Abraham wasn’t arguing with God out of curiosity. He was arguing with God because he wanted God to spare the cities.
As for why he stopped at ten, the Jewish commentators speak about that. They note that eight people (Noah, his three sons and their wives) were not enough to prevent the Flood. Likewise, they would not be able to prevent the destruction of Sodom, etc.
As for his bargaining tactic, I don’t think Abraham really knew how many righteous people there were in the city. But by getting the number as low as possible, he maximized the chances of the cities being saved.
Lot’s entire family only amounted to eight. (Lot, his wife, four daughters and two sons-in-law.)
About the incident with Lot: in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible (JST) or Inspired Version, we find that Lot didn’t offer his daughters to the men of Sodom, but did the exact opposite, pleading that they NOT be raped. Here’s the relevant text from the JST, with changed text in italics:
As for the Lord “harden[ing] Pharaoh’s heart,” the JST offers the explanation that this is in error as well; every time the KJV says, “And the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart,” the JST replaces it with “And Pharaoh hardened his heart.”
In many ancient cultures (and certain modern ones), one you invited someone into your house, he was under your protection. This obligation was absolute and not subject to negotiation, even at the expense of your own life or that of your family. According to the morality of his time, Lot was acting honorably.
You shouldn’t try to take the Bible out of context - it only makes you look foolish.
That’s fine and well, Snark Hunter, but that runs exactly counter to the original Hebrew. In the original Hebrew it is very clear that he was offering his daughters. Likewise, in the original Hebrew, there are times when it is clear that God hardened Pharroh’s heart (there are other times when he did it himself). What, exactly, is the Joseph Smith translation translating from?
The “Joseph Smith Translation” of the Bible, according to my Bible dictionary, is a “revision or translation” begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He continued to make modifications until 1844, when he was killed by an angry mob. “The book of Moses and the 24th chapter of Matthew (JS-M), contained in the Pearl of Great Price [a book of LDS scripture], are actual excerpts from the JST.” Although the JST is not the official LDS Bible, it’s in the footnotes and is very helpful in understanding the KJV properly.
As I understand it, he translated it by inspiration, not by translating from the original Hebrew (but I could be wrong about this).
Everything looks fine to me. There’s no focused debate, so we can just leave it here unless, or until, something like that develops. I just want everybody keep their tempers in check, so I don’t have to send it to the Pit.
zev_steinhardt, referring to the JST quote I posted, wrote:
Zev, do you have the actual original manuscript as written by the author of Genesis and Exodus? Does anyone? If not, I suggest that it is at least possible that errors could have crept into the written account. If you don’t have the original manuscript, you cannot say with 100% surety that the JST “runs exactly counter to the original Hebrew.”
Granted that there is always a possibility that the script has changed over time (I’ll even ignore the Jewish tradition that it hasn’t for the moment). In any event, the Hebrew version that we have today has it that way. In addition, every translation that is avaialble out there today comes from the Hebrew version we have today. So, for all practical purposes, the Hebrew version we have today is the original. I highly doubt that Joseph Smith could have come across a different “original” Hebrew version which was different from which he could have made his translation.
Yeah, probably not, but if he was a true prophet, he wouldn’t have needed a manuscript, as he would be inspired to make the alterations as God wanted him to do. It all depends on whether he was a true prophet or not, IMHO. My answer to that question is, yes, he was a true prophet. Your answer may vary, but you have to admit that it’s at least possible that the original manuscript was different from the ones we have available to us today.
Of course, no one can prove that Smith was a prophet at all.
Unless they find a manuscript that says he was (of course, this would be written by someone who believes it to be so, so…)
OK, Snark Hunter, but if you hold it up as an article of faith that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, then I’ll hold it up as an article of faith (and it is a Jewish article of faith) that the Torah that exists today is the same one given to us by God on Mt. Sianai.
In any event, considering the fact that the JST is the only bible with that translation, I’d tend to believe all the others.
BTW, Snark Hunger (or pepperlandgirl if you’re out there) is the JST the “official” bible of the LDS?
I can hear the first century Pharisees saying the same thing about Jesus: “Of course, no one can prove that Jesus was the Son of God at all. Unless they find a manuscript that says he was…” etc.
Zev, no, the JST is not the official Bible of the CoJCoLDS. That distinction goes to the King James Version. And I don’t mind if you believe differently than I do concerning religion. Like I said, I didn’t want to turn this into a debate anyway. I was just mentioning that there were alternate explanations for Lot and Pharaoh acting the way they did. That’s all.
I have a question.
After the flood, there were 8 people left alive.
I read somewhere that this is what you would need to start the human race again. (IIRC, Marilyn of Ask MArilyn is the one who said this).
True?
Would 6 not be enough?
