glintofpewter Posted June 12, 2010 Share Posted June 12, 2010 My definitions Holiness Laws: those that follow from Jesus's reply to what was the greatest commandment; Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Hospitality Laws: those that follow from the second greatest law: Love your neighbor as yourself. I believe there is a battle for a Christian understanding of the world by how the Bible is to be read in Biblical study. Yes. The battle is at least 2500 years old. It began with the first editing of Genesis, and the second. This battle was enjoined during the captivity when the Scriptures were rewritten. Ezra and Nehemiah called for purity, replacing Hospitality Laws with the In-Hospitality of Holiness Laws by calling for the rejection of foreign wives and refusal to accept help from the Israelites who were left behind during captivity. This distortion of where and how Holiness Laws and Hospitality Laws function in our lives was a mistake that Jesus continually called attention to as he battled for how the Bible should be read. He attacked the Holiness Laws involving the Sabbath; he attacked the Holiness Laws around cleanliness and uncleanliness. Generally he attacked usurpation of the Hospitality Laws by the Holiness Laws. Holiness Laws which allowed the religious leaders to have position and power in the community. The power of oppression. Using Holiness Laws to convince everyone that they are sinners is found wherever the nation uses the church to create good citizens, wherever we forget that in relationships with others the call to Hospitality, Love your neighbor, should be our guide. Of course it is my opinion. About something I feel passionately. Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 The Bible: An Introduction to the Jewish Scriptures Dr. Thomas L. Long "Scholars using historical-critical methods have identified four theological traditions in the Hebrew scriptures that were combined over centuries of scribal transmission: the Yahwist (J), the Elohist (E), the Deuteronomic (D), and the Priestly (P)." http://community.tncc.edu/faculty/longt/REL200/intro_to_Jewish_ss.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 I first ran across Ireneaus in Elaine Pagels book, The Gospel of Thomas. Ireneaus was concerned about bringing unity to the scattered groups of Christians. He hoped that having a set list of books, worthy of study, would have that effect. To his dismay, different readers in different places found different meanings. He quickly wrote commentary so that all Christians would know what the passages meant and would not find other meanings. from Wikipedia Irenaeus wrote that the only way for Christians to retain unity was to humbly accept one doctrinal authority—episcopal councils. Against the Gnostics, who said that they possessed a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles — and none of them were Gnostics — and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture. His writings, with those of Clement and Ignatius, are taken to hint at papal primacy. Irenaeus is the earliest witness to recognition of the canonical character of all four gospels. Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Dutch, Interesting reading and perspective for anyone interested in the formation and practices involved in the Bible. Thanks, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 by presenting the case of Ireneaus and the class notes on the Jewish Scriptures, I don't mean to dismiss the motivations of Ireneaus, the Deuternomic (centralizing worship) and the Priestly (centralizing Levitical power). In hard times, whether it is a football team or a nation at war, it is important that those on the same team, of the same nation, focus and be on the same page. David, you are correct in emphasizing one way to read this Bible over another in this crisis or battle named. And some liberals would agree that there is indeed a battle over how to read the Bible. We're just on different sides. The new curriculum from TCPC can be seen as part of PC attempts to state how to read the Bible and how to live in a religiously pluralistic world. Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 13, 2010 Share Posted June 13, 2010 Karen Armstrong even has a book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Battle-God-History-Fundamentalism/dp/0345391691/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276459714&sr=1-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 14, 2010 Share Posted June 14, 2010 Armstrong has another bookspecifically about the bible, its history and formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted June 16, 2010 Author Share Posted June 16, 2010 The Bible: An Introduction to the Jewish Scriptures Dr. Thomas L. Long Dr. Long's article was a good read. I agree with Joseph that it is an interesting perspective, regardless of where he may seem to take liberties with what is not exactly universally agreed upon in the scholastic community. However, it would not be profitable to argue over those because, it appears he and I do agree on the important thing, which is the thing I was emphasizing in may last post: that there is, by the Jewish writers, an insistence upon history, truth rooted in space and time. "written in an epic style that represents the founding of the Hebrew people", "They reflect periods of Hebrew religious history ", "D is a theological reflection back on the recent history of the Hebrew people", "developed over centuries of Jewish reflection on their history." - Dr. Long; and so on. Beginning in the first chapters of Genesis, that perspective is evident, and must be kept in mind while reading this book, called- the Bible. Otherwise, what is written in it will tend to be misunderstood by some modern readers who have a different personal perpective of truth; a perspective which cannot reasonably be transferred to those ancient Jewish writers. In the first verses of Genesis, it's obvious that they understood that the universe did exist, but could not have been self-existent. But that it does verify that the first cause is: an infinite source. They also understood that there was a uniqueness in man, apart from all else that existed. And that uniqueness was in man's personality, his ability to think, plan, love, communicate, etc. They understood that for man to have this personality, the original infinite source, the first cause, must have had personality first. In other words, they undersood that this existence of man's personality verifies that the infinite source of all, must be an infinite and personal source- a God; an infinite and personal God, the only source who could have created all else- the heavens and the earth and man, with all of their attributes. They understood that without a God with personality, nothing else could explain man's having one. -- Holiness Laws: those that follow from Jesus's reply to what was the greatest commandment; Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.Hospitality Laws: those that follow from the second greatest law: Love your neighbor as yourself. I believe, Dutch, you were saying that Jesus was fighting distortions of the two Laws, and not the Laws themselves, if I'm correct, then you are certainly on the mark. I believe that Jesus said He came to save man from being judged for his sins. I can think of no one who considers himself sinless (perfect), so, I don't really think it should take much to convince any honest man of such an obvious observation of all men, do you? And, lastly, I agree that we should demonstrate our love for God by following His undistorted "Holiness Laws" that give meaning to His undistorted "Hospitality Laws"! Loving our neighbor demonstrates our having loved God first. I hope we can be passionate about both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Dr. Long's article was a good read. I agree with Joseph that it is an interesting perspective, regardless of where he may seem to take liberties with what is not exactly universally agreed upon in the scholastic community. However, it would not be profitable to argue over those because, it appears he and I do agree on the important thing, which is the thing I was emphasizing in may last post: that there is, by the Jewish writers, an insistence upon history, truth rooted in space and time. I think it is important to note that Dr Long at no time agrees or insists that history is "truth rooted in space and time". He, imo, would agree by my analysis of his words that history of the Jewish people is "tradition" and specifically "different traditions" rooted in space and time. It seems to me there can be and often is a significant difference in his meaning and the words "truth rooted in space and time" used above. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 David, You say....... Dr. Long's article was a good read. I agree with Joseph that it is an interesting perspective, regardless of where he may seem to take liberties with what is not exactly universally agreed upon in the scholastic community. However, it would not be profitable to argue over those because, it appears he and I do agree on the important thing, which is the thing I was emphasizing in may last post: that there is, by the Jewish writers, an insistence upon history, truth rooted in space and time. Like Joseph, having read through Dr Long's article, I find your claim here ungrounded. In fact, astonishing! One or two excerpts.... Over centuries, myths, legends, hymns and other literary forms were passed down orally from generation to generation. Eventually those traditions were recorded in early scribal forms, but were revised, combined with other texts, and edited in a process called redaction. Two general categories of Hebrew scriptures are prose and poetry, of course. Hebrew prose forms include myths, folk-tales, sagas, romances, legends, and historical narratives. Hebrew poetic forms include oracles (both wisdom and prophetic), lyric poetry, hymns, thanksgivings, and eschatological (end-time) psalms. Myth. Although in popular parlance the word "myth" is sometimes used as "falsehood," in religious studies the word is employed to characterize a kind of ancient narrative that describes events in a time-before-time or some ancient, originating moment. Myths are sacred narratives that a culture tells in order to answer the most fundamental questions of life: Who are we? Why are we hear? Where are we going? Typical myths in the ancient world included creation myths, flood myths, and founding-hero myths. And Dr Long says at one point that the Hebrews "borrowed and adapted earlier neighboring Middle Eastern myths from Egypt, Canaan, and particularly Mesopotamia." Quite frankly, if all this is "an insistence upon history, truth rooted in space and time" then its difficult to think we are reading and interpreting the same words. (Which seems to be at the heart of the whole problem, and this whole debate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 "Rooted in space and time" are my words. IMO I believe Dr. Long has explained Jewish traditions as being based on what existed, and in what existed contemporaneously with them; and from what those writers had experienced and seen in regard to that. For other Middle Eastern and Egyptian cultures to have shared similar true events or experiences would be reasonable, and would not, in any way, diminish what is found in the Jewish texts, regardless of similarity. "Borrowed" may be an overstatement, rather, should it be "in agreement"? The Jewish story of creation came from knowing the universe, as well as man, does in fact exist, had historically come into being, and that history is ongoing. Any philosophical writing in any culture makes similar observations. That conclusions differ among those civilizations is due to their different world views; ie; no god, gods, or God. But, to say ancient Jewish writing and traditions did not rely on the historical as the basis for their traditions, sacred narratives, and faith is to misread Dr. Long. From there he navigated to a conclusion that these ancients rewrote history to conform to their changing theological positions, which is where I have some disagreement. But, I would prefer to start at the point of our agreement on how to read what is contained in the Bible, what Dr. Long understood at the beginning. The Bible can be discussed here, from that beginning, not from Dr. Long's conclusions, they are his own, and he is not here to answer our questions. Beginning with Genesis, it is clear that history was on the mind of the Jewish writers. However one wishes to say scripture was redacted, the Bible still begins at the beginning. Redact all you wish, but the writers understood that there was a historical beginning- a space and time beginning. The Bible, from the very first verse, is rooted right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 David, My first read of you post was pleasant. I want to comment on two ideas: 1. "...that perspective..." in your third paragraph 2. Never let a crisis go to waste - holiness laws and hospitality laws Beginning in the first chapter of Genesis, that perspective is evident, and must be kept in mind when reading this book, called - the Bible. "That perspective" is the point where you seem join agreeable ideas in Dr. Long's words with the correct "perspective" with which to read the Bible. To what does "that" refer? Your quotes in bold with the context added. The older J tradition [one of four], emerging from the southern kingdom of Judah, is "written in an epic style (a long narrative about heroes) that represents the founding of the Hebrew people", They reflect periods of Hebrew religious history during which many sacred worship sites were located around both kingdoms and during which there was a mixture of religious practices and beliefs. D is a theological reflection back on the recent history of the Hebrew people, trying to make sense of the cataclysmic invasion and destruction of Israel by the Assyrians. It asks, Why did this terrible thing happen to a people to whom the land was promised? ... D rewrites Hebrew history in order to guide its future. The P redactors were responsible for the Pentateuch/Torah in the form in which we have it today, an artful editing (or redaction) of four theological traditions, developed over centuries of Jewish reflection on their history. Looking at these quotes it would seem "that perspective" means that multiple scribes, multiple theologies, and multiple religious practices are found in the Torah and that the Scriptures were changed according to the beliefs of those with the pen. Twice the passages you selected refer to "rewriting" or "editing" of the text. The two main sources, Deuternomic and Priestly were motivated, or pushed, to action by cataclysmic events: the Assyrian conquest of the North and the later Southern exile in Babylonia. The scribes, and the people they represented, felt unsafe and were fearful. Having a magical view of the world they believed God was punishing them and they had do something to get back right with God. They rewrote their history to support changes in "policies and procedures". First they centralized worship and doctrine; second, they centralized the power of the church-state and sought strict obedience to the enhanced laws and rituals. I suspect that your phrase "that perspective" applies to little or none of the fuller observations above. "That perspective" also does not apply to me because I feel certain that I am one of your "modern readers who have a different personal perspective of truth; a perspective which cannot reasonably be transferred to those ancient Jewish writers." (Actually no one living today can claim such a perspective.) But back to your sentence. "that perspective" cannot apply to Dr. Long's descriptions and cannot apply to me so it must be your perspective, your personal perspective of truth. A truth rooted in space and time. I like the phrase. Is that your definition of history: truth rooted in space and time. (Dr. Long never uses the word "truth".) It has a solid feel to it. Certain. Meaningful. Universal. "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November 2009. Surely this thought is universal. I suspect that those in power circa 500 BCE had the concept too. When bad things happen, when people are afraid, that is the time for a prescription - those in power often are quick to offer one. Merchants were only one of the beneficiaries when worship was centralized in Jerusalem after the Assyrian conquest. After the Babylonian exile another opportunity for new leadership - religious not civil. The changes grew out of a powerful theodicy: God punished us so we must have sinned. Living brings death and misery so we must have sinned. It must be a sin to be born. Or something like that. The leaders of Hebrew church-state took the vertical element of the cross, the Holiness Laws, and the horizontal element of the cross, the Hospitality Laws, and twisted them until the two pieces of wood were parallel, an yoke of oppression created from the theodicy of original sin in a magical world. It was this distortion that needed correcting by Jesus. Maybe that's the way it is. It's just words - The Jewish scriptures are the product of traditions of oral transmission and eventual scribal transmission. Over centuries, myths, legends, hymns and other literary forms were passed down orally from generation to generation. (Dr. Long) Just words Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Beginning with Genesis, it is clear that history was on the mind of the Jewish writers. However one wishes to say scripture was redacted, the Bible still begins at the beginning. Redact all you wish, but the writers understood that there was a historical beginning- a space and time beginning. The Bible, from the very first verse, is rooted right there. I am not sure I understand which is important? Is it that the first words of the Bible are "In the beginning..."? It probably didn't start that way until the final edition. Is it important that it is historical (=real=true)? What do you mean by a "a space and time beginning"? Coordinates and calendars? Take Care dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 David, As you say...."Rooted in space and time" are indeed your words. In the context of my post nothing else was claimed. I was seeking to relate the article by Dr Long to your words, as you were claiming that his Biblical analysis/understanding backed them up. If "rooted in space and time" includes - and can be deemed to cover - myth (events in a time before time), poetry, folk tales, legends, oracles...........all eventually revised and edited before taking any final form, then I can only repeat...... Quite frankly, if all this (Dr Longs understanding) is "an insistence upon history, truth rooted in space and time" then its difficult to think we are reading and interpreting the same words. (Which seems to be at the heart of the whole problem, and this whole debate) All the best Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Dreams are not real yet they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 It seems to me that it is ironic that both post #100 and #108 emphasize.... "When dealing with Jewish writing, we need to keep in mind that there is an insistence upon history, truth rooted in space and time." I have never before heard that statement that equates any writing of history with "truth rooted in space and time". While it seems to me true that history is rooted in space and time there are numerous books and articles such as this one by Richard Greaves titled "History, Truth or Propaganda" that offer a most different perspective also in line with Dr. Longs article and conclusion. Some excerpts... "The manipulation of history is nothing new – it is an age old art – Voltaire once described history as a lie commonly agreed upon." "Even then, the Romans knew the value of spin and disinformation. As Harry Elmer Barnes proclaimed "the truth is always the first casualty in war". It the victors who write the history books in which their actions and objectives will be fully justified, whilst the losers will be portrayed in the worst possible light…. " "In the eastern theatre, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour which brought the U.S. into the war officially took everyone completely by surprise. However a new book "Day of Deceit: the Truth about Roosevelt And Pearl Harbour" reveals that President Roosevelt and his top advisers were aware of a planned Japanese attack as was Winston Churchill. The military at Pearl Harbour were kept in the dark. Economic sanctions were used to help provoke an attack, because it was reckoned that without the US entering the war, Britain had little hope of defeating Germany. With Germany and Japan tied by an alliance, war against Japan by the US meant war against Germany as well. The so called "surprise" led to public outrage and immediate support for entering the war." The excerpts go on but ... The point being that history is more often than not manipulated to justify actions of certain peoples and control the masses. History truth or propaganda? While history seems to me to contain accounts that are believable and may contain items of truth, IMO, using the word "truth rooted in space and time" to define Jewish history can be refuted by reasonable observation and an understanding of the nature and interests of those entrusted to do the writing and transmission throughout time as evidenced by new data that surfaces over time. However, new data can always be explained away by those who are inclined to ignore the group biases and fallibility's of mankind in providing us with those particular writings or to attribute those writings to someone infallible to such errors rather than the many actually doing the writing and responsibile for its transmission. Go figure. Just my own perspective on the Bible and what it contains, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted June 18, 2010 Author Share Posted June 18, 2010 "To what does "that" refer?" "That" refers to the Jewish writers perspective. It is that they understood that truth is found in what has occured, at a certain place, and at a certain time. Then, from that, they formed their theological conclusions. For example: The early Biblical writings demonstrate, by their observations, a recognition and knowledge of man's noblity as well as his faults. They wrote about what they clearly understood to be the only reasonable explanation for man's true, historical behavior; and, they observed that they and the earth and the heavens actually exist- now, and have for some time. That observation is what they understood to be true. With that said, why even consider that no one, today, can actually shape their theology around historical truths, rather than selfishly distorting history, in order to justify a behavior. "It was this distortion that needed correcting by Jesus." I think I can safely assume by "this distortion", you mean man's distortions of the truth. I can agree with that. "Maybe that's the way it is. It's just words - " "Just words" Perhaps, but they are still an integral part of a time honored tradition for communicating truth. - My "rooted in" phrase was in response to Joseph's post, I'm sorry if you, Derek, felt it implicated yours, I should have specified, since each of you had a different comment concerning it. - I'm not making any claim of a personal perspective of truth, but the perspective of the early Jewish writing found in the Bible, in particular, the first chapters of Genesis. If this can't be understood, then I'm afraid the rest of any discussion concerning 'truth' in the Bible will, Joseph, merely be from our perspectives, or Voltaire's, rather than the 'authors'. Dr. Long spoke in an effort to see it from the perspective of the Jew's, referencing their constant writing and referencing of their history; from which, he said, they passed down their verbalized historical narratives and shaped their traditions. I suspect anything beyond that would only be speculation. I'm not suggesting that anyone's perspective is, or should be, the same as these Jews; but that we should, as the old saying goes, "walk a mile in their shoes", Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 David, Words - yes we do tend to use them to communicate "truth", but as you might guess, I think we use them to make "truth", which is what I think history writers do. I have examples but you have been given enough. I stumble-upon'd a "soulmate" of yours at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ . Glenn has spent a lot of time thinking through his positions so he can state them clearly, as you have. His "semantic model of reality" and "semantic web" caught my attention - but that's another conversation. Sometimes Glenn makes statements that seem so obvious that I don't get the import. As in your statement The early Biblical writings demonstrate, by their observations, a recognition and knowledge of man's nobility as well as his faults. They wrote about what they clearly understood to be the only reasonable explanation for man's true, historical behavior; and, they observed that they and the earth and the heavens actually exist- now, and have for some time. That observation is what they understood to be true. There are two "observations" which seems obvious and then, bold, an "understanding" which does not explain itself. What then this is understanding that is the only reasonable explanation for man's behavior ? I deleted "true" and "historical" because I have no idea how my behavior can be true or not true, or not historical. Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minsocal Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Dutch, From my own library I could probably provide 100-200 quotations on the subject that Davidk keeps repeating. It was popularized by Derrida along the following lines: "In his most famous work, Of Grammatology, Derrida looks particularly at the opposition speech/writing, saying that speech is always seen as more important than writing. This may not be as self-evident as the example of good/evil, but it's true in terms of linguistic theories, where speech is posited as the first or primary form of language, and writing is just the transcription of speech. Derrida says speech gets privileged because speech is associated with presence--for there to be spoken language, somebody has to be there to be speaking." http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/1derrida.html minsocal P.S. I sometimes quote John Searle in this forum, and it was Searle that challenged Derrida to back down from the rather extreme nature of the claims he (Derrida) often made. P.P.S. And Derrida "borrowed" the idea from Pierre Janet (published around 1895, I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 The problem with words is that the meanings of our sentences can be subjective and we can easily misunderstand what the other person is saying and sometimes people can deliberately make the meanings of their sentences vague and sometimes for sinister purposes. One example is how recently Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page that Republicans should put their sights on the Democrats and posted a lot of gun imagery. When she was called out for her endorsement of violent imagery, Palin claimed that she wasn't being literal, she was being symbolic and that when Tea Party members make death threats, they're using symbolism. Consider how many denominations of Christianity are in existence and how radically different they can be even though they're all reading the same words. Then there's the problem with translation where some meanings can be lost in translation. One example is how in one of the miracles of Jesus when a man went up to Jesus to ask him to be healed, in some manuscripts, it says that Jesus got angry at the man. Why would Jesus get angry at someone for asking to be healed? In other manuscripts however it says Jesus felt compassion for the man. Which manuscript has the correct reading? If words are reliable means of conveying God's spiritual truths to us, then why can't the NT manuscript copyists stay consistent with their words? This example might not have a huge impact on theology but it does show how changing one word can give you an entirely different perspective of Jesus' personality and how feeble and easily manipulative language can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidk Posted June 19, 2010 Author Share Posted June 19, 2010 There appears to be some reluctance in the understanding of "history". That there are different interpretations is undoubtedly true. Many of the differences lie in our presuppositions. However we view history, the differences need to be reviewed and a determination made as to which one can prove to be true; that is, which one sufficiently explains how we arrived where we are- now. The Jewish writers understood by what they could reasonably conclude was by reasoning from what has been made known by God, all that was created and was God-breathed (verbalized, propositional, factual revelation). -- In regard to history, may I ask these questions: What history would the writers have to change in order to come to the conclusion that the universe and all that is in it, is there? Is it not true that the universe truly exists? What history would the writers have to change in order to come to the conclusion that man behaves in noble fashion, as well as a cruel one? Is it not true that man's behavior truly exhibits both? What history would the writers have to change in order to come to the conclusion that man can know truthfully of the universe, and himself? Is it not true that truth can be known? If we can't answer 'yes' to those secondary questions, if we fail to understand the Jewish concepts that led to Gen 1:1, then we have no basis from which to be critical of anything they wrote. -- The distinction of man against non-man, is in the area of language, with man the verbalizer. The way we think is in language. God made us to be language communicators. There is a correlation between language and knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 "What history would the writers have to change in order to come to the conclusion that the universe and all that is in it, is there? Is it not true that the universe truly exists?" The question seems mute in that no history, whether biblical or otherwise, needs to be changed to conclude that the universe and all that is in it , is there. It is self evident. "What history would the writers have to change in order to come to the conclusion that man behaves in noble fashion, as well as a cruel one? Is it not true that man's behavior truly exhibits both?" Likewise, this seem mute as one need only observe the present and oneself to come to the conclusion that man's behavior is at times noble and at times cruel. It is self evident by examination and Jewish history has no exclusive hold on its discovery as true nor does any other history or religion that agrees. "What history would the writers have to change in order to come to the conclusion that man can know truthfully of the universe, and himself? Is it not true that truth can be known? " Again IMO, a mute point. History has more to do with the propaganda of peoples than the conclusion that man can know of the universe and himself. The universe and mankind is self evident while history can be manipulated. These things seem to me are not the direct result of verbal communication but rather observation and personal subjective experience. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 If the Hebrew bible was intended to be read as literal history, is the book of Job a literal historical story that really happened or is it a book of poetry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 universe exists man behaves I believe that the rest of the story is what I add because of my worldview and framework. In this I am just like the Jewish writers. Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 My great-great-grandfather, Reverend Ebenezer Ide, lived in Cambridge, Ohio, before his death in 1864 (motivation) In 1836 he signed a petition calling for an anti-slavery convention in Rhode Island. (opportunity)Cambridge was on a route for the underground railroad. (means) As soap maker he drove a wagon around the countryside alone selling soap. Can I write a history about him saying that as a person of faith and conviction as an Abolitionist he helped the underground railroad in some small way? I believe many Hebrew writers had as little or less from which to write history. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.