Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is not so. I was in the Galapagos Islands last year and encountered all variety of beasts that had no fear of man.
God put the fear of man in the nostrils of all animals.
God may have put the fear of predators in the nostrils of all prey, but he didn't put the fear of man in the animals that I observed. They didn't have any fear of man or other beasts, because they have never had any predators.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour interpretations are grotesque. "Survives for a day or two" "Lives for a day or two" means no serious injury??? The mind reels.
[b]It is only your obstinance that is attempting to read a passage in a manner clearly contrary to the plain meaning of its words.
You asked for it, you get it.
Here are several translations of v21:
NIV: "but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
NASB: "If, however, he survives a day ...[text shortened]... ate of any other boundary-breaker for similar offences.[/b]
The later verse doesn't yield any light at all on the earlier one. You hardly need to free a dead slave, do ya? The distinction in 20-21 is the one I gave; between the slave dying under his hand or dying a few days later. The only disagreement I can find among the Jewish authorities is whether the first merits the death penalty (what is the meaning of "avenged" or "punished"😉 according to this passage. Only evangelical Christians make the claim that you are making, which is against the clear language.
I love your last paragraph; should we have maximum security prisons for lions, tigers and oxen??
Originally posted by no1marauderI love your last paragraph; should we have maximum security prisons for lions, tigers and oxen??
Your interpretations are grotesque. "Survives for a day or two" "Lives for a day or two" means no serious injury??? The mind reels.
No, we should kill them like we should kill murderers, rapists and career criminals.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's truly ridiculous that animals have the capacity to sin and merit punishment commensurate with their trespasses.
I love your last paragraph; should we have maximum security prisons for lions, tigers and oxen??
What about the pigeons that pick at my food at an outdoor cafe?
What about the neighbor's dog that takes a dump in my yard?
Put them all on a chain gang for community service and hope that they rehabilitate?
If you punish animals for sins like murder, why not punish them for lesser crimes?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSince they are morally culpable in your and your God's view, should we have trials for murderer oxen? How about rapist oxen?
[b] I love your last paragraph; should we have maximum security prisons for lions, tigers and oxen??
No, we should kill them like we should kill murderers, rapists and career criminals.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderHere's a parsing of the Hebrew of Exodus 21:21.
Your interpretations are grotesque. "Survives for a day or two" "Lives for a day or two" means no serious injury??? The mind reels.
The later verse doesn't yield any light at all on the earlier one. You hardly need to free a dead slave, do ya? The distinction in 20-21 is the one I gave; between the slave dying under his hand or dying a few d ur last paragraph; should we have maximum security prisons for lions, tigers and oxen??
Notwithstanding
'ak (ak)
a particle of affirmation, surely; hence (by limitation) only
if he continue
`amad (aw-mad'😉
to stand, in various relations (literal and figurative, intransitive and transitive)
a day
yowm (yome)
a day (as the warm hours),
or two
shnayim (shen-ah'-yim)
two; also (as ordinal) twofold -- both, couple, double, second, twain, + twelfth, + twelve, + twenty (sixscore) thousand, twice, two.
he shall not be punished
naqam (naw-kam'😉
to grudge, i.e. avenge or punish -- avenge(-r, self), punish, revenge (self), surely, take vengeance.
for he is his money
keceph (keh'-sef)
silver (from its pale color); by implication, money -- money, price, silver(-ling).
You were saying?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe word in question means "arise, endure, remain, raise up". The context of the usage shows that it means the figurative "remain" i.e. dies. That is, of course, how it is translated in most of the versions ("survives" "lives"😉. This is how it is uniformly interpretated by Jewish scholars.
Here's a parsing of the Hebrew of Exodus 21:21.
[b]Notwithstanding
'ak (ak)
a particle of affirmation, surely; hence (by limitation) only
if he continue
`amad (aw-mad'😉
to stand, in various relations (literal and figurative, intransitive and transitive)
a day
yowm (yome)
a day (as the warm hours),
...[text shortened]... its pale color); by implication, money -- money, price, silver(-ling).
You were saying?[/b]
You were saying?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You know I am a proponent of allowing Scripture to interpret itself, and a scant five and six verses from these two yield the answer to whatever confusion one may find themselves here.
I've often heard this phrase. What the hell does it mean? Interpretation is the act of
an understanding individual, not an inanimate object. By necessity, Scripture is interpreted
by human beings, for if there were no human beings, there would be no interpreting.
And if you are claiming that Scripture has a single right interpretation, then you are clearly
calling God incompetent, given all the Christians who dearly love, study, and are 'Scripture-
centered' yet have vastly different readings about what properly-interpreted Scripture actually
says. If you are claiming that Scripture has multiple legitimate interpretations, then how do
you determine which among readings is a legitimate one?
With respect to Lev. 21:9, do you think the burden of responsibility on a priest was light? How about the punishment for an incorrigible child? Given the punishments, was there a parent who took their duties to their children lightly?
I feel that burden of responsibility of the priest was heavy, but to burn a child for fornication is
absurd. That law was clearly not made by a compassionate God to whom forgiveness comes
with sincere contrition (c.f., Jesus and the woman caught in adultery in St Luke...er St John).
That law was made by a patriarchal, misogynistic society which considered adultery to be a
primarily woman's sin (e.g.).
What is just? Should God allow anything less than His perfection to exist? Why does He? How does He?
These questions are a smoke screen to avoid answering the 'justice' that God has when He
calls for the immolation of a female individual for fornication just because she was the
child of a priest.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauderI was saying that again, you are mistaken.
The word in question means "arise, endure, remain, raise up". The context of the usage shows that it means the figurative "remain" i.e. dies. That is, of course, how it is translated in most of the versions ("survives" "lives"😉. This is how it is uniformly interpretated by Jewish scholars.
You were saying?
Originally posted by NemesioWhat the hell does it mean?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You know I am a proponent of allowing Scripture to interpret itself, and a scant five and six verses from these two yield the answer to whatever confusion one may find themselves here.
I've often heard this phrase. What the hell does it mean? Interpretation is the act of
an understanding individual, not an ...[text shortened]... le[/i] individual for fornication just because she was the
child of a priest.
Nemesio[/b]
It means the unclear is defined by the clear. The normal use of the particles of speech typically make the issue(s) perspicuous. Where one passage may be somewhat vague in its meaning and the context immediately surrounding it does not aid in specifiying the intended meaning, other clear and emphatic passages aid in clarifying the issue. Context is key; the context of the passage as well as the passage within the context of the whole either points directly at the issue or eliminates other possibilities.
And if you are claiming that Scripture has a single right interpretation
Absolutely.
calling God incompetent
I would say it is the student, not the Teacher who is incompetent. It is the students job to study and ascertain.
That law was clearly not made by a compassionate God to whom forgiveness comes with sincere contrition
The passage doesn't say anything about whether forgiveness is possible in that situation. It does delineate the punishment for transgressions, however. Remember, this was the Law given to the Jew for a theocracy.
These questions are a smoke screen to avoid answering the 'justice' that God has...
Nonsense. In considering the justice of God, one must consider the standard by which that justice operates. Namely, the righteousness of God, i.e., the absolute perfection of God is the standard, not His love or any other attribute. What the righteousness of God demands, the justice of God executes. To do anything less would be a compromise of one attribute or another. You would have God's love be our point of contact over every other attribute, which would lead to absurdity. Who is worthy of God's love? Only God Himself.