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.
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.
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:
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! 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?
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.
**
No, it cannot. Your translation is faulty. kol means voice. barak (or b’rakim, the plural) means thunder! If thunder was meant, the word b’rakim would have been used.
**
Well, let’s see, I gave you Exodus 20. There is Duet 4:12-13
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.
**
Sure we did. You just weren’t in the right place at the right time.
**
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.
**
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.
Interesting… I seem to recall someone who recently said, dismissing an alternate interpretation of a Biblical verse:
Back to the issue at hand. You write:
… 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.
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):
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.)
I can’t speak for zev, but I think he’d grant this point - which is why he said:
In other words, no one is claiming that the basis of our faith is scientifically provable; but neither is it contrary to logic.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
