Evangelion

Jess -

I didn't think I had.

Let's see what your point was...

*snip*

Well hey, I haven't denied this at all. In fact, I've repeatedly confirmed it.

My point was that this thread was started with no other purpose than to mock Christians. It wasn't a response to a Christian offensive; it was simply a childish game of "tit for tat."

So, once again, the atheists resort to the same behaviour for which they frequently lambast Christians.

Evangelion

brighid -

*snip*

I heard you the first time, and I've agreed with these "Christianity-is-based-on-Judaism" arguments right from the start. I see no need to repeat myself. (Perhaps I need to start using CAPS LOCK?)

Look, my points are these:

• That the person who started this thread, did so for no other purpose than to mock Christianity. (He was not responding to any particular Christian; he was just taking a shot.)
• That Christians are considered fair game because they evangelise. (Well, whatever.)
• That Jews are not targeted in the same way. (Apparently, "Because they don't evangelise." Not that this should make any difference...)
• That you won't impress me by practicing the very behaviour for which you condemn Christians. (That was still called "hypocrisy", the last time I checked.)

Really, I just don't see any difference between some of the atheists here, and some of the Fundies who have told me that I'm "gonna burn" because I don't believe that Jesus is God.

This is odd, because I thought atheist were supposed to be better than that. At least, that's what they tell me...

*snip*

No, I only call you bigoted when you exhibit bigoted behaviour. BH clearly did so, and I called him on it. I have not done the same with you, so you can't just jump in front of the bullet that was meant for him, and play the "wounded ego" card.

Please, leave the martyr syndrome at home. I'm just not interested.

penumbra

from Evangelion
We've got an agenda??? Is that like having our own bibble? How come nobody gave me a copy?

galiel

Originally posted by Evangelion:


Forgive me for giggling. Yes, this is, of course, the wrong place to find it. This is a rare haven for a small minority that holds the unique distinction, that it is still politically correct to make bigoted remarks and mocking jokes about in sohpisticated company. Don't expect objectivity. Expect the kind of rigorous challenge to your unquestioned assumptions and beliefs that you will NEVER find on a theism site.

Besides, how ironic for someone who rejects the principles of discovery through rational inquiry to complain about lack of objectivity.

You still are not responding to the direct questions about the quote and religion in general.

LOL. Debate 101 tells you never to challenge your opponent when you don't already know what they will say. I grew up in Israel, am of Jewish extraction, and spent my entire youth debating these kind of issue, with everyone from my fundamentalist Bible teacher to the minister of education in a televised debate. Not to mention my Muslim friends, as well. You picked the wrong person to accuse of fearing to speak his mind. I'm constantly on the verge of being kicked off these boards because the mgmt can't tolerate truly free speech. As for anti-Christian amunition, since I am not a recovering Christian, I don't have the chip on my shoulder that others here have. Or don't you even pay attention any more which poster you are responding to?

This is really tiresome. Drop the emotional victim jargon and be responsive to the intellectual challenge.

Forgive me, but somehow I question your sincerity when you come here armed for bear to defend Christianity, yet claim that you came here seeking a kind of maturity you don't find among your zealous brethren.
and use the OT as an historical document.

But you weasel out of any admission that the historical document, speaking the word of God, might be wrong. Of course you do. You are a believer. That is why your claims to seek objectivity and rational discussion ring hollow.

Since the topic is a quote from the OT, your efforts to "pin down the atheist agenda" are indeed and effort to reroute the thread. Start your own thread called "pinning down the atheist agenda", if you wish.

Hmm. I thought you said you came here expecting to find more mature discussion than fundies engage in, and that you were waiting for the objectivity you hoped for. So which is it? Are you here to reinforce your prejudices, or are you here to engage in vigorous intellectual debate in which your beliefs are as open to challenge as anyone else's?[/QB][/QUOTE]

jess

thanks for the good site, evangelion

out of context, vbut clear for those who have been following this thread:

19sn There is a good bit of bibliography here: J. M. Sasson, "Numbers 5 and the Waters of Judgment," BZ 16 1972 : 249-51; and M. Fishbane, "Accusation of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5:11-31," HUCA 45 1974 : 25-46.
20tn Heb "and a man lies with her with the emission of semen." This makes it clear that there was adultery involved, so that the going astray is going astray morally. The indication in the text is that if she had never behaved suspiciously the sin might not have been detected.
21tc The sign of the accusative 'otah Ht*a is probably to be repointed to the preposition with the suffix, 'ittah HT*a! .
22tn The noun clause beginning with the simple conjunction is here a circumstantial clause, explaining that there was no witness to the sin.
23tn The text has the construct case, "spirit of jealousy." The word "spirit" here has the sense of attitude, mood, feelings. The word qin'ah ha*n+q! is the genitive of attribute, modifying what kind of feelings they are. The word means either "zeal" or "jealousy," depending on the context. It is a passionate feeling to guard or protect an institution or relationship. It can also express strong emotional possessiveness such as envy and coveting. Here there is a feeling of jealousy, but no proof of infidelity.
24tn The word is now used in the Piel stem; the connotation is certainly "suspicious," for his jealousy seems now to have some basis, even if it is merely suspicion.
25tn The noun clause begins with the conjunction and the pronoun; here it is forming a circumstantial clause, either temporal or causal.
26tn All the conditions have been laid down now for the instruction to begin-if all this happened, then this is the procedure to follow.
27tn The Hebrew word is "jealousy," which also would be an acceptable translation here. But since the connotation is that suspicion has been raised about the other person, "suspicion" seems to be a better rendering in this context.
28tn The word "remembering" is zikkaron /orK*z] ; the meaning of the word here is not so much "memorial," which would not communicate much, but the idea of bearing witness before God concerning the charges. The truth would come to light through this ritual, and so the attestation would stand. This memorial would bring the truth to light. It was a somber occasion, and so no sweet smelling additives were placed on the altar.
29tn The final verbal form, mazkeret tr\K#z+m^ , explains what the memorial was all about-it was causing iniquity to be remembered.
30tn The verb is the Hiphil of the word "to stand." It could be rendered "station her," but that sounds too unnatural. This is a meeting between an accused person and the Judge of the whole earth.
31tn This is probably water taken from the laver in the courtyard. It is water set apart for sacred service. The NEB's "clean water" does not capture the sense very well, but it does have the support of the Greek that has "pure running water." That pure water would no doubt be from the laver anyway.
32sn The dust may have come from the sanctuary floor, but it is still dust, and therefore would have all the pollutants in it.
33tn The expression has been challenged. The first part, "bitter water," has been thought to mean "water of contention" NEB , but this is not convincing. It has some support in the versions which read "contention" and "testing," no doubt trying to fit the passage better. N. H. Snaith Numbers suggests from an Arabic word that it was designed to cause an abortion-but that would raise an entirely different question, one of who the father of a child was. And that has not been introduced here. The water was "bitter" in view of the consequences it held for her if she was proven to be guilty. That is then enforced by the word play with the last word, the Piel participle ham'arerim <yr]r&a*m=h^ . The bitter water, if it convicted her, would pronounce a curse on her. So she was literally holding her life in her hands.

sn This ancient ritual seems to have functioned like a lie detector test, with all the stress and tension involved. It can be compared to water tests in the pagan world, with the exception that in Israel it was stacked more towards an innocent verdict. It seems to have been a temporary provision, for this is the only place that it appears, and no provision is made for its use later. It may have served as a didactic force, warning more than actually legislating. No provision is made in it for a similar charge to be brought against the man; but in the case of the suspicion of the woman the man would be very hesitant to demand this test given the harshness on false witnessing in Israel. The passage remains a rather strange section of the Law.
34tn The word "other" is implied, since the woman would not be guilty of having sexual relations with her own husband.
35sn Although there would be stress involved, a woman who was innocent would have nothing to hide, and would be confident. The wording of the priest's oath is actually designed to enable the potion to keep her from harm and not produce the physical effects it was designed to do.
36tn The pronoun is emphatic-"but you, if you have gone astray."
37tn This is an example of the rhetorical device known as aposiopesis, or "sudden silence." The sentence is broken off due to the intensity or emphasis of the moment. The reader is left to conclude what the sentence would have said.
38sn For information on such curses, see M. R. Lehmann, "Biblical Oaths," ZAW 81 1969 : 74-92; A. C. Thiselton, "The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings," JTS 25 1974 : 283-99; and F. C. Fensham, "Malediction and Benediction in Ancient Vassal Treaties and the Old Testament," ZAW 74 1962 : 1-9.
39tn This interpretation takes the two nouns as a hendiadys. The literal wording is "the Lord make you a curse and an oath among the people." In what sense would she be an oath? The whole passage is that the priest is making her take an oath to see if she has been sinful and will be cursed.
40sn The outcome of this would be that she would be quoted by people in such forms of expression as an oath or a curse see Jer 29:22 .
41tn The construction uses the infinitive construct with the preposition to form an adverbial clause: "in the giving of the Lord...," meaning, "if and when the Lord makes such and such to happen."
42sn Most commentators take the expressions to be euphemisms of miscarriage or stillbirth, meaning that there would be no fruit from an illegitimate union. The idea of the belly swelling has been re-interpreted by NEB to mean "fall away." If this interpretation stands, then the idea is that the woman has become pregnant, and that has aroused the suspicion of the husband for some reason. R. K. Harrison discusses a variety of other explanations for diseases and conditions that might be described by these terms. He translates it with "miscarriage," but leaves open what the description might actually be see pp. 112,113 .
43tn The verb is the perfect tense with the vav consecutive. It could be taken as a jussive following the words of the priest in the previous section, but it is more likely to be a simple future.
44tn The word "amen" carries the idea of "so be it," or "truly." The woman who submits to this test is willing to have the test demonstrate the examination of God.
45sn The words written on the scroll were written with a combination of ingredients mixed into an ink. The idea is probably that they would have been washed or flaked off into the water, so that she drank the words of the curse-it became a part of her being.
46tn Heb "law of jealousies."
47sn The text does not say what the consequences are. Presumably the punishment would come from God, and not from those administering the test.
48tn The word "iniquity" can also mean the guilt for the iniquity as well as the punishment of consequences for the iniquity. These categories of meanings grew up through figurative usage metonymies . Here the idea is that if she is guilty then she must "bear the consequences."

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: jess ]</p>

Evangelion

scombrid -

True. But this does not require direct, supernatural intervention, nor does it necessarily teach any such thing. It was not uncommon for the Jews to refer to such-and-such as "an act of Yahweh, even when the event in question was clearly mundane (as opposed to being supernatural.)

I suppose you could call it a form of religious fatalism.

brighid

What behavior would that be?

Brighid

diana

Evangelion,

No one's blaming the Xns for this particular ritual. We do, however, expect them to answer for it.

If you can show me a Xn who does not base his belief on the historical backdrop of the OT, I will refrain from using this story as an example of why I don't believe. Fair?

However, I've not yet encountered a Xn who actually believes this. Moreover, I suggest to you that it is impossible. Without The Fall, we don't have original sin, and without original sin, we have nothing to be "saved" from. At some point, if you're a Xn, you are automatically subscribing to the belief that information in the OT is factual.

Do you, or do you not, believe the OT is the inspired Word of God?

Um. You're at Infidels. We tend to look at scripture as though it's written by an ancient priesthood in an ongoing attempt to manipulate and control an ignorant and superstitious people.

It isn't polite to read into people's motives, you know. Unless you're omniscient, but you might take that up with God.

In my first couple of posts, I tried to (and admitted my POV up front). If you wish to disagree with my interpretation of the verses in question, feel free to debate.

Or perhaps you still don't understand why it would matter at all to a Xn what their God demanded in the OT.

Well, it depends upon the type of Xn one is dealing with. The type I'm used to dealing with are inerrantists/literalists, and believe in the inspiration of the bible--including the OT. They insist that their god is "love."

They also trot out OT verses to prove that God would be against abortion. The passage that was under discussion before it got so grossly sidetracked is an example of God condoning and ordering the forced abortion of a fetus. What's worse, the fetus may well be the husband's.

As such, this passage is completely relevant as a counter-Xn polemic aid.

As to those Xns who do not believe in the inspiration of the OT, it's always an interesting discussion to get them to explain what, exactly, we need to be saved from, and how they can reject The Law as uninspired when Jesus clearly believed it was inspired of God.

And if you accept some bits as inspired and others as uninspired, I'm always keen to know how you know which is which.

(And, um, what brighid said. All of it.)

I thought this thread was started primarily out of surprise, shock and disgust at the scripture TerryTyron read, when he first stopped to think about what it actually entailed. His second post further expresses his dismay, but in more detail.

His observation caught my eye and I looked into it, reading several different versions of the story and checking the concordance and looking into Hebrew idioms.

My posts express my anger and disgust with the bible translators who willfully obscured the real meaning of things, whether to protect our fragile sensibilities or to cover up passages that are embarrassing. Whatever the reason, to futz with an "inspired" text, pretending to provide an accurate translation when in fact, mistranslations of this sort are the rule, is despicable.

At Infidels, you'll always have a few people happy to add snide remarks, as the spirit moves them. (And this was, after all, swiftly moved to RR&P, which literally invites bashing.)

Perhaps you're too quick to judge. At any rate, you were quick to leap into the Overgeneralization Pit with the rest of us. Come on in...the water's warm.

d

Bible Humper

Then what is the whole ritual about?

If the process consisted of just having her drink a concoction, I wouldn't have much to say about your interpretation. Sadly, though, they included details of the entire process of casting this spell.

First the shaman would undo her hair. Then he would put the "cereal offering of rememberance" in her hand. Then comes the invocation:

After this, the witch-doctor writes his curses on a piece of paper. Apparently the ink of the wrinting itself is what becomes imbued with the bad medicine of the curse, so the paper is washed in the potion in order to enchant it.

Now the priest takes the cereal out of her hands and "waves it at the LORD". After this, the cereal is burnt at the altar.

Last but not least, she drinks the potion of adultery detection.

Evangelion

galiel -

I see. So an atheist forum - allegedly populated by skeptics and free thinkers - is the wrong place to find objectivity.

Well, thanks for letting me know.

Oh, so you want to be praised for your immaturity? Sorry, I'm not in the mood.

Thanks, I'll quote you on that.

"I went to the SecWeb, and they told me not to expect objectivity."

I expect a rigorous challenge.

What "unquestioned assumptions" are these, pray tell? Do you read minds now - or are you simply overgeneralising?

I think you're overgeneralising. And I'll thank you not to tell me what I do and do not question. You wouldn't like this if I did it with you, so why not stop for a moment, and consider the fact that it makes more sense to wait and see what my theological position is, instead of making blanket statements?

Well, perhaps.

Another blanket statement, of the sort that atheists hate to receive from theists.

Until you have concrete evidence that I "reject the principles of discovery through rational enquiry", you are in no position to make such a statement.

To complain about lack of objectivity from atheists, skeptics and freethinkers, when objectivity is supposed to be your watchword? Yes, how "strange"!

Who said that I was going to in the first place? Who says that I'm even required to?

But since you've obviously skimmed the thread without reading my posts properly, I'd like to point out the following:

• I've already said that I believe the concoction to be a herbal abortive.
• I've already said that I accept that OT Judaism contains seuxal inequality - and that this is proof of it.
• I've already said that OT Judaism contains rituals that we (as 21st Century citizens) find abhorrant - and that this is one of them.
• I've already presented a weblink to Numbers 5 in the New English Translation, which contains a few explanatory footnotes.

I don't think that there's really anything more to answer.

LOL! Debate 101 also tells you not to make bold, sweeping statements, facile generalisations, and bold assumptions about your opponent's position.

We can move on to Debate 102, just as soon as you've brushed up on your rhetorical technique.

So you've probably already received the answers to Numbers 5, and you're really only here to needle the Christians.

As I predicted.

And just where did I accuse you of fearing to speak your mind?

ROTFL! From what I've seen so far, you're constantly telling people that you're leaving... but returning "for the last time", in the hope of catching another curtain call.

Oh, I've noticed that - and I give you credit for it.

Your responses have shown that you're keen to use Numbers 5 as anti-Christian ammunition. You think that you're somehow "putting me on the spot" by thrusting it under my nose, as if I'll run away shrieking "They were right! The atheists were right all along!"

No such luck.

You're telling me!

Kindly identify this alleged "emotional victim jargon", please. I have not claimed victimhood i this thread - not even once!

I have. I did. You clearly missed it.

No, I had made it clear that what I expected find, was a higher level of maturity and objectivity than that which I would find among Fundies.

Since I am not a Fundy, they can hardly be called my "brethren", and since this is an atheist/skeptic/freethinker forum, I can hardly be criticised for hoping to find maturity and objectivity here.

*snip*

What on Earth are you talking about?

Please show me where I "weasled out of any admission that the historical document, speaking the word of God, might be wrong."

I have confirmed that I believe this ritual to be spoken of as a historical event. I believe that it was instigated; I believe that it took place in the manner described; I believe that the effects were as recorded.

Just how, pray tell, does this constitute "weaseling out"?

English must be your second language.

I would have thought it was clear that by "the atheist agenda", I referred to the atheists purpose with this thread and the topic under discussion. That is clearly on topic, and clearly not an attempt to reroute the thread.

Jess (and a couple of others) have engaged in a mature discussion about the possible contents of the "bitter water" and its effects upon the woman in question (if found guilty.) But the person who started this thread, clearly did so with no such intention. It was just another excuse to bash Christians.

In future, perhaps it would help if you guys could let me know when a thread is started for the express purpose of mockery. That way, I won't have to waste my time and yours by presenting answers that nobody's really interested in.

I did. But on this thread, I predicted the behaviour which you (and others) have indulged in.

False dichotomy. I'm here for some intelligent discussion. Current evidence suggests that I'll get this, and a fair bit of stupidity thrown in for good measure.

I predicted poor behaviour from the atheist side within the context of this thread. (It wasn't a general comment about the entire forum.) That prediction was entirely justified, and you've been one of the star performers.

Congragulations.