Evangelion

Echo -

I believe that the ritual was given by God, and performed under His auspices.

This is made abundantly clear in the following verse...

• Numbers 5:11.
  And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,

...which precedes the description of the ritual in question.

TerryTryon

I have been away for a couple of days, and was surprised to see the interest this passage in Numbers has generated.

I would like to thank Evangelion for clarifying my motives for me. (sarcasm) If it is any interest to anyone, this is the way I interpret my own motive for beginning this post.

There is a broad movement in the United States (of which our non-elected president claims membership) that every word of the bible, including the OT, is true. This group is constantly demanding that laws and punishments be enacted that reflect the bible.

Within the atheist community, there is a counter movement which attempts to show that this position is unteneable by pointing out absurdities, contradictions, and barbarities in the bible. Both movements are well over a hundred years old.

The biblical literalists often accept the King James Version of the bible as the only true authority, preferring it, in some cases, to the original languages of the bible.

The motive I felt I had (before Evangelion told me otherwise (sarcasm, again)) was to point out this particular odious passage and to ask why this passage has not been used in the past to challenge the bible inerrantists, since it seems so well suited for the purpose.

I thus felt compelled to use the KJV. I think my motive was further clarified by pointing out that certain biblical passages such as the pointedly obscene Ezekiel 23:20 could not be used for the purpose of challenging the literalits for the reason that the KJV often willfully obscures the meaning of passages that its translators objected to. There are signs of this in the verses in Numbers, but the barbarity remains clear.

I was raised in a sect with a fairly rigid literalist veiw with emphasis on the authority of the KJV, and I was compelled in my youth to study the bible, both with proof texts and straight reading. Thus, I posted this thread directly from this perspective.

I have great feelings of disgust and anger at Christianity as a whole. I refuse to characterize these feelings as "bigotry" as they are based on many years of study and experience, and I will use whatever resources I have to mock, ridicule, and challenge christians and christianity in general. But that was not my motive in the original posting.

Evangelion accuses me as an atheist of having a double standard, and although my position feels coherent to me, I may need to examine my motives and positions to answer his challenge. However, a man who claims that the bible is the inspired word of god and yet feels justified in rejecting certain passages because they are jewish and not christian has something to answer for in this area also.

The really relevant point is this. Bible inerrantists are pushing for ever more brutal laws to punish queers, atheists, evolutionists, and abortionists, based on passages from the OT, yet even though they claim each and every word is true and infallible, they ignore and willfully misinterpret as needed to support their position. They need to be challenged. My motive was and remains political. I wanted to show that the biblical literalists' view on the bible was capricious and not worthy of serious consideration.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: TerryTryon ]</p>

Evangelion

brighid -

We shall see.

Mere melodramatics. I made a perfectly reasonable deduction on the basis of the original poster's tone, and the content of his initial posts. If you disagree, that's fine - but please, don't rant and rave as if the sky is falling. It's just so... petty.

"Unproven", eh? Well, I already made it clear that I believed the "agenda" in question to be "Let's hammer the Christians with this unpleasant piece of Scripture", and a number of people on this thread have clearly vindicated that conclusion. One of them put it this way:

See also:

Those two comments look pretty clear to me, brighid. The purpose was to "fight back"; IOW, beat the Christians over the head with this passage of Scripture. And why was it assumed that this passage would be so useful in the pursuit of such a task? Because of the references to abortion - a procedude which the average American Christian will not tolerate.

Hence Bumble Bee Tuna's apparent disappointment that I wasn't going to have a pink fit over Numbers 5...



I made that perfectly clear as well. Just read the thread, please.

Not so. Galiel made his bigotry quite clear on page 3 (complete with ludicrous preconceptions and unsubstantiated accusations, such as "Besides, how ironic for someone who rejects the principles of discovery through rational inquiry, to complain about lack of objectivity.") How would you feel if he'd said this to you, brighid?

Look, we already went through this 'way back on page 4, remember?

You'd just done your thing, and I responded:

(Emphasis mine.) Furthermore, diana has tacitly confirmed my other "accusations" on this point, so I suggest you move on.

Well, let's have a list of 'em, then! Would you care to begin with page 2, where I began my own explantion of this passage by presenting the footnotes of the New English Translation?

And when you've finished there, you can turn over to page 3, where I wrote:

Later on page 3 (in response to BH), I wrote:

How much clearer do you want it, brighid?

Nope. I never claimed that everybody was being immature, and I clearly gave credit to those who were!

Like this, from my response to Galiel on page 3:

Do you really think you're getting somewhere by attacking these straw men? Do you honestly think it's wise to make assertions which are so easily refuted?

"Out of context"? Well, it was an entire paragraph - and the extended version didn't change anything!

Well, here's a curious little dilemma, which arises naturally from the various conflicting claims from the atheists on this thread, Brighid. You see, I made it clear that I wasn't a Fundy. I emphasised this point quite early on. But despite this, I was still told that I had to present some kind of explanation for Numbers 5. (Remember, the OP said: "I think atheists should demand that the biblical literalists to defend it at every opportunity" - and I'm a Biblical literalist, so the onus was on me to respond.)

BH even went so far as to say "Well, you have an ultra-liberal theology, it would seem, so it shouldn't be too surprising that many critiques which apply to the vast majority of your fellow Christians won't quite apply to you" - but insisted on an explanation of the passage. Now, this didn't worry me at all, and I was happy to do it. So I did.

Meanwhile, others on this thread have told me that I wasn't supposed to be answering it at all, because I'm not a Fundy! (What the...?)

Either I'm not required to answer (which I've done anyway) because I'm not a Fundy, or I am required to answer, because I'm a Christian and a Biblical literalist.

You can't have it both ways.

*snip*

Yep. All over the place - but particularly:

• When I accepted the challenge of explaining this passage (arriving at a conclusion with which the atheists here have actually agreed.)
• When I wrote "Why bother to make it sound palatable in the first place, when it's obviously not? I see no reason to guild the lily here."
• When I referred to the origins of this ritual as "Allegedly, God."

Now, do you seriously want to tell me that these last two are not objective statements, coming (as they do), from a Christian?

Nope. It's obviously a classic case of sexual inequality - but misogyny? Well, I'd like to see some concrete proof for this assertion, please. Simply saying "I think it's nasty" won't cut the mustard. Of course it's nasty. We've all agreed that it's nasty. It's bloody awful, in fact. But does it necessarily stem from misogyny? That remains to be proved.

(I guess I can always do what you did, and play the old "Are you omniscient?" game... but quite frankly, I can't be bothered.)

"Cruel"? Well, when seen through 21st Century eyes, perhaps. "Immoral"? On what basis?

Nope. I don't see any "sorcery" or "witchcraft" here. We've already arrived at the conclusion that a herbal abortive was used. There's not a hint of supernatural intervention. There's simply no need for it.

Nope. And just for the record, my religious community has its roots in the Unitarian Anabaptist tradition - the very people who were always on the receiving end of persecution, never dished it out to anybody, and repeatedly insisted on the separation of church and state. That's a simple fact of history. You may confirm it at your own leisure.

Because part of Christ's message was that believers are no longer under the Law.

*snip*

Thanks for your opinion, by the way...

What do you mean by "Explained away in Christian Scripture"? Christian Scripture consists of the New Testament. I don't see this ritual referred to anywhere in the New Testament.

What on Earth are you talking about?

I've been doing this ever since page 2, where I presented the footnotes of the New English Translation.

Remember?

diana

Good morning again, Evangelion!

Fair enough. I guess that was my interpolation, based upon what appears to me to be two options available (but there may be options I haven't thought about): God inspired the writing of the bible and it's inerrant and exactly what we read is exactly what the truth is...or...there are parts that were added (without God's intervention) by priests. I assume with the latter that God does not sanction these additions, as they lack his inspiration.

[quote]Sure it is, and that's exactly what I believe. (Although I'll grant you that I'm currently in the process of reconsidering Biblical inerrancy, and to be perfectly frank, I think I'm about to drop it. But that's another story, and will be told another time.)
[quote]

Ah. I understand your position better now. You're thinking of switching "inspired and inerrant" for "inspired but errant." Now the "Allegedly" bit makes sense.

I lean toward the idea that it's an assumption that was made by the priests, if we're right in our herbal abortion hypothesis. There are those who believe there was nothing harmful in the bitter water, but that the curse from God caused the woman's "belly to swell and thigh to fall away" and be infertile only if she'd been unfaithful--whether she was pregnant or not. This viewpoint includes the addendum that if she was pregnant by her husband, and had been faithful, nothing bad would happen to her.

If you haven't, I suggest you read the links brighid posted in their entirety. The rabbis are in a quandary about this passage, undoubtedly. They're all trying to find a way to interpret it in such a way that it would seem fair in light of ancient Jewish law and other provisions of the Torah and so it'll ring fair, somehow, to modern peoples. So there are all kinds of assumptions they add in. (But this passage is a booger for them; everything they add assume to make it seem fair contradicts something else, and none of it is actually supported by the text.)

IMO, those versions that say "her thigh shall fall away" or somesuch silliness are using an Elizabethan (or possibly Hebrew) euphemism to avoid stating the truth. I make this assertion because someone's thigh falling away makes as much sense as biting the bullet or hitting the roof or climbing the walls or easy as pie--something that obviously means something else.

I went to The Bible Gateway early on in this thread looking for translations that appeared to admit that the bitter water had an immediate affect on her reproductive organs (I didn't post them, so don't bother looking in this thread ). Most of them said belly and thigh, though. Those that read womb instead of belly manage to suggest that the woman only feels pain and is struck barren--not that a fetus is aborted. Hence my charge of translator dishonesty.

(Does anybody know a site that will provide several (10 or more) translations to the same verse in one search? Such sites have to be out there. I just don't know what magical words to plug in the search engine to find them. Thanks. )

I disagree. If God was in charge of the procedure and he is all-powerful and all that jazz, he could easily punish the woman with immediate pain, physical "deformity," and lifetime barrenness without invoking an abortion. (Unless I miss my guess, this is the inerrantist's typical explanation. It assumes God, of course. My explanation assumes no god is involved and that the priests had cooked up their own way of ferreting out unfaithful women, which, considering the nature of the ordeal, probably only worked if the woman was pregnant. Along those lines, it would be wise for a suspicious hubby to make sure she'd missed a period or two before dragging her to the temple; otherwise, the ordeal was likely to produce nothing.)

d

Evangelion, if you haven't already, please check your PMs.

Evangelion

Hello Terry. Nice to see you here.

You don't say?

I'm quite happy to apologise if I've misread you. That's no problem at all. But to be honest, I just didn't see the extraordinarily detailed explanation of your motives (which you now take the time to present here) in your original post.

Is there any particular reason why you didn't say all of this when you originally started this thread? It would have made your point a lot clearer.

Actually, I don't recall accusing you of having a double standard at all. I clearly accused others, but to claim that I targeted you specifically, is quite a stretch.

Still, it may be that I have done this, and simply failed to pick it up when I re-read the thread, so if you could just direct me to the relevant post, I'll be extremely grateful, and you'll receive a sincere apology.

Nope, that's a straw man. Look through this thread, and you'll see that I never claimed that I didn't have to address Numbers 5. In fact, I've repeatedly agreed that I must - and so I did.

Have you actually read the rest of this thread?

None of this is relevant to me, because (a) I'm not one of these, and (b) my religious community (as previously noted) is strictly disestablishmentarian, and always has been. (In fact, we're regularly criticised for it by other Christians.)

Yep, I agree.

This was not made clear at the start of your thread.

That may be the case for some Biblical literalists, but it is by no means true of all.

You will greatly assist your case by refraining from these insupportable generalisations - and I believe that any reasonable atheist would make the same judgement if he heard this sort of argument from a Christian.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

Evangelion

Hi diana. It's 1am here in Perth, and I have to start work at 6am, so I hope you'll pardon me if I just fire off a quick point here, and return later to pick up the slack:

OK. Well one of the reasons why I posted that little analysis of the original Hebrew, is because the Hebrew itself does say "Her thigh shall fall." That is an exact word-for-word translation. It might sound a bit weird to a 21st Century reader, but the simple fact of the matter is that this is precisely what it says. The authors used a typical idionm of the day, because naturally assumed (and quite reasonably, IMHO) that their audience (ancient Jews, let's remember) would know what they were talking about.

Fair enough. I've now presented some older versions (and at least one new version too, IIRC) which make specific references to the womb. I personally believe that the abortion is clearly implied by the text itself (particularly when we move to the Hebrew), and infertility results in this case, as a natural consequence of the process.

But again, the exact wording of the Hebrew itself is very simple - and it can't be made to say something that just isn't there.

The facts of the case are these:

• The original Hebrew makes no explicit reference to abortion.
• It does not mention an unborn child.
• It does not mention the death of an unborn child.
• It only describes the effects of the abortive upon the mother.

Despite this, I still believe that it refers to the use of a herbal abortive? And why?

Well, I take my conclusion from (a) the implication of an illicit pregnancy (hence the husband's accusation) which stands in contrast to the other laws concerning adultery, (b) the clear references to the womb, and (c) the clear references to the damage that is caused to it by the abortive.

Time for bed. I'll see you all tomorrow.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

TerryTryon

Evangelion:

While I know that this BB is international in scope, and that most of the church/state separation issues are cast in a different way in most of the world, I can write only from my own perspective as an american. I didn't see any need to spell out in great detail my motives since they would be transparent to any person familiar with the american christian right.

I have found by reading this thread that the passage in Numbers was much more damaging than I realized to the christian right, but, only of course, with reference to the original Hebrew. And as with most things, it is not so simple as I first thought.

I do not require any further apology from you. I understand your viewpoint, and from that veiwpoint, I can see how you misinterpreted my intentions. The only quibble is that when my (purely) american political stand was explicated by other americans on this board, you chose to continue to argue against them. But that seems irrelevant in the light of the direction the thread has moved. My motives for beginning this thread have become completely irrelevant.

TerryTryon

I know that Joseph Smith was particularly fond of rituals, and all kinds of ceremonies have been developed for all kinds of situations in Mormonism, based on the slimmest of biblical authority. There are also sects that practice snake handling, ritualistic child beating, and other weird things based on the authority of the bible.

Has anyone heard of any sect that uses this ritual in modern days? Even if it is not clear about what the outcome entails, the ritual and its purpose are clearly enough described.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: TerryTryon ]</p>

Butters

O.K. Evangelion,
I have not made any comment on this thread, haven't bashed any Christians. So I will politly ask a few questions.

1) Is this passage the word of God? Did the Jews get this ritual from the mouth of YWYH or not?

2) If so, why don't we practice this today? It can not be morally repugnent, if it was given to us by God.

3) If not, why don't we disregard the entire OT as the writings of Jewish Men?

4) Why sould we ask a Jew? While I think that they could have a better interpretation, I have been assured by many Christians that Jews don't understand the OT, after all, they missed the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled to become the Messiah.

jess

evangelion:

my point was that your point was that the OP specifically said Christian. It doesn't. 'nuff said.

WTF?