Paul Bethke vs the 613 Mitzvot

[Craig B]

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. <snip irrelevant passages>

The point I am making, and this must be obvious to all readers but yourself, is that prior to the reforms undertaken by King Hosiah and the priest Hilkiah, the Israelites were themselves polytheists and that Solomon built a temple not only for YHWH, but for other gods as well, and that innumerable other rituals, later denounced as idolatrous were regularly performed by the priests of the land of Judah, and that Solomon was as polytheist as the generality of his subjects. As far as Moses is concerned, he (if ever he existed) was as idolatrous as the people he led. Not for him a calf, but a serpent:

In the biblical Book of Numbers, the Nehushtan (or Nohestan) (Hebrew: נחושתן or נחש הנחושת) was a bronze serpent on a pole which God told Moses to erect to protect the Israelites who saw it from dying from the bites of the "fiery serpents" which God had sent to punish them for speaking against God and Moses.

King Hezekiah later instituted a religious iconoclastic reform and destroyed "the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; [it was called|and he called it] Nehushtan". (2 Kings 18:4)​

So you see, monotheism was a later development.

Of course the books of the Torah were written or substantially redacted after the establishment of monotheism, and the Biblical authors downplay these earlier realities, which had by then come to be viewed as abominations. When describing the righteous deeds of Solomon they say nothing about the goddesses, male temple prostitutes and all the rest. But when talking about Hilkiah's reforms they tell us in retrospect that he and the King cleaned all this stuff away.

 

[JayUtah]

The clergy are the ones who have not taught what Jesus proclaimed, so what you say is irrelevant.

Asked and answered. You disagree with the clergy on their interpretation of scripture. You attribute that to the corruption of the clergy. I interpret it instead on the clergy's demonstrable superiority in learning what needs to be know from and about the scriptures. Address that argument and quit waffling about in ignorance on your obsession with adultery.

 

[JayUtah]

Shema (“hear”) is the Hebrew word that begins the most important prayer in Judaism.

Irrelevant. What does the text say in Hebrew for the two verses you quoted claiming that your translation was correct regarding appellations and names of God?

Regarding the prayer, I'm speaking of the prayers offered by practicing Jews, not the prayers you're lifting from the Bible. Are you aware that the formula in contention here has a particular wording and recitation in Hebrew that is common in Judaic practice?

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

One wonders if you, personally, are aware that the "CJB" is a paraphrase of someone else's translation; further, it takes an intentinaol messianic slant, making it disagreeable to traditional Jewish scholars.

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 —

Which makes for me the point I was making, above...you do not realize why those two passages do not address your carelessly slipshod misuses of the tetragammaton.

Thank you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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?

It is to be hoped that Mr. Bethke reads this on-topic post.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

A curious, and informative, dodge. Consider addressing the point of JayUtah's post...rather than what you wish they had posted.

 

[Paul Bethke]

The point I am making, and this must be obvious to all readers but yourself, is that prior to the reforms undertaken by King Hosiah and the priest Hilkiah, the Israelites were themselves polytheists and that Solomon built a temple not only for YHWH, but for other gods as well, and that innumerable other rituals, later denounced as idolatrous were regularly performed by the priests of the land of Judah, and that Solomon was as polytheist as the generality of his subjects. As far as Moses is concerned, he (if ever he existed) was as idolatrous as the people he led. Not for him a calf, but a serpent:

In the biblical Book of Numbers, the Nehushtan (or Nohestan) (Hebrew: נחושתן or נחש הנחושת) was a bronze serpent on a pole which God told Moses to erect to protect the Israelites who saw it from dying from the bites of the "fiery serpents" which God had sent to punish them for speaking against God and Moses.​

God revealed himself to Moses as the God of his fathers --- the Hebrews in Egypt as slave retained their belief in Elohim as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And that as God promised he would save them from the Egyptians who had enslaved them.

So Moses was ordained by God as the deliverer. The deliverance by God through Moses demonstrated that God was more powerful than the gods of Egypt.( 2 Sam_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?)

Moses was fully integrated with his faith in Yahweh, it was the Hebrews who had to learn that there was only one God, and that the gods of Egypt were not gods.

The golden calf showed how shallow their faith was---( 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 through Moses God had to demonstrate his power to establish his sovereignty.

King Hezekiah later instituted a religious iconoclastic reform and destroyed "the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; [it was called|and he called it] Nehushtan". (2 Kings 18:4)

So you see, monotheism was a later development.

It just shows how prone people are to deviate from the truth as they are today—people carry crosses, thinking that the man made symbol has power, so it is much the same. People think that a man made article like a cross can save one if you hang it on one’s neck, or in the house. Today people consider man made objects that have reference to God as having some sort of divine power.

Look at the Catholics with all their statues, and symbols, people are much the same as the people who live in the days yonder.( Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. )

Of course the books of the Torah were written or substantially redacted after the establishment of monotheism, and the Biblical authors downplay these earlier realities, which had by then come to be viewed as abominations. When describing the righteous deeds of Solomon they say nothing about the goddesses, male temple prostitutes and all the rest. But when talking about Hilkiah's reforms they tell us in retrospect that he and the King cleaned all this stuff away.

No the Torah was compiled in the days of Moses and the Scribes of his day adding the final events of the life of Moses.
( 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. )

It is the same with David—they say little about his despicable actions in having Uriah the Hittite killed so as to attempt to cover up his adulteries act.

It is the same with Jesus, everyone wants to make him to be a docile person –but they omit many of his statements---( Luk_19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.'")

And in the Revelation.
( Rev 2:22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.
Rev 2:23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.)

God is love, but love is based on justice—it is God’s love for justice.
So this act is not seen as love---( Rev 9:18 A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulphur that came out of their mouths. )

So yes certainly the whole character of the Creator must be considered to evaluate his purpose.

 

[Paul Bethke]

A curious, and informative, dodge. Consider addressing the point of JayUtah's post...rather than what you wish they had posted.

So what is his point --what does he want to prove--has it got any value. Am I a Jew
Is he a Jew--so where did he come by this that he expects me to know?

 

[Border Reiver]

The point I am making, and this must be obvious to all readers but yourself, is that prior to the reforms undertaken by King Hosiah and the priest Hilkiah, the Israelites were themselves polytheists and that Solomon built a temple not only for YHWH, but for other gods as well, and that innumerable other rituals, later denounced as idolatrous were regularly performed by the priests of the land of Judah, and that Solomon was as polytheist as the generality of his subjects. As far as Moses is concerned, he (if ever he existed) was as idolatrous as the people he led. Not for him a calf, but a serpent:

In the biblical Book of Numbers, the Nehushtan (or Nohestan) (Hebrew: נחושתן or נחש הנחושת) was a bronze serpent on a pole which God told Moses to erect to protect the Israelites who saw it from dying from the bites of the "fiery serpents" which God had sent to punish them for speaking against God and Moses.

King Hezekiah later instituted a religious iconoclastic reform and destroyed "the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; [it was called|and he called it] Nehushtan". (2 Kings 18:4)​

So you see, monotheism was a later development.

God revealed himself to Moses as the God of his fathers --- the Hebrews in Egypt as slave retained their belief in Elohim as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And that as God promised he would save them from the Egyptians who had enslaved them.

So Moses was ordained by God as the deliverer. The deliverance by God through Moses demonstrated that God was more powerful than the gods of Egypt.( 2 Sam_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?)

Moses was fully integrated with his faith in Yahweh, it was the Hebrews who had to learn that there was only one God, and that the gods of Egypt were not gods.

The golden calf showed how shallow their faith was---( 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 through Moses God had to demonstrate his power to establish his sovereignty.

I would question whether Moses was "fully integrated" into his faith in Yahweh. He was raised in a polytheistic environment as a Prince of Egypt, and would have honoured the Egyptian gods as he grew up. His conversion is dramatically sudden, but this is likely for the purposes of making the story more compelling for the listeners. It is also interesting that Moses comes into his understanding of Yahweh from the Midianites, who he will later order to be wiped out for leading the people religiously astray.

Telling the story of the Exodus as a demonstration of Yahweh's power makes perfect sense in light of the monotheistic reforms. The plagues show Yahweh's ascendancy over the gods of Egypt, the trick with turning the staffs into serpents also goes on to demonstrate the same thing, as does the dramatic escape from the Egyptian army.

The use of both the serpent (Moses' preferred fetish) and the calf (Aaron's) is significant as both the serpent and the bull are common symbols in Canaanite religion - the bull being often associated with Baal, and can be seen as representative of competition between differing religious traditions.

Of course the books of the Torah were written or substantially redacted after the establishment of monotheism, and the Biblical authors downplay these earlier realities, which had by then come to be viewed as abominations. When describing the righteous deeds of Solomon they say nothing about the goddesses, male temple prostitutes and all the rest. But when talking about Hilkiah's reforms they tell us in retrospect that he and the King cleaned all this stuff away.

No the Torah was compiled in the days of Moses and the Scribes of his day adding the final events of the life of Moses.

We've been over this. The Torah is attributed to Moses, but since the earliest copies are dated to several hundred years AFTER Moses is alleged to have lived, he would really be a "ghost writer" if he actually wrote any of it. This can easily be seen by the several different schools of thought that are evident in Genesis, including the different creation myths.

It is the same with David—they say little about his despicable actions in having Uriah the Hittite killed so as to attempt to cover up his adulteries act.

Are we reading the same Bible? The Bible contains a very detailed account of David's adultery with Bathsheba, and the resultant shenanigans with Uriah. About the only details were missing are how many times they banged in one night and what positions they used.

It is the same with Jesus, everyone wants to make him to be a docile person –but they omit many of his statements---( Luk_19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.'")

And in the Revelation.
( Rev 2:22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.
Rev 2:23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.)

The depiction of Jesus as a peaceful person or as a person fiercely setting out to deal with the problems of the world has varied across the centuries. The image of the lamb of God meekly submitting to the power of Rome to demonstrate his power by letting himself be captured, humiliated, and killed then rising from the dead was not used as the hook to get peoples such as the Goths, or the Norse to convert. When trying to convert these peoples, missionaries used the aspect of Jesus as a fearless fighter against demons and monsters who would strengthen the resolve and right arm of his followers and who would stand with Jesus in the final battle against good and evil. Both are done using cherry picked parts of scripture, tailored to their audience's preferences and cultural traditions, to get and hold converts.

God is love, but love is based on justice—it is God’s love for justice.
So this act is not seen as love---( Rev 9:18 A third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulphur that came out of their mouths. )

So yes certainly the whole character of the Creator must be considered to evaluate his purpose.

Personally, I think it is more Yahweh's love of himself. He's a jealous and petty being ready to punish transgressions against whatever rule he feels like enforcing at that particular time by killing everyone and the reward for following his whims is to stay in his presence for eternity, telling Yahweh how great he is. No other deity that I am aware of makes his followers tell him how great he is for eternity, most send the souls back, or if they don't give them another purpose than being a collection of yes men chanting "You're so great" for eternity.

I've already stated why I think that Yahweh is not a deity of justice, more of a deity of punishment.

 

[Paul Bethke]

I would question whether Moses was "fully integrated" into his faith in Yahweh. He was raised in a polytheistic environment as a Prince of Egypt, and would have honoured the Egyptian gods as he grew up. His conversion is dramatically sudden, but this is likely for the purposes of making the story more compelling for the listeners. It is also interesting that Moses comes into his understanding of Yahweh from the Midianites, who he will later order to be wiped out for leading the people religiously astray.

Moses may well have been informed of his identity by his mother who acted as a nurse—his act of smiting the Egyptian is also evidence of what he understood to be his calling as deliverer. Moses’ encounter with God was not as a result of the Midianites. The Midianites later became the enemies of Israel.

Telling the story of the Exodus as a demonstration of Yahweh's power makes perfect sense in light of the monotheistic reforms. The plagues show Yahweh's ascendancy over the gods of Egypt, the trick with turning the staffs into serpents also goes on to demonstrate the same thing, as does the dramatic escape from the Egyptian army.

Power is to be respected, today it would be the same when Yahweh demonstrates his power to establish his sovereignty.

The use of both the serpent (Moses' preferred fetish) and the calf (Aaron's) is significant as both the serpent and the bull are common symbols in Canaanite religion - the bull being often associated with Baal, and can be seen as representative of competition between differing religious traditions.

The calf and the snake do not have anything in common each deals with a situation where man rebels against the sovereignty of God.

We've been over this. The Torah is attributed to Moses, but since the earliest copies are dated to several hundred years AFTER Moses is alleged to have lived, he would really be a "ghost writer" if he actually wrote any of it. This can easily be seen by the several different schools of thought that are evident in Genesis, including the different creation myths.

But it is stated that Moses was the originator of the Torah. We may have shared content, but you still reject what I presented---( Deu_31:9 So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.)
So how much more clearer can that be?

Are we reading the same Bible? The Bible contains a very detailed account of David's adultery with Bathsheba, and the resultant shenanigans with Uriah. About the only details were missing are how many times they banged in one night and what positions they used.

Did I not highlight this to show how bizarre the actions of David were, and that this event was not hid from us, this was to illustrate that although David was a good man to start off with, he latter had become a diabolical sinner.

The depiction of Jesus as a peaceful person or as a person fiercely setting out to deal with the problems of the world has varied across the centuries. The image of the lamb of God meekly submitting to the power of Rome to demonstrate his power by letting himself be captured, humiliated, and killed then rising from the dead was not used as the hook to get peoples such as the Goths, or the Norse to convert. When trying to convert these peoples, missionaries used the aspect of Jesus as a fearless fighter against demons and monsters who would strengthen the resolve and right arm of his followers and who would stand with Jesus in the final battle against good and evil. Both are done using cherry picked parts of scripture, tailored to their audience's preferences and cultural traditions, to get and hold converts.

That is why there is a complete record of the life of Jesus to show what kind of person he was when on earth.

Personally, I think it is more Yahweh's love of himself. He's a jealous and petty being ready to punish transgressions against whatever rule he feels like enforcing at that particular time by killing everyone and the reward for following his whims is to stay in his presence for eternity, telling Yahweh how great he is. No other deity that I am aware of makes his followers tell him how great he is for eternity, most send the souls back, or if they don't give them another purpose than being a collection of yes men chanting "You're so great" for eternity.

Well it is a natural thing to praise Yahweh, for who he is and what he has done—if a person enjoys doing good for others, it is reasonable to want to be acknowledged for that. The whole object of the love of God is stated as such--Lev_19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD.
This is confirmed as the same as Jesus stated--- Mat 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'

The Apostles followed the same assertion--- Rom_13:9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

Gal_5:14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbour as yourself."

Jas_2:8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbour as yourself," you are doing right.

I've already stated why I think that Yahweh is not a deity of justice, more of a deity of punishment.

True he punishes those who do not love their neighbour as themselves.

 

[Craig B]

Look at the Catholics with all their statues, and symbols, people are much the same as the people who live in the days yonder.( Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. )

Ugh, how obnoxious that is. Thanks for reminding us how the "Wars of Religion" came about.

No the Torah was compiled in the days of Moses and the Scribes of his day adding the final events of the life of Moses.

This has been amply refuted since the seventeenth century, and is the subject of Part 2 of Paine's Age of Reason to which I refer you.

There are items in the Torah that are completely anachronistic, or impossible for Moses to have written, including the account of Moses death and burial. You say that this was written by Scribes of Moses' day. Really?

Deuteronomy 34:6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.​

That was very obviously not written by people of Moses' day. There are lots of similar anachronisms.

Deuteronomy 34:10 Since then, no prophet has arisen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.​

That too makes sense only of it was written not by people of Moses' own day, but by those of much later times.

 

[JayUtah]

So what is his point -

My point was a rebuttal to your claim that the Complete Jewish Bible was an accurate rendition of certain Hebrew terms that are in dispute here. I asked you what the Hebrew text actually says for the passages you cite. You are unable to do so, so you cannot be considered an authority on whether that translation -- or any translation -- is accurate.

what does he want to prove--has it got any value.

Your claim is that knowledge of the original languages of the Bible is not required in order to understand it completely and accurately. You claim that translations are adequate, and that one translation in particular supports your reading and use of certain Hebrew titles. Your critics have disputed your use, and have noted further that such mistakes would not arise if you understood the language of the Bible and the history of its production.

It has value because it speaks to your authority to interpret the Hebrew portions of the Bible, which in turn speaks to your claim to obeying it. That's the topic of this thread.

Am I a Jew? Is he a Jew--

I know you're not a Jew, but you purport to live by the laws of the Old Testament, and you insinuate that you do so infallibly. That requires you to demonstrate competence in that law, which you cannot do. I am not a Jew, but I have spent a fair amount of time in Israel and other places in the Middle East.

...so where did he come by this that he expects me to know?

By means of the secular study you find no use for. It gives me knowledge you don't have, that is pertinent to your claims. My study of the Old Testament was with a rabbi, and after having learned enough Hebrew to make a study of that work in Hebrew profitable.

Now that I have justified my line of questioning with respect to your claims and to the topic of this thread, please answer the question. Are you able to tell me what the Hebrew text says for the passages you quoted in an attempt to justify your use of Hebrew names and titles for God?

 

[Border Reiver]

Moses may well have been informed of his identity by his mother who acted as a nurse—his act of smiting the Egyptian is also evidence of what he understood to be his calling as deliverer. Moses’ encounter with God was not as a result of the Midianites. The Midianites later became the enemies of Israel.

Maybe he was informed, but was raised in Pharaoh's court as the son of a princess. As such Moses would most definitely have taken part in Egyptian religious practices. The killing of the overseer is certainly not presented as an understanding of a call to be liberator, he tries to hide the evidence of his crime, and when he finds out that other people know that he was responsible for the overseer's death, he runs.

Moses' encounter with Yahweh comes in Midian, years after his departure from Egypt.

Power is to be respected, today it would be the same when Yahweh demonstrates his power to establish his sovereignty.

Respect must be earned. If all you respect of a thing is its power, then what you have is not respect, it is fear. Fear does not bind things together. If all Yahweh has is fear, then he is not worthy of respect.

The calf and the snake do not have anything in common each deals with a situation where man rebels against the sovereignty of God.

You have deliberately misunderstood. The use of serpents and bulls as part of religious iconography is quite common in Canaanite religion. Referring to the statue created by Aaron as a calf is a way of belittling the Aaronite priesthood. Moses is alleged to have made a serpent of bronze in Num 21: 8-9.

But it is stated that Moses was the originator of the Torah. We may have shared content, but you still reject what I presented---( Deu_31:9 So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.)
So how much more clearer can that be?

I reject the idea that Moses wrote the Torah for the same reasons as the majority of biblical scholars do - there are several different religious traditions evident in Genesis, and Exodus is not written from a first person perspective. in addition the earliest copies can be dated between the 7th and 6th centuries BC, several hundred years after Moses is supposed to have lived. The idea that this is anything other than the Levite priests giving their rules the authority of a heroic ancestor. Rather like Americans attributing things to their Founding Fathers.

Did I not highlight this to show how bizarre the actions of David were, and that this event was not hid from us, this was to illustrate that although David was a good man to start off with, he latter had become a diabolical sinner.

No, you alleged that the Bible glossed over David's adultery with Bathsheba.

I also contend that David was not a good man to start off with. He was an opportunist who betrayed his King, went to work for the Philistines who he conducts many cross border raids for, and though he is anointed by the Israelite elders, he gets the Crown from his former employers who had taken it from Saul's corpse.

That is why there is a complete record of the life of Jesus to show what kind of person he was when on earth.

A complete record of Jesus' life? You're definitely not reading the same bible as the rest of us.

Only 2 of the four Gospels mention his birth (Matthew and Luke). There is nothing further mentioned until he's around 12, and then only in one book. Then nothing until his ministry.

That is not a complete record. We know more about the early life of Caesar, or Buddha then we do about Jesus'.

Well it is a natural thing to praise Yahweh, for who he is and what he has done—if a person enjoys doing good for others, it is reasonable to want to be acknowledged for that. The whole object of the love of God is stated as such--Lev_19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am the LORD.

<snip>

Acknowledgement is nice, but what is he actually doing to earn nothing but praise 24/7? He keeps focussing on his past accomplishments and demanding eternal praise for it.

Centuries of nothing, but eternal punishment if you aren't wearing blue fringed garments.

True he punishes those who do not love their neighbour as themselves.

Odd, he had the Midianites punished because they were loving their Israelite neighbours.

 

[Paul Bethke]

My point was a rebuttal to your claim that the Complete Jewish Bible was an accurate rendition of certain Hebrew terms that are in dispute here. I asked you what the Hebrew text actually says for the passages you cite. You are unable to do so, so you cannot be considered an authority on whether that translation -- or any translation -- is accurate.

Well I could consider looking up the way that the original language is used—but you have missed the point, I referred to the CJB as a means to show how some translators translate, and that they being Jewish, one would consider that what they have translated is an accurate rendition of the original.

The names by which God is known depicts his actions and statements—in English these names are not used as the Hebrew use them, I must admit it is quite confusing and interesting.

In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as “LORD” in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered “Lord,” for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered “Sovereign LORD.”
Because for most readers today the phrase “the LORD of hosts” and “God of hosts” have little meaning, this version renders them “the LORD Almighty” and “God Almighty.” These renderings convey the sense of the Hebrew, namely, “he who is sovereign over all the ‘hosts’ (powers) in heaven and on earth, especially over the ‘hosts’ (armies) of Israel.” For readers unacquainted with Hebrew this does not make clear the distinction between Sabaoth (“hosts” of “Almighty”) and Shaddai (which can also be translated “Almighty”), but the latter occurs infrequently and is always footnoted. When Adonai and YHWH Sabaoth occur together, they are rendered “the Lord, the LORD Almighty.”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-preface.html

Your claim is that knowledge of the original languages of the Bible is not required in order to understand it completely and accurately. You claim that translations are adequate, and that one translation in particular supports your reading and use of certain Hebrew titles. Your critics have disputed your use, and have noted further that such mistakes would not arise if you understood the language of the Bible and the history of its production.

Let me state, that the many English translations are adequate to obtain a clear understanding of the revelation of God the Creator. I started off in the faith by using the KJB which was what most people used, and in many instances had to resort to the use of other books to understand what the meaning was. I later changed to using the NIV, which I found to be more orientated with regards to the usage of terminology.

Let me say that I do consult the masters in Hebrew to obtain a clearer meaning, but let me add it does not change the meaning as we have it in English.

Again it is essential to have had the manuscripts that give insight into the compilation of Scripture from which we have our many, many translation of Scripture.

But let me state you and others are wrong to suggest that there cannot be a clear understanding of the revelation of what Yahweh has given, from the English translations.

It has value because it speaks to your authority to interpret the Hebrew portions of the Bible, which in turn speaks to your claim to obeying it. That's the topic of this thread.

Again the English translations are adequate in bringing a sinner to repentance—the names of God as important as they are do not prevent this. There as you should know, NO original manuscripts, they are all copies from all over the world.

Main article: List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts
The Aleppo Codex (c. 920 CE) and Leningrad Codex (c. 1008 CE) were the oldest Hebrew language manuscripts of the Tanakh. In 1947 the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran pushed the manuscript history of the Tanakh back a millennium from the two earliest complete codices. Before this discovery, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Old Testament were in Greek in manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Out of the roughly 800 manuscripts found at Qumran, 220 are from the Tanakh. Every book of the Tanakh is represented except for the Book of Esther; however, most are fragmentary. Notably, there are two scrolls of the Book of Isaiah, one complete (1QIsa), and one around 75% complete (1QIsb). These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE to 70 CE.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

I know you're not a Jew, but you purport to live by the laws of the Old Testament, and you insinuate that you do so infallibly. That requires you to demonstrate competence in that law, which you cannot do. I am not a Jew, but I have spent a fair amount of time in Israel and other places in the Middle East.

How does a Jew demonstrate his faith—is it not by first of all obeying the Ten Commands (the Decalogue) Well I and others can do the same. I do not wear tassels, nor a cap. I do not eat that which is described as unclean in Leviticus Chapter 11. I do not steal or lie or commit adultery as any Jew should avoid. —( Mark 10:19-21 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honour your father and mother.'"
"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me

I honour God by not trading on the Sabbath. So what more should be done to demonstrate ones faith as Jesus stated, when asked a question

By means of the secular study you find no use for. It gives me knowledge you don't have, that is pertinent to your claims. My study of the Old Testament was with a rabbi, and after having learned enough Hebrew to make a study of that work in Hebrew profitable.

The study of Hebrew does not mean you applied what you studied. As I said, many Jews steal, lie and commit adultery. Jesus said a man must teach and practice---( Mat 5:19 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.)

It is the application of knowledge that is required, not just the ability to read Hebrew.

Now that I have justified my line of questioning with respect to your claims and to the topic of this thread, please answer the question. Are you able to tell me what the Hebrew text says for the passages you quoted in an attempt to justify your use of Hebrew names and titles for God?

I have in the above referred to the names of God, You have in no way shown that I am deficient in my faith by not having an adequate knowledge of the languages. You may have an ability to read the languages, but are deficient in the faith, or you may have no faith at all.

 

[halleyscomet]

The killing of the overseer is certainly not presented as an understanding of a call to be liberator, he tries to hide the evidence of his crime, and when he finds out that other people know that he was responsible for the overseer's death, he runs.

In "The Ten Commandments" starting Charlton Heston however, the killing of the overseer is most definitely depicted as a call to be the liberator. It's a transition point for the character.

What we're seeing is evidence that Paul Bethke appears to be putting more weight upon a movie ABOUT Exodus than upon the text itself.

 

[Paul Bethke]

Maybe he was informed, but was raised in Pharaoh's court as the son of a princess. As such Moses would most definitely have taken part in Egyptian religious practices. The killing of the overseer is certainly not presented as an understanding of a call to be liberator, he tries to hide the evidence of his crime, and when he finds out that other people know that he was responsible for the overseer's death, he runs.

Moses came to the assistance of a fellow Hebrew, because he was a Hebrew, and hoped that the Hebrews would see him as a liberator and stand up against the Egyptians—but this did not go as he had planned, so he had ti flee.

Moses' encounter with Yahweh comes in Midian, years after his departure from Egypt.

So Moses found asylum with a Midianite priest and married one of his daughters. After some forty years Yahweh appeared to Moses and commissioned him to liberate the Hebrews.
Latter the Midianite priest stated—( Exo 18:10,11 He said, "Praise be to the LORD, who rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians and of Pharaoh, and who rescued the people from the hand of the Egyptians.
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly."

So it was Jethro who was converted to acknowledge the God of Moses as being greater.

Respect must be earned. If all you respect of a thing is its power, then what you have is not respect, it is fear. Fear does not bind things together. If all Yahweh has is fear, then he is not worthy of respect.

Fear is a good antidote for sin. Jesus states—( Luk_12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.)

You have deliberately misunderstood. The use of serpents and bulls as part of religious iconography is quite common in Canaanite religion. Referring to the statue created by Aaron as a calf is a way of belittling the Aaronite priesthood. Moses is alleged to have made a serpent of bronze in Num 21: 8-9.

No I understand what is stated—the calf as it is stated was what the Hebrews wanted to represent a god, that which would be used to take them back to Egypt.
The snake was made to bring healing to those that were bitten by snakes—so Yahweh punished the Hebrews and then provided an antidote to heal those who had been bitten.

I reject the idea that Moses wrote the Torah for the same reasons as the majority of biblical scholars do - there are several different religious traditions evident in Genesis, and Exodus is not written from a first person perspective. in addition the earliest copies can be dated between the 7th and 6th centuries BC, several hundred years after Moses is supposed to have lived. The idea that this is anything other than the Levite priests giving their rules the authority of a heroic ancestor. Rather like Americans attributing things to their Founding Fathers.

You can reject what was stated, but your rejection does not erase what is written.
1) Exo_24:4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel.
2) Deu_31:9 So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.
3) Deu_31:22 So Moses wrote down this song that day and taught it to the Israelites.
4) Hos_8:12 I wrote for them the many things of my law, but they regarded them as something alien.
5) Mar_10:5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
6) Joh_5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
Now you can argue all you like but the Scriptures categorically state that Moses was the author of the Torah.

No, you alleged that the Bible glossed over David's adultery with Bathsheba.
I also contend that David was not a good man to start off with. He was an opportunist who betrayed his King, went to work for the Philistines who he conducts many cross border raids for, and though he is anointed by the Israelite elders, he gets the Crown from his former employers who had taken it from Saul's corpse.

You have now proved to me how you misread what I wrote—I never complimented David, rather I lambasted him as diabolical.

A complete record of Jesus' life? You're definitely not reading the same bible as the rest of us. Only 2 of the four Gospels mention his birth (Matthew and Luke). There is nothing further mentioned until he's around 12, and then only in one book. Then nothing until his ministry.
That is not a complete record. We know more about the early life of Caesar, or Buddha then we do about Jesus'.

The complete life of Jesus was to carry out the will of his father, as he did, by reiterating the importance of the law and the institution of marriage—this was and is an important role that all the elect must continue to do.—( Joh_6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.)

Acknowledgement is nice, but what is he actually doing to earn nothing but praise 24/7? He keeps focussing on his past accomplishments and demanding eternal praise for it.
Centuries of nothing, but eternal punishment if you aren't wearing blue fringed garments.
Odd, he had the Midianites punished because they were loving their Israelite neighbours.

The Midianites were committing adultery, strange that you see adultery as love and not sin.
Blue fringed garments will not be the reason you will go to hell it is the violation of the Decalogue.

 

[JayUtah]

Well I could consider looking up the way that the original language is used—but you have missed the point

You want to divert the question into one where you can wave your hands about context and the natural difficulty of interpretation. But I am not asking a question that can be answered that way. I'm asking a question about what actual words appear in the Hebrew text. No amount of handwaving on your part can make those words be other than what they physically are.

I referred to the CJB as a means to show how some translators translate, and that they being Jewish, one would consider that what they have translated is an accurate rendition of the original.

You asserted your belief that the Complete Jewish Bible would translate the words faithfully. You cited two passages that contained English transliterations of Hebrew words. You assumed that those transliterations were of the actual Hebrew words that appeared in the Hebrew text.

My question challenged that assumption. I asked you what were the actual Hebrew words that appeared in the text. Not only have you failed to tell me that, you have practically fallen all over yourself to avoid having to answer that question.

That's because you were wrong, and I suspect you know it. The word that appears in the Hebrew text, that is wrongly transliterated in the Complete Jewish Bible as "Elohim" in those passages is, in fact, the Tetragrammaton, not the Hebrew word אלהים.

Why is that important? Because it shows that you are unable or unwilling to test assumptions you make regarding the fidelity of some particular translation. You don't know the original languages.

You wrongly supposed that the CJB was a literal and faithful enough translation to determine what was said in the original languages. This is because you did not investigate the way in which the translation was produced.

Why is that important? Because it shows that while you admit there are good and bad translations, it shows you are willing to accept a translation on the mere assumption that it is good or suitable for some purpose, not your ability to determine its quality and suitability. You demonstrate no ability to know the quality of a translation.

Why is that important? Because you purport that it is not necessary to know the original languages, and that translations suffice to arrive at a complete and inerrant understanding of the meaning and intent of scripture. But you demonstrate how translations do not suffice, and how a careless approach to them creates error.

Why is that important? Because the insufficiency of your competence in scripture translation and your unfamiliarity with the original languages opens to the door to other factors that affect interpretation, such as some predetermined belief imposed upon the text or suggested by a meaning in the translation that is not allowed in the original.

In addition, your clear evasion of this question challenges your sincerity. An honest and humble believer, when confronted with an error such as this, would say something like, "I see that I was wrong, and I will adjust my argument and beliefs accordingly."

Why is that important? Because the purpose of this thread is to test your claim to faithfully follow the mitzvot. A premise to that claim is that you accurately understand and interpret the mitzvot. My line of reasoning has revealed that you don't have the basis of an authoritative understanding and an unbiased, suitably informed interpretation.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well I could consider looking up the way that the original language is used—but you have missed the point, I referred to the CJB as a means to show how some translators translate, and that they being Jewish, one would consider that what they have translated is an accurate rendition of the original.

How very sad that you do not realize that your "CJB" is a messianically-oriented paraphrase of the work of others, and, as such, is not acceptable to non-xian jews, or to bible scholars. Your CJB is a "Jews-for-Jesus" tract.

The names by which God is known depicts his actions and statements—in English these names are not used as the Hebrew use them, I must admit it is quite confusing and interesting.

So much for your claims of superior understanding...

<version-shopping snip>

Let me say that I do consult the masters in Hebrew to obtain a clearer meaning, but let me add it does not change the meaning as we have it in English.

Right. That's what lets you claim that sexually active males can be "virgins". Not just an "alteration" of the meaning of the Hebrew word; all-out pillage and rapine...

Again it is essential to have had the manuscripts that give insight into the compilation of Scripture from which we have our many, many translation of Scripture.

From which you cherry-pick what you think is support for your egregious beliefs, glossing over the places where the interpretations disagree with the Masoretic text, with each other, and with your idiosyncratic musings.

But let me state you and others are wrong to suggest that there cannot be a clear understanding of the revelation of what Yahweh has given, from the English translations.

While you massacre the tetragrammaton, again.

Again the English translations are adequate in bringing a sinner to repentance—the names of God as important as they are do not prevent this. There as you should know, NO original manuscripts, they are all copies from all over the world.

Is there an actual point lurking in the underbrush of your preachment?

One wonders: how many languages do you, personally, speak fluently?

<scripture-and-contention snip>

I honour God by not trading on the Sabbath. So what more should be done to demonstrate ones faith as Jesus stated, when asked a question

...demonstrating yet again (as if it were needed) your willingness to do violence to the meaning of the text in support of your convenient interpretations. "Holiness" encompasses much more than "trade"--you might want to read the actual text.

The study of Hebrew does not mean you applied what you studied. <scripturesnip>

It is the application of knowledge that is required, not just the ability to read Hebrew.

And you, personally, demonstrate an admitted ignorance of the latter, and a remarkable lack of skill at the former.

I have in the above referred to the names of God, You have in no way shown that I am deficient in my faith by not having an adequate knowledge of the languages. You may have an ability to read the languages, but are deficient in the faith, or you may have no faith at all.

...and you have referred to the "names" of your 'god' in ways that demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the contents of the Masoretic text. You may believe with the best of 'em--but your belief is not based upn any actual evidence, or any understanding of the actual meanings of thee words of the Masoretic text.

Surprise

 

[Slowvehicle]

You want to divert the question into one where you can wave your hands about context and the natural difficulty of interpretation. But I am not asking a question that can be answered that way. I'm asking a question about what actual words appear in the Hebrew text. No amount of handwaving on your part can make those words be other than what they physically are.

You asserted your belief that the Complete Jewish Bible would translate the words faithfully. You cited two passages that contained English transliterations of Hebrew words. You assumed that those transliterations were of the actual Hebrew words that appeared in the Hebrew text.

My question challenged that assumption. I asked you what were the actual Hebrew words that appeared in the text. Not only have you failed to tell me that, you have practically fallen all over yourself to avoid having to answer that question.

That's because you were wrong, and I suspect you know it. The word that appears in the Hebrew text, that is wrongly transliterated in the Complete Jewish Bible as "Elohim" in those passages is, in fact, the Tetragrammaton, not the Hebrew word אלהים.

Why is that important? Because it shows that you are unable or unwilling to test assumptions you make regarding the fidelity of some particular translation. You don't know the original languages.

You wrongly supposed that the CJB was a literal and faithful enough translation to determine what was said in the original languages. This is because you did not investigate the way in which the translation was produced.

Why is that important? Because it shows that while you admit there are good and bad translations, it shows you are willing to accept a translation on the mere assumption that it is good or suitable for some purpose, not your ability to determine its quality and suitability. You demonstrate no ability to know the quality of a translation.

Why is that important? Because you purport that it is not necessary to know the original languages, and that translations suffice to arrive at a complete and inerrant understanding of the meaning and intent of scripture. But you demonstrate how translations do not suffice, and how a careless approach to them creates error.

Why is that important? Because the insufficiency of your competence in scripture translation and your unfamiliarity with the original languages opens to the door to other factors that affect interpretation, such as some predetermined belief imposed upon the text or suggested by a meaning in the translation that is not allowed in the original.

In addition, your clear evasion of this question challenges your sincerity. An honest and humble believer, when confronted with an error such as this, would say something like, "I see that I was wrong, and I will adjust my argument and beliefs accordingly."

Why is that important? Because the purpose of this thread is to test your claim to faithfully follow the mitzvot. A premise to that claim is that you accurately understand and interpret the mitzvot. My line of reasoning has revealed that you don't have the basis of an authoritative understanding and an unbiased, suitably informed interpretation.

 

[Border Reiver]

Moses came to the assistance of a fellow Hebrew, because he was a Hebrew, and hoped that the Hebrews would see him as a liberator and stand up against the Egyptians—but this did not go as he had planned, so he had ti flee.

So Moses found asylum with a Midianite priest and married one of his daughters. After some forty years Yahweh appeared to Moses and commissioned him to liberate the Hebrews.

Latter the Midianite priest stated—( Exo 18:10,11 He said, "Praise be to the LORD, who rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians and of Pharaoh, and who rescued the people from the hand of the Egyptians.

Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly."



So it was Jethro who was converted to acknowledge the God of Moses as being greater.

You are reading an awful lot into Exodus 2 and 3. There is nothing in the phrase "he came upon an overseer abusing a Hebrew and slew him." That gives no reason WHY Moses slew the overseer, just the fact of the slaying. The implied bit that Moses did not intend to use this to liberate the Hebrews comes from his hiding the evidence of the killing, and then running when the knowledge of the killing was being mentioned by the very people you allege he wants to liberate.

Fear is a good antidote for sin. Jesus states—( Luk_12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.)

Fear. That's all Yahweh has. No reason to follow him other than fear. And if you no longer fear Yahweh, what power does he have?

No I understand what is stated—the calf as it is stated was what the Hebrews wanted to represent a god, that which would be used to take them back to Egypt.

The snake was made to bring healing to those that were bitten by snakes—so Yahweh punished the Hebrews and then provided an antidote to heal those who had been bitten.

The calf was not intended to lead them back to Egypt.

Why did Yahweh need a snake to cure his followers? His son didn't need to use idols to heal.

You can reject what was stated, but your rejection does not erase what is written.

1)Exo_24:4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel.

2)Deu_31:9 So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel.

3)Deu_31:22 So Moses wrote down this song that day and taught it to the Israelites.

4)Hos_8:12 I wrote for them the many things of my law, but they regarded them as something alien.

5)Mar_10:5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

6)Joh_5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

Now you can argue all you like but the Scriptures categorically state that Moses was the author of the Torah.

The problem being that none of what is written there is accurate. This has been known since the Seventeenth Century.

You have now proved to me how you misread what I wrote—I never complimented David, rather I lambasted him as diabolical.

You did call it diabolical but also said the Bible tried to cover it up.

The complete life of Jesus was to carry out the will of his father, as he did, by reiterating the importance of the law and the institution of marriage—this was and is an important role that all the elect must continue to do.—( Joh_6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.)

You use a different definition of "complete life" then that which the plain words of the text would otherwise suggest. Some of us might call this dishonest.

The Midianites were committing adultery, strange that you see adultery as love and not sin.

Israelite men were involved with Midianite women, just like Moses. That is not necessarily adultery. What Moses ordered done to the Midianites was a violation of hospitality.

Blue fringed garments will not be the reason you will go to hell it is the violation of the Decalogue.

Violation of the Law is what leads to punishment. It is part of the Law to wear blue fringed garments. Therefore not wearing blue fringed garments leads to punishment, the only on that Yahweh deals out is sending people to hell.