Posted on 10/04/2005 4:28:28 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
As I understand it, 'twas the Catholics that "made some changes" by accepting into the canon books that the originators of the texts(that would be the Jews) had not included.
I believe it was the "Prosties" who returned Christianity to the canon used by the Jews, albeit not in the same order.
Oh, He did more than dictate it. He wrote it, in letters of black fire on a scroll of white fire, 974 generations before the Creation of the World. All human history, all our own actions, are merely the Torah being translated into reality. And yet we all have free will!
You think that's hard to understand? Well how about this: each and every one of us is perfectly free in his actions and is being continuously tested by G-d in the form of the actions of the people around us--but at the same time each and every person around us is perfectly free and being tested by G-d via our actions! And you know how this can be so???
I have no earthly idea!!! Nor do I need to.
Now, do you want to whine about how Six Days of Creation are hard for you to understand?
This is the problem with people like you: you seem to think you have cornered the truth market, that there is just no way that your ideas couldn't be right. I used to be like that, too. Now I understand that it's possible that I don't understand everything. I search for truth instead of being satisfied with the notion that I already have it. My posts aren't attempts at being a smartass, as you call me. They are questions for which I recognize I have no answers.
You don't have any questions. You don't think deeply enough to have real questions. All you have is a few tiny little bumps that don't amount to anything when it comes to real questions and problems about the workings of G-d, which no one but He understands.
Why don't you read RaSH"I's commentary on the Chumash for a starter?
I answered someone else who corrected me on the use of the word tired instead of rest. I apologized for my mistake. I used a poor example. If you like we could use the example found in the Book of Revelation 10:17. Now in my vision, this is how I saw the horses and their riders ... and the horses' heads were like the heads of lions, and out of their mouths caught fire smoke and sulfur" Is it possible that there will literally be horses heads like lions heads breathing sulfur and smoke. Why yes, with God all things are possible. But is it also very possible that the author St. John, was expressing in language and images understood by the early Christian. If John had written of tanks or other weapons unknown in his age- none of his audience would have grasped what he was saying. So in describing a horror of an assault so powerful that a 1/3 of mankind is killed he used apocolyptic language common to his era. Does it mean what St. John describes as happening in Revelation is not true? No it does not. Whether it is horses breathing sulfur or a armored tank division, the truth remains that in the end we can expect great destruction as part of God's judgement.
Oh and the Church is no way anti literalist. You would find that when reading a Bible passage we are first to approach it with the belief it is literal. If it is obvious that we can not approach it that way ( Is Jesus really a small, furry lamb) we should look for what the passage shows us by symbol, metaphor, allegory. None of these will ever show the Bible is lying. Jesus is indeed a lamb because of His perfect sacrifice.
Maybe it would help if you told me what you understood the words literal truth to mean. If we are defining the term differently we would always be at cross purposes.
Yep no kidding.
1)What has the "book of revelation" (a book of the "new testament") got to do with the TaNa"KH?
2)Even if I accepted the "book of revelation," I believe the words you quote describe a vision. To interpret it literally would mean believing the writer actually saw that vision. Similarly, the parables of J*sus in your gospels simply mean that J*sus told those stories. Of course, I doubt you get this point, seeing as how you probably believe the Song of Songs' literal interpretation requires one to believe that G-d has a beard of goats (the person described is only an allegory of G-d, and SoS nowhere says that G-d has a beard of goats).
Next question?
Fowls are birds, by definition and not arbitrarily. That's what the word means. Bats are mammals. They have fur and are genetically much more closely related to whales than to birds. They are mammals by definition and are not birds. The bible is in error when it refers to bats as fowls in Leviticus. It is an error made by the writers of the bible. They were men and men make mistakes. This is one of over 1500 such errors in the King James Bible. It is in no way inerrant. By definition of the word "error"
Is this clear? I tried to make it so.
Then obviously we are more in agreement than you think.
I can not speak from a Jewish perspective. But in most cases what many Christians mean by literal truth is that the Bible language allows for no symbolism or visionary or metaphorical language. And you actually make my own point for me. I do not believe God has a beard of goats, but I do believe that the Song of Solomon was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and tells us a deep Truth about Love, not only physical, marital love but the love Christ has for His bride the Church.
Oh and I have no doubt that Jesus told the parables, or that He performed miracles or that He is God in the flesh.
Even when the Bible passage does not express a surface truth we can be sure it tells of a deeper,more enduring one.
Is this clear? I tried to make it so.
First of all, the Torah had no human authors at all. It wasn't even written by Moses. It was written by G-d and then dictated to Moses as a sequence of letters when he took down. And this is not the recent creation of the Southern Baptist Convention but the constant and continual understanding of the Jewish People since the Revelation at Sinai.
Now let's look at the passage in question in Leviticus 11, which begins "Va'elleh teshaqqetzu min ha`of" ("and these you will hold abominable among the `of"). The word `of, which is translated "fowl," simply means an animal that flies or that has wings (even flying insects are sometimes referred to as `of ye`ofef). The verb `ayin-vav-peh is one of the verbs meaning "to fly," and `of is merely a noun constructed from that verb.
So since the Torah lists animals that fly (`of) with bats among them, how does that mean the "writers of the Bible" are in error? Don't bats fly? Don't they have wings? Note that the Torah doesn't refer to "mammals" as such at all (it refers to animals that chew the cud in one group and animals that "walk on the paw" in another, but does not classify them together as "mammals"). Similarly, the Torah does not refer to "fish" but to "that which is in the waters," and fish and other water dwelling animals are covered under the same topic.
The classification of all mammals together based on milk production (mammary glands) is merely another way of classifying animals, and has no bearing whatsoever on the words of the Torah.
May I suggest you learn Hebrew?
You're right, ZC. You're so much deeper and profoundly more intellectual than I. You should be proud.
No we are not. You've found yourself caught in an uncomfortable position and are now trying to make "nice" by inviting me to join you in bashing Fundamentalist Protestants. Sorry. I used to be a Fundamentalist Protestant (and was Catholic for six years as well), and I have no respect whatsoever for the anti-literalist games of most Catholics (not to mention the utter hypocrisy of insisting on a literal interpretation of the "new testament" while dismissing the "old" as "allegory").
I can not speak from a Jewish perspective. But in most cases what many Christians mean by literal truth is that the Bible language allows for no symbolism or visionary or metaphorical language.
I know of no Fundamentalist Protestant who claims that the Song of Songs is literal. In fact, the only time I've ever seen that claimed is by anti-literalists trying to discredit literalism.
And what does symbolism or visionary or metaphorical language to do with Genesis or Jonah? Absolutely nothing. Judaism is not sola scriptura and it doesn't limit the Biblical message only to the surface sense, but it does not relegate anything in the Torah to "metaphorical language."
And you actually make my own point for me. I do not believe God has a beard of goats, but I do believe that the Song of Solomon was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and tells us a deep Truth about Love, not only physical, marital love but the love Christ has for His bride the Church.
And your using the Song of Songs (a series of love poems) to claim by analogy that Genesis or Jonah is myth or allegory is jumping off the bridge altogether.
Oh and I have no doubt that Jesus told the parables, or that He performed miracles or that He is God in the flesh. Even when the Bible passage does not express a surface truth we can be sure it tells of a deeper,more enduring one.
Then what are doing trying to turn the TaNa"KH into a big metaphor? I'm sorry, but this belief in the literal truth of the "new testament" paired with the allegorization of the "old" strikes me as nothing other than a form of theological anti-Semitism.
If you'd at least consider the possibility that chr*stianity is false and that the "new testament" isn't really part of the Bible (thus eliminating your dying "gxd" who didn't understand what was going on) you'd have far fewer difficulties.
And I'm not an intellectual. I interpret the Bible literally. Don't you know that that disqualifies me by definition?
Just Damn! They would fit right in in the Church of England. Why don't they just merge.
Wrong. The Bible is the revealed word of God.
Most of the Traditional Catholics have been banned, or do not speak up for fear of banning.
there are a few more Catholic literalists but unfortunately many of them are raving anti-Semites
I have a feeling we differ on the definition of anti-Semite. I and many other traditional Catholics are in no way pro-Zionist, but are not an anti-Semites, you may believe that they are one in the same.
I wasn't aware I had denied that.
I am sorry to hear that. And yes, I do regard them as one and the same. But then, I also regard denying the literal truth of the TaNa"KH (while insisting on the literal truth of the "new testament") as a form of anti-Semitism, and hypocritical as well.
I hope you aren't one of the people who thinks an extermination of Israel by the Arabs will cleanse the US of those awful Catholic Mexicans?
Zionist. I am doing no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth I never said I thought the OT was only Allegorical.
And I was trying to clarify that I did not believe all truth had to be a literal truth. I was not trying to bash fundementalist Protestants. I never mentioned the book of Jonah. Which I do believe is a true ( literally so) story as well as allegorical. I don't think it is an either/or choice. It both tells what happened to Jonah and foretells what will happen to Christ in the tomb.
I did not mean to give the impression that the Church thought that parts of the OT were not literal. For instance the church never says Moses did not go up to Mt. Sinai and bring back the 10 commandments. Will that example of a literal Truth in the OT satisfy you? I will admit some of the confusion is my fault. I am sure you will disagree but I believe that we need to remember that each Book of the Bible is its own separate book as well as part of the whole.
I never expressed any kind of Anti-Semitism. That would be a grave sin. Jesus was Jewish with a great love and knowledge of Hebrew scripture. Should I hold in contempt what our very Lord held so dear?
As for making nice- maybe I was, but not out of ulterior motives but to simply try to make sure I was not misinterperting what you were saying.
To help me understand your beliefs would you mind answering the following:
Should someone read the Book of Genesis in the same way they would read the Book of Isiah? I picked those two books but if it illustrates your beliefs better, please use others for your answer.
Can there be Truth in the Bible that is not literal Truth?
Can passages be both literal and allegorical?
What is your definition of myth?
Can stories whether literal or non literal be used to show a greater Truth. One that is not limited by history or culture?
I am not anti Literal. To be anti Literal I would have to deny that Jesus wanted us to truly eat of His Body and His blood to have eternal life. I am not anti-allegorical- to be anti allegoricaly I would have to deny that the Story of Jonah also foresees Jesus' time in the tomb. I am not anti symbolic. To be anti symbolic I would have to claim that Jesus calling Himself the vine has no signficance to Christians.
What exactly is your current belief system? You write you are both a former Fundementalist and Catholic. You mentioned too something about if you accepted the Book of Revelations. Are there some books you don't view as being inspired by God? I promise I am not trying to bash but to understand. Oops there I go making nice again.
There are Jews who are not Zionists, do you consider them to be Anti-Semites as well?
I hope you aren't one of the people who thinks an extermination of Israel by the Arabs will cleanse the US of those awful Catholic Mexicans?
I really have no idea what you are talking about. The only thing I want to exterminate is error, I want to convert Jews as well as Muslims. If I was a real anti-Semite I'd be quite content to see them remain in error.
Hey, ya know what? I was being a stinker. I apologize. Peace.
What's this we crap?
I'm not Catholic and I'm not saying I believe one way or the other about the six twenty-four hour days.
But what I would like to know is why you think you have the right to speak for the Catholic Church or the rest of the entire human race.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.