Originally posted by whodeyI would very much like to see the original language untranslated. Are you able to give us that?
You are both a gentleman and a scholar. This is perhaps the best example yet of an apparent contradiction. However, I would have to go with Joseph on this one. I would say that it would have been virtually impossible for Jeremiah to have not known about the offerings done by Israel in the wilderness. After all, being a Jew I am almost certain Jeremiah gav ...[text shortened]... ecame jealous of God preferring Abels sacrifice and.....well you know the rest of the story.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking. Jeremiah 7:22 in the Hebrew? I can transliterate it from the Hebrew script (I don’t think I can paste the Hebrew script into RHP—but the only way to find out is to give it a try below: we’ll see how it comes out). Transliterating long passages takes me a lot of work, as I have to do it “by hand” (and you get my own, since I can’t put the dots under letters, etc., for the standard transliteration). [BTW, Hebrew reads from right to left; I put the transliteration left to right.]
Well, I’ll do Hosea 6:6—
Ki chesed chaphatztey u’lo’zavach u’daat elohim me’olot.
Because/for/since/as lovingkindness I am pleased with [or I desire] and not sacrifice and knowledge of God more than [or rather than] burnt-offerings.
Interesting word-play, since the first phrase seems clearly to say “I am pleased with this, not that”; whereas the second phrase is more equivocal in how it can be translated. Actually, since me is likely a contraction of min, it could be read “from” or “out of”, as well as “more than” or “rather than.” The question becomes: If God is not (Heb: lo) pleased with sacrifice, why would God only “prefer” knowledge of God (daat elohim) above burnt offerings.
Jewish tradition, as you understand from many of my past postings, does not flinch from challenging the texts (and I am not interested in arguing that any further, as I have at length in the past), and does not insist on a univocal reading of them (i.e., trying to remove all conflict or contradiction). It would be, one might say, quite “Jewish” for a prophet like Hosea (or Jeremiah) to challenge even the Mosaic commandments.
Of course, the rabbis are not going to say the texts are in error—they are going to say that conflicts and contradictions serve a purpose, in part to drive the reader deeper into the torah that lies underneath the text, and for which the text is only a garment.
__________________________________
Attempted cut and paste of Hebrew script for Hosea 6:6—
`tAl[ome ~yhil{a/ t[;d;w> xb;z"-al{w> yTic.p;x' ds,x, yK
Just as a matter of interest. For those who believe "the Bible" is inerrant. What do you mean by "The Bible"?
1. All known translations.
2. The King James Version, or any other given version.
3. The oldest known version in whatever language it is believed to have been written in.
4. The text as it was first written (which we do not actually have).
And when interpreting the text will you accept:
1. An interpretation based on our best understanding of the language in question.
2. An interpretation based on your own personal 'inspiration' after much prayer.
3. An interpretation based on somebody else's (possibly an important figure in your church) 'inspiration' after much prayer /or study.
4. Any interpretation that is possibly conceivable from the given words as long as a contradiction cannot be proved.
Originally posted by twhitehead"Of course, the rabbis are not going to say the texts are in error—they are going to say that conflicts and contradictions serve a purpose, in part to drive the reader deeper into the torah that lies underneath the text, and for which the text is only a garment."
Just as a matter of interest. .
What do you make of that?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think it's excellent that, from what I read from vistesd, many rabbis incite the challenging of any particular interpretation of religious texts.
"Of course, the rabbis are not going to say the texts are in error—they are going to say that conflicts and contradictions serve a purpose, in part to drive the reader deeper into the torah that lies underneath the text, and for which the text is only a garment."
What do you make of that?
In my opinion, this is a great step against religions fundamentalism and for religious tolerance. The admission that such contradictions may exist in the torah and their purpose is to drive the reader deeper may sound like a lame excuse at first (well...it did to me), but it is imbued with the spirit of 'anything is open to argument', that I find particularly healthy in religion.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think it is a very interesting view point. It makes a lot more sense than "The Bible is never wrong".
"Of course, the rabbis are not going to say the texts are in error—they are going to say that conflicts and contradictions serve a purpose, in part to drive the reader deeper into the torah that lies underneath the text, and for which the text is only a garment."
What do you make of that?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNote that 'the [insert religious text] is never wrong' is compatible (and usually goes along) with such an approach. The contradictions are there for a reason.
I think it is a very interesting view point. It makes a lot more sense than "The Bible is never wrong".
This is why I like its idea. Even those that believe God is perfect must realize that they themselves are not, so their interpretations are always open to questioning.
Maybe luciferhammer could contribute with his thoughts and how papal infallibility is incompatible or not with such a view.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI think what God wants is for our hearts to be the motivating factor in regards to why we sacrifice things to him. I think this can be seen as far back as Cain and Abel. Both gave God "sacrifices".
You are both a gentleman and a scholar. This is perhaps the best example yet of an apparent contradiction. However, I would have to go with Joseph on this one. I would say that it would have been virtually impossible for Jeremiah to have not known about the offerings done by Israel in the wilderness. After all, being a Jew I am almost certain Jeremiah gav ecame jealous of God preferring Abels sacrifice and.....well you know the rest of the story.
Where did you get this thinking, from scriptures or from your faith?
Your faith should come from the scriptures, not interpreting scriptures according to you faith..
BTW: I didn't forgot you challenge, I'm just doing some reasearch to give you a complete picture..
Originally posted by ahosyneyI am pointing out that your assertion that he must rely more on scripture than faith is either based on your own faith or on scripture. If it is based on your own faith then who is to say that your faith is better than his. If it is scripture then his belief that faith is more important overrides that.
I didn't get your question,
Are you asking about what I do?
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadthis is not a faith , it is logic (or you can say my logic because sometimes you have different idea) .
I am pointing out that your assertion that he must rely more on scripture than faith is either based on your own faith or on scripture. If it is based on your own faith then who is to say that your faith is better than his. If it is scripture then his belief that faith is more important overrides that.
If I believe in a Book that it is a word of GOD, then my faith should come from it. (Why I believe it the word of GOD it another story..).
Does it make sense to believe something that is not in the scripture? Where did this faith came from?
If you talking about the scripture that support my logic in Quran (I'm refering to Quran because it is the book I base my faith upon):
(Nobel-Translation)(Al-Anbiyaa)(o 10 o)(10. Indeed, We have sent down for you -O mankind- a Book, -the Qur'ân- in which there is Dhikrukum, -your Reminder or an honour for you i.e. honour for the one who follows the teaching of the Qur'ân and acts on its orders-. Will you not then understand?)
So the Quran was sent to follow its teaching.
(Nobel-Translation)(An-Nisaa)(o 136 o)(136. O you who believe! Believe in Allâh, and His Messenger -Muhammad -, and the Book -the Qur'ân- which He has sent down to His Messenger, and the Scripture which He sent down to those before -him-, and whosoever disbelieves in Allâh, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, then indeed he has strayed far away.)
And we are asked to believe in Allah, the Prophet and the Book. And Believing in the Book means to follow its teaching, as I explained before. I don't know if this answers your question.
(Nobel-Translation)(Al-Baqarah)(o 170 o)(170. When it is said to them: "Follow what Allâh has sent down." They say: "Nay! We shall follow what we found our fathers following." -Would they do that!- Even though their fathers did not understand anything nor were they guided?)
Here Allah tell us to follow his word no what out parents teach us. It is a direct teaching not to follow parents in blind faith. We have to know what Allah want and follow it.
EDIT: At some point your question will be circular.
Originally posted by ahosyneyBut your belief that it is the word of God is based on your faith so your faith surely comes first. As you said, our ideas on what is logical are quite different. 🙂
If I believe in a Book that it is a word of GOD, then my faith should come from it. (Why I believe it the word of GOD it another story..).
What would you do if the book you have faith in told you not to have faith in itself? What do you do if the book you have faith in contradicts the faith that caused you to have faith in the book?
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut your belief that it is the word of God is based on your faith so your faith surely comes first.
But your belief that it is the word of God is based on your faith so your faith surely comes first. As you said, our ideas on what is logical are quite different. 🙂
What would you do if the book you have faith in told you not to have faith in itself? What do you do if the book you have faith in contradicts the faith that caused you to have faith in the book?
That is an assumption from you. I excluded my faith in the Book because it is different. Early Muslims didn't believe that Quran is the word of GOD just because of faith. The found it make sense. They found it different from different points of views (Moral, language and laws ; is this clear, very bad english sorry 🙂 ). So they accepted it as the word of GOD. Then after that they followed its teaching, which formed their faith in GOD and others. I was born Muslim, but I had a long Journy with Quran and Hadith, because I didn't want to be just a follower to my parents (As Quran say 🙂 ), so I tried to do what early Muslims did.
What would you do if the book you have faith in told you not to have faith in itself?
Do you think this question logicaly make any sense? If the book ask me no to believe in it, what is the use of it?
If there is GOD and he ask me not to follow his message, then it is not from GOD, or that GOD doesn't exist.
What do you do if the book you have faith in contradicts the faith that caused you to have faith in the book?
I didn't quite understand this question. If the book contradict itself, then I can't accept as a word of GOD.
This question is not clear.