Skeptical

I thought I was done with this thread, but I have to ask....Do you not have a problem with _any_ of some of the more atrocious accounts in the OT? The morality of the bear incident pales in comparison to some of the other accounts. The whole story of Noah and the flood for example. Imagine the number of people, young and old, good and bad, who would have drowned. Hundreds of thousands, of men, women and children sent to their death.

If you take this and other stories in the OT literally does it not cause you even the slightest moral qualm in equating them with a supreme being who is ostensibly supposed to feel strong affection for his creations?

I agree that it is a slippery slope for believers, but if one believes in the stories of Jesus in the NT, it seems very difficult to reconcile with much of the OT from a moral standpoint. If you have no moral problems with any of the OT, I can honestly say there's not much more for us to talk about on this subject and I will post no more to you on this particular topic.

Major Billy

Do you suppose it's because of the contents of your posts:

Haran

MB, had you posted a little more yourself, I'm sure I could pull things at random out of your own posts... You also forgot to list many of the taunts that have been thrown at me (I think there was something about a horse... in there somewhere, among other things).

What you have nicely captured is my frustration at the mostly biased information that gets posted over and over here on the SecWeb seemingly without the first thought toward whether it is correct or even reputable.

Let me ask you this question, MB... If a questioning Christian came to you who didn't know the first thing about the languages, history, etc. of the Bible, would you present that person with all the best information regardless of religious leanings so that they would have all the necessary information to make a decision, or would you only present them with one-sided information like you and others began the thread with? If you would give them all information regardless of religious leanings, then please forgive me, for it did not seem from the beginning of this thread that this is what you intended to do.

Finally, it very much does frustrate me that some here are attempting to debate in a language which they obviously do not know. If they really do know the language, then they don't show it well and won't even talk about why they don't show it well. Is this possibly to give the impression that they really do, so that it gives more of an aire of authority to their posts?

I abhor misinfomation...

Haran

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Haran

I still believe any answers to your questions will just add one more topic to the heap already in discussion (whether you decide to take your leave or not). I do not wish to do so.

Haran

Anunnaki

Hmm....

Steven Carr

Here is Haran's 'scholarly' translation from Mr. Wallace. 'Young lads.” The KJV has “little children” which really misses the meaning here. These were not children, but young men. The word “lads” is the Hebrew naar and was used of servants, of soldiers and of Isaac when he was 28 years old.

Notice that Haran's scholar (Wallace) ignores the word 'qatan' - which means 'little' or 'small'.

So Haran says he is right because his 'excellent' authority ignores 50% of the phrase he is supposedly translating.

Astonishingly, Wallace takes the phrase 'small boys' , and by leaving out the word 'small' , declares that these boys weren't small.

Haran then says 'Look! A highly respected, excellent scholar has shown that the phrase is not about small boys'. Naturally, if you don't translate the word 'qatan', you are not going to end up with 'little' in your translation!


Here is what Haran wrote about my translation 'There are two words, and the translation would not be of 'qatan na'ar', as you have it, but 'u-ne'arim qe'tanim' (literally translated 'and boys young/small') as the actual text of the OT has it (you didn't include the conjunction and correct forms of the words - but then you knew that, right?).'

So Haran castigates me because I wrote 'qatan naar' instead of 'u-nearim qetanim', yet declares Wallace to be an excellent scholar, when Wallace only translates the word 'naar'.

Can anybody detect double-standards here?

Can Haran tell us where Wallace translates 'u-nearim qetanim'?

geraldmania

Haran,
You want everybody to learn a new language before stepping up to the plate with the likes of you. I'm gonna safely assume you believe in Jesus as the only way for salvation, Heaven, etc. Why would God make it so hard for us lowly non-intellectuals to grasp his meaning? I guess I'm in the hands of scholars. People with titles in institutions that are randomly recognized as authorities. IMO, anyone including a "scholar" is going to be biased-a word you use negatively. I don't know how anyone can speak objectively and without bias. Aren't there too many factors (Situational psychological, chemical, environmental, etc.)?

As far as not wanting to approach the subject of biblical atrocities that dwarf the bear story out of fear of more tangents and insults, well of course that's going to happen. But in my opinion, this is the golden question for a Christian to address. For many non-believers, it may be their primary beef with Christianity.

Vorkosigan wrote:

Lev. 26:21-21 comes to vividly to mind here: "If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, ...I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children."
Ah...so that's what that squirrel was doing in my yard the other day....
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Haran

I take this to mean you think I have misinformed.

Please show me where you think I have done so using scholarly sources (preferably ones which actually know the Hebrew). I don't mind if they disagree with me if you can find a reputable scholar who does so. It will be the flip side of the coin.

Haran

Haran

Kind of interesting information, huh? My Hebrew lexicons say the same thing, but I didn't even mention servants, soldiers, or Isaac at 28 years of age. My lexicons say this as well, but I knew some would pitch a fit if I included servants and soldiers, etc.

Perhaps because this excellent textual scholar who is published in many respectable journals knows his Hebrew. 'qatan' can mean 'small in years' as I said earlier when quoting from a respectable lexicon. This allows his (and others') translation of 'young lads'. I did, however, notice that you ignored the other scholars who do mention 'qatan' in their works.

Carr, I'm saying what I'm saying because I know the languages. I presented these respected scholars to back me up so that you and others would know that I'm not just blowing smoke. Now, however, you are also ignoring the information of Doctors in the actual field. Are you trying to say that you know better than they do even though you don't know the language??

Carr, you said this about my information:

Let me see. First, you insult me without so much as an opposing scholarly viewpoint. Then, you insult me some more and ask me to give you a "Hebrew translation of 'qatan na'ar' from 2 Kings 2:23. It became obvious here that you only wanted some sort of vengeance upon me (perhaps for the p52 thread where I called you on not even knowing what the MS contained, how to translate it, and for presenting misinformation about it on your website). Yet again, you fail to recognize the actual Hebrew text of the Bible in 2 Kings 2:23 by leaving off the conjunction, forgetting the plural endings for both words, and swapping the word order (a very common mistake when you only use the English connected to a lexicon). Since you do not seem to know the Hebrew (or Greek) and do not seem to want to confront this issue, I cannot understand why anyone would listen to your information.

If you have scholarly sources (not your unlearned use of a lexicon) that say otherwise, then present them. As I have said many times in this thread, I am not above having the other side presented. I rather like a balanced view. However, I've not seen one scholarly source presented from your point of view (not to say they don't exist, but I don't know of them or I would present them).

Please do try to learn the languages before criticizing others though, Steven.

I apologize to everyone for my irritated tone. As I have said, I would welcome opposing scholarly information (though I have not found it myself, yet).

I am afraid I am taking my leave of the mostly biased SecWeb since it will not even recognize a valid point of view over the likes of Steven Carr, Acharya S, and Earl Doherty. Good grief... There are much more scholarly discussions in which to devote my time when people here will not listen or use reputable sources.

I have had an interesting time here and enjoyed some of my conversations with some of the other more thoughtful and less biased participants (CX, Michael/Vork., Skeptical and some others), but I need my time back. Good luck (God be with you... ) in all your endeavors and in your lives.

Goodbye,
Haran

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

Anunnaki

Yet another arrogant,fairy tale believing fool wirth a shelf full of apologetics has become frustrated with our closed minds and deserted us.

I read through this whole thread and Haran sounded exactly like Metacrock (although the spelling was better and I don`t think he "rebuked" anyone).

Good riddance to bad rubbish!