Book of Contradictions: A Challenge

[reverendjeremiah]

@ CC: As no one is interested in serious and exact understanding then we must leave it there... with you satisfied without examination. I must consider you more interested in your own superficial belief instead of any accurate answer. The question was answered. The answer wasn't challenged, except by pleas to ignorance.

If you say so Frodo.

I can't blame you for backing out. You obviously don't have a leg to stand on. Even your own people disagree with you.

Fr0d0 doesnt have legs..he slithers around on his belly, flicking his tongue when it suits him

[Minimalist]

The earliest extant version we possess is the Septuagint which was written in Greek in the 3d century BC.

We have no historical references to a Hebrew version by any other writers.

That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls were so important. While dating to the mid 2d century BC at the earliest they remain the earliest writings in Hebrew even though a considerable percentage of them were written in Aramaic and Greek.

Min,perhaps a dumb question: What is the earliest extant copy of the Torah in Hebrew held by the Jews of which you are aware?

That's actually a very good question, Pad. Jews do not venerate old texts. * As a matter of ritual when sacred writings become too old to use they are buried. IIRC there is a copy of a 10th century Masoretic text in a museum somewhere but I don't recall off hand how it was preserved.

I could double check my Ehrman library for you but I think either or both the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus contain complete versions of the Septuagint. Of course, these are 4th century xtian bibles which would not exactly meet the terms of your question which was a Torah in Hebrew held by Jews.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain most of the books which eventually made it into the canonized Torah but even the date of canonization is suspect. There is also a lot of stuff in there which is not even of a religious nature. Now, even though they are not compiled in any way I would say that with the exception of the Book of Esther...which is either missing or crumbled to pieces beyond recognition...the Dead Sea Scrolls come closest to meeting your terms as they are in the hands of "Jews"....even though not all of them are in Hebrew.


*

A genizah (or geniza; Hebrew: גניזה "storage"; plural: genizot or genizoth or genizahs)[1] is the store-room or depository in a Jewish synagogue (or cemetery), usually specifically for worn-out Hebrew-language books and papers on religious topics that were stored there before they could receive a proper cemetery burial, it being forbidden to throw away writings containing the name of God (even personal letters and legal contracts could open with an invocation of God).

---

@Min- It's not spin it's actually quite clear.

I agree it's clear, Tacky. I also think you are seeing what you so desperately wish to see. Not that such is all that uncommon among believers.

The language is crystal clear. God was pooped and "Isaiah" ( or whoever ) fucked up.

[Godscreated]

@ Cinjin Cane you seem to like poking at Frodo, prove him wrong if you can. I gave you an example and so did tackattack and you have ignored both.WHY?

I'm "poking at Frodo" because his challenge was to me. (See the OP)

GC - I will certainly give your post a rebuttal when I see something that deserves one. So far, the drivel that pours out of your fingertips onto the screen is not worthy of a response from me. You and Statler like to play by your own special rules of debate and you conclusions are never founded in legitimate rationale. Frodo's not much better, but I did agree to accept his challenge.

So you can't dispute what I've written, thats why you made an excuse not to respond. I did my research why haven't you. If you do not go to the original languages and find their meanings then reading the Bible as written in Engish can leave one confused as to what is being said.

---

---

The only people who have to redefine words and interpret scripture are christians trying desperately to defend the contradictions found therein.

Spin it how you like. It's a contradiction .... and it's FAR from the only one. How do you defend the blatant contradiction of facts that Min presented in post #2 or that RefJer presented in post #3? Are you going to argue interpretation then?

You are making excuses for your deliberate misinterpretation CC. You're not interested in exact interpretation of the original meaning, but the opposite: in hailing the correctness of an interpretation of an interpretation. You'd rather rely on chinese whispers than go to the source for the real answer. If you were honest you'd want to know the most accurate answer as well... but the common misunderstanding of those in the dark is what conveniently fits, so you're sticking with that. Not a very respectable position.

You're right about a couple things in that rebuttal Frodo...
1. I am not interested in your interpretation. I am only interested in reading what it ACTUALLY says.
2. Millions of people reading the Bible are most definitely in the dark and take the book at face value - just as their preacher tells them to do. I am reading word for word - and since most people do not have the doctrinal background and historical manuscripts to decipher whatever the fuck it is those tent dwellers were trying to say - than they too are forced to take the bible at face value.

---

[Minimalist]

You are hysterical, G-C. The desperation is readily apparent.

[Doubting Thomas]

I tried to show you that rested in this case meant cease doing which in no way means resting because one is tired. You have to go back to the original languages it's just that simple. Also at my church we do go through the Hebrew and Greek to understand what was originally written.

Ah yes, the old "lost in translation" defense that apologists love to use to make a bible passage mean something other than its apparent, literal meaning. I don't know how many times I've heard fundies say that you have to go back to the original languages in which the bible was written to get the true meaning. Why is it that certain words and phrases always mean some other, obscure meaning rather than what is actually written? Got any evidence that's what the authors really meant, other than the fact that the literal meaning makes the bible look bad?

And frankly, if you have to go back to the original languages in which the bible was written, then what good is an English language bible? You're in fact admitting that the bible is full of translation errors and therefore flawed.

[Minimalist]

I don't know how many times I've heard fundies say that you have to go back to the original languages in which the bible was written to get the true meaning.

Yes, amusing indeed D-T. I wonder what percentage of trailer trash xtian shitheads can read Koine Greek?

When those clowns talk about the original language they mean the KJV!

[fr0d0]

What are you guys ...12?

Some of my own guys disagree with me but are unable to provide exegesis like yourself, but use eisegesis instead. Enough has been said on this on this thread already. I can therefore surmise that your so called contradictions are based on deliberate ignorance.

[Doubting Thomas]

OK then, what about simple contradictions like this one?

How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?

2 Samuel 23:8
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11:11
And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

So what was it, 800 or 300? I know a simple numerical error doesn't really amount to much, but if you claim there are no contradictions whatsoever in the bible, how are you going to spin this one?

I know, let me guess... they're not contradictory, because one verse is just expanding on the other, right? 1 Chronicles says that 300 men were killed, and the 2 Samuel is just expanding on that by mentioning those, plus 500 others that Chronicles didn't mention, correct?

[Minimalist]

No, no, no...you're taking it out of context again because in ancient Aramaic 800 = 300 because they were fucking stupid.

[Doubting Thomas]

Or, if you go back to the original Aramaic, there were two definitions of the number 300. One means just 300, and the other means 300 plus 500 more. It's obvious which definition they used here.