Free Bible available in PDF and EPUB formats!

Post Reply New Topic

Reasonably seen, as much my book as yours - given we are neither of us the author unless there is something you have not told us.

And no book that was ever translated was NOT mistranslated.

And no book ever read by anone not the author was ever read / understood as the author read / understood it.

---------

I will spare you the high level lecture.

I am not fond of Gentiles twisting Jewish literature into a pretzel that serves their (Gentile) ends.

ruveyn

ruveyn -

"I am not fond of Gentiles twisting Jewish literature into a pretzel that serves their (Gentile) ends. "

A legitimate emotion, arguably, by no means unlike my reaction to what the unwashed did with Pogo and Frodo, for example.

But are Jewish sages twisting Jewish writings, or Christian theosophists twisting Christian writings, any better? Both happen, and have happened for long millennia.

AND for that matter, in the spirit of Hillel, why do you choose to pretzelize Mary into a b***h goddess?

If I am to leave "your" prophecy alone [which I would gladly do, feeling strongly that any interpreter / translator must tread softly around ambiguity], ought you not to leave our claim alone?

It is physically possible for the Sea of Reeds to part. It is biologically impossible for a virgin human female to give birth to a male child (parthogenesis is out). The "Virgin" Mary was no Virgin. She may have been unlucky or naughty. We have no way of knowing.

ruveyn

I am so glad one of us knows exactly what is and is not possible.

I am also glad you mention the Sea of Reeds.

If we are going to talk probabilities, absent miracles or things not in your experience, would you agree that the record of the Moses infancy is at least as likely to involve the Oops factor as the Jesus story?

Or is it simply that you - who know all and only the possible - are alone entitled to twist, or shall we say reinterpret?

Abandoning an infant to the kindness of strangers is not a miracle tale. It has happened thousands of times throughout history. Putting infant Moses (which was not his name by Yochaved) into a basket is hardly a miracle tale or the fulfillment of a prophecy. Moses = Egyptian for drawn out.

ruveyn

I don't seem to find anything relevant or ground-breaking about that verse.

It is just a verse in some holy book anyway.

The link in the annotation for that verse is interesting though: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/lord.html

Actually, it isn't - you have fallen into the common error of thinking something is true simply because it is in an old book.

And I cannot but think that if the CHRISTIAN scriptures presented Mary as running home saying "Oh, Daddy, look what I found down by the river", you would find something snice to say.

It depends whether the woman was heavy with child or not. In the Gospels it said Miriam (Mary) was heavy with child.

ruveyn

I am an equal opportunity linguist. I accept Miriam, Mary, Marie, Maria, Meli, Maryam, Maire, and several other variants, as well as the corresponding equivalents for the other family members. Miriam is fine, whatever is comfortable, no need to gloss it.

Anyhow . there is a small difference between the great with childness of a girl in a small town where everybody is 2nd cousin twice removed or closer and everybody is in the market daily, And the great with childness of the king's daughter living in the palace.

But of course, in both cases, we are only speculating.

Actually, if you really wanted to get cynical and poke Christian ribs, you ought to focus on the "pious belief" once in vogue in some circles that the Theotokos did not give birth in the conventional fashion nor a la Caesar - instead, it was said, Jesus was beamed out of the womb [by an angel named Scottiel?] - thus ensuring Miz M uninterrupted virginity.

I just work here.

Paul writes, "For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope." (Romans 15:4) Paul was a follower of Christ. Christ was a Jew and the promised messiah. Common Jews believed he was the messiah. The religious leaders of the day did not.

As regards the holy writings being "written by Jews for Jews" notice Daniel 12:4. "And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of [the] end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant." The words in the TNKH did have application back then, but they were also written for people in the future as Paul states above. This is why Paul writes at 2 Timothy 3:16,17: "All Scripture," not just some of it but all. "...is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." The complete word of God, from Genesis to Revelation, provides that beneficial instruction. It does it by means of commandments but also provides examples were God's chosen nation failed to obey his commands and the eventual consequences.

One example in found in Devarim chapter 28 (Deuteronomy) verses 49 - 68. This was a warning, written in graphic detail 866 years before it occurred, about what would happen to the nation if they were unfaithful. This foretold destruction happened in 607 B.C.E exactly as chapter 28 described. The warning even included details such as Jews selling themselves back into Egyptian salvery in verse 66-68. This was fulfilled in Jeremiah 44:12, Hosea 9:3, and Nehemiah 5:8. But in modern day application true Christians take note of these prophesies because there's a parallel between what was going to happen to Jerusalem and what will eventually happen to this system of things. "For I am Jehovah; I have not changed." (Malachi 3:6)

Last edited by kxmode on 23 Jun 2011, 11:50 am, edited 7 times in total.

The fact the Paul wrote it makes me doubt it. He was one of the sneakiest gits that ever lived.

He could not destroy the message of Jesus by direct assault so he resorted to subversion and succeeded. We do not have Christianity, we have Paulianity and Johniantity.

If you ever invite Paul to diiner to sure to count the silverware after he leaves.

ruveyn

Thank you very much and wish you happy every day!

Dare one ask, ruveyn, what is the procedure for applying for permission to read - carefully not touchuing or thinking too hard - YOUR book?

None. Go to a book store. Read it in Hebrew and Aramaic, the language in which it was written. Of course, without the Oral Tradition you will miss out on what the written stuff really says.

ruveyn

Don't need to go to a book store - I used to live there, almost. I have it on shelf, I have it on disk, I can find it on line, I got me a nice concordance and lexica galore and I can lay me hands on a targum or three if I feel like it.

Actually, even today I am capable of going into dogmatic mode at at least your level, though I do it less since I reached 25 - ich am eldre than i was a winter and ek a lore, so I actually do get where you are coming from.

Are you like this off line? Sincere question

Have you a position on which text - do you buy into Stuttgartensia? Sincere question.

You likely can calculate my response on the relation received meaning, original meaning, and tradition.

I will confine myself to this: Hebrew and Aramaic are two very distinct [though historically interacting] languages.