1 And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto me in the priest's office: Take one young bullock, and two rams without blemish,While I was reading this PETA-nightmare of a chapter, Michael Vick found Jesus. Let's hope he sticks to the New Testament and ignores this part of God's inerrant and morally urgent instruction manual. I can't vouch for what happens in those red pages, but I'm hoping they aren't inked in animal blood.
2 And unleavened bread, and cakes unleavened tempered with oil, and wafers unleavened anointed with oil: of wheaten flour shalt thou make them.
3 And thou shalt put them into one basket, and bring them in the basket, with the bullock and the two rams.
4 And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.
5 And thou shalt take the garments, and put upon Aaron the coat, and the robe of the ephod, and the ephod, and the breastplate, and gird him with the curious girdle of the ephod:
6 And thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre.
7 Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him.
8 And thou shalt bring his sons, and put coats upon them.
9 And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons.
10 And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock.
11 And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
12 And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar.
13 And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar.
14 But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.
15 Thou shalt also take one ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram.
16 And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round about upon the altar.
17 And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces, and wash the inwards of him, and his legs, and put them unto his pieces, and unto his head.
18 And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
19 And thou shalt take the other ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram.
20 Then shalt thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about.
21 And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him.
22 Also thou shalt take of the ram the fat and the rump, and the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and the right shoulder; for it is a ram of consecration:
23 And one loaf of bread, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer out of the basket of the unleavened bread that is before the LORD:
24 And thou shalt put all in the hands of Aaron, and in the hands of his sons; and shalt wave them for a wave offering before the LORD.
25 And thou shalt receive them of their hands, and burn them upon the altar for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour before the LORD: it is an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
26 And thou shalt take the breast of the ram of Aaron's consecration, and wave it for a wave offering before the LORD: and it shall be thy part.
27 And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave offering, and the shoulder of the heave offering, which is waved, and which is heaved up, of the ram of the consecration, even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is for his sons:
28 And it shall be Aaron's and his sons' by a statute for ever from the children of Israel: for it is an heave offering: and it shall be an heave offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifice of their peace offerings, even their heave offering unto the LORD.
29 And the holy garments of Aaron shall be his sons' after him, to be anointed therein, and to be consecrated in them.
30 And that son that is priest in his stead shall put them on seven days, when he cometh into the tabernacle of the congregation to minister in the holy place.
31 And thou shalt take the ram of the consecration, and seethe his flesh in the holy place.
32 And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram, and the bread that is in the basket by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
33 And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy.
34 And if ought of the flesh of the consecrations, or of the bread, remain unto the morning, then thou shalt burn the remainder with fire: it shall not be eaten, because it is holy.
35 And thus shalt thou do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all things which I have commanded thee: seven days shalt thou consecrate them.
36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
37 Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.
38 Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually.
39 The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even:
40 And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering.
41 And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
42 This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.
43 And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.
44 And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest's office.
45 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.
46 And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God.
It's often said that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. Another good rule, IMHO, is not put to your livestock in the same basket as your (unleavened, of course) bread, cakes, and wafers. Maybe Uneeda biscuits in an airtight, sanitary package.
That would be a helluva big and sturdy basket to hold all those carbs plus a bullock (a young, usually castrated, bull) and two rams. They just don't make things like they used to.
It's not absolutely clear which "them" are washed in verse #5, but I'll make a guess and say it was the animals. A good, hygienic practice... that's followed by a bloodbath fit for Brian De Palma.
To get ready for what horror directors call the "gags," Moses is to dress up Aaron and his sons in their priestly garb and heap the following on his brother's head: a hat, a headdress, and some oil.
And now, the gory details of what Moses is instructed to do:
#10: By the tabernacle door, with Aaron and sons holding the bullock's head...All the sanguinary business over, God says he'll sanctify the tabernacle, the altar, and Aaron and sons. And — news flash — he'll dwell among the Israeli kids and be their God, because he is the LORD!
#11: Kill the bullock
#12: Fingerpaint some of the blood on the horns of the altars and pour the rest next to the bottom of the altar
#13: On the altar, burn some of the bullock's fat, the membrane above the liver, and both kidneys
#14: Outside the tabernacle, burn the bullock's flesh, skin, and dung, because it's "a sin offering"
#15: With Aaron and sons holding the first ram's head...
#16: Kill it and sprinkle its blood all around the altar
#17: Cut the ram into pieces, wash its innards and legs, and then set them all together with the ram's head
#18: Burn the ram as a "sweet savour" to YHWH (hey, who wouldn't enjoy a tribute like that?)
#19: With Aaron and sons holding the other ram's head...
#20: Kill it and daub some of the blood on Aaron and sons' right ears, right thumbs, and right big-toes; sprinkle the rest around the altar
#21: Take some of the blood on the altars — along with some anointing oil — and sprinkle it on Aaron and sons, and on their clothes; this makes them consecrated (Benjamin Moore calls it Hallowed Red, I call it fucking freaky)
#22: Because it's a "ram of consecration," take the fat, the rump, the fat over the innards, the caul above the liver, and the kidneys (and the fat on them), plus the right shoulder
#23: Give one each of the three types of baked goods to Aaron and sons...
#24: and make them wave them around (then they put everything in a bag, the phone and everything, then go out on the lawn, wave the bag over their heads, and SCREAM LIKE A CHICKEN!!)
#25: Make a burnt offering of the bread, cake, and wafer (if God likes burnt offerings, he should try my wife's cooking — ba-da-dum!)
#26: Wave the ram's breast around; that will be Moe's portion
#27: Somehow make the swung-about ram's breast holy, and wave and heave the ram's shoulder about, even the part that's for Aaron and sons
#28: Aaron and sons will eternally get the "heave offering"
#29: Aaron's descendants will inherit the priestly garments and holy role
#30: Whoever is the current priest will wear the garments for seven days (and never again after that? every seventh day? seven days a month? huh?)
#31: Boil the ram "in the holy place"
#32: Aaron and sons eat the ram and the bread
#33: Eating the food that was prepared in this atonement (for what?) ceremony will make those who eat it holy; don't let a stranger eat any
#34: Burn any leftovers
#35: Sanctify Aaron and sons over the course of seven days
#36: Ritually slaughter a bullock every day, and clean the altar (thank goodness!), blessing it with oil (just to be sure, I'd go with Formula 409)
#37: For seven days make atonement for the altar (atoning for, maybe, ritually slaughtering animals?)
#38: Ritually slaughter two one-year-old lambs every single day...
#39: One in the daytime and one at night
#40: Serve the morning lamb with flour and oil, accompanied by some wine
#41: Ditto for the evening lamb, which will smell sweet when it's burning
#42: These burnt offerings will continue throughout the generations, where God will come by and talk to Moses...
#43: And the children of Israel.
15 comments:
Throughout all the variants of Christian theology, one point of agreement is that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross mitigated the need for animal sacrifices.
How about in synagogues? Do they still ritually slaughter 2-3 animals a day?
I've just got back from a long holiday, so I'm catching up with things. I've added my comments to Exodus 25-28, and some more to Exodus 1 & 2 (because I remembered something).
Exodus 28 and 25 are the more interesting ones. I'll get back to 29 soon.
And about synagogues - they don't slaughter the animals today, BECAUSE they can't do the Red Heifer thing first (you'll find out what that is when we get to Numbers 11); the problem being that the criteria are so extreme that they haven't found a suitable Red Heifer yet.
They also interpret the bible as requiring the ritual slaughter happens at a very specific altar - the one under/at/next-to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.
Hello All,
I just stumbled onto this blog a couple days ago and I'm really intrigued. I started putting comments on Gen 1, 2, and 3, but since they might not be read any time soon by the current readership, I thought I might join you here at the current study. Please go back to those blogs and read my entries.
I am, however a Christian. Hope that doesn't count me out of this study. No, I'm not trying to ruin anything, but I want to take this journey with you to offer a different perspective. I've read a bunch of the posts, and I'd have to say that I'm not surprised at the remarks. I hope that I might be able to assist in this study for those who, while not having faith, would truly want to hear the opinion who does have faith.
As far as this chapter, I can only say that this is pretty darn bloody. There is more blood coming, but, yeah...pretty darn bloody. Personally I'm glad we don't have to do that any more (by we I mean Christians). Jesus was the last sacrifice, completing the need for the blood sacrifice of animals.
One thing I would like to point out is that, if you take a step back, notice how very particular God was in all of this. There are specific steps to take and they cannot be altar'd (pun intended). In other words, God takes sacrifice VERY seriously, especially since it was a picture (a type) of Jesus coming sacrifice. It had to be just right or the meaning would be totally lost.
Anyhow, I hope I can add good insight into this discussion.
God bless the study of His word,
(in whatever form it takes!!)
m-p
The best place to talk about the different types of sacrifice ["korban"] is when we reach Leviticus - its the subject of the first few chapters there. But, in brief,
"Wave Offering". As opposed to "heave offering". One was "waved" by the priest, the other was lifted up and down (probably just once or twice); in both cases it was a ritual action (a bit like Christian priests lifting the "chalice" (with the wine in it) up and down while saying "hoc est corpus meus" - "this is my body" - they used to say this so that no-one else would hear it, making it sound a bit like "hocus pocus"; puritans consequently mocked them as "magic words", creating an association with magic that grew quite strong in protestant countries, hence why "hocus pocus" is a stereotypical phrase of magicians in modern English language cultures. But, I am straying from the topic... [have you ever read "The Life and Times of Tristram Shandy"?]). Anyway, why was the wave offering "waved"? Well, because it was saying "here you are, God, here's your bit [hold out the food].... Oh, thank you, that's so kind of you to let us, the priests, eat it instead [retract the food] ".
"sin offering". One of the handful of different classes of offering. The others being "tresspass offering", "burnt offering", "meal offering", and "peace offering".
"Peace offering", or (to give its full name) "sacrifice of peace offering", is basically a grandiose way of saying "slaughter offering" ["sacrifice" is the original key part of the phrase, not "peace"] - ie. the killing of an animal for food, with the intervention of a priest because it involves life and blood, which "belong to God" in Israelite theology. When you eat the meat, "God" gets a portion - the bit that was burnt. The fat and the innards were the portion that were traditionally considered to belong to Yahweh.
"meal offering" is better translated as "grain offering", and was just an accompaniment; the KJV sometimes translates this as "meat", but in KJV times, "meat" just meant "food".
"Burnt offering" would be better translated "whole offering", and refers to when the sacrifice is completely burnt on the altar and nothing is left to eat. Whole offerings basically arose as peace offerings where God's portion (the bit that got burnt) was all of it; essentially offerings got out of hand.
Originally people would have performed these sacrifices themself, but a class of professional priests gradually arose - note how the Priestly Source is particularly keen to emphasise the intervention of a Priest between God and the ISraelites, but the Jahwist and Elohist don't really bother mentioning it. The thing about being a professional priest is that you have to rely on other people to supply you with food (because you are no longer able to farm it yourself), so the priests needed a portion of the food to survive.
"tresspass offering" is better translated as "guilt offering", and was a compensation payment.
"Sin offering" is an offering to remove "sin"; and "sin" here is not the Christian concept of sin but instead refers just to ritual impurity [such as catching leprosy, or giving birth to a child]
. "Sin offerings" were burnt outside the "camp" (ie. the town), because theologically the "sin" made them tainted so they couldn't be consumed by something as theologically "untainted" as Yahweh [ie. burnt], but they couldn't be eaten either because the meat was being offered. And they had to be burnt so that they were destroyed.
The Israelites believed that "the life is in the blood", and therefore the blood belonged to Yahweh - hence it had to be poured/sprinkled against the altar. Pouring was just disposal, but sprinkling was about removing ritual impurity from the object being sprinkled; its "sympathetic magic" - the blood is part of the sacrifice and sprinkling it on something makes that something the subject of the sacrifice.
Now, back to the temple. The High Priest is forbidden from leaving the sanctuary. Non-levites are forbidden from entering the inner courtyard. So how does the High Priest put the blood onto a non-levite? Well, the person could lean in through one of the gates (specifically, the Nikanor Gate); the gates were quite wide, but you would be able to stretch in and get your right thumb, your right leg, and your right ear, far enough for the priest to dab them.
The other kind of offering was the tithe offering - generally referred to in the bible as the "heave offering" since it was the main type of offering that was "heaved". This is basically a tithe levied by the priests; the Israelites have to feed them. The Priestly Source, unsurprisingly, mentions several of these kinds of tithes, but the other sources imply that the priests only got food from a tithe on a few rare occasions.
So here we have one ram (as a "whole offering") one bullock (as a "sin offering") and another ram (as a "peace offering") - the meat from the latter ram can be eaten because that's the point of "peace offerings".
Verse 29 - which states that it is the Aaronids who are to be the priests. What a surprise that the Priestly source, written by the Aaronids to support their claims of exclusivity, should mention this. The priesthood centred at Shiloh disagreed, but more on that later...
Remember that the "mitre" is actually a turban; the KJV had a very Christian-Church-based bias in translating certain words.
Verse 37 - atonement for the altar is an atonement for any ritual impurity it has inadvertently collected. How could an inanimate object gain ritual impurity - easy, seats could gain them if sat on by people with certain kinds of ritual impurity, for example; more on this in Leviticus...
Its not "[he will] be their God, because he is the LORD" but "he is Yahweh, their god". One of the older psalms spells out why this is; according to the psalm, Yahweh was assigned to the Israelites by El (English translations of the psalm in question often obscure this detail, or try to blur it away).
The bit after verse 38 is a later insertion; the Priestly Code - the law code within the priestly source (except for Leviticus 17-26, and the Ethical Decalogue) - is composed from a number of layers that the priestly bureaucrats kept adding to the priestly source (bureaucrats are like that), verses 38-42 are one of these additions, later than the rest of the chapter. Verse 43 originally would have followed verse 37, so is referring to the altar as the meeting place, not the "tabernacle" door.
One exclusive witness of the Bible to everyone is the Old Testament prophecies that specify Christ coming; all of them were fulfilled XXXX amount of years later. No other professed book has ever done that.
Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
Tertullian wrote of Christ's resurrection & His Apostles' growing passion for Christ.
Anonymous 2,
there are many different interpretations of those "prophecies". And Christians often take them out of context. For example, the context of one "prophecy" by Isaiah is immediate salvation from a particular very immediate situation that he discusses happening in a period that wouldn't be more than 50 years; yet some, usually uneducated (in Biblical studies), Christians take it to refer to Jesus, who wasn't even born until 600 years after the context Isaiah refers to.
Many many books have "fulfilled" prophecies in them, and the Bible is nothing special in this regard. The writings of Nostradamus are often claimed to have predicted several modern day, and recently historic, events.
The key thing is that its all down to how you interpret it. Jewish writers, for example, many of whom wrote their interpretations down before Jesus was ever born, interpret the Old Testament "prophecies" quite differently. Now tell me, who is better placed to know the correct interpretation?
Not sure which anonymous, but the second one said (note: this is not an 'angry response', more a different perspective or a clarification):
"Many many books have "fulfilled" prophecies in them, and the Bible is nothing special in this regard."
I would be very interested in hearing specific instances of this claim. In reference to Nostradamus, people are normally not aware that there are MANY MANY more of his "predictions" that never came true, ever, or that he took drugs to come up with them. Additionally, his predictions were so general and vague that you can "interpret" them to mean almost anything (like a palm reading). By way of contrast, all the prophecies of Jesus' are much more specific and all have can be studied and be corraborated by other sources besides the bible.
and...:
"The key thing is that its all down to how you interpret it."
Like I said in a previous post, sure, you can say "it's all how you interpret it," but what does that mean? What it really means is this: "You can't trust the bible becuase people can interpret it in totally different ways, and who's to say who is wrong, so why bother?" I guess you have a point. However, there is another school of thought that says the bible can be interpretted correctly if you follow reasonable, logical, applicable methods of interpreting any literary work, as in:
1) Based on the books content, you would interpret as so. Example, if a book were a novel, you wouldn't interpret it as the "gospel truth" (pardon the pun). In that regard, the bible, so it claims to be, is the Word of God to man, a revelation of Himself. Not only that, but the book isn't a book at all but a collection of different books. Each of these books contain nearly the gamut of literary styles and so one must be sensitive to this fact or else errors will be made in interpretation. For example, the book of Proverbs is NOT the book of Genesis. Proverbs is a book of wisdom for guidance in goodly and righteous living. The book of Genesis is a book of origins. Proverbs is written so that short verses can be memorized, standing on its own, and be applicable to real living situations. Genesis is a written as a sort of history book to where any verse taken out of the context of its immediate surroundings would drastically effect meaning. Just like any other book.
2) Context is key. Without context, nothing in scripture would ever make sense to anybody because any verse could mean anytyhing, just like any other book. Take for example Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Satan is actually quoting scripture to Jesus, however He takes it out of context to twist the meaning and misguide Jesus. What he might not have known was that Jesus other name is Logos, which is what is referred to in John 1 as "word become flesh". In other words, Jesus = The Bible. He knew the book front to back and could easily see what Satan was doing. Not so with man, man has been so easily swayed from one doctrine to another by trusting the "interpretations" of the "authority".
Rules of context make sense, but it goes deeper. As said before, each book is a bit different than the rest. There are historical narrative books, poetry, prophecy, doctrinal books...none of which can be ignored in context. A proverb (from Proverbs) is not a commandment, in other words. Just like any other book, context is key.
3) The bible was not written in English but in Hebrew, some Aramaic, and Greek. To ignore that fact is disastrous to correct interpretation. One example is 1st Corinthians 13, the "love" chapter. In it Paul explains what true love really is. In the King James, however, the word translated "love" (like in the NIV or NAS), is translated "charity." Now, when most people think of the word "charity" they don't think of "love" but they think of some organization that does work for people in need, something you can donate money too. While noble in itself, in our modern day "charity" is not "love".
But what is the word in Greek? In Greek, the word in 1Cor13 is called AGAPE. It means "unconditional love", a love that God has for man and that true believers have for God. "Charity" is not "unconditional love". To make matters worse, there are totally different words in our modern bibles translated as "love". One of them is PHILEO, which is where we get Philadelphia from. It means "brother love", or a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" sort of love. PHILEO is not AGAPE. If Paul had used PHILEO here instead of AGAPE, then it would have totally changed the meaning of the chapter.
4) Lastly, you have to have a certain reverent expectancy when trying to REALLY study the bible. The bible says that the things of God are spiritually appraised (1Cor2:14). In other words, God has to help us understand the true meaning of the bible. Conversely, if the bible is true, and you read the bible ONLY as a way of getting ammunition against God, you will never get the right interpretation. I'm not saying we need to have blind faith and just accept it. NO, absolutely not. However you can't expect God to show you the deep things of the Word without even the remotest possibility, at least in your mind, that it MIGHT be true. If you have not the faith to even accept that, there is no hope in doing a serious bible study because you will not have God's spirit to help you discern it's truths. All over scripture God tells how he revealed himself to babes, to the simple, to the lowly, but apposed the understanding of the proud and haughty. If you are "open minded" enough to at least accept that the bible MIGHT be true, then ask God (perhaps saying, "if there is a God, help me interpret the bible correctly", tic %^), then I expect God will show up and show you things you never knew.
I've read many of the previous posts on this website, and I hear a LOT of irreverence for the bible and for God. It is no wonder they always seem to find contradictions and "lies"...it is because they can't except the possibility that it might be the truth, the therefore interpret it in any way possible. I recall one specific one in Genesis where somebody actually tried to interpret a verse PROMOTING ABORTION!! How ridiculous is that?
Anyhow, that's my offering for now. Sorry it is so long. I lack the skill to say what I mean in less space. Please forgive me.
Blessings,
m-p
M-p,
there are MANY MANY people who believe that ALL of Nostradamus' predictions came true. There are MANY MANY people who believe that more than one of the bible's predictions DIDNT. Jesus isn't called Emmanuel, which in the Hebrew is quite DEFINITELY a name. Maybe Ezekiel took drugs to come up with his, after all, what's all that wierd stuff with the wheels full of eyes?
What Prophecies of Jesus? There are none. You misquote the context. There are quite obvious rabbinic explanations that were propounded for a long time before Jesus was ever born, that have nothing at all to do with him.
1) How do you tell if a book is a novel or factual? It says so on the cover, or the back; but the old copies of the bible never had covers, so that's not much use. What about the Da Vinci code; it clearly says its a novel, and its obvious from the text itself, but that doesn't stop thousands of Christians claiming that it is pretending to be factual.
So what if the Bible claims its the word of god (not that I would agree that it does)? "This sentence is the word of god, so stop drinking water" - how do you know whether its the word of god or not? Why trust its OWN claims, when it could just be lying? Ever heard of circular logic?
There is nowhere near the whole gamut of literary styles in the Bible. What about, for example, the style of slashed up discontinuous time, so popular in modern films (such as Pulp Fiction, for example)? What about the metaphor upon metaphor upon metaphor, like the Matrix, or 1st-3rd century gnostic writing?
Proverbs is a collection of sayings gathered over a period of time by several different people. It even admits the fact in part. Its just like the modern day "Little Book of Memorable Quotes" or "Dictionary of Famous Witticisms". Some of the proverbs contradict the others; its a bit like "too many cooks spoil the broth" being mixed with "the more the merrier".
Genesis is no more a book about origins than Judges. Did you know that it wasn't even originally distinct from the other first few books; the first five originally came on one scroll - the "Torah" - and there was no differentiation between the part that is now Genesis and the part that is now Exodus, for example; they just ran into one another. Treating Genesis as a distinct book is extremely artificial; its as if you think that A-D of the dictionary should be treated as an entirely distinct publication, with different motives and purpose, from the rest of it.
2) Jesus' other name wasn't "Logos". Logos is a greek word that (crudely) translates as "Word", but it really refers to a distinct philosophical concept that was mainly used in Plato's theology (which later combined with other elements to form Gnosticism). And John 1 is really just about Anti-Arianism, and nothing else. "Word" there (a poor translation from "Logos") does not mean "words; ie. bible"; it means "Logos; the philosophical concept".
2b) In the Gospels, Jesus quotes the Septuagint wording. Your bible most probably uses the Masoretic wording (most english bibles do). There are several differences between the two, some of much significance.
2c) Some men are swayed between doctrines, others are steadfast. That's nothing special about Jesus. Besides, staying steadfast is basically the definition of arrogance; the wise man changes their opinion if the evidence now points elsewhere.
3) Excellent. Did you know that most Bibles translate "hilasterion" into "mercy seat" for some Epistles but into "propitiation" for others? So was Jesus the "mercy seat" or the "propitiation"?
3b) Agape was used in several greek texts to mean the same thing as Eros; ie. sexual love. Phileo means "like" - as in "bibliophile"="likes books"; "philadelphia" could legitimatly be translated "likes cousins". And Phileo can also mean "lust"; "paedo" means "child", and "paedophile" means a lot more than "thinks children are likeable" (ie. doesn't hate them).
4) Reverence prevents you from being critical. The bible may say X, but the bible can be wrong, so why trust it BEFORE you have ever made a complete study of it?
4b) If the bible is FALSE, and you read the bible ONLY as a way of getting ammunition FOR Christianity, you will never get the right interpretation.
4c) You shouldn't expect God to anything if you don't believe in him. Belief in God is not a prerequisite in understanding the bible, academic tools are sufficient. It is merely your BELIEF that this is not the case; it is my belief that you are wrong.
4d) Lots of things MIGHT be true. Why don't you try reading the Zend Avesta or the Qur'an with the presumption that they could be true?
4e) Why not try saying "if Ganesh exists, may he help me to understand the bible"?
4f) People find contradiction because it is there. You don't see it because you are blinded by faith.
4g) I remember people thinking that the bible promoted the death penalty, despite the "turn another cheek" and so forth. How ridiculous is that?
Wisdom,
anon
m-p,
As noted in the welcome page:
"Expect irreverence here. If you can't handle it, please go elsewhere.
That said, all are welcome to contribute comments; just don't be an annoying troll. Feel free to use this forum to argue for or against the truth and relevance of the scripture."
I haven't read all your comments yet, but you seem to be rolling with the irreverence, so please do feel welcome.
It'll take a while for me to catch up with your comments, and I may not have much to add. I have no clue whether Jesus was also known as "LOGOS" or "TOYOTA."
I'm doing at least one element of what you urged in your first comment: "I would have to say that it should be read as any other book." That is precisely what I'm doing.
I am quite grateful that other participants can and do draw upon historical background (the "context" that you also describe), but that's not my own personal mission or skill set. Such reader contributions provide a welcome complement and good reading.
Generally, it seems that you are deeply invested in the certainty that the Bible is the inerrant literal truth of God.
Thus far, the Bible strikes me as chock full of arbitrary edits and dubious morals. I seriously hope that we don't live under the power of whoever wrote this thing.
As to its general worth as a set of moral tales, I'm agnostic. I simply haven't read enough to say. Just so far, so questionable.
Should I prove to be wrong, I'll get my just deserts, as I don't care much for hot weather.
Thanks,
VL
Anon,
So glad to see you've rejoined the flock! :v)
I just got caught up on your new comments (always appreciated!) and will dig into reading m-p's thoughts.
Alas, google/blogger is crazy inconsistent about notifying me about new comments. Works in mysterious ways, it seems.
I just want to add, now that I've remembered it, Philadelphia is definitely nothing to do with "brotherly love". Its named after the Ancient Greek city of Philadelphia, which is named after a guy called Attalus II Philadelphus; Philadelphus was king of Pergamon and he founded the city named after him. And "Philadelphus" is more likely to be connected to Delphi, the most famous ancient Greek oracle, than it is to Adolphoi.
Oh, urm, VLC, as Salah al-Din ("Saladin") is alleged to once have said:
"... and if that is what he is like, then he is not God"
Hello All,
Sorry I haven't been on in a while. I don't intend to be a troll and would gladly engage in conversation about anything biblical. I've just been INSANELY busy. Thanks for your patience.
I would like to respond to the response of my response: %^)
To anonymous:
1) Belief does not equal truth. Just because people believe Nostradamus' sayings are true doesn't make them true, no more than my believing the bible is true makes it true. Truth isn't relative, but beliefs are.
2) Though there is no mention of the word "Emmanuel" in the New Testament except to qoute Isaiah (Matthew 1 I beieve), it doesn't mean that nobody called him that. However the word "emmanuel" literally means "God with us". This coincides with Jesus claim to be God which can be clearly seen in the gospel of John. Emmanual refers not just to a name of Jesus, but to who He really was, unlike today when a name doesn't really mean anothing.
3) I think you are taking my statements about context...er..out of context. The point I was making is that if you really want to understand scripture then you have to be careful to adhere to standard rules of interpretoin, just like for any book. And since the bible is not one book but a collection of books, what is going on in Exodus can't be interepreted in the same fashion as a passage in Proverbs, or in Psalms, or in Matthew. So many times I've seen people (Christians too!) making this mistake to their own detriment simply because they forgot to pay attention to rules of context.
4) Yes I understand that most of the Old Testament was not divided like in our modern bibles. And of course, there were no chapters and verses either for that matter. I think that was done after to make it easier to reference and study. Again, see 3) above. It's all about getting the right message, and not the wrong one.
5) John 1:1 says this, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." In the greek the word translated here as "Word" is "logos". And since we know from the remainder of the chapter, John is calling Jesus "logos" or "the Word" (esp v14). So if what you are saying is true, then John, the apostle of Jesus, who in the remainder of his gospel demonstrates quite clearly that Jesus was God...was really referring to a philosophy? That John is saying that Logos the Philosphy is God? That doesn't seem to add up to me. Sounds like a stretch. Perhaps others at the time used that Word "logos" to mean something else, but it doesn't appear that John does. Perhaps others would use the word "logos" to draw away from John's gospel and to confuse others? I think it is plain to see that John is not referring to the philosphy of "logos" as God. To John there is only one God.
6) Not quite sure what you are saying by saying that "some are steadfast in their doctines". It is true that a wise man will change his opinion based on newer better evidence, or he wouldn't be so wise, would they? However, as we grow we learn to discern the truth of other doctrines as well. Since the bible doesn't change (although many people believe it has), the doctrines drawn from it don't. Certainly as study tools become more powerful we can learn more and more, but there are doctrines that are so plain they are not about to change (like the deity of Christ). God is settled in his mind about everything, so to take a quote from the Matrix, "It is not the spoon the bends, it is only yourself." God's Word doesn't change, it is up to us to find out God's will and repent of our sins (a fundamental problem in today's society, especially concerning homosexual behavior).
7) Jesus was many things. The point I'm making is that we have to make sure we dig deep to find the truth. The bible says that we need to dig for the truth as if is was buried treasure. Translations are created for the time they are translated, but it all comes from the original texts (or at least copies of the originals). I think of it like the Xerox phenomena. After a while, making copies of copies distorts the image. You have to go back to the original document and copy that. Same with Scripture. The most correct answers will come from the original languages.
8) I'm not aware of any biblical context to where the word AGAPE was every used for sexual erotic love (EROS). Perhaps in texts other than the bible, but in the bible itself it was never meant to be that.
9) As to the remainder of your comments: my faith is not blind. If it were so I would not be able to defend it, but merely argue that you are wrong and I am right. And besides, I'm not trying to convince you that the bible is true BEFORE you study it. Many people have taken this same quest, to study the bible and prove that God doesn't exist, only to reach the end and to find that they believe it is true. So, I'm not to worried about any of you.
Faith is a hard subject to understand. Why do people believe something, whether that something is really true or not? Do they "need" to believe, or have they been convinced the something is true through investigation? People often say they believe something but deep down in their hearts they do not, or only partially so (I see many in my church in this situation). Recently there was an article in Time magazine (I think) about Mother Teresa's diary that talks about her doubts. I have doubts from time to time. I would love to believe that God wasn't true, and that there is no hell, or that Darwinism is the truth and I'm just an animal ("so lets do it like they do on the Discovery Channel"). I am not bound by anybody to believe. I owe nobody. I could walk away from my faith and never look back.
But I can't. I am convinced. Time and time again God has shown me the truth of His word through the many circumstances of my life. Many times have I "put my hands in Jesus' wounds" only to find that they are still there. Thank God He is bigger than my unbelief!!!
But this isn't about me. I know my future. I'm secured, but non-believers aren't. It is not my intention to "save" you all. I just hope to offer a different point of view from a logical and reasonable standpoint, not from a blind-faith standpoint.
For the comments from the others. I understand the irreverancy. I accept it. After all, it isn't me who you are offending. All I meant by it is that irreverancy is a mask for pride, and pride is what blinds . People can be so angry at God for whatever reason, or so eager to definitively disprove Him that they are blind to the messages of the bible. People are also so entangled in their sinful lives that they refuse to accept that there can be any other truth besides their own. They can only see the words of God through angry eyes, proud eyes, and so they blind themselves to the truth that is passing right in front of them in the words. So, my warning was simply that...don't do that! I'm not saying to believe, I'm just saying look at the bible at face value. Don't pre-judge.
The other thing is that we often judge God and his dealings with man through our own personal standards, or our society's standards. We can't do that. If there is a God, then He is definitely higher than we are. This stuff in Exodus is pretty extreme, but it is for a purpose. It is really mainly for us, the people who would read it later. We can't judge the joke until we hear the punchline. And so, hold back your desire to difinitively understand the scriptures, to come to conclusions as to what they mean now, because the story is far from over.
Sorry again for typing so much. Maybe I should go back to college english?
Blessings to you all,
m-p
(To M-p),
1) All truth is relative. Have you never heard of relativity? Or relativism? I'm not keen to get into a debate on relativism's merits at this point in the study; the "literary prophets" (Isaiah/Ezekiel/Amos/etc.) would be a much more appropriate part of the text to discuss this.
2) The context in Isaiah clearly refers to "Emmanuel" as a personal name NOT as a description. Also, Jesus never claims to be God; "son of X" is a Hebrew idiom, meaning "X-like" - for example, "son of the right [hand]" (="Benjamin"), which clearly doesn't mean that Benjamin was literally born from someone's right hand. "Son of God" is just a description, and can even just be an ordinary name; Beniah (literally "son of Yahweh - the latter being the Israelite name for God) is the name of someone in the Old Testament. If "Son of God" literally meant that then there would already have been one before Jesus - namely Beniah. And if you want to take "son of the father" to mean "son of God", then Barabbas (aramaic:"son of the father") would have to be the son of God as well (oddly enough, Barabbas' first name is given as "Jesus", but more on that later..). Anyway, Jesus is several hundred chapters away.
3) "standard rules of interpretoin" [presumably "interpretation"] would require supporting your idea of what "standard" is. My idea of "standard" is to treat it the "standard" way you interpret any other book. Which is exactly what you are not doing. As for other books, I suggest you compare the literary style, vocabulary, and theology, of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah; you'll find they are almost identical.... there's a reason for that - Jeremiah wrote Deuteronomy.
4) I'm glad you understand that the modern bible division is artificial. But you also need to understand that the order isn't consistent either; in several places, the Septuagint is in a completely different order to the Masoretic text (eg the last chapters of 2 Samuel, and the last 5 chapters of Exodus). Your copy of the bible is probably based on the Masoretic (like the KJV), but the Septuagint is over 1000 years older. If you want to get the "right message", not the "wrong one", then perhaps you should start by abandoning the new-fangled Masoretic Text.
5) John 1:1 actually says "en arche en o logos kai o logos en pros ton theos kai theos en o logos". You have translated it, but you have failed to realise that "logos" here is a proper noun, and should be left untranslated. Its like reading 1 Samuel 1:20-21 as "......she named him name of god, saying, Because I asked he who causes to fall for him" rather than ".....she named him Samuel, saying, 'Because I asked Yahweh for him'". Ask a theologian, its been a firm position in Christian theology for millenia; John 1:1 is referring to the greek philosophical concept of Logos. Here's a wikipedia article on the matter - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_the_Logos
6) Which copy exactly of the bible doesn't change. Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest surviving whole copy (which happens to be mainly resident near Kings Cross in london), but it DOESNT contain Mark 16:9-20; they aren't missing pages or words, they were never in it, and never intended to be (its obvious from the document). Yet your copy of the bible probably does. How could that possibly be the case if it is "unchanging"? Ah, the Matrix; what you have to understand about the Matrix is that its a dramatic retelling of Plato's famous "allegory of the cave" [as are The Truman Show, and Dark City]- its a pro-gnostic argument, not a pro-mainstream-christianty argument. If "it is up to us to find out God's will", how can you justify that "repent of our sins" is necessary; you don't know God's will yet, so maybe God doesn't want repentance at all. Maybe God's wife does, or his daughter in law, or his uncle, but maybe God themselves don't.
7) Jesus is in over 1000 chapters time. You really shouldn't start talking about him so much until we get there. "The bible says that we need to dig for the truth"; no it doesn't, the Gospel of Mark even emphasises the keeping of secrets. Translations come from copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of originals. Its nothing like Xerox, its like telling someone a very long story for an hour, and expecting them to repeat it to someone else, and that person to repeat it to another, and so on, for at least 100 links, and then expecting the end result to be anything like the original. The most correct answers will NOT come from the original languages; what all the copies in the original language are destroyed, but someone later writes a copy in the original language again, but lies heavily - the original language one would be the worst possible choice.
8) "I'm not aware of any biblical context". How do you know; I'm saying that all the contexts mean what I say it to mean, and that you are getting it wrong. The only possible way you can understand what a Greek word is used to means is to do an analysis on it EVERYWHERE it is used - that means the vast body of non-Biblical literature. Agape means to give love to someone totally; that can mean brotherly love, but it can also mean sex, and deep romantic love.
9) Being able to defend something proves nothing except your agumentativeness and oratorial skills. It is possible can defend a totally incorrect position; talk to a 4 year old and there's a good chance you could defend the claim that "3+3=7".
If you want to understand the nature of faith, you should read the Brothers Karazamov (Dostoyevsky), particularly the famous episode known as "the Grand Inquisitor". You (in particular) cannot walk away from your (particular) faith; if you could, then you wouldn't make such an effort to defend it.
"put my hands in Jesus' wounds". Ah, "Doubting Thomas"; you clearly do not really understand what that story is really about. Thomas is one of the two central figures in early Gnosticism, the other being Mary Magdelane; the story is a massive criticism of Gnostic views. For a similar reason the "Pericope Adulterae" (the bit about "he who is without sin throw the first stone") was forged in the 7th/8th century to cast a slur on Mary Magdelane - the slur being that she had once been a prostitute
"I'm secured". No, you aren't. If the Pagans are right then you are damned for eternity. If the Hindus, Jains, or Buddhists are right then in you are condemned to being a snail in your next life. There is no security in your position; you've just mistakenly assumed that its Atheism vs. your beliefs, as if it was just a dichotomy.
Irreverancy is very often nothing to do with pride. Comics (humourists) are often irreverant, but at the same time their profession is known for being one with an extremely high proportion of depressed people; depressed people are not known for their pride. Atheists are not Misotheists (hate/angry at God), how could they be? They don't regard any such thing as existing. I could just as well claim you were angry at Shiva's penis (a distinct object of worship in itself, for non-sexual reasons). Maybe you are so entangled in your sinful life that you refuse to accept that there can be any other truth besides YOUR own?
If there is a God, then why should he be higher than us? The Greek Gods really weren't so special, and Greek society often regarded them with quite a bit of disdain, even though they viewed them as existing.
We CAN judge a joke BEFORE we hear the punchline; especially if its a long joke and the punchline isn't all that special - Monty Python's Parrot Sketch, for example. But, I'm glad you feel the Bible is a joke.
Post a Comment