Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9216 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,681 Year: 1,003/6,935 Month: 284/719 Week: 72/204 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two Floods and a confusing type of god.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1787 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 33 (60648)
10-12-2003 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Pringlesguy7
10-12-2003 3:57 AM


Why does everyone put GOd in a little box, and try to give him human characterisitcs, and try to sum him up with human logic.
Because according to your mythology we've got the same ability to tell the difference between good and bad that God does. He even says so:
quote:
22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.
If we've got God's own ability to tell the difference between good and evil, that means that we can use that ability to determine if the actions of God are good or evil (or stupid), just as he judges our own actions.
God may judge us but even God admits that we get to judge him, too.
Of course, this is all just silly mythology - it doesn't matter what it says because none of it is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Pringlesguy7, posted 10-12-2003 3:57 AM Pringlesguy7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 10-12-2003 7:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5353 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 33 (60649)
10-12-2003 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
10-12-2003 7:25 PM


The difference is you can not change whatever GOD does for good or evil but you as a human have this choice. I had this thought as a teenager and CHOOSE THE GOOD because even If I wanted to be evil and try to change against GOD he"" could just change it before my changes went into effect so if I have any influence it makes more sense just to do what IS good to God and not to even clutter my mind with a good OR Bad doing evil that that gOD did not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 10-12-2003 7:25 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 33 (61793)
10-20-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
10-12-2003 8:38 AM


Re: reply
Sorry Shraff. This reply should be to Newborn. There is a statement near the beginning of Genesis in which GOD created mankind in HIS IMAGE. If we suppose that "his image" really means, LIKE HIM, then we have reason to think God is also very much LIKE US. If that is the case, then it's no wonder God does some nasty things thru the rest of the Bible. He's just like us. We do nasty things sometimes and if you read your Bible without a religious bias that says 'God is Good', then you'll see that he does nasty things also. I write this to make a point, and that is this: you are reading and interpreting the Bible hoping that what it says all fits together nicely to confirm your christian beliefs about God. As I've shown above, one can read & see a very different sort of God in the Bible.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-20-2003]
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 10-20-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 10-12-2003 8:38 AM nator has not replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 33 (63866)
11-01-2003 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by greyline
08-14-2003 8:06 AM


Re: reply
I am going to try to answer this but first an important note. Ive just started to read through some of the issues on these forums and one of the Problems i see is one of translation. MOst people here are using some kind of english translation which sooner or later, has error or at least some terrible misaccuracy. I read, write, and speak fluent hebrew and can read a decent aramaic so can view the material in the orginal. And here we have a simple problem of mistranslation. The verse in the original does NOt say G_d regretted - the verb used is: says: "Vayinachem" - which actually means G-d changed [his relationship] how he connects to Man -[here from mercy to judgment - same verb used in numbers 23, dueteronomy 32, exodus 32, samuel I ch 15 -all use the verb 'nicham' which means -change of thought/direction on relations with].... SO now judgment comes in the form of a flood. Hebrew helps a lot. Besides which, in the talmud there is a general rule about anthrpomophic Torah statements- the Torah spoke in the language of man - ie G-d is portrayed with human characterisitcs so that limited physical man can have an understanding G-d's "reaction". Since finite man can not ever truly grasp infinite G-d, these terms are necessary for imparting the message..but G-d does not regret or smile or cry or laugh oe smell sacrficies - so what does it mean that G-d smells etc? that G-d accepted the offering and its as if he 'smelled' the good aroma, the way a man would enjoy a good scent..ie it was "pleasureable" to G-d,meaning he agreed with Noah's action. If anyone is interested, a lot of these questions can be easily answered in the Medieval Jewish commentaries -Rashi, Eben Ezra, Ramban [Gersonides], Abrabanel, Sforno, Tosfot, Ralbag, and later ones like Malbim, Hirsch, Kli Yakar, Ohr Hachaim,...there are anthologies too like The Torah Anthology -tranlsated to english by Aryeh Kaplan.. please check them out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by greyline, posted 08-14-2003 8:06 AM greyline has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Brad McFall, posted 11-01-2003 9:41 PM mendy has not replied
 Message 21 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 12:26 AM mendy has replied
 Message 22 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-02-2003 8:51 AM mendy has replied
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 11-02-2003 9:08 AM mendy has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5353 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 20 of 33 (63868)
11-01-2003 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by mendy
11-01-2003 9:35 PM


Re: reply for g(oo)d
Thanks, that was a nice post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 9:35 PM mendy has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7333 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 21 of 33 (63885)
11-02-2003 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mendy
11-01-2003 9:35 PM


Re: reply
Hey Mendy - I've never seen you here before. It's good to have someone here who can read hebrew without having to consult a dictionary, and who is well versed in rabbinical analyses of the torah. Enjoy your stay at EVC.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 9:35 PM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:08 PM Rei has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6559 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 22 of 33 (63915)
11-02-2003 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mendy
11-01-2003 9:35 PM


Re: reply
The verse in the original does NOt say G_d regretted - the verb used is: says: "Vayinachem" - which actually means G-d changed [his relationship] how he connects to Man -[here from mercy to judgment - same verb used in numbers 23, dueteronomy 32, exodus 32, samuel I ch 15 -all use the verb 'nicham' which means -change of thought/direction on relations with]....
With all due respect for your linguistic abilities, can you suggest
  1. any lexicon that differs sunstantially from Strong's 05162, and/or
  2. any version of Genesis 6:6 that reflects your interpretation.
With regards to the first question, consider the following footnote:
quote:
Or "was grieved"; "was sorry." In the Niphal stem the verb can carry one of four semantic meanings, depending on the context: (1) "to experience emotional pain or weakness," "to feel regret," often concerning a past action (see Exod 13:17; Judg 21:6, 15; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; Job 42:6; Jer 31:19). In several of these texts yk ("because") introduces the cause of the emotional sorrow. (2) Another meaning is "to be comforted" or "to comfort oneself" (sometimes by taking vengeance). See Gen 24:67; 38:12; 2 Sam 13:39; Ps 77:3; Isa 1:24; Jer 31:15; Ezek 14:22; 31:16; 32:31. (This second category represents a polarization of category one.) (3) The meaning "to relent from" or "to repudiate" a course of action which is already underway is also possible (see Judg 2:18; 2 Sam 24:16 = 1 Chr 21:15; Pss 90:13; 106:45; Jer 8:6; 20:16; 42:10). (4) Finally, "to retract" (a statement) or "to relent or change one's mind concerning," "to deviate from" (a stated course of action) is possible (see Exod 32:12, 14; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Isa 57:6; Jer 4:28; 15:6; 18:8, 10; 26:3, 13, 19; Ezek 24:14; Joel 2:13-14; Am 7:3, 6; Jon 3:9-10; 4:2; Zech 8:14). See R. B. Chisholm, "Does God 'Change His Mind'?" BSac 152 (1995): 388. The first category applies here because the context speaks of God's grief and emotional pain (see the following statement in v. 6) as a result of a past action (his making mankind). For a thorough study of the word, see H. Van Dyke Parunak, "A Semantic Survey of NHM," Bib 56 (1975): 512-32.
- see netbible
As for the second question, I notice that:
  • my Stone Edition Tanach employs the 2nd of the "four semantic meanings", i.e. 'regret', as does the Etz Hayim, the JPS, and the Kaplan Torah
  • furthermore, 'regret' is the translation found in Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan shown here.
In summary, there appears to be a good deal of Judaic scholarship, likewise "fluent hebrew and ... aramaic", that is similarly guilty of an "error or at least some terrible misaccuracy".
I read, write, and speak fluent hebrew and can read a decent aramaic so can view the material in the orginal.
Parenthetically, what you read is not the original, but, instead, a redaction and harmonization of source material probably no older that the Second Temple Period.
You might find Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, by Emanuel Tov, very much worth reading in this area.
[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 9:35 PM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:26 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied
 Message 27 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:32 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied
 Message 28 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:34 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5280 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 23 of 33 (63919)
11-02-2003 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mendy
11-01-2003 9:35 PM


Re: reply
HI and welcome to the forum.
I have a coule of questions regarding your post.
I read, write, and speak fluent hebrew
Who do you speak this fluent Hebrew too?
and can read a decent aramaic so can view the material in the orginal.
Could you clarify what you mean by 'original' here?
Many Thanks.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 9:35 PM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:10 PM Brian has replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 33 (63947)
11-02-2003 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Rei
11-02-2003 12:26 AM


Re: reply
Thanx. i cant say that im well versed in rabbinical analyses of torah but i have some background. i am enjoying my stay here -but i just cant find the time to answer as often as i like. Maybe on weekends but i hope no one is surprised if i have long pauses in my answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 12:26 AM Rei has not replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 33 (63950)
11-02-2003 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brian
11-02-2003 9:08 AM


Re: reply
i should be more careful. i speak hebrew to toher hebrew speakers, Israelis mainly- but that is modern hebrew.
original means any of the current Mikraot Gedolot hebrew editions, or Artscroll, Stone, KEter etc. - basically, the masoretic text

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 11-02-2003 9:08 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-02-2003 4:41 PM mendy has replied
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 11-04-2003 9:15 AM mendy has replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 33 (63954)
11-02-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ConsequentAtheist
11-02-2003 8:51 AM


Re: reply
well, i didnt say the view i brought down was theonly view- it is anotrher view which i think has merit. it comes from the second explanation of Rashi on that verse and he brings the folling examples where nchm is used as explained -changed:
here they are: numbers 23, dueteronomy 32, exodus 32, samuel I ch 15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-02-2003 8:51 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 33 (63955)
11-02-2003 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ConsequentAtheist
11-02-2003 8:51 AM


Re: reply
regarding ONkelos and YOnatan:
your source for onkelos reads:
And it repented the Lord in His Word that He had made men upon the earth
What is "and it repented" mean ? that he 'was sorry' ? can G-d be sorry?
Here is Onkelos in aramaic - i give my own understading "Vetav Ado-nai bememrei arei avad yat adam" -literal translation [as best i can] = and G-d returned in his word that he made the man - sowhat does that mean? so you are right that it does not mean the same as the Rashi i brought befiore -but i am giving an altrernat eexplanation which is valid.
BTW, i think the best answer to this and all similar anthropomorphic statments is that the Torah spoken in mans language....its not meanrt literally that G-d regreted.was sorry/returned but that man didnt live up to expectations.....ok got to go

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-02-2003 8:51 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 33 (63957)
11-02-2003 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ConsequentAtheist
11-02-2003 8:51 AM


Re: reply
last post- thanx for the book -i will try to read it...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-02-2003 8:51 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6559 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 29 of 33 (63998)
11-02-2003 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mendy
11-02-2003 1:10 PM


Re: reply
original means ... basically, the masoretic text
The Masoretic Texts are a product of the early Middle Ages.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:10 PM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mendy, posted 11-06-2003 9:08 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 5280 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 33 (64350)
11-04-2003 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mendy
11-02-2003 1:10 PM


Re: reply
Hi,
i should be more careful. i speak hebrew to toher hebrew speakers, Israelis mainly- but that is modern hebrew.
Thanks for clearing this up, I am glad you did because, believe it or not, there are people out there who think that Biblical Hebrew is a widely spoken language.
I know there was a sort of mini revival but this was not exactly classical Hebrew. But we do have ot be careful on these forums because people do jump to wrongful conclusions, but thanks for clarification.
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 1:10 PM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by mendy, posted 11-06-2003 9:17 PM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025