Paul Bethke vs the 613 Mitzvot

[Craig B]

... a complete knowledge of the Scriptures from Genesis to revelation must be consulted in order to come to the right conclusion.

Now this I have

May I say that you are successfully concealing this vast knowledge, and instead seem to be using the Scriptures as a source mine for isolated random texts which you haul out as and when occasion arises. In regard to the history of the composition of the Bible, and the findings made by scholars who have studied its content, you appear to have no knowledge whatsoever.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Most religious zealots find it very valuable to distort scriptures. In fact, it happens all the time.
Irrelevant. You are committing errors of interpretation that are not possible if you knew what actually was written, not what some translator decided to render.
I'm speaking of attempting to translate אלהים as judges. That is simply wrong.
No. First, the word is simply translated wrong. Second, you don't have a complete (or even competent) knowledge of the scriptures. Do not keep basing your argument on a pretense of infallibility. Third, this is not a problem of harmonization. There is no linguistical justification for rendering אלהים as anything but "God" or "gods," and no justification whatsoever for softening it to mean "judges." The translation "judges" allows ideological sensitivities to cloud the actual meaning of the text. It is wrong.
No. You simply brandish your claim of infallibility and carry on as if nothing happened. You are delusional.

You show how wrong you are and fail to understand the context of Scripture—I have a very good working knowledge of the Bible and can see why you disagree—In the Psalm God is not addressing other gods because there are no other gods, so that is questionable, that requires insight, this is gained by comparing other Scripture.

Now as an apparent clever person that should be obvious to you. How ludicrous that would be for Yahweh to address man made gods, gods who do not exist. This I have illustrated in other posts—

(2Ki 23:13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the people of Ammon. )

So would God negotiate with these vile gods?
Why would Yahweh address gods that he would drive out?

2Sa_7:23 And who is like your people Israel—the one nation on earth that God went out to redeem as a people for himself, and to make a name for himself, and to perform great and awesome wonders by driving out nations and their gods from before your people, whom you redeemed from Egypt?

Psa 82:2 "How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Psa 82:3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
Psa 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

This clearly does not address gods, that Yahweh called vile, and said he would drive out---it clearly refers to the elders and judges of Israel.

It correlates with Yahweh’s address to the elders of Israel who were judges—(Isiah 3:13-15 The LORD takes his place in court; he rises to judge the people. The LORD enters into judgment against the elders and leaders of his people: "It is you who have ruined my vineyard; the plunder from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people and grinding the faces of the poor?" declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.

There is a distinct parallel between the two references.

BTW—I realise why atheist do not believe, it is because they do not understand, if they did they would not be atheist.

So Psalm 82 Yahweh is clearly addressing the judges who are men, who control the affairs of the people of Israel.
Now that should be clear to anyone with insight. ( I received a warning from the Moderators saying I am not adhering to the rules)

 

[Paul Bethke]

May I say that you are successfully concealing this vast knowledge, and instead seem to be using the Scriptures as a source mine for isolated random texts which you haul out as and when occasion arises. In regard to the history of the composition of the Bible, and the findings made by scholars who have studied its content, you appear to have no knowledge whatsoever.

So you with no insight state--I have referred to all Scripture pertaining to what ever questions were posed, from Genesis to Revelation.Insight is to know what is revealed.
I have used the Scriptures extensively to demonstrate my conclusions.

My knowledge of as you say--(to have no knowledge whatsoever.) comes from the same source of reading matter that you consult, you would have no knowledge if you did not consult other sources---so you are merely quoting others as I do.

 

[Craig B]

Now as an apparent clever person that should be obvious to you. How ludicrous that would be for Yahweh to address man made gods, gods who do not exist. This I have illustrated in other posts—

(2Ki 23:13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the people of Ammon. )

So would God negotiate with these vile gods?
Why would Yahweh address gods that he would drive out?

This is unutterable confusion. Does YHWH think these other gods are vile and detestable, or does he think they don't exist? Which is it? Vile and detestable things exist, just as nice things exist.

BTW—I realise why atheist do not believe, it is because they do not understand, if they did they would not be atheist.

Don't be so foolish. Address the arguments, and don't deprecate the understanding of people who disagree, lest your pride go before a fall.

Now, here is an account of the reforms conducted by King Josiah. It's from 2 Ki 23, which you have quoted. It describes what the temple was like in the days of Solomon, full of goddesses and temple prostitutes and articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts; and how Solomon also built temples for other gods, so he presumably believed in them. It was later Jewish writers who called them vile. And how the Kings of Judah were obvious polytheists prior to the reforms of Josiah and Hilkiah.

2 Ki 23:4 The king ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priests next in rank and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of the Lord all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts ...

5 He did away with the idolatrous priests appointed by the kings of Judah to burn incense on the high places ...

6 He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the Lord ... 7 He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes that were in the temple of the Lord, the quarters where women did weaving for Asherah.

8 Josiah brought all the priests from the towns of Judah and desecrated the high places, from Geba to Beersheba, where the priests had burned incense ...

10 He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice their son or daughter in the fire to Molek.

11 He removed from the entrance to the temple of the Lord the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun.

12 He pulled down the altars the kings of Judah had erected on the roof near the upper room of Ahaz, and the altars Manasseh had built in the two courts of the temple of the Lord ...

13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the people of Ammon.

14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones.

15 Even the altar at Bethel, the high place made by Jeroboam son of Nebat, who had caused Israel to sin—even that altar and high place he demolished.​

 

[Slowvehicle]

You may be able to read the languages, but that does not mean you understand what you are reading ...

In other words, you cannot substantiate a single "false accusation" you claim that I have made...

I have met a few men who like you have knowledge of the languages of the Bible, but they do not know how this knowledge is applied. The Bible as you know has gone through a lot of problems in being compiled.

I continue to point out that it is, in fact, absurd to claim that there is a "real message" in the randomly collected, contradicltorily-edited, sectarially-redacted, and contentiously-canonized collection of sloppily-plagiarized legends stuffed williy-nilly into your "scriptures".

What it pleases you to call "applying knowledge" is no more than dreaming up what you, personally, want the "scriptures" to mean, then declaring your interpretation (borrowed from others, as you have neither the ability to discern, nor interest in, the actual words used in your scriptures) to be the "real" meaning--grammer and lexicon be damned.

In order to distinguish the God of the Hebrews from all the other so called gods

...you mean, to distinguish your makey-uppy 'god' from all the other makey-uppy 'gods'...

I refer to him as Yahweh

...a sloppy, ungramatical, scripturally indefensible, and ahistorical peversion of the tegtrageammaton...

—The God of the Hebrews has many names, these names in many ways refer to what he has done and what he said.

So today if I refer to God I must clarify that it is the God of the Hebrews, also known as the God of Israel, and the God of Abraham—God himself gave his name as the God of--- (Exo 3:15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

Right. You have an idiosyncratic label for your make-uppy 'god'. How sweet.

Let me repeat what I have said in the past—one need not have a knowledge of the languages of the Bible, so I rely on the people who have this knowledge—that does not mean I cannot refer to English translation to be able to understand what the meaning of the Scriptures are.

Let me repeat: you demonstrate that you do not care what the words of your "scriptures" actually say (about anything; be it the "end times", the "144-K", or even "ha-shem"), when you can version-shop, and cherry pick among interpretations to find one that you can pretend supports your claims of the actual meaning.

That also means that each translation is in some way influenced by the denominations beliefs of the people doing the translations.

Which is why depending upon translations and interpretations of "scripture" are so often used to avoid the actual meanings of the actual contents...

There are questionable sections in the Bible that needs be understood, so a complete knowledge of the Scriptures from Genesis to revelation must be consulted in order to come to the right conclusion.

Right--you have to explain what the "scriptures" really mean, since the actual contents so often do not agree with your claims. What you want your "scriptures" to say is much more important that their actual contents.

Now this I have, having not read, but studied each book and verse, granted I use the NIV, but do regularly consult with other translations and on many occasions consult with those who have an understanding of the Scriptures from the original languages.

And yet, you still claim, with a straight face, that "quickly" can mean "within 20+ centuries"; that "virgin" can mean "sexually active"; and that what you want your "scriptures" to mean is more correct than the actual contents.

Interesting way to support your claims of scholarship and study.

So now you want to make an issue of how the term God can be used—so as I have said, when referring to the Creator, we pass down the ages and the Creator now becomes known as God, but now God must be identified in a way that distinguishes him from all the other gods. So now the Jews refer to God, as G-d, or Hashem.

FYI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

...one wonders what you think this link (to which you once again link, without comment) has to do with your careless and inconsistent use of the circumlocutions of the tetragrammaton...

Let me be clear: you are free to claim your fairy tale comes out the way you want it. It is when you claim that your interpretation is what the words of your "scriptures" really mean that you do err.

 

[Paul Bethke]

In other words, you cannot substantiate a single "false accusation" you claim that I have made...



I continue to point out that it is, in fact, absurd to claim that there is a "real message" in the randomly collected, contradicltorily-edited, sectarially-redacted, and contentiously-canonized collection of sloppily-plagiarized legends stuffed williy-nilly into your "scriptures".

What it pleases you to call "applying knowledge" is no more than dreaming up what you, personally, want the "scriptures" to mean, then declaring your interpretation (borrowed from others, as you have neither the ability to discern, nor interest in, the actual words used in your scriptures) to be the "real" meaning--grammer and lexicon be damned.



...you mean, to distinguish your makey-uppy 'god' from all the other makey-uppy 'gods'...



...a sloppy, ungramatical, scripturally indefensible, and ahistorical peversion of the tegtrageammaton...



Right. You have an idiosyncratic label for your make-uppy 'god'. How sweet.



Let me repeat: you demonstrate that you do not care what the words of your "scriptures" actually say (about anything; be it the "end times", the "144-K", or even "ha-shem"), when you can version-shop, and cherry pick among interpretations to find one that you can pretend supports your claims of the actual meaning.



Which is why depending upon translations and interpretations of "scripture" are so often used to avoid the actual meanings of the actual contents...



Right--you have to explain what the "scriptures" really mean, since the actual contents so often do not agree with your claims. What you want your "scriptures" to say is much more important that their actual contents.



And yet, you still claim, with a straight face, that "quickly" can mean "within 20+ centuries"; that "virgin" can mean "sexually active"; and that what you want your "scriptures" to mean is more correct than the actual contents.

Interesting way to support your claims of scholarship and study.



...one wonders what you think this link (to which you once again link, without comment) has to do with your careless and inconsistent use of the circumlocutions of the tetragrammaton...

Let me be clear: you are free to claim your fairy tale comes out the way you want it. It is when you claim that your interpretation is what the words of your "scriptures" really mean that you do err.

Wrong again, as always, the Scripture cannot be a person’s self-interpretation, the Scriptures themselves are self-interpreting. As I said you do not understand, so you make ridiculous statements.

Like I said, you can read the Bible in the original languages, but do not know the meaning of what you read. My wife can read my books on the theory of generation, but cannot understand the meaning.

Like Nicodemus you cannot understand the meaning---John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again."
John 3:4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

So Jesus replies---John 3:10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?

So do not be sad, you are not the only one who does not understand—even though you are a teacher!!

 

[Border Reiver]

Wrong again, as always, the Scripture cannot be a person’s self-interpretation, the Scriptures themselves are self-interpreting. As I said you do not understand, so you make ridiculous statements.

Like saying that a word does not use its plain meaning in an instance where you would prefer it to say something else?

A document cannot be "self-interpreting". On the face of it, that would mean that the document is sentient and capable of telling people what it means, a patently ridiculous claim. What I am suspecting you mean is that Scripture one has one interpretation, which is false. That two or more people can read the document and reach vastly different conclusions as to its meaning is evidence of that.

Like I said, you can read the Bible in the original languages, but do not know the meaning of what you read. My wife can read my books on the theory of generation, but cannot understand the meaning.

If you cannot read the original languages, how do you know that your translation is accurate?

If you do not understand the historical context of the times that the various books of the Bible were written, how do you know if the stories contained therein are intended to be history, national myths, or intended as religious allegory?

 

[Paul Bethke]

This is unutterable confusion. Does YHWH think these other gods are vile and detestable, or does he think they don't exist? Which is it? Vile and detestable things exist, just as nice things exist.

Don't be so foolish. Address the arguments, and don't deprecate the understanding of people who disagree, lest your pride go before a fall.

Now, here is an account of the reforms conducted by King Josiah. It's from 2 Ki 23, which you have quoted. It describes what the temple was like in the days of Solomon, full of goddesses and temple prostitutes and articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts; and how Solomon also built temples for other gods, so he presumably believed in them. It was later Jewish writers who called them vile. And how the Kings of Judah were obvious polytheists prior to the reforms of Josiah and Hilkiah.

2 Ki 23:4 The king ordered Hilkiah the high priest, the priests next in rank and the doorkeepers to remove from the temple of the Lord all the articles made for Baal and Asherah and all the starry hosts ...

5 He did away with the idolatrous priests appointed by the kings of Judah to burn incense on the high places ...

6 He took the Asherah pole from the temple of the Lord ... 7 He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes that were in the temple of the Lord, the quarters where women did weaving for Asherah.

8 Josiah brought all the priests from the towns of Judah and desecrated the high places, from Geba to Beersheba, where the priests had burned incense ...

10 He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice their son or daughter in the fire to Molek.

11 He removed from the entrance to the temple of the Lord the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun.

12 He pulled down the altars the kings of Judah had erected on the roof near the upper room of Ahaz, and the altars Manasseh had built in the two courts of the temple of the Lord ...

13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molek the detestable god of the people of Ammon.

14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones.

15 Even the altar at Bethel, the high place made by Jeroboam son of Nebat, who had caused Israel to sin—even that altar and high place he demolished.​

But you fail to see that these idols were made by men, these idols made of different material represented the gods they revered as deities—so the exercise was to remove these idols.

The incident of the worship of the golden calf illustrates this perfectly--Exodus 32:4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

Exo 32:8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'

So what did Moses do to this god?--- Deut_9:21 Also I took that sinful thing of yours, the calf you had made, and burned it in the fire. Then I crushed it and ground it to powder as fine as dust and threw the dust into a stream that flowed down the mountain.

So idols are made into images and then worshiped in the way of the customs attributed to that god, as with the temples erected by Solomon.

Nah_1:14 The LORD has given a command concerning you, Nineveh: "You will have no descendants to bear your name. I will destroy the carved images and cast idols that are in the temple of your gods. I will prepare your grave, for you are vile."

 

[Slowvehicle]

Wrong again, as always, the Scripture cannot be a person’s self-interpretation, the Scriptures themselves are self-interpreting. As I said you do not understand, so you make ridiculous statements.

You routinely, openly, and notoriously depend upon interpretations (provided by others) cherry-picked to appear to support what you wish your "scriptures" said over and against the actual, patent meaning of the words you admit you cannot read. SO much for your "scholarship".

Like I said, you can read the Bible in the original languages, but do not know the meaning of what you read. My wife can read my books on the theory of generation, but cannot understand the meaning.

On the contrary, it is you who demonstrate, repeatedly, that what you wish your "scriptures" said is much more important to you than what is actually written--which is why you inconsistently flit from version to version, shopping for interpretations that can be made to seem to support your hopes.

Like Nicodemus you cannot understand the meaning---John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again."
John 3:4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

So Jesus replies---John 3:10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things?

So do not be sad, you are not the only one who does not understand—even though you are a teacher!!

Like the Prince of Pompadoodle, you seem to think your fairy tales somehow refer to, or influence, reality.

At least the Prince could read his tales...

 

[Paul Bethke]

Like saying that a word does not use its plain meaning in an instance where you would prefer it to say something else?
A document cannot be "self-interpreting". On the face of it, that would mean that the document is sentient and capable of telling people what it means, a patently ridiculous claim. What I am suspecting you mean is that Scripture one has one interpretation, which is false. That two or more people can read the document and reach vastly different conclusions as to its meaning is evidence of that.

That is not correct, the Scriptures were correlated because there was a common thread that bound them into the compilation, and that common thread was the Torah.

So the prophet Isiah makes this plain---(Isa 8:19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God?
Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
So what is the testimony—do you know???

If you cannot read the original languages, how do you know that your translation is accurate?

The Bible has been translated into many languages—so why can one not read it in that language—if all people had to first study the original language that would retard the spread of the Gospel.

Now I never said I do not need the original language, that is essential, and without it there would be no translations—what I am saying is because of these translations, I am able to understand the revelation that Yahweh gave to man through man.

So there are many translations of the Scriptures using different manuscripts, ---- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

If you do not understand the historical context of the times that the various books of the Bible were written, how do you know if the stories contained therein are intended to be history, national myths, or intended as religious allegory?

I have many books that give me adequate information that has been compiled by others—anything I want to know is available, there are many documentaries that are available—so there is an enormous amount of information to be obtained.

I consult with many of the Messianic believers, those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
All Scripture is based on the Torah, and the Torah is based on the Decalogue.

 

[Paul Bethke]

You routinely, openly, and notoriously depend upon interpretations (provided by others) cherry-picked to appear to support what you wish your "scriptures" said over and against the actual, patent meaning of the words you admit you cannot read. SO much for your "scholarship".

How come you are so wrong in your analysis—I do not rely on other people’s interpretation I have a clear understanding of what is written and found many interpretations that are not consistent with Scripture.

I have proved using the Scriptures that the term gods as used in Psalm 82 is not consistent, and many of the translations agree with this conclusion. There were many errors made during translations, but these errors do not detract from the truth.

A typical example is this one—who incited David, Satan or the LORD?

2Sa 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."
1Ch 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

So now it is essential to know the truth about the matter as it will affect the outcome of the faith. So there are many such discrepancies that require research.
So it would be absurd to blame Yahweh for inciting David to do something against Gods will!

On the contrary, it is you who demonstrate, repeatedly, that what you wish your "scriptures" said is much more important to you than what is actually written--which is why you inconsistently flit from version to version, shopping for interpretations that can be made to seem to support your hopes.

Another occasion where you are so completely and entirely wrong and not capable of understanding the Scriptures. I use all translations to examine the Scriptures because there is so much discrepancies with translations—as I have stated –to understand the Scriptures one must have a complete knowledge of all Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, which I have.

You can read the original language, but that does not mean you have an understanding of the context. When one starts from the beginning one grows in understanding, which is why people do not understand the teachings of Jesus because they have little or no knowledge of the Tanahk. Now I have a problem with the Talmud, because it contains so much that is not backed by the Scriptures

Like the Prince of Pompadoodle, you seem to think your fairy tales somehow refer to, or influence, reality.
At least the Prince could read his tales...

They are not tales of fairies—they are the dealings of the Creator with his creation.

 

[JayUtah]

You show how wrong you are and fail to understand the context of Scripture—

You fail to understand the words of the scripture. You've never actually read them. You've only read what some other person thinks they mean in a language you understand, and you've only interpreted that indirect meaning in context of Christian zealotry, aided by others who display their own biases.

I have a very good working knowledge of the Bible...

No, you don't. You wield it bluntly like a club, relying upon computerized searches to produce quotes that have only a passing chance of being relevant to the question. You have no understanding of the languages it was written in and the cultures from which it arose. You demonstrate no familiarity with the problems or questions that have vexed others attempting to understand and translate its meaning. You display no understanding of the cultural and doctrinal forces that have shaped those attempts. You simply declare yourself to be infallible and everyone else to be inferior. You believe you have a good working knowledge of the Bible only through denial and delusion.

...and can see why you disagree—

No you can't, because you didn't address the reasons for my disagreement. You simply repeated your attempt to redefine a word in order to shoehorn it into your doctrinal necessity and your desire to portray the scriptures as wholly consistent and compatible with your belief.

...In the Psalm God is not addressing other gods because there are no other gods...

This is exactly letting the desired interpretation guide your attempt to understand the words. I cannot have phrased it more clearly myself. You cannot conceive that the scriptures would speak of other gods, so the words used "must" mean something other than their customary meanings. How is that not an ideologically driven translation?

...that requires insight, this is gained by comparing other Scripture.

No, it requires knowledge of the language in which the author wrote, and that is gained by diligent study which you have not undertaken.

So Psalm 82 Yahweh is clearly addressing the judges who are men...

Not linguistically possible. You're trying to attribute a meaning to a word that it does not hold. Your r easons for doing so are not because the language tells you so, but because the actual meaning of the actual words contradicts what you want to believe about the book and its main character. You said it yourself. The word "cannot" mean god(s) in your estimation because to do so would violate your belief.

 

[JayUtah]

You can read the original language, but that does not mean you have an understanding of the context.

That's exactly what it means. The true meaning of any particular phrase in any particular language is shaped by the context of other usages of that word or phrase in the language overall. That's the context that matters. I can, for example, note the usage of "Divine Providence" in the documents that relate to the founding of the United States. There is the context of that body of writing, but then there is also the Deist context from which the phrase arose and in which it portrays a specific meaning. That all-important context is absent from the body of governmental writings and would be lost on the reader if he confined himself only to that subset. It can lead -- and has led -- many modern readers to mistake the intent of America's Founding Fathers with respect to theism.

Not only that, the linguistic milieu is a better context. The context you demand must be applied contains such extraneous elements as needful exegesis to support various beliefs. You read translations completed by people having certain goals and desires for it. These compete with the intent of the original authors.

When one starts from the beginning one grows in understanding, which is why people do not understand the teachings of Jesus because they have little or no knowledge of the Tanahk.

You have only a passing familiarity with the scripture, gained mostly -- it appears -- by rapid-fire computerized searches of various translations. You cannot display the deep understanding that is required to understand all about the book that is needful for comprehension. In its pace you substitute a far more abstract growth in belief and righteousness. You insinuate that you have become so saintly that you have no need for actual knowledge.

In a larger sense, you lament that the present clergy rejects your teaching. As I mentioned, I was taught the nuances of Christianity by an Episcopal clergyman who bequeathed his library to me when he died. In it is a very dog-eared, very heavily used volume: Machen's New Testament Greek for Beginners. This person, who elected to make teaching Jesus his life's calling, expended considerable and obvious effort to understand the book from which he taught in the way its authors must have intended -- aside from any interloping translation. Your process of simply imagining what the passage needs to mean and coercing its words to say it does not appear to be how most dedicated Christians and Jews approach the book.

 

[Border Reiver]

Like saying that a word does not use its plain meaning in an instance where you would prefer it to say something else?

A document cannot be "self-interpreting". On the face of it, that would mean that the document is sentient and capable of telling people what it means, a patently ridiculous claim. What I am suspecting you mean is that Scripture one has one interpretation, which is false. That two or more people can read the document and reach vastly different conclusions as to its meaning is evidence of that.

That is not correct, the Scriptures were correlated because there was a common thread that bound them into the compilation, and that common thread was the Torah.

So the prophet Isiah makes this plain---(Isa 8:19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God?
Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
So what is the testimony—do you know???

If you cannot read the original languages, how do you know that your translation is accurate?

The Bible has been translated into many languages—so why can one not read it in that language—if all people had to first study the original language that would retard the spread of the Gospel.

Now I never said I do not need the original language, that is essential, and without it there would be no translations—what I am saying is because of these translations, I am able to understand the revelation that Yahweh gave to man through man.

So there are many translations of the Scriptures using different manuscripts, ---- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

If you do not understand the historical context of the times that the various books of the Bible were written, how do you know if the stories contained therein are intended to be history, national myths, or intended as religious allegory?

I have many books that give me adequate information that has been compiled by others—anything I want to know is available, there are many documentaries that are available—so there is an enormous amount of information to be obtained.

I consult with many of the Messianic believers, those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
All Scripture is based on the Torah, and the Torah is based on the Decalogue.

First, my point was in response to your contention that the Scriptures are "self-interpreting" - I pointed out that two different people can read the same passage and reach different conclusions as to the meaning. Your response was to indicate that you believe that the Scriptures are correlated. That is unresponsive to the point that I made. Either explain how a document can be "self-interpreting", or concede that the same document can be interpreted in different ways by different people.

In law, or in other professional fields, we use experts to determine which interpretation to go with - for instance judges make the final determination of what a particular contract clause means if the parties cannot reach an agreement. These experts have carried out extensive study and training within the field to understand the principles that underly their interpretations. You do not have the right to call yourself an expert in the area of scriptural interpretation. You have not demonstrated a clear understanding of the plain words of the text, do not understand the original languages that the text you wish to interpret was translated from and have shown a very poor capacity being able to articulate why your interpretations should be preferred over others.

By relying on translations of a work we are reliant on the translators to achieve accuracy in tone and meaning. This discussion is a prime example - the translators of the King James Version translated a Hebrew word as gods and wrote it out as such, while the translators of the New International Version place the same word in quotes. In modern parlance when we see text enclosed by quotation marks that is not immediately recognizable as speech we interpret it to mean that the word is not to be taken literally, so the same passage in the KJV and the NIV end up with different meanings. And when we consult the original we find that meaning of word used and its context do not support the NIV use of quotes.

What you are not acknowledging is that by relying on a translation, your understanding of the original is limited to understanding of what the translator has provided, with all the biases and potential for errors that that entails.

I have seen little actual understanding from you of the historical context in which the various books of the bible were written, edited, redacted, and compiled. Doing so is a disservice to your understanding of scripture as it may help to clarify why there are differences in tone, and approach to doctrine and even certain portions that look like outright heresy. For instance, the Exodus story - if we undertake to look at the story in Exodus as a historical retelling we see that there are holes in the tale that are large enough to drive a cruiseliner through - from the lack of archeological evidence of a large group of people wandering the Sinai desert for 40 years, and the lack of evidence to support the sudden departure of a significant portion of the workforce of ancient Egypt coupled with the simultaneous loss of a large part of the Egyptian army and many others. Looked at as part of a national myth to establish "why are we here, look how determined we are to be independent, and look at how powerful our deity is - he got us away from the local superpower and kept us free", the story takes on a more rational character. Of course the ancient Israelites are going to play up the role of their deity - the people writing this down are priests and downplay the role of any other nation states in how they did it, in much the same way that the French contribution to the overall success of the American Revolution is downplayed in favour of the more nationalistic narrative of "we beat the British because of our love of Freedom (and with a little help from the French). Actually, if you look at it, the way the American Revolution and the adoption of the US Constitution is often presented by several right wing pseudo-historians such as David Barton, there are direct parallels to the Exodus myth.

 

[Paul Bethke]

That's exactly what it means. The true meaning of any particular phrase in any particular language is shaped by the context of other usages of that word or phrase in the language overall. That's the context that matters. I can, for example, note the usage of "Divine Providence" in the documents that relate to the founding of the United States. There is the context of that body of writing, but then there is also the Deist context from which the phrase arose and in which it portrays a specific meaning. That all-important context is absent from the body of governmental writings and would be lost on the reader if he confined himself only to that subset. It can lead -- and has led -- many modern readers to mistake the intent of America's Founding Fathers with respect to theism.

That I understand, in order to know the true meaning the background is essential---one cannot start in the middle of any document or writing and expect to understand the whole conjecture.

Not only that, the linguistic milieu is a better context. The context you demand must be applied contains such extraneous elements as needful exegesis to support various beliefs. You read translations completed by people having certain goals and desires for it. These compete with the intent of the original authors.

Not so there is sufficient translations from what is available to gauge what the intent of the Scriptures are.

You have only a passing familiarity with the scripture, gained mostly -- it appears -- by rapid-fire computerized searches of various translations. You cannot display the deep understanding that is required to understand all about the book that is needful for comprehension. In its pace you substitute a far more abstract growth in belief and righteousness. You insinuate that you have become so saintly that you have no need for actual knowledge.

Wrong again, I have an extensive knowledge of the Scriptures and the application of Scripture pertaining to the current application. The word Saintly you use out of context. If you knew what Saintly meant then you would know that to be a Saint has an entirely different meaning to what you applied.

Long before the computer I studied the books, the computer assist me in communicating that knowledge. I have a very large library of books—but I set them aside to study the Scriptures, because it is only with the knowledge of the Scriptures that one can detect the mistakes of the clergy, who for so long have mislead the congregations.

In a larger sense, you lament that the present clergy rejects your teaching. As I mentioned, I was taught the nuances of Christianity by an Episcopal clergyman who bequeathed his library to me when he died. In it is a very dog-eared, very heavily used volume: Machen's New Testament Greek for Beginners. This person, who elected to make teaching Jesus his life's calling, expended considerable and obvious effort to understand the book from which he taught in the way its authors must have intended -- aside from any interloping translation. Your process of simply imagining what the passage needs to mean and coercing its words to say it does not appear to be how most dedicated Christians and Jews approach the book.

It is not that the clergy reject my teaching, it is that the clergy who reject the teachings of Jesus, the very person they claim as Saviour. Jesus said that it is necessary to go back to the beginning to understand the will of Yahweh the Creator. The translation we have today at our disposal in their vast selection can give one a true sense of what the many manuscripts provide.

I would very much like to be able to read and understand the different languages that the Scriptures were written in---but I do not, so I resort to consulting translations. There are many good men with a knowledge of the original languages that can be consulted, so I am not left as you say in ignorance.

So tell me how can one misinterpret what Jesus said--- Mat 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So how come these clergy do not teach what Jesus orchestrated. So most of the denominations claim that these laws are abolished—is that not anti-christ?

How come the clergy do not inform the congregation that Jesus made clear what adultery is--Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Then Jesus refers the teachers of the law to the beginning---Mat 19:4-6 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'
and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?
So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

I have been around for a long time and have not encountered any clergy who have taught what Jesus confirmed as the purpose of marriage as the Creator stated.

What about the teachings that God commanded about unclean food making a person unclean—this as Jesus stated should be taught.

(Lev 11:43 Do not defile yourselves by any of these creatures. Do not make yourselves unclean by means of them or be made unclean by them. )

So you see the clergy are guilty of blasphemy.

 

[Paul Bethke]

It is not "unwisely insulting" to point out to you that your common practice is to decide what a passage "must mean", then make it fit in with what you claim your "scriptures" actually say.

Just look at your misuses of "elohim", or at your carelessness with "adonai your elohim".

You distort your own "scriptures" to suit your opinions...

This comes from the Complete Jewish Bible.
So I am sure they would use it in the right way.

Deu_9:26 I prayed to Adonai ; I said, 'Adonai Elohim! Don't destroy your people, your inheritance! You redeemed them through your greatness, you brought them out of Egypt with a strong hand!

2Sa_7:19 Yet in your view, Adonai Elohim, even this was too small a thing; so you have even said that your servant's dynasty will continue on into the distant future. This is [indeed] a teaching for a man, Adonai Elohim —

 

[JayUtah]

That I understand...

No, you do not understand. You missed the entire point of my post.

Not so there is sufficient translations from what is available to gauge what the intent of the Scriptures are.

That was not my point. Reading in translation in no way gives you an understanding of the effects of the original language, nor does reading within the narrow confines of some selected work in that language give you an appropriate context, nor does a context rife with collateral goals provide a useful context.

Wrong again, I have an extensive knowledge of the Scriptures and the application of Scripture pertaining to the current application.

Asked and answered. You claim an extensive knowledge, but you cannot demonstrate it when needed.

The word Saintly you use out of context.

Irrelevant. The point is that you cite some mystical experience as the source of your knowledge, as opposed to the diligent study that others perform. The basis you cite for your knowledge is insufficient.

I am well aware that you consider "saint" to mean any faithful Christian adherent, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

I have a very large library of books—but I set them aside to study the Scriptures, because it is only with the knowledge of the Scriptures that one can detect the mistakes of the clergy...

You do not need to belabor your disdain for secular learning. Many Christians have found it valuable to educate themselves about the history and culture of the Jews and early Christians, the languages they spoke, and the social and political factors that affected their religion. I suspect you find no use for that knowledge simply because you do not have it and cannot stomach the notion that you are a less than fully prepared Christian.

It is not that the clergy reject my teaching, it is that the clergy who reject the teachings of Jesus...

No, they reject your interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, as do -- as nearly as I can tell -- all other Christians. Your critics have speculated that this is why you "preach" to skeptics: so that you can attribute your inevitable rejection to atheism and not your private and zealous interpretations that sane Christians reject.

My point is that the clergy seem much better informed than you, in ways that you specifically reject, and in ways that pertain quite directly to your errors in reading scripture. Many clergy understand the original languages of the Bible and so come to an understanding you cannot have working only through translations. I find that a better explanation for why they reject your interpretations than that they are all corrupt and you alone are right.

 

[JayUtah]

This comes from the Complete Jewish Bible.
So I am sure they would use it in the right way.

What does the Hebrew say there?

Also, are you familiar with the Jewish formula for beginning most Hebrew prayers? How is it written in Hebrew? How is it pronounced aloud?

 

[Paul Bethke]

No, you do not understand. You missed the entire point of my post.



That was not my point. Reading in translation in no way gives you an understanding of the effects of the original language, nor does reading within the narrow confines of some selected work in that language give you an appropriate context, nor does a context rife with collateral goals provide a useful context.

Asked and answered. You claim an extensive knowledge, but you cannot demonstrate it when needed.


Irrelevant. The point is that you cite some mystical experience as the source of your knowledge, as opposed to the diligent study that others perform. The basis you cite for your knowledge is insufficient.
I am well aware that you consider "saint" to mean any faithful Christian adherent, but that is not relevant to this discussion.
You do not need to belabor your disdain for secular learning. Many Christians have found it valuable to educate themselves about the history and culture of the Jews and early Christians, the languages they spoke, and the social and political factors that affected their religion. I suspect you find no use for that knowledge simply because you do not have it and cannot stomach the notion that you are a less than fully prepared Christian.
No, they reject your interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, as do -- as nearly as I can tell -- all other Christians. Your critics have speculated that this is why you "preach" to skeptics: so that you can attribute your inevitable rejection to atheism and not your private and zealous interpretations that sane Christians reject.
My point is that the clergy seem much better informed than you, in ways that you specifically reject, and in ways that pertain quite directly to your errors in reading scripture. Many clergy understand the original languages of the Bible and so come to an understanding you cannot have working only through translations. I find that a better explanation for why they reject your interpretations than that they are all corrupt and you alone are right.

The clergy are the ones who have not taught what Jesus proclaimed, so what you say is irrelevant.
You like others make base statements not understanding the elementary truth that Jesus ordained to be proclaimed.
Luke 18:20 You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honour your father and mother.'"

So what is adultery?
Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So from the Decalogue the injunction is given—do not commit adultery---so here Jesus explains what is meant from the law.

Now the clergy do not hold to what he taught—but I do, so you see I do not need to know what it says in the original—there is no way that this explanation given by Jesus can be distorted.

So now people have been informed what it is to commit adultery, now the clergy who failed to proclaim this will be the ones who caused this judgement against those who have sinned.

So because I proclaim what Jesus decreed I find the clergy are unhappy. (Mat_10:22 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.)

No fella you do not prove anything that I have stated is not according to the original wording.
μοιχεύω
moicheuō
moy-khyoo'-o
From G3432; to commit adultery: - commit adultery.
Total KJV occurrences: 14

 

[Paul Bethke]

What does the Hebrew say there?

Also, are you familiar with the Jewish formula for beginning most Hebrew prayers? How is it written in Hebrew? How is it pronounced aloud?

Shema (“hear”) is the Hebrew word that begins the most important prayer in Judaism. It is found in Deuteronomy 6:4, which begins with the command to “Hear.” The whole Shema prayer, which includes verses 4-9, is spoken daily in the Jewish tradition:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Lord-is-One.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-the-Shema.html

So what is your point—prayer is not to recite but to act—people pray, but they still sin, a sinner cannot pray unless it is to repent.

Jesus states--- Matt_6:7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.