least two possibal interpretations?

Is there more than one likely interpretation? No, I see no evidence for that. Do some people interpret it otherwise? Sure, but only, so far as I've ever seen, only to avoid a contradiction. Again, in general, it is a given that people interpret many verses in the Bible diffferently, that is why we have multiple denominations based on the same book.

Along this same line, in the straight-forward narrative accounts of Genesis 15:7-8, and 28:13-21 (with the proper Name restored) The Name Yahweh, is an integral element of the explanation of how and why Jacob chooses Yahweh as his Elohim ( rather than elohim of other names) and it is only by an awareness of this history that the children of Israel in their oppression would have been moved to cry".... unto Yahweh"( Numbers 20:16) BEFORE Moses came to them in that Name in answer to their prayers.
For just as surely as some assert that the Name was not known prior to its "revelation" to Moses, These Israelites assert that they were "crying unto Yahweh " before Moses spoke to them in the Name. In other words it took an accepted history to be the basis of accepting Moses and his athorithy (Ex.3:16)

To place a greater value or emphases on a verse that has been considered "enigmatic" ( Ex. 6:3) for the the purpose of undermining entire the text violates the very concepts of "Logic" and "Reason".

You haven't given any good reason to believe this verse is "enigmatic." You've asserted as much, but I haven't seen any evidence presented either to myself or Amlodhi. How this "violates the very concepts of 'Logic' and 'Reason,' I have no idea.

It should be rather obvious that the writer of Ex.6:3 would not be intending to contadict all of the very history he was at such great pains to establish. That is why there is such a thing as context.

It doesn't "contradict all of the very history he was at such great pains [trying] to establish." It contradicted ONE verse! That's hardly "all...the...history." It is a small detail and I don't think that a person, especially one operating in the distant past without our modern literary standards of consistency and logic, would have noticed it. Lastly, I don't know that the person that wrote this verse and the person that wrote the verse in Gen 22 are the same person, and even if it is, again, it is a very small detail.

Throughout history men have made errors in speeches and in writings, and context has always been the rule for determining the interpretation of the words, U.S. presidents have made many errors in communication, but we do'nt attempt to erradicate all U.S. history on the basis of one disputed paragraph.

That's silly. U.S. presidents aren't claimed to be infallible. The Bible is. I don't hold the fallible and the infallible to the same standard. That "violates the very concepts of 'Logic' and 'Reason'."

Tod Earlier: The point that I, and presumeably Amlodhi, try to make is that the books of the Bible are not infallible and do contain errors and contradictions.

If that truely is your position, then Exodus 6:3, or indeed any other verse written becomes very questionable ground to build your arguments upon.

Huh?? So pointing out problematic verses isn't a good way to show problems in the text? Okay, if you say so. It would be IMPOSSIBLe to establish the Bible as fallible without using inconsistencies in the text to build a case upon.

Sheshbazzar

It should be rather obvious that the writer of Ex.6:3 would not be intending to contadict all of the very history he was at such great pains to establish. That is why there is such a thing as context.

[Tod]
It doesn't "contradict all of the very history he was at such great pains [trying] to establish." It contradicted ONE verse! That's hardly "all...the...history." [Q]

[Sheshbazzar]
What ONE verse does Ex 6:3 contradict? this statement as you have worded it makes no sense.

[Tod]
Huh?? So pointing out problematic verses isn't a good way to show problems in the text? Okay, if you say so. It would be IMPOSSIBLe to establish the Bible as fallible without using inconsistencies in the text to build a case upon. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Sheshbazzar]
Okay, Tod, you do'nt like the word "enigmatic" in reference to the percieved inconsistency of Exodus 6:3, ? ( though I have seen this term used many times in reference to said verse) So it's a "problematic verse" instead? Okay if you say so.
Or are you saying that all the other preceeding verses which contain the Name are the"problematic verses" obviously something in the text is "problematic" to you.

Doctor X

Gang:

Forgive me if I am lost here with my alcohol levels having reached a critical low, but it seems to me that Genesis 6 serves as a way of reconciling the question of whether or not El/Elohim and YHWH are the same figure.

Since the Patriarchs did not exist--certainly as described in the OT--and it represents a mythic history, does this not seem a simple bit of redaction to explain the multiple names? Indeed, Big Daddy goes by many variants of El, and YHWH . . . and the plural Elohim . . . in the Pentateuch. Once, some represented separated gods. At some point El then YHWH become a "head" of the "heavenly host" or pantheon. If you believe F. M. Cross--YHWH is "imperfect causitive of the Proto-Canaanite-Hebrew verb 'to be'"--if I remember it correctly--which was at one time connected to El as in a longer "god title"--"god that makes the mountain and tea" or something like that.

Find and dandy, at some point this polytheism became "condensced" into a figure "YHWH" . . . or, perhaps still El and Baal in different regions! This seems a way of "uniting" the names.

Sorry if I am just not following the disagreement.

--J.D.

Tod

Originally posted by Sheshbazzar

It should be rather obvious that the writer of Ex.6:3 would not be intending to contadict all of the very history he was at such great pains to establish. That is why there is such a thing as context.

[Tod]
It doesn't "contradict all of the very history he was at such great pains [trying] to establish." It contradicted ONE verse! That's hardly "all...the...history."

[Sheshbazzar]
What ONE verse does Ex 6:3 contradict? this statement as you have worded it makes no sense.

Oh, well I'm sorry Shesh, I assumed you actually knew what the problem you were addressing from the very beginning of your involvement in this thread was. You see, from the very first post, the whole point has been that Ex 6:3 contradicts Gen. 22:14. Exodus 6:3 says that Abraham didn't know YHWH by name, and Genesis 22:14 says he named a place "YHWH provides." Do you understand now?

[Tod]
Huh?? So pointing out problematic verses isn't a good way to show problems in the text? Okay, if you say so. It would be IMPOSSIBLe to establish the Bible as fallible without using inconsistencies in the text to build a case upon.

[Sheshbazzar]
Okay, Tod, you do'nt like the word "enigmatic" in reference to the percieved inconsistency of Exodus 6:3, ? ( though I have seen this term used many times in reference to said verse) So it's a "problematic verse" instead? Okay if you say so.
Or are you saying that all the other preceeding verses which contain the Name are the"problematic verses" obviously something in the text is "problematic" to you.

You have lost me dude. How this statement responds to the quote of mine you include above it, I have no idea. You are responding to another part of my post altogether. Let me help you out here, and put what I said in the last post that this above response of yours actually addresses:

[Sheshbazzar Earlier]
To place a greater value or emphases on a verse that has been considered "enigmatic" ( Ex. 6:3) for the the purpose of undermining entire the text violates the very concepts of "Logic" and "Reason".

[Tod Earlier]
You haven't given any good reason to believe this verse is "enigmatic." You've asserted as much, but I haven't seen any evidence presented either to myself or Amlodhi. How this "violates the very concepts of 'Logic' and 'Reason,' I have no idea.

[Sheshbazzar]
Okay, Tod, you do'nt like the word "enigmatic" in reference to the percieved inconsistency of Exodus 6:3, ? ( though I have seen this term used many times in reference to said verse) So it's a "problematic verse" instead? Okay if you say so.
Or are you saying that all the other preceeding verses which contain the Name are the"problematic verses" obviously something in the text is "problematic" to you.

There, that is much better. Now your response makes some sense. You seem to be confusing the contexts in which you and I use the terms "enigmatic" and "problematic." I think the verse is "problematic" because it contradicts Gen. 22:14. I don't think it is "enigmatic" because it seems pretty clear and cogent as it stands. No, I'm not saying that "all other preceeding verses which contain the Name [YHWH] are 'problematic verses.'" I'm saying that ONE other verse: Gen. 22:14, is "problematic" when viewed in conjunction with Exodus 6:3, because the two verses contradict each other. All other uses of the word YHWH in Genesis are okay. I explained this in another post, but I can NOW assume that since you don't know the very original charge I made that you seemed to be trying to address this whole time, you clearly missed my post in which I addressed this.

I had pointed out that a person writing about New York's history could be justified in referring to New York as "New York" even when it hadn't yet been named New York, but was rather called "New Amsterdam." His readers would call the present place New York, and they would understand what he meant. However, when referring to the original naming of New Amsterdam it would in that case be wrong to say that it was originally named "New York."

The same here. The mere use of the word YHWH doesn't contradict Exodus 6:3. The claim that Abraham named the place "YHWH provides" DOES contradict Exodus 6:3.

Back to the original point. Above, I had said you hadn't given good reason to believe that the verse in Exodus 6:3 was "enigmatic." This was in response to what seemed like claims from you that Exodus 6:3 was too "enigmatic" to accept the translation in the "extant translations," and that an alternate, presumably equally valid interpretation exist. I have not seen this nebulous and increasingly vague alternate translation. Since it is not in the "extant" texts, and those are all we have, then I fail to see how you could possibly support your case. Now, maybe I've misunderstood you all along, and I grant that could easily have occurred since I often times can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say.

Tod

Originally posted by Doctor X
Forgive me if I am lost here with my alcohol levels having reached a critical low, but it seems to me that Genesis 6 serves as a way of reconciling the question of whether or not El/Elohim and YHWH are the same figure.

Actually, that isn't the question needing reconciling. At least not to me.

The issue is: Exodus 6:3 contradicts Gen. 22:14. I'm still not sure of Sheshbazzar's issue in regards to this. The most "enigmatic" thing in this entire thread is Sheshbazzar's argument.

At any rate, I can see how a casual observer might be confused.

Sheshbazzar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tod
[B]Originally posted by Sheshbazzar

It should be rather obvious that the writer of Ex.6:3 would not be intending to contadict all of the very history he was at such great pains to establish. That is why there is such a thing as context.

[Tod]
It doesn't "contradict all of the very history he was at such great pains [trying] to establish." It contradicted ONE verse! That's hardly "all...the...history."

[Sheshbazzar]
What ONE verse does Ex 6:3 contradict? this statement as you have worded it makes no sense.

Oh, well I'm sorry Shesh, I assumed you actually knew what the problem you were addressing from the very beginning of your involvement in this thread was. You see, from the very first post, the whole point has been that Ex 6:3 contradicts Gen. 22:14. Exodus 6:3 says that Abraham didn't know YHWH by name, and Genesis 22:14 says he named a place "YHWH provides." Do you understand now?

[Sheshbazzar]
Yes Tod, thank you for clarifying what you percieved the contradiction to be.


[Tod]
Huh?? So pointing out problematic verses isn't a good way to show problems in the text? Okay, if you say so. It would be IMPOSSIBLe to establish the Bible as fallible without using inconsistencies in the text to build a case upon.

[Sheshbazzar]
Okay, Tod, you do'nt like the word "enigmatic" in reference to the percieved inconsistency of Exodus 6:3, ? ( though I have seen this term used many times in reference to said verse) So it's a "problematic verse" instead? Okay if you say so.
Or are you saying that all the other preceeding verses which contain the Name are the"problematic verses" obviously something in the text is "problematic" to you.

You have lost me dude. How this statement responds to the quote of mine you include above it, I have no idea. You are responding to another part of my post altogether. Let me help you out here, and put what I said in the last post that this above response of yours actually addresses:

[Sheshbazzar Earlier]
To place a greater value or emphases on a verse that has been considered "enigmatic" ( Ex. 6:3) for the the purpose of undermining entire the text violates the very concepts of "Logic" and "Reason".

[Tod Earlier]
You haven't given any good reason to believe this verse is "enigmatic." You've asserted as much, but I haven't seen any evidence presented either to myself or Amlodhi. How this "violates the very concepts of 'Logic' and 'Reason,' I have no idea.

[Sheshbazzar]
Okay, Tod, you do'nt like the word "enigmatic" in reference to the percieved inconsistency of Exodus 6:3, ? ( though I have seen this term used many times in reference to said verse) So it's a "problematic verse" instead? Okay if you say so.
Or are you saying that all the other preceeding verses which contain the Name are the"problematic verses" obviously something in the text is "problematic" to you.

[Tod]
There, that is much better. Now your response makes some sense. You seem to be confusing the contexts in which you and I use the terms "enigmatic" and "problematic."

[Sheshbazzar]
Just checking my Websters Pocket Dictionary, the given definitions of "enigmatic" and "problematic" are virtually interchangeable, you want "problematic"? No Problem!

[Tod]
Back to the original point. Above, I had said you hadn't given good reason to believe that the verse in Exodus 6:3 was "enigmatic." This was in response to what seemed like claims from you that Exodus 6:3 was too "enigmatic" to accept the translation in the "extant translations," and that an alternate, presumably equally valid interpretation exist. I have not seen this nebulous and increasingly vague alternate translation. Since it is not in the "extant" texts, and those are all we have, then I fail to see how you could possibly support your case.

[Sheshbazzar]
A few minuits of using the "search" function (Google) for "Exodus 6:3 enigmatic The Name" brought up more than a few entries, one interesting site relevant to our ongoing dialog is;
"IBRI Research Report #29 Exodus 6:3 and Patriachal Knowledge of the Name YHWH"
Respectfully, Sheshbazzar

rlogan

It seems to me that there is one over-arching contradiction in the "Bible".

The books of the apostles struggle to validate Jesus as the Messiah by appealing to old testament prophesy. An example would be the contradictory lineages offered by Matthew and Luke that "fulfill" Isaiah 11:1 in establishing a line from Jesse, father of King David. There are other examples, many of which also have problems. There are of course examples of OT prophesy unfulfilled such as Ezekiel 37:26-28 - rebuilding the temple. So we fall back on the Second Coming (technically the third?) for that one. Nonetheless the claim is that Jesus fulfills the OT Prophesy for the Messiah. That is how we establish Jesus' "credentials".

But Jesus invalidates the old testament (that's why we call it the New Testament!!) and offeres a "new covenant". Huh?! How is that "validation" of OT Prophesy?! The Jews have a solid point here. Either they "validate" one another mutually or we abandon this approach. In my mind, this is the most general and central contradiction in the modern "Bible".

If it is a faith-based belief in the end - then that is what it should be at the outset rather than a cribbed-together house of cards. Eh?