Rick Sumner

There is no contradiction, as near as I can see, which is precisely the problem with the website, and with your preceding paragraph.

Two plus two is not five. But you don't respond to someone claiming it is by pointing out that it's actually six. Being wrong and more sympathetic to my position doesn't make it less wrong. I'm not saying it's wrong all the time, I'm saying it's wrong frequently enough that you need to double-check it before you cite it, which makes it a specious source at best. Having the best of intentions doesn't change that.

As an aside, surely you don't expect me to believe that the Hebrew says a word about unicorns. I think we can agree that that is emphatically not the "best" translation.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

GakuseiDon

I agree that inerrantists do shift the goalposts. I just can't see that as a reason to highlight passages that are almost certainly meant to be taken figuratively.

The rule is: Figurative statements aren't supposed to be taken literally. Determining what is supposed to be figurative in most cases isn't difficult. If SAB highlighted those cases which are border-line, then I would have less problems with it.

Are you really going to try to defend SAB on this??? I can't imagine any reasonable person agreeing that this is anything other than a figurative statement. It is so obvious that it undermines SAB's credibility to try to highlight it as any kind of problem. Inerrantists simply don't regard every statement in the Bible as literal. As I said, what is the problem with the Bible using figurative language like "God has the strength of a unicorn/ox"?

SAB has constructed strawman problems that does a disservice to the argument against inerrancy, AFAICS.

I never raised this one on the forum (I only just found it yesterday by going through SAB's Numbers section at random). There are lots more just as bad that I did raise, without success.

Vorkosigan

Don, everyone knows that "figurative statements aren't supposed to be taken literally." The problem lies in determining what is a figurative statement. For example, was there really a garden of Eden, or is it figurative?

Neither can I. But why should our subjectivity mean anything? You seem to think your own subjective views count for something. The SAB's position is that anything other than the purest literalism is subjectivity. This position is a deliberate lampoon. For some reason you keep misunderstanding that.

How do you know it is "figurative?" Please give us all the rule for determining what language is "figurative." You seem to think we can just "apply common sense" or something. Or else maybe we should just send Don G an email and he'll let us know through some process of revelation.

Vorkosigan

Amlodhi

Hi Vorkosigan,

Since it is you making this statement, I would appreciate it if you could give me a brief overview of your reasoning. Or, better yet if possible, a reference to the said "previous discussions".

While I respect the depth of your knowledge, I must currently remain of the opinion that the term used in the OT commandments carries the specific connotation of "murder". My reasoning was previously posted as a reply to Pervy Hobbit Fancier, and I reproduce it below:

There are several terms in the Hebrew that can be translated roughly as "kill". The primary ones are:

רצח (ratsach) which properly means, "to dash to pieces". This term is used consistently in the sense of "murder".

הרג (harag) - to slay, to strike with deadly intent; to destroy out of hand; kill.

מות (muwth) - die; in the causative: cause to die.

שחט (shachat) - to slaughter (in sacrifice) or massacre.

The term used in the commandment (both Ex. 20:13 and Deut. 5:17) is רצח (ratsach).

A cursory check of the translated terms: strike, slay, kill, murder, cause to die, slaughter and massacre, indicates the usage of רצח (ratsach) in only the following verses (momentarily excluding the book of Numbers). All of which carry the connotation of "murder":

Ex. 20:13 and Deut. 5:17 - the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder".

Deut. 4:42 - ". . . that the murderer might flee there who murdered his neighbor . . ." (though in this case, the reference is more at "manslaughter").

I Kgs. 21:19 - "So says YHWH, 'Have you murdered and also taken possession?"

Ps. 94:6 - "They slay* the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless."

Jer. 7:9 - "Will you steal, murder and commit adultery . . ."

Hos. 4:2 - ". . . lying, murdering, stealing and doing adultery increase . . ."

Hos. 6:9 - ". . . priests murder in the way by consent . . ."

In the book of Numbers, the term רצח (ratsach) is used as a noun, i.e. הרצחַ (haratsacha) - "murderer".

Num. 35:16 - "And if he strikes him with an instrument of iron and he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall certainly be put to death".

So Num. 35:17 - ". . . with a stone in the hand . . ."

So Num. 35:18 - ". . . with a wooden instrument . . ."

Num. 35:19 - "The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death."

So Num. 35:21 - ". . . with his hand . . ."

And also, as a noun (murderer):

II Kg. 6:32 - ". . . 'Do you see that this son of the murderer has sent to take away my head?'

Hos. 9:13 - ". . . bring forth his children to the murderer . . ."

As also used in the sense of "murderer" or "manslayer" see:

Num.35:11; 35:25; 35:26; 35:27; 35:28.

Deut. 19:3; 19:4; 19:6.

Josh. 20:3; 20:5; 20:6; 21:13; 21:21; 21:27; 21:32; 21:38.


It is evident, then, that the term רצח (ratsach) is used in the sense of "murder". (Or, at the very least, what the Hebrew authors considered to be murder as opposed to other types of slaying.)

All of the other events in the OT that are translated as: strike, slay, kill, execute, cause to die, slaughter and massacre, utilize (with the occasional usage of a few more rarely used terms) one of the alternate terms that were listed above, i.e:

הרג (harag) - to slay, to strike with deadly intent; to destroy out of hand; kill.

מות (muwth) - die; in the causative: cause to die.

שחט (shachat) - to slaughter (in sacrifice) or massacre.

*That some of the general terms for "kill" or "slay" may occasionally be used to denote a "murder" does not change the fact that the term used for the commandment appears to denote only murder. This is no different than our English usage whereby we might use "kill" for "murder", but not "murder" for "kill" unless we wanted to specifically indicate a criminal action.


Again, I am interested in your reasoning or links to previous discussions.

Amlodhi

GakuseiDon

As in a "metaphor"? We can't tell that from the text, so I'd have no problem with SAB highlighting something like that. But "God has a unicorn's strength" is definitely figurative.

You seem to be saying that SAB deliberately uses literalism, beyond what even the literalists use? Therefore some of the problems that SAB raises aren't serious?

What is it with this "what is the rule for determining what is figurative"? I find it a bizarre question. How do we know when something is figurative in English? Through common usage and an understanding of the text, exactly the same as in the Bible. There are lots of instances where it is almost certain that the Bible uses figurative language. To highlight them as a problem because there are other instances where it is uncertain is disingenuous.

Vorkosigan

Thank the lord, then, you can state the rule.

Don, one of the SAB's roles is to show that literalism is another form of subjective interpretation by overdoing it. I don't know what you mean by "serious." The goal is "serious" although the means are a lampoon.

It goes to the heart of the debate.

Ah, you mean subjectively and open to differing interpretations depending on what we accept as "common usage."

It's a not a problem for you. It may be a problem for others. What's to stop me from taking the passage literally and saying that god has a strength of a unicorn? Further, why shouldn't I take figuratively passages where god is said to comfort the weary and sad? What's the rule, Don? Whose subjectivity should I adopt, and why? When Mark says Jesus was the son of god, was he speaking figuratively or literally, and if so, how and when?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

This is incorrect. In Numbers 35:30 it states that whoever kills a person may be put to death [ratsach] on the testimony of two witnesses. Clearly it does not mean murder there. Eight verses earlier [ratsach] is also used of a death unintentionally caused. Clearly it cannot mean murder there either. The correct translation of the Commandment is "kill" as "murder" there makes no logical sense whatsoever (although neither does the injunction against theft, in fairness). [ratsach] can mean kill, slay, or murder, but generally through its basic meaning of causing death by striking. That "kill" is the correct translation is shown by its use in the Vulgate from Jerome, and in the Septaugint, a Greek translation by Jews done prior to the time of Christ. Naturally there is room for interpretation here. But to simply declare, as Don G, that one position is wrong and "basic knowledge" is to ignore the long debate about that word.

Here

Also here

And here too]

Just search ratsach and you'll find a few in the old archives as well.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Having argued with Steve, I doubt very much that Steve believes he is deliberately overdoing it. He says he wants the Bible to be taken seriously, but he is suspicious of any attempts to interpret the text in terms of the cultural context of the authors. In his FAQs Steve says:
As I said, I've argued with Steve. He is not lampooning. When he uses "Since the Roman soldiers were bad guys and they gambled for the robe of Jesus, gambling must be bad" as a proof that the Bible disapproves of gambling, he is being serious. If he isn't, then it would be good to know.

If he doesn't seriously have a problem with the Bible using the word "spitting", perhaps he should mark these kinds of passages with a "lampoon" icon.

Yes.

The rule is determined by its usage, of course. As I said, it depends on the cultural context of the author writing the passage. That's whose subjectivity you should adopt. Sometimes we know this, sometimes we don't. I have no problem with SAB pointing it out when we don't.

Vorkosigan

Well, OK.

Vorkosigan

PoodleLovinPessimist

I have to say that the SAB interpretation here does seem a stretch. Ok, you found one. :jump:

This makes God's word "The Bible + The cultural context of the authors", not "The Bible". Vorkosigan points out correctly that once you import anything but the literal meaning of the words, you have abandoned literalism.

And then you must answer: Why should the cultural context of the authors be the preferred frame? Must a good xian become an historical anthropologist to understand the word of God?