- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by vistesdHello my friend, hope all is well with you.... just to add to your interesting find...the NIV says of Jeremiah 7:22,23 - "For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not JUST give them commands about offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me..."
[b]Jeremiah 7:22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
_____________________________
Exodus 29:36 Also every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement. Also you shall offer a sin offering for the altar, when yo ...[text shortened]... m out of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices—or not? Was Jeremiah wrong—or not?[/b]
So there is one solution. God is more interested in obedience than sacrifice. Also as others have said that LITERALLY God did not say anything about sacrifices on THE DAY Israel was freed from slavery in Egypt....but I am still looking into it...thanks for the challenge..
🙂
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by PalynkaThere likely have been (and are) “fundamentalistic” rabbis. But that seems outside the mainstream tradition (which certainly goes back before the time of Christ), which is designed to prevent what rabbi and scholar Marc Alain-Ouaknin called “the idolatry of the one right meaning.” The original Torah scroll has no vowel points; and some rabbis have objected to studying from the pointed text, because without the vowels, words can have many different meanings (well, even different words).
I think it's excellent that, from what I read from vistesd, many rabbis incite the challenging of any particular interpretation of religious texts.
In my opinion, this is a great step against religions fundamentalism and for religious tolerance. The admission that such contradictions may exist in the torah and their purpose is to drive the reader deeper m ...[text shortened]... the spirit of 'anything is open to argument', that I find particularly healthy in religion.
Traditional talmid torah (“Torah study” ) is conducted as an argument between two or more students. “Real” torah arises from personal engagement with the Torah-text. midrash basically means to “search (d’rash) out from,” and represents techniques for getting underneath the p’shat, the “plain” or surface meaning of the words.
But I am into other things for the time, so I’m going to remove myself from further Biblical-exegesis discussions...
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyDid you know that nursing homes bring in animals to make the residents
So if you were stuck on a island with only a bunch of animals you would not consider yourself to be alone? Tell that to Tom Hanks in the movie Cast Away!!
feel less lonely?
Anyway, I'm not the one who wrote the second chapter of Genesis.
The author wrote that 'God' noticed that man was lonely. Then the
author wrote 'So/now God formed the animals...but none served to be
a suitable partner for the man.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the grammar of the sentence
is not in contradiction with the first chapter's account?
Nemesio
03 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioWrong again Nemesio. If you would bother to read through to verse 6 you will see that when the two Marys had arrived, Jesus was already gone! That means the stone had been rolled away prior to their arrival.
But it does say that. The verb form in 28:1 reads:
elthen ... theoresai
came ... to look at
That is, (they) came ... to look at (the grave). (I didn't include the nouns since they aren't relevant). Note the simple past indicating a completed action.
This is followed by idou -- behold or suddenly. Indicating a new action sin ...[text shortened]... direction contradiction with the equally clear grammar in St Luke's
Gospel.
Nemesio
03 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwUm. What?
Wrong again Nemesio. If you would bother to read through to verse 6 you will see that when the two Marys had arrived, Jesus was already gone! That means the stone had been rolled away prior to their arrival.
Did you look at the grammar analysis of Saint Matthew's account?
It clearly indicates that the stone was moved after the arrival of the
women. Jesus doesn't even figure into the Synoptic accounts, but
angels.
According to Saints Mark and Luke, the stone was indeed rolled away
before the women arrived. I don't dispute this at all.
Nemesio
03 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioJust read the first 6 verses of Mathew 28. Verse 6 says "He is not here:... How could the Marys have been there before the stone was rolled away if Jesus was already gone?!?
Um. What?
Did you look at the grammar analysis of [b]Saint Matthew's account?
It clearly indicates that the stone was moved after the arrival of the
women. Jesus doesn't even figure into the Synoptic accounts, but
angels.
According to Saints Mark and Luke, the stone was indeed rolled away
before the women arrived. I don't dispute this at all.
Nemesio[/b]
Unfortunately I may not be here for your reply. My daughter wants her computer now. I'll have to check back tomorrow.
03 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwAh. I understand your objection: How could Jesus get out if the stone wasn't moved first?
Just read the first 6 verses of Mathew 28. Verse 6 says "He is not here:... How could the Marys have been there before the stone was rolled away if Jesus was already gone?!?
Well, Jesus walked through a closed door in Saint John's Gospel and said 'Peace be with you.' It's
clear that the 'Risen Christ' is not bound by the rules of physics anymore, so it's not implausible that,
after His raising, He wouldn't be able to leave the tomb without moving the stone.
But, all that aside, such a claim goes against the writing of the Gospel's author itself. The
writing clearly states that the women arrived and then the stone was moved in Saint Matthew's
account. Just look at the grammar itself:
1) The women came.
2) Behold: The angels rolled back the stone, having come down and having approached.
I understand your objection, but that's not how Saint Matthew reported the event.
Nemesio
03 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioSo, if you are right, then there's no contradiction. Jesus rose, walked out through the walls of the sepulcher, and an angle moved the stone so that the women could see that Jesus wasn't there.
Ah. I understand your objection: How could Jesus get out if the stone wasn't moved first?
Well, Jesus walked through a closed door in Saint John's Gospel and said 'Peace be with you.' It's
clear that the 'Risen Christ' is not bound by the rules of physics anymore, so it's not implausible that,
after His raising, He wouldn't be able to leave the tomb w ...[text shortened]... tand your objection, but that's not how Saint Matthew reported the event.
Nemesio
Actually, I had never given it a thought. Why would the stone need to be rolled out of the way, since Jesus could just walk through walls?
One other thing. How did the women think they were going to anoint the body with the sepulcher sealed and guarded?
03 Jul 07
Originally posted by vistesdI am curious. Would Jesus have been considered a "fundamentalist" rabbi? I mean, it seems that he encountered the wrath of the mainstream tradition, no?
[b]There likely have been (and are) “fundamentalistic” rabbis. But that seems outside the mainstream tradition
03 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhitehead1) I presume they must mean some latent Bible rather than any of its manifest editions, because many of those are errant as a matter of fact.
Just as a matter of interest. For those who believe "the Bible" is inerrant. What do you mean by "The Bible"?
1. All known translations.
2. The King James Version, or any other given version.
3. The oldest known version in whatever language it is believed to have been written in.
4. The text as it was first written (which we do not actually have).
...[text shortened]... possibly conceivable from the given words as long as a contradiction cannot be proved.
http://www.biblecollectors.org/bible_misprints.htm
2) They obviously prefer those interpretations wherein no contradiction exists. All they have to do is find any interpretation that is not entirely implausible--even if another interpretation is more plausible--to shore up their groundless initial conviction that the Bible is inerrant.
As the following website asserts:
"It is only an error if there is *absolutely no conceivable manner* in which the verses or passages can be reconciled."
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by josephwUm. The contradiction is in the grammar of the authors of the
So, if you are right, then there's no contradiction.
various Gospels.
Looking only at the Synoptics, two clearly indicate that the rock was
already rolled before the women's arrival (recall that St Mark reports
that the women were asking 'Who will roll back the stone for us...,'
before they looked up and saw that the stone 'had been rolled back.'
St Matthew reports that the women 'came' to the tomb and then the
angel moved the stone.
Look at the texts side by side.
Explain this contradiction in a way that preserves the author's very clear
semantic presentation.
Nemesio
04 Jul 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThat's right. A stone cannot be rolled back before and after the
"It is only an error if there is *absolutely no conceivable manner* in which the verses or passages can be reconciled."
women arrive, and yet that's what the grammar clearly indicates.
The only way you can 'reconcile' these disparate accounts is to insist
that St Matthew meant 'rolled' when he clearly put 'had been rolled.'
Nemesio
04 Jul 07
Let's take this a step further. The Johannine account records the following:
1) Mary Magdalene came to the tomb.
2) Mary saw that the stone was already moved.
3) Mary ran back to the Disciples.
4) Mary reports 'They have taken the Lord, and we don't know where they put him.'
5) St Peter and the Beloved Disciple ran to the tomb and went in.
6) The two Disciples leave.
7) Jesus visits Mary and explains.
The Lucan account:
1) Mary (and friends) came to the tomb.
2) Mary et alia find the stone already moved.
3) Mary et alia interact with two men who explain, 'He is not here, but has been raised.'
4) Mary et alia remember the words.
5) Mary et alia run back to the Disciples.
6) St Peter runs to the tomb.
Why would Mary say 'They have taken our Lord from the tomb and we
don't know where they put him,' if they had remembered His words and
been informed by the two dazzling men?
Nemesio
04 Jul 07
I think a lot of language study would end a lot of this inerrancy argument. Wer need to remeber to whom the original MSS were writtento and how they themselves used there own languages. All language is a human endeavor to re-represent an aspect of reality. How this re-representation takes place varies for many eras. For example Logical Positivism was a system of scientific thought that expressed positivily, and strongly that we could (in priciple) arbitrarily control error in measurement by ensuring that the significance retained by a properly expressed number re-representing a measurement on a scale reflected actual counting of fiducial marks and an estimate of the distance between non-inscribed marks. Thus, science itself from Positivism is so sure of it's control of error that it states an inerrancy of a kind we have built an entire civilization upon, Yet A. J. Ayers, near the end of his life, said that Positivism lead only to tautology, thus was of onky limited use in describing the universe.
In this case the existance of an entirely different really (quantum emchanics, and the Heisenberg principle) destroys completely the meaning of inerrancy presxcribed by nineteenth and early twentyth centure physics. This rather neutral example of a shift in language concepts illustratesw rather well what is going on in the inerarancy discussion. Neither side has a good grasp of what inerrancy meant to the writers or their followers.
KRF