Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Davka · 07-04-2013, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

It would appear that Josephus contradicts Leviticus.

Josephus was a Jew living in the 1st century who wrote the history of the Jews.

I know who Josephus was, but please, continue condescending to me if it makes you happy. BTW, he's widely considered to be a sellout to the Romans, and painfully unreliable.

Quote:

Perhaps you do not understand Leviticus or maybe something is wrong with your English translation.

I'm guessing you've never actually read Leviticus, particularly the first seven chapters, which detail the 5 major types of offering to be presented at the Tabernacle (burnt offering, grain offering, peace offering, sin offering, and guilt offering).

Quote:

In the 1st century Jews would NOT have to be banished or Killed if they sinned deliberately they just offered a ram based on Josephus, a Jew.

Of course not! Rome would not allow it. The Jews had not been self-governing according to the Mosaic Law for 400 years. But they still studied the Law, and they knew precisely what the Torah says about sacrifices. There really is no biblical parallel to the sacrifice supposedly made by Jesus. Not only is there no Levitical sacrifice which cleanses one of deliberate sin, but the idea of human sacrifice is anathema to the Jews.

That I need to teach you such simple concepts speaks volumes.

Davka · 07-04-2013, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

You continually miss the point. I said "Unitarianism" evolved, not the "Unitarian Church."

It is not clear to me which religion is referred to by 'Unitarianism' but is not referred to by 'the Unitarian Church'.

Just to be pedantic, Unitarianism is a doctrine, not a religion. And according to Wikipedia, 'The Unitarian movement, although not called "Unitarian" initially, began almost simultaneously in Poland-Lithuania and Transylvania in the mid-sixteenth century. Among the adherents were a significant number of Italians.'

The religion is Christianity. The doctrine is that of rejecting the Trinity. And it did spring up as a sort of grassroots movement quite some time before Theophilus Lindsey came on the scene.

I now return you to your former bickering. :devil1:

aa5874 · 07-05-2013, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

It would appear that Josephus contradicts Leviticus.

Josephus was a Jew living in the 1st century who wrote the history of the Jews.

I know who Josephus was, but please, continue condescending to me if it makes you happy. BTW, he's widely considered to be a sellout to the Romans, and painfully unreliable.

Are you claiming that the author of Leviticus is more reliable than Josephus?

Again, Josephus wrote about what was happening in the 1st century and that in his time Jews were NOT banished or killed if they deliberately sinned. They offered a ram.

What century did the author of Leviticus write his Fables about the Lord speaking to Moses?

Please identify an historical event with Moses in Leviticus.

Please identify an historical event with the Lord God in Leviticus.

Leviticus appears to be a compilation of Myth about what the LORD said to Moses in at least 30 versions.

NASB

Leviticus 1:1 NAS---[The Law of Burnt Offerings] Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying,

Leviticus 4:1 NAS---[The Law of Sin Offerings] Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

Leviticus 5:14 NAS---Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

Leviticus 6:1 NAS---[Guilt Offering] Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

Leviticus 6:8 NAS---[The Priest's Part in the Offerings] Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

Leviticus 6:19 NAS---Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

Leviticus 6:24 NAS---Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

Leviticus 7:22 NAS---Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

Leviticus 7:28 NAS----Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying

KJV

Leviticus 20:1 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 21:16 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 22:1 KJV----And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 22:17 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 22:26 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 23:1 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 23:9 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 23:23 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 23:26 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 23:33 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 24:1 KJV---And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ,

Leviticus 24:13 KJV ----And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying

If Josephus is painfully unreliable then Leviticus is far more excruciating.

The author of Leviticus is unknown and everything said about the Lord and Moses is without corroboration.

Iskander · 07-05-2013, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Why would a parallel Hebrew-English bible be a better translation than a Bible with only an English translation?

I should have written "interlinear parallel . . ." Such a Bible enables the reader to follow up fairly easily on words and phrases which do not translate easily. The footnote marks it as in need of further clarification, and the interlinear allows the reader to see precisely which words in the original Hebrew are in question.

The language is unimportant. It's the actual translation which is in question. One egregious example is the one I mentioned to aa, which he has wisely decided to ignore: Job 22:30.

The original can be transliterated as "Y'malet i-naki oonemalet b'bar kefikha," or translated as "he shall deliver those who are not innocent, he will be delivered by the pureness of your hands." That second word, "i-naki," is the one that demonstrates my point. You see, in Hebrew the letter yod (i or "ee") is used a a prefix: the equivalent of the English "non" or "un."

When it's standing all by itself, however, i is a word. It means "island."

In this instance, the context makes clear that the i is a prefix, meaning "not." As in "not innocent." But the KJV translators chose instead to view the i as standing alone, so the passage is mistranslated as "island of the innocent."

So we have the KJV version saying "He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands," which doesn't even make any sense, and we have the NASB correctly reading "He will deliver one who is not innocent, And he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands."

And now that I've bored you to tears with this exposition, I'll add that my personal, unfounded opinion is that the KJV translators could not abide the idea of the Bible saying that God would save the guilty.

Quote:

Modern Bibles are easier to read by the many millions who read them. Easy to read translations in modern English and a good vicar is all what is needed for most people.

Not unless your vicar reads both Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek fluently, and spends his time studying rather than gassing.

The interlinear version of Byblos translates Job 22:30 as

“of your hands the cleanliness will be delivered innocent the island will deliver”
http://interlinearbible.org/job/22-30.htm

Why anyone would want to make sense of it needs some explaining.

The Catholic study Bible, second revised edition, published in 2011, translates job 22:30 as

“He will deliver whoever is innocent; you shall be delivered if your hands are clean”
Note k, sends the reader to Job 17: 9; PS 18:21, 24; 24:4
Is this translation not what the text was intending to say?

Why would the suffering of Job be credited to the guilty as a merit? Is this what the text was intending to say?

Grog · 07-05-2013, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It is not clear to me which religion is referred to by 'Unitarianism' but is not referred to by 'the Unitarian Church'.

Just to be pedantic, Unitarianism is a doctrine, not a religion. And according to Wikipedia, 'The Unitarian movement, although not called "Unitarian" initially, began almost simultaneously in Poland-Lithuania and Transylvania in the mid-sixteenth century. Among the adherents were a significant number of Italians.'

The religion is Christianity. The doctrine is that of rejecting the Trinity. And it did spring up as a sort of grassroots movement quite some time before Theophilus Lindsey came on the scene.

I now return you to your former bickering. :devil1:

Unitarianism has evolved beyond rejecting the Trinity. In the United States, it is no longer "Christ-centered" and can't be said to be "Christian." So it cannot be argued that the religion is Christianity, though it has evolved out of Christianity and a specific Christianity that rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

Grog · 07-05-2013, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

For processes, here is mechanism to start with:

Evolution of Memes

To say 'Evolution is a result of differential survival rates of varying replicators' is not by itself an adequate explanation of any specific case, in the biological domain or any other.

I did not say it was. I proposed a mechanism for the evolution of the Jesus-meme.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Doherty's account, if I have understood it correctly, seems to take the form that I have described: somebody (in the case of Doherty's account, Paul) preaching a religious message and other people accepting it.

No, you've misread or haven't read Doherty. Paul is an example of early Christian belief, not a founder of a religion. Paul's beliefs are somewhere on the evolutionary line of Jesus-belief. Doherty would argue, that line of belief pre-dates the notion that Jesus was crucified by Romans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If there was no William Tell, then who was rhythm guitarist and backing vocalist for Something Corporate from 2001 to 2004?

Nice dodge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Indeed, there are many things we do not know. As far as I can tell so far, one of those things is how Christianity started.I suppose it's possible that an approach along these lines will produce answers, but I would see more reason to think so if there were any examples of an approach along such lines producing answers to any other questions.Repeating my own earlier words:

I dont know what this means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

When I try to think of well-documented examples of the beginnings of religions, the common features I see are an individual preaching a religious message and other people accepting it. I don't know of any well-documented example of a religion starting without those ingredients.

Can you define a "well-documented examples" and provide them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Please note, I did not assert that to be the way all religions start; I asserted that I do not know of any documented instances of a religion starting in any other way. That strikes me as not conclusive, but highly suggestive; however, it may of course strike you differently.I did not use the expression 'documented religion'; I referred to religions whose origins are well-documented. I had in mind such examples as Lutheranism, Mormonism, Ahmadiyya, Hare Krishna, Sikhism, Baha'i, and Scientology.

You are cherry picking, I have never said that religions have never been founded in the way you describe. I have said it is a logical fallacy to apply that line of thinking to all religions. I gave examples that you have not addressed. The origins of an idea that evolved would be necessarily obscure and thus fall out of your definition of "well-documented." I think it is well-documented that Judaism emerged out of previously held beliefs and borrowed from several cultures. There is no identifiable preacher who founded Judaism by preaching a message that was accepted by some followers. I have also given several other counter examples that seem to falsify your position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I suppose it might: and it might do so by the acceptance of the message of an individual preacher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It might. My point is that it is a logical error to assume that it did.
I am not familiar with the origins of Unitarianism, but on browsing the information available in Wikipedia, it does appear that the Unitarian Church was founded by an individual, Theophilus Lindsey.

As I mentioned before, Theophilus Lindsey did not "found" Unitarianism any more than Luther founded Jesus-belief. Davka's response was inadequate because he doesn't understand modern unitarianism, at least as practiced in the United States.

Interestingly, in a corresponding thread "What started Judaism" there is no proposal that Judaism started with an individual preaching a message that was accepted by followers.

Davka · 07-05-2013, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

I know who Josephus was, but please, continue condescending to me if it makes you happy. BTW, he's widely considered to be a sellout to the Romans, and painfully unreliable.

Are you claiming that the author of Leviticus is more reliable than Josephus?

When it comes to the question "what does the Mosaic Law say?" there can be no doubt whatsoever that the TEXT of Leviticus is far more reliable than any other source, period.

Claiming otherwise is an absurdity that I am not sure even you are capable of embracing. But we shall see.

Davka · 07-05-2013, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Why would a parallel Hebrew-English bible be a better translation than a Bible with only an English translation?

I should have written "interlinear parallel . . ." Such a Bible enables the reader to follow up fairly easily on words and phrases which do not translate easily. The footnote marks it as in need of further clarification, and the interlinear allows the reader to see precisely which words in the original Hebrew are in question.

The language is unimportant. It's the actual translation which is in question. One egregious example is the one I mentioned to aa, which he has wisely decided to ignore: Job 22:30.

The original can be transliterated as "Y'malet i-naki oonemalet b'bar kefikha," or translated as "he shall deliver those who are not innocent, he will be delivered by the pureness of your hands." That second word, "i-naki," is the one that demonstrates my point. You see, in Hebrew the letter yod (i or "ee") is used a a prefix: the equivalent of the English "non" or "un."

When it's standing all by itself, however, i is a word. It means "island."

In this instance, the context makes clear that the i is a prefix, meaning "not." As in "not innocent." But the KJV translators chose instead to view the i as standing alone, so the passage is mistranslated as "island of the innocent."

So we have the KJV version saying "He shall deliver the island of the innocent: and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands," which doesn't even make any sense, and we have the NASB correctly reading "He will deliver one who is not innocent, And he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands."

And now that I've bored you to tears with this exposition, I'll add that my personal, unfounded opinion is that the KJV translators could not abide the idea of the Bible saying that God would save the guilty.

Quote:

Modern Bibles are easier to read by the many millions who read them. Easy to read translations in modern English and a good vicar is all what is needed for most people.

Not unless your vicar reads both Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek fluently, and spends his time studying rather than gassing.

The interlinear version of Byblos translates Job 22:30 as

“of your hands the cleanliness will be delivered innocent the island will deliver”
http://interlinearbible.org/job/22-30.htm

No, AN interlinear version translates it that way.

Quote:

The Catholic study Bible, second revised edition, published in 2011, translates job 22:30 as

“He will deliver whoever is innocent; you shall be delivered if your hands are clean”
Note k, sends the reader to Job 17: 9; PS 18:21, 24; 24:4
Is this translation not what the text was intending to say?

No, that translation is certainly not what the text intends. nearly all modern translations agree on this, based on the wealth of sources available today.

Quote:

Why would the suffering of Job be credited to the guilty as a merit? Is this what the text was intending to say?

No, that's not it either. The most accurate translation I've seen is something like "He (God) will even deliver those who are not innocent, (therefore) you will surely be delivered if your hands are pure." It's part of the lengthy argument that Job's friends make, which boils down to "you must have sinned for God to be kicking your butt so hard. God is righteous, you're not. God is so good that he even saves the guilty, so if you're as innocent as you claim, it's obvious that God will save you. But he hasn't, so you're guilty and refusing to confess your sin."

Davka · 07-05-2013, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It is not clear to me which religion is referred to by 'Unitarianism' but is not referred to by 'the Unitarian Church'.

Just to be pedantic, Unitarianism is a doctrine, not a religion. And according to Wikipedia, 'The Unitarian movement, although not called "Unitarian" initially, began almost simultaneously in Poland-Lithuania and Transylvania in the mid-sixteenth century. Among the adherents were a significant number of Italians.'

The religion is Christianity. The doctrine is that of rejecting the Trinity. And it did spring up as a sort of grassroots movement quite some time before Theophilus Lindsey came on the scene.

I now return you to your former bickering. :devil1:

Unitarianism has evolved beyond rejecting the Trinity. In the United States, it is no longer "Christ-centered" and can't be said to be "Christian." So it cannot be argued that the religion is Christianity, though it has evolved out of Christianity and a specific Christianity that rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.

You aren't simply talking about Unitarianism, you're talking about the Unitarian Universalist Church, which not only added Universalism (the doctrine that all of humanity will be saved) to Unitarian Christianity, but has since morphed into an almost completely secular organization.

aa5874 · 07-05-2013, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

........ Paul is an example of early Christian belief, not a founder of a religion. Paul's beliefs are somewhere on the evolutionary line of Jesus-belief. Doherty would argue, that line of belief pre-dates the notion that Jesus was crucified by Romans.

The Pauline writings are not examples of early Christian belief but good examples of forgeries or false attribution.

It has already been deduced that the Pauline writings were composed by multiple authors.

Now, it is stated quite clearly by Apologetics that it was the Jews that Pierced Jesus--Not the Romans.

And those who mentioned the chronology of Paul claimed he was AFTER the Jews Pierced Jesus.

Doherty's argument that Jesus was crucified somewhere in the heavens is not only Upside Down but also Back to Front.

The STORY of Jesus in gMark PREDATES the Pauline Corpus and the Jesus character was Pierced by or delivered up by the Jews in Jerusalem.

The Pauline Corpus is LAST in the evolutionary process in the Canon.

gMark's Jesus story EVOLVED.

The author of gMark wrote NOTHING of the post-resurrection but the Pauline writers composed 73 chapters about the Resurrection of Jesus for the people of the Roman Empire giving the impression that he was a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.