Quoting the Quoran on recognizing Israel is the homeland of the Jews

Beach Runner

unread,

Feb 16, 2016, 1:29:03 PM2/16/16

to

Quote of the Week:

"And (mention, O Muhammad), when Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds. O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back (from fighting in Allah's cause) and (thus) become losers. They said, "O Moses, indeed within it is a people of tyrannical strength, and indeed, we will never enter it until they leave it; but if they leave it, then we will enter." - Quran, 5:20-22 - Jews did enter the Holy Land. Therefore, according to the Quran, Muslims must recognise the unique Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel! Jews have always been living in Eretz-Israel, in spite of Roman, Christian and Muslim persecution. That means that presence of Muslims on Jewish land is disrespectful to Quran and Allah. If they are true Muslims, they must respect writings of their holy book and leave Eretz-Israel - the land G-d had given to the Jews

topazgalaxy

unread,

Feb 16, 2016, 10:46:38 PM2/16/16

to

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-5, Beach Runner wrote:
> Quote of the Week:
>
> "And (mention, O Muhammad), when Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds. O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back (from fighting in Allah's cause) and (thus) become losers. They said, "O Moses, indeed within it is a people of tyrannical strength, and indeed, we will never enter it until they leave it; but if they leave it, then we will enter." - Quran, 5:20-22 - Jews did enter the Holy Land. Therefore, according to the Quran, Muslims must recognise the unique Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel! Jews have always been living in Eretz-Israel, in spite of Roman, Christian and Muslim persecution. That means that presence of Muslims on Jewish land is disrespectful to Quran and Allah. If they are true Muslims, they must respect writings of their holy book and leave Eretz-Israel - the land G-d had given to the Jews

I believe I have heard this claim before, that this is "proof" that the Koran defends the Jewish claim over Israel. However this is from the 5th chapter of the Koran which I believe is called The Table or The Table Spread and IMO you should read lines Surah 5 lines 23-26 so that your lines are not out of context.

http://www.wright-house.com/religions/islam/Quran/5-table.php

To my knowledge, Muslims consider Moses to be Muslim. And to them, so was Abraham, Ishmael, Noah etc etc. and Jesus too. Basically those who obeyed God were Muslims and the Jews much of the time are viewed as rebellious disobedient people.

Mohammad borrowed from much of the Tanahk in his 'revelations' probably to
try to convert Jewish people to his new faith and convince them he was the final prophet.

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 17, 2016, 3:56:01 AM2/17/16

to

Beach Runner <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote on 16 Feb 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> Jews have always been living in Eretz-Israel

Jews?

Even the Israelites were not always there,
according to the Torah they replaced earlier people.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

topazgalaxy

unread,

Feb 17, 2016, 9:20:02 AM2/17/16

to

On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-5, Beach Runner wrote:

> Quote of the Week:
>
> "And (mention, O Muhammad), when Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds. O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back (from fighting in Allah's cause) and (thus) become losers. They said, "O Moses, indeed within it is a people of tyrannical strength, and indeed, we will never enter it until they leave it; but if they leave it, then we will enter." - Quran, 5:20-22 - Jews did enter the Holy Land. Therefore, according to the Quran, Muslims must recognise the unique Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel! Jews have always been living in Eretz-Israel, in spite of Roman, Christian and Muslim persecution. That means that presence of Muslims on Jewish land is disrespectful to Quran and Allah. If they are true Muslims, they must respect writings of their holy book and leave Eretz-Israel - the land G-d had given to the Jews

and how about chapter 5 line 51? (I linked it earlier)

"51. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 17, 2016, 4:28:34 PM2/17/16

to

On 2016-02-17, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> Beach Runner <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote on 16 Feb 2016 in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

>> Jews have always been living in Eretz-Israel

> Jews?

> Even the Israelites were not always there,
> according to the Torah they replaced earlier people.

Most modern scholars disagree with that. The best version of what
happened is that a small (5-6 thousand) army under the leadership of
the Egyptian prince Moses got to the Judean hills and "converted" those
who had left the decadent cities, and organized them so they could,
under Joshua, start to retake the cities. As is indicated by the
Book of Judges, other invasions interfered with the process.

Some of the evidence comes from the recently found clay tablets
in Ugaritic. This was the language of part of what is now Syria,
with the capital Ugarit on the Mediterranean. Ugaritic is very
similar to Hebrew, and in fact many of the Psalsms are essentially
Ugaritic or a monotheisation of the Ugaritic version.

The northern part of Asia Minor was hit by a an extensive cold spell
in the late 13th century BCE, with the Hittite Empire collapsing for
lack of food, and Ugarit destroyed around 1200 BCE.

So the Israelites really were the earliest inhabitants of which we knor;
the Philistines were invaders.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 17, 2016, 8:49:22 PM2/17/16

to

Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote on 17 Feb 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

>> Even the Israelites were not always there,
>> according to the Torah they replaced earlier people.
>
> Most modern scholars disagree with that.

No true, Herman, I said "according to the Torah", and that is considered a
fact, imho, even by "most modern scholars".

> Most modern scholars disagree with that.

Whether the Torah is correct is a matter severe doubt, because if modern
scholars wouldn't doubt that you [and me] probably wouldn't call them
"modern" in the first place.

mm

unread,

Feb 17, 2016, 10:25:52 PM2/17/16

to

On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 01:56:15 +0000 (UTC), "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote on 17 Feb 2016 in
>soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>>> Even the Israelites were not always there,
>>> according to the Torah they replaced earlier people.
>>
>> Most modern scholars disagree with that.
>
>No true, Herman, I said "according to the Torah",

That doesn't make Herman wrong. What do you think he was saying
"most modern scholars disagree"d with? With what the Torah says.

>and that is considered a
>fact, imho, even by "most modern scholars".

Of course the problem is, Herman's only counting secular or very
liberal scholars as scholars, no matter when they lived.

>
>> Most modern scholars disagree with that.
>
>Whether the Torah is correct is a matter severe doubt, because if modern
>scholars wouldn't doubt that you [and me] probably wouldn't call them
>"modern" in the first place.

You two wouldn't even call them scholars.

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 18, 2016, 9:14:56 AM2/18/16

to

mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote on 18 Feb 2016 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

>>Whether the Torah is correct is a matter severe doubt, because if modern
>>scholars wouldn't doubt that you [and me] probably wouldn't call them
>>"modern" in the first place.
>
> You two wouldn't even call them scholars.

Discussion by using scholars as authorities is not the right way to discuss
imho anyway, one should discuss by logical and evidence founded arguments.

That being said, ancient scholars lacked much evidence we now have,
and would more reasonably have used the Torah as "authoritive" evidence.

Beach Runner

unread,

Feb 18, 2016, 2:25:18 PM2/18/16

to

The Koran isn't a factual scientific document, so because it has mistakes
isn't a surprise.

I agree, just because past scholars said something does not make it true.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 18, 2016, 3:56:22 PM2/18/16

to

On 2016-02-18, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote on 17 Feb 2016 in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

>>> Even the Israelites were not always there,
>>> according to the Torah they replaced earlier people.

>> Most modern scholars disagree with that.

> No true, Herman, I said "according to the Torah", and that is considered a
> fact, imho, even by "most modern scholars".

>> Most modern scholars disagree with that.

> Whether the Torah is correct is a matter severe doubt, because if modern
> scholars wouldn't doubt that you [and me] probably wouldn't call them
> "modern" in the first place.

Most non-Orthodox scholars believe in some form of the
"Documentary Hypothesis". This means that there were four
(IMO, more) streams of mixtures of legends and other mainly
oral "records", and these were combined and edited by a
redactor, probably Ezra. The evidence, especiallyy the
Qumran Scrolls, indicate that even this was not accurately
copied, with scribes putting in what they think they heard
rather than what they were copying. Also, one of these was
the Book of Deuteronomy, which was originally the compilation
by Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch of what was in before, with
the earliest parts omitted.

Ancient material which has come down to us as they were inscribed
or created are inscriptions on stone or metal or papyryes (not muct
outside Egypt) or clay tablets, mostly accidentally fired (Babylonia,
Assyria, Ebla, Ugarit). The Qumran scrolls are an oddity. Parchment
was invented in the third centrry BCE, and much of Greek writings on
this are available, mostly as copies.

It was probably only after the Mishnah was written that the written
word was considered to be more correct than what was remembered.

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 19, 2016, 12:59:17 AM2/19/16

to

Beach Runner <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote on 18 Feb 2016 in

soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:14:56 AM UTC-8, Evertjan. wrote:
>> mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote on 18 Feb 2016 in
>> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>
>> >>Whether the Torah is correct is a matter severe doubt, because if
>> >>modern scholars wouldn't doubt that you [and me] probably wouldn't
>> >>call them "modern" in the first place.
>> >
>> > You two wouldn't even call them scholars.
>>
>> Discussion by using scholars as authorities is not the right way to
>> discuss imho anyway, one should discuss by logical and evidence founded
>> arguments.
>>
>> That being said, ancient scholars lacked much evidence we now have,
>> and would more reasonably have used the Torah as "authoritive"
>> evidence.
>

> The Koran isn't a factual scientific document, so because it has
> mistakes isn't a surprise.

Well, I was discussing the Torah, but whatever,
any document can be researched scientifically.

How would one define a document being "factual scientific",
without researching it, or even at all?

I can scientifically research the game of chess,
even when thinking the, or some, rules of chess are just bullshit.

> I agree, just because past scholars said something does not make it
> true.

Past or present, Scholar or not. In a discussion,
using authority or dogma als an argument is not acceptable.

Not acceptable by me and hopefully by any seriousdiscussion partner.

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,

Feb 20, 2016, 11:52:29 PM2/20/16

to

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 5:59:17 AM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
> Beach Runner <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote on 18 Feb 2016 in
>

> > The Koran isn't a factual scientific document, so because it has
> > mistakes isn't a surprise.
>
> Well, I was discussing the Torah, but whatever,
> any document can be researched scientifically.
>
> How would one define a document being "factual scientific",
> without researching it, or even at all?
>

Atlas Shrugged features an invention which sucks static electricity
out of the air to make motors go forever. Any advanced high school
student can tell you that that violates the third law of
thermodynamics, by converting high entropy into low entropy
electricity. But whilst I criticised Atlas Shrugged as a rather
silly book a few days ago, that's not one of the criticism I made.
It's not a legitimate criticism.

On the other hand, if you can find an inaccuracy in Rendezvous with
Rama, that is legitimate criticism (I was going to give an example
but I can't think of any, other then the breathable atmosphere,
which the Ramans might have created to accommodate their human
visitors for all we know).

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 21, 2016, 10:17:40 AM2/21/16

to

malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 21 Feb 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

>> Well, I was discussing the Torah, but whatever,
>> any document can be researched scientifically.
>>
>> How would one define a document being "factual scientific",
>> without researching it, or even at all?
>>
> Atlas Shrugged features an invention which sucks static electricity
> out of the air to make motors go forever. Any advanced high school
> student can tell you that that violates the third law of
> thermodynamics, by converting high entropy into low entropy
> electricity. But whilst I criticised Atlas Shrugged as a rather
> silly book a few days ago, that's not one of the criticism I made.
> It's not a legitimate criticism.
>
> On the other hand, if you can find an inaccuracy in Rendezvous with
> Rama, that is legitimate criticism (I was going to give an example
> but I can't think of any, other then the breathable atmosphere,
> which the Ramans might have created to accommodate their human
> visitors for all we know).
>

The Torah has been a scientific document in its time, when science and faith
were not differentiated upon. Only when faith and scientific method, read
"doubt", came up, say with Socrates and Aristoteles, the two paths diverged.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 21, 2016, 7:43:24 PM2/21/16

to

On 2016-02-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 21 Feb 2016 in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

>>> Well, I was discussing the Torah, but whatever,
>>> any document can be researched scientifically.

......................

> The Torah has been a scientific document in its time, when science and faith
> were not differentiated upon. Only when faith and scientific method, read
> "doubt", came up, say with Socrates and Aristoteles, the two paths diverged.

The Torah was NEVER a scientiBic document, even when claimed to be.
Part of Genesis 1 matches the Big Bang view of Creation, IF the usual
meaning of some of the words, especially eretz, are changed. But the
errors in the biology are too great to even attempt a reconciliation.
After Genesis 1 it gets worse.

I suggest you read _Who Wrote the Bible?_ by Freedman. I find him even
too simplistic, which should give you pause. Also, Emanuel Tov, in his
_Literary Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ points out the uncertainties
due to poor transmission, including scribes "correcting" what they read
to what they remembered.

Even people inspired by God will write according to what they know.
It has been observed that people who believe in certain gods will
dream of communications from them; this has been obeserved in many
populations. But suitably verified science, and what we can tell of
history from ancient inscriptions, do not match with any version of
the Bible.

Before the development of science, people believed that very much
was due to the moods of their gods; the Jews were no exception. So
they ascribed much to their gods, just as the Jews asscribed the
victory of the Jews against the Seleucids as due to God, which in
my opinion from reading the known facts does not clidk. The Jews
were considered good fighters, and the Ptolemaic Greeks accepted
the help of the Alexandrian Jews to quell a revolt. The Romans,
who ruled the Mediterranean at that time, told Antiochus to get
out ot Egypt, which he had conquered, and he did, but he kept Israel.
Neither Rome nor Egypt really cared who ruled Israel, but did care that
Antiochus was getting too obnoxious. So Rome helped Israel, mainly by
keeping Antiochus busy elsewhere, and the Jews won.

But they could not leave it at that, and had to invoke Divine miracles.
I believe God could have intervened, but if he did, it was in a manner
that was undiscoverable.

Pray as if everything depends on God;
Act as if everything depends on YOU,

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 22, 2016, 9:14:36 AM2/22/16

to

Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote on 22 Feb 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

>> The Torah has been a scientific document in its time, when science and
>> faith were not differentiated upon. Only when faith and scientific
>> method, read "doubt", came up, say with Socrates and Aristoteles, the
>> two paths diverged.
>
> The Torah was NEVER a scientiBic document, even when claimed to be.

[It could not claim to be, as in the present sense, science did not exist at
the time of writing. And your "never" would mean a scientific documeny could
change state, which methinks is a strange thought. On your "when", where did
it claim to be? And if you mean that others claimed that, proposed facts do
not change when claimed to be so.]

But in hindsight, it was, as I said and just imho, because it
described/tried to describe the factual world, based on the scarse evidence
available, the primitive logic incorporating [what we now call] the
supernatural as as just part of that world, and the primitive logic [without
using doubt as a constituent].

The in hindsight scarse evidence available to Newton had him write
scientific documents, that are now consired inacurate, even more so in the
last weeks of gravitational changes. One could contemplate all "scientific
documents" to be incrementaly with time inacurate in hindsight. The Torah is
not that much different.

Faith and structured religion only came as a result of the structure
provided by stricter organisation [kingdoms, states, later seperate
organized religion] and the power-structure that that brought [Sanhedrin,
Roman Caesars, Vatican, Iran, American voting].

I cannot say the above is true, as I was not there, and using the scientific
method, there must be doubt [and logic], but it seems a reasonable [!]
approximative explanation [= hypothesis, "theory"].

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,

Feb 22, 2016, 9:15:30 AM2/22/16

to

On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:43:24 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
> On 2016-02-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> > malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 21 Feb 2016 in
> > soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>

> > The Torah has been a scientific document in its time, when science and faith
> > were not differentiated upon. Only when faith and scientific method, read
> > "doubt", came up, say with Socrates and Aristoteles, the two paths diverged.
>
> The Torah was NEVER a scientiBic document, even when claimed to be.
> Part of Genesis 1 matches the Big Bang view of Creation, IF the usual
> meaning of some of the words, especially eretz, are changed. But the
> errors in the biology are too great to even attempt a reconciliation.
> After Genesis 1 it gets worse.
>

There are two issues. The first is, is the Biblical account consistent with our
modern understanding? In some place it is, in some places it isn't, and our
modern understanding changes all the time. Radioactive decay wasn't understood,
so Lord Kelvin, a brilliant and respected physicist, calculated the age of the Earth
from its cooling, assuming that it started life as molten mass. In fact heavy metals
deep in the Earth are undergoing radioactive decay, this warms the Earth, and
Kelvin's calculations were out by billions of years.
Whilst I'm completely out of my depth here, my understanding of modern physics
is that things exist in a "wave form", where all possible states exist simultaneously,
the collapse into a particle form when observed by a conscious observer. What
counts as a conscious observer is a deep problem for the physicists. But we
could reasonably say it was a man who lived 5776 years ago, let's call him "Carl".

The point is that consistency with modern science as it is now doesn't really tell
you anything.

>
> I suggest you read _Who Wrote the Bible?_ by Freedman. I find him even
> too simplistic, which should give you pause. Also, Emanuel Tov, in his
> _Literary Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ points out the uncertainties
> due to poor transmission, including scribes "correcting" what they read
> to what they remembered.
>

The other question is what the authors (and how do we define that?) considered
themselves to be doing. We've only really got one variant text, which is the Dead
Sea scrolls version. Whilst scribes might have "corrected" what they considered
to be erroneous copies from memory, that's pure speculation. We simply don't
have any copies of such "corrected" texts, and the historical testimony we do have,
(from Josephus) explicitly claims the reverse. That doesn't mean that this process
didn't occur, I'm not saying that, only that there's no real evidence for it.

>
> Before the development of science, people believed that very much
> was due to the moods of their gods; the Jews were no exception. So
> they ascribed much to their gods, just as the Jews asscribed the
> victory of the Jews against the Seleucids as due to God, which in
> my opinion from reading the known facts does not clidk. The Jews
> were considered good fighters, and the Ptolemaic Greeks accepted
> the help of the Alexandrian Jews to quell a revolt. The Romans,
> who ruled the Mediterranean at that time, told Antiochus to get
> out ot Egypt, which he had conquered, and he did, but he kept Israel.
> Neither Rome nor Egypt really cared who ruled Israel, but did care that
> Antiochus was getting too obnoxious. So Rome helped Israel, mainly by
> keeping Antiochus busy elsewhere, and the Jews won.
>

the D-day invasion had to be held when the tide was right. There were
two dates under consideration by the planners, and the earlier one was
chosen. The weather was bad and it was nearly postponed, until the met
office predicted a brief interlude of calm, which happened. The on the
alternative date, Normandy was lashed by a massive storm - the temporary
harbours were all disrupted, ships sunk. Had the later date been chosen,
it would have been one of the biggest military disasters of all time.

So was that God hinting that He is the arbiter of battles? I don't think you
can prove that. But it doesn't take anything away from the courage of the
troops to answer in the affirmative.

>
> But they could not leave it at that, and had to invoke Divine miracles.
> I believe God could have intervened, but if he did, it was in a manner
> that was undiscoverable.
>
> Pray as if everything depends on God;
> Act as if everything depends on YOU,
>

The oil lasted.
Did someone top it up on the quiet?

Yisroel Markov

unread,

Feb 22, 2016, 12:03:15 PM2/22/16

to

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:50:20 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

>On 2016-02-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 21 Feb 2016 in
>> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>>>> Well, I was discussing the Torah, but whatever,
>>>> any document can be researched scientifically.
>
> ......................
>
>> The Torah has been a scientific document in its time, when science and faith
>> were not differentiated upon. Only when faith and scientific method, read
>> "doubt", came up, say with Socrates and Aristoteles, the two paths diverged.
>
>The Torah was NEVER a scientiBic document, even when claimed to be.

Agreed, but...

>Part of Genesis 1 matches the Big Bang view of Creation, IF the usual
>meaning of some of the words, especially eretz, are changed. But the
>errors in the biology are too great to even attempt a reconciliation.
>After Genesis 1 it gets worse.

...the above is not a good reason to say so. Matching the most recent
views is not a criteria of being scientific. E.g., William Buckland
and Charles Lyell did not become scientists only after they accepted
Agassis's glacial theory, abandoning diluvian geology; one may
actually argue that it was their quality as scientists that had led
them to do so.

[snip]
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

Shelly

unread,

Feb 22, 2016, 1:43:41 PM2/22/16

to

I see your point, but your example is not a good one. However it is not
a black/white thing. There is scientific knowledge now for some things
that can be labeled as "certainty" that make ancient explanations
absolutely invalid. Flat earth-round earth is one such example. Another
would be the story of creation vs. scientific explanation. We _KNOW_
that the literal reading of Genesis to explain those things is, well,
ridiculous. That is more in line with what I believe he was saying.

--
Shelly

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 22, 2016, 2:43:57 PM2/22/16

to

On 2016-02-22, malcolm...@btinternet.com <malcolm...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:43:24 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>> On 2016-02-21, Evertjan. <exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:
>> > malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 21 Feb 2016 in
>> > soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

>> The Torah was NEVER a scientiBic document, even when claimed to be.
>> Part of Genesis 1 matches the Big Bang view of Creation, IF the usual
>> meaning of some of the words, especially eretz, are changed. But the
>> errors in the biology are too great to even attempt a reconciliation.
>> After Genesis 1 it gets worse.

> There are two issues. The first is, is the Biblical account consistent with our
> modern understanding? In some place it is, in some places it isn't, and our
> modern understanding changes all the time.

That is true, even to the extent that evolution is not quite a tree. But the
order of development of terrestrial life is totally incompatible with that
given in Genesis 1. This includes grass; it came late.

Radioactive decay wasn't understood,

"Understood" is not the proper term here. I wasn't known or believed.

> The point is that consistency with modern science as it is now doesn't
really tell > you anything.

It is the gross incosistency which I have pointed out, not the little
details. Read any biology book considering the development of life,
and see if you can come up with a way of reconciling the Biblical
account with it; time scales may be ignored.

>> I suggest you read _Who Wrote the Bible?_ by Freedman. I find him even
>> too simplistic, which should give you pause. Also, Emanuel Tov, in his
>> _Literary Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ points out the uncertainties
>> due to poor transmission, including scribes "correcting" what they read
>> to what they remembered.

> The other question is what the authors (and how do we define that?) considered
> themselves to be doing. We've only really got one variant text, which is the Dead
> Sea scrolls version.

Read Tov's book, which is where I got the important part of my information
on copying and variants. All the major variants are found in the scrolls,
and even on what is considered to be a copying table. Tov is the editor
in chief of the scrolls,

The Qumran scrolls are an excellent source of the many versions and
poor copying.

This miracle seems to be of rather late invention. Maccabees 2, in the
Apocrypha, gives a reason for the eight days, and apparently the use of
a progression of candles was present in the first century CE. But there
is no known discussion of the miracle until much later.

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,

Feb 22, 2016, 5:58:44 PM2/22/16

to

On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 7:43:57 PM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:

> On 2016-02-22, malcolm...@btinternet.com <malcolm...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> That is true, even to the extent that evolution is not quite a tree.
> But the order of development of terrestrial life is totally incompatible
> with that given in Genesis 1. This includes grass; it came late.
>

If you read it in English, yes, the word is "grass" which means
specifically plants of the family Poaceae, which evolved late to
tolerate grazing by mammals. If you read in Hebrew, the word is
"deshe", from a root meaning "sprout". So it means "shoots" which
normally would be of grass, but what the author is thinking of is
the little green buds which appear in the Middle East after the
rains, not the dried up yellow material that persists over the long
summer.

>
> Read Tov's book, which is where I got the important part of my information
> on copying and variants. All the major variants are found in the scrolls,
> and even on what is considered to be a copying table. Tov is the editor
> in chief of the scrolls,
>
> The Qumran scrolls are an excellent source of the many versions and
> poor copying.
>

The Dead Sea scrolls are the only variants we have. And we don't
really know the circumstances. The Qumran sect appear to have been
heterodox, but how heterodox we don't know. We don't even know what
they were called, much less why they chose to set up their little
establishment by the shores of the Dead Sea. The variants might be
scribal errors, or they might be alternative versions insisted on
for political or theological reasons, or even for other reasons.
(A lot of English religious texts replace "ass" with "donkey",
for example).

Yisroel Markov

unread,

Feb 23, 2016, 9:18:07 AM2/23/16

to

Why not? Their diluvian geology was wrong, but it was definitely
scientific. Geologists even say that Buckland's tremendous scientific
reputation played the same role for the glacial theory, once he
accepted it, as Constantine's conversion did for Christianity.

Being incorrect doesn't make a document unscientific; being correct
doesn't make it scientific. IOW, it's about methods, rather than
hypotheses.

>However it is not
>a black/white thing. There is scientific knowledge now for some things
>that can be labeled as "certainty" that make ancient explanations
>absolutely invalid. Flat earth-round earth is one such example. Another
>would be the story of creation vs. scientific explanation. We _KNOW_
>that the literal reading of Genesis to explain those things is, well,
>ridiculous. That is more in line with what I believe he was saying.

And what I'm saying is that this ridiculousness has nothing at all to
do with whether the Tora is a scientific document. Which it's not -
its method is not scientific.

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 23, 2016, 10:37:54 AM2/23/16

to

Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote on 23 Feb 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> And what I'm saying is that this ridiculousness has nothing at all to
> do with whether the Tora is a scientific document. Which it's not -
> its method is not scientific.

However, when you consider that science needed time to develop such
scientific method [evidence + ratio + doubt], early descriptions of how the
universe was what it was, was science in a primitive way.

Without exclusive evidence, ratio and doubt, and without the notion that
supernatural [as now defined] was external to the natural world, the Torah
was just a scientific document, indeed full of errors and delusions in
hindsight, but non the less scientific.

Imagine what people will say of our "scientific truths" in 2500 years!

Shelly

unread,

Feb 23, 2016, 12:10:56 PM2/23/16

to

What do you mean by "ratio"?

--
Shelly

Yisroel Markov

unread,

Feb 23, 2016, 5:18:41 PM2/23/16

to

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:44:53 +0000 (UTC), "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> said:

>Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote on 23 Feb 2016 in
>soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> And what I'm saying is that this ridiculousness has nothing at all to
>> do with whether the Tora is a scientific document. Which it's not -
>> its method is not scientific.
>
>However, when you consider that science needed time to develop such
>scientific method [evidence + ratio + doubt], early descriptions of how the
>universe was what it was, was science in a primitive way.
>
>Without exclusive evidence, ratio and doubt, and without the notion that
>supernatural [as now defined] was external to the natural world, the Torah
>was just a scientific document, indeed full of errors and delusions in
>hindsight, but non the less scientific.

Well, under this broad definition, I suppose you can say that. But
that's not the definition that I'm using; to me science is about the
scientific method. Plus, IMHO the author of the Tora was not concerned
with science's usual task of comprehending the world and how it works.
The Tora is a fundamentally prescriptive, rather than descriptive,
document.

>Imagine what people will say of our "scientific truths" in 2500 years!

Indeed! (I can't, though.)

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 23, 2016, 6:59:11 PM2/23/16

to

A more likely explanation is that there was no "Qumran sect", but that
Qumran was contained a "scribal community", which used the caves as a
cooler place to do the tedious work of copying. I suggest you read
Tov's book to get the facts and the opinions of an expert, which I
do not claim to be. However, I can understand his arguments.

There are different versions, three of which can roughly be
compared to the Masoretic, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint.
The miscopying is added on to this. I doubt we will ever be
able to say what Ezra and his colleagues wrote.

In one sense, the differences are only of minor details. In another,
the details are sometimes important. Read Tov's book for yourself.

unread,

Feb 24, 2016, 7:14:42 AM2/24/16

to

Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> On 2/23/2016 8:26 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>>> What do you mean by "ratio"?
>> The result of logical reasoning.
>
> Where did you find that definition?

Well, rationally speaking,
you just asked wat I ment by it.

When you are asking me what I ment by some word,
it is strange to suppose I did "find" it somewhere.

> It isn't in Merriam Webster's.

and my name is not Merriam Webster.

====================

This I found, to help you on your way with a definition:

"Ratio - That faculty of the mind
which forms the basis of computation and calculation,
and hence of mental action in general,
i. e. judgment, understanding, reason"

Yisroel Markov

unread,

Feb 24, 2016, 9:23:29 AM2/24/16

to

It's Latin for "reason."

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 24, 2016, 9:32:03 AM2/24/16

to

Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote on 23 Feb 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> Well, under this broad definition, I suppose you can say that. But
> that's not the definition that I'm using; to me science is about the
> scientific method.

This is the Breishis 1 question:
How could science develop the scientific method,
when it did not exist to develop it?

> Plus, IMHO the author of the Tora was not concerned
> with science's usual task of comprehending the world and how it works.

You did not know him as I did, perhaps?

The discription of what, when, how, and also why,
speaks from every sentense.

> The Tora is a fundamentally prescriptive, rather than descriptive,
> document.

I don't read it that way.

Were the first 7 days prescriptive?
Were the acts of the Abraham family prescriptive?
Was Shemos, the exhodos, prescriptive?

Even the the primitive commandments that lead to the 613 mizwos, were a
description of how and by whom they were given, not just recepies.

>>Imagine what people will say of our "scientific truths" in 2500 years!
>
> Indeed! (I can't, though.)

Can you imagine all the lonely people that imagine they cann't?

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2016, 9:40:31 AM2/24/16

to

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:14:42 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
>
> "Ratio - That faculty of the mind
> which forms the basis of computation and calculation,
> and hence of mental action in general,
> i. e. judgment, understanding, reason"
>

It's a technical, philosophical word, and you can't use it in English outside
of that context.
Normally, "ratio" means the proportion of something to something else,
e.g. a "40:60 sex ratio in favour of girls" means that there are six girls
in the set for every four boys. Most Anglophones would be puzzled to see the
word used in another sense.

Shelly

unread,

Feb 24, 2016, 11:31:15 AM2/24/16

to

On 2/24/2016 7:21 AM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> On 2/23/2016 8:26 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>>>> What do you mean by "ratio"?
>>> The result of logical reasoning.
>>
>> Where did you find that definition?
>
> Well, rationally speaking,
> you just asked wat I ment by it.
>
> When you are asking me what I ment by some word,
> it is strange to suppose I did "find" it somewhere.
>
>> It isn't in Merriam Webster's.
>
> and my name is not Merriam Webster.
>
> ====================
>
> This I found, to help you on your way with a definition:
>
> "Ratio - That faculty of the mind
> which forms the basis of computation and calculation,
> and hence of mental action in general,
> i. e. judgment, understanding, reason"
>

...and, again, what dictionary is that in? It is not in Merriam
Webster's dictionary.

--
Shelly

unread,

Feb 24, 2016, 9:15:52 PM2/24/16

to

malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 at 12:14:42 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
>>
>> "Ratio - That faculty of the mind
>> which forms the basis of computation and calculation,
>> and hence of mental action in general,
>> i. e. judgment, understanding, reason"
>>
> It's a technical, philosophical word, and you can't use it in English
> outside of that context.

"cann't"?

I just did!

unread,

Feb 24, 2016, 9:19:06 PM2/24/16

to

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:40:54 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

The colon makes it look like I'm saying Tertullian wrote what follows.
No, it's the author of the book quoted. The colon just meant I was
introducing the related paragraph. Bad choice of punctuation. Sorry.

Shelly

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 7:06:27 AM2/25/16

to

On 2/24/2016 9:24 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>>> This I found, to help you on your way with a definition:
>>>
>>> "Ratio - That faculty of the mind
>>> which forms the basis of computation and calculation,
>>> and hence of mental action in general,
>>> i. e. judgment, understanding, reason"
>>>
>> ...and, again, what dictionary is that in? It is not in Merriam
>> Webster's dictionary.
>
> Are you just wanting to win, or have a rational discussion?
>
> I do not limit my queen's English by an American dictionary,
> and do not discuss just by "approved" words.
>
> Anyway [not anyways], I answered what I ment by it, that should be enough.

OK in which [ENGLISH LANGUAGE] dictionary did you find that definition.
ASAIK, there is not such definition in the English language. Maybe it is
a Britishism with which I am not familiar. There are such which I know
such as "lorry", "boot (for a trunk of a car" and others which are well
enough known by other than the British as to be acceptable in
conversations which are not restricted to the region. Ratio is not one
of these when used in other that the comparison of two numbers.

--
Shelly

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 9:19:53 AM2/25/16

to

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:15:52 AM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
> malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
>

> > It's a technical, philosophical word, and you can't use it in English
> > outside of that context.
>
> "cann't"?
>
> I just did!
>

You're not a native speaker.
If the native speakers don't accept your form as correct, it is not a "variant",
it's an "error".
(I make much worse errors in French and Hebrew, the other languages I have
a bit of familiarity with, but not in English, by definition).

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 9:20:14 AM2/25/16

to

Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote on 25 Feb 2016 in

soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> On 2/24/2016 6:12 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
>> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2016 9:30 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:33:15 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/23/2016 8:26 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "ratio"?
>>>>>> The result of logical reasoning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did you find that definition? It isn't in Merriam
>>>>> Webster's.
>>>>
>>>> It's Latin for "reason."
>>>>
>>>
>>> But in English?
>>
>> Silly Q.
>>
>> In English: It's Latin for "reason."
>
> How is that a silly question on an Enghlish language newsgroup?

What nonsense,
what is it you cannot understand in 'It's Latin for "reason."' ?

> How many
> people whose native language is English know Latin?

What nonsense, why think that an "Enghlish language newsgroup"
should be for "people whose native language is English"?

> Since the purpose of language is communication, well, you failed.

What nonsense, why would I fail, if
I use a hammer to scratch my back,
use a book to stabilize a table,
use this NG to discuss Jewish culture, thereby
using words that are not understood by English monoglots?

ruben safir

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 10:21:43 AM2/25/16

to

On 02/19/2016 01:06 AM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Beach Runner <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote on 18 Feb 2016 in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 6:14:56 AM UTC-8, Evertjan. wrote:
>>> >> mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote on 18 Feb 2016 in
>>> >> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>> >>
>>>>> >> >>Whether the Torah is correct is a matter severe doubt, because if
>>>>> >> >>modern scholars wouldn't doubt that you [and me] probably wouldn't
>>>>> >> >>call them "modern" in the first place.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > You two wouldn't even call them scholars.
>>> >>
>>> >> Discussion by using scholars as authorities is not the right way to
>>> >> discuss imho anyway, one should discuss by logical and evidence founded
>>> >> arguments.
>>> >>
>>> >> That being said, ancient scholars lacked much evidence we now have,
>>> >> and would more reasonably have used the Torah as "authoritive"
>>> >> evidence.
>> >
>> > The Koran isn't a factual scientific document, so because it has
>> > mistakes isn't a surprise.
> Well, I was discussing the Torah, but whatever,
> any document can be researched scientifically.
>
> How would one define a document being "factual scientific",
> without researching it, or even at all?

It doesn't matter. The Torah is the Nation Myth of the Jewish people
and the Jewish people are exiled by violent force from their homeland.
This is a historical fact.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Rom%2C_Titusbogen%2C_Triumphzug_3.jpg/1024px-Rom%2C_Titusbogen%2C_Triumphzug_3.jpg

the only people who deny it are racist bigots, most of the current ones
living in the Judean Hills and at the UN. The time has come to free
Israel from its foreign, Islamic occupation.

ruben safir

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 10:21:56 AM2/25/16

to

On 02/21/2016 07:50 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
> I suggest you read _Who Wrote the Bible?_ by Freedman. I find him even
> too simplistic, which should give you pause. Also, Emanuel Tov, in his
> _Literary Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ points out the uncertainties
> due to poor transmission, including scribes "correcting" what they read
> to what they remembered.

those text truly suck

ruben safir

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 10:22:19 AM2/25/16

to

On 02/22/2016 02:50 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
> The Qumran scrolls are an excellent source of the many versions and
> poor copying.

those scrolls are not part of the standard text and was written
intentionally to support a heretic version of Judaisms, and is STILL
largely correct, word by word.

So what are you talking about. Your talking out of your hat. Even the
oldest Codex intact support the correctness of the current text. I
hate when "scholars" make stuff up to support their own pet theories.
Even the Aleppo Codex is perfect, which is about the oldest text we have
and that dates only to the 10th century, nearly 2000 years after the
origins of the text. So evidently, the soforiem weren't a bunch of
blithering idiots and egomaniacs that you describe, and do a good job of
transmission of the Torah intact.

ruben

Evertjan.

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 10:22:46 AM2/25/16

to

malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 25 Feb 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 2:15:52 AM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
>> malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
>>
>> > It's a technical, philosophical word, and you can't use it in English
>> > outside of that context.
>>
>> "cann't"?
>>
>> I just did!
>>
> You're not a native speaker.

How would you know?

> If the native speakers don't accept your form as correct,

So what, since when is a discussion defined by the nativity of the speakers.

> it is not a "variant", it's an "error".

Well, that is just your humble opinion.

> (I make much worse errors in French and Hebrew, the other languages I
> have a bit of familiarity with, but not in English, by definition).

You and nativity are not the standard of correctness, that is naivity.

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 1:56:08 PM2/25/16

to

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:22:46 PM UTC, Evertjan. wrote:
> malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote on 25 Feb 2016 in

>
> > You're not a native speaker.
>
> How would you know?
>

Because you don't understand that "ratio" cannot be used as you are
using it.

>
> > If the native speakers don't accept your form as correct,
>
> So what, since when is a discussion defined by the nativity of the speakers.
>
> > it is not a "variant", it's an "error".
>
> Well, that is just your humble opinion.
>

I'm an adult native speaker of English. So if I don't accept a form as correct, it is
not correct in my dialect. If Shelly (a native American English speaker) and
I (a native Yorkshire English speaker) both agree that a form is incorrect,
then pretty clearly it's incorrect in most if not all versions of English.

>
> > (I make much worse errors in French and Hebrew, the other languages I
> > have a bit of familiarity with, but not in English, by definition).
>
> You and nativity are not the standard of correctness, that is naivity.
>

In language, a correct form is whatever is accepted by adult native speakers
as correct, and an incorrect form whatever is rejected by them.

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 1:56:38 PM2/25/16

to

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 at 3:22:19 PM UTC, ruben safir wrote:
> On 02/22/2016 02:50 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
> > The Qumran scrolls are an excellent source of the many versions and
> > poor copying.
>
> those scrolls are not part of the standard text and was written
> intentionally to support a heretic version of Judaisms, and is STILL
> largely correct, word by word.
>

They differ from the Masoretic text, but that doesn't mean that they
necessarily diverged from the Masoretic text. Where the scrolls agree
with LXX, that's powerful evidence that the scrolls represent an older
form. Some of the differences from the Masoretic text might have been
ut there for theological reasons and considered heretical by other Jews
at the time, but I don't think there are any cases where that seems very
likely.

>
> So what are you talking about. Your talking out of your hat. Even the
> oldest Codex intact support the correctness of the current text. I
> hate when "scholars" make stuff up to support their own pet theories.
> Even the Aleppo Codex is perfect, which is about the oldest text we have
> and that dates only to the 10th century, nearly 2000 years after the
> origins of the text. So evidently, the soforiem weren't a bunch of
> blithering idiots and egomaniacs that you describe, and do a good job of
> transmission of the Torah intact.
>

Josephus claims in the 1st century that the text had remained intact, letter
for letter, since ancient times. But most scholars say that the Masoretic text
is the "rabbinical recension" and only stabilised at about the time Josephus
was writing. The text has been completely stable for a long time, that's certainly
true, and procedures to prevent corruption have been extremely strict.

mm

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 3:14:32 PM2/25/16

to

FTR, and FWIW, the first two are loan words, brought into English
without being changed.

Ratio is an English word but the meaning given is Latin only, not an
English meaning. I'm curious if it would be in a Dutch dictionary.

As given it includes the probable development of the word, not just
the meaning, perhaps because Tertullian used it that way in his
writing about Xianity.

But it's good to see the kids playing together without tearing their
clothes.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 6:21:02 PM2/25/16

to

On what basis, other than that you are a believer in the Torah, at least,
as the direct word of God, can you make such a statement? Tov is the
editor in chief of the Qumran Scrolls, and clearly a scholar.

And I have done some scholarly study myself, not of the original
materials, but of the published commentaries on ancient history and
ancient influences on Hebrew. I have seen none which give an explanation
of the errors in Hebraic works consistent with these ancient references
in Hebrew and in other ancient languages.

I suggest you apologize to the scholars whose texts you have denigrated.

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 6:21:41 PM2/25/16

to

On 2016-02-25, ruben safir <ru...@mrbrklyn.com> wrote:

> On 02/22/2016 02:50 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
>> The Qumran scrolls are an excellent source of the many versions and
>> poor copying.

> those scrolls are not part of the standard text and was written
> intentionally to support a heretic version of Judaisms, and is STILL
> largely correct, word by word.

The scrolls have versions of variations of the standard text, and
at that time all were considered by heir advocates to be the standard
text. This includes the scrolls of the Masoretic type. Tov, whose
scholarship you have insulted, points out that we do not have an old
version of the "correct" text, and it is highly unlikely that the
present standard text is correct in that sense. The copying was that
bad, and he points out that what has been claimed to be the correct
text is corrupt in that sense.

> So what are you talking about. Your talking out of your hat. Even the
> oldest Codex intact support the correctness of the current text. I
> hate when "scholars" make stuff up to support their own pet theories.
> Even the Aleppo Codex is perfect, which is about the oldest text we have
> and that dates only to the 10th century, nearly 2000 years after the
> origins of the text. So evidently, the soforiem weren't a bunch of
> blithering idiots and egomaniacs that you describe, and do a good job of
> transmission of the Torah intact.

The Qumran scrolls are roughly a millennium OLDER than the oldest Codex.
Tov discusses why the Aleppo Codex, which is the product of the Masoretes,
cannot be a copy of the original. It is doubtful that we will ever find
a copy of the original. The soferim since the Masoretes came up with the
current version somewhat more than a millennium ago have done a good job
of precise copying, but this does not mean that the evidence gathered that
the scribes a millennium before did not is false.

> ruben

Shelly

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 9:00:48 PM2/25/16

to

On 2/25/2016 9:27 AM, Evertjan. wrote:
> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote on 25 Feb 2016 in
> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> On 2/24/2016 6:12 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>>> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
>>> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>>
>>>> On 2/24/2016 9:30 AM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:33:15 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/23/2016 8:26 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>>>>>>>> What do you mean by "ratio"?
>>>>>>> The result of logical reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did you find that definition? It isn't in Merriam
>>>>>> Webster's.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's Latin for "reason."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But in English?
>>>
>>> Silly Q.
>>>
>>> In English: It's Latin for "reason."
>>
>> How is that a silly question on an Enghlish language newsgroup?

How is it not?

> What nonsense,
> what is it you cannot understand in 'It's Latin for "reason."' ?

What nonsense. What is it that cannot understand that to communicate on
an English language NG it is imperative to use English words and if you
use a foreign word, such as Latin (a dead language, BTW), that is
incumbent upon you to provide a definition WHEN you use it.

>
>> How many
>> people whose native language is English know Latin?
>
> What nonsense, why think that an "Enghlish language newsgroup"
> should be for "people whose native language is English"?

What nonsense. Obviously you are confusing "using English on an English
language NG with restricting that newsgroup to people whose native
language is English - something never stated

>
>> Since the purpose of language is communication, well, you failed.
>
> What nonsense, why would I fail, if
> I use a hammer to scratch my back,
> use a book to stabilize a table,
> use this NG to discuss Jewish culture, thereby
> using words that are not understood by English monoglots?

What nonsense. What is it that is beyond your comprehension that using
non-English words on an English language NG is a failure to communicate?

I'm done with you. I can no longer tolerate that overly inflated
attitude of sense of self-importance and pompous air or superiority that
permeates every sentence you write.

--
Shelly

Shelly

unread,

Feb 25, 2016, 9:08:25 PM2/25/16

to

On 2/25/2016 12:34 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:13:29 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 2/24/2016 9:24 PM, Evertjan. wrote:
>>> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote on 24 Feb 2016 in
>>> soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>>
>>>>> This I found, to help you on your way with a definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ratio - That faculty of the mind
>>>>> which forms the basis of computation and calculation,
>>>>> and hence of mental action in general,
>>>>> i. e. judgment, understanding, reason"
>>>>>
>>>> ...and, again, what dictionary is that in? It is not in Merriam
>>>> Webster's dictionary.
>>>
>>> Are you just wanting to win, or have a rational discussion?
>>>
>>> I do not limit my queen's English by an American dictionary,
>>> and do not discuss just by "approved" words.
>>>
>>> Anyway [not anyways], I answered what I ment by it, that should be enough.
>>
>> OK in which [ENGLISH LANGUAGE] dictionary did you find that definition.
>> ASAIK, there is not such definition in the English language. Maybe it is
>> a Britishism with which I am not familiar.
>
> It's a Latinism, if you will. I don't understand your problem, Shelly.
> Aside from Hebrew, I've used expressions like "raison d'etre" and
> "QED" on this English-language NG, and you have used "vive la
> differance," with no problems.

Correct. English has twice the vocabulary as any other language because
we absorb foreign words into our language. When used often enough, these
foreign words become part of our language regardless of their origin.
Tsouris, for example, has made its way into English. The examples you
gave have done the same and QED is familiar to anyone who has had a high
school education that includes geometry. By contrast the word "ratio"
means one and only one thing in English -- the comparison of two
numbers. It is not a part of English in the sense he used it (twice).

>
>> There are such which I know
>> such as "lorry", "boot (for a trunk of a car" and others which are well
>> enough known by other than the British as to be acceptable in
>> conversations which are not restricted to the region. Ratio is not one
>> of these when used in other that the comparison of two numbers.
>
> I don't know Latin, but... Maybe it's hard to figure out that "ratio,"
> in that context, was the root of the word "rational", but that's not
> necessarily the writer's problem.

Yes, it is if he is trying to use a non-English word to communicate on
an English language newsgroup while not simultaneously providing a
definition -- unless he is not trying to communicate an idea, but then
why bother writing anything.

--
Shelly

ruben safir

unread,

Feb 26, 2016, 12:17:09 AM2/26/16

to

On 02/25/2016 02:03 PM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
> They differ from the Masoretic text, but that doesn't mean that they
> necessarily diverged from the Masoretic text.

No the scrolls are intentionally heriotic and edited for the purposes of
their own private war with the mainstream Jewish nation.

ruben safir

unread,

Feb 26, 2016, 12:17:30 AM2/26/16

to

On 02/25/2016 02:03 PM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

> Josephus claims in the 1st century that the text had remained intact,

Is not a reliable source for ANYTHING and anyone who quotes him shows
extreme ignorance of Jewish history. He was a Roman apologists writing
overt Roman propaganda

ruben safir

unread,

Feb 26, 2016, 12:17:55 AM2/26/16

to

On 02/25/2016 06:28 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
> The Qumran scrolls are roughly a millennium OLDER than the oldest Codex.

Their purpose was to break off to a new Heretic Religion for which they
were engaged with a violent war with, hence why they were hiding. That
leaves you with NOTHING in terms of understanding the Torah's text and
origins.

ruben safir

unread,

Feb 26, 2016, 12:18:32 AM2/26/16

to

On 02/22/2016 01:50 PM, Shelly wrote:
> We _KNOW_ that the literal reading of Genesis to explain those things
> is, well, ridiculous.

YOU know that.

ruben safir

unread,

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 27, 2016, 2:35:11 PM2/27/16

to

On 2016-02-26, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 05:24:11 +0000 (UTC), ruben safir
><ru...@mrbrklyn.com> said:

>>On 02/25/2016 02:03 PM, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>> They differ from the Masoretic text, but that doesn't mean that they
>>> necessarily diverged from the Masoretic text.

>>No the scrolls are intentionally heriotic and edited for the purposes of
>>their own private war with the mainstream Jewish nation.

> I think you may be talking about two different sets of texts. There
> were non-canonical texts at Qumran, such as the Sons of Light scrolls.
> There were also versions of TaNa"KH texts, and AIUI, those do not
> differ greatly from the Masoretic version. Of course, "greatly" is a
> judgment, but as per the Biblical Archeological Society (which is not
> an Orthodox Jewish organization):

> "The Dead Sea Scrolls did not, as some early dreamers speculated,
> answer the age-old question: Where is the original Bible? Not, as it
> turns out, in the caves of Qumran. Nor do the scrolls include long
> lost books of the Bible. Furthermore, the scrolls did not utterly
> transform our image of the original Hebrew Bible text. Indeed, one of
> the most important contributions of the scrolls is that they have
> demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text.

Some of the scrolls are similar to the Masoretic text. However,
some of the scrolls are more similar to the present Samaritan Hexateuch,
and some are more similar to the Septuagint. Copying of everything
seems to have run into scribes remembering rather than copying.

> "Nevertheless, there are differences (some quite significant) between
> the scrolls and the Masoretic text."

> Full article at
>
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/the-masoretic-text-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/

--

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2016, 4:59:54 PM2/27/16

to

On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 7:35:11 PM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> Some of the scrolls are similar to the Masoretic text. However,
> some of the scrolls are more similar to the present Samaritan Hexateuch,
> and some are more similar to the Septuagint. Copying of everything
> seems to have run into scribes remembering rather than copying.
>

The fact a variant is found tells us that some scribe somewhere thought it
worth writing down, and someone thought the manuscript worth preserving.
But it doesn't tell us much else about the attitude to the text. The logical
default position is that it was an alternative text, and a rival to the version
which became accepted. But we don't know enough to be sure of that. It
could have been considered heretical but kept for scholarly purposes,
or it could have been a simple mistake as you suggest, or it could have
been an accepted but not rival reading. (For example if you go into a
Dominican church, you won't hear the famous "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
maxima culpa", the Dominicans aren't in dispute with the rest of the Catholic
church over the true text, they've got their own liturgy which is slightly
different).

There are lots of possibilities. But the "rival version" one seems the most
likely.

Beach Runner

unread,

Feb 27, 2016, 11:09:39 PM2/27/16

to

Christians don't realize that Christ was but one of thousands of
Jews the Roman's didn't like for whatever reason. They lined
the streets leading to Jerusalem with Jews being crucified.

Jesus was in no way more special to the Romans than any of the other
thousands of Jews being slowly murdered.

unread,

Feb 28, 2016, 7:16:27 PM2/28/16

to

The Septuagint was the translation used by the Jews of A;exandria,
and presumably more of Egypt, and was the version used by Christians
for their translation to Greek or Latin; it was definitely used. There
are many Qumran scrolls which correspond to a Hebrew original of this
Greek translation. It was still used, together with the Hebrew original,
several centuries later.

Also, the Samaritan version was, and possibly still is, used by the Samaritans.

mm

unread,

Feb 28, 2016, 8:21:08 PM2/28/16

to

On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:14:52 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
<fg...@removeQRM.ionary.com> wrote:

>On 2/25/2016 10:28 AM, ruben safir wrote:
>...
>>> How would one define a document being "factual scientific",
>>> without researching it, or even at all?
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter. The Torah is the Nation Myth of the Jewish people
>> and the Jewish people are exiled by violent force from their homeland.
>> This is a historical fact.
>>
>
>Yes, it is a historical fact that it is our myth. But myth is not
>literally true;

That's one meaning of the word myth, but the more academic meaning
includes stories that are true.

It's likely you've read things calling it a myth and because you're
used to the popular meaning of the word, and maybe because of your
predilection, you thought that was intended when it wasn't.

Or you read stuff which did not rely on the word myth but was written
by heretics with an axe to grind who were wrong. You can see this
very year how people who don't like what is happening try to rewrite
history. Just listen to any political call-in show. A couple days
ago someone claimed there were sanctuary cities where prisoners from
Guantanamo would be released to, when in fact sanctuary cities are
cities where illegal immigrants are not turned in by city government
to the immigration authorities and it has nothing to do with
Guantanamo. Or any of the lies Trump has told, which are probably all
believed already by 5% of the population and more will hear and
believe them in the future. Like he lied, the administration, which
has plans to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees and has in fact admitted
2000, according to Trump's lie plans to admit 100,000

Myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being
or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or
demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2016.

> myth is a tale we tell that is part of our heritage but
>not safe to be treated as actual fact, since it's not. Yes, we
>originated there, and were forcibly removed 2000+ years ago. Lots of
>migrations have happened over the millenia. The Celts moved from middle
>Europe to the British Isles. The Turkics spread from what is now
>Xinjiang to Anatolia. Jews in diaspora moved all over the place,
>sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not.
>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Rom%2C_Titusbogen%2C_Triumphzug_3.jpg/1024px-Rom%2C_Titusbogen%2C_Triumphzug_3.jpg
>>
>>
>> the only people who deny it are racist bigots, most of the current ones
>> living in the Judean Hills and at the UN. The time has come to free
>> Israel from its foreign, Islamic occupation.
>
>Where I live, there were no Jews 2000 years ago. Nor any Europeans or
>Asians or Africans. The Massachusett probably lived here, the
>Naragansett and Wampanoag nearby. But others moved in. The people now
>living in the Judean hills are probably descended from the fallen
>Northern Kingdom via the Samaritans. But even if they weren't, they've
>lived there for years, and thus have a right to remain peacefully in
>their homes. And have more right to it than say Peruvians who converted
>to Judaism.

If they want Israel out of that area, they should have made peace with
Israel. Had they done that in 1967, or even 68 or 69, Israel would
have withdrawn from all of that line except for a buffer zone around
Jerusalem. Japan, Germany, and Italy surrendered unconditionally
after they lost the war, and the Allies occupied them for a few years
to make sure they didn't try to make trouble again, and then withdrew
entirely. Israel would have done that if the Arabs had surrendered
and made peace. The Arabs have never missed an oppotunity to miss an
opportunity. And they will again in the future.

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,

Feb 29, 2016, 9:11:32 AM2/29/16

to

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 12:16:27 AM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
> On 2016-02-27, malcolm...@btinternet.com

> The Septuagint was the translation used by the Jews of A;exandria,
> and presumably more of Egypt, and was the version used by Christians
> for their translation to Greek or Latin; it was definitely used. There
> are many Qumran scrolls which correspond to a Hebrew original of this
> Greek translation. It was still used, together with the Hebrew original,
> several centuries later.
>
> Also, the Samaritan version was, and possibly still is, used by the
> Samaritans.
>

The Vulgate was the main Latin version of the Bible, made by St Jerome
working directly from the Hebrew, but with access to the Septuagint.
Where the scrolls agree with the Septuagint against the Masoretic
text, then pretty obviously they represent a Hebrew version from
which the Septuagint was made, it's unlikely that a translation
error in the Septuagint would have been back-transcribed into the
Hebrew.

Yisroel Markov

unread,

Feb 29, 2016, 12:02:24 PM2/29/16

to

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 22:06:58 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:

>On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 7:35:11 PM UTC, Herman Rubin wrote:
>>
>> Some of the scrolls are similar to the Masoretic text. However,
>> some of the scrolls are more similar to the present Samaritan Hexateuch,
>> and some are more similar to the Septuagint. Copying of everything
>> seems to have run into scribes remembering rather than copying.
>>
>The fact a variant is found tells us that some scribe somewhere thought it
>worth writing down, and someone thought the manuscript worth preserving.
>But it doesn't tell us much else about the attitude to the text. The logical
>default position is that it was an alternative text, and a rival to the version
>which became accepted. But we don't know enough to be sure of that. It

Good points.

>could have been considered heretical but kept for scholarly purposes,
>or it could have been a simple mistake as you suggest, or it could have
>been an accepted but not rival reading. (For example if you go into a
>Dominican church, you won't hear the famous "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
>maxima culpa", the Dominicans aren't in dispute with the rest of the Catholic
>church over the true text, they've got their own liturgy which is slightly
>different).
>
>There are lots of possibilities. But the "rival version" one seems the most
>likely.

The Jewish tradition, IIRC, is that both the Septuagint and the
Samaritan Tora were consciously altered, albeit for different
purposes.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 29, 2016, 1:03:15 PM2/29/16

to

This corresponds to what I said. The "Septuagunt variety" scrolls
were the Hebrew scrolls which correspond to the Septuagint. We do
not have any originals of the Septuagint.

Jerome did communicate with some Jews; he claimed that they had no
hard g sound, and the hard g in transliterations mostly comes from
the ayin, which was a pronounced guttural.

As for the Septuagint and its originals, Origen' _Hexapla_ consisted
of six columns, the outside two beeing Hebrew versions and the middle
four being Greek versions. This is further proof of the quality of
scribal copying.

Herman Rubin

unread,

Feb 29, 2016, 1:20:08 PM2/29/16

to

What evidence did they have for such a claim? This claim was invented,
as the Academy insisted that they had the true version, carefully
copied by the scribes from the original onward, and was calling those
who disagreed with them as heretics. The Samaritans were considered
heretics long before this.

The position they had on the Greek Septuagint is that the 72 scholars
who translated Tanakh were all caused to make the same errors by God.
Orthodox tradition is loaded with such.

It is not that unusual back then to invent an explanation if the true one
cannot be found. Midrash is loaded with them.

Fred Goldstein

unread,

Feb 29, 2016, 6:36:10 PM2/29/16

to

On 2/28/2016 8:28 PM, mm wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 07:14:52 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
> <fg...@removeQRM.ionary.com> wrote:

...

>> Yes, it is a historical fact that it is our myth. But myth is not
>> literally true;
>
> That's one meaning of the word myth, but the more academic meaning
> includes stories that are true.

I don't see it that way' it may include stories based upon truth, but if
it's simply true, it's history, not myth.
...

> Myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being
> or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a
> natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or
> demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
> Dictionary.com Unabridged
> Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2016.

That dictionary distinguishes myth from history in two ways. One is in
the word "story", which, while not necessarily meaning not true, in
context implies something told without being "history". The other is in
its use of deities, which again falls outside of history, and thus is
treated contextually based upon one's religious beliefs. I for one don't
treat stories about acts of deities as being literal corporeal truth,
but I can appreciate the value of good myth. Of course the Orthodox can
disagree.

...

>> Where I live, there were no Jews 2000 years ago. Nor any Europeans or
>> Asians or Africans. The Massachusett probably lived here, the
>> Naragansett and Wampanoag nearby. But others moved in. The people now
>> living in the Judean hills are probably descended from the fallen
>> Northern Kingdom via the Samaritans. But even if they weren't, they've
>> lived there for years, and thus have a right to remain peacefully in
>> their homes. And have more right to it than say Peruvians who converted
>> to Judaism.
>
> If they want Israel out of that area, they should have made peace with
> Israel. Had they done that in 1967, or even 68 or 69, Israel would
> have withdrawn from all of that line except for a buffer zone around
> Jerusalem. Japan, Germany, and Italy surrendered unconditionally
> after they lost the war, and the Allies occupied them for a few years
> to make sure they didn't try to make trouble again, and then withdrew
> entirely. Israel would have done that if the Arabs had surrendered
> and made peace. The Arabs have never missed an oppotunity to miss an
> opportunity. And they will again in the future.

That paragraph refers to somebodies called "Arabs" as if that were a
unified state. Japan and Germany were unified, recognized states during
WW II. They had governments that could surrender, recognized (if in
Germany's case shifted) borders, and the remnants of long-functioning
state apparatuses. The term "Arab" does not refer to a state; it's an
ethnicity, or perhaps meta-ethnicity. The areas populated by people who
today call themselves Palestinian Arabs were part of the Ottoman Empire,
later Mandatory Palestine, and post-1948 the Gaza Strip was administered
by Egypt while the West Bank was claimed by the HKJ, then after 1967
Egypt and the HKJ gave up their claims in support of a separate
Palestinian entity. And while there is a Palestinian Authority today,
they are not terribly powerful nor united. In few instances were the
people themselves consulted or treated as more than pawns.

ruben safir

unread,

Mar 1, 2016, 2:27:41 PM3/1/16

to

On 02/29/2016 01:27 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
>>> >>could have been considered heretical but kept for scholarly purposes,
>>> >>or it could have been a simple mistake as you suggest, or it could have
>>> >>been an accepted but not rival reading. (For example if you go into a
>>> >>Dominican church, you won't hear the famous "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
>>> >>maxima culpa", the Dominicans aren't in dispute with the rest of the Catholic
>>> >>church over the true text, they've got their own liturgy which is slightly
>>> >>different).
>>> >>There are lots of possibilities. But the "rival version" one seems the most
>>> >>likely.
>> > The Jewish tradition, IIRC, is that both the Septuagint and the
>> > Samaritan Tora were consciously altered, albeit for different
>> > purposes.
> What evidence did they have for such a claim? This claim was invented,
> as the Academy insisted that they had the true version, carefully
> copied by the scribes from the original onward, and was calling those
> who disagreed with them as heretics. The Samaritans were considered
> heretics long before this.
>
> The position they had on the Greek Septuagint is that the 72 scholars
> who translated Tanakh were all caused to make the same errors by God.
> Orthodox tradition is loaded with such.
>
> It is not that unusual back then to invent an explanation if the true one
> cannot be found. Midrash is loaded with them.

blah blah blah blah...

So the Christians have an original text aside from their overt desire to
create a break off religion, but those Jews have no proof. The text
itself was nearly a 1000 years old by the time of the 1st century AD.
There is NO reason to believe that groups of heretic faiths had any
reason or motivation to maintain a faithful, let alone when the text is
translated to Greek, or even Aramaic.

this is just part of the expected typical bias of a certain breed of
academic researchers biased against Jewish tradition.

Do the Indians go through such a similar problem with the Verdick?

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,

Mar 1, 2016, 5:23:08 PM3/1/16

to

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 7:27:41 PM UTC, ruben safir wrote:
> On 02/29/2016 01:27 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> blah blah blah blah...
>
> So the Christians have an original text aside from their overt
> desire to create a break off religion, but those Jews have no
> proof. The text itself was nearly a 1000 years old by the time
> of the 1st century AD.
>

Early Christians used the Septuagint, simply because they were
mainly Greek-speaking. There's no hint of any discussion or
debate about which version was canonical until Origen got
interested in the question in the 3rd century.

>
> There is NO reason to believe that groups of heretic faiths
> had any reason or motivation to maintain a faithful, let alone
> when the text is translated to Greek, or even Aramaic.
>

The manuscript record is very rich. The early Christians were
bookish people, and manuscripts are always turning up. So we've
got a pretty good understanding of how the Christian scriptures
developed, except for the earliest few years in the 1st century.

ruben safir

unread,

Shelly

unread,

Mar 8, 2016, 11:35:00 AM3/8/16

to

Amazing, truly amazing. For once we agree on something.

--
Shelly

Yisroel Markov

unread,

Mar 8, 2016, 12:04:37 PM3/8/16

to

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 12:01:42 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:

>On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:38:09 AM UTC, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>>
>> The order is all wrong. I don't really care about the theological
>> basis. The question is simply "Is it literally true or not? The answer
>> to that question is an emphatic, unequivocal NO! Bereshit is a story to
>> explain the origin of things to an uneducated populace. It is meant to
>> inspire an awe of God, but should NEVER be considered LITERAL FACT. It
>> is not.
>>
>> Now you may not have the "energy to explain it", and I don't want to
>> waste my time with anyone who takes that myth as literally truth. If you
>> want to take it as symbolic, then fine. If you want to take it as
>> inspirint religious adherancy, then fine. But if you want to take it as
>> literal truth, then at least in my opinion you are a fool.
>>
>It wasn't written by uneducated people. They seem to have known the latest
>theories about the nature of the world - that water was a primodorial
>element, for example, and that creation was a split or hole in the chaos.
>But it's de-mythologised. In the Enuma Elish, Marduk kills the chaos
>dragon Tiamat, and splits her body in two, which become sky and
>sea, creating a space in between for humans to live. In Genesis, the dragon
>and the battle are gone, God just says "let it be" and the events unfold.

[nod] Like I've said before: Tora doesn't work as myth. That doesn't
make it scientific, of course, at least not in the way we understand
science today.

>Whilst we can't really reconstruct the authors' thought processes, it's likely
>that they accepted what we today would call the "scientific" part of the
>Babylonians' theories, whilst rejecting what we today would call the
>"mythological" part. That's a very modern concept, however, and I hesitate
>to say that priest writing 2,700 year ago had essentially our modern ideas.

When you consider the likely motivation for de-mythologization, which
you bring below, it doesn't have to be "modern."

>It's likely that God just says "let there be" because they understood that God
>is all powerful. They didn't know exactly how He had created the world and
>wouldn't presume to tell Him to to go about the process. So God just says
>and it is.

Yes. I don't think anyone has yet beat Rashi's comment thereof, which
I paraphrase as follows: "Why did the Tora begin with creation, rather
than with the first commandment? To tell you who's boss."

mm

unread,

Mar 8, 2016, 2:54:00 PM3/8/16

to

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 14:17:22 +0000 (UTC), "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in
>soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> The order is all wrong. I don't really care about the theological
>> basis. The question is simply "Is it literally true or not? The answer
>> to that question is an emphatic, unequivocal NO! Bereshit is a story to
>> explain the origin of things to an uneducated populace. It is meant to
>> inspire an awe of God, but should NEVER be considered LITERAL FACT. It
>> is not.
>>
>> Now you may not have the "energy to explain it", and I don't want to
>> waste my time with anyone who takes that myth as literally truth. If you
>> want to take it as symbolic, then fine. If you want to take it as
>> inspirint religious adherancy, then fine. But if you want to take it as
>> literal truth, then at least in my opinion you are a fool.
>
>I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [= "bereishies"]

I know you're not a native English speaker and you make some mistakes,
and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
ones, even when intending to discuss Judaism, even though it's been
pointed out that they have mistakes, but do you think it is honest to
imply that B'reishis begins "Once upon a time"? Unless you can show
me a translation that you relied on, I think it is dishonest.

>literally,

And then to add "literally"! Do you not know what that word means?
Either you don't know or you are careless or dishonest in your use of
the word.

Evertjan.

unread,

Mar 8, 2016, 5:30:33 PM3/8/16

to

mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

>>I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [=
>>"bereishies"]
>
> I know you're not a native English speaker and you make some mistakes,

You do not know, you cannot know and you are wrong.

> and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
> ones,

I do not use a translation of the Torah, and when I would usw a Dutch
translation I would use Dasberg, and would disagree with his interpretation.

I am interpreting "reshies" as coming from "rosh" and stating it as the
ordinal[!] number "once", do be-reshies I interpret as "ones upon a time".

> even when intending to discuss Judaism,

I am not discussing Judaism, I am interpreting the first word of the Torah.

> even though it's been pointed out

What is that for nonsense, I should not interprete something because "it has
been pointed out"? What ultimate strange way of argument by anonimous
authority!

> that they have mistakes, but do you think it is honest to
> imply that B'reishis begins "Once upon a time"?

You are losing it, my friend, what is dishonest about an intepretation,
other than that you disagree?

> Unless you can show me a translation that you relied on,

Interpretation is NOT relying on a translation, translation as a source of
honesty is bullshit.

> I think it is dishonest.

You have something toe learn about interpretation and even discuddion, my
friend.

You are discussing on the level of firest grade schoolboys, thinking, I
imagine, that I would be put of by things like "dishonest" and "you're not a
native English speaker", instead of discussing the matter at hand, iqq my
interpertation of "bereishies".

mm

unread,

Mar 9, 2016, 12:19:59 AM3/9/16

to

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 22:37:49 +0000 (UTC), "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.h...@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote on 08 Mar 2016 in
>soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>>>I would never take a story starting with "once upon a time" [=
>>>"bereishies"]
>>
>> I know you're not a native English speaker and you make some mistakes,
>
>You do not know, you cannot know and you are wrong.

Well you live in the Netherlands and seem to have a Dutch name, but if
you say your parents spoke English to you when you were less than a
year old, then I was wrong. But you still make some mistakes in
your English that no native speaker makes. For example in another
post today you got halachic right but just a few words from it, you
came up with the word haloge, which is not English nor when pronounced
in English is it Hebrew.

>
>> and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
>> ones,
>
>I do not use a translation of the Torah, and when I would usw a Dutch
>translation I would use Dasberg, and would disagree with his interpretation.
>
>I am interpreting "reshies" as coming from "rosh" and stating it as the
>ordinal[!] number "once", do be-reshies I interpret as "ones upon a time".

You're not competent to translate Hebrew, and if you're going to use
you're own interpretation, nonsense or not, you should mark it as your
own and explain to readers in that paragraph that you only know a few
words of Hebrew, and maybe some other disclaimers too (I'll have to
think about it and hear what others say.). Otherwise, you're giving a
dishonest impression of what the word means.

>> even when intending to discuss Judaism,
>
>I am not discussing Judaism, I am interpreting the first word of the Torah.

You cannot understand the first word of the Tanach without considering
it in the light of Judaism. You can't understand to the point of
rewriting the meaning of any word in the Tanach without considering it
in the light of Judaism. Would you claim to understand the first
sentence of _A Tale of Two Cities_ without considering the rest of the
book?

>> even though it's been pointed out
>
>What is that for nonsense, I should not interprete something because "it has
>been pointed out"? What ultimate strange way of argument by anonimous
>authority!

I pointed it out, as you and regular readers well know, but it takes
no authority to point out that Xian translations have mistakes. It's
well known to every educated Jew and some Xians. And it should be
known to you by now.

>
>> that they have mistakes, but do you think it is honest to
>> imply that B'reishis begins "Once upon a time"?
>
>You are losing it, my friend, what is dishonest about an intepretation,
>other than that you disagree?

You know very well the answer, but I will play along. Because those
are first four words of many fairy tales, and by mistranslating the
word, which says nothing about "once", nothing about "upon" and
nothing about "time", you are basically lying about what the word
means and trying to cast it as a fairy tale. If you want to slander
the Tanach, do that, but why humiliate yourself further by putting
forth a non-translation as if it were a translation.

>> Unless you can show me a translation that you relied on,
>
>Interpretation is NOT relying on a translation,

You didn't say it was your interpretation. You referred to the story
starting with those words, not "With words I interpret as..."

>translation as a source of
>honesty is bullshit.

I feel sorry for you.

>> I think it is dishonest.
>
>You have something toe learn about interpretation and even discuddion, my
>friend.

I'm not your friend. You have major things to learn about honesty.

>
>You are discussing on the level of firest grade schoolboys, thinking, I
>imagine, that I would be put of by things like "dishonest" and "you're not a
>native English speaker", instead of discussing the matter at hand, iqq my
>interpertation of "bereishies".

That's not worth discussing. Your interpretation is nonsense, like
much of what you write. But if you had labeled it your
interpretation and specified that you only know a few words of Hebrew,
I wouldn't have posted a reply at all.

Evertjan.

unread,

Mar 9, 2016, 9:19:03 AM3/9/16

to

mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote on 09 Mar 2016 in
soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> Well you live in the Netherlands and seem to have a Dutch name, but if
> you say your parents spoke English to you when you were less than a
> year old, then I was wrong. But you still make some mistakes in
> your English that no native speaker makes.

You seem not well versed in the mistakes natives make, you are such a
typical naive monoglot in this sense. Even the definition of mistake
probably escapes you.

> For example in another
> post today you got halachic right but just a few words from it, you
> came up with the word haloge, which is not English

I speak, write and spell as I want,
"haloge"/"halochah" is a common Ashkenazic Hebrew word.

I do not claim or try to write English to convince someone that I am a
native, do you have that urge?

I write English in this NG to communicate.

> nor when pronounced in English is it Hebrew.

What nonsense is that, why should foreign words be "pronounced in English"?

>>> and I know you use Xian translations of the Tanach instead of Jewish
>>> ones,
>>
>>I do not use a translation of the Torah, and when I would usw a Dutch
>>translation I would use Dasberg, and would disagree with his
>>interpretation.
>>
>>I am interpreting "reshies" as coming from "rosh" and stating it as the
>>ordinal[!] number "once", do be-reshies I interpret as "ones upon a
>>time".
>
> You're not competent to translate Hebrew,

Nonsense, you are not my judge. My interpretation is mine. My competence is
mine to judge.

I even think interpretation of text should be the duty of every Jew,
as 'literal' texts don't mean anything without interpretation. Taking the
word of someone else, like a learned rabbi, without listening to his/her
arguments and interpreting that for yourself should be discouraged,
especially by such a rabbi.