- Reaction score
- London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
if this is your opinion of christianity, i wonder why exactly you think it is worthwile hanging around a board like this? to "convert" people, perhaps?pilgram said:If the bible is not the word of God, then the entire basis of Christianity is flawed since it rests upon the flawed bible! This being the case, why would you take the position that ANYTHING in the bible is of any importance whatsoever?
i've answered it where you asked it. and i note you have gone on to requote a large chunk of my post - without having read it, apparently. in any case, that wasn't only addressed to you.pilgram said:bananabrain, it is not in this string of posts where I asked you why you quote from different people without identifying who you are quoting.
what i am doing is explaining the verses you referred to. to interpret them, what our tradition does is to comment. the basic commentary we start with is rashi. rashi then explains how we are to understand it, bringing together his understanding of the totality of the system. the other commentators then comment on him, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing. you may very well not see the "logic", possibly because talmudic logic is not the same as greek logic, but it is nonetheless there.pilgram said:When I refer to the Old Testament and give a book, chapter and verse, that is what I am talking about. You change the subject when you talk about other Jewish texts. I do not see the logic in this unless it is to confuse the issues. If that is it, you are almost successful.
it's not a translation. it's a commentary. i'm working from the original hebrew, as is the commentary.pilgram said:You can make the argument that YOUR translation is the only true one but the Old Testament is the text upon which our argument rests.
firstly, these practices do not have to be defended in logical terms, because they are religious, not mathematical or scientific. secondly, the practices as stated there are not the whole of the story.pilgram said:If you don't or can't logically defend the practices as stated there, just say so.
but you don't have the least idea of the totality of what that is. i am telling you what generations of us have agreed and you are telling me that all you can see is all that there is, which is patently not the case unless you ignore the entire oral tradition, in which case we're not talking about how judaism understands the "old testament".pilgram said:The Old Testament says what it says.
this is not a mere translation problem. there are laws for divorce in the Torah. there are no laws for marriage. yet the text says that people got married. our thousands of years of oral tradition is there to fill in the gaps. reading the pentateuchal text - even in the original - is like sitting on an engine and expecting to move without attaching steering, wheels and the like. it's not a matter of "original", "best" or "true" - it's a matter of extra information i have that you don't. accusing me of trying to change the subject when i am in fact explaining how we approach it is only confirmation of your unwillingness to have your views challenged. if you can't see that i am sticking closely to the text then frankly, i don't see the point of discussing it with you. you might as well accuse me of lying - but if i am not speaking to you in good faith then the entire point of dialogue is missed.pilgram said:I have a sneaking suspicion that your argument is a variation on theme that I've heard a billion times. It goes: you have to go back to the original Hebrew (or Greek, Aramaic, or pig latin) in order to REALY UNDERSTAND!