|
On August 18 2009 02:53 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 01:47 Jibba wrote:On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote:
I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes. Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics. Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him. First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%. I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies. I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
|
On August 18 2009 03:20 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:54 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:49 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That is beside the point. It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young." I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights. Israel and Israelite are two different words. And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah. Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel.
According, originally, to the KJV Bible.
I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write.
What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah?
|
On August 18 2009 03:26 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:08 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:49 HnR)hT wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. Why is it wrong to refer to the "children of Israel" in Egypt as Israelites? As I recall it, the two are differentiated because the Hebrews were a largely nomadic people whereas the Israelites had become a settled people after the acceptance of the Mosaic covenant and conquest of Canaan. As for why the two groups are differentiated in academia... I would wager that it was simply a matter of convenience. Hebrews are descendants from Eber, Israelites are descended from Israel (Jacob). All Israelites are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Israelites. That's the difference between the two. Oh so now you accept that there is a difference? That is correct, but I don't believe that is the distinction used by critics in historical analysis of the Bible.
OMG. . . Of course the distinction is used because they came about at different times and led to different family lines.
And there is no difference between the two in context of the argument earlier because all Israelites are Hebrew.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 18 2009 03:24 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote:
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
Deuteronomy doesn't contradict parts of the New Testament? Also, which version are you working from because the fact that things align in some texts after they were revised in the middle ages should be a surprise to no one. It should be studied for what it is: a highly influential man made piece of fiction, revised over a very long time span by many different people with political interests. Same goes for the other holy books.
|
On August 18 2009 03:09 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:03 daz wrote:
i wonder if they're going to teach them the parts in the bible where god encourages people to slaughter children, rape women and beat slaves Slaughter children? Sure I remember that. Beat slaves? I think I remember that. Rape women? Not sure about that one. Where's it at?
zechariah 14:1-2
2 samuel 12:11-12
i think theres a few more as well
|
On August 18 2009 03:24 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote:
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion.
How many birds of each kind were on the ark?
hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3
|
On August 18 2009 03:28 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:20 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:54 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:49 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That is beside the point. It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young." I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights. Israel and Israelite are two different words. And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah. Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel. According, originally, to the KJV Bible. Show nested quote +I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write. What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah?
The KJV of the Bible is not the first time the name Israel showed up. Israel is an ancient Hebrew word (technically a phrase when translated).
I did not say anything about what Moses did or did not write. My god, you can't be this stupid...
|
The guise that this is just to teach the way the bible has affected history and its cultural significance is absurd to me. You can't get away from religion if you're talking about history, but no one needs to actually read the stupid teachings. They just need to know how the people of the time interpreted them and what actions they performed were a result of them. Studying the actual bible in a high school curriculum is just a waste of time.
Yes, the fact that it is just one religion's holy book makes it awful. If you're gonna have religious studies, cover as many influential religions as you can. Not to be fair to all religions (you'll never cover them all), but to actually be able to compare and contrast and analyse. Studying just the scripture of one religion gives you such a narrow and incomplete understanding that you might as well not have studied it in the first place.
That said, religious studies in any form, even secular understanding should be an elective because it's a bullshit worthless course. Seriously, I can't think of a course that would feel more like a waste of time. Well, "careers" half credit course was pretty bad. The only kids that know what they're going to do with their life after taking that course are the kids that already knew because their parents push them (ie: doctors, engineers)... Everyone else is just confused as before they took the dumb multiple choice quiz that told them what colour their personality is, and a list of exciting careers like 'tree surgeon' and 'hot air balloon operator' they might enjoy. So yeah, maybe that's worse than religious studies... but not by much.
|
They just want to keep the kiddies under the influence of good ol' Christianity, suppress natural doubt.
I think it'd be really cool if schools made a requirement that students had to take a course on a non-big-3 monotheistic religion. Like Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. It'd give kids a little perspective. They can read/hear all about Jesus when their parents drag them to church, or when strangers try to convert them.
EDIT: I deleted a large chunk of text containing the absurdity of certain patterns/beliefs within the Bible. But you've heard 'em all before.
|
On August 18 2009 03:34 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:28 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:20 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:54 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:49 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 01:09 Mindcrime wrote:
Israelite is a term that is much younger than you think it is; in religious writing, it was first used in the KJV Bible.
The word "Jew," unlike both "Israelite" and "Hebrew" which both refer to an ethnic group during a specific period of time, is a word used to describe any follower of Judaism regardless of time period. And Judaism is only ever referred to as "Judaism" in English. Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That is beside the point. It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young." I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights. Israel and Israelite are two different words. And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah. Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel. According, originally, to the KJV Bible. I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write. What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah? The KJV of the Bible is not the first time the name Israel showed up. Israel is an ancient Hebrew word (technically a phrase when translated). I did not say anything about what Moses did or did not write. My god, you can't be this stupid...
Again, Israel and Israelite are two different words.
You said that Moses put pen to paper, so you apparently believe he wrote something. Given that the Torah is the only thing he is credited with writing, why is it not a logical assumption that you were talking about the Torah?
|
United States22883 Posts
What is worthless about religious studies?
|
On August 18 2009 03:32 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:24 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote:
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion. How many birds of each kind were on the ark? hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3
"two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
"As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them."
2 to keep alive, 5 to eat.
|
On August 18 2009 03:37 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
They just want to keep the kiddies under the influence of good ol' Christianity, suppress natural doubt.
I think it'd be really cool if schools made a requirement that students had to take a course on a non-big-3 monotheistic religion. Like Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. It'd give kids a little perspective. They can read/hear all about Jesus when their parents drag them to church, or when strangers try to convert them.
EDIT: I deleted a large chunk of text containing the absurdity of certain patterns/beliefs within the Bible. But you've heard 'em all before.
Too pad "paganism" isn't really a religion. Pagan is just a word to denote non-christian, then someone took off with it to sell books in new age shops.
|
On August 18 2009 03:37 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:34 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:28 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:20 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:54 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:49 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 01:18 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
Israel is a person and the name of God's chosen one. This was before he and his family even went to Egypt. And so they were called Israelites and their nation called Israel. Hebrew = Israelite = Jew. The Israelite tribe of Judah was the most numerous and hence they became known as Jews and their religion Judaism. Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young. While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That is beside the point. It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young." I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights. Israel and Israelite are two different words. And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah. Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel. According, originally, to the KJV Bible. I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write. What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah? The KJV of the Bible is not the first time the name Israel showed up. Israel is an ancient Hebrew word (technically a phrase when translated). I did not say anything about what Moses did or did not write. My god, you can't be this stupid... Again, Israel and Israelite are two different words. You said that Moses put pen to paper, so you apparently believe he wrote something. Given that the Torah is the only thing he is credited with writing, why is it not a logical assumption that you were talking about the Torah?
I still never said what Moses did or did not write. It is guessed that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (I can't believe you dragged me into saying even that). Drop it.
Holy crap, you are not really arguing that adding "ite" to Israel makes it a new word are you? Are you serious? Did you get dropped on your head as a child? It is a form of the word Israel.
|
On August 18 2009 04:06 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:32 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:24 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote:
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion. How many birds of each kind were on the ark? hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3 "two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them." 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat.
Genesis 7:3 (NIV): and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Note that it says "seven... to keep their various kinds alive". It does not say "to both keep them alive and to serve as food for you". You're reading into the text what is not there.
|
On August 18 2009 04:25 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 04:06 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:32 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:24 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote:
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion. How many birds of each kind were on the ark? hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3 "two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them." 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat. Genesis 7:3 (NIV): and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Note that it says seven... to keep their various kinds alive. It does not say "to both keep them alive and to serve as food for you. You're reading into the text what is not there.
If they brought two of each and ate even one of each, how many birds would there be? If they brought 7 of each, 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat, it ensures that it would keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Keep in mind that it's not just the food for his family, but also the animals. Unless they both don't eat meat for a month and a half. I feel sorry for the hawks. I don't think they eat grain. Some reasoning should tell you that some animals MUST be eaten.
|
On August 18 2009 04:19 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 03:37 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:34 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:28 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:20 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:54 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:49 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:34 Mindcrime wrote:
[quote]
Again, the word "Israelite" is relatively young.
While Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are often used synonymously, there are subtle differences. Referring to the people who were in Egypt as Israelites is, despite the etymology of the term, incorrect. It is also incorrect to call the people who lived in Canaan after the conquest Hebrews. The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That is beside the point. It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young." I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights. Israel and Israelite are two different words. And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah. Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel. According, originally, to the KJV Bible. I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write. What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah? The KJV of the Bible is not the first time the name Israel showed up. Israel is an ancient Hebrew word (technically a phrase when translated). I did not say anything about what Moses did or did not write. My god, you can't be this stupid... Again, Israel and Israelite are two different words. You said that Moses put pen to paper, so you apparently believe he wrote something. Given that the Torah is the only thing he is credited with writing, why is it not a logical assumption that you were talking about the Torah? I still never said what Moses did or did not write. It is guessed that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (I can't believe you dragged me into saying even that). Drop it. Holy crap, you are not really arguing that adding "ite" to Israel makes it a new word are you? Are you serious? Did you get dropped on your head as a child? It is a form of the word Israel.
Yeah, um, adding a prefix or suffix to a word generally creates a new word.
|
On August 18 2009 04:31 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 04:19 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:37 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:34 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:28 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:20 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:17 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:54 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 02:49 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 02:44 NExUS1g wrote:
[quote]
The name of Israel is over 3,000 years old. That is beside the point. It's not beside the point. You said, "Again, the word 'Israelite' is relatively young." I guess near pre-historic times is relatively young to you? As compared to what; the Earth? It existed before Moses put pen to paper. Before the Veda was written. Before Buddha saw the four sights. Israel and Israelite are two different words. And the vast, vast majority of scholars of the Bible reject the tradition that Moses wrote the Torah. Israel is a person and a country, Israelites are those descended from the person Israel. According, originally, to the KJV Bible. I think you just threw in that last part to flaunt knowledge or something because I didn't say anything about what Moses did or did not write. What is Moses credited with writing other than the Torah? The KJV of the Bible is not the first time the name Israel showed up. Israel is an ancient Hebrew word (technically a phrase when translated). I did not say anything about what Moses did or did not write. My god, you can't be this stupid... Again, Israel and Israelite are two different words. You said that Moses put pen to paper, so you apparently believe he wrote something. Given that the Torah is the only thing he is credited with writing, why is it not a logical assumption that you were talking about the Torah? I still never said what Moses did or did not write. It is guessed that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (I can't believe you dragged me into saying even that). Drop it. Holy crap, you are not really arguing that adding "ite" to Israel makes it a new word are you? Are you serious? Did you get dropped on your head as a child? It is a form of the word Israel. Yeah, um, adding a prefix or suffix to a word generally creates a new word.
Again, you're arguing semantics. Israelite = a descendant of Israel. You're really getting on my nerves with this crap.
|
On August 18 2009 04:30 NExUS1g wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 04:25 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 04:06 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:32 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:24 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote:
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion. How many birds of each kind were on the ark? hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3 "two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them." 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat. Genesis 7:3 (NIV): and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Note that it says seven... to keep their various kinds alive. It does not say "to both keep them alive and to serve as food for you. You're reading into the text what is not there. If they brought two of each and ate even one of each, how many birds would there be? If they brought 7 of each, 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat, it ensures that it would keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Keep in mind that it's not just the food for his family, but also the animals. Unless they both don't eat meat for a month and a half. I feel sorry for the hawks. I don't think they eat grain. Some reasoning should tell you that some animals MUST be eaten.
What reason tells me is that Genesis is the work of, at the very least, two different authors that tell their own versions of the same stories and contradict each other several times.
|
On August 18 2009 04:37 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2009 04:30 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 04:25 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 04:06 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:32 Mindcrime wrote:On August 18 2009 03:24 NExUS1g wrote:On August 18 2009 03:11 Lebesgue wrote:
I'm sorry. A whole curse on bible. That's an overkill at least. Why not incorporate it into literature class? A month on studying it should be much more than enough.
Actually in Poland, in highschool one starts literature class with analyzing parts of bible. Bible contains many parts and not all of them explicitly "teach". There are famous poems in it as well. Also there are vast differences between different parts of bible (New Testamnet vs Old Testament). Studying bible critically allows one to see how church is using only parts that fits its teaching (the foundation of catholic religion is New Testament and only parts of Old Testament are used for teaching as the others do not fit that well into teaching of the New Testament).
So I have nothing against studying bible or any other influential religious text in the literature class. But why start a whole new course on it? This kind of reminds me dreaded "bible studies" in Britain...
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Even between the New and Old Testaments. In fact, Jesus was accurately prophesied in the Old Testament. Jesus set the Pharisees straight on the principles of the Bible and cleared up confusion. How many birds of each kind were on the ark? hint: check Genesis 6:20 and then Genesis 7:3 "two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive." "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them." 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat. Genesis 7:3 (NIV): and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Note that it says seven... to keep their various kinds alive. It does not say "to both keep them alive and to serve as food for you. You're reading into the text what is not there. If they brought two of each and ate even one of each, how many birds would there be? If they brought 7 of each, 2 to keep alive, 5 to eat, it ensures that it would keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Keep in mind that it's not just the food for his family, but also the animals. Unless they both don't eat meat for a month and a half. I feel sorry for the hawks. I don't think they eat grain. Some reasoning should tell you that some animals MUST be eaten. What reason tells me is that Genesis is the work of, at the very least, two different authors that tell their own versions of the same stories and contradict each other several times.
You should have your cerebral cortex looked at then because your reasoning ability is slightly diminished if you think that a hawk is fine living on grain for a month and a half and so they won't need extra animals for meat to eat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
