Evangelion

Hi diana.

Why would the assumption be made by the priests? Isn't it being made by the husband in the first place?

Fair enough. I take the other view.

*snip*

Yes, I've taken a look at them, and I do indeed see a lot of problems with their attempts to exegete the passage in question.

I agree that if God exists, He could have done such a thing. However, He chose to use a different method. I certainly do not see the necessity of divine intervention in this case.

Well in order to do that, you'll have to provide documented evidence which proves that this was something that the priests "cooked up" (as opposed to being something that came from Moses, via God.) And even if we leave God out of the equation, you're still left with the fact that the Law - all of it - came from Moses, without any additions by "the priests."

I guess I'm also confused as to why you would blame the priests in the first place, since (a) they had no civil authority (unlike the judges), (b) this ritual doesn't actually do anything for them (i.e., they get nothing out of it), and (c) unlike most Christian denominations, the OT priests of Judaism were simply ministers of the Law; there was no way to advance your status as a priest, and there was no point in attempting to do so.

As a priest, therefore, your role was static, your duties and privileges clearly defined, and your ability to change all of this, totally nil.

Thanks, I've done so.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

Evangelion

Terry -

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.

Just in passing, perhaps you might be interested in the following comment, which I made on page 2 of this thread...?

I freely acknowledged the cultural differences, and I was hoping to avoid any unnecessary generalisations.

Yep, these are particular favourites of American Fundies.

Nope.

Agreed.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

Evangelion

Hello Butters. I apologise for having taken so long to answer your post, but Christmas is the busiest time of the year where I work, and I'm currently putting in some overtime every night. So if I don't reply for another 3 or 4 days, it's because I don't have enough spare time.

No worries.

If you are asking me "Do you believe that this passage is the word of God?", the answer is "Yes, I believe that this passage is the word of God." (See also pages 3 & 4, where I made my position quite clear.)

If you are asking me "Do you believe that the Jews received this ritual from the mouth of YHVH?", the answer is "Yes, I believe that the Jews received this ritual from the mouth of YHVH." (See also pages 3 & 4, where I made my position quite clear.)

Because if you read the NT, you will find that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, and explained why it is no longer binding upon believers.

Not necessarily. It can certainly be morally repugnant - but does this mean that it is necessarily immoral? Well, that's another story entirely.

One man's morality is another man's repugnance.

Because the central elements of Christianity are predicated upon the central elements of Judaism - and these have remained unchanged.

Because:

• The OT was written in Hebrew, by Jews.
• The OT constitutes the Jewish Scriptures.
• The Jews are likely to know more about their own language and their own Scriptures, than a non-Hebrew-speaking Christian.

Currently, your question is more or less along the lines of "Why should I ask a Russian about Tegenv's Fathers and Sons?"

Well, that is indeed true of many Christians. Fortunately, however, it is not true of all. Speaking for myself, I have to say that I would never make such a claim.

BTW, if your reason for not going to ask the Jews to explain this passage is "Because the Christians told me that the Jews didn't understand the OT", I would have to seriously question (a) your intellectual integrity, and/or (b) your sanity.

Evangelion

Jess -

*snip*

No, I did not say that Terry "specifically said Christian."

I simply gave my impression, and explained why I believe that this impression was an accurate one.

brighid

Evangelion,

I will probably be unable to respond to this thread at any time in the near future. A personal, family, health matter requires most of my attention right now so I am going to have to leave it to the others to continue on with this discussion. I apologize, but my participation is going to be very minimal over the next few weeks, unless things get better shortly.

Brighid

TerryTryon

I had the opportunity to discuss these verses from Numbers with a biblical irerrantist not long ago. The results of this were--well--not surprising.

--Well, you need to pray over the matter before you make your decision.

--I am sorry. I don't pray. I am atheist.

--No, you're not! You're just angry about something and are acting out.

--No, I've been a militant atheist for fifteen years. I do not believe in God, or Jesus, or angels or anything else supernatural.

--Is that going to be your stand when you stand before God on Judgment Day?

--I don't believe I'll have to face Judgment Day. Besides, I do not want to have anything at all to do with your God. I always say that I would rather burn in hell eternally than have to spend one second with the demon described as God in the Old Testament.

--Why do you say that?

--Read Numbers 5:11-31.

--I have a Bible right here; let's see what it says. [Reads the passage.] So, what's wrong with that?

--God tells Moses that if a man suspects his wife of adultery, all he has to do is turn her over to the priests who will torture her, make her testify against herself. Make her drink some poison and if she's okay, fine and good, but she could suffer some really bad effects of drinking the stuff, then it proves she's been unfaithful. And none of this abuse is based on any evidence at all. It's just a way to vent the jealousy of the husband, who's held blameless, no matter what happens to the wife. Don't you find that evil?

--Is that all you have? If you're an atheist, why do you worry about what's in the Bible.

--Because there is a big group of people who wants to kill me because I am gay and atheist because what they say is in the Bible. When they come after me, I sure as hell better know what's in that book.

--Is that all you have? When you stand before God, is that all you have to tell him?

--I'm not going to stand before God. When I die it will be all over.

--Well, I am not trying to convince you of anything. But you need to understand that you have to answer for everything you say and do, and I want to know how you are going to justify yourself. Is that all you have when you stand before God?

--Well, there's Ezekiel 23:20. [more exegesis, bellyaching about Christians accepting poorly translated scriptures, more challenging to defend the verse.]

--[smugly smiling] Is that all you have?

seebs

There was a thread on this over on ChristianForums, and we got a very good article about it written by one of the Orthodox Jews who hangs around there sometimes. Their assertion is the only way it can work is through a pure miracle, and obviously the stuff isn't actually poisonous, that would be horrible.

I am not aware of a recorded case of it "working", so... I think it's interesting that many of the readers here are just *assuming* that of course the stuff is poisonous, because, if you're assuming no supernatural, that's the only way it could happen.

Toto

Why assume that it works? I assume that it's an herbal abortifacient that only works sometimes, so there is a random element in it that allows room for attributing success to "god" or the nocebo effect (it's more likely to produce the abortion if the woman's emotion state translates to guilty.)