Understanding an ancient text is not easy. One has to have studied all the other ancient texts in order to be able to distinguish between stories transmitted by oral traditions, which deserve studying, and stories produced by theologians, which should be discarded. The Old Testament contains both and so it is worth studying, while the New Testament being pure theological fiction deserves neither studying nor understanding.
There are passages in the OT which are beyond the comprehension of scholars of biblical studies, either they are believers or non believers. The reason is that mixture of theological and traditional elements mentioned above.
Moreover, the redactors of the texts of the OT out of respect for some traditional elements of their culture, which should be preserved but could not be preserved in the crude form they had originally being recorded, chose to preserve them by transforming them into short, or longer, incomprehensible, illogical stories.
For the atheists, who believe they are more clever and smarter than believers, here is one of the best of such stories:
Ex. 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord (Yahweh) met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband are thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision
24 εγένετο δε εν τη οδώ εν τω καταλύματι συνήντησεν αυτώ άγγελος Κυρίου και εζήτει αυτόν αποκτείναι. 25 και λαβούσα Σεπφώρα ψήφον περιέτεμε την ακροβυστίαν του υιού αυτής και προσέπεσε προς τους πόδας αυτού και είπεν• έστη το αίμα της περιτομής του παιδίου μου. 26 και απήλθεν απ’ αυτου, διότι είπεν• έστη το αίμα της περιτομής του παιδίου μου.
The Septuagint translators, who seem to having had understood very well the meaning of the passage, they mention άγγελος Κυρίου ,“Angel of the Lord,” instead of “the Lord” and they present Zipporah casting herself at the feet of the Lord instead of casting the foreskin at his feet as a proof of the purity of her son; and, finally, they made sure not to mention at all the phrase “hatan damim ”, bloody husband or bridegroom of blood by which Zipporah called Yahweh.
This little story was obviously not intended for deceiving anyone in the manner it describes the particular deed of the Lord Yahweh. Why was that little story not removed from the collection?
Well, bright guys atheists, do you have anything to say or the only thing you can do is just trying to ridicule the scriptures?
There are passages in the OT which are beyond the comprehension of scholars of biblical studies, either they are believers or non believers. The reason is that mixture of theological and traditional elements mentioned above.
Moreover, the redactors of the texts of the OT out of respect for some traditional elements of their culture, which should be preserved but could not be preserved in the crude form they had originally being recorded, chose to preserve them by transforming them into short, or longer, incomprehensible, illogical stories.
For the atheists, who believe they are more clever and smarter than believers, here is one of the best of such stories:
Ex. 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord (Yahweh) met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband are thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision
24 εγένετο δε εν τη οδώ εν τω καταλύματι συνήντησεν αυτώ άγγελος Κυρίου και εζήτει αυτόν αποκτείναι. 25 και λαβούσα Σεπφώρα ψήφον περιέτεμε την ακροβυστίαν του υιού αυτής και προσέπεσε προς τους πόδας αυτού και είπεν• έστη το αίμα της περιτομής του παιδίου μου. 26 και απήλθεν απ’ αυτου, διότι είπεν• έστη το αίμα της περιτομής του παιδίου μου.
The Septuagint translators, who seem to having had understood very well the meaning of the passage, they mention άγγελος Κυρίου ,“Angel of the Lord,” instead of “the Lord” and they present Zipporah casting herself at the feet of the Lord instead of casting the foreskin at his feet as a proof of the purity of her son; and, finally, they made sure not to mention at all the phrase “hatan damim ”, bloody husband or bridegroom of blood by which Zipporah called Yahweh.
This little story was obviously not intended for deceiving anyone in the manner it describes the particular deed of the Lord Yahweh. Why was that little story not removed from the collection?
Well, bright guys atheists, do you have anything to say or the only thing you can do is just trying to ridicule the scriptures?
"Culture is memory"
Yuri Lotman
Yuri Lotman
