Rational Bible

[Naturalist]

So says Exodus 33:11 ... but then 33:20 says "And again he said: Thou canst not see my face: for man shall not see me and live."

Elsewhere in Scripture there is talk of 'face-to-face' meetings, or 'mouth-to-mouth' – but these are all analagous terms, and the commentaries explain them.


Literally, it's the other way round, and clearly the overt literal meaning is not the intended meaning.


D'you think the Deuteronomist scribes, and the monotheist Israelites before them, thought this ridiculous?

I read Scripture as spanning centuries, and the emerging understanding that if there is a God, and as the properties accorded to 'God' begin to take shape, then there can only logically be one...

The Greeks came to the same conclusion – I think it was Plato (not 100% on that) who pointed out that if the residents of Olympus were indeed Gods, why did they evidence the most extreme human failings and vices?

I think there is often a tendency in critics of religion – and religious texts – to pin an understanding on the text, fixed in a certain time and according to a certain stereotype, that suits the argument.

I read the Hebrew sacra doctrina more and more as a dynamic document ... mixed in with a lot of other stuff, to be sure, but the trace is there.

God had a face was my point. Commentaries explain away the anthropomorphic god, when it was no longer consider acceptable. They don't explain it.

The Pentateuch writers, were polytheists not monotheists. Judaism evolved into monotheism later.

I read the texts as written and consider their historical contexts. The Middle East, Greece, Italy, etc. were all polytheistic, though there was one Pharaoh who wasn't. With Jesus, the Christians reverted back to polytheism.

 

[Naturalist]

She has her fans ... ashe also has her critics ... I think the lesson here is don't put all your eggs in one basket.

On balance, I find her basic premise, that the sacred scribe is not using metaphor or figurative language, but offering literal descriptions, as unlikely.

No, it's likely if you study her sources and neighboring religions. It's as close to certain as one can be.

 

[Naturalist]

One has to bear in mind that the language of the Bible, Hebrew as it evolved, and the Canaanite tongues that pre-date it – whichI shall now rather inaccurately gather under the Semitic tree is rich in a figurative-style of speech – one should preserve against reading it from a too-literalist perspective.

A very convenient excuse to interpret scriptures to your liking...similar to Tarot cards, numerology, etc.

 

[Faithfulservant]

In fact it's believed Deteronomy was written earlier than Leviticus and Numbers?

The book of Job is debated to be the oldest book in the bible as well.

 

[moralorel]

What I find interesting is that Moses came face to face with God. This was back when god was created literally in the image of man, like many other gods of the time. The Torah acknowledges other gods, so this was prior to Jewish monotheism.

Most Jews today realize how ridiculous this is, so they ignore it, and create a more all pervasive, singular deity....while still embracing the Torah.

1. It is believed that Ezra updated the Torah. An example of this would be Ramses. The land of Ramses was mentioned during the time of Joseph and the time of Moses. That's 400 years that he would have lived? I don't think so. An author, presumably Ezra, updated the name of the land to that of Ramses because Ramses would have been well known by the time Ezra returned from captivity. Despite some traditions, it is highly unlikely that Ramses was the Pharoah during the time of Joseph or Moses.

2. Moses didn't see God's face, he saw His back. However this was Jesus, not the Father (in my opinion of scriptures). We have gone on and on about this subject in other threads before, which is why I'm not elaborating. The Torah was not acknowledging that Moses met another deity.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

One has to bear in mind that the language of the Bible, Hebrew as it evolved, and the Canaanite tongues that pre-date it – whichI shall now rather inaccurately gather under the Semitic tree is rich in a figurative-style of speech – one should preserve against reading it from a too-literalist perspective.

In my opinion, it's more the time when it has been written than the language, but I fully agree with you.