Topic: "I See The Jew" - A Poem
fake_anon !22u.8RXXws started this discussion 14 years ago #24,340
When I see the filth my children watch on TV and in the movies, I see the work of the jew
When I see the murder of millions from communism and two world wars I see the jew
When I see the coming of a third world war I see the jew
When I see our monetary system hijacked by the Federal Reserve I see the jew
When I see the majority of the Democrats funds and the majority of the Republicans funds are both being received from AIPAC I see the jew
When I see my people portrayed as evil and idiotic on sitcoms, and movies, and commercials, I see the jew
When I see 30 million illegal aliens from Mexico crossing our unguarded borders, and driving wages down, and bankrupting our hospitals, and creating ganglands in our cities, I see the jew
When I see the tremendous tax burden on my people I see the jew
When I see the looming Federal deficit I see the jew
When I see the murder of innocent Americans in false flag attacks in the Lavon Affair, and the King David Hotel, and the USS Liberty, and the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, I see the jew
When I see the banishment of nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses, the word Christmas replaced by Holiday, Washington and Lincolns birthday combined into Presidents Day, and the enactment of a Federal holiday for Martin Luther King, a communist, I see the jew
When I see my children taught to honor anti-heroes and being told falsehoods about their own history and being made to feel guilty for it I see the jew
You should too
When I see the murder of millions from communism and two world wars I see the jew
When I see the coming of a third world war I see the jew
When I see our monetary system hijacked by the Federal Reserve I see the jew
When I see the majority of the Democrats funds and the majority of the Republicans funds are both being received from AIPAC I see the jew
When I see my people portrayed as evil and idiotic on sitcoms, and movies, and commercials, I see the jew
When I see 30 million illegal aliens from Mexico crossing our unguarded borders, and driving wages down, and bankrupting our hospitals, and creating ganglands in our cities, I see the jew
When I see the tremendous tax burden on my people I see the jew
When I see the looming Federal deficit I see the jew
When I see the murder of innocent Americans in false flag attacks in the Lavon Affair, and the King David Hotel, and the USS Liberty, and the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, I see the jew
When I see the banishment of nativity scenes, the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses, the word Christmas replaced by Holiday, Washington and Lincolns birthday combined into Presidents Day, and the enactment of a Federal holiday for Martin Luther King, a communist, I see the jew
When I see my children taught to honor anti-heroes and being told falsehoods about their own history and being made to feel guilty for it I see the jew
You should too
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 33 minutes later[^] [v] #376,968
Threads grate
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #376,969
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #376,970
derp grate
Anonymous C double-posted this 14 years ago, 22 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #376,971
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,037
when i need financial advice, or tips on investments, i see the jew.
but you have to set an appointment, he doesn't take walk ins.
but you have to set an appointment, he doesn't take walk ins.
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,040
The irony is based on the bible, Jews are correct about Jesus not being the Messiah. (I wish this fora would show the date of posts to highlight what day this is posted on.)
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,042
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 7 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,161
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,164
ExtremelyUnwanted !zQoujQNSGs replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,173
@377,161 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Forgot to trip. Umm look the Old Testament says he's not the Messiah. He admitted it and said, "I'm the Lord's son so I can change the rules."
Forgot to trip. Umm look the Old Testament says he's not the Messiah. He admitted it and said, "I'm the Lord's son so I can change the rules."
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,189
@previous (ExtremelyUnwanted !zQoujQNSGs)
No, it doesn't. The Old Testament contains prophecies about the Messiah which Jesus fulfilled. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and was acclaimed as the Messiah.
No, it doesn't. The Old Testament contains prophecies about the Messiah which Jesus fulfilled. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and was acclaimed as the Messiah.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,190
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 32 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,192
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,194
Killa Lettuz xxx420xxx !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #377,206
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,215
@377,189 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
the old testament contained prophesies.
jesus, knowing the prophesies from the old testament, acted them out.
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah,
and people acclaimed him as the Messiah.
people are pretty stupid, huh?
hey, i got a prophesy for you: one day, a great hero from Australia will rise up and shoot himself in the face. this will usher in a new era of peace for all mankind.
the old testament contained prophesies.
jesus, knowing the prophesies from the old testament, acted them out.
Jesus claimed to be the Messiah,
and people acclaimed him as the Messiah.
people are pretty stupid, huh?
hey, i got a prophesy for you: one day, a great hero from Australia will rise up and shoot himself in the face. this will usher in a new era of peace for all mankind.
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,216
There is so much more to Mark than his religion/ethnicity, guys. More importantly than that, he's also a virgin.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,217
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,220
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,221
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
which was only really claimed to be witnessed by his inner circle, and then only under questionable circumstances. and then only really written about 80 to 100 years after it happened, and authored by different people than the original witnesses. who they'd never met...
which was only really claimed to be witnessed by his inner circle, and then only under questionable circumstances. and then only really written about 80 to 100 years after it happened, and authored by different people than the original witnesses. who they'd never met...
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,301
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
> his inner circle
of 500 people.
> questionable circumstances
Openly teaching and eating for for 40 days.
> only written 100 years after it happened
All the Gospels are believed to have been written within the first century. Even within this, late 1st century dates are usually predicated on the impossibility of prophecy, or on a preconceived chronology of a hypothetical theology.
> and authored by different people than the original witnesses. who they'd never met...
The people that wrote the books most certainly had met the Apostles.
> his inner circle
of 500 people.
> questionable circumstances
Openly teaching and eating for for 40 days.
> only written 100 years after it happened
All the Gospels are believed to have been written within the first century. Even within this, late 1st century dates are usually predicated on the impossibility of prophecy, or on a preconceived chronology of a hypothetical theology.
> and authored by different people than the original witnesses. who they'd never met...
The people that wrote the books most certainly had met the Apostles.
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,322
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> The people that wrote the books most certainly had met the Apostles.
Really? There's proof of that? I thought we weren't even sure who did the writing. (or the rewriting, or the redacting, etc.)
> The people that wrote the books most certainly had met the Apostles.
Really? There's proof of that? I thought we weren't even sure who did the writing. (or the rewriting, or the redacting, etc.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #377,337
> Arguing about stories about a bronze age sky ghost
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,354
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,431
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Then how can you say the authors "most certainly" did anything if you don't even know who they are? Even the names attached to the gospels are just "best guesses" that only became official later, yeah?
Then how can you say the authors "most certainly" did anything if you don't even know who they are? Even the names attached to the gospels are just "best guesses" that only became official later, yeah?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,433
Anonymous K double-posted this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,434
@377,431 (H)
They say that Jesus lived from around 4 BC to 30 AD, and most of the gospels were written about 200 years after that.
They say that Jesus lived from around 4 BC to 30 AD, and most of the gospels were written about 200 years after that.
Anonymous K triple-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,435
@377,431 (H)
From wikipedia
Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [21]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[22] c. 65–70[23]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[22] c. 80–85.[23]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[22] c. 80–85[23]
John: c. 90–100,[23] c. 90–110,[24] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was put to death by the Romans c. 65[citation needed], nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64/5 that had such impact on the early church.[25] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
From wikipedia
Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [21]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[22] c. 65–70[23]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[22] c. 80–85.[23]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[22] c. 80–85[23]
John: c. 90–100,[23] c. 90–110,[24] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was put to death by the Romans c. 65[citation needed], nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64/5 that had such impact on the early church.[25] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,439
@previous (K)
Wow, in some cases 40 to 60 years after the apostle would have died. That's 2 generations. That'd be like my son writing about my grandads service during ww2.
Wow, in some cases 40 to 60 years after the apostle would have died. That's 2 generations. That'd be like my son writing about my grandads service during ww2.
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,445
Anonymous K double-posted this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,446
Mountainman claims to believe that the bible is accurate on scientific matters as well, though when he was told that they didn't consider fetuses to be full humans or have souls until the "quickening" (first movement), he said that it doesn't matter because we have better science now. lol
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,493
@377,431 (H)
Because the churches were founded by the Apostles and were taught the Gospel by them. They wouldn't accept the Gospels unless they were in accord with what they had been taught. They would have no reason to circulate them unless they had an authority to them.
Because the churches were founded by the Apostles and were taught the Gospel by them. They wouldn't accept the Gospels unless they were in accord with what they had been taught. They would have no reason to circulate them unless they had an authority to them.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,495
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos triple-posted this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,498
@377,439 (squeegee)
The Apostles are variously believed to have either been martyred in the 60s or have lived on into the 70s and 80s. Meaning that the gospels had reached their final from within one generation of the Apostles (i.e. by the disciples of the Apostles).
The Apostles are variously believed to have either been martyred in the 60s or have lived on into the 70s and 80s. Meaning that the gospels had reached their final from within one generation of the Apostles (i.e. by the disciples of the Apostles).
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos quadruple-posted this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,500
@377,446 (K)
The Bible is accurate on faith and morals. It is not wholly inaccurate in science and history (it should not be entirely discredited as a source of historical knowledge) but it was not written for such a purpose.
The Bible contains no teaching on "quickening". This is drawn from Canon law, and was based upon the scientific understanding of the time (i.e. since science tells us life startes here, it is wrong to kill after this point. When science began to indicate differently, the law was amended to bring it into line). The Septuagint does, though, makes a distinction between perfectly and imperfectly formed fetuses when determining compensation for for the unintentional yet still culpable abortion of a fetus by a third party.
The Bible is accurate on faith and morals. It is not wholly inaccurate in science and history (it should not be entirely discredited as a source of historical knowledge) but it was not written for such a purpose.
The Bible contains no teaching on "quickening". This is drawn from Canon law, and was based upon the scientific understanding of the time (i.e. since science tells us life startes here, it is wrong to kill after this point. When science began to indicate differently, the law was amended to bring it into line). The Septuagint does, though, makes a distinction between perfectly and imperfectly formed fetuses when determining compensation for for the unintentional yet still culpable abortion of a fetus by a third party.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 23 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,501
holy shit, fuck off mountainman you stupid piece of shit just kill yourself in real life you worthless faggot pedophile shithead jesus is dead
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,505
@377,500 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
You have said that it's accurate in science, and you know very well that they didnt treat a forced miscarriage the same as a actual murder. Because they arent the same.
You have said that it's accurate in science, and you know very well that they didnt treat a forced miscarriage the same as a actual murder. Because they arent the same.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,542
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,545
@377,505 (K)
> You have said that it's accurate in science, and you know very well that they didnt treat a forced miscarriage the same as a actual murder. Because they arent the same.
Let me guess, buspuppie: I said this on a site that doesn't exist anymore, of which no evidence remains except your incessant pleading. The Bible doesn't teach science. Any "science" it uses to teach on morals and faith may or may not be true.
> you know very well that they didnt treat a forced miscarriage the same as a actual murder. Because they arent the same.
What?
"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Exodus 21:22-25 LXX
> You have said that it's accurate in science, and you know very well that they didnt treat a forced miscarriage the same as a actual murder. Because they arent the same.
Let me guess, buspuppie: I said this on a site that doesn't exist anymore, of which no evidence remains except your incessant pleading. The Bible doesn't teach science. Any "science" it uses to teach on morals and faith may or may not be true.
> you know very well that they didnt treat a forced miscarriage the same as a actual murder. Because they arent the same.
What?
"And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Exodus 21:22-25 LXX
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 46 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,555
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Imperfectly formed? That could mean anything. Arent deformed children just as worthy of life?
Imperfectly formed? That could mean anything. Arent deformed children just as worthy of life?
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 31 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,558
@377,493 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
That's just begging the question. Whatever you imagine the early churches doing, you still don't know who these authors were or what they did.
> They would have no reason to circulate them unless they had an authority to them.
There were plenty of accounts being circulated by early Christians, and many of these were later declared heretical when canonization took place many years later. Even the accounts that became canon, despite borrowing from each other in many cases, manage to contradict each other on the details. Relying on the historicity of these is a mixed bag at best.
@377,545 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> But if it be perfectly formed
What kind of translation are you using?? That is usually translated as something along the lines of "If any damage follows" or "If there is any further mischief", and the passage can be read as pertaining to further damage to the woman. (beyond that of damaging her unborn child) Your interpretation seems a little slanted here. If ancient Hebrew law intended what you seem to be reading, why wouldn't there be an explicit law about unborn children? Why wouldn't they mention miscarriages resulting from a husband's beating or a prohibition against women inducing miscarriage on their own? Why would you have to dig up this special case of a bystander being injured in a fight to support your point?
Also, it is amusing to note that the next chapter of Exodus arguably contains a reference to child sacrifice.
That's just begging the question. Whatever you imagine the early churches doing, you still don't know who these authors were or what they did.
> They would have no reason to circulate them unless they had an authority to them.
There were plenty of accounts being circulated by early Christians, and many of these were later declared heretical when canonization took place many years later. Even the accounts that became canon, despite borrowing from each other in many cases, manage to contradict each other on the details. Relying on the historicity of these is a mixed bag at best.
@377,545 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> But if it be perfectly formed
What kind of translation are you using?? That is usually translated as something along the lines of "If any damage follows" or "If there is any further mischief", and the passage can be read as pertaining to further damage to the woman. (beyond that of damaging her unborn child) Your interpretation seems a little slanted here. If ancient Hebrew law intended what you seem to be reading, why wouldn't there be an explicit law about unborn children? Why wouldn't they mention miscarriages resulting from a husband's beating or a prohibition against women inducing miscarriage on their own? Why would you have to dig up this special case of a bystander being injured in a fight to support your point?
Also, it is amusing to note that the next chapter of Exodus arguably contains a reference to child sacrifice.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,567
@377,555 (K)
The obvious meaning is confirmed by Philo, who in a work on Laws against Murder, attests that it refers to stages of a fetus' development.
The obvious meaning is confirmed by Philo, who in a work on Laws against Murder, attests that it refers to stages of a fetus' development.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,581
@377,500 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> The Bible is accurate on faith and morals.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> The Bible is accurate on faith and morals.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,585
@377,558 (H)
> There were plenty of accounts being circulated by early Christians, and many of these were later declared heretical when canonization took place many years later. Even the accounts that became canon, despite borrowing from each other in many cases, manage to contradict each other on the details. Relying on the historicity of these is a mixed bag at best.
None as ancient or widespread or longlasting, however. The earliest councils merely affirmed the canon already in existence and used by the Church, as shown by the "canons" listed by early Church historians and bishops.
> What kind of translation are you using??
> Septuagint
> LXX
You must go to the same seminary as anon K lol
> That is usually translated as something along the lines of "If any damage follows" or "If there is any further mischief", and the passage can be read as pertaining to further damage to the woman. (beyond that of damaging her unborn child)
That's the Masoretic text. I read a compelling article by a professor of Semitic languages who argued by various cognates in Arabic and Aramaic that the Septuagint could represent a valid interpretation of the original Hebrew.
> Your interpretation seems a little slanted here. If ancient Hebrew law intended what you seem to be reading, why wouldn't there be an explicit law about unborn children? Why wouldn't they mention miscarriages resulting from a husband's beating or a prohibition against women inducing miscarriage on their own? Why would you have to dig up this special case of a bystander being injured in a fight to support your point?
There are many moral problems not answered by the Law, and many issues we would not consider problems that get addressed at length.
> Also, it is amusing to note that the next chapter of Exodus arguably contains a reference to child sacrifice.
The LORD said to Moses,
"It is I who have chosen the Levites from the Israelites in place of every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites. The Levites, therefore, are mine,
because every first-born is mine. When I slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I made all the first-born in Israel sacred to me, both of man and of beast. They belong to me; I am the LORD." Numbers 3:11-13
The firstborn son was to be given in service of God in the priesthood, but God took the Levites in their stead.
> There were plenty of accounts being circulated by early Christians, and many of these were later declared heretical when canonization took place many years later. Even the accounts that became canon, despite borrowing from each other in many cases, manage to contradict each other on the details. Relying on the historicity of these is a mixed bag at best.
None as ancient or widespread or longlasting, however. The earliest councils merely affirmed the canon already in existence and used by the Church, as shown by the "canons" listed by early Church historians and bishops.
> What kind of translation are you using??
> Septuagint
> LXX
You must go to the same seminary as anon K lol
> That is usually translated as something along the lines of "If any damage follows" or "If there is any further mischief", and the passage can be read as pertaining to further damage to the woman. (beyond that of damaging her unborn child)
That's the Masoretic text. I read a compelling article by a professor of Semitic languages who argued by various cognates in Arabic and Aramaic that the Septuagint could represent a valid interpretation of the original Hebrew.
> Your interpretation seems a little slanted here. If ancient Hebrew law intended what you seem to be reading, why wouldn't there be an explicit law about unborn children? Why wouldn't they mention miscarriages resulting from a husband's beating or a prohibition against women inducing miscarriage on their own? Why would you have to dig up this special case of a bystander being injured in a fight to support your point?
There are many moral problems not answered by the Law, and many issues we would not consider problems that get addressed at length.
> Also, it is amusing to note that the next chapter of Exodus arguably contains a reference to child sacrifice.
The LORD said to Moses,
"It is I who have chosen the Levites from the Israelites in place of every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites. The Levites, therefore, are mine,
because every first-born is mine. When I slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I made all the first-born in Israel sacred to me, both of man and of beast. They belong to me; I am the LORD." Numbers 3:11-13
The firstborn son was to be given in service of God in the priesthood, but God took the Levites in their stead.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos double-posted this 14 years ago, 27 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,586
Anonymous M replied with this 14 years ago, 28 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,592
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 12 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,695
@377,585 (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> None as ancient or widespread or longlasting, however. The earliest councils merely affirmed the canon already in existence and used by the Church
None as ancient? That's difficult to claim as, over the centuries, writings that didn't support the prevailing orthodoxy tended to disappear. A wide variety of Christian views emerged during the first, second, and third centuries. That we can talk about New Testament apocrypha makes it pretty clear that there were traditions that didn't make it into the modern canon even though they were being circulated and referenced.
> I read a compelling article by a professor of Semitic languages who argued by various cognates in Arabic and Aramaic that the Septuagint could represent a valid interpretation of the original Hebrew.
Really? How does he feel about the Dead Sea Scrolls being generally closer to the Masoretic text in many cases?
> That's the Masoretic text.
Why wouldn't you use the Masoretic text when talking about Mosiac Law? (as Jews and most bible translations do) I can see using the Septuagint if you are trying to understand scriptual quotations appearing in the New Testament, but why drag the text through a greek translation before trying to interpret it?
Anyway, the argument that the two were held as separate crimes still works regardless of the family you choose to follow. That is: If the infant was imperfectly formed (damage to the child), then a fine was paid. If the child was perfectly formed (the child was unharmed but the mother was hurt), then any damage to the mother was repaid in kind. (an eye for an eye, and so on...) It is worth mentioning that modern Judiasm generally follows this interpretation, and it is mainly modern Christians who hold it up as any sort of pro-life argument.
> God took the Levites in their stead.
That's certainly one view. The passage in question being:
Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me. So shalt thou do with thy calf and thy sheep and thine ass; seven days shall it be under the mother, and the eighth day thou shalt give it to me. Exodus 22:29-30
> The firstborn son was to be given in service of God in the priesthood
So shalt thou do with thy calf and thy sheep? Did they put their oxen and sheep into the preisthood as well? If this is to be read as giving a child to the priesthood (but animals are to be sacrificed), then how do we read Exodus 13:12-13 about redeeming every first-born male with a lamb? Is this not about sacrifice? And what are we to make of Ezekiel 20:26 (God speaking of the Israelites) and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.
A common argument is that this reflects an ancient practice of child sacrifice that was abandoned or just a common myth theme. (as child sacrifice pops up a lot in scripture) While this point is largely irrelevant to to interpretation of of Exodus 21, it is just amusing to contrast an argument about the value of unborn children with a passage that arguably has God commanding people to kill their first-born in the very next chapter.
> None as ancient or widespread or longlasting, however. The earliest councils merely affirmed the canon already in existence and used by the Church
None as ancient? That's difficult to claim as, over the centuries, writings that didn't support the prevailing orthodoxy tended to disappear. A wide variety of Christian views emerged during the first, second, and third centuries. That we can talk about New Testament apocrypha makes it pretty clear that there were traditions that didn't make it into the modern canon even though they were being circulated and referenced.
> I read a compelling article by a professor of Semitic languages who argued by various cognates in Arabic and Aramaic that the Septuagint could represent a valid interpretation of the original Hebrew.
Really? How does he feel about the Dead Sea Scrolls being generally closer to the Masoretic text in many cases?
> That's the Masoretic text.
Why wouldn't you use the Masoretic text when talking about Mosiac Law? (as Jews and most bible translations do) I can see using the Septuagint if you are trying to understand scriptual quotations appearing in the New Testament, but why drag the text through a greek translation before trying to interpret it?
Anyway, the argument that the two were held as separate crimes still works regardless of the family you choose to follow. That is: If the infant was imperfectly formed (damage to the child), then a fine was paid. If the child was perfectly formed (the child was unharmed but the mother was hurt), then any damage to the mother was repaid in kind. (an eye for an eye, and so on...) It is worth mentioning that modern Judiasm generally follows this interpretation, and it is mainly modern Christians who hold it up as any sort of pro-life argument.
> God took the Levites in their stead.
That's certainly one view. The passage in question being:
Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me. So shalt thou do with thy calf and thy sheep and thine ass; seven days shall it be under the mother, and the eighth day thou shalt give it to me. Exodus 22:29-30
> The firstborn son was to be given in service of God in the priesthood
So shalt thou do with thy calf and thy sheep? Did they put their oxen and sheep into the preisthood as well? If this is to be read as giving a child to the priesthood (but animals are to be sacrificed), then how do we read Exodus 13:12-13 about redeeming every first-born male with a lamb? Is this not about sacrifice? And what are we to make of Ezekiel 20:26 (God speaking of the Israelites) and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.
A common argument is that this reflects an ancient practice of child sacrifice that was abandoned or just a common myth theme. (as child sacrifice pops up a lot in scripture) While this point is largely irrelevant to to interpretation of of Exodus 21, it is just amusing to contrast an argument about the value of unborn children with a passage that arguably has God commanding people to kill their first-born in the very next chapter.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,703
There are so many words in this thread. Why?
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 40 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,708
@377,695 (H)
Mountainman believes that everything God does is good. God can kill someone, or tell people to kill others, and it's always okay, because God can't do anything bad. He's perfect.
Mountainman believes that everything God does is good. God can kill someone, or tell people to kill others, and it's always okay, because God can't do anything bad. He's perfect.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,729
@377,695 (H)
> None as ancient? That's difficult to claim as, over the centuries, writings that didn't support the prevailing orthodoxy tended to disappear. A wide variety of Christian views emerged during the first, second, and third centuries. That we can talk about New Testament apocrypha makes it pretty clear that there were traditions that didn't make it into the modern canon even though they were being circulated and referenced.
As early as the second century apologists were arguing that 4 was the perfect number of gospels, that it was no accident that they had four, &c. This makes no sense except if the four gospels had already reached universal acceptance at a very early date.
The works which you speak of are mostly "gnostic", that is they claim to contain secret wisdom, teachings, or sayings of Jesus, or the Apostles. Naturally they were viewed with a great deal of scepticism by many Christians.
> Really? How does he feel about the Dead Sea Scrolls being generally closer to the Masoretic text in many cases?
The article was just about this one verse.
> Why wouldn't you use the Masoretic text when talking about Mosiac Law? (as Jews and most bible translations do) I can see using the Septuagint if you are trying to understand scriptual quotations appearing in the New Testament, but why drag the text through a greek translation before trying to interpret it?
Because it had an interesting perspective. The original Hebrew doesn't survive, and the Septuagint offers an interesting point of difference to the Masoretic.
> Anyway, the argument that the two were held as separate crimes still works regardless of the family you choose to follow. That is: If the infant was imperfectly formed (damage to the child), then a fine was paid. If the child was perfectly formed (the child was unharmed but the mother was hurt), then any damage to the mother was repaid in kind. (an eye for an eye, and so on...) It is worth mentioning that modern Judiasm generally follows this interpretation, and it is mainly modern Christians who hold it up as any sort of pro-life argument.
Not only is your interpretation internally illogical, you've had to misrepresent the text to gain that interpretation. The Septuagint does not mention harm to the mother at all. I hope this was carelessness on your part and not an attempt to deceive the casual reader.
> That's certainly one view.
lol it's really the only view.
> So shalt thou do with thy calf and thy sheep?
Yes, give to God. Animals served god by feeding the priests.
> Did they put their oxen and sheep into the preisthood as well?
No, how ridiculous.
> If this is to be read as giving a child to the priesthood (but animals are to be sacrificed), then how do we read Exodus 13:12-13 about redeeming every first-born male with a lamb? Is this not about sacrifice?
Are you actually reading these quotes in context, or just grabbing them from a list somewhere? I'm sure you'd have less question if you looked it up yourself first. Exodus 13 is a chapter where Moses talks to the Israelites about celebrating the Passover, unrelated to the other celebration mentioned above.
> And what are we to make of Ezekiel 20:26 (God speaking of the Israelites) and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.
The suggestion is that God abandoned them to the Baal cultic practices of the Phoenicians.
> A common argument is that this reflects an ancient practice of child sacrifice that was abandoned or just a common myth theme. (as child sacrifice pops up a lot in scripture) While this point is largely irrelevant to to interpretation of of Exodus 21, it is just amusing to contrast an argument about the value of unborn children with a passage that arguably has God commanding people to kill their first-born in the very next chapter.
Anything is arguable. Not all arguments are equal. As the argument was so poor, it loses much of its ability to amuse.
> None as ancient? That's difficult to claim as, over the centuries, writings that didn't support the prevailing orthodoxy tended to disappear. A wide variety of Christian views emerged during the first, second, and third centuries. That we can talk about New Testament apocrypha makes it pretty clear that there were traditions that didn't make it into the modern canon even though they were being circulated and referenced.
As early as the second century apologists were arguing that 4 was the perfect number of gospels, that it was no accident that they had four, &c. This makes no sense except if the four gospels had already reached universal acceptance at a very early date.
The works which you speak of are mostly "gnostic", that is they claim to contain secret wisdom, teachings, or sayings of Jesus, or the Apostles. Naturally they were viewed with a great deal of scepticism by many Christians.
> Really? How does he feel about the Dead Sea Scrolls being generally closer to the Masoretic text in many cases?
The article was just about this one verse.
> Why wouldn't you use the Masoretic text when talking about Mosiac Law? (as Jews and most bible translations do) I can see using the Septuagint if you are trying to understand scriptual quotations appearing in the New Testament, but why drag the text through a greek translation before trying to interpret it?
Because it had an interesting perspective. The original Hebrew doesn't survive, and the Septuagint offers an interesting point of difference to the Masoretic.
> Anyway, the argument that the two were held as separate crimes still works regardless of the family you choose to follow. That is: If the infant was imperfectly formed (damage to the child), then a fine was paid. If the child was perfectly formed (the child was unharmed but the mother was hurt), then any damage to the mother was repaid in kind. (an eye for an eye, and so on...) It is worth mentioning that modern Judiasm generally follows this interpretation, and it is mainly modern Christians who hold it up as any sort of pro-life argument.
Not only is your interpretation internally illogical, you've had to misrepresent the text to gain that interpretation. The Septuagint does not mention harm to the mother at all. I hope this was carelessness on your part and not an attempt to deceive the casual reader.
> That's certainly one view.
lol it's really the only view.
> So shalt thou do with thy calf and thy sheep?
Yes, give to God. Animals served god by feeding the priests.
> Did they put their oxen and sheep into the preisthood as well?
No, how ridiculous.
> If this is to be read as giving a child to the priesthood (but animals are to be sacrificed), then how do we read Exodus 13:12-13 about redeeming every first-born male with a lamb? Is this not about sacrifice?
Are you actually reading these quotes in context, or just grabbing them from a list somewhere? I'm sure you'd have less question if you looked it up yourself first. Exodus 13 is a chapter where Moses talks to the Israelites about celebrating the Passover, unrelated to the other celebration mentioned above.
> And what are we to make of Ezekiel 20:26 (God speaking of the Israelites) and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.
The suggestion is that God abandoned them to the Baal cultic practices of the Phoenicians.
> A common argument is that this reflects an ancient practice of child sacrifice that was abandoned or just a common myth theme. (as child sacrifice pops up a lot in scripture) While this point is largely irrelevant to to interpretation of of Exodus 21, it is just amusing to contrast an argument about the value of unborn children with a passage that arguably has God commanding people to kill their first-born in the very next chapter.
Anything is arguable. Not all arguments are equal. As the argument was so poor, it loses much of its ability to amuse.
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,741
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> As early as the second century apologists were arguing that 4 was the perfect number of gospels
Yes they were - with arguments such as: We should have four because there are four corners of the earth! Very persuasive.
There were many more than four floating around, and writing the rest off as gnostic is a bit dishonest. You seem to have a tremendous amount of faith that only "correct" accounts survived and that no one had an agenda to push a certain interpretation anywhere along the line through the centuries.
> Because it had an interesting perspective. The original Hebrew doesn't survive
That really doesn't answer the question. We have some Hebrew text (at least as old as the Greek texts) which tends to be, in many cases, closer to the Masoretic text. Why would you rely on a Greek translation to interpret this when even Judaism doesn't do that? Is it an interesting perspective or just one you feel supports your personal views? Or is it the right to use because that is was you were taught?
> Not only is your interpretation internally illogical, you've had to misrepresent the text to gain that interpretation.
What? You've never heard that? Please explain how this is internally illogical and how I have misrepresented the text. Why is it logical that there would be no mention of or penalty for harm to the woman?
> > That's certainly one view.
> lol it's really the only view.
lol It's really the only view if you are an apologist.
> The suggestion is that God abandoned them to the Baal cultic practices of the Phoenicians.
That might be believable if Ezekiel didn't have God talking about killing children in the first person.
> Exodus 13 is a chapter where Moses talks to the Israelites about celebrating the Passover, unrelated to the other celebration mentioned above.
Exodus 13 is where Moses gives the Israelites directives about what to do when God brings them into Canaan. Commemorating Passover is among those directives, but the entire chapter is not about that. Sacrificing every male who opens the womb wouldn't make sense if it were just about Passover. Are you actually reading these quotes in context? I'm sure it would help if you looked them up yourself first.
Whether you feel like you need to debunk it or not, the argument that these passages represent a shift from away from older practices that may have sanctioned child sacrifice is a historical argument out there being floated around. Given a the number of times the theme of child sacrifice recurs, I can't say that this is an entirely crazy a notion.
> As early as the second century apologists were arguing that 4 was the perfect number of gospels
Yes they were - with arguments such as: We should have four because there are four corners of the earth! Very persuasive.
There were many more than four floating around, and writing the rest off as gnostic is a bit dishonest. You seem to have a tremendous amount of faith that only "correct" accounts survived and that no one had an agenda to push a certain interpretation anywhere along the line through the centuries.
> Because it had an interesting perspective. The original Hebrew doesn't survive
That really doesn't answer the question. We have some Hebrew text (at least as old as the Greek texts) which tends to be, in many cases, closer to the Masoretic text. Why would you rely on a Greek translation to interpret this when even Judaism doesn't do that? Is it an interesting perspective or just one you feel supports your personal views? Or is it the right to use because that is was you were taught?
> Not only is your interpretation internally illogical, you've had to misrepresent the text to gain that interpretation.
What? You've never heard that? Please explain how this is internally illogical and how I have misrepresented the text. Why is it logical that there would be no mention of or penalty for harm to the woman?
> > That's certainly one view.
> lol it's really the only view.
lol It's really the only view if you are an apologist.
> The suggestion is that God abandoned them to the Baal cultic practices of the Phoenicians.
That might be believable if Ezekiel didn't have God talking about killing children in the first person.
> Exodus 13 is a chapter where Moses talks to the Israelites about celebrating the Passover, unrelated to the other celebration mentioned above.
Exodus 13 is where Moses gives the Israelites directives about what to do when God brings them into Canaan. Commemorating Passover is among those directives, but the entire chapter is not about that. Sacrificing every male who opens the womb wouldn't make sense if it were just about Passover. Are you actually reading these quotes in context? I'm sure it would help if you looked them up yourself first.
Whether you feel like you need to debunk it or not, the argument that these passages represent a shift from away from older practices that may have sanctioned child sacrifice is a historical argument out there being floated around. Given a the number of times the theme of child sacrifice recurs, I can't say that this is an entirely crazy a notion.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 46 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,743
@previous (H)
> Yes they were - with arguments such as: We should have four because there are four corners of the earth! Very persuasive.
I wasn't commenting on the persuasiveness of the arguments, just the circumstances that would have led to such arguments being made.
> There were many more than four floating around,
But none had any widespread or lasting appeal.
> and writing the rest off as gnostic is a bit dishonest.
No, it really isn't. To just state this bluntly seems to indicate you don't know what Gnostic means, or that you are dishonestly claiming an authority that you don't possess, in that your mere assertion is its own evidence.
> You seem to have a tremendous amount of faith that only "correct" accounts survived and that no one had an agenda to push a certain interpretation anywhere along the line through the centuries.
> through the centuries
We don't have to prove that. We only have to prove their survival from their writing in the mid to late first century to their universal acceptance in the mid second century, where writers can make arguments that take 4 gospels as accepted fact.
> That really doesn't answer the question.
Yes, it does. You asked me why, and I told you why. You can either accept my reason, or call me a liar, and claim to have knowledge of the reasoning behind my mentioning of the Septuagint. Misunderstanding does not enter into such a simple answer.
> We have some Hebrew text (at least as old as the Greek texts) which tends to be, in many cases, closer to the Masoretic text.
It is either "tends to be closer", or "is in many cases closer". To use both is senseless padding of an argument. The Qumranic texts also agree with the Septuagint in places, showing that the Septuagint is not "a bad translation", as previously claimed by some, but was translated from a different Hebrew variant than the Masoretic text.
> Why would you rely on a Greek translation to interpret this when even Judaism doesn't do that?
Judaism's repudiation of the Septuagint is influenced by its adoption by the Christian Church, so your argument is kind of backwards.
> Is it an interesting perspective or just one you feel supports your personal views? Or is it the right to use because that is was you were taught?
It is a very interesting perspective. Certain liberal Christians have argued for the acceptability of the abortion of non-viable fetuses from this verse. It's certainly hard to see how this verse supports a typical Evangelical pro-life Christian's views.
> What? You've never heard that? Please explain how this is internally illogical and how I have misrepresented the text.
I have not heard that argument before. I have heard various arguments concerning this verse, but they typically don't resort to mixing the two translations to make a synthetic interpretation, and they typically think it out before they write it.
> That is: If the infant was imperfectly formed (damage to the child), then a fine was paid. If the child was perfectly formed (the child was unharmed but the mother was hurt), then any damage to the mother was repaid in kind. (an eye for an eye, and so on...)
The Septuagint does not mention harm to the mother. For that reason your argument is untenable. But leaving that aside, consider the argument's logic. What if the infant was born imperfectly formed and the mother hurt? Do they only pay a fine?
> Why is it logical that there would be no mention of or penalty for harm to the woman?
I begin to think my suggestions of dishonesty are unfair. I can conceive of now way in which this could be inferred from my statement, nor any way in which this advances your position.
> lol It's really the only view if you are an apologist.
You don't have to be an apologist to accept the plain meaning of a text.
> That might be believable if Ezekiel didn't have God talking about killing children in the first person.
Please cite the verse you are referring to so we can follow along. The Hebrews appeared to have used deterministic language quite loosely, in some places stating that God caused an event, and in others attributing it to other causes. This is often resolved by reading in the ambiguously more libertarian fashion of God allowing events to happen. It is oft difficult to interpret a passage without this technique.
> Exodus 13 is where Moses gives the Israelites directives about what to do when God brings them into Canaan. Commemorating Passover is among those directives, but the entire chapter is not about that. Sacrificing every male who opens the womb wouldn't make sense if it were just about Passover.
vv1-16 concern cultic practices relating to the Passover. After this it goes back into the Exodus narrative.
> Are you actually reading these quotes in context? I'm sure it would help if you looked them up yourself first.
It looks silly when you do this with such a weak argument.
> Whether you feel like you need to debunk it or not, the argument that these passages represent a shift from away from older practices that may have sanctioned child sacrifice is a historical argument out there being floated around. Given a the number of times the theme of child sacrifice recurs, I can't say that this is an entirely crazy a notion.
Child sacrifice was practiced in the region. It is not unreasonable for it to be mentioned.
> Yes they were - with arguments such as: We should have four because there are four corners of the earth! Very persuasive.
I wasn't commenting on the persuasiveness of the arguments, just the circumstances that would have led to such arguments being made.
> There were many more than four floating around,
But none had any widespread or lasting appeal.
> and writing the rest off as gnostic is a bit dishonest.
No, it really isn't. To just state this bluntly seems to indicate you don't know what Gnostic means, or that you are dishonestly claiming an authority that you don't possess, in that your mere assertion is its own evidence.
> You seem to have a tremendous amount of faith that only "correct" accounts survived and that no one had an agenda to push a certain interpretation anywhere along the line through the centuries.
> through the centuries
We don't have to prove that. We only have to prove their survival from their writing in the mid to late first century to their universal acceptance in the mid second century, where writers can make arguments that take 4 gospels as accepted fact.
> That really doesn't answer the question.
Yes, it does. You asked me why, and I told you why. You can either accept my reason, or call me a liar, and claim to have knowledge of the reasoning behind my mentioning of the Septuagint. Misunderstanding does not enter into such a simple answer.
> We have some Hebrew text (at least as old as the Greek texts) which tends to be, in many cases, closer to the Masoretic text.
It is either "tends to be closer", or "is in many cases closer". To use both is senseless padding of an argument. The Qumranic texts also agree with the Septuagint in places, showing that the Septuagint is not "a bad translation", as previously claimed by some, but was translated from a different Hebrew variant than the Masoretic text.
> Why would you rely on a Greek translation to interpret this when even Judaism doesn't do that?
Judaism's repudiation of the Septuagint is influenced by its adoption by the Christian Church, so your argument is kind of backwards.
> Is it an interesting perspective or just one you feel supports your personal views? Or is it the right to use because that is was you were taught?
It is a very interesting perspective. Certain liberal Christians have argued for the acceptability of the abortion of non-viable fetuses from this verse. It's certainly hard to see how this verse supports a typical Evangelical pro-life Christian's views.
> What? You've never heard that? Please explain how this is internally illogical and how I have misrepresented the text.
I have not heard that argument before. I have heard various arguments concerning this verse, but they typically don't resort to mixing the two translations to make a synthetic interpretation, and they typically think it out before they write it.
> That is: If the infant was imperfectly formed (damage to the child), then a fine was paid. If the child was perfectly formed (the child was unharmed but the mother was hurt), then any damage to the mother was repaid in kind. (an eye for an eye, and so on...)
The Septuagint does not mention harm to the mother. For that reason your argument is untenable. But leaving that aside, consider the argument's logic. What if the infant was born imperfectly formed and the mother hurt? Do they only pay a fine?
> Why is it logical that there would be no mention of or penalty for harm to the woman?
I begin to think my suggestions of dishonesty are unfair. I can conceive of now way in which this could be inferred from my statement, nor any way in which this advances your position.
> lol It's really the only view if you are an apologist.
You don't have to be an apologist to accept the plain meaning of a text.
> That might be believable if Ezekiel didn't have God talking about killing children in the first person.
Please cite the verse you are referring to so we can follow along. The Hebrews appeared to have used deterministic language quite loosely, in some places stating that God caused an event, and in others attributing it to other causes. This is often resolved by reading in the ambiguously more libertarian fashion of God allowing events to happen. It is oft difficult to interpret a passage without this technique.
> Exodus 13 is where Moses gives the Israelites directives about what to do when God brings them into Canaan. Commemorating Passover is among those directives, but the entire chapter is not about that. Sacrificing every male who opens the womb wouldn't make sense if it were just about Passover.
vv1-16 concern cultic practices relating to the Passover. After this it goes back into the Exodus narrative.
> Are you actually reading these quotes in context? I'm sure it would help if you looked them up yourself first.
It looks silly when you do this with such a weak argument.
> Whether you feel like you need to debunk it or not, the argument that these passages represent a shift from away from older practices that may have sanctioned child sacrifice is a historical argument out there being floated around. Given a the number of times the theme of child sacrifice recurs, I can't say that this is an entirely crazy a notion.
Child sacrifice was practiced in the region. It is not unreasonable for it to be mentioned.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,756
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
> But none had any widespread or lasting appeal.
Now you are just saying the same thing over and over.
> No, it really isn't. To just state this bluntly seems to indicate you don't know what Gnostic means
Is this where I find out that Gnostic has some special meaning that you have defined? It is dishonest because it can be used as an ill-defined umbrella term to dismiss something by labeling it.
> We don't have to prove that. We only have to prove their survival from their writing in the mid to late first century to their universal acceptance in the mid second century, where writers can make arguments that take 4 gospels as accepted fact.
The "these writings are correct because they were chosen" and "these were chosen because they are correct" arguments are starting to look circular.
> Yes, it does. You asked me why, and I told you why.
So, no other reason than "it's an interesting interpretation"? Okay...
> Judaism's repudiation of the Septuagint is influenced by its adoption by the Christian Church, so your argument is kind of backwards.
I'm trying to figure out why you seem to need this text rather than a more a more widely accepted one.
> It is a very interesting perspective. Certain liberal Christians have argued for the acceptability of the abortion of non-viable fetuses from this verse.
Agreed. This verse has been used for a lot of crazy stuff that it probably wasn't intended for.
> It's certainly hard to see how this verse supports a typical Evangelical pro-life Christian's views.
Really? How so?
> I have not heard that argument before. I have heard various arguments concerning this verse, but they typically don't resort to mixing the two translations
You don't need to mix them.
> The Septuagint does not mention harm to the mother.
You keep saying that. Is it okay to go around punching pregnant women so long as I don't hit them in the stomach?
> What if the infant was born imperfectly formed and the mother hurt? Do they only pay a fine?
No, that's silly. You don't think one would supersede the other or that both punishment and restitution could be meted out?
> Please cite the verse you are referring to so we can follow along.
It's the only Ezekiel passage mentioned here. How did you miss it?
> vv1-16 concern cultic practices relating to the Passover.
You keep saying that. Are we reading the same thing?
> Child sacrifice was practiced in the region. It is not unreasonable for it to be mentioned.
Thanks, that's really all I wanted to point out with that in the first place.
> But none had any widespread or lasting appeal.
Now you are just saying the same thing over and over.
> No, it really isn't. To just state this bluntly seems to indicate you don't know what Gnostic means
Is this where I find out that Gnostic has some special meaning that you have defined? It is dishonest because it can be used as an ill-defined umbrella term to dismiss something by labeling it.
> We don't have to prove that. We only have to prove their survival from their writing in the mid to late first century to their universal acceptance in the mid second century, where writers can make arguments that take 4 gospels as accepted fact.
The "these writings are correct because they were chosen" and "these were chosen because they are correct" arguments are starting to look circular.
> Yes, it does. You asked me why, and I told you why.
So, no other reason than "it's an interesting interpretation"? Okay...
> Judaism's repudiation of the Septuagint is influenced by its adoption by the Christian Church, so your argument is kind of backwards.
I'm trying to figure out why you seem to need this text rather than a more a more widely accepted one.
> It is a very interesting perspective. Certain liberal Christians have argued for the acceptability of the abortion of non-viable fetuses from this verse.
Agreed. This verse has been used for a lot of crazy stuff that it probably wasn't intended for.
> It's certainly hard to see how this verse supports a typical Evangelical pro-life Christian's views.
Really? How so?
> I have not heard that argument before. I have heard various arguments concerning this verse, but they typically don't resort to mixing the two translations
You don't need to mix them.
> The Septuagint does not mention harm to the mother.
You keep saying that. Is it okay to go around punching pregnant women so long as I don't hit them in the stomach?
> What if the infant was born imperfectly formed and the mother hurt? Do they only pay a fine?
No, that's silly. You don't think one would supersede the other or that both punishment and restitution could be meted out?
> Please cite the verse you are referring to so we can follow along.
It's the only Ezekiel passage mentioned here. How did you miss it?
> vv1-16 concern cultic practices relating to the Passover.
You keep saying that. Are we reading the same thing?
> Child sacrifice was practiced in the region. It is not unreasonable for it to be mentioned.
Thanks, that's really all I wanted to point out with that in the first place.
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,787
Hey, why would god be okay with child sacrifices, and not abortions?
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,890
@377,756 (H)
> Now you are just saying the same thing over and over.
Don't ignore the flow of the argument that lead to this statement. Regardless, it remains true.
> Is this where I find out that Gnostic has some special meaning that you have defined? It is dishonest because it can be used as an ill-defined umbrella term to dismiss something by labeling it.
No, just the standard definition. I am not using in that way, so it is not dishonest. Your argument here is quite dishonest, though.
> The "these writings are correct because they were chosen" and "these were chosen because they are correct" arguments are starting to look circular.
That wasn't the argument at all, and you know it. The argument was that councils merely recognized canon, not imposed it, and that the gospels acceptance and distribution is particularly ancient.
> So, no other reason than "it's an interesting interpretation"? Okay...
How is it weird to offer an obscure but interesting interpretation into a tired debate?
> I'm trying to figure out why you seem to need this text rather than a more a more widely accepted one.
The Carholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, accepts the Septuagint (bu virtue of the Vulgate). It is actually the most widely accepted.
> Really? How so?
Because an imperfectly formed fetus did not warrant led talionis.
> You don't need to mix them.
Then why did you?
> You keep saying that.
And it remains true.
> Is it okay to go around punching pregnant women so long as I don't hit them in the stomach?
Is this seriously your argument? Once again not only untenable but internally illogical. Is it okay to rape people because this verse doesn't mention rape?
> No, that's silly. You don't think one would supersede the other or that both punishment and restitution could be meted out?
You're not even pretending to care about the text anymore. This argument has no basis in the text.
> It's the only Ezekiel passage mentioned here. How did you miss it?
Still waiting for a cite...
> You keep saying that.
And it remains true.
> Are we reading the same thing?
Oh the joys of exegesis...
> Thanks, that's really all I wanted to point out with that in the first place.
It was not being contest so... Yeah.
> Now you are just saying the same thing over and over.
Don't ignore the flow of the argument that lead to this statement. Regardless, it remains true.
> Is this where I find out that Gnostic has some special meaning that you have defined? It is dishonest because it can be used as an ill-defined umbrella term to dismiss something by labeling it.
No, just the standard definition. I am not using in that way, so it is not dishonest. Your argument here is quite dishonest, though.
> The "these writings are correct because they were chosen" and "these were chosen because they are correct" arguments are starting to look circular.
That wasn't the argument at all, and you know it. The argument was that councils merely recognized canon, not imposed it, and that the gospels acceptance and distribution is particularly ancient.
> So, no other reason than "it's an interesting interpretation"? Okay...
How is it weird to offer an obscure but interesting interpretation into a tired debate?
> I'm trying to figure out why you seem to need this text rather than a more a more widely accepted one.
The Carholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, accepts the Septuagint (bu virtue of the Vulgate). It is actually the most widely accepted.
> Really? How so?
Because an imperfectly formed fetus did not warrant led talionis.
> You don't need to mix them.
Then why did you?
> You keep saying that.
And it remains true.
> Is it okay to go around punching pregnant women so long as I don't hit them in the stomach?
Is this seriously your argument? Once again not only untenable but internally illogical. Is it okay to rape people because this verse doesn't mention rape?
> No, that's silly. You don't think one would supersede the other or that both punishment and restitution could be meted out?
You're not even pretending to care about the text anymore. This argument has no basis in the text.
> It's the only Ezekiel passage mentioned here. How did you miss it?
Still waiting for a cite...
> You keep saying that.
And it remains true.
> Are we reading the same thing?
Oh the joys of exegesis...
> Thanks, that's really all I wanted to point out with that in the first place.
It was not being contest so... Yeah.
Anonymous O double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,892
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,893
Anonymous O replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,894
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 24 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,905
Anonymous O replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,911
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,913
@previous (O)
MM go to your enabling parents who ddnt force you to get psychiatric help, after your youth group disgrace.
MM go to your enabling parents who ddnt force you to get psychiatric help, after your youth group disgrace.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #377,939
mountainman die you creepy fuck you smell bad like weeds
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 14 years ago, 9 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,000
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #378,016
@OP
Mexico crossing gangland the jew
When the made Cent of the jew
When I see our cit I see the world fals, the jew
When I see to Presiden Communism and moved as evil aliens funds and being rement of the jew
When I see the Reserve I see the jew
When I see the King gangland the jew
When I see third world Trade Center, I see our moved fals, and the made Cent of nativity of millegal deficities, the jew
When war I see their of a the enactment of the jew
Mexico crossing gangland the jew
When the made Cent of the jew
When I see our cit I see the world fals, the jew
When I see to Presiden Communism and moved as evil aliens funds and being rement of the jew
When I see the Reserve I see the jew
When I see the King gangland the jew
When I see third world Trade Center, I see our moved fals, and the made Cent of nativity of millegal deficities, the jew
When war I see their of a the enactment of the jew