Thoughts

râtsach (transliterated for those without hebrew font) pronounced raw-tsakn

a primitive root; properly: to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder.

I've studied the ancient texts since grade school, and I do so on my own, I don't follow a bunch of self deluded people. I hate to tell you this, but if you go by what anyone says, you know nothing and have no place to speak on it. Unless you actually study it your self, it's pointless. When it comes to religion, there is too many conflicting views today to take someones word. If you want to study it for your self and prove me wrong, go right ahead. The only way to truely understand the anceint text is to read them your self.

I'm a christian scientist, I was a scientist first, and through study of archeology and sociology, as well as the seeing things that could not be explained by science, I became a christian. Believe it or not, there are many noted scientists that believe in god, not because of a "bible thumper", but due to an educated deduction given all available facts.

 

Let me get this straight. You studies ancient texts since grade school, and that had nothing at all to do with a religious upbringing. Nothing. You were raised in a nice atheistic household, were not indoctrinated by anybody, ALWAYS made your own decisions, went into science, and became a Christian Scientist. Well, I can say this. You are, at least, unique. A Christian Scientist. You actually believe that a logical deduction based on all available facts, that a diabetic is better off with prayer than insulin? Oh. If you were saying that you are both Christian and Scientist, but not of the sect Christian Scientists, then, OK, I retract. But if you are of that sect, um, well, all the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek in the world ain't gonna make you less bloody wrong.

You say your own reading of the texts. Not much can be gleaned from the texts in and of themsleves without linguistic analysis, without historical analysis, without, well, a lot of peripheral knowledge. And how did you read them? You had no agenda in reading them? I did have an agenda, as do we all. I wanted to know how people of a certain period in human history thought. I was interested to see how the sky god El evolved into the one whose inner name was the tetragrammaton and who became a symbol of all the gods -- Elohim. So why did you read them? Because that's what's fun for a 9-year-old. Excuse me if I doubt that.

And then you say archaeology. Do you mean commentary on archeology by doctrinarians, or do you mean academic archaeology? Both, admittedly, have agendas, but I'm more apt to trust the work of people whose agenda is reason, not faith. I'm also more willing to trust those who actually have archeological training. Anyone who believes the world is 6000 years old is not an archeologist, and any statement they make about archeology is, you'll pardon me, bunk.

I've looked up ratsach, since I'd forgotten the word. It evolved from breaking pottery. Then to kill. To kill in anger. But not necessarily murder. And again, there is essentially no context to it, aside from the other commandments.

Finally, I am rather curious as to what facts, other than the fcat that you were likely raised Christian, could possibly have led you to believe that the most rational explanation for the origin of the universe just happened to be a Christian one? Both the existence and non-existence of god are unprovable. All of Aquinas's proofs have been shown to be flawed, as have all those that came after him, as have all atheistic proofs. Modern scientific cosmology leaves the option open for a creator, but does not by any means necessitate one, nor does it point in any way to that creator being Adonai or that Jeshua is his son. Methinks you must have already been looking through Christ-colored glasses.

 

I was indeed raised in a christian home, but it was never forced on me. I was lucky enough to have intellegent, open parents that let me follow what ever path I chose.

Just to clarify, no I'm not of the "christian scientists" I was speaking literally, as in a scietist who was christian.

First off, when dealling with the ancient text, you have to:

a. Ignore everything that religious zealots (this includes atheiests) that have said over the centuries. Jewish, christian or otherwise. The text have to be measused in thier own context.

b. Knowledge of the time and basics of soiciology and linguistics. I indeed have both, as well a love for ancient peoples. I've studied most european and middle eastern cultures, not just that in the text.

The word in that context does indeed mean murder. Words have different definition in different context. For instance the word "cool" means several things. If you really want a linguistic analsys I might be able to write one out...but that would be several pages, and a lot of digging for sources (I traced that word a few years ago, I don't have all those same materials handy at the moment).

As to creation and such. I won't even dignify that with a response, not only are you quoting this from outside the text (if you were going to take the text literally in the first place), but also seem to not even have a basic understanding of astral physics.

It's funny that over the last few decades the scientists proved that we couldn't exsist many times :lol:

 

Of course, in many sense you are right. However, ignoring the exigesis of those who have also studied these texts is not necessarily wise. Sure, you can ignore the "what did God mean" parts, but ignoring discussions of certain words in ancient Hebrew is fruitless and couterproductive. And, truly, since you seem to be well-versed in ancient Hebrew, certainly more than I am, you could not have done so, as many of the sources you have drawn on in your research have necessarily themsleves drawn on, if not enrirely, Talmudic and other rabbinical sources as well as, to a lesser extent, medieval christian monastic sources. When you analyze a word, or more importantly an idiomatic passage, you have to do this. Most of what we know about the ancient biblical languages of the ancient near east comes from these sources. And if are attempting to piece things together based on related languages like Hittite, what we know of those languages was pieced together post ex facto based on our knowledge of the biblical languages. There is no avoiding bible scholars when studying the levant. Sure, take what they say with a grain of salt, but you still have to take what they say.

Of course they do. And just as, in English, you can say "he is a killer" and it means murderer, kill does not always mean murder in English, so in Hebrew (sort of). But my point was that there is very little context in the 10 commandments to give us certainty of meaning. The only context is "don't do x." Any subtle word in a context that simple, in any language, is necessarily left to interpretation.

Huh? I wasn't quoting anything. Aquinas had five proofs of God's existence, all of which have been shown flawed. Do you really need me to show his false syllogisms? Is that what you are saying. That would take me just as long as it would take you to provide a full and complete linguistic analysis of the entire 10 commandements, and is equally impractical. Other folks have also tried to prove god's existence, and their proofs have failed. I also said the proofs against God have all been flawed. And with science, all I said was that modern cosmology does not preclude god, nor does it necessitate him. I certainly don't see why you would say that, based on that statement, I don't know anything about astrophysics (not astral physics, the study of the bodies of spirits, ghosts, and angels, of which I am, admittedly, quite ignorant). I am no physicist, but I am plenty versed in the subject. I am still curious as to what in modern physics could have led you believe that the Christian (or Jewish, or Zoroastrian, or pantheistic) conception of the divine was the most likely to be the origin of the universe, or for that matter why there need even be a demiurge.

No they haven't. They've shown how inestimably unlikely were the condiitons necessary for us to exist. That is a far cry from a negative proof.

Nobleknight, please don't make assumptions about what I know. You know more Hebrew than I do, and likely more Greek. I doubtless know things applicable to this discussion that you do not, however. Do I really need to list thge books I've read on linguistics and physics, my studies in philosophy and ancient languages like a curriculum vitae in order for you not to assume I know nothing? I'm guilty of ad hominem attacks against you, too, but I did not blindly accuse you of ignorance. This has been a hard lesson for me to learn, and perhaps it's time you did so as well: others know things, too.

 

I know, you're right. My point, which I was too lazy to explain fully, was that biblical study isn't just about looking things up in your Ancient Hebrew-to-Valley Girl dictionary, and that it's a mistake to think you can know it all just by reading the passages in question. You could end up taking things wholly out of context, which is why it also helps to familiarize yourself with the work of the Jewish philosophers such as those included in the Talmud. Most Christian evangelists I've watched demonstrate zero familiarity with the long scholarly tradition surrounding the Hebrew bible, and they just stand there and make stuff up as they go along, often to the deafening cheers from the stadium audience. A little knowledge is a potentially very dangerous thing.

But that doesn't sound quite as pithy.

 

Well, they kinda have to do that, Canis. You can't justify that the Isaiah prophecy was about Jesus without playing a bit with the text. That prophecy has always been one of the primary keys Christians have used to link Jesus to the tradition of the old testament.

But really, much, or most, of the Talmud is post-Jesus, written quite late. The rabbis, too, were at a great time-distance from the original bible composition. (Or rather compositions, as the Hebrew Bible was written by a minimum of four people at different times. It was an evolving book that has entirely different conceptions of God. See Genesis 1 and 2.) Now, the Hebrew Bible is the book of the Jews, but others have adopted it, and they are, really, allowed to have their own read. Goes back to that whole Derrida thing as to whether any text can have a single read, a right answer. I lie on the fence there, but not with the bible. There really are quite a few reads, and the Talmudic rabbis certainly had their own axe to grind. That does not obviate the help one would garner by reading the Talmud, but if one is seeking an "unbiased" look at the Hebrew bible, one certainly should look to the original texts, as NobleKnight has apparently done.

(S)he has apparently done quite a bit more than consult his "Ancient Hebrew to Valley-Girl Dictionary." It would seem he's given quite a bit of thought to this. Now you don't have to agree with his read, and I don't have to agree, and certainly a great number of scholars of various or no relgion would not agree, but I think equating Nobleknight to those Christians who quote the Bible without having any idea as to what they are quoting (and there are many) is unfair.

Both you and I disagree with or view as outdated many of the Talmudic tenets. I don't mean to speak for your opinion, but I've seen your picture and I've read your posts, and you hardly seem superorthodox, and I doubt you leave your room to live in a special room for a week every month.

 

I meant the interpretations, not the deffinitions.

Of course they do. And just as, in English, you can say "he is a killer" and it means murderer, kill does not always mean murder in English, so in Hebrew (sort of). But my point was that there is very little context in the 10 commandments to give us certainty of meaning. The only context is "don't do x." Any subtle word in a context that simple, in any language, is necessarily left to interpretation. [/quote]

I'll try to do this simply....first, the word used is not the common word for kill or murder. The wording was spesific to spesify destruction, in the context of the ancient text, destruction = bad (sorry for the simplicity...I'm suffering from a sinus infection...), since it also counts elimatnation a destructive force a proactive thing, it means, unjustifiable murder. (sory if that didn't make since....I'll try to clear it up later when my brain is more functional...)

Huh? I wasn't quoting anything. Aquinas had five proofs of God's existence, all of which have been shown flawed. Do you really need me to show his false syllogisms? Is that what you are saying. That would take me just as long as it would take you to provide a full and complete linguistic analysis of the entire 10 commandements, and is equally impractical. Other folks have also tried to prove god's existence, and their proofs have failed. I also said the proofs against God have all been flawed. And with science, all I said was that modern cosmology does not preclude god, nor does it necessitate him. I certainly don't see why you would say that, based on that statement, I don't know anything about astrophysics (not astral physics, the study of the bodies of spirits, ghosts, and angels, of which I am, admittedly, quite ignorant). I am no physicist, but I am plenty versed in the subject. I am still curious as to what in modern physics could have led you believe that the Christian (or Jewish, or Zoroastrian, or pantheistic) conception of the divine was the most likely to be the origin of the universe, or for that matter why there need even be a demiurge.[/quote]

Well, If you were to take the full context of astrophysics from the last 50 years...all evedence points to that it's scientificlly possible for the universe to come into exsistance under standing physical laws. The only thing keeping them from dissmissing their theories entirely is the introduction of quantum physics. Of course that on the most part is a mockery of science.

No they haven't. They've shown how inestimably unlikely were the condiitons necessary for us to exist. That is a far cry from a negative proof. [/quote]

Yes, they have several times. If you've seen just the latest ramblings on how the earth and moon were formed...it makes me ashamed to call my self a scietist...those guys are mad as hatters.

I didn't mean to insinuate anything. I was simply stateing that you were useing very simplistic and outdated models of the current physical model of the universe as proof.

 

OK, so much for reasonable discussion. You, again, misunderstand everything I said, I think clearly. You tell me I'm ignoring the most recent advances in physics (I am not) and then you say quantum physics is a mockery of science. I now am allowed to freely ignore you. All of the last 50 years of cosmology requires quantum physics. I will quote Brian Greene, a physicist at Columbia university: "Quantum physics is, without exception [he was discussing Newton], the single most successfully tested theory in the history of science."

 

Well, I've found in most of my lab experiments that science never turns out quite how you expect. So maybe the reliability of quantum physics IS a mockery of other science.
I mean, I once tried to do the pickle experiment to test an electrical concept out for myself. It's where you push to nails into a pickle and conduct an electrolytic reaction. The pickle is supposed to polarize. One fuse box and several hours of scrubbing pickle mush off my basement floor later, I realized that something had gone wrong.
So maybe the fact quantum physics works the way it's supposed to without destroying helpless vegetables (are pickles vegetables?), is how it mocks non quantum science.

 

Okay, that was hilarious! :lol:

I'm not even remotely Jewish, for the record. I'm an unbaptized atheist whose relatives are members of miscellaneous Christian sects, some of them more wacky than others. The normal ones follow that guy on TBN who looks like Slobodon Milosevic and likes to hit people in the head.... Benny Hinn, that's the guy....

Well, anyway. Carry on. :thumbup:

 

Heh sorry. I didn't think you were, originally. *blush* (Funny, you don't look druish). I'm just not used to too many non-jewish people who even know what the Talmud is, let alone are snobby about it. So, well, I figured you mighta been. I'm an unbaptized atheist, too, only I also really enjoy lox and had a bar mitzvah party.

 

Cool, you had a party! But what's a mitzvah? It's not one of new age togetherness things is it? I hate those parties, never enough beer and most of it is like herbal budweiser or some other bs crap. Tastes more like pig swill.

 

Heh, it's because the only formal religious education I've had was a series of Jewish studies classes in college, taught by Zev Garber if you've heard of him. He's sort of like an intellectual Jewish version of Billy Connolly. Or Mad-Eye Moody.... Anyway, he's big in Los Angeles.

Plus I'm related to a German war criminal or two, and have always had a running guilt trip about the Hebrew nation.

ANYWAY. Back to the bickering, you lot.

 

blinky, are you serious? You live in NYC and you don't know what a bar mitzvah is? It's the jewish version of catholic commencement and whatnot, a coming of age ceremony when you are 13. Best part is the party. Its like an uberbirthday party, almost as big as wedding. Lotsa presents. Dancing with 13 year old girls (again, I was 13, too), lotsa food, and you sneak wine.

Oh, and, *forgives Canis for the crimes of her relatives with a solemn gesture* :lol:

 

Labrynthian, you might want to rewrite that last sentence, because for a moment there, I thought you were saying you were forgiving her relatives. Or I am just being incapable.

A mitzvah is indeed a coming-of-age party.
Bar Mitzvah are for boys
Bat Mitzvah are for girls
B'nai Mitzvah is the plural.
It is something like 13 for both genders.

I figured that everyone knew what the Talmud was, just like everyone should know what the Bible and the Koran (there is a better spelling, but I can't think of it) are.

And I think you can figure out my Religious Affiliation from the current set of outrages in General Discussion

 

Is Quaran what you were looking for?

No, I'm not serious. I know what a bar mitzvah is. Jesus, the jokes are flying over people's heads today. I told some kid I slept with his mom and he started offering proof how I couldn't have.

 

I know quite well what quantum phisics is.

I said "mostly".

Plain and simple, physics is the study of physical law. The quantum area DOES exsist. There for it's applicable to laws of what ever physical principles it's subject to.

But... we know about 1% of the acctual workings of quantum mecahnics (to end any misunderstanding beforehand, by "know" I mean proven science, not unproven theories). Since it is unproven and widely unknown, scientists studing astrophysics use it as a general spackle to patch the holes in their theories. Thats why it's a mockery of science...not in and of itself, but how it is applied.

 

I believe the correct spelling is Qu'ran. But really, since Arabic has it's own alphabet, the two different spellings are simply phonetic Anglicizations of the actual words.

Hahaha...That's great about the "I slept with your mom" thing. I know it's stupid, but I never get tired of "your mom" jokes, possibly because they are so flexible and can be applied to just about any conversation. Like, for a comeback to some of the stuff I've been saying in General Discussion: "Catholics aren't the same as Protestants, damnit!"
"Yeah, but your mom is."
Of course it makes no sense, but that's why it's amusing.