Jump to content


Photo

Was there a genocide of the Canaanites?


  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#141 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 04 January 2011 - 03:00 AM

Brethren, this latest disagreement is so hopelessly complicated I can't even tell who's supposed to have said what, let alone if they've been misrepresented. Can someone please post a bullet point summary?
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#142 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 04 January 2011 - 04:31 AM

* Mark made a claim concerning a word which he asserts appears in Joshua 10;40 (where it does), and Joshua 15:21 (where it doesn't)

* He claimed that he had based his assertion on the original language, but the original language text shows that two separate words are involved, with different morpohlogies and different meanings in context (though they share the same lemma); Mark also claimed his assertion could be verified simply by looking at the Strong's numbers in the two passages (note that Strong's numbers only identify lemmas, not morpohologies)

* To date Mark has not explained exactly what he means by his claim that he based his assertion on the original languages; I have twice asked the following questions which he could answer in order to provide such an explanation:

1. When you say you checked the original languages, what did this process actually involved?
2. Did you note the difference in morphology and syntax? Why did you claim (Joshua 10:40; 15:231, 'the Negev'), that they were the same word, when they aren't?
3. Did you note 'definite without ?', as opposed to 'definite with ?'?

To date he has not answered these questions. I have yet to see any evidence that he actually checked the original language before making his assertion; the fact that he informed readers that his assertion could be checked simply with Strong's numbers (in other words, that his claim did not require looking at the original language text), and the fact that he has yet to explain precisely what he meant by his claim that he checked the original language text (witness his non-answer of my questions), are both congruent with him not having checked the original language text at all.

Meanwhile, the original argument concerning the conquest accounts in Joshua has yet to be addressed by Mark.

#143 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 09 January 2011 - 03:34 PM

Ken, you are not seeing the most basic points. Firstly, this is not a matter merely of opinion or interpretation. Secondly, I am not claiming to be authoritative in myself. My case rests directly on the authority of the text of scripture,


Mark, you cannot say your interpretation rests directly on the authority of he text of scripture if the authority of it is in the symbolic or allegorical interpretation of it. You could just as well say yor case rests on the authority of the text by claming literal seven headed sea monsters exist (Rev 13). So just to clarify that, IF you have the context right and the interpretation correct in its spiritual meaning (not its literal sense), by studying its corrospondance. THEN you can say 'My case rests directly on the authority of the text of scripture'.

The truth is, I believe, that only my theory of intentional paradox that I can demonstrably show from Scripture can rationally maintain the belief that the Bible is still the inspired Word of God. But this involves not looking at the Bible but looking first at yourself and asking yourself have I lost sight of the fact the Bible is a riddle and a spiritual book? Are your very assumptions in which your mind works when reading the Word, wrong? What is Jesus trying to tell us about the literal sense of Gods Word in John 6?

Dawkins would call the theory of intentional paradox 'having your cake and eating it', becase it allows me to believe the Bible is still the inspired Word of God but also believe in evolution and infact anything else literalists insist the Bible is telling them. Atheists I debate with on atheist boards tell me its an easy cop out, but it is not a psychologically dishonest theory to maintain a delusion, it is actually the way the Bible is written, right from the very start and the very first story.
"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/

#144 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7,173 posts
  • LocationCoventry

Posted 22 August 2011 - 04:43 PM

Some interesting observations amongst this lot...

Amalek: The Perpetual Enemy of the Jewish People

Recurring Motifs

The conflict between Haman and Mordechai which led to the Purim miracle, was rooted in events that had occurred many centuries earlier. Haman traced his descent to Agag, King of Amalek.1 Mordechai and Esther were scions of the royal family of Shaul, the first king of Israel. When the Jews left Egypt, Amalek was the first nation to attack them. As a result of this the Jews were commanded,2 “When G‑d will relieve you of all your enemies... blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”

Several centuries later, after Shaul was crowned king, the prophet Shmuel ordered him to fulfill G‑d’s commandment thus:3 “Smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that is his. And have no pity on him; slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Shaul gathered the Jewish people together and waged war against the Amalekites, slaying the entire nation and destroy­ing their property. However, “he had pity on Agag, and the choicest of the sheep and cattle...,”4 and brought them back with him. Shmuel severely reproached Shaul for this: “Because you have rejected the word of G‑d, He has rejected you as king.”5 Though Shmuel then killed Agag, Agag was able to father a child in the interval between his capture by Shaul and his death. That child was the ancestor of Haman.6

The Amalek Inside Us

The Tanach is no mere history book. Beyond its chronicles of past events, it furnishes us with insights that can en­hance our present service of G‑d.

Though the name Amalek refers to a nation that actually existed, it also describes a character trait within ourselves. Just as Amalek stood in direct opposition to the Jewish peo­ple, the trait symbolized by Amalek defies the very founda­tions of our divine service.

The Midrash7 describes the nature of this trait in its com­mentary on the verse,8 “Remember what Amalek did to you...as you came forth from Egypt, how he encountered you on the way and cut down all the weak who straggled behind you.” The Midrash explains that the Hebrew word lre (“he encountered you”) can also be rendered as “he cooled you off.” Amalek represents the cold rationality which makes us question everything we do or experience.9

Stepping Beyond the Intellect

To achieve complete service of G‑d, we must transcend our own intellectual limitations. Therefore, before the Jewish people received the Torah, they declared, Naaseh VeNishma — “We will do and we will listen.”10 “We will do” refers to the desire to carry out G‑d’s will, and “we will listen” to the effort to understand G‑d’s commandments intellectually. By proclaiming “We will do” before “we will listen,” our ancestors implied that they would fulfill G‑d’s will without hesita­tion or doubt, whether they understood it or not. By the same token, our commitment to Torah must at all times leap beyond the limits of our understanding.

A commitment of this magnitude is challenged by our internal Amalek which tells us: “By all means accept the Torah, but wait, consider carefully exactly how much you can study, and precisely which mitzvos you can fulfill. Don’t bite off too much.”

Within this context, we can understand the numerical equivalence between Amalek and the word safek , the Hebrew word for “doubt”.11 Amalek causes doubt and hesitation which cools the ardor of our divine service. Victory in our inner war with Amalek means devoting our­selves to G‑d’s service without reservations, observing Torah with diligence and enthusiasm that are not confined by our reason.

A Historic Error

Based on this, we can understand how Shaul’s error in allowing Agag and Amalek’s choice herds to live is connected to the character trait personified by Amalek. Shaul did not intend to transgress G‑d’s will. He was an utterly righteous man, “G‑d’s chosen.”12 Describing his lofty character in their commentary on the verse,13 “Shaul was a year in his reign,” our Sages explain14 that “Shaul was like a year-old child who had never tasted sin.”

Shaul’s mistake in his dealings with Amalek lay in following the dictates of his reason. For example, he saved the herds in order to offer them as sacrifices to G‑d under the mistaken impression that this service would fulfill G‑d’s in­tention more completely. By bringing the animals of Amalek as offerings, he wanted to demonstrate that even the elements of the world that appear to oppose G‑d’s will can be used for good.

This rationale, though worthy, ran contrary to the explicit commandment G‑d had relayed through His prophet. Thus, Shmuel replied to Shaul, “To obey (G‑d) is better than a sacrifice.”15 G‑d and His will are infinite and cannot be grasped by our limited intellects. Approaching Him with rea­son alone, leaves room for error. Even if no mistake is actu­ally made, our service is flawed, for the limitations of our un­derstanding prevent us from relating to the infinite dimen­sions of G‑dliness. The only way we can connect with these levels of G‑dliness is by actualizing a potential within our­selves that is similarly unbounded.

Accepting G‑d’s Yoke

Only through kabbalas ol, accepting the yoke of G‑d’s sovereignty with a simple, unquestioning commitment, can we establish a more complete bond with G‑d. Kabbalas ol takes us beyond our limited selves and brings out the infinite G‑dly potential of our souls.

This quality was epitomized by Shaul’s successor, David, who describes his approach to divine service in the verse,16 “I have stilled and quieted myself.” Chassidus points out that the word Domamti (“I have quieted myself”) shares a root with Domaim, which means “an inanimate object.” In other words, David so far transcended his own natural self that it was humbled to the level of an inanimate object; he became incapable of self-centered behavior.

Amending the Past

The quality of kabbalas ol is also reflected within the Purim narrative. For it was the commitment of kabbalas ol that brought about the defeat of Haman, descendant of Amalek. This is alluded to in the description of Mordechai as HaYehudi17 (“the Jew”). Literally, this word means “a descen­dant of the tribe of Yehudah,” David’s tribe, whereas Mordechai was actually a Benjaminite and a relative of Shaul. Likewise, throughout the Megillah,18 the entire Jewish people are called Yehudim, without distinction of tribal origin. For one of the derivations of this word shares a common root with Hoda'ah, signifying self-effacing acknowledgment — i.e., serving G‑d with kabbalas ol.

For indeed, Mordechai and Esther showed a complete and unquestioning commitment to G‑d’s will even when challenged by the severest conditions. They encouraged their fellow Jews to turn to G‑d in teshuvah and strengthen their observance of Torah even while under threat of Haman’s decree.

Their example has a contemporary freshness to it. We, too, live in exile, and our commitment to Torah and mitzvos is challenged by discordant voices from without, and a smoothly-spoken “Amalek” from within, which insinuates doubt and hesitation into our lives. Through kabbalas ol, however, we can overcome these obstacles and further sensi­tize our service of G‑d. And just as in the time of Purim, kabbalas ol brought “light and joy, gladness and honor”19 to the Jewish people, so too, in our time, it will bring success and blessing, and enhance our status in the world.

Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. III, Parshas Zachor


http://www.chabad.or...wish-People.htm

Edited by Mercia2, 22 August 2011 - 04:43 PM.

"If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” = "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" = "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who maketh His angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire" Psalms (104:1) = "They saw what seemed to be flames of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them." Acts 2 - the secret is over, your ministering angel you need to be saved is the Holy Spirit.

Who Is the Holy Spirit?
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/20950-holy-spirit-mercia/

Mark Of The Beast - his Name is the charachter/image of the medievil popes (now modern man)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/4997-mark-of-the-beast/page__pid__439951__st__120#entry439951

Historicists - Dual Fulfillment (seven thunders = more literal warning)
http://www.btdf.org/forums/topic/14248-historicists-revelation-has-a-dual-fulfillment/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users