posted
It's jargon, Tom. To use Jonathan's example, what does "selah" mean? It has implications, but you can't translate it into English.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They really need to rewrite the UBBoard so that the last post on one page repeats on the next. <sigh>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never did understand that particular piece of sophistry. The water in the rivers in Egypt turned into blood. Did it, or didn't it? If it did, then the statement is true. If it didn't, the statement is not true.
How can you have a statement that is simultaneously correct and false? Or incorrect and true? Can you point to an example in real life?
"Take up your cross and follow me."
It doesn't mean you're supposed to pick up an engine of execution and carry it around.
Few people speak literally. When you "grasp" an idea, you haven't touched it. When you face your fear, you may or may not actually turn your face toward what you fear.
Valid point. That was my mistake. I agree that something can be non-literal and still be true. But if something is claimed to have happened and it didn't actually happen, I don't see how it can be considered true.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I don't believe it says in the text. And I think you know what the Rambam says about people who take all midrashim literally.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not my point, actually. My point was that there are mutually exclusive accounts of her age. She can only have been one literal, actual physical age (leaving aside any jokes about time travel and/or near-lightspeed travel).
Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayim. I happen to consider that one of the most crucial aspects of Jewish philosophy. So only one was literally true -- so what? So the ones that were not literally true were meaningless?
No.
So the ones that were not literally true have other truths to teach us. And the fact that we cannot know which one was literally true will push us to see the lessons inherent in each possibility. (I heard a speaker explain why Rivka's age matters, but it was years ago and I don't remember enough to try to repeat it.)
Tom, first of all, I laugh every time I see you post as Christy or v.v. (I still haven't gotten over your comment on prenatal vitamins). Secondly, I apologize, but I had an attack of RL on Friday.
Ok, on to eheyeh asher eheyeh (or back to it -- as I will explain, it doesn't much matter). In KarlEd's recent thread about the nature of God, there was some discussion of God existing outside of time, completely independent of the timestream. That's what this phrase/Name is about. God is eternal and unchanging, not so much because He cannot change, but because He IS. And He IS in a single non-time-unit moment (sorry, I don't know how to say this) all that He ever was or will be. Because He IS outside of time.
Now, how would you translate the phrase in a way that captures that meaning and the fact that it is actually a Name? I cannot do it, and the best translations I am aware of essentially throw of their hands in despair and fall back on the strictly literal sense of the individual words.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Not my point, actually. My point was that there are mutually exclusive accounts of her age. She can only have been one literal, actual physical age (leaving aside any jokes about time travel and/or near-lightspeed travel).
True. And that's midrash. But it doesn't change the fact that if the Torah says Sarah was 90 when she gave birth to Yitzchak, then either she was 90, or we're being lied to.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayim. I happen to consider that one of the most crucial aspects of Jewish philosophy. So only one was literally true -- so what? So the ones that were not literally true were meaningless?
I never said that. And I'm well aware that the written Torah isn't all literal in that sense. "An eye for an eye" never meant that literally, for instance. But we can say that because Hashem told us so. Not because we wanted to come around after the fact and "reinterpret" it.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So the ones that were not literally true have other truths to teach us. And the fact that we cannot know which one was literally true will push us to see the lessons inherent in each possibility.
Same with Shlomo's age. He was either 12 or 20 at accession. I get that. But the text doesn't say one way or another. It does say that David lived to be 70, and that Adam lived to be 930.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (I heard a speaker explain why Rivka's age matters, but it was years ago and I don't remember enough to try to repeat it.)
One issue is the idea that she was born when Sarah died. If that's true, and if Sarah died at the time of Akeida, it works out. And that value is used for halakhic purposes (and I'm being vague to avoid the "ick" factor).
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Ok, on to eheyeh asher eheyeh (or back to it -- as I will explain, it doesn't much matter). In KarlEd's recent thread about the nature of God, there was some discussion of God existing outside of time, completely independent of the timestream. That's what this phrase/Name is about. God is eternal and unchanging, not so much because He cannot change, but because He IS. And He IS in a single non-time-unit moment (sorry, I don't know how to say this) all that He ever was or will be. Because He IS outside of time.
Relative to us, you could say He is in a single moment that maps to all of what we experience as time. But I wouldn't say He's outside of time. It's a little like the air in my house. It isn't bound by my house, but it exists in and out of my house, and would be there even if my house weren't.
He isn't bound by time, but He isn't external to it either. That'd be limiting Him.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Now, how would you translate the phrase in a way that captures that meaning and the fact that it is actually a Name? I cannot do it, and the best translations I am aware of essentially throw of their hands in despair and fall back on the strictly literal sense of the individual words.
The Eternal? I've seen that used for the Tetragrammaton, too.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to debate you point by point (I don't see the point ), but suffice it to say I disagree.
And the Eternal is a good start, but really doesn't do much. It also makes it indistinguishable from the Tetragrammaton (to which it is certainly related, but it's not the same thing).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference in "accurate" and "literal." The article sounded a great deal more exciting than it was. Fortunately, the clergy here are only saying that parts of the Bible are not literal, which is hardly a new idea.
There are people who say they are literalists, but even they break with literalism when you ask, if Christ is the Vine and we are the branches, why aren't we sprouting leaves.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), but suffice it to say I disagree.
