Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution of judaism
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 76 of 82 (149009)
10-11-2004 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:29 AM


Re: Arachnophilia
Jason, please read my message 64 above.
If you do not find this topic worthy of discussion why do you continue to post here? Gen 1 and 2 has its own topic. Please keep your posts there.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe


http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:29 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 77 of 82 (149012)
10-11-2004 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:29 AM


Re: Arachnophilia
actually, it's quite an interesting topic, and i'v been thinking about it for some time. i've considered writting a THESIS on it, to tell you the truth.
and why would an editor place a second version in? good question. well they obviously did.
why would an editor do something like this?
quote:
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
those aren't separated by other verses; one verse is in clear contradiction to the next. maybe it's because they both have some truth on some level, and they didn't care about contradictions. remember, you're dealing with sacred texts, and the redactor of genesis clearly had a few sources at his disposal -- all sacred. they wouldn't have been changed, revised, or combined, just both included.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 10-11-2004 02:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:29 AM JasonChin has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 82 (149101)
10-11-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by JasonChin
Maybe if your topic was more interesting, people would want to discuss it.....
IMO, brennakimi has proposed a very interesting topic and I (for one) am eager to discuss it as soon as the digression wanes.
And further, I think such rude comments and inconsiderate, ill-formatted posts speak volumes about someone who didn't even know the structure of השם until it was patiently explained to him on this forum.
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:29 AM JasonChin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-18-2004 10:53 PM Amlodhi has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 79 of 82 (150974)
10-18-2004 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Amlodhi
10-11-2004 11:06 AM


thanks. i just kinda did it pretty half-assed though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Amlodhi, posted 10-11-2004 11:06 AM Amlodhi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Amlodhi, posted 10-19-2004 12:52 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 82 (150992)
10-19-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by macaroniandcheese
10-18-2004 10:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by brennakimi
. . . towards the earlier books and some other selected texts, Judaism seems a more naturalistic (i hesitate to say pagan) religion with a whole pantheon (God of gods) but one special God who should be worshipped alone.
Hello brennakimi,
I agree with you and there are several examples (even post-redaction) that tend to indicate a progression from animistic/polytheistic > territorial/henotheistic > montheistic.
A couple of (what I think are) interesting examples of territorialism/henotheism are:
II Kings 3:27 describes the kings of Israel, Judah and Edom going up against the king of Moab. Earlier, in verse 19, God commanded them to "smite every choice city, etc. etc.".
The king of Moab, being apprised of their approach, went on the offensive and attacked them in their encampment outside of the borders of Moab. The kings of Israel, Judah and Edom, rose up in turn and proceeded to pursue the Moabites back over the border and into the land of Moab proper.
Verses 26 & 27 say that "when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him . . . (27) . . . he took his eldest son. . and offered him (to the god Chemosh) for a burnt offering on the wall."
Verse 27 continues: ". . . and there was great wrath against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land."
Now, the KJV translates the term קצף (qetseph) as "indignance" rather than as "wrath". This seems to me to be an attempt to make it appear as though the Israelites were simply "disgusted" by this human sacrifice and, in effect, took their toys and went home.
But this appears to me to be a bit of spin doctoring. First off, a check of the lexicon definitions and the usage in other parts of the OT reveal that whether translated as "indignance" or "wrath", this term is consistently used in the sense of "burning anger" with an implied (and sometimes overt) threat of retribution.
Second, the verse clearly states that this "wrath" is directed against Israel.
And third, it makes no sense that Israel (& Judah, etal) would pack up and go home at this point. If they had the Moabite king on the ropes, and if they understood that this was an ineffectual sacrifice to a non-existent god, their "disgust" would have more likely compelled them to finish the job.
Instead, this seems to reflect a genuine belief in a territorial/henotheistic pantheon. The Israelites (etal) were now in Moabite territory, the Moabite king made a powerful sacrifice to Chemosh (god of that territory), as a result, there was "wrath" directed toward Israel (or so they thought) which compelled them to leave off from a battle which they had all but won and return to the safety of " their own territory ".
This story can make little sense except in the context of a genuine belief in territorial deities.
Another example is found a couple of chapters later (II Kings chapter 5) in the story of Naaman. According to the story, Naaman (of Syria) has leprosy and is told by his wife (a captive out of Israel) that the prophet (Elisha) in Israel could intercede for his recovery.
Naaman seeks out Elisha in Israel and (after following Elisha's instructions) is cured of his leprosy. Verse 15, then, has Naaman return to Elisha and exclaim, ". . . now I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel." .
Naaman goes on to say that he wants to worship YHWH in his own country. Thus, in verse 17, he says, ". . . Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mule's burden of earth?"
Now why would Naaman want two mule's burden of Israel's dirt?
Because in the territorialist mindset of the time, YHWH wasn't the god of Syria. Thus, in order for Naaman to worship YHWH outside of YHWH's territory, he would need to take some of YHWH's territory back home with him.
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-18-2004 10:53 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-19-2004 10:22 AM Amlodhi has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 81 of 82 (151051)
10-19-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Amlodhi
10-19-2004 12:52 AM


thanks for pointing those out. very interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Amlodhi, posted 10-19-2004 12:52 AM Amlodhi has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 82 of 82 (154815)
11-01-2004 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by JasonChin
10-07-2004 10:52 AM


Re: brennakimi
except, of course, it is not there to begin with.. it is projected onto the old testament by Christians, so, it is not a prophecy, it is fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JasonChin, posted 10-07-2004 10:52 AM JasonChin 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 © 2024