>> “Clearly, they are clauses of one statement, since neither phrase makes any sense if taken by itself.” <<
.
No, they only make sense taken separately, otherwise they generate confusion, and God’s word is not confusion (no matter how much confusion fits your world view)
A “regular” handshake is modern nonsense. Only Kabbalists struck hands.
>> “I mean, in the context of getting a loan, and providing a surety, a regular handshake makes immediates sense, since it is a traditional way to signify the completion of a transaction” <<
.
No again, the traditional way was to cut the fingers and mix blood. Striking of hands has never been the way of Godly men.
bttt
“No, they only make sense taken separately, otherwise they generate confusion, and God’s word is not confusion”
Alright, then if they are separate thoughts, then what about the parallel cross-references to this verse, which also link the “striking of hands” with taking on a debt, or making a pledge in regards to a debt? Is this coincidence that God talks about these things three different times in close succession?
Proverbs 11:15 He who puts up security for another will surely suffer, but whoever refuses to strike hands in pledge is safe.
Proverbs 17:18 A man lacking in judgment strikes hands in pledge and puts up security for his neighbor
“A “regular” handshake is modern nonsense. Only Kabbalists struck hands.”
Well, now you are just making stuff up. The handshake has been around since prehistory, so it’s far from modern. Secondly, if only “Kabbalists” struck hands, then explain Isaiah 2:6, where the condemnation is for clasping hands with foreigners. The clasping of hands is not what is condemned, but rather, the fact that it signifies: the children of Israel allying themselves with pagans, and corrupting themselves with pagan practices thereby.
“No again, the traditional way was to cut the fingers and mix blood. Striking of hands has never been the way of Godly men.”
Got any evidence for this? Or any of your other assertions? So far, I haven’t seen any, and if you don’t have any to present, then I don’t see any point to continuing this argument.