semiopen

From an orthodox point of view, an opinion on a biblical matter can only be held that has been espoused by an accepted authority. These authorities are generally guys who lived before say 1400 CE with the exception of Isaac Luria who lived a few hundred years later.

A rabbi, I don't believe has special authority, except very senior individuals who are heads of specific groups. Two contradictory opinions (from accepted authorities) must be reconciled by a third opinion of an acceptable authority that reconciles them.

This link discusses a rabbi's issues with bans on his controversial books that suggest that the earth may not be less than 6000 years old:

http://www.zootorah.com/

Once in this site click on Controversy on the left.

Of course, these rules are idiotic, but as someone who accepts the underlying truth of all this, IAJ has a responsibility to behave properly. In this context, his dismissal of the snake sex interpretation is horrifying.

The opinion of an Israeli Jew should hardly be given more weight than any other informed opinion. Not to generalize, but many Israelis tend to be abrasive, opinionated and arrogant.

storytime

"living among them day after day, was tormented[vexed?] in his righteous soul by their lawless deeds that he saw and heard."

In the situation of Lot, might his tormented spirit be interpreted as vexed? A vexation of spirit? Was Lot then indecisive about the behavior of men in Sodom or did his own tradition cause him to condemn their behavior as wickedness? IF the men of Sodom were homosexual, why would their lifestyle have been more wicked than Lot's incest with his own daughters?

Right-ness[rightousness] may have been seen in the Clan to which Lot belonged, whereas wickedness was deemed evil outside the Clan. The Clan was "house of Abraham" and blessed in the covenant of circumcision. Lot was blessed in house of Abraham, therein deemed as righteous because of Abraham.

Were there homosexuals in house of Abraham, and if so were they deemed as righteous by way of covenanted people in circumcision?

Marrying and reproducing children within ones own kinsmen seemed to have been permitted, so if this is the case then Lot producing children with his daughters would not have been seen as sinful -offensive to them. But I'm only guessing as to their tradition in those ancient days of people in their tribal groups.

And thanks for your input.

J-D

What historical event are you referring to?

steve_bnk

Exodus ending in the Promised Land.

J-D

That's not a historical event. It's a myth.

steve_bnk

Huh?

Didn't actualy say it was an historical event, it is the biblicaly based rationale in rrsponse to IAJs question on ancient Jewish agression, asuming as IAJ does that the bible is a true accounting.

J-D

OK, but you didn't say that before, which is what confused me. I'm often unsure who believes what in these discussions, so I often just go by the exact words posted.

IamJoseph

What factors account for a true accounting? If this is based on historical factors, than the exodus cannot be a myth: if the Israelites can be evidenced for being in Egypt - and then in Canaan - it is not a myth, being from point A to point B. The factor of a sea splitting or not, does not apply in making the exodus a myth - because this is not provable or disprovable.

We have a non-mythical Egytian stelle which affirms there was a war with Israel, and we have historical proof of the Israelites in Canaan. I know of no other 3000 + year event or report with more evdence than the Israelite exodus: feel free to nominate one?

IamJoseph

The first interpretation factor is that the report is not set on earth [the text].

???

This is dishistorical and baseless. Purim marks an event in 500 BCE - or 2,500ago. Israel is 4000 years old; the first temple period was marked by wars based on Israel being monotheistic and non-pagan.

In actual fact, the Israelites were the only non-pagan peoples in Babylon when the Purim event occured, and when Babylon was conquered by Persia, Darius gave permission to rebuilt the temple. This battle over monotheism continued thereafter when the Greeks conquered Persia - and again with Rome and Greek fostered Christianity.

IamJoseph

This omits that the Israelites were 100% Canaanite people, born and incepted in that land - so conquering cannot apply in one's own land. The fact is that Jews have never occupied or stolen another peoples' lands in all their 4000 year history - despite being dispersed throughout the nations. This is a unique record, and the only claim made relates only to the ancestral land of the Jews - there is totally no track record of Jews stealing lands elsewhere in 4000 years.

Nor is it is acceptable to say that the land was promised by God: in fact the God of Israel gave her 100% factual, legal, historical proof which was the Jews' land. Please prove any other nation's ownership of their land - how they got it and when? Europe has been stealing other peoples' land for 1000s of years and so have the Arabian peoples. You are confused - or worse.