Seems to me that the story of the fall contains a challenge to Biblical literalism.
Literally speaking, God told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate from a specific tree in the Garden. That was not literally true, but it was/is FIGURATIVELY true.
Even if one were to try to force it and say that what God meant was that disobedience by Adam and Eve would cause God to then remove them from the Garden, thus making them no longer immortal...there's a problem. The reason God removed them from the Garden was, in part, that there was a chance that they might then eat from the tree of life and GAIN immortality. So they WEREN'T immortal, and their immortality wasn't assured. They would've "died" physically anyway if they never ate from either tree mentioned in the story.
So, there is no literal sense in which God's direct statement was true.
There is ONLY the metaphorical sense in which a deeper truth is found.
So...
If something so simple as this is to be taken as providing a true story from God, a paradox is established for those who wish to take the Bible literally, is it not?
Surely this is too simplistic an analysis.
Surely there must be compelling reasons for those who DO take Scripture to be LITERALLY true.
If the explanation God offered for the very first command from God to man was not meant literally, why, pray tell, should we expect ANY of God's statements to be literally true?
Since the story of the fall has an obvious deeper meaning than the physical death of the body, and that IS the first story about man's relationship with God as it exists today (i.e., after the fall), would it not be more useful and "scriptural" to look for the deeper (and probably figurative) meaning?
Also, and perhaps more importantly, how is one supposed to decide WHEN God is speaking literally and when God is speaking figuratively? If a threat of death doesn't mean what we think it does (literally) how can we know when we're interpreting correctly no matter what we do (go for literal interpretation or search for meaning)?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Even if one were to try to force it and say that what God meant was that disobedience by Adam and Eve would cause God to then remove them from the Garden, thus making them no longer immortal...there's a problem. The reason God removed them from the Garden was, in part, that there was a chance that they might then eat from the tree of life and GAIN immortality. So they WEREN'T immortal, and their immortality wasn't assured. They would've "died" physically anyway if they never ate from either tree mentioned in the story.
I don't disagree with the figurative sense, but I wanted to answer this part. God didn't keep them from eating from the tree of life until after they had "eaten of the forbidden fruit" and were cast out of the Garden of Eden. Then they were mortal and able to sin, and God didn't want them to then partake of the tree of life and become immortal again without being free of sin.
However, I agree that this story in particular employs plenty of metaphors that shouldn't be read literally.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I found the early bits of Genesis to be extremely tough both in meaning in in linguistic style to really make literal sense. The definite article when stating it was "day the sixth" and all others were "day one", "day second", "day third", "day fourth" and "day fifth" (I'm keeping syntax inact, and literally translating) baffles me.
Adam and Eve baffle me; the difference between "Nachash" (snake?) and "Tannin" (crocodile?) baffles me; Kain and Able baffle me. What really baffles me is Genesis 4:8, and the punctuation (cantillation) makes it no easier. Genesis 4:1 makes little sense with why Kain was named the way he was, and it's also a linguistic carbuncle the way I see it. Hanoch's disappearence in 5:24 is no easier a topic to understand.
Many things are very complicated and I'm unable to properly comprehend them. Some of them are abrasive to the religious education I was brought up with (and that's on of the reasons I despise it so much), some of them simply make no sense and some of them are very well-structured phrases that are hard to crack into coherent, flowing read.
For that reason I take the approach that much of Parashat/Seder Bereshit (which is from the beginning until 6:8) is just metaphorical and never happened. I think it's the RaMBaM who said that, but I'm not sure.
I decided to take the approach that it's a story told to teach us lessons, or to reason creatively why we are here. For that reason I believe that Christianity is overly hooked up with Adam's sin (I can't remember the term used for it), but that's just my approach, and I am in no way an expert.
It took me nine years of education and an explicit statement of a teacher for me to understand why the Egyptians enslaved the Jews. Many things wirk like that for me. But I can't reason much, so I just ignore it all until I'm ready to face the problems (Job 37:1-6, and the way God seems to appear in it as a selfish deity - finally solved by my Bible teacher). With Genesis I took the mystical approach, as you might call it, that it's basically a metaphor that teaches us lessons or explains to us stuff.
It's now 0100 hours, I didn't eat, drink or sleep from 1650 yesterday till 1800 today. I barely breathed and spent half the day standing and singing out loudly all sorts of prayers.
I also have to wake up tomorrow, on my FREE DAY, and at 0730.
So good night. Send me e-mails if you want.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
I'm a Christian, but only because I appreciate the Bible's philosophical insight (which is why I also consider myself a Buddhist). For me, it's a collection of men's subjective interpretations of God, so much of it I don't take literally. To some that means I'm not a true Christian... but I figure everyone interprets the Bible differently, some are just more liberal about it.
~M
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Literally speaking, God told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate from a specific tree in the Garden. That was not literally true, but it was/is FIGURATIVELY true.
Even if one were to try to force it and say that what God meant was that disobedience by Adam and Eve would cause God to then remove them from the Garden, thus making them no longer immortal...
You're introducing an extra step here. Adam and Eve's banishment from the Garden isn't what kept them from being immortal; their having eaten the fruit is what did that. Up until then, they literally couldn't die, not because they were safe in the garden, or because they could be replentished by the fruit of life, but because it simply wasn't in their nature. Part of the punishment for eating the forbidden fruit was that the very nature of humanity was altered to make us die. It may've taken Adam almost a thousand years, but it's peanuts compared to eternal life.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The reason God removed them from the Garden was, in part, that there was a chance that they might then eat from the tree of life and GAIN immortality. So they WEREN'T immortal, and their immortality wasn't assured. They would've "died" physically anyway if they never ate from either tree mentioned in the story.
I think you're assuming they needed the tree of life before they ate the fruit to be immortal. I'm not at all sure that's true.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I agree. There's nothing in the text I've read that would imply Adam and Eve were immortal before eating the fruit of the tree at the center of the garden. The only time "live forever" is mentioned is in God's considering that it was important after that to make sure they DIDN'T eat of the fruit of the tree of life. It doesn't say they'd been eating it all along, or that they would've been immortal without it. It just says that both fruits, in combination, would make humans too much like God.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right. So how do you know if they would have died had they not eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Isn't your objection that they weren't immortal before they ate the fruit of knowledge? Maybe I'm not understanding you.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I thought I just posted here! I wonder what happened.
I'll try again. Nobody's really a literalist. When Jesus says He is the Vine and we are the branches, no one looks to see if any leaves are sprouting. We use common sense (ours and others') to determine what's literal and what isn't, and it usually works.
Best I can do.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Double Thread.
Spooky!
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
thought I was going crazy!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Right. So how do you know if they would have died had they not eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Isn't your objection that they weren't immortal before they ate the fruit of knowledge? Maybe I'm not understanding you.
You're correct. It isn't completely indeterminate, though. If anything, the implication is that they would have become immortal, not that they were immortal and God took that away from them and then had to bar them from getting it back.
The language isn't entirely precise, but it's not entirely indeterminate. There's at least the implication that they were not immortal already. The possibility exists that they were previously immortal, but that interpretation is not really supported by the text.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
[aside] By the way, I deleted the double post. I had posted and then came back and saw that Hatrack was just sitting there "spinning" instead of going on to the new thread page. Weird. Anyway, it sat like that for a good 10 minutes so I hit the post thread button again. [/aside]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: What really baffles me is Genesis 4:8, and the punctuation (cantillation) makes it no easier.
Why? What's confusing about it? Personally, I always found the similarities between Genesis 4:7 and the last part of Genesis 3:16 to be striking.
And what about etz ha-da'at tov v'ra in Genesis 2:17? How do you handle the grammar there? How would you translate it? Because the usual translation of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" clearly doesn't fit the words.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Genesis 4:1 makes little sense with why Kain was named the way he was, and it's also a linguistic carbuncle the way I see it.
How so? Just curious.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm not a literalist, but on thinking about this literally, it occurs to me that if the forbidden tree were the only tree forbidden in the Garden to begin with, and it seems as though it was, then the Tree of Life would not have been forbidden originally. Does anyone else read it like that? Could they have been eating of the tree of life all along, but once they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they had to stop?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I must say, this is the first time I have ever heard an interpretation of Adam and Eve where they WEREN'T originally immortal. Almost all Christian theology of the fall (and possibly Jewish as well) contains the necessity that they were originally immortal and lost that when they ate the Forbidden Fruit.
I think that is because you are reading the text completely wrong and without careful scrutiny of the words. Perhaps, to go with your own interpretation, the words of God were literal and the Garden itself had no fundimental traits for or against immortality. Again, as has been said, they were kicked out to prevent them from eating a particular tree that would have made them immortal that was not forbidden before.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Are animals like humans before the fall? They are totally innocent, and they have no concept of good and evil, but they still do harm, they just don't realize it. Before the fall (I'm thinking metaphorically here) was the only difference that we humans didn't realize some things are evil and we have a choice and therefore it's incumbent upon us to choose well? Before the fall did Adam and Eve run around causing harm unwittingly, like children? Perhaps did God just fix everything they broke then? Or limit their ability to get into mischief the way we do for toddlers? And then when they gained that knowledge of good and evil was it mostly that they suddenly for the first time felt shame?
What would we be like and the world be like if Adam and Eve had never fallen?
Are we like children who got kicked out of their parents' house because we wouldn't abide by the rules of the place?
Are we like prisoners who are living in an unpleasant place with other like-minded prisoners so that we can come to see the logical results of our selfish everyone-for-himself mindset and find a change of heart?
Are we like beloved pets who turned vicious and instead of being put down like we deserved, we've been given this additional chance called mortality to not only lose our viciousness (if we choose) but even to grow up and become masters instead of pets?
If every instant of our lives and every detail of our selves is preserved perfectly in some off-site backup, then would that count as immortality? If we could someday learn to build ourselves perfectly functioning bodies, and to access this archive, and if we then made perfect bodies for everyone who had ever lived and downloaded their archived selves into those bodies, would that be the resurrection?
Once that happens, would we then want to go over the entire record of our lives, and with the knowlege that had been gained in the meantime wouldn't we judge our former (now) selves' every action and feel shame and sorrow for the harm we did?
This thread sort of sent me off into speculation about what it all means. I'm curious what other people think about it, about the Fall.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I would have to agree that no one is completely a Literalist for the reasons already covered her.. Parts of the Bible are figurative and other literal, but they all reveal God's Truth.
I think most of the people who get called Literalist fall into the category of believers who feel the Bible is 100% inspired by God. The written word of God. This would make us fundamentalist, but not literalist, We don't believe that everything must be interpreted literally. (The Bible is full of symbolism and figurative stories.) If there are people who believe this they would represent a very small minority of Christians, the snake handlers and such.
As for the story of the fall. Adam and Eve are condemned to death after eating the fruit, but it is their souls that are condemned, not their physical bodies. When Christ offers eternal life He is not offering Life for the body, but the soul.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think most of the people who get called Literalist fall into the category of believers who feel the Bible is 100% inspired by God. The written word of God. This would make us fundamentalist, but not literalist,
This alone does NOT make you fundamentalist.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Wow....... I go to a fundamental church and I think if you'd ask us if we take the bible literally they'd say yes. But we of course know there are places that are meant to be parables and symbolism. But this never interferes with us taking things literally. Interesting. I guess it’s just what you’re used to.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I think most of the people who get called Literalist fall into the category of believers who feel the Bible is 100% inspired by God. The written word of God. This would make us fundamentalist, but not literalist,
This alone does NOT make you fundamentalist.
Agree totally
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure I understand your original post then. I believe that the bible is 100% inspired by God. I am most assuredly not a fundamentalist.
Can you explain a little more what you meant by "this would make us fundamentalist, but not literalist"?
Thanks.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Are animals like humans before the fall? They are totally innocent, and they have no concept of good and evil, but they still do harm, they just don't realize it.
I don't really think that all animals are innocent. Those with higher levels of cognitive functioning, such as dolphins and chimps, strike me as knowing what they're doing. For that matter, I've known one extraordinarily intelligent dog that seemed to know what he was doing also. I realize that this isn't somenthing provable, but I thought that I'd interejct it anyway.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
Sorry my first statement wasn't accurate. Fundamentalist believe this, along with other things, like the divinity of Christ, the depravity of man, ect. So it is possible to believe the Bible is 100% inspired by God without being a fundamentalist, but you can't be a fundamentalist without believing it.
I think fundamentalist get a bad name because of the extremist who make the headlines.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This line of thought always takes me into metaphysical speculation about a world without entropy.
When I was a fundamentalist (and 6 day creationist) I would have said that animals didn't die before the fall either, that the carnivores ate some kind of plant prior to the fall. Insects get a bit gnatty though. Would they not have died either?
So, if you aren't a 6-day literal creationist, do you still believe that Adam and Eve were immortal prior to the fall, even if life and death process of evolution, led up to the advent of humans when God decided to insert the soul?
I really don't know. It doesn't make sense either way.
AJ
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I don't know that I would say they were immortal prior to the fall, but that they were capable of living forever (or however long they were in harmony with God) as long as they chose to take of the Tree of Life, and chose to not disobey and take of the tree that was forbidden.
Just because God told them they would die if they took of the forbidden fruit, that didn't mean they would die "that moment" like poison. It means they choose death (separation from God) and that they would eventually died (physically and spiritually) apart from God.
It is possible that the Tree of Life may or may not have had properties that would have allowed their bodies to continue to rejuvenate forever -- this is not known one way or the other. What is known is that they made the choice to disobey, and so God barred them from the Tree of Life, which would have kept them in harmony with Him. (until Christ's sacrifice made it possible for us to re-establish the relationship with God).
FG
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Bob:"God told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate from a specific tree in the Garden. That was not literally true, but it was/is FIGURATIVELY true."
A whole lot of people believe it was indeed literally true. For example, I believe that the statement expressed the literally true notion that, if Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they would become subject to death, which they were not before. The statement is only barred from literal truth if you assume that God referred to instantaneous death, rather than a passage from immortality to mortality.
BS:"The reason God removed them from the Garden was, in part, that there was a chance that they might then eat from the tree of life and GAIN immortality."
This is not the only possibility. I believe that the reason Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden was as a consequence ("punishment") for their transgression. In addition, they entered into their period of mortal probation upon choosing to eat the forbidden fruit, and the tests of that probation could not be carried out in the Garden. The reason God prevented Adam and Eve from returning to the Garden, or at least to the immediate vicinity of the Tree of Life, by placing cherubim to guard it, was to prevent them from regaining their lost immortality while still in a state of sin. This would have been disastrous for Adam and Eve. They needed the time in mortality to learn, grow, and repent. At such time as they do regain their immortality (as resurrected beings), they will be ready, which they were not immediately following the Fall.
None of the above is a defense of the idea of Biblical literalism, which I will refrain from ridiculing at this time. I do not believe the Bible to be literally true in all, or even almost all, instances. However, I don't think the objection(s) you have raised are good examples of problems with reading the Bible literally.
Bob:"Also, and perhaps more importantly, how is one supposed to decide WHEN God is speaking literally and when God is speaking figuratively?"
Now, this really IS an important question, and not one that can be answered quickly or easily. I think (though I am not 100% certain) that if the distinction is really important, it will be made clear. However, I also think that, in most cases, the distinction really doesn't matter, in practical effect.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Genesis 2:15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it, and to keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die.
<emphasis added>
If taken literally, I would take this to mean that God told Adam he would die that day, not "eventually" or that he would no longer "be immortal."
In fact, I haven't been able to find anywhere in Genesis where God created man (or any of the animals or plants) to be immortal right from the start.
I think that's a bit of doctrine, not actually "literally" in the text.
Just like "original sin." The word "sin" does not appear in the account of Adam and Eve eating of the forbidden fruit.
The only time I found immortality mentioned is when God is musing about how bad it would be, now that humans have "knowledge" for them to become immortal by eating the fruit of the tree of life.
It doesn't say that they had already been eating that fruit (from the tree of life). We can assume it wasn't forbidden to them (since the only forbidden fruit at the beginning was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (or whatever translation would be more accurate).
In short, from a PURELY literal perspective:
1) The doctrine of Man's original immortality is not directly supported in the text (or at least I couldn't find it).
2) God's decision to keep the humans away from the tree of life was reportedly because if they WERE to become immortal, they'd be too much LIKE GOD, not because man would be SINFUL and IMMORTAL. (again, the word "sin" doesn't show up.)
Occassional:
quote: I think that is because you are reading the text completely wrong and without careful scrutiny of the words
Besides also being less abusive in your language, could you please show me where a careful scrutiny of the words would change the literal meaning?
I understand that our Christian theology teaches differently. In fact, I accept this as a story and not the literal truth and as such it tells us a lot about human nature. My original point was only that a literalist tradition wouldn't reach a valid conclusion about the story.
I think the whole "created immortal" thing is definitely an interpretation inserted into doctrine. I'm not sure what it matters, really. The story of "the fall" is about mankind's free will and our disobedient nature.
God tells Adam he'll return to the dust. Presumably people have taken that to mean that if he'd stayed obedient in the Garden, he wouldn't have died. But really, all it strictly implies is that he wouldn't have returned to the dust. Since it is possible to die and NOT return to the dust, this could mean nothing more than that God was condemning mankind to a tough life and an ignoble end versus a wonderful life and a noble end.
Literally, God didn't say.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
If you take the bible- the entire thing and use other pieces to support another piece then please read on- or if you're just curious.
I personally think that it is all literally- that mankind was immortal before the fall, and death (physical and spiritual) came from the original sin. Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Bob:"If taken literally, I would take this to mean that God told Adam he would die that day"
I agree that this seems like the most natural meaning of the statement, but others work, too. For instance, what does God mean when he uses the word "day"? What does he mean when he uses the word "surely"? These are not merely questions of literal/figurative reading.
Bob:"In fact, I haven't been able to find anywhere in Genesis where God created man (or any of the animals or plants) to be immortal right from the start"
Neither can I. However, as has been postulated already by others, the fact that Adam and Eve were given free access to the Tree of Life before their Fall, and that such access was only cut off after their transgression, is highly suggestive. They were at least potentially immortal, because they had access to the Tree of Life.
The effect of the fruit of Life was to make one "live forever." Gen. 3:22. Adam and Eve were at liberty to eat this fruit before the Fall, and there is no reason to think they did not. I think it likely they did. However, after their disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit, they must have lost any benefit previously received from eating the fruit of Life, else what would be the point of preventing them from eating it again?
But of course you already pointed this out. I guess my point is that I think the textual evidence for their pre-Fall immortality is more compelling than you think it is.
Bob:"God's decision to keep the humans away from the tree of life was reportedly because if they WERE to become immortal, they'd be too much LIKE GOD"
I don't see that at all. In Gen. 3:22, God recognizes that man has ALREADY become like a god, because of his "knowledge" of good and evil. He goes on to propose the prohibition of the Tree of Life, but does not directly say why. Any explanation must necessarily be assumed or guessed at. My assumption is informed by extra-Biblical sources, but your explanation is equally an assumption.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am always amused when someone insists that one must take a translation word-for-word literally. For instance, having looked up the Hebrew of 2:17, I would translate the bolded bit above as "for on the day you eat of it, it becomes sure that you will die." Now, my translation is informed by Rashi (and I'm just going to mention again that all these explanations were handed down orally at the same time as the Pentateuch was handed down in written form), but it is primarily drawn from the grammatical structure of mos tamus which is indeed "you will surely die," but in the indefinite future.
Oh, and that makes two Fridays in a row. Could y'all please work on your timing? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks rivka. I was going to ask about that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's so sweet. You noticed the two Fridays thing too?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think that the best evidence that Adam and Eve were immortal before the fall comes from Corinthians.
quote:For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
But even this reference does not say "Because of the fall we all die", it says that we all die "as in Adam". Which could mean that we all die because of Adam's choice or because of Adam's nature (ie because he was created to die).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
In many respects, arguing about whether Adam was or was not immortal before he ate the fruit, is a diversion from Bob's question.
I would ask, Is the story of the fall more significant and meaningful viewed literally or symbolically?
Biblical literalists always seem to argue that reading the Bible, or at least some parts of the Bible, as symbolic rather than literal makes them less powerful. I disagree. I think that many stories in the Bible are most powerful when they are understood symbolically rather than literally. The creations story and the story of the fall are two examples of that. If I understand the creation story as solely a literal, scientific like explanation for the existence of the the earth, it means almost nothing to me. If I try to understand it as a symbolic story, then it provides much meat for contemplation. To me, the story is far more powerful when I strive to understand it at a symbolic level rather than a literal level.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The Rabbit, thanks for that. I am not a literalist, of course, so I don't really understand how the justification for literalism can involve the use of figurative logic (like saying God "meant" that Adam and Eve would die "spiritually" or that the important point is no longer being immortal.
It seems pretty clear that this story is about Man's nature and our current relationship to God. What the antecedents were really like is somewhat less important than making the point that we have always exercised our free will in ways that ultimately bring us harm, or that we act in ways that are disobedient.
Anyway, it seems that is the relevant point for people today, not that we were or were not originally immortal.
btw, rivka, thanks for the translation. I'll have to look to see if any of the English translations I have mention that future tense or the possible other/additional shades of meaning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Several English translations do, but the only one I found online was NIV, which isn't a great translation.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Why do you say NIV isn't a great translation Dag- it's the only one I use?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Here are a few versions.
NRSV:
quote:Ge 2:17 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’
NIV:
quote:Genesis 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
NASV:
quote:Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
NLT:
quote:Genesis 2:17 except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die."
KJV:
quote:Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
NKJV:
quote:Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
[ October 15, 2005, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I also went through and looked up STRONG'S numbers and tried to put the Hebrew dictionary entries into the text (strongs numbers are listed, and the definition follows. Some additional references are added if there was more info under a 2nd Strong's number or the "Blue Letter Bible" had some additional info.
But of the Tree 06086: 6086 `ets ates from 6095; a tree (from its firmness); hence, wood (plural sticks):--+ carpenter, gallows, helve, + pine, plank, staff, stalk, stick, stock, timber, tree, wood. see HEBREW for 06095 06095: 6095 `atsah aw-tsaw' a primitive root; properly, to fasten (or make firm), i.e. to close (the eyes):--shut. Of the knowledge 01847: 1847 da`ath dah'-ath from 3045; knowledge:--cunning, (ig-)norantly, know(-ledge), (un-)awares (wittingly). see HEBREW for 03045 03045: 3045 yada` yaw-dah' a primitive root; to know (properly, to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively, instruction, designation, punishment, etc.) (as follow):-- Of Good 02896: 2896 towb tobe from 2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine, the singular and the plural (good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good things, good men or women), also as an adverb (well):--beautiful, best, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine, glad, good (deed, -lier, -liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, + pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare, (be) well ((-favoured)). see HEBREW for 02895 02895: 2895 towb tobe a primitive root, to be (transitively, do or make) good (or well) in the widest sense:--be (do) better, cheer, be (do, seem) good, (make) goodly, X please, (be, do, go, play) well. And evil 07451: 7451 ra` rah from 7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease(-ure), distress, evil((- favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Incl. feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.). see HEBREW for 07489 07489: 7489 ra`a` raw-ah' a primitive root; properly, to spoil (literally, by breaking to pieces); figuratively, to make (or be) good for nothing, i.e. bad (physically, socially or morally):--afflict, associate selves (by mistake for 7462), break (down, in pieces), + displease, (be, bring, do) evil (doer, entreat, man), show self friendly (by mistake for 7462), do harm, (do) hurt, (behave self, deal) ill, X indeed, do mischief, punish, still, vex, (do) wicked (doer, -ly), be (deal, do) worse. see HEBREW for 07462 see HEBREW for 07462
Thou shalt not Eat 00398: 398 'akal aw-kal' a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively):--X at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite. imperfect Of it for in the Day 03117: 3117 yowm yome from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger. 1) day, time, year a) day (as opposed to night) b) day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day's journey c) days, lifetime (pl.) d) time, period (general) e) year f) temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow
That thou Eatest 00398: 398 'akal aw-kal' a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively):--X at all, burn up, consume, devour(-er, up), dine, eat(-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in...wise(-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite. infinitive
Thou shalt surely 04191: 4191 muwth mooth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:--X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise. Infinitive
1) to die, kill, have one executed a) (Qal) 1) to die 2) to die (as penalty), be put to death 3) to die, perish (of a nation) 4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct) b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death d) (Hophal) 1) to be killed, be put to death a) to die prematurely
Die 04191: 4191 muwth mooth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:--X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise. Imperfect tense (see above under "surely" for additional senses of the word "muwth")
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
rivka, when you are able, could you answer a question for me (see the bottom of this post). I was trying to find out more about Rashi (since I really know nothing). One site said that he was active 1040 to 1105. It also mentions the midrash and the TaNaCH. Then it points to a translation of Genesis called the Bereshit. So I went there figuring it'd show the proper tenses of the two uses of the word for "die".
It was basically word for word with the KJV, so I figured it must not be what I thought it was. Plus, it lacks Rashi's commentary, so I didn't get anything there that would expand on this.
In short, I kind of exhausted my online resources trying to track this down and ended up back where I started.
Anyway, I'd be interested in finding more resources that pass on the oral traditions that went along with the original text. Do you know of any that you would consider particular good (faithful to the original?) and yet would be in easily understood English?
Thanks for anything you can point me to.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Anyway, it seems that (the nature of man and his relationship with God) is the relevant point for people today, not that we were or were not originally immortal.
Not so. I would say that, at least the religion I belong to and those Christians outside my religion, find BOTH very relavant. Even among people who are not fundimentalists in their beliefs. I don't know how to put this delicately, and since I was never one to believe that delicacy was a virtue in expressing personal opinions, I think you have no idea what you are talking about. So far I have found your conclusions, especially about what others think or feel about a particular subject dealing with the Bible, blinded by your ideology and lacking reality.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Occasional, is your first sentence meant to assert that LDS and non-LDS Christians all agree with your statement? Or am I misreading?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
My first statement is that MOST (I would venture almost all) Christians see the relationship of man to God AND the immortality of Adam and Eve as relavant today. Now, what that relavance means to each denomination is arguably different.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Occasional,
I'm not sure where I've done what you accuse me of. Could you point to an example or two and tell me where I've drawn a conclusion about what others think or feel?
Also, could you show me a spot where you think my personal ideology has intruded in an untoward way into the discussion?
Finally, I assume your rudeness is a reaction to what you perceive as rudeness on my part. If that's the case, I'll start out by apologizing for whatever it is I did to make you feel this kind of nasty tone was needed. I assure you that I'm not trying to be abrasive at all. I WAS trying to discuss something that interests me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*whisper* It's "relevant."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:My first statement is that MOST (I would venture almost all) Christians see the relationship of man to God AND the immortality of Adam and Eve as relavant today.
I'm not sure how the doctrine of Adam and Eve's immortality affects people's daily lives. That is the sense in which I used the word "relevant."
quote: Now, what that relavance means to each denomination is arguably different.
Granted, but I get the sense that if all I did was reword my earlier post to say that man's relationship to God is the MORE relevant aspect of the story, you'd still be angry with me. I'm not exactly sure why, though.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:My first statement is that MOST (I would venture almost all) Christians see the relationship of man to God AND the immortality of Adam and Eve as relavant today.
Okay, then I disagree. I venture that to MANY, maybe even most, contemporary Christians, whether or not Adam and Eve were originally immortal is almost completely irrelevant. Except as a topic of occaisionally interesting speculation.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually, BS you would be wrong how I would react. And, of course, that is an example of "Could you point to an example or two and tell me where I've drawn a conclusion about what others think or feel?" I would actually agree with you on that statement of the relative hiearchy of priority.
"If something so simple as this is to be taken as providing a true story from God, a paradox is established for those who wish to take the Bible literally, is it not?" (You were doing pretty good until "for those who wish" statement. You equate literalism with simplisticality, even if indirectly).
I think that is the crux of my "anger" over you. I am not as literalist as many literalists, but you are completely wrong on how literalists think. Your ideology in the whole question is that a literalist position is a niave and simplistic, even childish, position. Well, I disagree with most literalists myself; but, I know they are not JUST literalists. That is a label placed on them and not the way they would describe themselves. If anything they would call themselves "purists," or "traditionalists" when it comes to the Bible. They may see things as "literal," but they are not without seeing the literal as figurative.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: They may see things as "literal," but they are not without seeing the literal as figurative.
I submit that being able to tell what is meant to be figurative and what is not is very difficult.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Occasional,
I thank you for being less abusive.
I'd like you to know that I attended a Southern Baptist Church for a couple of years and have many, many friends in that tradition. They do indeed describe themselves as "Biblical Literalists" and I have heard on more than one occasion people from my old congregation and from within the Southern Baptist tradition in other parts of the state (of Florida) and the country (The Southern Baptist convention draws folks from around the US certainly and I attended in 2000) self-describe themselves as "literalists."
When they do so, I have asked them exactly what they mean by that. The usual answer is that they take every word of the Bible literally. As the literal truth. Whether or not they also see a figurative meaning in the stories is immaterial, but I do believe that they see that deeper or more subtle meaning too. It would be odd for them not to, really, since many of the doctrines that most of them adhere to are not strictly spelled out verbatim or specifically in the Bible, and they are Bible-centered.
The things they tend to take literally are: 1) God created the world in 6 days. Whether those were actual 24 hour days or something a tad longer is a matter for debate, but the sequence is assured. The fact that there are slight differences between Genesis 1 and 2 is not a problem. Both are literally true. Period.
2) Adam and Eve were real people created by God in the ways spelled out in Genesis. The actions described and decisions made actually happened.
3) Almost to a person, they are "young earth creationists" meaning that the earth is at most 12,000 years old, and probably somewhat closer to 6,000 years old.
The list goes on. But they are literalist in the strictest sense of the word and they self-describe as that. This is also not true of all Southern Baptists. It is a congregational church, meaning that like-minded people can gather together, find a preacher who agrees with their most important doctrinal ideas and form a church. There's no denominational standard that is imposed from an overriding church hierarchy. So, it's also possible to find Southern Baptists who are not literalists. Its just that in my limited experience of Biblical literalists, most have been Southern Baptists. That's certainly an artifact of belonging to one congregation and living in Central Florida and West Central Texas for a time.
As for the rest of it, I hereby change my prior statement to read "the relationship between man and God is, to me the more relevant aspect of the story of the fall in comparison to the question of Adam and Eve's physical immortality.
I would also like to call your attention to two things that you may have missed, or have decided to ignore:
1)From my first post in this thread:
quote: Surely this is too simplistic an analysis.
Surely there must be compelling reasons for those who DO take Scripture to be LITERALLY true.
2) From my post in reply to your post:
quote:Granted, but I get the sense that if all I did was reword my earlier post to say that man's relationship to God is the MORE relevant aspect of the story, you'd still be angry with me. I'm not exactly sure why, though.
I believe I was entirely warranted from the tone you've taken to sense that you would remain angry even if I made the proposed change. That is not an assumption on my part and it isn't based on my personal theology. It's based on your behavior toward me. If you choose to be abusive to people, I think you should expect them to treat you as if you are unlikely to stop doing it, even if they attempt to alter a statement.
Further, since I had no idea what was bugging you, and still don't have a clear sense of why it bugged you so much, I feel it's also worth pointing out that from my perspective your reaction was unwarranted and the change I've now made to my prior statement seems like a small and simple thing, I just don't understand why all the fuss and why you had to get so belligerent about it.
[ October 15, 2005, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I was trying to find out more about Rashi (since I really know nothing). One site said that he was active 1040 to 1105.
*laugh* If by "active" you mean "alive," then yes.
quote: It also mentions the midrash and the TaNaCH.
Could be any of the many online sources discussing him, but let me guess that it was this one (and FYI, for future reference, the Jewish Virtual Library is a good source). If not, that's a good one.
quote:Then it points to a translation of Genesis called the Bereshit.
*laughs hard* Sorry. Very sorry. *breathes* Ok, Bereshit (or Bereshis, depending on pronunciation) is simply the original Hebrew word for Genesis. Any traditional Jewish source will refer to both the first volume and the first portion within it as Bereshit.
As far as the specific translation, I can't tell you what it is. But I can tell you that's no traditional Jewish translation I am familiar with. If you say it's the KJV, I believe you. The problem is, I am aware of few if any decent English translations done using traditional Jewish sources that are not still under copyright. So most online sources won't have any.
Chabad does, but they limit it to the current week's portion (and even after playing around with it a bit, I couldn't make it show anything else). The good news is, the cycle is about to restart. Try that link on the 27th and/or 28th, and it should have Bereshis, with Rashi's commentary on the side. They do have an RSS feed available.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
lol. Thanks Rivka. That was the right link to the source I found the most info on. When I clicked on the TaNaCH link, it had the link to uncommented Bereshit (their spelling, not mine, btw).
I'm laughing hardest because I should've known it was the name for the first book of the Pentateuch.
Anyway, on that link, it had text for this bit of chapter two that matched what the KJV had. That's not to say it WAS the KJV, but that the texts were identical.
I wouldn't mind paying money for a good commentary in easy-to-read English. Would you know of one that's particularly accurate? What I'm most looking for would be something that recorded the originally-oral history (is that the midrash?) (feel free to laugh again) as well as the commentary from what would be considered "standard sources" -- if there are such things in the Jewish tradition. Not that modern commentary wouldn't be of interest too, but I'd most interested in the historical side of things. The tradition.
Does that make sense?
As an example, you had a source (I'm assuming in Hebrew, but maybe that was in English?) that explained the different verb tenses and senses of the word "die" in the passage under consideration. I'd be interested in that level of detail, as well as explanations of the text from respected Jewish leaders throughout history.
I'd be most interested in the Pentateuch at this point.
Am I just setting myself up to purchase 100's of volumes or is there a small set or single volume that would do the job?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: That was the right link to the source I found the most info on. When I clicked on the TaNaCH link, it had the link to uncommented Bereshit (their spelling, not mine, btw).
*nod* That's why I figured it was the right site. Well, that and your using their spelling of Tanach (which makes sense, as it turns the letters of the Hebrew into capitals, and leaves the vowels (which aren't letters in Hebrew) as lowercase; but it's not how most people spell it in English).
quote: I wouldn't mind paying money for a good commentary in easy-to-read English. Would you know of one that's particularly accurate? What I'm most looking for would be something that recorded the originally-oral history (is that the midrash?) (feel free to laugh again) as well as the commentary from what would be considered "standard sources" -- if there are such things in the Jewish tradition. Not that modern commentary wouldn't be of interest too, but I'd most interested in the historical side of things. The tradition.
Ok. The thing is, there are books that will give you some of it. I was using Artscroll's Chumash (Pentateuch), for instance. It has the Hebrew, a fairly good English translation, Onkelos and Rashi in Hebrew . . . and most useful for what I think you want, a short summary in English of some of the commentaries on each verse.
But it won't help you with everything that you are asking for, because what you are asking for does not exist. I didn't find a source that gave the Hebrew grammar -- I learned enough Hebrew grammar in my years of Jewish day schools and time in Israel to recognize the conjugation. I could also talk about what a doubled verb like that indicates (it's where the "surely" part comes from).
[Oh, and I was wrong. It's not Rashi (there isn't even a Rashi on that verse), I mistakenly assumed that a comment in the Artscroll with an unspecified source meant Rashi (it often does). Having checked my Mikraos Gedolos (no English, but about 13 different commentaries), it looks like that particular understanding of the verse is attributable to the Ramban (Nachmanides). He cites a number of other locations with similar phrasing.]
Bob, here is the thing I don't think you are understanding. You are asking for someone to distill thousands of years of learning and study into one volume -- in English, if you please. I have spent my entire life learning Chumash and Navi. I have good enough Hebrew to read most commentaries and decode about 80% of what they are saying (even the few that are available in translation are only available as entirely separate volumes, and the translations are only adequate). And I am not far beyond a beginner. If I spend a lot more of my time at it than I am currently doing, I should progress to intermediate level understanding in a couple decades. Although I think I'd need to learn Talmud for that, and I'm not (currently, at least) particularly interested.
It is much as if you walked up to my dad, a mathematical physicist whose books are completely incomprehensible to anyone not in the field (except the introductions and acknowledgements -- I understand those! ) and asked him to summarize the last 100 years of physics in one volume. Oh, and no mathematical notation, please.
It cannot be done in any way worth doing, and the request disparages the life's work of many people.
That said, the Artscroll Chumash is a good place to start.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...I wouldn't want to disparage ANYONE's life work. I figured that whatever was out there would be a starting point, not the be-all, end-all of Scriptural commentary.
It is a barrier, though, having to learn (to an exacting level) a second language in order to get a better sense of how scriptures are interpreted within the tradition that gave rise to them.
Seriously, the commentaries I've seen so far from the Christian tradition aren't all that meaningful. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong ones and I'll find one that does a better job with the historical aspects of things. I just figured there might be something like a primer on the Pentateuch or something. Not a one-volume exhaustive resource.
It seems like it may just be too much effort to attempt to understand the "old testament" from a Jewish perspective if one does not have some fluency in Hebrew (both ancient and modern?) and intend to make a life's study of it.
You yourself have expressed amusement at various interpretations of texts presented on threads here at Hatrack, but if the bar is set so high that the average person can't even access the information (and I don't mean just in a casual web search, but with a reasonable level of effort), then the situation isn't really laughable, it's tragic, IMHO.
It means, for one thing, that Scripture is inaccessible in its depths to anyone except those with advanced knowledge or a lifetime's well-directed study under their belt. While there are many things worth pursuing in that fashion, I think each person can only choose one or two in a lifetime.
Someone who is interested in becoming knowledgeable about Scripture but who starts late in life is at a distinct disadvantage. Some might say they'd be better off giving up rather than try to make up for lost decades.
Fortunately, at least for me, the study of it is interesting enough to be worth some level of serious pursuit. The problem I have, though, is that it is scattershot and some of the "resources" I might wish to be available simply aren't.
It's one of those situations of not knowing what I don't know. I always have found that to be annoying and wish to rectify it.
Since I also don't necessarily think it's a good idea to get ALL of ones information from a single source, doing Bible studies within one tradition or taking everything from one publisher is not such a great idea either.
Oh well. I was hoping there'd be something like an entre into the subject. If this further information brings some resource to mind, then I'd be happy to learn of it.
And I hope you don't think of this as disparaging of anyone's life's work. In reality, the desire to learn more about this subject is tempered by the fact that I have a full time job and lots of other responsibilities. I'm doubtful to ever be a serious student of religion, let alone of a tradition other than my own. I have some interest in it, but I doubt it's enough to see me through several courses in Hebrew at this point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I did not think you were doing so deliberately. Not at all. I was pointing merely out how it could be taken.
No one would claim to be a scholar in classics without first learning Greek and Latin, neh?
As far as this
quote: Someone who is interested in becoming knowledgeable about Scripture but who starts late in life is at a distinct disadvantage. Some might say they'd be better off giving up rather than try to make up for lost decades.
. . . well, Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest of the Sages, didn't start until he was in his forties.
quote: Once, while shepherding his flocks, he gazed into a pool, where he saw a hollowed-out rock resting under a waterfall. He wondered how the rock, one of Nature's hardest substances, had been hollowed out. When he was told that the water had, over a long period of time, made the drastic change in the rock, he reasoned as follows:
"If a rock, though extremely hard, can be hollowed out by water, how much more so should it be possible for Torah, which is compared to water, to change my heart, which is soft. I will begin to study it, and try to become a Torah scholar."
The "average person" who is interested in learning the traditional Jewish understanding of these verses is not advised to search either the Web or bookstores. He or she is advised to find classes. People of the Book we may be, but the general model for learning is NOT alone. It is with a teacher (especially for beginners); or at least a chavrusah, a learning partner.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Interesting.
Thanks.
So now I have a decision to make about when and if I could make such a serious commitment. Unfortunately, learning Hebrew is about as likely as me learning Greek or Latin. I seem capable of learning the present tense and a lot of vocabulary in any language put before me, but as soon as I try to get much beyond that (which equates to about the 1st half-semester's study in a college course) I just fall apart. I end up speaking every language like a 3 year old. <le sigh>
Also, thanks for pointing out how it "could be taken." And for being understanding.
I seem to be capable of giving offense every time I write anything here at Hatrack lately. I've been concerned that I've just lost the ability to communicate.
Not that you implied that, but more like if I'd offended YOU by asking a question, I was REALLY worried.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*shakes head sadly*
The man is sitting less than 5 feet away from a Jewish translation (into English!) of the TaNaCH, a copy of the Biblia Hebraica, and a giant textbook labeled Biblical Hebrew and he asks for online resources.
Not to mention the dozens of commentaries, by Jewish and Christian authors, on my office shelves.
Did you forget who you married, love?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: "If a rock, though extremely hard, can be hollowed out by water, how much more so should it be possible for Torah, which is compared to water, to change my heart, which is soft. I will begin to study it, and try to become a Torah scholar."
That sounds so queer in English, if you don't mind me saying *snigger*. In English it takes so many extra wors to say it... Translations are sometimes ridiculous. I agree with the phrase "tradutore traditore".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bob, I shouldn't have been posting that late at night. I tend to be even more tactless than usual. I think the issue is less that you have become more able to offend (which I don't see as true at all), but that you have started focusing more often on "ticklish" subjects. You always (as far as I've been around, anyway) did so on occasion -- it was a thread of yours that got me to register on Hatrack just so I could respond! -- but I think it has become more frequent. Don't let that scare you off; you're one of the people I consider a voice of calm reason even when I'm on the other side of the screen frothing at how WRONG you are! (No frothing this time, I promise. )
Dana, I was wondering . . . but I thought maybe your books were still in boxes. (Although as I have mentioned, I don't much care for the JPS translation (which I seem to recall is what you have).)
Jonathan, I happen to agree. It sounds better in the Hebrew . . . and in less self-conscious English. How's this one?
quote: At the age of forty, Akiva's life changed suddenly. One day, while out tending his flocks, he noticed a rock with a strange hole going straight through it. This hole was created by constantly dripping water. Akiva ben Yosef decided then and there to go and learn Torah, for if dripping water could bore a hole into solid rock, then even he, a forty year old man could learn Torah through constant effort. He had to start from scratch, for Akiva ben Yosef did not even know the aleph-bet!
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Still, it's not like the feeling of the Mishnaic language of "מה מים... כך גם...".
It's just there in me, it will always be. Nothing wrong with not having it. Just different...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Of course not. Every language has its own "feel" which cannot be captured in translation. I happen to think that's a good thing. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Test.
OK, 3rd post; I don't know what happened to the first 2.
I just wanted to make the point that there are no Biblical literalists. When we find that Christ is the Vine and we are the branches, no one checks himself for leaves or budding grapes.
We tend to use common sense to determine what's meant literally; and it usually works. If not, we can use other people's common sense.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
rivka,
bless you. I seriously needed that shot in the arm.
<checks biorythms>
Hmmm...a quart low.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Bob, for what it's worth, I think you've gone out of your way to avoid offending anyone on this topic.
The whole issue of biblical literalism... I think there's a semantic issue. I am convinced that every single word in the Pentateuch was given by God to Moses at Sinai (or during the 40 years of wandering, at any rate). Does that count as biblical literalism? It can't really, because we don't think that the Pentateuch was the main part of the Torah that was given, and we think that the actual meaning of what God told us is preserved in the parts other than the Pentateuch.
So, for example, "An eye for an eye" never meant what it appears to mean literally. Not to us. "Don't seeth a kid in its mother's milk" never meant that literally, either.
Often, when I see people saying that they don't take a biblical literalist view, what they seem to be saying is that everything can be taken as metaphorical. The Orthodox Jewish perspective is diametrically opposed to that kind of view. And yet, it's not literalist in the sense I think people are using here.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Chabad does, but they limit it to the current week's portion (and even after playing around with it a bit, I couldn't make it show anything else).
Chabad does have the full Tanach with Rashi over here. With that said, Rivka's note about the deficiencies of translations over study in the original Hebrew are definitely in force.
My favorite Jewish translation of the Five Books of Moses into English is Aryeh Kaplan's The Living Torah, which is online here. Note, however, that this is even further from the original Hebrew; his approach is to take the sense of what's written and write it in contemporary idiomatic English, rather than to go with anything approaching a word-for-word translation.
(Edited to add a case in point, the passage with which Rabbi Kaplan won my heart forever, the end of Genesis 20:9. KJV has thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. NIV has You have done things to me that should not be done. Judaica Press: Deeds that are not done, you have done to me. All reasonable translations, with the last preserving the literal Hebrew wording and syntax. Kaplan? The thing you did to me is simply not done! Love it.)
[ October 16, 2005, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Shmuel ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I thought I had seen the Chabad archive, but couldn't remember where. And I did not know The Living Torah was online. Thanks!
*bookmarks*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Bob, for what it's worth, I think you've gone out of your way to avoid offending anyone on this topic.
Thanks starLisa. I have been admiring the tone of your recent posts as well.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was pointing merely out how it could be taken.![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)