quote: quote: Orignially posted by StarLisa -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Scott R: After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, how can I refute a bald claim that has no support for it? The fact of the matter is that those names are used interchangable for God in the Torah (and the rest of the Bible), and have specific meanings.
How is this a bald claim? It seems to me as if you are arguing from a modern perspective. Because you belive the names of the Most High and Jehova are interchangable now, does not immediately mean that they have always been so, or at the very least, you have not provided sufficient support to your argument to show me why you believe it has always been the case. As far as the interchanability of god's nomenclature, Zues was never called anything else but Zues. You may believe that stories about Zues are not true, but your logic about him never being called Zues Hermes is flawed at best and still leaves questions unanswered: why would God introduce himself as one but not the other? Why would God call himself by two names in the first place. (Mind you, I have not studied the Hebrew scriptures. Jews would know better than I what questions to ask.) Also, names are said very different from place to place and time to time. Again, I have little knowledge of Jewish History, but the Scandanavians, for example determined your last name by your father's name (hence Johnson, Samuelson ect.) elsewhere by your occupation (thus Smith, Carpenter, Baker, ect.) and in other cultures, a family name came first (Japan, China and so forth) Instances of God appearing or speaking directly to his worshipers have been few and far between since the last ones recorded in Biblical texts, maybe one person every 500-1000 years reports any sort of vision with significant impact. I dunno, maybe times hae changed a little since then, God may not be "trendy" but he does tend to speak in a language that the vision-ee can understand.
As far as the Jews maybe having trouble reconciling the name of their God over those of Babylon, that makes sense to me. You have a God that you believe will protect you from nations that are wicked, and suddenly, one of those wicked nations storms in and destroys the center of the Jewish religion at that time. You can either say that you are wicked and God punishing you, or you aren't wicked and Marduk (Babylon's principle God as I recall) is superior to yours in some way. Either way, there's some reconciling to be done. There is some evidence of this sort of conflict after the destruction of the temple of Herod by the Romans. The Gospels which were written after it's destruction, show a varying degree of contempt for different aspects of Jewish society, and yet Christians obviously started as merely a cult of Judaism that seemed to get along fairly well to a separate religion that disliked and sometimes demonized the Pharisees or just Jews in general.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the first place, it's patently clear from about a thousand places in the Torah that Elokim and Hashem are two names for the same God.
It's also the theory that what currently exists as the Torah doesn't still exist as it was originally written, but many parts have been worked over by what are called Deuteronomic Editors, who emphasised the Oneness factor far more than it originally did. This is not a new 'crackpot theory', it is one that has existed for a good while, and many scholars do accept this as fact. True that others do not accept it, but smart, well-researched individuals do feel there is a basis for this.
quote: Also, you have to understand. We know what the intent is of the various names used for God. Her theorizing is like someone going up to a doctor and saying: "I think that the appendix is really supposed to extend outside of the body, because it sounds like 'appendage'".
When were the words put into writing that form the basis of how "You Know" what the "intent" was?
quote:
quote:There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations and Jehovah was the God of Israel.
There's no source for any such thing. Look, the Amazon.com listing said that she gets a lot of her stuff from the Qumran scrolls.
Reviews on Amazon usually don't document the sources of the book. Dismissing claims because an Amazon reviewer didn't go into detail is, in itself, ridiculous. Barker does use many, many sources.
quote: Those people were sectarians out in the desert and had nothing to do with the rest of the Jews.
In many cases of their own volition. Who'se to say who was more correct?
quote:I don't know if even they had such an idea, but even if they did, which I doubt, it has nothing to do with Jews in general.
Never claimed it did with Modern Jewish thought, or even 1st Century AD Majority Jewish Thought.
quote:Remember, there were Jews who went astray after Baal and Asherah as well. We know that. It just isn't representative.
Well aware of this.
quote:
quote: After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others.
Again, how can I refute a bald claim that has no support for it? The fact of the matter is that those names are used interchangable for God in the Torah (and the rest of the Bible), and have specific meanings.
Later on I'll provide some references.
As for your using the Torah as an example, it's akin to saying, "The Torah could never have been changed, because the Torah says it could never have been changed." - part of the theory contains the specific statement that the Torah has been edited.
quote:
quote:The Angel of Yahweh is seen as a second God that would eventually lead to threatening a form of monotheism that was growing more and more exclusively strict.
There's no such thing as "the Angel of Hashem". Angels are not separate beings. They are merely tools of Hashem's will.
What does the Hebrew call the being in Genesis 16:7-11? Or Genesis 22:11, 15? Exodus 3:2? Numbers 22:23, etc. I admittedly am not well versed in Hebrew, but do not these verses report of appearances of "the Angel of Yahweh?"
quote:
quote:Another brand of Judism (Enochic Judaism)in contrast tried to preserve the ancient beliefs of the Davidic Temple Cult.
So she's getting into the mad mysticism of some of the books of the pseudepigrapha. That's cool. Hey, I wrote a "biblical book" myself when I was in college. You can see it here if you like. But it's fiction.
And reading it is obvious of this fact. The time it is written, the 'point' behind it, and the realms of thought in your own mind (whether you subscribe to them or not) is also clear. Many today hold the same point of view as you described. It's not isolated to you alone, but to a broader idea of thought.
The same happens with the Pseudepigrapha. They are much, much older than your treatise of the Hersey of the followers of Jeshua. They accurately discuss thought and ideas that did exist and were believed at that time. Whether the majority believed them or not is besides the point. I don't think that you, as a Jew, are trying to say that "Majority Rules" when it comes to what one should believe is Truth.
quote:Jews never accepted those books. There's no evidence anywhere that the ideas in those books were ever a part of Jewish culture. Not even a fringe part.
Perhaps not where you've been looking.
Remember: this thread is about, "Just because I wasn't taught something, doesn't mean it wasn't there, or didn't have a different meaning than I was taught"
quote: In the first place, it's patently clear from about a thousand places in the Torah that Elokim and Hashem are two names for the same God.
It's also the theory that what currently exists as the Torah doesn't still exist as it was originally written, but many parts have been worked over by what are called Deuteronomic Editors, who emphasised the Oneness factor far more than it originally did.
I've been studying the documentary hypothesis for decades now, and it still astounds me that anyone takes it seriously.
The bottom line is that if you start from the assumption that Tanakh isn't what it purports to be, you have to find some way to account for it. The documentary hypothesis is the best they could do. Since the main premise has never been established, I don't really see the point.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: This is not a new 'crackpot theory', it is one that has existed for a good while, and many scholars do accept this as fact.
Oh, I never suggested that it was a new crackpot theory. It's a fairly old crackpot theory.
Honestly: it has no basis whatsoever. Check over in the Torah 101 thread. I talk there about the way language was used by the rabbis. How terseness and rigor of language was used to pack lots of information into few words. What reason is there to think that the rabbis came up with that out of nowhere? But the documentarists read the Bible like a child's board book, and find conflicts and contradictions where none exist.
Over on a newsgroup, we were having a discussion about the character of Balaam a couple of months ago. The documentarist types were all about how the story of Balaam is clear evidence of multiple authorship, since he's portrayed both as someone with pure faith in God and as a nasty guy who beats animals and who God gets angry at.
Any attempts to point out that the narrative is completely consistent when read in context got dismissed as "apologetics". <shrug> There's no arguing with someone who needs to deconstruct the text.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: True that others do not accept it, but smart, well-researched individuals do feel there is a basis for this.
Only because it's reached a point where opposing it gets you labeled as <gasp> religious.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Also, you have to understand. We know what the intent is of the various names used for God. Her theorizing is like someone going up to a doctor and saying: "I think that the appendix is really supposed to extend outside of the body, because it sounds like 'appendage'".
When were the words put into writing that form the basis of how "You Know" what the "intent" was?
In the case of the Torah, when God gave us the Torah and told us His intent. Again, see Torah 101.
Furthermore, we have a direct chain of transmission of all this material. And the transmitting was done by vast numbers of people, generation after generation. It's not like playing "telephone". Unless you play "telephone" with about a million people at each step, crosschecking with one another constantly, and without whispering.
It just isn't plausable.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:
quote:There were 70 Sons that ruled the 70 nations and Jehovah was the God of Israel.
There's no source for any such thing. Look, the Amazon.com listing said that she gets a lot of her stuff from the Qumran scrolls.
Reviews on Amazon usually don't document the sources of the book. Dismissing claims because an Amazon reviewer didn't go into detail is, in itself, ridiculous.
But again, there are no sources for what she's saying, with the possible exception of Qumran and pseudepigrapha. And that stuff can hardly be taken seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Barker does use many, many sources.
quote: Those people were sectarians out in the desert and had nothing to do with the rest of the Jews.
In many cases of their own volition. Who'se to say who was more correct?
Um... that'd be God. Thanks for asking.
Look, I can't prove to you that God gave the Torah on Sinai. I can, however, make a strong case for the fact that no one would ever have been able to convince several million stubborn as all get out Jews that not only was the Torah given at Sinai, but that they'd been taught as much by their parents, who'd been taught as much by their parents, and so on, and so on. There's just no way that you wouldn't have a record of the controversy.
If you don't get that, then you don't get Jews. Stiffnecked is no joke.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:I don't know if even they had such an idea, but even if they did, which I doubt, it has nothing to do with Jews in general.
Never claimed it did with Modern Jewish thought, or even 1st Century AD Majority Jewish Thought.
Nor any. There were sects. Christianity was a sect. Essenes were a sect. Today we have ones called Conservative and Reform. There are always people breaking off and away, and yet our core keeps right on going for all that.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Remember, there were Jews who went astray after Baal and Asherah as well. We know that. It just isn't representative.
Well aware of this.
quote:
quote: After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others.
Again, how can I refute a bald claim that has no support for it? The fact of the matter is that those names are used interchangable for God in the Torah (and the rest of the Bible), and have specific meanings.
Later on I'll provide some references.
As for your using the Torah as an example, it's akin to saying, "The Torah could never have been changed, because the Torah says it could never have been changed." - part of the theory contains the specific statement that the Torah has been edited.
That, in and of itself, is pure invention. No one has ever found so much as a fragment of these mythical sources the Torah was supposedly patched together out of. Why is accepting a document that we have in front of us considered more an act of faith than believing in postulated documents that there is no record of anywhere?
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:
quote:The Angel of Yahweh is seen as a second God that would eventually lead to threatening a form of monotheism that was growing more and more exclusively strict.
There's no such thing as "the Angel of Hashem". Angels are not separate beings. They are merely tools of Hashem's will.
What does the Hebrew call the being in Genesis 16:7-11? Or Genesis 22:11, 15? Exodus 3:2? Numbers 22:23, etc. I admittedly am not well versed in Hebrew, but do not these verses report of appearances of "the Angel of Yahweh?"
Mal'ach means messenger. As, if I'm not mistaken, does the word "angel" in its original form.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:
quote:Another brand of Judism (Enochic Judaism)in contrast tried to preserve the ancient beliefs of the Davidic Temple Cult.
So she's getting into the mad mysticism of some of the books of the pseudepigrapha. That's cool. Hey, I wrote a "biblical book" myself when I was in college. You can see it here if you like. But it's fiction.
And reading it is obvious of this fact. The time it is written, the 'point' behind it, and the realms of thought in your own mind (whether you subscribe to them or not) is also clear. Many today hold the same point of view as you described. It's not isolated to you alone, but to a broader idea of thought.
The same happens with the Pseudepigrapha. They are much, much older than your treatise of the Hersey of the followers of Jeshua. They accurately discuss thought and ideas that did exist and were believed at that time.
Not mainstream. First of all, there's no evidence that we have any copies of most of the pseudepigrapha that weren't doctored by the early Christians, who were pretty mystic-minded. And apocalyptic.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Whether the majority believed them or not is besides the point. I don't think that you, as a Jew, are trying to say that "Majority Rules" when it comes to what one should believe is Truth.
Never. But look, our tradition is all of a piece. You can claim that it's all made up, but I defy you to come up with any reasonable way in which our entire people could have been conned into it. It is not plausable.
And you can't claim that some of it is an invention and not all of it, because it's all integrated together.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Jews never accepted those books. There's no evidence anywhere that the ideas in those books were ever a part of Jewish culture. Not even a fringe part.
Perhaps not where you've been looking.
Remember: this thread is about, "Just because I wasn't taught something, doesn't mean it wasn't there, or didn't have a different meaning than I was taught"
There might have been ancient astronauts, too. I just don't consider that a reasonable claim.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: After Jerusalem fell in 600 BC, the Jews had problems reconciling their God of Israel as being superior to the other Gods while being held captive in Babylon. Over the centuries, one brand of Judaism had confusion between the Most High and Jehovah and eventually Jehovah was elevated to the position of the Most High in their minds and superior to all others.
Again, how can I refute a bald claim that has no support for it? The fact of the matter is that those names are used interchangable for God in the Torah (and the rest of the Bible), and have specific meanings.
How is this a bald claim? It seems to me as if you are arguing from a modern perspective.
A very ancient one, actually. A tradition that spans the millenia between right now, as I'm typing this, and the day the Israelites stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and heard the voice of God.
Man, if I had to count all of the weird theories that had been offered up over these centuries to find a way -- any way -- to eliminate the possibility of an actual divine revelation... well, it'd take a lot longer than I have here.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Because you belive the names of the Most High and Jehova are interchangable now, does not immediately mean that they have always been so, or at the very least, you have not provided sufficient support to your argument to show me why you believe it has always been the case.
The name she's translating as "Most High" is used in all of Tanakh maybe half a dozen times. The name Elokim is far more common, and she cheats by equating them.
Leave that aside. Words in Hebrew mean things. They aren't just noises. Elokim has a meaning, as does Hashem. And it is from their meanings and from the tradition originally given to us by the bearer of those appelations that we know this.
Anyone can sit around and come up with a story about where the Bible came from. It's cute. It's imaginative. But it doesn't mean anything.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: As far as the interchanability of god's nomenclature, Zues was never called anything else but Zues.
You're not making sense. According to this book, "Jehova" was never called anything else but that, either. The parallel is exact.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: You may believe that stories about Zues are not true, but your logic about him never being called Zues Hermes is flawed at best and still leaves questions unanswered: why would God introduce himself as one but not the other?
The name you render incorrectly as "Jehova" denotes Hashem's eternal nature. It derives from the Hebrew word for "to be", and is a combination of past, present and future tenses. That name means that Hashem is omnipresent and unconstrained by time.
The name Elokim derives from the Hebrew word meaning "potential". It relates to nature, and denotes Hashem's immediate and inextricable connection to the world. The source of nature. The fact that Hashem did not merely create the world way back when, but is continually holding everything in existence by an act of will, making creation a continuous and continual process.
Additionally, the J name tends to express a quality of mercy and compassion relative to the E name, which tends to express a quality of justice and causality.
Look, even the Torah 101 thread is just a little thing. You want a solid Jewish education while I stand on one leg? These aren't kindergarten concepts. They are part of a field of knowledge which builds on itself, just like any other. What you're asking is a little like someone who hasn't had high school physics asking for an in depth explanation of special relativity. I apologize if that sounds arrogant, but really and truly, these concepts are cumulative. All I can do on this level, and in English (which is a bad language for it, really) is to approximate things.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Why would God call himself by two names in the first place. (Mind you, I have not studied the Hebrew scriptures. Jews would know better than I what questions to ask.)
We'd know better the answers to give, also.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Also, names are said very different from place to place and time to time. Again, I have little knowledge of Jewish History, but the Scandanavians, for example determined your last name by your father's name (hence Johnson, Samuelson ect.) elsewhere by your occupation (thus Smith, Carpenter, Baker, ect.) and in other cultures, a family name came first (Japan, China and so forth) Instances of God appearing or speaking directly to his worshipers have been few and far between since the last ones recorded in Biblical texts, maybe one person every 500-1000 years reports any sort of vision with significant impact. I dunno, maybe times hae changed a little since then, God may not be "trendy" but he does tend to speak in a language that the vision-ee can understand.
True, but He booby-trapped the system. He told us that if any prophet comes and attributes anything to God that isn't in the Torah, we have to kill him. And that it was just a test.
That's a pretty final way to seal up a system, wouldn't you say? God Himself can't change the Torah. Which makes sense, actually, since when you're talking about God being unconstrained by time, change isn't an applicable concept. If God wanted, in 2005, to do things differently, He'd already have done so. It's all essentially simultaneous to Him.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: As far as the Jews maybe having trouble reconciling the name of their God over those of Babylon, that makes sense to me. You have a God that you believe will protect you from nations that are wicked, and suddenly, one of those wicked nations storms in and destroys the center of the Jewish religion at that time. You can either say that you are wicked and God punishing you,
But everyone knows that we did that. That we were screw-ups, and that we earned the destruction. And it wasn't as though it came as a shock. We'd been warned enough. At the time of Moses, at the time of Solomon, at the time of Hezekiah... it was bought and paid for. The Tanakh even refers to Nebuchadnezzar as God's servant, due to his carrying out our punishment.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: or you aren't wicked and Marduk (Babylon's principle God as I recall) is superior to yours in some way. Either way, there's some reconciling to be done.
Have you read Jeremiah? There's no reconciling to be done, when we were warned, told before during and after what was going to happen, what was happening, and what happened.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: There is some evidence of this sort of conflict after the destruction of the temple of Herod by the Romans. The Gospels which were written after it's destruction, show a varying degree of contempt for different aspects of Jewish society, and yet Christians obviously started as merely a cult of Judaism that seemed to get along fairly well to a separate religion that disliked and sometimes demonized the Pharisees or just Jews in general.
There's a lot of debate about what led to the final split. My view, and I realize that I can't prove it, is that there were two things that led to it, and both of them were the choice of the Christians.
At the time of the Bar Kochva revolt against Rome, Rabbi Akiva, the single most eminent Sage alive, publically announced that Bar Kochva was the messiah. Now understand that every generation has someone who can be the messiah. Bar Kochva seemed to fit the bill. More than JC, in any event. But in the end, he wasn't.
Still, I think the early Christians were able to live with the fact that we hadn't accepted JC's messiahship, because it could be viewed as a "not yet" kind of thing. But when the greatest Sage of the generation announced that someone else was the messiah... well, that had to have rankled.
And after the revolt, the Romans came down on us like a ton of bricks. Being able to claim that they weren't really the same as us probably saved a lot of Christian bacon. So to speak.
During WWII, Karaites told the Germans they weren't really Jewish in order to evade the anti-Jewish persecutions of the Nazis. The Samaritans have done the same with the Arabs.
So it's not as though I'm accusing the early Christians of some kind of perfidy. It was human nature. But I think that was when the true break finally came.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
No, you specifically didn't preach to me. I was talking generally to people like that kid. I'm sorry if my phrasing wasn't clear... :S
quote: There's no such thing as "the Angel of Hashem". Angels are not separate beings. They are merely tools of Hashem's will.
Just like Satan. God uses him, and Satan is a tool; that's almost entirely different from the meaning that's used in Catholicism (to the best of my knowledge).
Mal'ach does mean messenger, to the best of MY knowledge, but is a different entity from God, yet obeying His rules. Otherwise, why would both God and His messengers be revealed?
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Furthermore, we have a direct chain of transmission of all this material. And the transmitting was done by vast numbers of people, generation after generation. It's not like playing "telephone". Unless you play "telephone" with about a million people at each step, crosschecking with one another constantly, and without whispering.
It just isn't plausable.
That's exactly what the Catholics claim, too
quote: Look, I can't prove to you that God gave the Torah on Sinai. I can, however, make a strong case for the fact that no one would ever have been able to convince several million stubborn as all get out Jews that not only was the Torah given at Sinai, but that they'd been taught as much by their parents, who'd been taught as much by their parents, and so on, and so on. There's just no way that you wouldn't have a record of the controversy.
If you don't get that, then you don't get Jews. Stiffnecked is no joke.
I never claimed that they didn't believe it wasn't given on Sinai, nor did I state that I didn't believe something similar.
What I AM stating is that I believe that what we currently have as the Torah is not 100% exactly what it was when it originally came from the pen of Moses.
the books of Kings and Chronicles both have accounts of Josiah's reform, in which the book of the Law (whether the Torah entire, or just Deuteronomy) was suddenly discovered, and Josiah was shocked as to what it contained.
He didn't know. His People didn't know.
Any further mass tradition would have been reinstated by at least this late point.
If Josiah's priests ahad taught the tradition to those who were forced to follow it (much akin to the Christian parallel of Constantine's Roman/Christian 'Reform'), and Josiah had ordered killed those who refused to go along with it and followed other traditions, than would not that be at least a plausible place for a point of departure for an alleged 'original truth'?
I'm not asking for you to say you believe this to be what happened. I'm asking you to aknowledge that there are, and have been, in the history of the Jewish people places where such departures and re-learning of the stories could have occured.
Once again - not asking you to say that they did occur. Just asking for you to recognize that, based on what has been recorded, this could have even a smidgen of probabilitiy.
quote:Never. But look, our tradition is all of a piece. You can claim that it's all made up, but I defy you to come up with any reasonable way in which our entire people could have been conned into it. It is not plausable.
I don't think your entire tradition is all made up. To the contrary. However, I do believe, firmly, that there are reasonable ways in which changes, and re-direction of the traditions could have occured - with not a few of them presented in the Tanakh itself!
quote:And you can't claim that some of it is an invention and not all of it, because it's all integrated together.
quote: Furthermore, we have a direct chain of transmission of all this material. And the transmitting was done by vast numbers of people, generation after generation. It's not like playing "telephone". Unless you play "telephone" with about a million people at each step, crosschecking with one another constantly, and without whispering.
It just isn't plausable.
That's exactly what the Catholics claim, too
Oh, man. I promised myself that I would not argue against the validity of Christianity on this forum. And I'm going to stick with that. I will say, though, that it's pretty significant that the essential revelation in Judaism took place in front of about 3 million people, while that of Christianity took place in front of about a dozen. Islam, of course, was just one guy in a cave.
So yeah, I don't think your analogy, or what seems to have been an analogy, to Catholicism makes a lot of sense.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:There's just no way that you wouldn't have a record of the controversy.
If you don't get that, then you don't get Jews. Stiffnecked is no joke.
I never claimed that they didn't believe it wasn't given on Sinai, nor did I state that I didn't believe something similar.
What I AM stating is that I believe that what we currently have as the Torah is not 100% exactly what it was when it originally came from the pen of Moses.
And that dog just won't hunt. Wow, I've always wanted to use that expression. <grin>
It just won't fly, Taalcon. God as an incompetant? I mean, the Torah is replete with references to "this Torah" and "these laws" and "these words" and so on. If God was telling us that those very words were given by Him and that's not the case, then God is either a liar or a bumbler.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: the books of Kings and Chronicles both have accounts of Josiah's reform, in which the book of the Law (whether the Torah entire, or just Deuteronomy) was suddenly discovered, and Josiah was shocked as to what it contained.
Consider the 57 years prior to his accession. And the 18 up until the reform. What was going on in the US 75 years ago? It wsas 1930. The Great Depression had just begun.
Now picture that without mass media. And it wasn't necessarily a matter of being shocked at what the Torah said. Certainly the Torah hadn't been widely read during those 75 years, but if you come across the original copy, in Moses's own hand, and it just happens to be open to the passage threatening us with vile punishments should we mess up, and you realize that we've messed up badly for the last 75 years... that's going to freak anyone out.
There's no reasonable argument for that having been the first time those words had been seen. Some people just have a need to see new stuff in the time of Josiah, because Josiah was mentioned by name almost 400 years earlier, at the time of Jeroboam son of Nebat.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: He didn't know. His People didn't know.
Any further mass tradition would have been reinstated by at least this late point.
Again, there's no basis for assuming that the tradition needed reinstatement.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: If Josiah's priests ahad taught the tradition to those who were forced to follow it (much akin to the Christian parallel of Constantine's Roman/Christian 'Reform'), and Josiah had ordered killed those who refused to go along with it and followed other traditions, than would not that be at least a plausible place for a point of departure for an alleged 'original truth'?
And if short blue guys from the planet Oa had come down and offered him a green power ring and a lantern to charge it, that could have had a major effect as well.
But it's just a story. What evidence is there for it? I can tell stories, too.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: I'm not asking for you to say you believe this to be what happened. I'm asking you to aknowledge that there are, and have been, in the history of the Jewish people places where such departures and re-learning of the stories could have occured.
And I'm disagreeing.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Once again - not asking you to say that they did occur. Just asking for you to recognize that, based on what has been recorded, this could have even a smidgen of probabilitiy.
I don't think so. Think about it. If the tradition is that unreliable, how could you trust any of it. When I said that it's all integrated together, this is part of what I meant.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:Never. But look, our tradition is all of a piece. You can claim that it's all made up, but I defy you to come up with any reasonable way in which our entire people could have been conned into it. It is not plausable.
I don't think your entire tradition is all made up. To the contrary. However, I do believe, firmly, that there are reasonable ways in which changes, and re-direction of the traditions could have occured - with not a few of them presented in the Tanakh itself!
Care to name one?
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:And you can't claim that some of it is an invention and not all of it, because it's all integrated together.
quote: It just won't fly, Taalcon. God as an incompetant? I mean, the Torah is replete with references to "this Torah" and "these laws" and "these words" and so on. If God was telling us that those very words were given by Him and that's not the case, then God is either a liar or a bumbler.
OR, When God told us in the Torah that the words were given by him he was TELLING THE TRUTH, and men later CHANGED what was contained in the Torah.
Those words claiming Divine Authorship would NOT be applicable to what was added and changed AFTER the editing of the PURE original.
If I write a book and say, in the text, "I, Taalcon, wrote all the words of this book", and then you later took a copy of the manuscript, inserted a few of your own paragraphs within it and published it, could you then still argue that, because the book contained the statement that, "I, Taalcon, wrote all the words of this book", that the words which you knew for a fact you wrote were actually written by me? Afterall, the book has me saying that I wrote all the words of it...
quote:If the tradition is that unreliable, how could you trust any of it. When I said that it's all integrated together, this is part of what I meant.
Well, I do have a belief in modern and living prophets who do and have received revelation and direction from God concerning what is True *grin*
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: A very ancient one, actually. A tradition that spans the millenia between right now, as I'm typing this, and the day the Israelites stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and heard the voice of God.
Man, if I had to count all of the weird theories that had been offered up over these centuries to find a way -- any way -- to eliminate the possibility of an actual divine revelation... well, it'd take a lot longer than I have here
You're missing my point. Judaism may be a very ancient perspective, but there is no way in hell that your perspective of it, from today's standpoint is the same as, say Moses' contemporaries. You have faith in what you are saying, that much is clear, but it is your faith now not then, and doesn't belong to anyone else.
Considering your second point, you seem to assume I don't believe in divine revelation, I was raised Mormon, and though I may not consider myself one anymore, I still believe in it (even though it isn't quite the same as your beliefs concerning it.)
quote: You're not making sense. According to this book, "Jehova" was never called anything else but that, either. The parallel is exact
I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me that you were saying that the words Elokim (spelling?) and Yaweh were both names for the same God. If that is true, then how can you say he is never called anything else?
However I may be mistaken.
quote: eave that aside. Words in Hebrew mean things. They aren't just noises. Elokim has a meaning, as does Hashem. And it is from their meanings and from the tradition originally given to us by the bearer of those appelations that we know this
Ummm...considering that my first name is Samuel, and that I study about five languages actively you'd do well not to remind me that words actually mean something and aren't "just noises." I may not be well versed in Hebrew, but please don't adress me as if I'm completely stupid.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yikes JH... they actually teach little kids that stuff?? Talk about spin! Someone said that a half-truth is the worst kind of lie.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The resurrected Christ was seen by more than twelve people.
1 Corinthians 15:6: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
And if you're going by Mormon scripture, add another 2200-5000 to that number.
Just saying. Seems like we could ALL use a religious education. . .
At any rate, arguing numbers of witnesses to a particular religion's Apocalypse (in the original sense of the word) is inane. Truth is not dependent on observation-- alone, unobserved, and undiscovered, it is still Truth.
And in every case, from the Jews, to the Christians, after the epiphany comes the rejection of the teachings. All of the Judeo-Christian religions have their golden calfs, I believe. It may be the one thing our histories have in common.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It just won't fly, Taalcon. God as an incompetant? I mean, the Torah is replete with references to "this Torah" and "these laws" and "these words" and so on. If God was telling us that those very words were given by Him and that's not the case, then God is either a liar or a bumbler.
OR, When God told us in the Torah that the words were given by him he was TELLING THE TRUTH, and men later CHANGED what was contained in the Torah.
Those words claiming Divine Authorship would NOT be applicable to what was added and changed AFTER the editing of the PURE original.
If I write a book and say, in the text, "I, Taalcon, wrote all the words of this book", and then you later took a copy of the manuscript, inserted a few of your own paragraphs within it and published it, could you then still argue that, because the book contained the statement that, "I, Taalcon, wrote all the words of this book", that the words which you knew for a fact you wrote were actually written by me? Afterall, the book has me saying that I wrote all the words of it...
No, Taalcon. Think it through. You're just a person. To an omnipotent and omnicient God, giving the Torah and knowing full well that it's going to be changed to be something else and still telling us that it's His words and not setting things up to prevent that from happening... it's still lying.
Like I said, our God is brighter than that. And He did set it up so that couldn't happen.
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon:
quote:If the tradition is that unreliable, how could you trust any of it. When I said that it's all integrated together, this is part of what I meant.
Well, I do have a belief in modern and living prophets who do and have received revelation and direction from God concerning what is True *grin*
<grin> I didn't realize. It's hard keeping track of who is what religion around here. In that case, you don't consider God to be unconstrained by time, either, right?
So we're talking about entirely different conception of deity. I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere, are you?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: My turn for a long post
quote: A very ancient one, actually. A tradition that spans the millenia between right now, as I'm typing this, and the day the Israelites stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and heard the voice of God.
Man, if I had to count all of the weird theories that had been offered up over these centuries to find a way -- any way -- to eliminate the possibility of an actual divine revelation... well, it'd take a lot longer than I have here
You're missing my point. Judaism may be a very ancient perspective, but there is no way in hell that your perspective of it, from today's standpoint is the same as, say Moses' contemporaries. You have faith in what you are saying, that much is clear, but it is your faith now not then, and doesn't belong to anyone else.
Maybe no way in hell, but then, we don't believe in hell.
Honestly, I get that it doesn't fit your view of things, but our perspective of it, from today's standpoint, is indeed the same as Moses's contemporaries.
Epictetus, the Jews exist for one reason, and one reason only. And that's the Torah. That's the whole shebang that God gave us at Sinai. It's not just a religion like most others. It's a national obsession. It's the work of our lives, and has been for over 33 centuries, since we stood at Sinai.
God promised us that we'd never lose it. Isaiah 59:21. That's got to mean something.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: Considering your second point, you seem to assume I don't believe in divine revelation, I was raised Mormon, and though I may not consider myself one anymore, I still believe in it (even though it isn't quite the same as your beliefs concerning it.)
I don't think I expressed an opinion about your believe or not in revelation. If I did, I take it back.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote: You're not making sense. According to this book, "Jehova" was never called anything else but that, either. The parallel is exact
I didn't get that impression. It seemed to me that you were saying that the words Elokim (spelling?) and Yaweh were both names for the same God.
I am. She's not.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: If that is true, then how can you say he is never called anything else?
However I may be mistaken.
<nod> I'm saying that. She's not. And it's her ideas that I'm arguing against.
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus:
quote: eave that aside. Words in Hebrew mean things. They aren't just noises. Elokim has a meaning, as does Hashem. And it is from their meanings and from the tradition originally given to us by the bearer of those appelations that we know this
Ummm...considering that my first name is Samuel, and that I study about five languages actively you'd do well not to remind me that words actually mean something and aren't "just noises." I may not be well versed in Hebrew, but please don't adress me as if I'm completely stupid.
Sorry... I didn't intend that. In English, most names are just bibble-babble to the people who use them, even though they may know, intellectually, that they have original meanings.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that you get much more bibble-babble than, when someone asks your name, you say, "I am who I am."
EDIT: Because sometimes, I go too far.
I wonder what God calls us? The name my parents gave me fits okay, but I feel that deeper than that there's a name like an itch. And perhaps God is the one to reveal this name to me. . . the name that will reveal everything about who I am, and in being able to speak that name, I'll know who He is.
Just a thought.
[ September 21, 2005, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: To an omnipotent and omnicient God, giving the Torah and knowing full well that it's going to be changed to be something else and still telling us that it's His words and not setting things up to prevent that from happening... it's still lying.
Of course, it's also possible that the parts of the Torah which imply "this is the unaltered word of God" were in fact parts added by man, and God Himself -- although He may have given the rest of the Torah -- said no such thing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: To an omnipotent and omnicient God, giving the Torah and knowing full well that it's going to be changed to be something else and still telling us that it's His words and not setting things up to prevent that from happening... it's still lying.
Of course, it's also possible that the parts of the Torah which imply "this is the unaltered word of God" were in fact parts added by man, and God Himself -- although He may have given the rest of the Torah -- said no such thing.
Then what evidence could there possibly be for His having given any of it?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't know that you get much more bibble-babble than, when someone asks your name, you say, "I am who I am."
EDIT: Because sometimes, I go too far.
Darn. I like reading things that go to far. Can you give me a hint?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I wonder what God calls us? The name my parents gave me fits okay, but I feel that deeper than that there's a name like an itch. And perhaps God is the one to reveal this name to me. . . the name that will reveal everything about who I am, and in being able to speak that name, I'll know who He is.
Just a thought.
Interesting. Choosing ones own name can be very empowering. Some cultures do that. Sometimes I think it's a shame that ours doesn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Choosing ones own name can be very empowering.
Ultimately, humans CANNOT choose the name that identifies them. Because we're self-deceptive and imperfect, see? My true name is the thing that shows me who I am utterly-- there's no room for lies in my true name. That's why it takes God, a perfect being, to reveal it.
posted
I just exhausted, strained and probably damaged permanently half of my body. Neck, shoulders, waist, back, thighs, ankles and more are all either contracted, strained, exphausted, expired, broken or torn.
So I'll talk to you later, as I just toiled for about 5 hours straight.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Monday I was practising my bowling (cricket, not the game with the "pins" you've got to knock down, in other words overarm bowling), and my muscle started to hurt (that is, my right hand - I'm left handed, meaning a left-handed batsman, but I throw and bowl better right-handed). So I let it rest, had a warm shower, and rested early.
The following morning (yesterday) it ached, but I reckoned that as long as I keep it moving slowly but not strained, my slightly contracted muscles would loosen-up and I'd be back to normal.
What I didn't know was that we were to run 2,000 metres that day in sports lesson. And I am no long-runner, just a sprinter. Give me up to 200 metres and I flash it, otherwise forgt it. So I ran 2,000, and had to use my arms (one thing I can do well is control hand-movement while running) more extensively than usual, to make the surprising 2,000 test we had (didn't even have time for a drink before it, still over 30 degrees outside).
Then there was our little act (just this week) of helping poor families by supplying them with three heavy boxes of food for the holidays; thank goodness they didn't need to be delivered!
But the problem is that you still have to move the boxes around and carry them to the cars, taxis, vans et cetera. So I didn't whinge, and I carried it all around. I got home at 17:30 after 90 minutes of hard toil, and played that evening (still yesterday) some sports in a Anglosaxon-mini-youth-club I went to. I came back home at 21:30 with pretty bad muscles; so I had a shower and went to bed early once more.
I woke up this morning almost unable to use my right arm. We had sports today, and had athletics (jumping, but whatever you call it in English that you try to get as far as possible) for around 60 minutes. I played Frisbee for awhile, and then had another three hours of the boxes' deal (16:00-19:00).
I now have my right arm falling apart, pains in my left shoulder (that spread to my neck), half my back, what feels like a broken waist, and a painful ankle.
"Lie down", said my mother. It only made the whole deal worse, of course. Tomorrow another three hours of boxes' dealing. Lovely, no?
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I hate that biological feature of us, humans. That acid ("humtza piruvit" in Hebrew, I think) builds up, but we can't be Facultative (sp?) Unaerobic creatures. At our place we have a tiny bathtub, basically for sitting in. But thanks for the advice, I take it.
Haemoglobin ain't my second name. See you in a little while.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stupid parents. You tell them you're going in to hve a bath, and they, ALL OF A ^@#*&%@#$% SUDDEN, decide that they're going in first. Those knaving, little, "weasly" off-pissers, though, say they are having a five-minute shower and lock up the wretched place for HALF A ^!#$%!@#&% HOUR!
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, "Dad"; thanks, "Mum". Now it's too late to have a friggin' bath because I've got to wake up tomorrow and spend almost TWELVE DAMN HOURS at school, with half my body crushed and working for three hours in the hot sun.
Paperwork, marking the register? Ha! As if I'd ever get that. It's going to be bone-shattering once more. THANK A DAMN MILLION.
When you've had an operation or are feeling remotely tired, I go out at the peak of the damn Israeli sun's heat, 40 degrees Celsius, and I spend half an hour in the wreched queue in the shop behing people who're discussing for ten minutes which type of cigarettes they should buy. But when I'm struggling to move from my bed to the bathroom, not to mention working at school, you go on making your sarcastic comments about how I'm a poor little bugger who can't even move.
Yes, "THANK" you, "Dad", ONE ****ING MILLION times for being such a lousy piece of a damn, useless parent. But when I'm in perpetual agony, you still don't pay one damn coin to an orthopedist. You still would'nt pay for a professional massage, claiming that I "won't die from the unpleasantness".
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Yeah. I hate that biological feature of us, humans. That acid ("humtza piruvit" in Hebrew, I think) builds up, but we can't be Facultative (sp?) Unaerobic creatures.
Do you know how much food we'd have to consume if we were facultative anaerobes?! Not to mention the fact that our bodies wouldn't deal too well with the alcohol it would produce.
Hmm. We could eat huge amounts of food, and we'd be perpetually buzzed. I know some people who would think this was a good plan . . . Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Respire, right, but it's also breathng that's only conducted unaerobically when there's no oxygen.
We don't have to be prokaryotic (bacteris) to be facultative unaerobics. We can also be, say, yeast...
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still alive, and I dropped community service for today. We were asked to do one day for the week, I did two, and my back hurts as bad as it did yesterday.
I s'pose it justifies?
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back on topic, and because it's been discussed, I have been reading through Barker's book, and found it interesting, after Lisa asked were the evidence was, that, beginning with Chapter 2, the titles of the chapters of The Great Angel discuss where the evidence comes from. Each chapter is a discussion of the evidence pulled from those very generic categories.Here are the chapter titles:
Chapter Two: The Evidence of the Exile Chapter Three: The Evidence of the Old Testament Chapter Four: The Evidence of Wisdom Chapter Five: The Evidence of the Angels Chapter Six: The Evidence of the Name Chapter Seven: The Evidence of Philo Chapter Eight: The Evidence of the Jewish Writers Chapter Nine: The Evidence of the Gnostics Chapter Ten: The Evidence of the First Christians Chapter Eleven: The Evidence of the New Testament
--
Also, I don't disagree that the term translated as 'angel' means messenger - but in quite a few places, this actually adds to the confusion.
An example would be the being who spoke to Gideon. He is identified as an angel of YAHWEH, and then later, as he is speaking, it changes and says that it is YAHWEH who was doing the speaking.
Judges 6:12-16
12 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.
13 And Gideon said unto him, Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt? but now the LORD hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites.
14 And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?
15 And he said unto him, Oh my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.
16 And the LORD said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man.
Such cases present questions to which there are several possible answers:
a) It was only a messenger speaking the Words of Yahweh b) It was Yahweh alone, with 'angel of Yahweh' being a title c) There were two beings present - the messenger of Yahweh, and Yahweh Himself d) etc, etc.
What Barker does is try to strip away present preconcieved Traditional Interpretations, and try to discover, from cross referencing and exhaustive textual study, what the words actually say, and what they were originally thought to mean apart from how we may view them today.
It's actually quite fascinating, and worth a read and some ponderance before being completely shrugged off completely. While I don't agree with all of Barker's conclusions, a great deal of those made - with the presentation of the texts - are very, very convincing.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rashi and Ralbag have an argument about this. I will quote in Hebrew and try to explain, but I cannot guaranee translation.
Rashi says about "And Yahweh faced him" ("looked upon him"? Pathetic translation) "הקב״ה בעצמו" (The Holy One, be He bleseed (that means "God") Himself). Ralbag says the following:
quote: ויפן אליו ה׳. הוא מלאך ה׳ שזכר והוא ע״ד ויאמר ה׳ לה שאמרו רבותינו שכבר היה זה על ידי שם. והנה אמר דבריו כאילו השם ידבר כי הנביא ידבר בשם שולחו׃
Metzudat David states "ה׳. ר״ל מלאך ה׳׃". Da'at Mikra is the most ambiguous, stating "[ויפן אליו] ה׳ – מלאך ה׳, שלוחו, כביכול, כמותו, וכיוצא בו׃ וירא אליו ה׳ (וכיצד נראה אליו?) ירא והנה שלשה אנשים (מלאכים שלוחי ה׳) נצבים עליו (בר׳ יח א–ב) ועוד הרבה".
I have no energy to translate or explain, I'm doing another five thoudand things right now. If someone else is willing to compare - have fun. All those are commentaries - by the best - on the first phrase of Verse 14.
Let's just say that some of the opinions state that "Yahweh" means Yahweh (practically) through His angel. Some say that it was God who sudden;ly took over and henceforth it was between Gideon and God. Note that this happens RIGHT AFTER Gideon questions God's power.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's actually very simple. Jewish Law has a concept that a person's shaliach (a messenger acting on their behalf -- note the similarity to malach, angel) is considered as if it were them in person.
We do this in non-Jewish-Law contexts as well. If someone mails you a gift, would you not possibly tell someone, "Look what my friend gave me!"? And yet, they did not give it to you -- the mailperson did. But s/he did so as an agent of your friend, so you see them as an extension of your friend.
Thus, an angel of God may be described literally as an angel, or figuratively as He whom he is representing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that the phrase "And Yahweh faced him," if indeed that's how it's meant to be read, is pretty darn silly if it refers to the messenger.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I stand by my assertion that it is using figurative language, and referring to the messenger as if he were the One represented.
Think proxy wedding.
And that's a perfectly valid interpretation.
What I was pointing out was that, to Lisa, she seems to be saying that apart from her own Tradition's interpretation of what Torah says and originally meant, everything else is silly and not even worth thinking about.
My point is that, in a discussion of which interpretation may have been intended, that there certainly remains room for plausibility of other interpretations of Torah (and Torah origins) without them having to be 'crackpot', and considered to be Completely Refutable by All Good Thinking People Who Have Done Any Bit Of Research At All.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mm. I understood what you said. I happen to agree with Lisa on this one, though.
And I wonder if you might agree that your approach to this issue is colored by the fact that your religion considers as a pretty basic tenet the notion that the scriptures of other faiths are corrupted.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I consider the Hebrew Scriptures part of the scriptures of our Faith as well. In fact, from experience, I'd say the LDS Church teaches from, suggests we study, and quotes the Hebrew Scriptures far more than many other Christian churches I've attended. I love the Hebrew Scriptures very much. I'm reading through Jeremiah again now, and continue to find it absolutely heartbreaking. It's powerful.
I grew up being taught and believing in Biblical Inerrency, and that what we have today is Unaltered and Pure.
Before I had joined the LDS Church, my research - and reading of the scriptures - had caused (and allowed) me to question that particular tenet without harming my belief and faith in God one bit.
I'm not new to questioning previously conceived ideas concerning scriptural interpretation - even ones held and firmly believed by me. In many cases, my conclusions have made my Faith stronger, in fact answering a lot more questions and making things 'click' more than they had before.
The fact that humans could have changed and revised scriptures, and the fact that we may not have them all in their purest form today, or completely know what they fully intened originally, does not, for a moment, make me think any less of God, or of his power and ability.
But does the fact that some of the claims and evidence being put forth by this author (who apart from her scholarship is also a Methodist Minister in England, who, when writing the volumes in question, had extremely limited knowledge - if anything substantial at all - concerning LDS doctrine) jive so well with some very specific tenets that my particular faith is in a minority of holding (and is often ridiculed for having) make me more eager to learn about what is being said, and indeed color my approach?
Absolutely. Just as much as the fact that anything less than Pure Transmission of the Torah and its significance and meaning being considered anathema to your particular religion would color your (and Lisa's) approach.
posted
Jonathan, Your original post made me angry, then sad, but always sympathetic. I'm an Orthodox Jew and had a similar education growing up. I stayed with Orthodox Day schools through the end of high school and then spent a year in Israel in yeshiva. Currently, I attend a 'secular' college. Thank G-d, though, that I was fortunate to have found teachers and Rabbeim that humored me at the worst and dealt seriously with my concerns at best.
I still have siblings going through the Orthodox Day school system. Unfortunately, it has not been as honest with them as it was with me. I am often frustrated to find that they are being taught to not think critically about the interpretations that their teachers give of the Torah. For example, a teacher presented one of my sisters with only a Rashi to understand a verse. My sister related this to me and offered an alternate explanation. She replied that I had to be wrong with that because Rashi says this, and who am I to argue with Rashi (a medieval commentator). I then let her know that my explanation was originally proposed by Ramban.
There are two related problems I have with the Jewish Orthodox Day school education, at least where I grew up. First, at about 5th grade they start teaching the boys Gemara and deemphasize (read: stop teaching) Hebrew language. I entered 9th grade knowing Aramaic better than Hebrew. The girls were not better off. They knew Hebrew, but were not taught the skills neccessary for analyzing holy texts.
The second problem is quite appropriate for an OSC forum. Elementary school teachers, at least those teaching me Torah, seemed to think that teaching more than just a single sanitized story would confuse the student's and drive us away from G-d. We all know that children, even in 5th grade, are smarter than that. If we were taught from an earlier age that questioning and struggling with the Torah and Halacha (Torah laws) is ok, that novel understandings of the Torah are encouraged just so long as they don't affect Halacha, and that it is perfectly acceptable to argue with your teacher (respectfully, of course) then our devotion to G-d would be stronger. The teaching methods currently employed instill only a superficial connection to the Lord; a connection founded on obedience and memories of nice stories. If questions and debate were encouraged, I have full confidence that the excitement of discovering the Torah for oneself will promote a deeper more personal connection to Hashem and Halachah.
Unfortunately, I have found that some teachers genuinely believe the superficial, unquestioning Judaism that they impart to students. It is a sorry state we are in when the teachers are as ill-informed as the students. I pray that this is not the case in all Orthodox Day schools, and apologize if my comments generalize the problem inappropriately.
While in Yeshiva in Israel, I commented to my Rabbi during a Tanach shiur (Bible class) that the Akeidah (Sacrificing of Isaac) makes a lot more sense if we understand Abraham to have failed the test. My Rebbe took off his glasses, his face turned bright red, and he told me not to talk. If he had listened to my entire explanation he'd have realized that my understanding did not affect Halacha and took into account concerns raised by many of the commentators. We spoke after class about it. He let me know that he was glad to discuss it, but he was concerned with the other students hearing such a non-traditional interpretation. These other student were 17 and 18 years old, yet he still felt that even hearing this would somehow influence them away from being proper Torah Jews. We had a wonderful discussion about my proposal, but I cannot understand his reasoning for cutting me off.
Jonathan, you have your whole life ahead of you. That you care enough about these things for them to frustrate you as they do is great. Please G-d you'll continue to struggle with Judaism and its religious, spiritual, and cultural consequences. Those who stop caring, by either giving up Judaism entirely or even just accepting it and following their teachers blindly are missing out. It is through struggling, thinking, questioning, and discovering that one leads a full life, religious or otherwise.
(Well, that was longer than I anticipated...)
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: Just as much as the fact that anything less than Pure Transmission of the Torah and its significance and meaning being considered anathema to your particular religion would color your (and Lisa's) approach.
No question.
Although I would not go so far as to say that the MT is necessarily letter for letter what was given to Moshe (it has been pointed out that transmission that letter-perfect for 3500 years would require a miracle greater than all the miracles in Egypt combined), I absolutely believe that no changes of any substance have occurred. A letter here or there, perhaps. Even small words (like the two-letter es which has absolutely no equivalent in English but often precedes the article "the" in Hebrew).
But even those, only very rarely. Jewish scribes must count letters -- of each section, of each division -- very carefully to avoid precisely that sort of error creeping in.
Then again, the fact that I believe that it may not be precisely letter for letter what was dictated to Moshe makes me practically an apostate in some circles. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I've seen you post before, Gansura (with only 4 posts, 2 on the other side, I may have missed them ). So welcome to Hatrack, and shalom aleichem!
May I ask where you attend college?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I don't think I've seen you post before, Gansura (with only 4 posts, 2 on the other side, I may have missed them ). So welcome to Hatrack, and shalom aleichem!
Aleichem shalom! I had a different name about a year and a half ago that I lurked with and perhaps posted with once. I don't remember it now, though. I signed up again recently but the discussions here move so quickly that I am usually unable to catch up enough to respond intelligently. I'll keep trying, though
EDIT: Is there no way to send private messages on this board? Must I sign on to aim or even send an email to speak privately with someone?
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But can't one have the Pure Transmission view without viewing any other view as being conceptually ludicrous?
This is one of the major things I've been trying to accomplish as a writer - the ability to view and to understand and respect many points of view without necessarily agreeing with them.
There are many, many theories and scientific/archaeological/theological conclusions that have been made regarding the history of Christianity. There are many that I disagree with, yet still highly respect, understanding why the views are held by those who do.
I feel it is important to understand and to research other points of view. When incredible sounding claims are made, I may gawk initially, but then I'll usually look into them. Sometimes I leave the research still gawking. Others, I leave still unconvinced of its veracity, (and often convinced of it's falcity) but with a greater respect for those who have made and held the claims. And yes, other times my mind has been changed by the information I've read.
Saying, "That's a very interesting idea. I see how one could think this based on the information provided, yet I still would have to disagree." will, for the most part, gain a lot more respect from me than, "I haven't looked into it, but I think that its silly nonsense that I'm going to proceed to make fun of."
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Not to mention the fact that our bodies wouldn't deal too well with the alcohol it would produce.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Is there no way to send private messages on this board? Must I sign on to aim or even send an email to speak privately with someone?
