-->
@WisdomofAges
What?
Does anyone have extra biblical evidence of this?
Posts
Total:
70
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What makes you think that? The authors definitely wanted to be believed. I know it was fairy tales but the authors weren't after that interpretation.
-->
@disgusted
What makes you think that? The authors definitely wanted to be believed. I know it was fairy tales but the authors weren't after that interpretation.
What I mean is that the specific stories within were not meant to depict a literal history of the world and founding of the tribes of Israel. The stories of the Old Testament were a collection of oral traditions that the people had which were written down and recorded at one time for some specific reasons that I won't get into here.
The Hebrew authors certainly did believe that their god really does exist in the real world, but stories such as for example the story of Adam and Eve have a definite fable vibe to them which is very evident when looking at the meaning of the names Adam and Eve in the original Hebrew which the story was written in. The from which Adams name is derived translates as 'man' and Eve as 'living' or 'to give life'. These names have very clear meanings in light of the story itself. This continues for other Biblical stories as well. Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, etc. Many Biblical Characters have names which very directly related to their stories within the book.
Again the people that made the stories clearly did believe that their god was real, but the stories were created to convey certain messages rather than saying that the things in the stories literally happened in history. Biblical literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon which I think gets in the way of those messages from the authors by trying to shoehorn ridiculous narratives where they clearly do not and cannot fit.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The stories of the Old Testament were a collection of oral traditions that the people had which were written down and recorded at one time for some specific reasons that I won't get into here.
Oh do get into it.
The narratives already exist, the fact that they are ludicrous belongs with the authors.
-->
@disgusted
Oh do get into it.
I wrote posts 59 and 63 prior to reading the entire thread, since I was at first responding only to the OP and not the thread as a whole. Now that I have read through the thread I noticed your mention in post 41 regarding the Babylonian captivity, and as it happens that is what I was alluding to when I mentioned that the stories were put to paper for a specific purpose. A way of maintaining cultural identity and all that. I suspect based on your mentioning of it earlier that you probably already know at least as much about that aspect of it as I do. Certainly enough to understand the rest of what I said in my previous posts in context.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I may have misconstrued your POV.
-->
@disgusted
I may have misconstrued your POV.
Probably not. You may have incorrectly assumed that I am a theist, but the fact is that I intentionally avoided mentioning that I am an atheist because I think that is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. A Jew or Christian could easily make the same point. They could then go on to say that their god is real and I would disagree with them on that point, but it would be internally consistent for them to say that the scriptures were written as allegory rather than history.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The OT was written in an attempt to provide the Hebrew people with a glorious history, something that was not true.
Have You ever noticed that the Trinitarian Translators very very dishonest when they translated from the Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts.
I noticed that The Trinitarian's indeed to make it sound like that in the Bible in - Exo 21: 20 - 21 ) " SOMEONE is allowed to beat their slave to death so long as it takes longer than a day for the slave to die.
But this is horribly mistranslated. Please read the original manuscripts for eXactly what they say - - and afterward, I will show You the clear and simple explanation .. HERE IS WHAT IT REALLY SAYS.
REMEMBER = The verses I am referring to as being mistranslated - are verses 20 and 21..... Let's start two verses before verses - 20 and 21
Exo 21:18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: :19 If he rises again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
Here are the mistranslated verses -
:20 And if a man smites his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he dies under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
:21 Notwithstanding, if he continues a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Here is the correct translation of verses - 20 and 21.....
*: 20 because a man who kills himself a servant or himself a maid of the tribe who dies under his hand is to receive vengeance /punishment.
And * :21 truly set in that very day - or the day of not avenging the vengeance, for their cost / price / money.
And here is the word for word translation of each and every single word as layed out in the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS of ancient Hebrew.
This begins directly at verse 20 ---
because H3588 -
a man H376 -
killing H5221 -
himself H853 -
servant H5650 -
or H176 -
himself H853 -
maid H519 -
of tribe H7626 -
is dead H4191 -
under H8478 -
his hand H3027 -
avenging H5358 -
avenging H5358 -
trully H389 -
set H5975 -
that day H3117 -
or H176 -
that day H3117 -
not H3808 -
avenging H5358 -
avenging H5358 -
for H3588 -
their H1931 -
price / cost / money H3701
The two verses 20 and 21 are simply saying that the KILLER can be responsible for killing a servant or a maid and they can be also responsible to pay the penalty - reimbursement to the boss or whoever has hired the servant or maid. - And the payment is due in the very day that the punishment the killer receives and can be due also at another day that the punishment is given to the killer.
In other words, the killer cannot get out of the payment that He owed to a boss or someone who has hired a servant - and that after the day that he receives punishment - he is still responsible to pay the price for killing someone's servant. He is to pay and reimburse the owner of a business who has hired someone - because the bosses and business owners would run their business by hiring people and relied on their work - and workers / servants were paying off family and tribal debts by performing work.
And when someone kills a worker - they are taking money from the owner and the family that the worker is planning to work for to pay off a tremendous debt - this was the way that things were in the working class society in this day.....
I disagree. The priests would not present their scriptures as a mish-mash of fact and fiction. It was their job to know such things, not to make them up. Their authority depended on their claim of having knowledge.Again the people that made the stories clearly did believe that their god was real, but the stories were created to convey certain messages rather than saying that the things in the stories literally happened in history.