Bible verse by verse

[Guest]

Ah, so I'm supposed to ignore 2 thousand years of a "legitimate" Papacy because a "philandering self-appointed Prophet" said to? Are you serious or don't you see the error of your logic?

The truth will set you free Betty!

So what you're saying is that you don't care what the Bible actually says, you just care what your tradition says. I believe I called that.

No, not at all. You are implying that! The legitimate translators of the Greek, with regard to various versions of the Bible honestly believe that there are deeper implied meanings than what you accept superficially. The Bible is a living book. It is not one dimensional. It has depth of meaning supported by absolute facts and lies exposed as lies. Obviously, there were Reformation theologians who believed that the Universal CHURCH was founded on Christ and not Apostolic succession. Tradition is not to be confused with biblical inspiration.

[_maklelan]

No, not at all.

But you just told me all that papacy is more important to you than what the Greek actually means.

You are saying that! The legitimate translators of the Greek, with regard to various versions of the Bible honestly believe that there are deeper implied meanings than what you accept superficially.

The "legitimate translators"? And what, pray tell, makes me and several centuries of lexicographers and grammarians illegitimate?

The Bible is a living book. It is not one dimensional. It has depth of meaning supported by absolute facts and lies exposed as lies.

If the Soul Journaler's exegesis is an absolute fact, then present to me an academic publication that explains that that Greek word means "very nature." Keep in mind that Bible translations are not academic publications.

[_LittleNipper]

[quote="maklelan"]

But you just told me all that papacy is more important to you than what the Greek actually means.
quote]

The Papacy has nothing to do with the Bible. It is the tradition of man just as is the "Prophet" in Mormonism. What I was pointing out to you was that your own bias is showing. And the clearer understanding is that Greek, and Chinese, are far deeper then you are willing to accept.

[_maklelan]

The Papacy has nothing to do with the Bible. It is the tradition of man just as is the "Prophet" in Mormonism. What I was pointing out to you was that your own bias is showing.

You did a terrible job. I still don't know what bias you're talking about. To me it appears as if you're challenging scholarship with tradition.

And the clearer understanding is that Greek, and Chinese, are far deeper then you are willing to accept.

Because the Soul Journaler said so? I'm well aware of just how broad and complex the interpretations of these verses can be, but just being complex doesn't make them right. I can defend my reading. You cannot. You can only assert that you're right because you (and the Soul Journaler) say so.

[_LittleNipper]

The Papacy has nothing to do with the Bible. It is the tradition of man just as is the "Prophet" in Mormonism. What I was pointing out to you was that your own bias is showing.

You did a terrible job. I still don't know what bias you're talking about. To me it appears as if you're challenging scholarship with tradition.

Mormonism was not founded on accepted standards of the "majority." Why should the understanding of Greek be under the thumb of "traditionalist" trying to cling to their own agenda and not truth. There are most certainly not a few Greek scholars who would agree fully with Soul Journaler.

[_Roger]

The text says he ends up doing it, but people have invented ways to get around that,

Yeah, the whole Jephthah thing is the most troubling set of verses I've encountered in the Bible. I don't see any way around it. The Bible doesn't seem to be condemning his action which is what I would expect. It reads like folklore, with the daughter bravely facing her impending death because of her dad's idiotic vow. Do you think such a thing could have actually happened?

I wish I could.

Well that raises an interesting question, mak. As I think about this, and going on the assumption that you are LDS - if you're not please let me know - I would think at some point this stuff ought to bother you about as much as it does me. No?

The only problem is that this segment of Exodus is from a different author and time period than the segment containing Exod 34:20.

Well.... maybe. I don't see how you can know that for sure since we don't have an original. Even so, if God is inspiring scripture then God inspiring multiple authors doesn't seem problematic.

Ezekiel 20 shows Ezekiel didn't have the context provided by Exod 34:20, and he has God insist he made them sacrifice their own children for his own purposes.

Rather than sacrificing their children "for his own purposes," the Ezekiel passage seems to be implying that God got so disgusted with the Isrealites and their longing to be like the surrounding nations that he "let them defile themselves with gifts to idols. I made them surrender their eldest sons to them so that I might fill them with horror. Thus they would know that I am the LORD." (26)

Nevertheless, it is troubling.

Ezekiel was writing during the exile, and as far as he's concerned, there's no Exod 34:20 to fix the problem of Exos 22:29. For him, that commandment was something YHWH intentionally did to bring Israel's iniquity full circle. Exod 34:20 could have circulated as part of a separate tradition not accepted by Ezekiel, or it may not have been authored by then.

Well this makes sense from a scholarly point of view, but from a theological one, it's a problem if Ezekiel is putting words in God's mouth without really understanding God's motives. So from a theological point of view, based on Ezekiel, we would have to say that it appears God commanded the Isrealites to sacrifice their first born sons out of disgust at their desire to be like their neighbors. This doesn't seem to be the tone of Exodus 22, however.

Yeah, and that text was written during the exile as well.

Again, I don't see that as a problem if the same God is inspiring both authors.

So, out of curiosity, what's your take on all this, again, assuming you're coming at it from an LDS perspective? If the Bible has God commanding child sacrifice, that's got to bother you... no?

All the best.

[_maklelan]

Mormonism was not founded on accepted standards of the "majority."

Completely irrelevant.

Why should the understanding of Greek be under the thumb of "traditionalist" trying to cling to their own agenda and not truth.

First, I'm not referring to any "traditionalists," I'm referring to the overwhelming consensus of all Greek lexicographers from centuries ago down to today. This isn't a difficult lexeme, and there's no real controversy. Fundamentalists just have to make this stuff up to support their trinitarian eisegesis.

There are most certainly not a few Greek scholars who would agree fully with Soul Journaler.

Name one academic publication that supports him.

I've already asked you multiple times to do this. I know you're not suddenly going to be able to, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

[_maklelan]

Yeah, the whole Jephthah thing is the most troubling set of verses I've encountered in the Bible. I don't see any way around it. The Bible doesn't seem to be condemning his action which is what I would expect. It reads like folklore, with the daughter bravely facing her impending death because of her dad's idiotic vow. Do you think such a thing could have actually happened?

I think it's certainly possible, but not likely. The notion of a vow to sacrifice the first thing that comes through the door of you home to greet you when you get home? And you're shocked when it's a family member? That's just silly. That ancient Israelites practiced child sacrifice is pretty well established, though.

Well that raises an interesting question, mak. As I think about this, and going on the assumption that you are LDS - if you're not please let me know - I would think at some point this stuff ought to bother you about as much as it does me. No?

It's creepy, but it doesn't bother me on a devotional level. It was a completely different world back then. I can't fathom having survived in such a world on dozens of different levels.

Well.... maybe. I don't see how you can know that for sure since we don't have an original. Even so, if God is inspiring scripture then God inspiring multiple authors doesn't seem problematic.

No, it doesn't have to be problematic, and that belief is a choice each person has to make.

Rather than sacrificing their children "for his own purposes," the Ezekiel passage seems to be implying that God got so disgusted with the Isrealites and their longing to be like the surrounding nations that he "let them defile themselves with gifts to idols. I made them surrender their eldest sons to them so that I might fill them with horror. Thus they would know that I am the LORD." (26)

Nevertheless, it is troubling.

Is that the NIV? That's not the best translation of this verse.

Well this makes sense from a scholarly point of view, but from a theological one, it's a problem if Ezekiel is putting words in God's mouth without really understanding God's motives. So from a theological point of view, based on Ezekiel, we would have to say that it appears God commanded the Isrealites to sacrifice their first born sons out of disgust at their desire to be like their neighbors. This doesn't seem to be the tone of Exodus 22, however.

No, it's definitely Ezekiel's own spin on the practice. Exod 22 is pretty nonchalant. That's just the way it is in the eyes of that author.

Again, I don't see that as a problem if the same God is inspiring both authors.

So, out of curiosity, what's your take on all this, again, assuming you're coming at it from an LDS perspective? If the Bible has God commanding child sacrifice, that's got to bother you... no?

Not really. I don't view the Bible as inerrant or unilaterally God's word. I believe there's as much human influence as divine.

All the best.

Igual!

[_LittleNipper]

2 Kings 5:1-27 The king of Syria admired Naaman, the commander-in-chief of his army, for he had military many victories. He was a great hero, but he was also leper. Bands of Syrians had invaded the land of Israel, and among their captives was a little girl who had been given to Naaman’s wife as a maid. One day the little girl said to her mistress, “I wish my master would go to see the prophet in Samaria. He would heal him of his leprosy!”

Naaman told the king what the little girl had said. The king told him to go and see the prophet, and he would send a letter of introduction for the king of Israel. Naaman started out, taking gifts of $20,000 in silver, $60,000 in gold, and ten suits of clothing. The letter to the king of Israel said: “The man bringing this letter is my servant Naaman; I wish you to heal him of his leprosy.”

When the king of Israel read it, he tore his clothes and said, “This man sends me a leper to heal! Am I God, that I can kill and give life? He is only trying to get an excuse to invade us again.” But when Elisha the prophet heard about the king of Israel’s plight, he sent this message to him: “Why are you so upset? Send Naaman to me, and he will learn that there is a true prophet of God here in Israel.”

So Naaman arrived with his horses and chariots and stood outside of Elisha’s home. Elisha sent a messenger out to tell him to go and wash in the Jordan River seven times and he would be healed of every trace of his leprosy! Naaman was angry and stalked away.

“Look,” he said, “I thought at least he would come out and talk to me! I expected him to wave his hand over the leprosy and call upon the name of the Lord his God and heal me! Aren’t the Abana River and Pharpar River of Damascus better than all the rivers of Israel put together? If it’s rivers I need, I’ll wash at home and get rid of my leprosy.” So he went away in a rage.

His officers tried to reason with him and said, “If the prophet had told you to do some great thing, wouldn’t you have done it? So you should certainly obey him when he says simply to go and wash and be cured!” Naaman went down to the Jordan River and dipped himself seven times, as the prophet had told him to. And his flesh became as healthy as a little child’s, and he was healed! Then he and his entire party went back to find the prophet; they stood humbly before him and Naaman said, “I know at last that there is no God in all the world except in Israel; now please accept my gifts.”

Elisha replied, “I swear by Jehovah my God that I will not accept them.” Naaman urged him to take them, but he absolutely refused. “Well,” Naaman said, “all right. But please give me two muleloads of earth to take back with me, for from now on I will never again offer any burnt offerings or sacrifices to any other god except the Lord. However, may the Lord pardon me this one thing—when my master the king goes into the temple of the god Rimmon to worship there and leans on my arm, may the Lord pardon me when I bow too.”

“All right,” Elisha said. So Naaman started home again.

Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, said to himself, “My master shouldn’t have let this fellow get away without taking his gifts. I will chase after him and get something from him.” Gehazi caught up with him. When Naaman saw him coming, he jumped down from his chariot and ran to meet him.

“Is everything all right?” he asked.

“Yes,” he said, “but my master has sent me to tell you that two young prophets from the hills of Ephraim have just arrived, and he would like $2,000 in silver and two suits to give to them.”
“Take $4,000,” Naaman insisted. He gave him two expensive robes, tied up the money in two bags, and gave them to two of his servants to carry back with Gehazi. But when they arrived at the hill where Elisha lived, Gehazi took the bags from the servants and sent the men back. Then he hid the money in his house.

When he went in to his master, Elisha asked him, “Where have you been, Gehazi?” “I haven’t been anywhere,” he replied.

Elisha asked him, “Don’t you realize that I was there in thought when Naaman stepped down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to receive money and clothing and olive farms and vineyards and sheep and oxen and servants? Because you have done this, Naaman’s leprosy shall be upon you and upon your children and your children’s children forever.” And Gehazi walked from the room a leper, his skin as white as snow.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


1 And Naaman, head of the host of the king of Aram, was a great man before his lord, and accepted of face, for by him had Jehovah given salvation to Aram, and the man was mighty in valour -- leprous.

2 And the Aramaeans have gone out [by] troops, and they take captive out of the land of Israel a little damsel, and she is before the wife of Naaman,

3 and she saith unto her mistress, `O that my lord [were] before the prophet who [is] in Samaria; then he doth recover him from his leprosy.'

4 And [one] goeth in and declareth to his lord, saying, `Thus and thus she hath spoken, the damsel who [is] from the land of Israel.'

5 And the king of Aram saith, `Go thou, enter, and I send a letter unto the king of Israel;' and he goeth and taketh in his hand ten talents of silver, and six thousand [pieces] of gold, and ten changes of garments.

6 And he bringeth in the letter unto the king of Israel, saying, `And now, at the coming in of this letter unto thee, lo, I have sent unto thee Naaman my servant, and thou hast recovered him from his leprosy.'

7 And it cometh to pass, at the king of Israel's reading the letter, that he rendeth his garments, and saith, `Am I God, to put to death and to keep alive, that this [one] is sending unto me to recover a man from his leprosy? for surely know, I pray you, and see, for he is presenting himself to me.'

8 And it cometh to pass, at Elisha the man of God's hearing that the king of Israel hath rent his garments, that he sendeth unto the king, saying, `Why hast thou rent thy garments? let him come, I pray thee, unto me, and he doth know that there is a prophet in Israel.'

9 And Naaman cometh, with his horses and with his chariot, and standeth at the opening of the house for Elisha;

10 and Elisha sendeth unto him a messenger, saying, `Go, and thou hast washed seven times in Jordan, and thy flesh doth turn back to thee -- and be thou clean.

11 And Naaman is wroth, and goeth on, and saith, `Lo, I said, Unto me he doth certainly come out, and hath stood and called in the name of Jehovah his God, and waved his hand over the place, and recovered the leper.

12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? do I not wash in them and I have been clean?' and he turneth and goeth on in fury.

13 And his servants come nigh, and speak unto him, and say, `My father, a great thing had the prophet spoken unto thee -- dost thou not do [it]? and surely, when he hath said unto thee, Wash, and be clean.'

14 And he goeth down and dippeth in Jordan seven times, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh doth turn back as the flesh of a little youth, and is clean.

15 And he turneth back unto the man of God, he and all his camp, and cometh in, and standeth before him, and saith, `Lo, I pray thee, I have known that there is not a God in all the earth except in Israel; and now, take, I pray thee, a blessing from thy servant.'

16 And he saith, `Jehovah liveth, before whom I have stood -- if I take [it];' and he presseth on him to take, and he refuseth.

17 And Naaman saith, `If not -- let be given, I pray thee, to thy servant, a couple of mules' burden of earth, for thy servant doth make no more burnt-offering and sacrifice to other gods, but to Jehovah.

18 For this thing Jehovah be propitious to thy servant, in the coming in of my lord into the house of Rimmon to bow himself there, and he was supported by my hand, and I bowed myself [in] the house of Rimmon; for my bowing myself in the house of Rimmon Jehovah be propitious, I pray thee, to thy servant in this thing.'

19 And he saith to him, `Go in peace.' And he goeth from him a kibrath of land,

20 And Gehazi, servant of Elisha the man of God, saith, `Lo, my lord hath spared Naaman this Aramaean, not to receive from his hand that which he brought; Jehovah liveth; surely if I have run after him, then I have taken from him something.'

21 And Gehazi pursueth after Naaman, and Naaman seeth one running after him, and alighteth from off the chariot to meet him, and saith, `Is there peace?'

22 And he saith, `Peace; my lord hath sent me, saying, Lo, now, this, come unto me have two young men from the hill-country of Ephraim, of the sons of the prophets; give, I pray thee, to them, a talent of silver, and two changes of garments.'

23 And Naaman saith, `Be pleased, take two talents;' and he urgeth on him, and bindeth two talents of silver in two purses, and two changes of garments, and giveth unto two of his young men, and they bear before him;

24 and he cometh in unto the high place, and taketh out of their hand, and layeth up in the house, and sendeth away the men, and they go.

25 And he hath come in, and doth stand by his lord, and Elisha saith unto him, `Whence -- Gehazi?' and he saith, `Thy servant went not hither or thither.'

26 And he saith unto him, `My heart went not when the man turned from off his chariot to meet thee; is it a time to take silver, and to take garments, and olives, and vines, and flock, and herd, and men-servants, and maid-servants?

27 yea, the leprosy of Naaman doth cleave to thee, and to thy seed, -- to the age;' and he goeth out from before him -- leprous as snow.

[_maklelan]

15 And he turneth back unto the man of God, he and all his camp, and cometh in, and standeth before him, and saith, `Lo, I pray thee, I have known that there is not a God in all the earth except in Israel; and now, take, I pray thee, a blessing from thy servant.'

16 And he saith, `Jehovah liveth, before whom I have stood -- if I take [it];' and he presseth on him to take, and he refuseth.

17 And Naaman saith, `If not -- let be given, I pray thee, to thy servant, a couple of mules' burden of earth, for thy servant doth make no more burnt-offering and sacrifice to other gods, but to Jehovah.

These verses illustrate a fascinating fact about early Israelite worship of YHWH. Prior to the exile, YHWH was only considered the God of Israel. Other gods ruled over the other nations. YHWH's jurisdiction was Israel alone. We already saw how YHWH was defeated by the deity ruling over Moabite when he went beyond his purview. Deut 32:8-9 (see 4QDeut-j) reflects the tradition that the high god allotted the nations to his sons, with Israel going to YHWH (one of the sons of El at this time). It wasn't until Psalm 82 that the gods of the nations were deposed and YHWH took over their purviews (Ps 82:8 - "Rise up, O God, and judge the earth, for you shall inherit all nations"). When Saul chased David out of Israel, David responded that being forced beyond the borders constituted being forced to worship other gods (1 Sam 26:19--note, the "inheritance of the Lord" is Israel alone, per Deut 32:8-9). Ps 137:4 asks, "How can we sing the songs of YHWH in a strange land?"

Here, Naaman reflects the same understanding by insisting (1) that there is no god in all the earth except in Israel (note, the rhetoric is not that Israel's god is the only god, but only that there is no god anywhere else--just within the borders of Israel), and (2) that he will worship only YHWH, but will need to take Israelite soil with him to do so. In other words, he's going to transplant a part of Israel to his own nation so he can legitimately offer worship to the deity who rules over Israelite soil.