An Imperfect God

[KingKai25]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Yes, I suppose I am a “dabbler,” a singular advantage in some situations. I will remind you that I have already confessed elsewhere that my grammar is terrible and that I frequently need a guide. It has been 5 decades (!!!) or so since I studied the grammar. You, I imagine, have not had so long to study it. So I bear the badge “dabbler” with honor and distinction.
[/quote]

It’s not an advantage when it comes to the historical study of religion, Doc. As anyone who takes up a second language will tell you, if you don’t use it, you’ll lose it (hence the number of inadvertent blunders and misreadings you’ve provided thus far).

And as a dabbler, I am sure Dr. Block has written some interesting things. But let’s go back to first principles for a moment, to p’shat, the plain, simple and flat meaning of the texts.

1. Outdated Rabbinic terms for the various levels of meaning within the biblical texts aren’t going to fly here, Doc. Such terms represent a hermeneutical perspective that simply isn’t sustainable anymore philosophically.

2. P’shat still takes into account nuances of language (colloquialisms, turns of phrase, idioms, etc.). It’s not some sort of blind “literalism.”

Zech 14:9 “And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one.”
and
Ps 86:10 “For You are great and perform wonders, You, O God, alone.”

First, in Zech, the verb “to be” is explicit in the future tense. (This gets rid of that ambiguous term, “verbless” clause, where I consider “to be” to be an irregular verb and not explicit in the present tense.) And then, after the semicolon in English, is the dual declarative “YHWH echad wshmo echad.” How like the dual declarative of the Shema in Deut 6:4! In English rendition, above, “the Lord be one and His name one.” Or equally valid: YHWH (is) one and His Name (is) one. Just as in the Shema, the “is” is either understood, or the meaning is not lost if the dual clause is “verbless.” This is what I meant by a fused concept of the unity of Divinity, and Zechariah is another such example, by grammar, by parallelism, and by p’shat, of that simple interpretation.

I see you failed your first Hebrew quiz, Doc. You’ve gotta study for these things; attending the class isn’t enough! First of all, the verb hayah (to be) IS indeed explicit; it’s right there in the text! The Hebrew of this clause reads, “bayom hahu (in that day) yiyeh Yahweh ehad wushmo ehad (Yahweh will be one and his name (will be) one.” So in this case, we aren’t talking about a verbless clause at all; it has a verb. Thus, it is NOT similar to Deuteronomy 6:4 except in so far as ehad may denote “alone” rather than “one.” So NO, the “is” is not simply understood; it is explicit in the text, so Zech 14:9 is NOT syntactically the same as the Shema.

Secondly, it’s not a “dual declarative” like the Shema at all! In Deut. 6:4, at least one of those two clauses can be taken as appositional (Yahweh our God vs. Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one vs. Yahweh alone). The use of the copulative waw in Zechariah 14:9, coupled with the previous explicit verb hayah, clearly indicates that BOTH clauses are governed by the same explicit verb.

Next, I really don’t mind the English rendition of the Shema as “…God alone.” But is it either necessary or sufficient? I think not.

Refer to Ps 86.: “'atah 'elohim levadecha.”
Levadecha is not an adverb modifying “perform” (by proximity and case); it is in the second person singular: “You, O God, Your ‘aloneness.’”(Or perhaps in coherent English, “You, O God, by yourself.”)

WOW… You’ve literally butchered this passage, primarily because you still haven’t done your research to understand what a verbless clause is.

1. levadecha is STILL an adverb. An adverb can modify more than just verbs, Doc. Consequently, it cannot denote “aloneness.”

2. atah elohim is another verbless clause - it means, “you are God.” If elohim was in the vocative (“O God”), it would (a) require an explicit verb, (b) be set apart in the clause, and (c) be definite, either with the addition of the definite article or by position in the construct state with a definite noun in the absolute state.

3. The pronominal suffix on levad (cha) doesn’t denote possession; it denotes subject and is in agreement with atah. Thus, the proper reading is, “you alone are God” or “you are God alone.” Check the translations; you’ll find that they all consistently render it this way.

Here the Psalmist wanted to express that God alone is capable of wonders, just as the Shema considers God alone worthy of worship. So I chose the example in Psalm 86 to show that if the Deutoronomist had wanted to express the concept of “God alone,” there was a perfectly acceptable Hebrew form for that expression. But he/she did not do so, but chose the form “YHWH echad”–God (is) one–expressing the unity of Divinity.

First of all, as shown above, that’s incorrect. The psalmist didn’t want to show that “God alone is capable of wonders;” the statement simply is that Yahweh alone is God. Secondly, whether or not there was another way to express something in Hebrew does not determine the legitimacy of saying it in a different way. Third, the Shema is once again a unique construction not mirrored syntactically by Psalm 86:10.

Fourth, and most importantly, you have still failed to explain why a statement about the unity of divinity makes sense in the context of Deuteronomy 6. Until you provide a plausible account of how it fits in the context, “Yahweh alone” remains a better interpretation of the syntax.

[quote
(Note, too, that YHWH is referred to by name. Zechariah was familiar with the Shema, and here, he extended its meaning, in parallel language, over all the earth, not just to the Israelites alone addressed by Moses in Deut 6:4.)
[/quote]

You STOLE this point from Block (“How Many is God?” Pg 208-209), and I don’t think you even know why it’s significant. If Block’s correct that Zechariah knew the Shema, then that suggests (based on the context of Zech. 14:9) that Zechariah ALSO interpreted the Shema as a statement of Yahweh’s unique status as Israel’s only God and argued that eventually the whole world would recognize Yahweh as the only God! That means that an interpreter 2500 years before Block interpreted the Shema the same way Block does!

Yes, KK, you will find reasons to reject these simple examples, examples of alternatives which could have been used in Deut 6:4 to express “God alone.” That’s just fine, in English, but doesn’t complete the thought as well as the original. This–the affirmation of the oneness of Divinity–I submit, is the simplest interpretation, the simplest meaning–p’shat from a dabbler–and what follows is the contingent exigesis.

You’re completely wrong, Doc, in part because you are again using poor hermeneutical reasoning. The meaning of a sentence within a piece of discourse is determined ultimately by the literary context, i.e., ITS POSITION IN THE DISCOURSE, so the simplest explanation is actually the one that best fits the literary context, NOT the one that best exemplifies the dictionary definitions of the words.

[cryogen]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The book we call “the bible” is a collection of poorly written, contradictory, and self-indulgent ancient writings written over a period of about 1500 years, by about 40 different human authors on the other side of the world ending about 2000 years ago. IT IS NOT possible to pick it up, read for 5 minutes and come to an accurate understanding of what it teaches about a subject like slavery and MANY others. In fact, it is not possible to make sense of this drivel without first throwing your capacity for rational, intelligent thought out, and replacing it immediately with barren credulity and a willingness to accept fanciful nonsense as accurate reporting of fact.
[/quote]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Fixed this up for you. You left out some absolutely critical information.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Yes, I suppose I am a “dabbler,” a singular advantage in some situations. I will remind you that I have already confessed elsewhere that my grammar is terrible and that I frequently need a guide. It has been 5 decades (!!!) or so since I studied the grammar. You, I imagine, have not had so long to study it. So I bear the badge “dabbler” with honor and distinction.
[/quote]

It’s not an advantage when it comes to the historical study of religion, Doc. As anyone who takes up a second language will tell you, if you don’t use it, you’ll lose it (hence the number of inadvertent blunders and misreadings you’ve provided thus far).

And as a dabbler, I am sure Dr. Block has written some interesting things. But let’s go back to first principles for a moment, to p’shat, the plain, simple and flat meaning of the texts.

1. Outdated Rabbinic terms for the various levels of meaning within the biblical texts aren’t going to fly here, Doc. Such terms represent a hermeneutical perspective that simply isn’t sustainable anymore philosophically.

2. P’shat still takes into account nuances of language (colloquialisms, turns of phrase, idioms, etc.). It’s not some sort of blind “literalism.”

Zech 14:9 “And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one.”
and
Ps 86:10 “For You are great and perform wonders, You, O God, alone.”

First, in Zech, the verb “to be” is explicit in the future tense. (This gets rid of that ambiguous term, “verbless” clause, where I consider “to be” to be an irregular verb and not explicit in the present tense.) And then, after the semicolon in English, is the dual declarative “YHWH echad wshmo echad.” How like the dual declarative of the Shema in Deut 6:4! In English rendition, above, “the Lord be one and His name one.” Or equally valid: YHWH (is) one and His Name (is) one. Just as in the Shema, the “is” is either understood, or the meaning is not lost if the dual clause is “verbless.” This is what I meant by a fused concept of the unity of Divinity, and Zechariah is another such example, by grammar, by parallelism, and by p’shat, of that simple interpretation.

I see you failed your first Hebrew quiz, Doc. You’ve gotta study for these things; attending the class isn’t enough! First of all, the verb hayah (to be) IS indeed explicit; it’s right there in the text! The Hebrew of this clause reads, “bayom hahu (in that day) yiyeh Yahweh ehad wushmo ehad (Yahweh will be one and his name (will be) one.” So in this case, we aren’t talking about a verbless clause at all; it has a verb. Thus, it is NOT similar to Deuteronomy 6:4 except in so far as ehad may denote “alone” rather than “one.” So NO, the “is” is not simply understood; it is explicit in the text, so Zech 14:9 is NOT syntactically the same as the Shema.

Secondly, it’s not a “dual declarative” like the Shema at all! In Deut. 6:4, at least one of those two clauses can be taken as appositional (Yahweh our God vs. Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one vs. Yahweh alone). The use of the copulative waw in Zechariah 14:9, coupled with the previous explicit verb hayah, clearly indicates that BOTH clauses are governed by the same explicit verb.

Next, I really don’t mind the English rendition of the Shema as “…God alone.” But is it either necessary or sufficient? I think not.

Refer to Ps 86.: “'atah 'elohim levadecha.”
Levadecha is not an adverb modifying “perform” (by proximity and case); it is in the second person singular: “You, O God, Your ‘aloneness.’”(Or perhaps in coherent English, “You, O God, by yourself.”)

WOW… You’ve literally butchered this passage, primarily because you still haven’t done your research to understand what a verbless clause is.

1. levadecha is STILL an adverb. An adverb can modify more than just verbs, Doc. Consequently, it cannot denote “aloneness.”

2. atah elohim is another verbless clause - it means, “you are God.” If elohim was in the vocative (“O God”), it would (a) require an explicit verb, (b) be set apart in the clause, and (c) be definite, either with the addition of the definite article or by position in the construct state with a definite noun in the absolute state.

3. The pronominal suffix on levad (cha) doesn’t denote possession; it denotes subject and is in agreement with atah. Thus, the proper reading is, “you alone are God” or “you are God alone.” Check the translations; you’ll find that they all consistently render it this way.

Here the Psalmist wanted to express that God alone is capable of wonders, just as the Shema considers God alone worthy of worship. So I chose the example in Psalm 86 to show that if the Deutoronomist had wanted to express the concept of “God alone,” there was a perfectly acceptable Hebrew form for that expression. But he/she did not do so, but chose the form “YHWH echad”–God (is) one–expressing the unity of Divinity.

First of all, as shown above, that’s incorrect. The psalmist didn’t want to show that “God alone is capable of wonders;” the statement simply is that Yahweh alone is God. Secondly, whether or not there was another way to express something in Hebrew does not determine the legitimacy of saying it in a different way. Third, the Shema is once again a unique construction not mirrored syntactically by Psalm 86:10.

Fourth, and most importantly, you have still failed to explain why a statement about the unity of divinity makes sense in the context of Deuteronomy 6. Until you provide a plausible account of how it fits in the context, “Yahweh alone” remains a better interpretation of the syntax.

[quote
(Note, too, that YHWH is referred to by name. Zechariah was familiar with the Shema, and here, he extended its meaning, in parallel language, over all the earth, not just to the Israelites alone addressed by Moses in Deut 6:4.)
[/quote]

You STOLE this point from Block (“How Many is God?” Pg 208-209), and I don’t think you even know why it’s significant. If Block’s correct that Zechariah knew the Shema, then that suggests (based on the context of Zech. 14:9) that Zechariah ALSO interpreted the Shema as a statement of Yahweh’s unique status as Israel’s only God and argued that eventually the whole world would recognize Yahweh as the only God! That means that an interpreter 2500 years before Block interpreted the Shema the same way Block does!

Yes, KK, you will find reasons to reject these simple examples, examples of alternatives which could have been used in Deut 6:4 to express “God alone.” That’s just fine, in English, but doesn’t complete the thought as well as the original. This–the affirmation of the oneness of Divinity–I submit, is the simplest interpretation, the simplest meaning–p’shat from a dabbler–and what follows is the contingent exigesis.

You’re completely wrong, Doc, in part because you are again using poor hermeneutical reasoning. The meaning of a sentence within a piece of discourse is determined ultimately by the literary context, i.e., ITS POSITION IN THE DISCOURSE, so the simplest explanation is actually the one that best fits the literary context, NOT the one that best exemplifies the dictionary definitions of the words. [/quote]

"You’re completely wrong, Doc, in part because you are again using poor hermeneutical reasoning. The meaning of a sentence within a piece of discourse is determined ultimately by the literary context, i.e., ITS POSITION IN THE DISCOURSE, so the simplest explanation is actually the one that best fits the literary context, NOT the one that best exemplifies the dictionary definitions of the words.

Sez you.

---

With respect: Look, we agree on the context of Deut 6:4. Having left Egypt, a land of multiple gods with multiple names, Moses (or the Deutoronomist for Josiah writes so for his reformations–whichever one likes) is asserting the One god with One Name. That name is YHWH. Zechariah agrees, and Dr. Block, praise heavens, agrees. And you’d I agree.

Next, I cavil. Why “God alone?” Is it not understood? I provided a simple example where the translation, in context, provides a specific way of saying “God alone.” However I butchered the English grammar, the Hebrew meaning of Ps 86:10 is understood clearly, and if the Deutornonomist wanted to specifically convey the phrase “God alone,” she/he could have done so with the same phrase.

Why do I cavil so? Because the unity of God is expressed simply, in poetic parallel in the original, and it does not need the explanation as rendered in English. That is why “God alone,” is not “wrong,” it is simply not necessary nor sufficient, and I posit that a detracts–just a little bit–from the power of the original.

See? Simple. Start with simple.

Last, you are trained in a particular form of “hermeneutics,” and find other options obsolete. Why? On what basis is the simple understanding (note I do not defend a word-for-word translation) discarded as obsolete? Is it discarded because it does not comport with your preconceived notions of “the right way” to read the Bible? If you truly respect the historical–and I know you do–you would not be so quick to throw away traditions that “stretch” back for millennia.

–

edited for clarity

[cryogen]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Every single syllable you typed in this post Robstein has been addressed time without number here. Your simplistic caricatures and general ignorance is typical. I suspect you are pretty much like Cryogen and not really interested in answers, but quite content in your unbelief. Have a nice life. And btw, I don’t feel sorry for you at all. You’re a criminal. Just like me.

Worthy of the death you live in now (yes that makes perfect sense) and the one coming to all who enter the final court of your King without the passover blood of His sacrificial lamb. I would very much prefer you as my brother in Christ and would do anything I could in obedience to Him to help that happen, but I do not feel sorry for you. That’s the wrong way to state it. In my case anyway. You will probably have no trouble finding church goers who meet your unbiblical caricatures.

Do feel free of course to add something of substance to any of those threads. [/quote]

You have addressed them rather inadequately. I am very interested in answers, unfortunately for your argument, I’m interested in the real answers, and not some fabricated shared delusion that lets you do whatever you want to anyone who is not equally affected by the mental illness you so clearly exhibit.

I will simplify this for you T, because you clearly need a more simplistic case.

We do not know exactly how things started, neither you nor I - the atheist. However there is a very big difference in the positions we take. I am happy to say that I don’t know, but that we can reason about the situation and come up with some possibilities. Questions are exciting, and unresolved ones even more so.

You on the other hand say that you DO know with some level of certainty, and that your perfect imaginary friend did it all. This is an intellectually dishonest response. Explaining away a very complex system as being the result of dependently more complex entity, and saying that that finishes the discussion is laughable. All you manage to do is to cause the question what created your god to be asked. This secondary question is always answered in the same way, and is equally as dishonest.

It doesn’t matter how many times you say that you’ve dealt with “these sorts of questions” before, because your approach is always, and continues to be wrong.

[cryogen]

Using the logic of T.

I believe in this imaginary friend, and because I think that they’re cooler than your imaginary friends, therefore he is the right one.

Ah. The ill-applied logical failings of the religious.

[cryogen]

I have faith that Thor is of the true family of gods. Therefore me argument is accurate, and anyone else who disagrees will just be nailed to across like any other fool martyr.*

IF you allow your logical path that you believe, therefore it is true, then this argument is precisely as reliable as your argument about an illiterate jewish carpenter.

• note sarcasm.

[DrSkeptix]

King Kai,

Oh, and again, with respect, I STOLE nothing from Dr Block. I did not find him interesting or original beyond the first few pages. I read the original text of Zechariah, as i have for 50 years, since it has been part of the standard liturgy for about a thousand years.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]cryogen wrote:<<< You on the other hand say that you DO know with some level of certainty, >>>[/quote]OUTRAGEOUS misrepresentation!!! I have NEVER said I know with "some level of certainty. I HAVE said I know with ABSOLUTE certainty. That’s even worse. Let’s get it straight huh pal? [quote]cryogen wrote:<<< and that your perfect imaginary friend did it all. This is an intellectually dishonest response. >>>[/quote] Except for that’s not my response. That’s a Sesame Street caricature of my response. [quote]cryogen wrote:<<< Explaining away a very complex system as being the result of dependently more complex entity, and saying that that finishes the discussion is laughable. >>>[/quote] That doesn’t even start my discussion nevermind finish it because that’s not my argument. You’re making my argument right now. [quote]cryogen wrote:<<< It doesn’t matter how many times you say that you’ve dealt with “these sorts of questions” before, because your approach is always, and continues to be wrong.[/quote] You wouldn’t know because this post is a sterling demonstration of your entire lack of understanding of what my “approach” is. Please try again. In one of the other threads PLEASE. I’ll ask you what I asked Groo the second time I talked to him only phrased differently. Are you certain about anything? If so, what and why? If not then you’re a nutcase and I simply cannot waste God’s time on people who tell me outright that they do not and cannot KNOW anything while drawing their every breath as if the entire universe and their entire life was certain. That is intellectual insanity. The philosophical symptom of death in sin. Make no mistake bub. There are other non Christians here who disagree with me about everything, but will also confirm that you have no idea what I’m talkin about.

[Tiribulus]

I jist hadto help you fellers out lol.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Yes, I suppose I am a “dabbler,” a singular advantage in some situations. I will remind you that I have already confessed elsewhere that my grammar is terrible and that I frequently need a guide. It has been 5 decades (!!!) or so since I studied the grammar. You, I imagine, have not had so long to study it. So I bear the badge “dabbler” with honor and distinction.
[/quote]

It’s not an advantage when it comes to the historical study of religion, Doc. As anyone who takes up a second language will tell you, if you don’t use it, you’ll lose it (hence the number of inadvertent blunders and misreadings you’ve provided thus far).

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
And as a dabbler, I am sure Dr. Block has written some interesting things. But let’s go back to first principles for a moment, to p’shat, the plain, simple and flat meaning of the texts.
[/quote]

1. Outdated Rabbinic terms for the various levels of meaning within the biblical texts aren’t going to fly here, Doc. Such terms represent a hermeneutical perspective that simply isn’t sustainable anymore philosophically.

2. P’shat still takes into account nuances of language (colloquialisms, turns of phrase, idioms, etc.). It’s not some sort of blind “literalism.”

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Zech 14:9 “And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one.”
and
Ps 86:10 “For You are great and perform wonders, You, O God, alone.”

First, in Zech, the verb “to be” is explicit in the future tense. (This gets rid of that ambiguous term, “verbless” clause, where I consider “to be” to be an irregular verb and not explicit in the present tense.) And then, after the semicolon in English, is the dual declarative “YHWH echad wshmo echad.” How like the dual declarative of the Shema in Deut 6:4! In English rendition, above, “the Lord be one and His name one.” Or equally valid: YHWH (is) one and His Name (is) one. Just as in the Shema, the “is” is either understood, or the meaning is not lost if the dual clause is “verbless.” This is what I meant by a fused concept of the unity of Divinity, and Zechariah is another such example, by grammar, by parallelism, and by p’shat, of that simple interpretation.
[/quote]

I see you failed your first Hebrew quiz, Doc. You’ve gotta study for these things; attending the class isn’t enough! First of all, the verb hayah (to be) IS indeed explicit; it’s right there in the text! The Hebrew of this clause reads, “bayom hahu (in that day) yiyeh Yahweh ehad wushmo ehad (Yahweh will be one and his name (will be) one.” So in this case, we aren’t talking about a verbless clause at all; it has a verb. Thus, it is NOT similar to Deuteronomy 6:4 except in so far as ehad may denote “alone” rather than “one.” So NO, the “is” is not simply understood; it is explicit in the text, so Zech 14:9 is NOT syntactically the same as the Shema.

Secondly, it’s not a “dual declarative” like the Shema at all! In Deut. 6:4, at least one of those two clauses can be taken as appositional (Yahweh our God vs. Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one vs. Yahweh alone). The use of the copulative waw in Zechariah 14:9, coupled with the previous explicit verb hayah, clearly indicates that BOTH clauses are governed by the same explicit verb.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Next, I really don’t mind the English rendition of the Shema as “…God alone.” But is it either necessary or sufficient? I think not.

Refer to Ps 86.: “'atah 'elohim levadecha.”
Levadecha is not an adverb modifying “perform” (by proximity and case); it is in the second person singular: “You, O God, Your ‘aloneness.’”(Or perhaps in coherent English, “You, O God, by yourself.”)
[/quote]

WOW… You’ve literally butchered this passage, primarily because you still haven’t done your research to understand what a verbless clause is.

1. levadecha is STILL an adverb. An adverb can modify more than just verbs, Doc. Consequently, it cannot denote “aloneness.”

2. atah elohim is another verbless clause - it means, “you are God.” If elohim was in the vocative (“O God”), it would (a) require an explicit verb, (b) be set apart in the clause, and (c) be definite, either with the addition of the definite article or by position in the construct state with a definite noun in the absolute state.

3. The pronominal suffix on levad (cha) doesn’t denote possession; it denotes subject and is in agreement with atah. Thus, the proper reading is, “you alone are God” or “you are God alone.” Check the translations; you’ll find that they all consistently render it this way.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Here the Psalmist wanted to express that God alone is capable of wonders, just as the Shema considers God alone worthy of worship. So I chose the example in Psalm 86 to show that if the Deutoronomist had wanted to express the concept of “God alone,” there was a perfectly acceptable Hebrew form for that expression. But he/she did not do so, but chose the form “YHWH echad”–God (is) one–expressing the unity of Divinity.
[/quote]

First of all, as shown above, that’s incorrect. The psalmist didn’t want to show that “God alone is capable of wonders;” the statement simply is that Yahweh alone is God. Secondly, whether or not there was another way to express something in Hebrew does not determine the legitimacy of saying it in a different way. Third, the Shema is once again a unique construction not mirrored syntactically by Psalm 86:10.

Fourth, and most importantly, you have still failed to explain why a statement about the unity of divinity makes sense in the context of Deuteronomy 6. Until you provide a plausible account of how it fits in the context, “Yahweh alone” remains a better interpretation of the syntax.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
(Note, too, that YHWH is referred to by name. Zechariah was familiar with the Shema, and here, he extended its meaning, in parallel language, over all the earth, not just to the Israelites alone addressed by Moses in Deut 6:4.)
[/quote]

You STOLE this point from Block (“How Many is God?” Pg 208-209), and I don’t think you even know why it’s significant. If Block’s correct that Zechariah knew the Shema, then that suggests (based on the context of Zech. 14:9) that Zechariah ALSO interpreted the Shema as a statement of Yahweh’s unique status as Israel’s only God and argued that eventually the whole world would recognize Yahweh as the only God! That means that an interpreter 2500 years before Block interpreted the Shema the same way Block does!

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Yes, KK, you will find reasons to reject these simple examples, examples of alternatives which could have been used in Deut 6:4 to express “God alone.” That’s just fine, in English, but doesn’t complete the thought as well as the original. This–the affirmation of the oneness of Divinity–I submit, is the simplest interpretation, the simplest meaning–p’shat from a dabbler–and what follows is the contingent exigesis.
[/quote]

You’re completely wrong, Doc, in part because you are again using poor hermeneutical reasoning. The meaning of a sentence within a piece of discourse is determined ultimately by the literary context, i.e., ITS POSITION IN THE DISCOURSE, so the simplest explanation is actually the one that best fits the literary context, NOT the one that best exemplifies the dictionary definitions of the words. [/quote]

Sez you.

---

Look, we agree on the context of Deut 6:4. Having left Egypt, a land of multiple gods with multile names, Moses (or the Deutoronomist for Josiah writes so for his reformations–whichever one likes) is asserting the One god with One Name. That name is YHWH. Zechariah agrees, and Dr. Block, praise heavens, agress. And you agree.

Next, I cavil. Why “God alone?” Is it not understood. I provided a simple example where the translation, in context, provides a specific way of saying “God alone.” Why do I cavil? Because the unity of God is expressed simply, in poetic parallel in the original, and it does not need the explanation as rendered in English. That is why “God alone,” is not “wrong,” it is simply not necessary nor sufficient, and I posit that a detracts–just a little bit–from the power of the original.

See? Simple. Start with simple.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]cryogen wrote:
Using the logic of T.

I believe in this imaginary friend, and because I think that they’re cooler than your imaginary friends, therefore he is the right one.

Ah. The ill-applied logical failings of the religious.[/quote]LOL!! That’s actually pretty funny. I’ll be waiting for your answer to my question.

[Tiribulus]

I wrote Cryogen 2 posts that disappeared. =[

[Karado]

'Got a clever poster for the Muslims there too Aussie, or are you too scared
to post one?

[Severiano]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]robstein wrote:
How do you know that you’re not idoling a false god now? What if 300 years from now the REAL religion is revealed, and you’ve been in trouble this whole time? The fact that billions of people, and civilizations that have been around for THOUSANDS of years, that you just dismiss them as worshipping a “false” god. Their lives, traditions, beliefs that you hold just as near to you, based on nothing, say your book is right and theirs is wrong.

If you answer anything other than “there is no way to know that,” then I pray to whatever is up there that you are forgiven for your supreme ignorance. [/quote]

Someone who uses words like “idoling” (it’s idolizing) and composes incoherent sentences like the above claims to be a beacon of logical thought? 2/3 of the statements above aren’t even complete sentences! Carelessness in writing is symptomatic of a general carelessness in thought; you are certainly a shining example of that maxim.

If you don’t subscribe to a particular faith (and thus do not possess any revelation of the divine being’s nature), on what grounds do you assume this being even cares about a human’s “supreme ignorance?”
[/quote]

He brings up a valid point whether his sentence structure or grammar is on point or not. You have to accept the fact that what he brought up is true, but again your faith is supposed to scoff in the face of logic.

He’s simply pointing out the reality that there is a possibility that you are worshiping a false idol, being that faith itself would allow such a thing, it’s just one of the realities, and strengths/ weaknesses of faith.

You could look at it as a strength in your faith, that you can’t know that you aren’t worshiping a false idol… Or you can look at it as a weakness.

[kamui]

I really hope that Cryogen is not another postmodern relativist.
I’m feeling lonely sometimes.

[cstratton2]

This thread is ridicously you can NEVER understand God on the level of mind… this is all theism and a belief in a self image…

[cstratton2]

Sorry I should re iterate… the human mind is nothing but continuous thought pattern, therefore nothing can ever be realized or lived as the product of belief, with belief comes doubt… It is a realization and deep sense of knowing that is felt… And religion can either be a doorway into spiritual being or a brick wall, if it is seen to be used as a guide and not a fundamental something I own, my god etc… I don’t want to get into a large discussion about all this but it just makes me infuriated when I hear ignorant stuff like about God telling people to set carnage and cannabalism in the name of god… In fact sounds a lot like what some terrorists do in the name of “god”…

The only people responsible for pain in suffering in this world is done by us, in our own egoic sleepwalking trance, claiming religion, beliefs, and ideals with virtues for a better “tommorrow” start every war that ever started since the dawn of humanity because of stupid nonsensical beliefs on all forms… You know nothing I know nothing its all a mystery… Everything you think you know was taught to you, thats not realization thats just nonsensical ever changing perceptions.

Many people of the Church were quite profound realizers of truth though… Mother Therasa was a wonderful and very wise, opened hearted woman.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< your faith is supposed to scoff in the face of logic. >>>[/quote] There you go again. Faith, which is what every epistemology is, is the foundation of human logic. Yours, Cryogen,s and Kamui’s too. It’s only a question of what in. You have been designed in the derivative image of a super-logical God. Your mind CANNOT form so much as a single intelligible fraction of a thought without axiomatic reference to and dependence upon your designer. HE made sure of it.

You cannot prevent it no matter how hard you try and boy do you ever. This is called “sin”. Adam and Eve tried it first in the garden. It was the most monumentally disastrous failure of all time. Man is neither allowed nor capable of making his own decisions. He functions correctly only when in self conscious voluntary submission to the God who is alone qualified and authorized to instruct him in RIGHTeousness.

The trouble is that sin has broken this image of God in man. NOT eliminated, but broken it. He now, being a chip off of ol father Adam’s block, hates his designer and spends every second of his life attempting to escape moral accountability to Him with endlessly morphing versions of intellectual/philosophical/semantic rebellion, which all reduce in the end to the exact same single and simple thing. "I will decide, ME ME ME whether there is a God and if so what kind I’ll allow Him to be". Sinful autonomous man in all his vainglorious self worshiping self delusional idolatry.

What’s amusing is that I haven’t found one single unbeliever, ever, who can tell me how and why 2+2=4, but they have no problem advancing entire schemes of alleged science as if they actually have any reason whatsoever in and by their sinful autonomous selves for believing ANYTHING. Which the honest ones simply affirm. They tell me straight up: “well we can’t REALLY KNOW anything”.

However, as that proud owner of the very first Tiribulus “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye” award, Groo, has himself quite rightly affirmed: “At the very least I ACT like I know things for certain. Everybody does” (paraphrase). He did not know at the time that with that absolutely true and honest statement he was delivering himself firmly into the hands of an ultra conservative Christian lunatic. I am duty bound to occasionally remind him.

Cryogen, the bottom line is you are living breathing and thinking in a natural and metaphysical universe of certainty and logic at the epistemological level provided to you by your creator God. Your using that against Him is criminal and because of who this life of crime is against, it is no less fatal than that of Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Geoffrey Dahmer, Osama Bin Laden, the Newtown shooter or anybody else. One bite from a piece of fruit in defiance of the command of almighty God was all it took to corrupt every last human being descended from our first father.

The solution is being born again into the last Adam, Jesus Christ. (1st Corinthians 15)

Imagine a young man guilty of torturing, raping and murdering another man’s family… in Texas. The husband and father tells the court, “not only do I not want this man to pay for these crimes, but I will go the electric chair in his place and I do hereby adopt him as my son and bequeath to him my forgiveness, my name, my house and all my my riches”. That is a pathetically deficient legal representation of what God the Father has done for man in Christ Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. In this most glorious and gracious exchange of life for death God makes us partakers of His very mind and nature as the apostles Peter and Paul respectively tell us. (2 Peter 1:4 and 1 Corinthians 2:16) We are thereby declared right before Him and spiritually and intellectually and morally equipped to begin learning how to live in this new life and shed the old one. This is called “progressive sanctification”. THEN we can KNOW not only how and why 2+2=4, but how and why to interpret heliotropes, gametes chromosomes and genes, along with every last other particle of data we will or ever could stumble upon.

According to what you mean by “proof”? No, I cannot prove this to you any more than you can prove to me how and why 2+2=4 for all the reasons I have just said. In and by himself man CANNOT prove ANYTHING. Thank God he doesn’t have to be left in and by himself. Some rather observant and especially informed folks may accuse me of simply Christianizing Kant’s divide here. (I actually can’t believe nobody’s ever done this) No. It’s exactly the opposite. Immanuel Kant paganized his God’s epistemology. There is a foundational and eternal life and death difference.

[quote]kamui wrote:I really hope that Cryogen is not another postmodern relativist.
I’m feeling lonely sometimes. [/quote] How many post modern absolutists do you figure there can be? He hasn’t thought any of this through. Professor Pinhead at Atheist State University handed this kid a plastic gun with an orange muzzle and now he thinks he’s an invincible special forces guy.

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
… the human mind is nothing but continuous thought pattern, therefore nothing can ever be realized or lived as the product of belief, with belief comes doubt… The only people responsible for pain in suffering in this world is done by us, in our own egoic sleepwalking trance, claiming religion, beliefs, and ideals with virtues for a better “tommorrow” start every war that ever started since the dawn of humanity because of stupid nonsensical beliefs on all forms… You know nothing I know nothing its all a mystery… Everything you think you know was taught to you, thats not realization thats just nonsensical ever changing perceptions… Many people of the Church were quite profound realizers of truth though… Mother Therasa was a wonderful and very wise, opened hearted woman… [/quote]
Goodness you’re all over the place. Most of your statements take the form of “There are no sentences longer than three words in the English language.” which shows that they are self defeating and logically incoherent. Do you “Know” any of these statements to be true or is it just an illusion? Is there truth at all?

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]Severiano wrote:
but again your faith is supposed to scoff in the face of logic.[/quote]
Sigh I thought I responded to this Bertrand Russell mischaracterization of faith that wasn’t held by the majority of Christians for the last 2000 years but gets ignored.

[Tiribulus]

Sorry brother Joab. I tend to hog the stage sometimes.