Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dado · 02-14-2004, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Re-read the passage; it refers to the "first-born of your sons."

--J.D.

(a) you are quoting non-original text, "likewise" is an inaccurate translation
(a*) the verse markings do not correspond to the actual hebrew textual divisions
(b) in english, in a sentence divided by a full colon, the left hand side of the sentence relates to the right hand side, not to some earlier sentence, the passage is saying "give me first born male cows and sheep on their eighth day of life
(c) written torah cannot be read in a meaningful fashion without referring to oral torah and oral torah is completely unequivocal on this issue, human sacrifice to HaShem is stritcly forbidden

in edit: i should modify (a) to say that "likewise" can be appropriate if the phrase is rearranged.

in second edit: to infer "human son" from this context of "sons" is equivalent to inferring "bestiality" from "animal husbandry".

GakuseiDon · 02-14-2004, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Marduk
�No, that is a myth. The "Bible as literal truth" and the "Bible as allegorical truth" debate has been around since Origen 1700 years ago, and probably has always existed.�

But did they exist within the Christian Church once it became a major force? Not in a debate with an outsider, a Pagan of all things. Even thinking something like the communion wine was not really Christ�s blood could get you killed, especially among the common folk. I guess I�m thinking dark ages here.
Did anyone question anything about the Bible at all between 1000 CE and 1800 CE?

Yes. Cappel was a university professor who wrote around 1640:
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/Louis-Cappel.htm

Quote:

As a Hebrew scholar he made a special study of the history of the Hebrew text, which led him to the conclusion that the vowel points and accents are not an original part of the Hebrew language, but were inserted by the Massorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier than the 5th century AD, and that the primitive Hebrew characters are those now known as the Samaritan, while the square characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. These conclusions were hotly contested by Johannes Buxtorf, being in conflict with the views of his father, Johannes Buxtorf senior, notwithstanding the fact that Elias Levita had already disputed the antiquity of the vowel points and that neither Jerome nor the Talmud shows any acquaintance with them.

His second important work, Critica Sacrci, was distasteful, from a theological point of view. He had completed it in 1634; but owing to the fierce opposition with which he had to contend, he was only able to print it at Paris in 1650, by aid of a son, who had turned Catholic. The various readings in the Old Testament text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Massoretic text convinced him that the idea of the integrity of the Hebrew text, as commonly held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack on the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter, however, as was the opposition to his views, it was not long before his results were accepted by scholars.

Though there is no doubt his views were controversial (though quickly accepted), there is no record of him being killed or persecuted for them.

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 05:57 PM

Dado:

Quote:

(a) you are quoting non-original text,

No. I am quoting valid renderings of the text.

Quote:

(a*) the verse markings do not correspond to the actual hebrew textual divisions

Irrelevant.

Quote:

(b) in english, in a sentence divided by a full colon, the left hand side of the sentence relates to the right hand side, not to some earlier sentence, the passage is saying "give me first born male cows and sheep on their eighth day of life

No. The passage states "first-born of your sons."

Quote:

(c) written torah cannot be read in a meaningful fashion without referring to oral torah. . . .

Ipse dixit and wrong.

Quote:

. . . and oral torah is completely unequivocal on this issue, human sacrifice to HaShem is stritcly forbidden

Ipse dixit and wrong. See the article.

--J.D.

dado · 02-14-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

:shrug

the article is simply wrong, as is your interpretation for the reasons given. your analytical approach to the passage follows the christian tradition of dealing with written Torah, and you are, of course, free to believe what you like.

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 06:08 PM

Quote:

. . . the article is simply wrong, . . .

Quite an ipse dixit there. I am afraid we will require an actual rebuttal rather than such a statement "out of the whirlwind." At the danger of appealing to authority myself, I will note that I rather trust the scholarship of a tenured professor who was a president of the Society of Biblical literature, and the peer-reviewed references given in his published article, than an unsupported claim from an internet poster.

Quote:

. . . is your interpretation for the reasons given.

That the "reasons given" failed utterly to rebut the evidence should not, apparently, dissuade us. . . .

Quote:

. . . you are of course free to believe whatever you like.

'Tis not a matter of belief.

--J.D.

dado · 02-14-2004, 06:14 PM

i'm afraid you have the wrong idea about why i'm here. i am not here to argue with you. what you believe about this or any other passage has no meaningful effect on my life: you said yours, i said mine, anybody who is undecided - and actualy cares - can research further on their own.

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Quite an ipse dixit there. I am afraid we will require an actual rebuttal rather than such a statement "out of the whirlwind."

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:

i'm afraid you have the wrong idea about why i'm here.

I have formed no opinion as to why individuals are here. Fine, Amaleq13 is here to torment me, of course, other than he/she/it/not-sure-but-does-not-want-to-be-pressured I do not speculate.

Quote:

i am not here to argue with you.

This is a debate forum.

Quote:

what you believe about this or any other passage has no meaningful effect on my life: you said yours, i said mine, anybody who is undecided - and actualy cares - can research further on their own.

This is not a matter of opinion. If you post an opinion--which you have--you should expect to defend it, particularly such a harsh opinion that the scholarship of a president of the Society of Biblical Literature--and a well-respected professor, I might add [He will.--Ed.]--is "simply wrong." Similarly, if you wish to claim a mistranslation--missed by even apologetic translators!--you should demonstrate why based on the Hebrew texts. This you have not done.

If I were an unkind man and given to speculation, I would wonder if you had not actually read the article you condemn.

Had you read the article, you would have encountered a reference to the wonderful Isaiah where YHWH states he ordered the sacrifice of children--"passing them through the fire"--in order to demonstrate his power through horror.

The "point" from an historical standpoint is that as one time child sacrifice was part of the cult. It did eventually become condemned and passed from practice. One of the problems the writer of the Isaiah passage was how to explain the existence of the practice--which, presummably, no longer existed.

This is the Biblical Criticism and History forum [Cue Thunderclap.--Ed.] It is not the "What I Want to Believe" forum.

--J.D.

spin · 02-14-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dado
(a) you are quoting non-original text, "likewise" is an inaccurate translation
(a*) the verse markings do not correspond to the actual hebrew textual divisions
(b) in english, in a sentence divided by a full colon, the left hand side of the sentence relates to the right hand side, not to some earlier sentence, the passage is saying "give me first born male cows and sheep on their eighth day of life
(c) written torah cannot be read in a meaningful fashion without referring to oral torah and oral torah is completely unequivocal on this issue, human sacrifice to HaShem is stritcly forbidden

in edit: i should modify (a) to say that "likewise" can be appropriate if the phrase is rearranged.

in second edit: to infer "human son" from this context of "sons" is equivalent to inferring "bestiality" from "animal husbandry".

Point #c ("written torah cannot be read in a meaningful fashion without referring to oral torah") was rejected by the temple priesthood, as reflected in what we know of the Sadducees. The Dead Sea Scrolls, if they aren't the temple position, also reject the notion of "oral torah".

Points #a and #b don't seem to reflect the text.

KN, "thus, in the same manner", is fairly unequivocal in the context. What exact problem do you see with it?

BKWR BNYK, "your firstborn sons", comes before any reference to animals in the passage and so should be read literally as human children.

What is interesting is the notion introduced in Ex 34:19-20 of "redeeming" the firstborn sons.

spin

dado · 02-14-2004, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
This is a debate forum.

ok. you won. have a nice night. :shrug

-dado.

Doctor X · 02-14-2004, 06:34 PM

Spin:

Fine . . . bring facts into the discussion. . . .

Picks up ball and runs away. . . .

Anyways, according to Collins and--to my memory Levenson [Death of the Beloved Son--Ed.], who is used as a reference by Collins--the "reedeming" is a later version--it provides an "out" which, incidentally, is continued today--according to Levenson methinks--as a payment given to the Rabbi.

Why I should not post on memory. . . .

--J.D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2004, 06:34 PM	#30
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Spin: Fine . . . bring facts into the discussion. . . . Picks up ball and runs away. . . . Anyways, according to Collins and--to my memory Levenson [Death of the Beloved Son--Ed.], who is used as a reference by Collins--the "reedeming" is a later version--it provides an "out" which, incidentally, is continued today--according to Levenson methinks--as a payment given to the Rabbi. Why I should not post on memory. . . . --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.