Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9216 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: KING IYK
Post Volume: Total: 920,682 Year: 1,004/6,935 Month: 285/719 Week: 73/204 Day: 5/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two Floods and a confusing type of god.
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6559 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 3 of 33 (44029)
06-24-2003 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
06-24-2003 5:35 PM


Brian Johnston
Firstly, the Flood narrative, as we have it, is the work of more than one author, this brings into question Mosaic authorsip of the Torah.
I doubt that anyone other than extreme fundamentalists and Orthodox Jews still entertain the myth of Mosaic authorship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 06-24-2003 5:35 PM Brian 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

  
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

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


Message 33 of 33 (64832)
11-06-2003 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mendy
11-06-2003 9:08 PM


Re: reply
when you look in quotes in the mishna, midrash, tosefta, braita and talmud - all works that can be dated to 3rd and 6th century...they are the same as today, more or less... -this is hearsay for me so please correct me if im wrong - the tefillin [phylacteries] that they found in the cumran caves and the texts of prophets that they found [dead sea scrolls] also indicated that it was the same
Mendy, there is a very interesting book titled The Bible As Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries - a series of related papers on the process of textual transmission and canonization in light of the DSS evidence. Almost without exception, the DSS material speaks (1) to a plurality of textual variants, with (2) a significant tendency to favor the non-Masoretic (e.g., Samaritan Pentateuch & Septuagint Vorlage) text, and (3) an absence of clear distinction/demarcation between so-called Canon and Apocrapha. Feel free to believe this or not. It is, however, a fact.
As for the Masoretes, the laudable transcription abilities of 4th-6th century CE scribes says absolutely nothing about the textual plurality that aparently characterized Hebrew scripture up to and during the 2nd Temple period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mendy, posted 11-06-2003 9:08 PM mendy 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