The Scriptures were written by God?

[Homebrew]

I did not want to hijack Esprix's Refuting Scripture thread, so consider this a spinoff.

In the above mentioned thread Zev Steinhardt states in various posts:

I do believe in absolute truth. However, I don't expect you to accept what I say is the absolute truth on my say-so.

As a TB (no, not the disease!), I do believe that the Pentateuch was dictated by God.

The point is, there are no absolute morals other than those God-given. Of course, if you don't believe that the Torah is from God, then we're back to square one.

Jews believe that the Pentateuch was written by God.

I would assume cmkeller agrees with these statements. And several Christians, including Friend of God, would carry this conviction forward to the New Testament.

While I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, I can't fathom how someone can have such complete faith in ancient texts. How are you so confident in your conviction that the Bible (Pentateuch for Jews and NT for Christians) is the infallible Word of God?

[super_head]

...because the Bible says so.

OK, someone had to say it.

[zev_steinhardt]

Homebrew,

It all basically boils down to "my father told me."

Jews have long had traditions, passed down from father to son. One of those traditions is that God spoke to us on Mount Siani and gave us the Torah. Another is that the Torah that we had at the end of the forty years' wandering in the wilderness is the same one we have now.

How do I know this? My father told me.
How did he know this? His father told him.
And so on, and so on, back to Mount Sinai.

It's pretty clear from the Bible that the Jews are "jus' plain stubborn folk." Had someone, say, 500 years later tried to tell them "Hey, you know, 500 years ago, this guy named Moses went up on Mount Sinai and got the Torah...," they would have asked "well, how come my father never told me about it? Wouldn't he have told me about this important historic event?"

I know this is not proof in the empirical sense. I'm not out to convince anyone else of my beliefs. But, however, you wanted to know how I can be sure of an ancient text. My father told me.

Zev Steinhardt

[andros]

And it's important to understand that the Torah is itself unchanged since Sinai. While the vast majority of Christians do not learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to study their scriptures, the majority of Jews DO learn Hebrew to study and understand the Torah. As a result, the Pentateuch has not been translated and retranslated--and the Hebrew language has not changed dramatically over the millennia.

Here's a good site that lays out the arguments for and against Biblical inerrancy and infallibility, written from a Christian perspective: http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm

[Opus1]

zev wrote:

It all basically boils down to "my father told me."

I don't mean to pick on zev, since he basically admitted that this is not empirical evidence, but this is still specious reasoning.

According to the Japanese, the Emperor is the descendent of the Sun Goddess herself. How do they know this? Because their fathers told them, and their fathers told them, etc.

Most modern Japanese have realized that this is just a myth, regardless of how long it's been around.

Norse myth teaches that the world was created from the slain body of Ymir. How do the Norse know this? You know!

At some point, we have to realize that ancient traditions are poor evidence, especially when they contradict one another!

Everyone is willing to admit that everybody else's traditional stories are not true, but not their own! This is highly illogical.

Furthermore, we have archaeological and literary evidence which contradicts such traditions. Most people have realized that the evidence for evolution should take precedence over their particular tribe/country's creation myth. Shouldn't they do the same with other such stories?

In case anyone here is planning on responding that certain things like the Exodus can only be taken on faith, I'll preemptorily rebut by saying that this just isn't so. There are mountains of evidence telling us about the past. Read The Bible Unearthed to see what we've learned about early Israelite history that contradicts the Bible. Check out http://www.awitness.org/bible.html to see the extensive evidence that the Bible is not the word of God, inspired down to the very letter, but rather a mish-mash of various (often contradictory) traditions clumsily edited together.

P.S. To andros: the Hebrew language has changed dramatically over the years. I'm sure someone else can fill you in on the details.

[Freyr]

Interjecting my own opinion; I do believe the Pentateuch was written by God or at least parts of it was. I think the Decalogue was direct divine revelation, much of the rest was written by men, either under divine guidance or simply using the "voice of God" to add weight to then prominent social customs.

I think the real secret is ferreting out which is which. Jewish custom holds the Pentateuch was wholly written by God; atheists hold that it's entirely written by men. I think the truth is somewhere inbetween.

[Kyla]

P.S. To andros: the Hebrew language has changed dramatically over the years. I'm sure someone else can fill you in on the details.

I would disagree. I think I know what you mean, but andros' point is valid. Hebrew was not a commonly spoken language for thousands of years, and was generally used for religious purposes. People didn't have friendly chats in Hebrew. As a result, it stayed pretty much the same, because its purpose had not been altered.

Modern Hebrew was invented by Eliezer Ben-Yehudah in the early part of the 20th century. It is quite different from Biblical Hebrew, but not so dissimilar that an Israeli couldn't read it. I would guess that the primary difference is that Biblical Hebrew future and past are written in the same tense (past tense in Modern Hebrew). I have personally studied only Modern Hebrew, and am only so-so at it, but even I can follow along with the Torah pretty well at services. Which reminds me, hag sameach!

Apologies for the hijack. This is not really an important facet of the debate.

[Fatwater Fewl]

Originally posted by Homebrew
While I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, I can't fathom how someone can have such complete faith in ancient texts. How are you so confident in your conviction that the Bible (Pentateuch for Jews and NT for Christians) is the infallible Word of God?

zev has given you the best answer you'll probably ever get to a question like this -- an honest answer.

I know this is not proof in the empirical sense. I'm not out to convince anyone else of my beliefs. But, however, you wanted to know how I can be sure of an ancient text. My father told me.

The thing is, Homebrew, IMHO, such complete faith cannot be fathomed by any one who has never experienced it. I have never experienced it, myself.

I'm agnostic (tilted towards atheism) and I tend to read the bible -- the OT, at least -- as a warning of the dangers of believing in a god, of abdicating responsibilty for your own actions.

Poor Moses believed and what did it get him? Forty years in the wilderness listening to his people squabble and bitch and moan, and then an unmarked grave just before things took a turn for the better. Abraham was going to kill his own son because he thought god was talking to him. Saul, David, Joseph and his brothers -- these are all stories of irony... and the moral ain't all that complicated either; if you follow the advice of people who hear voices, you're gonna end up in a mess. Again, MHO.

The very fact that I intend to post what I have just written -- post it below zev's statement that he's not out to convince anyone -- makes me question if I'll ever be as comfortable in my unbelief as he and others are in their beliefs.

I respect the ability to simply be as one is, to be able to answer questions about one's belief system honestly and without the need to preach... religious folk ain't the only preachers in the world.


jm

_{I'm not real sure how well his Wolves are gonna do, though.}

[bungie_us]

"My father told me" is very similar to my experience of the Bible growing up, but what "my father" told me was that the Bible was the inspired Word of God. What does that mean, according to "my father"? It means that that humans wrote the Bible through inspiration from God. The key point was that in human writing, according to "my father," human prejudice entered and obscured, and even occasional distorted, the Word.

Does that invalidate the Word? Not at all, but it requires study, and interpretation. It requires self-awareness, it requires listening to others. It requires distillation and finding the essential core that has been buried under layers of human uncertainty, anger, fear, and hate. It means that we often misinterpret, both individually and as a society, but we keep coming back to it and trying again. Sometimes we impose a new prejudice on the Word, a prejudice that didn't exist 3000 years ago, or 2,000 years ago, or even a couple of decades ago. And so we must keep interpreting, and sometimes it means we must disregard parts of the Word because the human muck overwhelms the essential core.

What I believe is the essential core is something for another GD.

So, no, I don't think the Scriptures were written by God. But I do think God provided a lot of the background material. And like zev, I believe "what my father told me."

[andros]

Thanks, Kyla. Slam dunk.

[redtail23]

Originally posted by Kyla

I would disagree. I think I know what you mean, but andros' point is valid. Hebrew was not a commonly spoken language for thousands of years, and was generally used for religious purposes. People didn't have friendly chats in Hebrew. As a result, it stayed pretty much the same, because its purpose had not been altered

It is my understanding that there *is* some question (and has been for centuries) about some of the Hebrew writings. As it was explained to me, there are Judaic scholars that argue over just what that original word was and exactly what it meant, just as Christian scholars do over their Greek texts.

Aside from the definitional changes (i.e., a common word whose meaning changes over time, or a word that drops out of usage and whose meaning therefore must be taken from context), there is the problem of nonexistent Hebrew vowels. Vowel notation didn't enter Hebrew writing until sometime in the latter half of the first millennium CE & the lack has caused some questions about some of the texts.

That's not even counting the pilpul arguments over contextual meaning that Judaic scholars so love.

I think this is a relevant point. If your reason for belief is "this is what my father told me and it must be true because it's been handed down verbatim for generations", then there's a problem when we have evidence that the 'verbatim' ain't as exact as one might want to think. Of course, that probably won't change anyone's beliefs and I wouldn't expect it to, but it does matter to someone trying to understand the reasoning behind the beliefs.

Of course, if I'm totally wrong about all of the above, I'm sure someone will let me know.

[bungie_us]

And don't forget what the simple parlor game of "Telephone" teaches us...

[andros]

IANAJ, IANAC. I do not agree at all that any portions of the Bible, Old Testament or Christian Testament, are literal or inerrant.

But the argument "my father told me" does carry a lot more weight when supported. This ain't just oral tradition here, folks--even non-Jewish scholars agree that the Torah has been around, essentially unchanged, for a loooooong time.

Christian inerrancy, IMO, is more a leap of faith than Jewish, honestly. With the Pentateuch, once one accepts on faith that Moses took dictation directly from G-d, the rest is gravy. With the New Testament, we approach the realms of detailed recorded history. We have records of the synods and meetings which determined what was and was not canon, and records of the writings that didn't make the cut. We know that the boks of the NT were written after the Christ's death, some many years after. And we know they were written by many different people. The questions that are raised are more numerous and varied than with Mosaic law and the Torah. And, again IMO, the requirements of faith greater.

[JerseyDiamond]

Originally posted by Homebrew
While I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, I can't fathom how someone can have such complete faith in ancient texts. How are you so confident in your conviction that the Bible (Pentateuch for Jews and NT for Christians) is the infallible Word of God? [/b]

It was written by God through men. Kind of like you could argue that my keyboard wrote this post. It wrote just like a keyboard in its own unique style, different from a pencil, pen, marker, crayon, or paint. But it writes what I want it to. It was passed down. You know about your great great great etc etc relatives because it was passed down from your family. The only difference is we also have the Bible/Torah and whats passed down to us by our families and Christians and Jews.

[bungie_us]

Jersey, either we're unthinking automatons, barely one step removed from your keyboard (which would make this debate irrelevant), or we're thinking, feeling humans with free will to the extent that our biochemistry allows, with biases and prejudices and axes to grind, and hence more than enough willingness and opportunity to edit our crap into the Word and pass it off as truth.

Either God is clumsy and not too bright, thus the clear contradictions and gaps in the Word, or imperfect humans have in fact stepped in and mucked the Word up with the aforementioned biases, prejudices and axes to grind.

Frankly, the second option in both above circumstances is obviously the case.

Which isn't to say that the truth isn't hiding in the Word. It just means you have to work to find it, and if you're not careful, you'll get caught up in some very dangerous untruths.

And you gotta watch quoting the Bible to prove the inerrancy of the Bible. That kind of circular reasoning will get you nowhere.

[Freyr]

bungie_us wrote:

Jersey, either we're unthinking automatons, barely one step removed from your keyboard (which would make this debate irrelevant), or we're thinking, feeling humans with free will to the extent that our biochemistry allows, with biases and prejudices and axes to grind, and hence more than enough willingness and opportunity to edit our crap into the Word and pass it off as truth.

*YES* Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! *clap clap clap*

[robertliguori]

Another point: Why use a metaphorical keyboard if you can make text magically appear on a metaphorical screen? Or, why doesn't God make public appearances? I'm talking clouds parting, voice from the sky public appearences.

[andros]

Ummm . . . huh?

[il Topo]

Originally posted by robertliguori
Another point: Why use a metaphorical keyboard if you can make text magically appear on a metaphorical screen? Or, why doesn't God make public appearances? I'm talking clouds parting, voice from the sky public appearences.

Excellent point. I've never heard a decent argument against direct communication from God. As the OP intimates, relying on generations of oral traditions eventually written down just doesn't seem to cut it. Can't God do any better than that?

We don't even need clouds parting. How about a quiet message in everyone's head, along with a feeling of utmost calm and peace. That way we don't have to deal with any panic, which always seems to be a reason offered for why God doesn't part the clouds and talk from up high.

If this were to occur, you wouldn't have people like me making a mistake in judgement about whether there is a god or isn't a god based on imperfect information. After all, what if I make a mistake, and teach my children to follow the wrong god because I didn't know any better. Boy, wouldn't that suck. All very preventable.

I can see no benefit to giving people imperfect information other than that God likes a good game of dice. That's really what imperfect information does; it just injects an element of chance into the game of life, thereby removing our eternal destiny from our own control...assuming we have an eternal destiny. On my bad days, faith seems to be just another word for rolling the dice.

[ResIpsaLoquitor]

Two short answers come to mind:

1) Assuming arguendo that Christ was God-made-man and did perform miracles among us, he ran into the problem that people STILL didn't buy it. Hell, he cured a leper on the sabbath, and all the Pharisees could do was nitpick about how he labored contrary to the Law.

2) I can't speak for God, but there's that old rule about "You shall not put God to the test." When Christ met Satan in the desert, he was challenged to toss himself from a cliff so the angels could catch him. Christ's response was that we're not supposed to put direct "prove it" challenges to got...mostly, as I understand it, because us lowly humans aren't in a position to do that.

3) Speaking for the Catholics, we believe Christ is physically present in the consecrated bread & wine. (Yeah, yeah...it's a leap that could and probably will touch off a whole new GD thread.) Hey, it's a public appearance, albeit without the booming voice.

[grimpixie]

Originally posted by il Topo
How about a quiet message in everyone's head, along with a feeling of utmost calm and peace.

Been there - experienced that. Just one of the things that convinces me that there is a benevolent God out there who longs to be in relationship with me. It has been a long time since I last heard that voice, and I read Liberatarian's description (in another GD thread) of his daily experience of Jesus with a great deal of envy, but I know that the fault is mine - it has been a long time since I have made the time to listen for that "still, small voice" amidst the hustle and bustle of my life. I trust that when I do, it will be there for me...

Why haven't you heard it? I don't know - but then I also don't know when the last time you really listened was...

Grim

[Liberal]

How about a quiet message in everyone's head, along with a feeling of utmost calm and peace.

The quiet message, okay, but the feeling of utmost calm and peace, why? Aren't you presuming that people will automatically love God? Why not a feeling of repulsion and loathing? Why not a feeling of uneasiness and guilt? Or why not a feeling of shoulder shrugging apathy?

[Go alien]

If God exists, why do we have multiple interpretations of his word? E.g. Old Testament, New Testament, the Koran, the Rig Vedas, etc.

Surely he's cocked up somewhere along the line with this free will thing? But isn't he perfect, so presumably he tolerates the multiple interpretations, despite the wars resulting from them. So if he tolerates the suffering committed in his (many) name(s), does that mean his doesn't care a great deal about us?

Will someone explain to me God's reasoning here? And I would appreciate an answer not along the lines of "God's mind/purpose/whatever is unknowable to mere mortals".

[grimpixie]

Originally posted by Go alien
Will someone explain to me God's reasoning here? And I would appreciate an answer not along the lines of "God's mind/purpose/whatever is unknowable to mere mortals".

Dude - you are assuming the existance of God in this question who, by His very nature (as revealed in the Bible at least) is unknowable by us mortals. Consider the following:

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.

or

Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.

How then can I answer your question unless with "God's mind/purpose/whatever is unknowable to mere mortals"? Anything else is pure guesswork/anthropomorphisation...

Grim

[Liberal]

If God exists, why do we have multiple interpretations of his word? E.g. Old Testament, New Testament, the Koran, the Rig Vedas, etc.

Oh, well. I guess those Cubists never existed.

[andros]

Ah, but the Cubists never claimed that theirs was the Only True Form ^TM.

::d&r::

[il Topo]

Originally posted by grimpixie
Why haven't you heard it? I don't know - but then I also don't know when the last time you really listened was...

[Grumble, grumble.]

I'm trying. At least, to the best of my knowledge I am. How do I find out if I am not "really" listening?

I'm no dummy, and I presume this "really listening" technique has to be available to the lowest common denominator of humanity. If it is that stupid simple, why can't this concept be communicated to me?

[dalovindj]

How about a quiet message in everyone's head

Right? I mean not just a general feeling, but the same exact message in the head of all who are alive. For example: If everyone all of the sudden heard in their head that we would find a book in a cave in a specific location, that would be good. A testable fact which we all instantly new that we did not know before. And then we found a book in that cave which contained a message which confirmed some of these old religious texts, I would be forced to rethink.

As it stands, personal religious experiences are likely to be no more than tricks of light and shadow, so to speak. Wishful thinking and brain mechanics can easily explain these experiences. The God Module, as it were.

I can tell you that I have occasionally felt sure that I have experienced these feelings myself as a result of religious experience, drug activity, bio-feedback sessions and meditation - particularly while performing so called Yogic Flying"). Yet I do not ascribe them to anything other than aberrant brain processes. . . . Persinger has now done much better. He has devised a machine that generates a particular kind of magnetic field around the head producing "micro-seizures" in the temporal lobes of the brain. Healthy people who have experienced this induced brain activity have reported such things as a feelings of floating, deformations of the body, strong motions, a "sensed presence," and specifically religious dreamlike hallucinations!

Also, the whole "My father told me" breaks down if the people who wrote it originally lied. A lie passed on as truth for thousands of years is still a lie. It seems reasonable to require evidence before you believe any statment. Of course I get the response "We are taught to have faith" in regards to religion (and only religion), which is extremely convienient considering there is no proof. Looks suspicious to me, especially considering the fact that most (if not all) of the religious people I have met would jump at the chance to tell the world if they had some proof that their version of things was correct. Faith and dogmatic virtue are the defense mechanisms of lies and the enemy of truth, as best as I can tell.

IMBW.

DaLovin' Dj

[il Topo]

Originally posted by Libertarian
The quiet message, okay, but the feeling of utmost calm and peace, why? Aren't you presuming that people will automatically love God? Why not a feeling of repulsion and loathing? Why not a feeling of uneasiness and guilt? Or why not a feeling of shoulder shrugging apathy?

OK, get rid of the emotional manipulation. I was just trying to address the concern for panic that was the last reason I heard to justify indirect, confusing communication from God.

I suppose my post was really out of frustration for my lack of understanding...as opposed to my normally well thought out posts.

And I guess I am assuming, for the sake of this discussion, that we are talking about a God worthy of worship and love. I really am trying to be receptive to the Christian God (I know, some are wondering why), so I think I at least need to make this assumption. If he is not so worthy, then these discussions will turn out to have been a waste of time, but such is life.

But why do I suspect that I missed your point?

[Liberal]

Andros

Ah, but the Cubists never claimed that theirs was the Only True Form

Care to bet on that?

-----

Topo

And I guess I am assuming, for the sake of this discussion, that we are talking about a God worthy of worship and love.

Merely because God is worthy of worship does not mean that men are necessarily willing to worship Him. Case in point — you. If you are assuming that God is worthy of worship, then why don't you worship Him?

I really am trying to be receptive to the Christian God (I know, some are wondering why), so I think I at least need to make this assumption.

What do you mean by "receptive"?

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" — Jesus

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by dalovindj
Also, the whole "My father told me" breaks down if the people who wrote it originally lied. A lie passed on as truth for thousands of years is still a lie.

Granted, a lie passed down father to son is still a lie.

The classic Jewish answer to that is that, of course, it is not a lie. The original claim comes down to millions of people standing at Mount Sinai to receive the Torah. The Jews of that generation told their children about it. And so on and so forth. Had someone introduced a lie about it, say, five hundred years down the line, the people would have (rightly) objected and said "when did this happen? My parents never mentioned this 'Mount Sinai' thing before! I've never heard of this before..."

Is this proof in the empirical sense? Of course not. But it's more than simply a leap of faith as well...

It seems reasonable to require evidence before you believe any statment.

Reasonable. But not always practical.

Would you agree with the statement that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health? If so (as I do), have you examined the data yourself? If not, how do you know? You rely on scientific expertise of others, no doubt. But how do you know that they are scientific experts? By their degrees? They could have bribed thier professors, or fraudulently obtained their credentials in other manners. Ultimately, you choose to accept the evidence that they are experts and qualified to make decisions such as that cigarette smoke is dangerous. So, for practical reasons, you rely upon others for vital information. This applies to government officials, economists, etc.

Of course, I don't ask you to believe what I believe. I'm just explaining my POV.

Zev Steinhardt

[il Topo]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Merely because God is worthy of worship does not mean that men are necessarily willing to worship Him.

A. IF: God exists, and
B. IF: He is worthy of worship, and
C. IF: a man knows that this is so,
THEN: how could a man ignore God or otherwise deny God his due?

Only through some means of self-deception of which I want no part.

Case in point — you. If you are assuming that God is worthy of worship, then why don't you worship Him?

Because I'm not sure he exists yet. See C above. I don't yet know A is true, but I'm willing to assume B is true to simplify things pending knowledge of A.

What do you mean by "receptive"?

I used to want a totally logical reason or physical evidence to believe. After all these years, I've discarded that as unrealistic. Why is it unrealistic? Because I have failed to find it. Normally, I would stop there, and say, "See, haven't found it. Might as well stop wasting my time." But, I'm trying to be receptive, so I've tried to lower my standard from the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" to the civil "preponderance of the evidence."

OK, so a faith leap is apparently required to get there from here. I'm just looking for some evidence that I should leap in the direction of Christianity (or anything else, for that matter). If a leap is required, surely there is something in this world that might indicate where to jump. Actually, a lot of thing indicate where to jump, they just indicate in different directions. Surely there is some way to choose between them in a reasoned manner, no?

I'm also trying to discard any hubris that my agnosticism might have built up in me. I realize this is as much as an emotional decision as it is an intellectual decision, so I'm trying to "purify" or prepare my emotions for receptiveness.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" — Jesus

It doesn't look like He gave a time frame. I suppose it goes without saying that I'm asking of Him for myself, but the real urgency is for my children. An answer sooner rather than later would be helpful for their benefit.

[dalovindj]

Granted, a lie passed down father to son is still a lie.

The classic Jewish answer to that is that, of course, it is not a lie. The original claim comes down to millions of people standing at Mount Sinai to receive the Torah.

OK, correct me where I'm wrong here. The Torah came from Moses after he came down from Mt. Sinai. The people you refer to as witnesses stayed at the bottom of the mountain and saw a big storm cloud take the mountain. They assumed this was their god. This could have been an earthquake or just a really bad storm (if it ever really happened), and primitive peoples without an understanding of tectonics or weather systems could easily have been superstitiously mistaken about the origin of such natural events. Either way, Moses supposedly goes up to the Mountain and comes back down with the Torah. Part of it. Now here is the tricky part. The Torah consists of alot more than just what Moses came down with, it is also a big oral tradition and Moses got other laws at other times, no? Where did this oral tradition come from? Where did the additional parts of the written Torah not taken from Sinai come from? You are not saying that the god in that story directly gave the oral tradition to the people at the bottom of that mountain, are you? When were the oral laws established and by whom? As best as I can tell the multitudes of people only saw the mountain and storm where this god was, they didn't actually see the big cheese himself.

It's not looking like too good of a source. A big storm hits and one guy sees this as his opprtunity to sell his new power scheme. He goes up to the top of the mountain in a huge storm (a dangerous play) and chisels away some rules. He goes down, the people buy it, and then he gets together a few ringleaders to help him. They come up with a code of behaivior that would seem to support their goals and desires. No one will listen if they don't claim some supernatural knowledge, so they do and then build in the requirement of faith so everyone will just shut up and tell their kids already. Seems like an obvious con to me.

Is this proof in the empirical sense? Of course not. But it's more than simply a leap of faith as well...

I don't see how. Basing your thinking on second-hand oral testimony thousands of generations removed (telephone game from hell) seems like a pretty big leap. What other subject matter would such standards for proof hold up?

Reasonable. But not always practical.

Would you agree with the statement that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health? If so (as I do), have you examined the data yourself? If not, how do you know? You rely on scientific expertise of others, no doubt. But how do you know that they are scientific experts? By their degrees?

Your logic is faulty. I could check all of these things and ultimately, if I were thoroughly interested, I could find out for myself whether tests done in reports work out independently when run again. You offer nothing of the sort. Choosing not to investigate something is alot diferent then not being able to investigate it even if you wanted to. Granted, both involve taking other people at their word, but in only one of these cases can the person's word be tested. So the comparison is useless to you here. It's just a bait and switch. Apples and Oranges. An argument that just doesn't hold up. I would forget this particular avenue of attack (using the word attack lightly - this is all friendly). It isn't very effective.

DaLovin' Dj

[Polycarp]

DJ, you're putting too many eggs in one basket there.

What Moses supposedly brought down from the mountain were the Ten Commandments, written, so it's said in Exodus, by the finger of God Himself. A bit more of the laws in Exodus were dictated by Him to Moses at that point.

The rest of the Torah, Genesis, all the laws in the other four books, were supposedly put together by Moses. On this view, God dictated the laws that comprise the majority of the Torah to him. Having "torah" mean both the Law and the five books that contain the Law kind of confuses the issue.

Moses supposedly wrote the narrative accounts accompanying the law collections, that comprise the rest of Exodus-Deuteronomy, except for the account of his death that closes out Deuteronomy, which Joshua wrote afterwards.

Modern scholarship believes it has identified four distinct traditions in the five-book collection, called the Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomic (D), and Priestly (P). As may be expected, the most of Deuteronomy is D in origin. The parallel stories that occur throughout the Torah appear to be variants on traditional stories from the four sources, so that J tells of Yahweh parting the waters of the Red Sea, and E of God (Elohim) sending a strong wind that parted the waters.

Characteristics:
J = Great storyteller. Likes miracles. Calls God Yahweh throughout.
E = Also a good storyteller but not as good as J. Likes natural explanations of events. Calls God Elohim until Sinai, and then sporadically the rest of the way.
P = Hangup on genealogy and other detail, and on ritual aspects of the law. Provides the "frame story" for the other three traditions. Tends to call God Elohim until Sinai, Yahweh afterwards, nearly always the writer when "the Lord God" (Yahweh Elohim) is the describer for God.
D = Intensely moral focus, interest in Davidic history (shows up in Torah through focus on origins of Davidic line).

Oral tradition was supposedly collected and written down in Talmud. Not held as authoritative as Torah.

Yeah, I can see the potential for a big scam behind all this. But by accounts Yahweh tended to make himself obvious to people on and off throughout the history of Israel, not just to Moses. So the potential for a scam artist using the people's gullibility to take over power is minimized.

Of course, you can throw out a lot of the theophanies and other stuff supportive of Moses telling the truth -- but you're left with a con artist with no scam backing him. If I tell you, send me $10,000 and I'll intercede with God to make sure the (natural disaster of your choice) that hits your area doesn't harm you, I'd better be darn sure that that natural disaster does in fact happen, or you'll catch on awfully fast.)

[Homebrew]

Sly commentary on Pat Robinson, eh Poly? I likes.

If God exists, why do we have multiple interpretations of his word? E.g. Old Testament, New Testament, the Koran, the Rig Vedas, etc.

My take on this, Go alien, is that religion is always a human invention; an attempt to codify what a culture believes is the correct way to please God, find Truth or to follow the Tao. Because humans are not perfect, we always add something frivolous, meaningless, and often contradictory. That doesn't entirely negate the utility of the religion to point in the right direction. But it does necessitate that we interpret for ourselves and not follow blindly what others tell us.

Religion is corporate. Spirituality is personal.

Truth is not found by examining individual verses, nor is it contained exclusively in the Bible. Truth is found by searching and thinking and exploring, not only the Bible, but the words of the Buddha, the wisdom of the Wiccan, the spirituality of the Muslim, the logic of the Humanist and on and on and on ...

I think (and thus this is valid only for me, although I hope there is some element of Truth) contradictions enter when people mistake piousness for spirituality. The Old Testament Laws were the method the ancient Jewish culture developed to try to follow what they understood to be Truth. According to their texts, when they followed the letter of the law, but forgot the spirit, they got a smack-down. It doesn’t matter if the stories are literally true or metaphor. They serve the purpose of illuminating Truth.

I also don't think it matters which God *if any* you believe in. From my understanding, all of the major faiths of the world agree on the basic tenets of "Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.", in other words "Love Your Neighbor".

In doing this we become agents of God, of Love and of Truth, regardless of whether we believe in a God or not. Whereever Love is, God is too. God is not vain, does not need our praise, or worship nor even our acknowledgment. However, in carrying out the "Love Your Neighbor" commandment we become more attuned to the spark of the divine within ourselves and it grows stronger. Just by showing Love, we come closer to God and it becomes more real to us, even if you never come to call it God; but instead think of it as the interconnectedness of humanity or the universe.

[Liberal]

Topo

My sainted mother used to say, "You never know what's around the corner."

It looks like we're carrying on this discussion across two threads, but that's okay. You're the most refreshing new person I've seen on the boards in quite some time. You're candid, honest, and sincere. What more could anyone ask?

I'm just looking for some evidence that I should leap in the direction of Christianity (or anything else, for that matter). If a leap is required, surely there is something in this world that might indicate where to jump. Actually, a lot of thing indicate where to jump, they just indicate in different directions. Surely there is some way to choose between them in a reasoned manner, no?

Nevermind Christianity. Just leap toward Love. He'll be there.

[Liberal]

Homebrew

What an inspiration you are! Thank you.

[cmkeller]

dalovindj:

OK, correct me where I'm wrong here.

Ooh, an open invitation! OK, here's where you're wrong in your above statement:

The people you refer to as witnesses stayed at the bottom of the mountain and saw a big storm cloud take the mountain. They assumed this was their god.

Wrong. They did not merely see a big storm cloud and assume it was G-d. They heard the words of the Ten Commandments spoken in a divine voice, beginning with "I am G-d who took you out of Egypt."

This could have been an earthquake or just a really bad storm (if it ever really happened), and primitive peoples without an understanding of tectonics or weather systems could easily have been superstitiously mistaken about the origin of such natural events.

First of all, you are assuming the antecedent - you assume that the Sinai story is untrue, and therefore are thinking of what people might have mistaken for such an event. Second of all, the words that they claim to have heard are pretty darned odd to have inferred from a raging thunderstorm or earthquake. Third of all, you are making a rather insulting assumption about the ability of these ancients to understand the world around them. Granted, they didn't understand much of what we understand today about science, but that doesn't mean they could easily mistake thunder for a set of spoken commandments.

The Torah consists of alot more than just what Moses came down with, it is also a big oral tradition and Moses got other laws at other times, no? Where did this oral tradition come from? Where did the additional parts of the written Torah not taken from Sinai come from? You are not saying that the god in that story directly gave the oral tradition to the people at the bottom of that mountain, are you? When were the oral laws established and by whom?

First of all, one thing should be pointed out about Moses: according to the story in the Torah, he was appointed by the people as their trusted representative to transmit to them G-d's word after they found the experience of direct divine communication too intense for them at the giving of the ten commandments. So when we say things were written and transmitted by Moses after the Sinai incident (which involved the entire people), it was by their own choice.

Now, as you seem to surmise, the oral stuff did come from Moses. It was he who taught these details - which, I should add, are all merely interpretations of that which is present in the written text of the Torah, not stuff which cannot be found in the Torah - to the entire people. This knowledge was passed down through the academies of the leading scholars of their generations - Moses's primary disciple, Joshua being the first of them - each educating the people.

As best as I can tell the multitudes of people only saw the mountain and storm where this god was, they didn't actually see the big cheese himself.

No one could "see the big cheese himself"...not even Moses. But they did all hear the Ten Commandments spoken by him.

[dalovindj]

Cite.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by dalovindj
OK, correct me where I'm wrong here. The Torah came from Moses after he came down from Mt. Sinai. The people you refer to as witnesses stayed at the bottom of the mountain and saw a big storm cloud take the mountain. They assumed this was their god. This could have been an earthquake or just a really bad storm (if it ever really happened), and primitive peoples without an understanding of tectonics or weather systems could easily have been superstitiously mistaken about the origin of such natural events. Either way, Moses supposedly goes up to the Mountain and comes back down with the Torah. Part of it. Now here is the tricky part.

As cmkeller already pointed out to you, it was not a "storm" or "earthquake." The people actually heard the voice of God from the mountain. (Duet. 4). And, as cmkeller pointed out, the people appointed Moses as an agent to hear the rest of the Torah (including) the oral tradition from God, because they were unable to withstand the Godly voice. (Ex. 20:16)

The Torah consists of alot more than just what Moses came down with, it is also a big oral tradition and Moses got other laws at other times, no? Where did this oral tradition come from?
Where did the additional parts of the written Torah not taken from Sinai come from? You are not saying that the god in that story directly gave the oral tradition to the people at the bottom of that mountain, are you? When were the oral laws established and by whom?

It came from Moses at Mt. Sinai (Avos 1:1). It was orally transmitted from God to Moses. He transmitted it to the people.

As best as I can tell the multitudes of people only saw the mountain and storm where this god was, they didn't actually see the big cheese himself.

It's not looking like too good of a source. A big storm hits and one guy sees this as his opprtunity to sell his new power scheme. He goes up to the top of the mountain in a huge storm (a dangerous play) and chisels away some rules. He goes down, the people buy it, and then he gets together a few ringleaders to help him. They come up with a code of behaivior that would seem to support their goals and desires. No one will listen if they don't claim some supernatural knowledge, so they do and then build in the requirement of faith so everyone will just shut up and tell their kids already. Seems like an obvious con to me.

It might have been, had not millions heard the voice of God.

Your logic is faulty. I could check all of these things and ultimately, if I were thoroughly interested, I could find out for myself whether tests done in reports work out independently when run again.

But, what evidence could you present that the test were done independently? Ultimately, you have to trust someone, somewhere. And while you may be able to get advance degrees in biology, physiology and chemistry to determine the truth for yourself, it is simply not practical for everyone to do so.

You offer nothing of the sort. Choosing not to investigate something is alot diferent then not being able to investigate it even if you wanted to. Granted, both involve taking other people at their word, but in only one of these cases can the person's word be tested.

Well, yes, in the end, it does come down to faith. I never denied that. I never told you that I had empirical proof that God existed, I simply told you that to my reasoning (and yes, I have given the matter thought, I did not simply follow like a sheep), it is more likely that God exists and that the Torah is true. You, sir, are certainly free to disagree. I am in no way trying to persuade you that my way is the right way or the only way. I am simply defending my beliefs.

Zev Steinhardt

[il Topo]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Nevermind Christianity. Just leap toward Love. He'll be there.

I guess I've always believed that one should do that regardless, and if He exists and is worthy of worship, whoever He is, He'll be there.

If "He" is not there, well, that leap toward Love serves a definite benefit to the leaper anyway. Regardless of anything else, life is just better all around when lived that way.

Still, it would be comforting to be able to share a common, perceived spirituality with my extended family.


And Lib, thanks for the compliments. I've certainly disclosed more about myself than I expected. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by il Topo

If "He" is not there, well, that leap toward Love serves a definite benefit to the leaper anyway. Regardless of anything else, life is just better all around when lived that way.

Mark 12:34
When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

[dalovindj]

Ooh, an open invitation!

Naturally. I just did a quick search of some Jewish websites to get a quick jist of what zev was talking about. I figured I didn't have it quite right, so I definatley wanted to illustrate that fact in the hopes that the gaps would get filled in. Still, the responses I've seen, combined with looking up the passages zev referenced have left me less than convinced on this point.

Thank you for the breakdown, Polycarp. What you said would seem to indicate that everyone trusted the words of one man who claimed to have spoken to god, as opposed to millions hearing those rules. So far only one person has to have lied. So let's dig in to the supposed event that was witnessed by millions of people.

the people appointed Moses as an agent to hear the rest of the Torah (including) the oral tradition from God, because they were unable to withstand the Godly voice. (Ex. 20:16)

Let's look at that part of the scriptures:

16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain [2] trembled violently, and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder. Then Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.

At the bottom of the page in the linked bible site, there is a very interesting footnote. Apparently this part can also be translated as "and God answered him with thunder". You'll admit that hearing loud thunder and attributing it to a god is alot different then specific words out of thin air being heard by millions of people? It's also a hell of alot more likely.

So let's look at the rest of the passage:

20 The Lord descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up and the Lord said to him, "Go down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the Lord and many of them perish. Even the priests, who approach the Lord , must consecrate themselves, or the Lord will break out against them."
Moses said to the Lord , "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, 'Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.'

So we have what looks like a mountain with some volcanic type activity or giant fire on it. A big storm, and then Moses get's spoken to through thunder, everyone gets scared and tells him to go up the mountain. He confirms that no one should go where this god is but him. He goes up and then gives all of these rules to everybody and claims god made them up. All that the millions of people saw was thunder and fire on a mountain. The only person who had to lie was Moses.

The people actually heard the voice of God from the mountain. (Duet. 4).

Well, let's take a look:

You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.

It seems like he is referencing the thunder as a god's voice again. As I understand this whole thing he got the commandments at the top of the mountain. The "voice" that was heard can be translated as thunder! Anything that had actual meaning was given to Moses outside of the view of anyone else. He took advantage of natural phenomenon, attributed it to god, made sure he had some time alone, and then lied about what happened. This version of events could all have happened without millions of people having to knowingly lie. They believed the thunder was the voice of their god, fine. My little brother used to think it was people bowling in the sky.

How about some specific quotes instead of just the passage number? I can't find where it says that this god spoke the commandments directly to the people, it looks like he thundered about and then went through Moses based on what I've read.

And finally, zev, a statement that can be tested for it's validity and one that can't be are very different. To imply they require the same kind of leap of faith is just plain wrong. If someone runs an experiment, describes how it operates and publishes the results, I can follow those directions and see if it works out as predicted. There is nothing in your faith that acurately predicts anything that can be tested. It's your choice, but the two are not the same at all. While it may not be practical to test everything you hear, believing in an unproven god who can't be seen, and accepting the principals of physics after you see them launch a big shuttle (built using those principals) into space, for example, just aren't the same. No matter how much you want them to be. In an attempt to make your belief (which lacks any real evidence) seem just as valid as my acceptance of the principals which do have proof to support them, you do yourself a disservice. We have the internet. We haven't found souls. We have electricity and lights and refrigerators, but we've never heard the voice of a god out of thin air giving us rules. I'm really surprised you consider these things on the same level. It seems kind of silly.

Do you honestly feel there is no difference between me accepting that a cars engine works as they say it does and someone accepting the existence of a supernatural being because someone told them it was true? Mind blowing, if your answer is yes.

What is the difference between these 2 statements? Would you consider them equally valid and likely?

Bigfoot exists.
DNA exists.

DaLovin' Dj

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by dalovindj
.

Thank you for the breakdown, Polycarp. What you said would seem to indicate that everyone trusted the words of one man who claimed to have spoken to god, as opposed to millions hearing those rules. So far only one person has to have lied. So let's dig in to the supposed event that was witnessed by millions of people.Let's look at that part of the scriptures:At the bottom of the page in the linked bible site, there is a very interesting footnote. Apparently this part can also be translated as "and God answered him with thunder". You'll admit that hearing loud thunder and attributing it to a god is alot different then specific words out of thin air being heard by millions of people? It's also a hell of alot more likely.

Sorry, dalovindj, but you're wrong on this. The word used in Ex. 19:19 (which you quoted) is kol. kol means voice, not thunder. The same word is used in Gen 27:22. The Hebrew word for thunder is barak. The plural of the word (b'rakim] is used in the very chapter of Exodus that we are discussing (Ex. 19:16). So, God *did* answer with a *voice*, not just thunder. If the Author of Exodus meant thunder, He would have used b'rakim, not kol.

So let's look at the rest of the passage:So we have what looks like a mountain with some volcanic type activity or giant fire on it. A big storm, and then Moses get's spoken to through thunder, everyone gets scared and tells him to go up the mountain. He confirms that no one should go where this god is but him. He goes up and then gives all of these rules to everybody and claims god made them up. All that the millions of people saw was thunder and fire on a mountain. The only person who had to lie was Moses. Well, let's take a look:It seems like he is referencing the thunder as a god's voice again. As I understand this whole thing he got the commandments at the top of the mountain. The "voice" that was heard can be translated as thunder!

No, it cannot. Your translation is faulty. kol means voice. barak (or b'rakim[/i], the plural) means thunder! If thunder was meant, the word b'rakim would have been used.

Anything that had actual meaning was given to Moses outside of the view of anyone else. He took advantage of natural phenomenon, attributed it to god, made sure he had some time alone, and then lied about what happened. This version of events could all have happened without millions of people having to knowingly lie. They believed the thunder was the voice of their god, fine. My little brother used to think it was people bowling in the sky.

How about some specific quotes instead of just the passage number? I can't find where it says that this god spoke the commandments directly to the people, it looks like he thundered about and then went through Moses based on what I've read.

Well, let's see, I gave you Exodus 20. There is Duet 4:12-13

And HaShem spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of words, but ye saw no form; only a voice.

And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even the ten words; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone.

The words kol devarim (the sound of words) are clearly used. Unless, of course, you think Moses invented a PA system with quadraphonic sound on the top of Mount Sinai.

And finally, zev, a statement that can be tested for it's validity and one that can't be are very different. To imply they require the same kind of leap of faith is just plain wrong. If someone runs an experiment, describes how it operates and publishes the results, I can follow those directions and see if it works out as predicted. There is nothing in your faith that acurately predicts anything that can be tested. It's your choice, but the two are not the same at all. While it may not be practical to test everything you hear, believing in an unproven god who can't be seen, and accepting the principals of physics after you see them launch a big shuttle (built using those principals) into space, for example, just aren't the same. No matter how much you want them to be. In an attempt to make your belief (which lacks any real evidence) seem just as valid as my acceptance of the principals which do have proof to support them, you do yourself a disservice. We have the internet. We haven't found souls. We have electricity and lights and refrigerators, but we've never heard the voice of a god out of thin air giving us rules. I'm really surprised you consider these things on the same level. It seems kind of silly.

Sure we did. You just weren't in the right place at the right time.

Do you honestly feel there is no difference between me accepting that a cars engine works as they say it does and someone accepting the existence of a supernatural being because someone told them it was true? Mind blowing, if your answer is yes.

No, it's not the same. I accept that a car engine works because I have seen one work. I know that when I turn the key in my ignition, my car will start (I hope!). Leaving metaphysics aside, this is empirical proof. As I stated earlier, I don't have empirical proof that God exists, let alone that everything the Bible says is true. I accept it on faith. I don't ask you to.

What is the difference between these 2 statements? Would you consider them equally valid and likely?

Bigfoot exists.
DNA exists.

The first is an unproven hypothesis. The second is fact. Do I consider them equally valid? Of course not. Does that mean that I am admitting that God doesn't exist? No. It simply means that I admit to you that I have no empirical proof. I cannot observe God the same way I can observe DNA or car engines. But, however, I have a tradition handed down thousands of years, from my ancestors to me, that God exists. I have no such tradition for Bigfoot.

Zev Steinhardt

[RedNaxela]

Originally posted by dalovindj
At the bottom of the page in the linked bible site, there is a very interesting footnote. Apparently this part can also be translated as "and God answered him with thunder".

Interesting... I seem to recall someone who recently said, dismissing an alternate interpretation of a Biblical verse:

Interpretation? Yeah, I suppose if you wanted to you could say that it really means that god is a giant frog, but that damn sure aint what it says.

Back to the issue at hand. You write:

As I understand this whole thing he got the commandments at the top of the mountain.

... but that understanding is contradicted by Exodus 19:25-20:1, where Moses descends from the mountain and then "G-d spoke all of these words...." (The command in 19:24 for Moses to ascend the mountain together with Aaron means that they should come up after the theophany was over - very likely in order to head off claims that it was Moses, not G-d, speaking from the mountaintop.)

As for the passage from Deut. 4: Granted that the reference to "a voice" at the end of verse 12 might refer to the sound of thunder; but how would you explain the phrase "the sound of words"? Your little brother might have imagined thunder to be the sound of bowling, but that's a long way from hearing actual words (let alone the 172 words that make up the Hebrew text of the Ten Commandments). And it's not as though they'd never seen a lightning storm before and would have gone to pieces because of one.

How about some specific quotes instead of just the passage number? I can't find where it says that this god spoke the commandments directly to the people, it looks like he thundered about and then went through Moses based on what I've read.

Well, there are explicit verses such as Ex. 20:1: "And G-d spoke all these words, saying...." Also, try this one on for size (Deut. 5:23-27 in the English versions, 5:20-24 in the Hebrew):

When you heard the voice out of the darkness, with the mountain burning in flames, your tribal leaders and elders approached me.
You said, 'It is true that God our Lord has showed us His glory and greatness, and we have heard His voice out of the fire. Today we have seen that when God speaks to man, he can still survive.
'But now, why should we die? Why should this great fire consume us? If we hear the voice of God our Lord any more, we will die!
'What mortal has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire as we did and has survived?
'You approach God our Lord, and listen to all He says. You can transmit to us whatever God our Lord tells you, and when we hear it, we will do it.'

Again, sure, it might be possible to explain all of the references to the "voice" as nothing more than thunder; but how would this explain why the leaders and elders were so frightened of it, and why they considered it such a novel thing for human beings to survive hearing it? (Besides which, they explicitly refer to "the voice... speaking," which - as above - is hardly likely if it was just thunder.)

And finally, zev, a statement that can be tested for it's validity and one that can't be are very different... There is nothing in your faith that acurately predicts anything that can be tested.

I can't speak for zev, but I think he'd grant this point - which is why he said:

Well, yes, in the end, it does come down to faith. I never denied that. I never told you that I had empirical proof that God existed, I simply told you that to my reasoning (and yes, I have given the matter thought, I did not simply follow like a sheep), it is more likely that God exists and that the Torah is true.

In other words, no one is claiming that the basis of our faith is scientifically provable; but neither is it contrary to logic.

[dalovindj]

zev, before we continue, will you please address the footnote numbered 3 on this page. Why do they seem to feel that the phrase "and the voice of God answered him." can also be translated as "and God answered him with thunder ".

Thanks. I never learned any languages other than English (not for lack of trying - I failed Latin, French, & Spanish and alot of other things that weren't drama classes). Your knowledge, (seemingly gained through a good deal of study) is appreciated and respected. I think your conclusions are faulty, but I appreciate the time you have put in and can see that I have a bit to learn in this department. I am greatful any time someone can teach me something I did not know, but did become curious about.

DaLovin' Dj

[RedNaxela]

Hmmm... must remember to preview next time and see if I'm repeating what someone else said - especially when that "someone else" is the person who was being addressed...

A slight correction, zev: barak is actually the Hebrew word for lightning. The specific Hebrew word for thunder is ra'am, as in Isaiah 29:6. As for kol, it is used interchangeably for any kind of sound, including a voice (as in the verse from Genesis you cited), the blast of a horn (as in the first half of Exod. 19:19), or thunder (ibid. 9:22). Nevertheless, given the reference to "the sound of words" in Deut. 4:12, the meaning of kol at the end of Exod. 19:19 is clearly "voice."

[dalovindj]

Interesting... I seem to recall someone who recently said, dismissing an alternate interpretation of a Biblical verse:

RedNaxela, there is a difference between translation and interpretation. Look it up.

I'll address your other arguments pending what I expect will be a swift clear up of the translation issue.

DaLovin' Dj

[dalovindj]

Or maybe not so swift. Preview for responses is a good idea. So some debate on the translations of the words here. Seems like a fairly important piece of this issue.

DaLovin' Dj

[zev_steinhardt]

Yeah, I goofed. Thanks for catching that RedNaxela.


However, as RedNaxela pointed out, from the context and from the quote in Duet 4:12, it's still clearly words.

Zev Steinhardt