Free Gay Sex Photos, Movies, Reviews and Forums at JustUsBoys
Results 1 to 50 of 50
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39,668


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Its all about the history of ONE race or one small area on earth.
    I don't understand why other races such as the Europeans uses it as their own book.





  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39,668


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Where were the Tatars, the Vikings, the Mongols ... etc fit in the Old Testament ?

  3. #3
    Moderator JUB Moderator star-warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Location
    Home is where the heart is
    Posts
    41,757
    Blog Entries
    9


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    For some people, the biblical flood is as real as the so called fact that only Noah and his family are the sole survivors, and thus everyone alive now are somehow descended from them. By extension, any and all ethnic groups are just explained away by means of the get of Noah's loins etc. These believers or fantasists insist on it.

    The scientific suggestion of the Out of Africa theory has also given this biblical fantasy a boost for some too.


  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39,668


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    I am watching "Barbarians - the Huns"
    The pope at the time said "the Huns are evil" but blame the victims saying "Clearly god has punished them for their sins, they must offer their righteous obedient to the Church or suffer the consequences of the Huns brutality"

    At those time, religion is politic hide behind "god".
    What is the modern word for this? A rat ??

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39,668


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    and from "the Huns" documentary,
    the comments said " Huns are ancient Mongoloids. They are most common in Nenets today." and they look like this:


  6. #6
    'Shiver me timbers' BiMeGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Partnered
    Location
    Middle of Nowhere
    Posts
    13,418


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    But, according to the Ancient Astronaut Theory, since I have negative blood; I am a descendant of the Ancient Aliens themselves.
    "Nobody's 'upposed to touch me where my bathing suit covers!" - Tardy Turtle.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39,668


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    And how does the China's Last Matriarchy fit in the bible ?



  8. #8
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Middleburg Hts (Cleveland)
    Posts
    3,438


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Actually that Old Testament history is interesting and informative. You are right it is only about one people. Don't have any answers for you.

  9. #9
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,753


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickrock View Post
    Actually that Old Testament history is interesting and informative. You are right it is only about one people. Don't have any answers for you.
    I highly recommend THE BIBLE UNEARTHED by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman: an attempt to separate myth from history supported by modern archeological discoveries.

  10. #10
    Porn Star MainEntry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Orientation
    Gay
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    430


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    The Jewish scriptures (the "Old" Testament) is not a history book which states facts. It's a theology book with stories as illustrations of the relationship between God and humankind.

  11. #11
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    13,311


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by MainEntry View Post
    The Jewish scriptures (the "Old" Testament) is not a history book which states facts. It's a theology book with stories as illustrations of the relationship between God and humankind.
    That makes several assumptions. Fact is you have no idea what the motives of the authors were. you don't even know with any certainty who they were. Parts of it certainly are a chronicle, some looks like poetry, some is law. Most probably there was no one motive for all of it, and it's an amalgam of differing kinds of texts intended for different purposes.

    In any event there are plenty of Christians out there who will insist that it is (contrary to your opinion) FACTUALLY true right down to the parting of seas. Yes, we know YOU will dispute that, but then who's to say your opinions on the subject should be given greater weight than anyone else's.

    Frankly I've never understood why an omnipotent God needed to write fantasy fiction to get a point across.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39,668


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    myth, legend and some historical stories turned into god book.

  13. #13
    Newbie Spence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    2


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by star-warrior View Post
    For some people, the biblical flood is as real as the so called fact that only Noah and his family are the sole survivors, and thus everyone alive now are somehow descended from them. By extension, any and all ethnic groups are just explained away by means of the get of Noah's loins etc. These believers or fantasists insist on it.

    The scientific suggestion of the Out of Africa theory has also given this biblical fantasy a boost for some too.
    Christian who randomly found these forums via google search. I probably shouldn't be here, but here's my two cents to your question.

    The biblical story is not just a fairy tale because it happened and is embedded in the history of nations worldwide. Some argue the Torah is copied off the Sumerian tablets, but that is not the case as evidenced by other religions holding the same elements. The worldwide flood mentioned in genesis is mentioned in ancient Greek, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and even Mesoamerican religions.

    Notable similarities
    -Mankind was destroyed because of wickedness
    -One family survived (8 people)
    -An ark was built to save the people
    -Saving all animals
    -A dove appearing
    -A rainbow

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

    Take your time to read them all, you'll be surprised of the similarities

    So, you can see, the bible is not some made up fairy-tale

    The Chinese language's writing is a retelling of Genesis and dates back to about 1500BC
    To create
    造 = 土 (earth/dust) + to walk (won't let me type chuo radical on pc) + 口 (man)
    Genesis: 2:4 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    Spirit

    靈 = 雨 (rain) + 口 (mouth) + 口 (mouth) + 口 (mouth) + 工 (work) + 人 (people) + 人 (people)

    The character for spirit appears to be retelling God is three-in-one (trinity) as he created Adam and Eve.

    Happiness
    福 = 示?(older versions use the character "reveal") + 一 (one) + 口 (mouth/man) + 田 (garden)

    God blessed the Sabbath after he finished creating the earth, garden, and single human [Adam].

    Genesis 2:2
    By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

    Man
    男 = 田 (field/garden) +力 (strength)

    Genesis 3:17-19
    To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

    Woman


    The Chinese character for woman is a pictograph of a woman breastfeeding a baby.

    Genesis 3:16
    To the woman he [Jehovah] said, I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

    Desire/Covet
    婪 = 女 (woman) + 林 (trees)
    Eve was tempted to eat the forbidden fruit of the tree.

    Genesis: 1:6
    When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

    Forbidden
    禁 = 示 (reveal) + 林 (trees)

    Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat fruit from a tree God commanded not to. Eating from the fruit would "open" the eyes of Adam and Eve and reveal they were naked.
    Genesis 3:4-5
    “You will not certainly die,” the serpent [Satan] said to the woman [Eve]. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    Demon
    鬼 = 田 (field/garden) + 儿 (legs/man) + 厶 (secret)
    魔 = 鬼 + 广 (to spread)

    Genesis 3:1
    Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

    Suffering
    楚 = 林 (trees) + 下 (under/to descend) + 人 (people)

    The fall of man is reflected in the character for suffering; Adam and Eve's decision to eat the fruit brought sin into the world.

    Naked
    裸 = 示 (reveal) + 果 (fruit; 田 [field/garden] + 木 [tree])
    光光 (literally means bright bright)

    Genesis 3:2
    Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


    Flood
    洪 = 水 (water) + 共 (together; ? + 八 (eight))

    Boat
    船 = 舟 + 八 + 口
    Note: This character uses 几 (muscle) instead of 八 (eight). Older versions of the character use eight instead.

    Noah and his family built an ark to survive the worldwide flood. A total of eight people survived.

    Genesis 7:13
    On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.

    Tower
    塔 = 土 (earth) + 艹 (grass) + 人 (people) + 一 (one) + 口 (mouth/people)

    The character for tower refers to the tower of babel.

    Genesis 11:1-2
    Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

    Significance of Chinese characters retelling Genesis?
    China was not a Jewish nation yet knew Jehovah. They are retelling the story of what had happened after being scattered among the earth for the tower of babel. Chinese writing predates the Jews writing the Torah in 1500BC!

    You're probably gonna ask what makes the bible the reliable story? The simple answer to that is the Jews were forbidden to change the Torah. The oldest Torahs found still can be read by the Jews today in Israel and the Dead Sea Scrolls still match! The other religions were often meant to glorify their kings and were subject to change!

    Have a great day, you can always change your mind at anytime ^_^

  14. #14
    JUB Addict Mariatenebre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Orientation
    Straight
    Posts
    1,427


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Spence View Post
    Christian who randomly found these forums via google search. I probably shouldn't be here, but here's my two cents to your question.

    The biblical story is not just a fairy tale because it happened and is embedded in the history of nations worldwide. Some argue the Torah is copied off the Sumerian tablets, but that is not the case as evidenced by other religions holding the same elements. The worldwide flood mentioned in genesis is mentioned in ancient Greek, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, and even Mesoamerican religions.

    Notable similarities
    -Mankind was destroyed because of wickedness
    -One family survived (8 people)
    -An ark was built to save the people
    -Saving all animals
    -A dove appearing
    -A rainbow

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

    Take your time to read them all, you'll be surprised of the similarities

    So, you can see, the bible is not some made up fairy-tale

    The Chinese language's writing is a retelling of Genesis and dates back to about 1500BC
    To create
    造 = 土 (earth/dust) + to walk (won't let me type chuo radical on pc) + 口 (man)
    Genesis: 2:4 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    Spirit

    靈 = 雨 (rain) + 口 (mouth) + 口 (mouth) + 口 (mouth) + 工 (work) + 人 (people) + 人 (people)

    The character for spirit appears to be retelling God is three-in-one (trinity) as he created Adam and Eve.

    Happiness
    福 = 示?(older versions use the character "reveal") + 一 (one) + 口 (mouth/man) + 田 (garden)

    God blessed the Sabbath after he finished creating the earth, garden, and single human [Adam].

    Genesis 2:2
    By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

    Man
    男 = 田 (field/garden) +力 (strength)

    Genesis 3:17-19
    To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”

    Woman


    The Chinese character for woman is a pictograph of a woman breastfeeding a baby.

    Genesis 3:16
    To the woman he [Jehovah] said, I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

    Desire/Covet
    婪 = 女 (woman) + 林 (trees)
    Eve was tempted to eat the forbidden fruit of the tree.

    Genesis: 1:6
    When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

    Forbidden
    禁 = 示 (reveal) + 林 (trees)

    Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat fruit from a tree God commanded not to. Eating from the fruit would "open" the eyes of Adam and Eve and reveal they were naked.
    Genesis 3:4-5
    “You will not certainly die,” the serpent [Satan] said to the woman [Eve]. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    Demon
    鬼 = 田 (field/garden) + 儿 (legs/man) + 厶 (secret)
    魔 = 鬼 + 广 (to spread)

    Genesis 3:1
    Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

    Suffering
    楚 = 林 (trees) + 下 (under/to descend) + 人 (people)

    The fall of man is reflected in the character for suffering; Adam and Eve's decision to eat the fruit brought sin into the world.

    Naked
    裸 = 示 (reveal) + 果 (fruit; 田 [field/garden] + 木 [tree])
    光光 (literally means bright bright)

    Genesis 3:2
    Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.


    Flood
    洪 = 水 (water) + 共 (together; ? + 八 (eight))

    Boat
    船 = 舟 + 八 + 口
    Note: This character uses 几 (muscle) instead of 八 (eight). Older versions of the character use eight instead.

    Noah and his family built an ark to survive the worldwide flood. A total of eight people survived.

    Genesis 7:13
    On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.

    Tower
    塔 = 土 (earth) + 艹 (grass) + 人 (people) + 一 (one) + 口 (mouth/people)

    The character for tower refers to the tower of babel.

    Genesis 11:1-2
    Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

    Significance of Chinese characters retelling Genesis?
    China was not a Jewish nation yet knew Jehovah. They are retelling the story of what had happened after being scattered among the earth for the tower of babel. Chinese writing predates the Jews writing the Torah in 1500BC!

    You're probably gonna ask what makes the bible the reliable story? The simple answer to that is the Jews were forbidden to change the Torah. The oldest Torahs found still can be read by the Jews today in Israel and the Dead Sea Scrolls still match! The other religions were often meant to glorify their kings and were subject to change!

    Have a great day, you can always change your mind at anytime ^_^
    Actually many of the Bible's stories didn't happen or were mythologized. Also the consensus is that the Bible's stories were ripped from older Middle Eastern stories. True these stories exist in other cultures but again the Chinese were not influenced by the Hebrew scriptures nor did the Tower of Babel happen. Your attempt to link Chinese language to the Bible is circumstantial and faulty.

    Also as for the Torah we know it has been changed over time we have found earlier Torahs which had variations from modern ones. The Dead Sea Scroll also has variations over modern stories. Over all mainstream historians and scientists consider the Bible to be mythical and do not think it is a reliable account of history. Alot of cultures had flood myths which predate the Bible and association with trees with knowledge predate the Bible.



    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanzi_of_Genesis

  15. #15
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,753


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Just because several different cultures share a similar myth doesn't mean it actually happened... If that were the case then there would simply have to have been a Cinderella.

  16. #16
    JUB Addict HoodedRat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,996


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    Frankly I've never understood why an omnipotent God needed to write fantasy fiction to get a point across.
    Particularly nonsensical fantasy fiction riddled with inconsistencies, errors, and lacking a coherent plotline.

  17. #17
    in the grickle grass
    zoltanspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    8,091
    Blog Entries
    8


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    Frankly I've never understood why an omnipotent God needed to write fantasy fiction to get a point across.
    Using fantasy fiction to get a point across is a common human affair. If there's a problem here, it's not that an omnipotent God would use such a means of communication perfectly suiting his audience, but that an omnipotent God would "need" to do anything at all.
    Somali Ostrich
    The worst thing...is not energy depletion, economic collapse, conventional war, or the expansion of totalitarian governments. As terrible as these catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired in a few generations. The one process now going on that will take millions of years to correct is loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.--e.o. wilson

  18. #18
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    13,311


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by zoltanspawn View Post
    Using fantasy fiction to get a point across is a common human affair. If there's a problem here, it's not that an omnipotent God would use such a means of communication perfectly suiting his audience, but that an omnipotent God would "need" to do anything at all.
    Only God is also omniscient and therefore would presumably understand that metaphor is highly contextual and would immediately be misunderstood by vast swathes of humanity who can't read Hebrew anyway.

    However I'm perfectly willing to concede people routinely write in metaphor, and allegory, and literary devices yet more obscure in an attempt to be portentous in one fashion or another. I'm actually saying in an appropriately metaphorical and human fashion that the Bible was actually written by just such fallible humans, and then endlessly misinterpreted by thousands of years of humans who couldn't agree on what was actually said.

    No gods, omnipotent or otherwise needed.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  19. #19
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    13,311


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    I did get a good chuckle out of the Chinese Characters thing though.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  20. #20
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,753


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    I did get a good chuckle out of the Chinese Characters thing though.
    Yeah... that one gave me the giggles as well.

  21. #21
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    13,311


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    If I was God, My testament would go like this:

    Beauasis 1, Chapter 1, verses 1-finis.

    "1:1 THIS IS NOT A PARABLE! PAY ATTENTION!

    1:2 Protect your children,

    1:3 Feed the Poor,

    1:4 Heal the sick,

    1:5 don't hurt each other's feelings,

    1:6 no killing, stealing, assault, name calling or bullying,

    1:7 I don't give a fuck who you fuck (consensualy),

    1:8 If you get self righteous I WILL drop a tornado on your pretentious ass - NONE of you speak for me!

    1:9 Not even Priests,

    1:10 It's all about the math.

    Right. That about covers it.

    Solve your own damn problems, it's why I gave you minds, and I'm off doing omnipotent, omniscient stuff you can't possibly understand and don't need to be bothered by your whining..."


    Of course I would then be subjected to thousands of years of pretentious humans saying that verse 1:1 up there was really just a metaphor and please contribute to the collection plate - and yeah, the earth would have been decimated by tornadoes.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  22. #22
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    13,311


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    FORGOT ONE!

    "... 1:11 Don't ask for my forgiveness, go get it from the people you fucked over..."
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  23. #23
    JUB Addict cocksucker4use's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Newport Beach
    Posts
    1,368


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Telstra View Post
    Where were the Tatars, the Vikings, the Mongols ... etc fit in the Old Testament ?
    Dunno. With the Christians, maybe?

  24. #24
    Newbie Spence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    2


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Mariatenebre View Post
    Actually many of the Bible's stories didn't happen or were mythologized. Also the consensus is that the Bible's stories were ripped from older Middle Eastern stories. True these stories exist in other cultures but again the Chinese were not influenced by the Hebrew scriptures nor did the Tower of Babel happen. Your attempt to link Chinese language to the Bible is circumstantial and faulty.



    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hanzi_of_Genesis
    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    I did get a good chuckle out of the Chinese Characters thing though.
    Took a while to write this because the site logged me out the first time I wrote my response and life has been quite busy. I had to rewrite this statement again because it was lost.

    Did you examine my claim by yourself first and think about it? You probably own a smartphone and see the components of the characters yourself. Download a Chinese dictionary and view each of the characters
    on your own in Traditional Chinese.

    I looked at both the video and link you provided and found both of them to be filled with fallacies.
    First of all, the man in the video admits he does not know Mandarin and only "debunks" two characters...his claim is the 田 character means field or rice paddy.
    While it's true 田 does mean field and sometimes rice paddy, it still does not debunk the claim because 田 still refers to the environment, a rice paddy can still be considered a garden.
    He also claims the connection is not real by using later Chinese words such as translated western names and religions, those words did not exist in 2nd millennium BCE. His argument is fallacy and incorrect.

    I was hoping for a better argument by RationalWiki, but I still received similar argument with a couple of lies.
    The RationalWiki lies twice (maybe three times) in their attempt to debunk Chinese writing's connection the bible's book of Genesis. The first time they lied was falsely claiming the 八 character was created 1,800 years ago, the character actually existed in the Oracle bone script. Chinese oracle bone script actually dates back to the late 2nd millennium BCE, which is before 1000B.C. at minimal. They also exclude Mandarin was already an advanced writing system, even in the oldest found script.

    The second lie made by RationalWiki is claiming 園 (garden) and other characters are Simplified Han or Japanese Kanji characters, therefore meaning the whole claim is false from the start. They were wrong again, the 園 character is a traditional Chinese character pronounced yuán. While this may hold truth to it if someone claims 乱 (confusion) comes from the bible because it contains tongue, it still does not refute the traditional character I provided and explained earlier.

    I don't consider the third one a lie because it holds truth, however their claim that parts of a character are included strictly for phonic purposes does not apply to all Chinese writing.
    Forexample:
    鬼 (guǐ ) contains the same meaning like 魔 (mó ), but the only difference is adding the 广 part onto 魔. Where is the sound change here? RationalWiki claims part of a character is only used for phonic purposes and this isn't the case here.

    RationalWiki ironically proves the argument of creationists when trying to refute the 造 (to create) character and excluded a bit of information to make it fit their argument. The radical they say means "go" is a walking radicial. They claim 告 (to speak) is only meant for phonic purposes, but end up making the claim more consistent. Genesis clearly says God spoke and the man [Adam] was given life from the dust.

    I was somewhat surprised RationalWiki did not bring up arguments like 船 (boat) using 几 (muscle) instead of 八 (eight) in later versions。 Even if they did, that claim can easily be refuted by older versions of Mandarin writing. Looking at older versions of 船 clearly
    shows 八 (eight) instead of 几 (muscle) being used.

    Your counterargument has lied twice, used irrelevant information to claim the opposite, and did not refute the argument therefore it's faulty.

    I will discuss the first part eventually, life has proven itself to be busy.

  25. #25
    JUB Addict Mariatenebre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Orientation
    Straight
    Posts
    1,427


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Spence View Post
    Took a while to write this because the site logged me out the first time I wrote my response and life has been quite busy. I had to rewrite this statement again because it was lost.

    Did you examine my claim by yourself first and think about it? You probably own a smartphone and see the components of the characters yourself. Download a Chinese dictionary and view each of the characters
    on your own in Traditional Chinese.

    I looked at both the video and link you provided and found both of them to be filled with fallacies.
    First of all, the man in the video admits he does not know Mandarin and only "debunks" two characters...his claim is the 田 character means field or rice paddy.
    While it's true 田 does mean field and sometimes rice paddy, it still does not debunk the claim because 田 still refers to the environment, a rice paddy can still be considered a garden.
    He also claims the connection is not real by using later Chinese words such as translated western names and religions, those words did not exist in 2nd millennium BCE. His argument is fallacy and incorrect.

    I was hoping for a better argument by RationalWiki, but I still received similar argument with a couple of lies.
    The RationalWiki lies twice (maybe three times) in their attempt to debunk Chinese writing's connection the bible's book of Genesis. The first time they lied was falsely claiming the 八 character was created 1,800 years ago, the character actually existed in the Oracle bone script. Chinese oracle bone script actually dates back to the late 2nd millennium BCE, which is before 1000B.C. at minimal. They also exclude Mandarin was already an advanced writing system, even in the oldest found script.

    The second lie made by RationalWiki is claiming 園 (garden) and other characters are Simplified Han or Japanese Kanji characters, therefore meaning the whole claim is false from the start. They were wrong again, the 園 character is a traditional Chinese character pronounced yuán. While this may hold truth to it if someone claims 乱 (confusion) comes from the bible because it contains tongue, it still does not refute the traditional character I provided and explained earlier.

    I don't consider the third one a lie because it holds truth, however their claim that parts of a character are included strictly for phonic purposes does not apply to all Chinese writing.
    Forexample:
    鬼 (guǐ ) contains the same meaning like 魔 (mó ), but the only difference is adding the 广 part onto 魔. Where is the sound change here? RationalWiki claims part of a character is only used for phonic purposes and this isn't the case here.

    RationalWiki ironically proves the argument of creationists when trying to refute the 造 (to create) character and excluded a bit of information to make it fit their argument. The radical they say means "go" is a walking radicial. They claim 告 (to speak) is only meant for phonic purposes, but end up making the claim more consistent. Genesis clearly says God spoke and the man [Adam] was given life from the dust.

    I was somewhat surprised RationalWiki did not bring up arguments like 船 (boat) using 几 (muscle) instead of 八 (eight) in later versions。 Even if they did, that claim can easily be refuted by older versions of Mandarin writing. Looking at older versions of 船 clearly
    shows 八 (eight) instead of 几 (muscle) being used.

    Your counterargument has lied twice, used irrelevant information to claim the opposite, and did not refute the argument therefore it's faulty.

    I will discuss the first part eventually, life has proven itself to be busy.
    Actually I checked for this character 八 on the oracle bone script on wikipedia and found nothing there. Further more I have spoken to speakers of the Chinese language and rationalwiki's article is correct. This person here goes and refutes the Chinese character argument here.
    https://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspo...haracters.html

    ** The imitation parchment graphic is full of errors (my quotes are from _Chinese Characters_, by Dr. L. Wieger, S.J.):

    woman + trees = desire, covet
    Nope. The two trees “lin” are phonetic in the compound character, “lan”.

    serpent + trees = negative, no, not
    Nope. Itʼs “two divergent rods which one seeks to tie together”.

    mouth + tree = restrain
    Nope. “To encompass a tree, here taken to mean any object; to tie; to knot.”

    tree + enclosure (garden) = difficulty
    Nope. The original character was a bit different from the modern form, so “Weariness, exhaustion that forces [one] to stop on the way, to sleep under a tree. The modern form represents the same idea, but not so clearly; a camping under a tree.” Note that many Southern Chinese languages have a word, also pronounced “kun”, that means “to sleep”.

    hand + lance + me + sheep = righteousness
    Nope. There is no hand. Rather, the word for “I” is composed of two lances. “Two weapons in conflict, two rights that oppose one another, my right, and, by extension, my Ego.” The sheep has the “Idea of sweetness, of peace, of harmony”, thus the full character is “Harmony, good, understanding, peace restored after a conflict; convention concluded after a disagreement, restoring concord and giving satisfaction to the interested parties. Hence all the derived meanings…”

    noble person + lamb, sheep = beautiful
    Close enough. “A man resembling to the lamb, sweet, gentle, good”.

    Of course, itʼs interesting that only the Chinese knew as far back as the 18th century BC that Jesus was going to be sacrificed—which is the whole point of this little exercise.

    Cheers,
    Mike Wright


    Here is another article on the subject.

    http://pinyin.info/news/2006/misunde...l-proportions/

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG101.html

    In fact this author who is a linguistic expert does a detailed debunking on this website.

    http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages.../chinchar.html

    http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages...hcreation.html

    http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages...ar/cheden.html

    http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages...ar/chfall.html

    http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages...r/chflood.html

    http://www.raccoonbend.com/languages...r/chbabel.html


    The fact is your views fly in the face of the mainstream consensus of scientists and historians. The fact is that Genesis is not an accurate account of science or history and in fact is derived from earlier Pagan tales.

    Hell true monotheism only came about to the Jews during the Babylonian captivity. The Hebrews like their Canaanite ancestors in their earliest days were polytheists. Yahweh himself was a god worshiped by the Canaanites as well particularly the Shasu and Apirut. He was one of the 70 sons of El Elyon and Athirat and a quarrelsome war god. This explains his rather brutal, cruel and capricious side in the Bible such as how he orders mass racial genocides of various ethnic groups like the Midianites and Amelekites which Christians to this day defend these racial genocides while ironically saying that without their particular god you have no rational reason to be against genocide and yet they defend racial genocides including the slaughter of children when their god orders it. However with the Hebrews there were various movements called the Yahwist movements which taught strict devotion to Yahweh. Now they still believed in the other Gods they just only thought that Yahweh was worthy to be worshiped. This is clear in such Biblical texts as Yahweh presiding over a Divine Council of Gods. Certain Torah verses condemn the Hebrews for not worshiping false deities or demons but for worshiping "The Host of Heaven" aka the other Gods.

    Again your views are not in line with mainstream science, history or linguistics.

  26. #26
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,753


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Spence View Post
    Took a while to write this because the site logged me out the first time I wrote my response and life has been quite busy. I had to rewrite this statement again because it was lost.

    Did you examine my claim by yourself first and think about it? You probably own a smartphone and see the components of the characters yourself. Download a Chinese dictionary and view each of the characters
    on your own in Traditional Chinese.

    I looked at both the video and link you provided and found both of them to be filled with fallacies.
    First of all, the man in the video admits he does not know Mandarin and only "debunks" two characters...his claim is the 田 character means field or rice paddy.
    While it's true 田 does mean field and sometimes rice paddy, it still does not debunk the claim because 田 still refers to the environment, a rice paddy can still be considered a garden.
    He also claims the connection is not real by using later Chinese words such as translated western names and religions, those words did not exist in 2nd millennium BCE. His argument is fallacy and incorrect.

    I was hoping for a better argument by RationalWiki, but I still received similar argument with a couple of lies.
    The RationalWiki lies twice (maybe three times) in their attempt to debunk Chinese writing's connection the bible's book of Genesis. The first time they lied was falsely claiming the 八 character was created 1,800 years ago, the character actually existed in the Oracle bone script. Chinese oracle bone script actually dates back to the late 2nd millennium BCE, which is before 1000B.C. at minimal. They also exclude Mandarin was already an advanced writing system, even in the oldest found script.

    The second lie made by RationalWiki is claiming 園 (garden) and other characters are Simplified Han or Japanese Kanji characters, therefore meaning the whole claim is false from the start. They were wrong again, the 園 character is a traditional Chinese character pronounced yuán. While this may hold truth to it if someone claims 乱 (confusion) comes from the bible because it contains tongue, it still does not refute the traditional character I provided and explained earlier.

    I don't consider the third one a lie because it holds truth, however their claim that parts of a character are included strictly for phonic purposes does not apply to all Chinese writing.
    Forexample:
    鬼 (guǐ ) contains the same meaning like 魔 (mó ), but the only difference is adding the 广 part onto 魔. Where is the sound change here? RationalWiki claims part of a character is only used for phonic purposes and this isn't the case here.

    RationalWiki ironically proves the argument of creationists when trying to refute the 造 (to create) character and excluded a bit of information to make it fit their argument. The radical they say means "go" is a walking radicial. They claim 告 (to speak) is only meant for phonic purposes, but end up making the claim more consistent. Genesis clearly says God spoke and the man [Adam] was given life from the dust.

    I was somewhat surprised RationalWiki did not bring up arguments like 船 (boat) using 几 (muscle) instead of 八 (eight) in later versions。 Even if they did, that claim can easily be refuted by older versions of Mandarin writing. Looking at older versions of 船 clearly
    shows 八 (eight) instead of 几 (muscle) being used.

    Your counterargument has lied twice, used irrelevant information to claim the opposite, and did not refute the argument therefore it's faulty.

    I will discuss the first part eventually, life has proven itself to be busy.
    Sorry... I'm just not buying into this. IMO the whole thing sounds utterly preposterous.

  27. #27
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    13,311


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Hey Spence. I don't have an argument lying or otherwise, everything you propose relies on a massive amount of speculation and confirmation bias that is frankly impossible to take seriously.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  28. #28
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    That makes several assumptions. Fact is you have no idea what the motives of the authors were. you don't even know with any certainty who they were. Parts of it certainly are a chronicle, some looks like poetry, some is law. Most probably there was no one motive for all of it, and it's an amalgam of differing kinds of texts intended for different purposes.

    In any event there are plenty of Christians out there who will insist that it is (contrary to your opinion) FACTUALLY true right down to the parting of seas. Yes, we know YOU will dispute that, but then who's to say your opinions on the subject should be given greater weight than anyone else's.

    Frankly I've never understood why an omnipotent God needed to write fantasy fiction to get a point across.
    LOL

    Your final sentence destroys everything above it: you're forcing a modern definition on ancient documents, and doing so without asking at all what the actual motives were.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  29. #29
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    As to the original question, the answer is in the video, when he talks abut Job: the message is universal.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  30. #30
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    842


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Need a good Old Testament Laugh read these; http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06...penalties.html Atheist here

  31. #31
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    13,311


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    LOL

    Your final sentence destroys everything above it: you're forcing a modern definition on ancient documents, and doing so without asking at all what the actual motives were.
    We live in a modern world with modern Christians forcing Modern interpretations on all of us. It's utterly irrelevant what anyone thought thousands of years ago, that's less than pointless.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Including you by the way, for all of your protestations, your interpretation of Christianity is just as modern as mine.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  32. #32
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    We live in a modern world with modern Christians forcing Modern interpretations on all of us. It's utterly irrelevant what anyone thought thousands of years ago, that's less than pointless.
    What the original writer and his listeners (all those scrolls were written to be read aloud) is the only thing that is relevant, because that's the meaning of their words. Even the translators of the Septuagint understood that, well before Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    Including you by the way, for all of your protestations, your interpretation of Christianity is just as modern as mine.
    Sorry, but no, it isn't. I rely on the original intent and on the Church Fathers, especially the great Creeds.

    I know you love to dis scholarship, but that's just your peculiar arrogance at work. Anyone who deals with ancient texts knows that the only way to know what they mean is to find what those words meant in the original setting.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  33. #33
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    13,311


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    What the original writer and his listeners (all those scrolls were written to be read aloud) is the only thing that is relevant, because that's the meaning of their words. Even the translators of the Septuagint understood that, well before Christ.



    Sorry, but no, it isn't. I rely on the original intent and on the Church Fathers, especially the great Creeds.

    I know you love to dis scholarship, but that's just your peculiar arrogance at work. Anyone who deals with ancient texts knows that the only way to know what they mean is to find what those words meant in the original setting.
    Oh spare me. You don't have any scholarship in what people were thinking thousands of years ago. All you have is speculation, colored by what you want to think, that came from your modern life.

    You don't have any idea what the context, inference, idiom, or intent of any of those ancient languages really was, all you do is guess, and if you had any respect for "scholarship" you wouldn't be in here pretending you have certainty where there is none.

    Case in point, you don't even have a primary source, all you have is copies of copies getting ever more bastardized as the centuries pass by. Who then really knows what the originals actually looked like, not you, not me,not anyone.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  34. #34
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    Oh spare me. You don't have any scholarship in what people were thinking thousands of years ago. All you have is speculation, colored by what you want to think, that came from your modern life.

    You don't have any idea what the context, inference, idiom, or intent of any of those ancient languages really was, all you do is guess, and if you had any respect for "scholarship" you wouldn't be in here pretending you have certainty where there is none.

    Case in point, you don't even have a primary source, all you have is copies of copies getting ever more bastardized as the centuries pass by. Who then really knows what the originals actually looked like, not you, not me,not anyone.
    You really ought to go to an actual school sometime -- it would do you good.

    Actual textual scholars will tell you that we know the original text of most of the Old Testament with only a little doubt.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  35. #35
    FEAR THE LIBERAL DETENTE! TX-Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Open Relationship
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    13,311


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Actual textual scholars will tell you that all they can do is speculate. It's the religious that get creative.
    ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE

  36. #36
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    Actual textual scholars will tell you that all they can do is speculate. It's the religious that get creative.
    Rubbish. Actual textual scholars will tell you there's a science to figuring out what's original, and that religion is irrelevant to that.

    In fact, religious types came late to the party; the science of it was established before they joined in.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  37. #37
    JUB Addict HoodedRat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,996


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierresro View Post
    Need a good Old Testament Laugh read these; http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06...penalties.html Atheist here
    The Bible in general, and the OT in particular, is full of utterly hilarious stuff.

    It may not be of much use as a book of science, history, moral guidance, or even coherent theology, but it is a great source of humour.

  38. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    39,668


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by HoodedRat View Post
    The Bible in general, and the OT in particular, is full of utterly hilarious stuff.

    It may not be of much use as a book of science, history, moral guidance, or even coherent theology, but it is a great source of humour.
    Hilarious for some.
    For the believers, it is serious stuff and not hilarious.

  39. #39
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by HoodedRat View Post
    The Bible in general, and the OT in particular, is full of utterly hilarious stuff.

    It may not be of much use as a book of science, history, moral guidance, or even coherent theology, but it is a great source of humour.
    Seriously?

    Society is still two and a half millennia behind the ethics of the Old Testament, especially in the U.S. where the admonitions from over two thousand years ago about taking care of orphans and widows, not letting anyone go hungry, and a lot more are ignored (and even despised).

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  40. #40
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierresro View Post
    Need a good Old Testament Laugh read these; http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06...penalties.html Atheist here
    "Hilarious"?

    A dozen and a half are simply ways to draw a line between Yahweh and other gods.

    Thirty are just good sense morals.

    At least a half dozen are out of concern for the poor.

    Nearly a dozen are just good health practices in a society without refrigeration.

    That's most of the list, right there. Laughing at those just demonstrates a failure to think (in other words, being just the same as an uneducated fundamentalist).

    Some of the rest may have some cultural reason.


    But the author's point is a good one: too many Christians treat the Old Testament like it's a theological smorgasbord and just pick what they like (or dislike). Some have fancy justifications, such as dividing all the commands into artificial categories, e.g. "health mandates", "ceremonial code", "moral code", "cultural necessity", etc.; the telling thing is that anything they don't approve of people doing ends up in their "moral" box, and anything they think is silly ends up in "ceremonial" or "cultural". The latter is truly ironic, since most of the decisions are cultural: the culture they live in, judging a different one (and, generally, one they haven't put much effort into understanding).

    Though he wasn't careful in making his list; there's at least one there that is a specific instruction for a specific circumstance, namely the one about tearing clothes. The passage also forbids cutting/tearing one's hair, but both are prohibitions to a named small group of people under a specific crisis-type situation. From my brief studies with a rabbi, those two aren't included in the listing of commands to Israel since they were only to part of Israel.

    But back to the categories issue: it's flawed from the very start, since those categories are modern and even Western ones -- they aren't anything the ancient Hebrews would have recognized; in fact they might have found the effort itself to be blasphemous. To that culture, every command was moral, every command was ceremonial, every command was cultural, for the simple reason that they didn't divide their lives into such categories. Sure, they may have recognized that some command protected their health, but that for them would not have made it not moral or not ceremonial.

    The one category that they would likely have recognized is that of mercy, not that a command upholding mercy would have been considered not ceremonial or moral or cultural, but because it involved behaving toward their fellow man with the mercy with which God dealt with them. This is where the commands to not pick up fallen fruit, or to harvest the edges of fields, and even selling property permanently come in (sorry, capitalists, but God does not approve of piling up real estate holdings or leaving families without their own land). But therein lies the approach to the whole Old Testament that the New Testament writers use: extract the principles, forget the details. Though really you don't have to go to the New Testament for that, since it's exactly what the prophets did when they announced that God hated their feasts, despised their sacrifices, etc.: those were things God had commanded, but they were being done without paying attention to the point, so God focused on the point and threw out the details.


    At any rate, there is indeed some good laughter there if you give the whole Old Testament a read, because the people indulging in smorgasbord theology are doing exactly what the Old Testament itself says you can't do, and the methods they use, the antics they engage in, to try to wiggle around that can be quite hilarious.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  41. #41
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by HoodedRat View Post
    The Bible in general, and the OT in particular, is full of utterly hilarious stuff.

    It may not be of much use as a book of science, history, moral guidance, or even coherent theology, but it is a great source of humour.
    It's worth pointing out that a majority of Americans would say the same thing about a great deal of science, especially evolution.

    And in both cases the claims are held to because those making them are ignorant of the subject matter (which is why Dawkins is such a delightful clown sometimes, although I will note that he at least has admitted on more than one occasion that he was speaking totally outside his knowledge base, something I don't think I've ever heard a fundamentalist do [hmm... that inspires another thread....].

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  42. #42
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Location
    Greensburg
    Posts
    541
    Blog Entries
    1


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    If you think about it, the Bible as so many weird things in it that it is almost as if ttthhe writers were on an acid trip. You’ve got talking snakes and burning bushes and the man that got both genders of every living creature and shoved inside a tiny boat somehow. Oh and the story of the giant bread that caused destruction as it rolled down a hill. And that is only in the first half!
    Touch me in the morning
    Then just walk away.
    We don't have tomorrow but we had yesterday.

  43. #43
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by gaysian85 View Post
    If you think about it, the Bible as so many weird things in it that it is almost as if ttthhe writers were on an acid trip. You’ve got talking snakes and burning bushes and the man that got both genders of every living creature and shoved inside a tiny boat somehow. Oh and the story of the giant bread that caused destruction as it rolled down a hill. And that is only in the first half!
    "Giant bread"? You're talking about a dream someone had and wrote down. Heck, compared to dreams I've had, that's nothing!

    As for Noah and all those animals: the boat was hardly "tiny" -- as I recall, given the recorded dimensions it would have been the biggest thing on the oceans until the eighteenth century (though the Chinese "treasure ships" in the fifteenth century would beat them if the shortest likely length of a cubit were used for the Ark). That aside, the Hebrew text makes no claim that the flood involved covered the entire globe; that's a misreading due to a pair of things primarily, first that Europeans in the fifteenth century or so didn't understand the ancient language as well as it's understood today, and second that their view of the world was much larger than that of the ancient Hebrews -- put those together,and the result is a mental image quite different from what the original audience would hae had.

    As for the talking snake, there hasn't been a generation since Cyrus the Great when that story was not regarded as allegorical (something sort of like metaphorical). The more interesting aspect of that story is how a snake became identified with Satan! (especially since nowhere in the Old Testament is the word satan used for "the Devil")



    Just BTW, the burning bush is an incident I consider likely to be true. Think about it: if you're the Creator of all, and you're trying to get some dim human's attention (without scaring him to death), doing something that any human since the first campfire 'way back when would see and react, like "That's not fucking possible!" and try to take a closer look would work great, and seeing two impossible things together (a bush on fire that's still alive, and a fire burning without using up fuel) is an easy choice.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  44. #44
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by gaysian85 View Post
    If you think about it, the Bible as so many weird things in it that it is almost as if ttthhe writers were on an acid trip. You’ve got talking snakes and burning bushes and the man that got both genders of every living creature and shoved inside a tiny boat somehow. Oh and the story of the giant bread that caused destruction as it rolled down a hill. And that is only in the first half!
    The stuff closest to someone being on drugs and writing is in the Apocrypha, that batch of books the early Christians thought made good reading but Rome decided were as good as the main books. I think it was a student of G. K. Chesterton who observed, when C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were referred to as pioneers of a new kind of literature, that for the first fantasy literature one had to look no further than the Apocrypha, where "there be dragons" and such.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  45. #45
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    I did get a good chuckle out of the Chinese Characters thing though.
    I heard a presentation by a missionary who had worked to translate the Bible into the language of some remote tribe. He got some people upset by poking fun at the whole business of trying to make other languages "speak" about God, as with the Chinese characters thing. For his efforts at translation, he had to understand what language is at a deep level, and along the way before he was ever ready to do serious translating he tumbled to the fact that words and concepts from one language (often poorly understood) have amazing similarities to concepts and words in another language (and in fact he did his Ph.D. dissertation on the phenomenon). He reviewed every claim in a dozen languages including all the Chinese character stuff, and hunted as many such correspondences as he could find in those languages, with the result that when he assessed the claims (including these Chinese character ones) he concluded that in essence it was below the statistical level of just noise, i.e. random (apparent) correlation with no real meaning. The point was that you're going to find such things between different languages just because of the nature of human language, and if a given set of claims about such correlations don't rise above the ordinary level of such things, it's just "noise" and not meaningful.

    He agreed it was impossible to say God wasn't putting something there for us to see, it was just that at the level at which it was occurring he couldn't justify thinking God was trying to get anyone's attention there.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  46. #46
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TX-Beau View Post
    However I'm perfectly willing to concede people routinely write in metaphor, and allegory, and literary devices yet more obscure..... I'm actually saying in an appropriately metaphorical and human fashion that the Bible was actually written by just such fallible humans, and then endlessly misinterpreted by thousands of years of humans who couldn't agree on what was actually said.
    It's worth noting that by the common understanding of inspiration at the time Peter reminded his readers that "all scripture is inspired by God" includes, indeed arguably requires, all the foibles of "fallible humans" being part of the result. He actually gave something of a definition of the process, saying "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" -- which is not too far removed from what the Greeks claimed for the Oracle at Delhpi. The idea in both cases was that the deity filled a person with understanding concerning something, and then that said understanding was communicated by the person in the ways that person would normally communicate. It thus excludes God making people speak scientifically accurately, or other such silliness, because it limits the output to the capacity of the inspired individual to communicate it, while it includes that the message is inspired only in the principle content and not necessarily in the details.

    This understanding of inspiration is quite different from what I used to accept, but that's kind of to be expected when there's several thousands of scholarly words' on the subject difference between the two.


    On the thread topic, such an understanding can be called an "Old Testament basic", because unless you understand what the claim of inspiration means, you'll never understand the texts.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  47. #47
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,753


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    Woah... I see a lot has been made out of nothing.

  48. #48
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Posts
    114,383
    Blog Entries
    79


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    The video wasn't really about Old Testament "basics", BTW, just a basic storyline framework to help see the context of all the different pieces. For a real basic, here's one: the word חסד, one translators have had to toughest time turning into English. Pronounced "kheh-sed", it's been translated as "mercy", "grace", "lovingkindness", "steadfast love", "loving faithfulness", "great kindness", "covenant love", "loving loyalty", and more (one of my favorites is Sir George Smith's "leal love", which gives the image of a feudal lord and his vassal bound by pledged loyalty and love in both directions). More than one major translation team has stated that without getting this word right, there's no hope of understanding the Old Testament... and that it's supremely difficult to get it right (when I took Hebrew, in one of the classes we had to read a several-hundred page article [practically a book] on just this one word, after which our professor told us that if we grasped it then we had a glimmer of an inkling of understanding).

    It's an important word because it's at the center of the entire relationship portrayed between God and Israel; in fact the history of Israel in the Old Testament period can be described as repeated failures to understand that חסד really did describe that relationship, the consequences of such failure, and God's attempts to set them straight (again). And that's critical for understanding why God is said to command something, but later turns around and says He hates it: every covenant between God and man is based on חסד, and every covenant fails, a process that according to both the five "Books of Moses" up front and the prophets at the other end is aimed at a final covenant with an entirely new relationship between not just God and Israel but between God and all mankind. So if you grasp this one word and its importance, then the coming of Christ is seen to be inevitable -- as a Roman Catholic scholar-priest put it, having tried everything else and having the people He tried with fail, God would just have to show up in person and show us poor dim creatures Himself.

    And both the prophets and the Psalms make it plain that this word is the key, that it's what God has been trying to get across in various ways from the start. Understanding it puts all those early rules into perspective and leads to what rabbis already understood, what Jesus said to a questioner, that the whole law is summed up in two propositions, namely to love God with everything you are and to love others as you love yourself. God coming as Jesus, then, is the ultimate demonstration of God's side of the covenant, a showing of אֱמוּנָתֶֽךָ, "Your (God's) faithfulness", His utter dependability, and thus of the Old Testament.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  49. #49
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,753


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    So, Kulindahr, have you gotten it all off your chest?

  50. #50
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    3,753


    Posts must follow the:
    Code of Conduct

    Re: The Old Testament Basics !!!

    I think my opinion of the Bible is eloquently stated by archeologist Israel Finkelstein:

    The Bible would offer an unparalleled source of solidarity and identity to countless communities in the centuries that followed. The details of its stories, drawn from a treasury of ancient memories, fragmentary histories, and rewritten legends, possessed power not as an objective chronology of events in a tiny land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, but as a timeless expression of what a people's divine destiny might be.
    I do not find spiritual fulfillment in the pages of The Bible, but I cannot deny the impact (sometimes negative, sometimes positive) it has had on countless people and cultures over the centuries.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •