(July 24, 2018 at 6:52 am)Graufreud Wrote:(July 23, 2018 at 9:01 am)SteveII Wrote: @OP
Your repeated efforts to pull an OT passage out and then try to derive some principles for today are misguided and shows a real lack of comprehending what you are reading. Look these terms up.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis
Specifically, you are talking what is meant as a historical account and reading it as though it was some sort of moral instruction. Your methods are way off and your conclusions end up being nothing but nonsense.
Plus, Levi never was a priest.
Ok, Levi was not a priest... sorry about that.
--------------------
I think the story of Dinah was not meant primarily (if at all) as a historical account when it was written down. It was written and was/is used as some sort of moral instruction.
Furthermore, the story of Dinah (just like the whole Genesis) it is as historical as something from Odyssey. Which was based on some historical facts (Ancient Greeks sailed on ships and they encountered some serious dangers such as storms and there were hostile natives). But it doesn't make Odyssey a real historical account. But even if you don't believe that Poseidon causes storms, (we know that Yahweh does that), Odyssey can still be used for moral instruction, i.e. Odysseus could marry Calypso and become immortal, but he returned home to his wife and son.
The Jews understood the Torah to be historical. I'm going with their take on what the writer intended. Your theory is less than obvious and needs a lot more than a weak comparison to another ancient book with vastly different provenance.
