quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In contrast, the Bible is defined as "the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion such as Judaism "
No. That's the Christian Bible. The Bible is just what you erroniously call the "Old Testament".
However, I've been using the term "the Hebrew Bible" in order to avoid confusion, because I'm aware that just saying "the Bible" would be confusing. You, on the other hand, don't seem to care about that at all. You insist on misusing the term "Bible" as though only what the Christians call "the Bible" matters.
In a context of Jews only, I would never speak of "the Hebrew Bible". I'd just say "the Bible". And I could understand you doing the same in a context of Christians only. But that's not really the Christian way, is it. It's certainly not your way.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: and the common definition of the Hebrew Bible is "the common portions of the Jewish and Christian canons."
Bunk. Those aren't "common definitions". They're Christian definitions.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Based on these most common definitions, using the "Bible" or the phrase "Hebrew Bible" to refer to a translation is consistent with common usage. If I said someone claimed to have read the Hebrew Bible, when they had read an English Translation, they would have communicated a truth to most English speakers based on what we as the majority of English speakers have decided that arbitrary arrangment of letters and sounds means.
No. They'd be wrong. They'd have read a rough approximation of the Hebrew Bible.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The fact that you have a much narrower definition of "Hebrew Bible" than the one that is commonly accepted by other English speakers, doesn't exempt you the obligation to effectively communicate with others.
Wrong. I have a Jewish definition. You have a Christian definition. And you're trying to pass your Christian definition off as the definition.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Regardless of where Christianity came from, we have absolutely nothing in common.
Nothing? Now that's just silly hyperbole.
Name one thing. We believe in one God. You believe in three. And if you claim that you believe in one, all I can say is that it's a linguistic problem, because your definition of "one" would be very, very different from ours.
We believe that God gave His commandments forever (partly because He said so). You don't.
You believe in Original Sin and Hell. We don't even not believe in those ideas. We won't even get close enough to them to disbelieve in them.
There is absolutely no commonality whatsoever between the two religions. They are like matter and anti-matter.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in Original Sin and Hell. I believe that God gave His commandments forever. I am a Christian. Does this mean I must cease to exist as the solution to my own paradox? Or perhaps you are just wrong.
quote:Wrong. I have a Jewish definition. You have a Christian definition. And you're trying to pass your Christian definition off as the definition.
She's passing it off as the English definition.
quote:No. They'd be wrong. They'd have read a rough approximation of the Hebrew Bible.
No, you see. They have read the "Hebrew Bible" as the word is meant. They have read a rough aproximation of "the thing that starLisa refers to as the Hebrew Bible."
Think back on your complaints about how some people use anti-Semite to see why this is so. Words mean what people believe them to mean.
The problem is you are insisting on having a discussion about Truth, when Rabbit has been discussing linguistics.
The other problem is that you pick and choose which linguistic principles you wish to use based on which ones supports whatever you wish to take outrage at on any given day.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa exists in a world where there are absolutes. She will not accept a broader definition. She will not accept a definition that contradicts her own.
It won't happen.
It's no use arguing with her on this point, because she's part of a strong willed minority that is almost militantly resistant to change. It will only get you frustrated.
It's like arguing with a mountain. There will be no winner - you'll just make yourself tired, and the mountain will still be there. I learned this a couple weeks back. She's a fanatical devotee of her faith, and lives in a world different from the vast majority.
I respect that she feels so strongly, but, because of that, I know I need to take anything she says with a significant grain of salt. Faith-based logic and secular-based logic do not mix well.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a side note, is it possible to "play semantics" in the context of a linguistics debate? And if so, will this mixture cause your ears to explode?
posted
I believe that God gave some of His commandments forever. I don't believe in original sin or in hell in the same way that many Christians do. I am also a Christian.
Perhpas ApostleRadio and I cancel each other out and can both continue to exist?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, I am not a scholar of Torah but I am aware that one of the greatest rabbinic scholars (Rabbi Hillel) summarized the whole the Torah by saying "That which is hateful to you, do not unto others."
Look at your arguments with an objective eye and you will see how arrogant and offensive you are being to the Christians on this board. If you are offended by those who have criticized and persecuted Jews for "Apostacy" through the ages, do you not have an even greater obligation to show respect to the beliefs of others?
[ March 21, 2006, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Bible is just what you erroniously call the "Old Testament".
On what basis do your deam by usage erroneous? Is the meaning of modern English words also designated within your infallable oral tradition?
That was a quote from the Webster Dictionary and therefore represents a concensus of American English speakers.
The definition given in the OED, which is the definitve source for the English language, is as follows.
quote:. a. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. (Sometimes in early use, and still dial., used for the Old Testament; e.g. ‘neither in the Bible nor the Testament.’) the open Bible: the Bible accessible to all in the vernacular.
If my use is erroneous, so is the usage by the overwhelming majority of English speakers.
While you may choose to define and use any word to mean something other than what it means in standard English, you will not be able to effectively communicate with other English speakers if you insist on non-standard definitions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a little offensive, in that the single most fundamental aspect of Judaism is to worship God alone and to obey His commandments. Okay, that's two things. And by the standards which existed prior to the birth of Christianity, Christianity abrogated both of those
That's curious. Rabbi Akiva taugh that the most important principle of the Torah was to "Love your fellow as your self".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is you are insisting on having a discussion about Truth, when Rabbit has been discussing linguistics.
The other problem is that you pick and choose which linguistic principles you wish to use based on which ones supports whatever you wish to take outrage at on any given day.
No, The key problem is that starLisa is so filled with hatred of Christianity and Christians that she can't see past the tip of her nose.
And now that I have violated my own principle and stooped to personal attacks, I'll bow out of the discussion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
