Puzzling Verses in the Gospel of John--Insights/Opinions

[onefour1]

EN SOF - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com

So, what is your point?

 

[sear]

it is two different narratives

We cite chapter & verse to make that explicitly clear.

If one book describes her as attractive, and a different book describes her as tall, that is DIFFERENT. B U T ! ! !

They're NOT numerical quantifications. BOTH could be true, in the case of the woman.

This is precisely why I cited this example. For those interested American Atheists published an entire book of Bible errors. I cite this one because it's quite clear 4,000 does not equal 40,000, therefore at least one of them is in error, though quite possibly both are in error, if the story is true at all.

Let me summarize for you then... you aren't reading the Bible to discover the intent of the authors. You are reading it to confirm your bias.

a) Scientific analytical objectivity, known to laymen as open-mindedness is generally not consider a "bias".

b) Extrapolating from a single data point is folly.

c) It is buffoonery to assume that because I acknowledge the Holy Bible is not the pristine, inerrant word of god, that I harbor "bias" against it.

There is much wisdom, ancient wisdom, timeless wisdom in the Holy Bible. I value timeless wisdom greatly, and I regard the Golden Rule (from our Holy Bible) as one of the most fundamental principles for human living. I consider it allied with libertarianism, and I've been a libertarian for generations, and a Libertarian for decades.

Not yet fully clear to me d why you went astray. Friendly word of caution: it's best to verify that you are correct before you make an accusation as serious as bias, particularly insulting to a trained scientist.

 

[ding]

We cite chapter & verse to make that explicitly clear.

If one book describes her as attractive, and a different book describes her as tall, that is DIFFERENT. B U T ! ! !

They're NOT numerical quantifications. BOTH could be true, in the case of the woman.

This is precisely why I cited this example. For those interested American Atheists published an entire book of Bible errors. I cite this one because it's quite clear 4,000 does not equal 40,000, therefore at least one of them is in error, though quite possibly both are in error, if the story is true at all.

a) Scientific analytical objectivity, known to laymen as open-mindedness is generally not consider a "bias".

b) Extrapolating from a single data point is folly.

c) It is buffoonery to assume that because I acknowledge the Holy Bible is not the pristine, inerrant word of god, that I harbor "bias" against it.

There is much wisdom, ancient wisdom, timeless wisdom in the Holy Bible. I value timeless wisdom greatly, and I regard the Golden Rule (from our Holy Bible) as one of the most fundamental principles for human living. I consider it allied with libertarianism, and I've been a libertarian for generations, and a Libertarian for decades.

Not yet fully clear to me d why you went astray. Friendly word of caution: it's best to verify that you are correct before you make an accusation as serious as bias, particularly insulting to a trained scientist.

If you aren't reading the passages to discover the intent of the author then you aren't being objective. To discover why I went where I did you would have to go read you post that I responded to with the video. I wouldn't expect it would be that difficult to figure out for a trained scientist like yourself with limited bandwidth.

 

[DudleySmith]

We cite chapter & verse to make that explicitly clear.

If one book describes her as attractive, and a different book describes her as tall, that is DIFFERENT. B U T ! ! !

They're NOT numerical quantifications. BOTH could be true, in the case of the woman.

This is precisely why I cited this example. For those interested American Atheists published an entire book of Bible errors. I cite this one because it's quite clear 4,000 does not equal 40,000, therefore at least one of them is in error, though quite possibly both are in error, if the story is true at all.

a) Scientific analytical objectivity, known to laymen as open-mindedness is generally not consider a "bias".

b) Extrapolating from a single data point is folly.

c) It is buffoonery to assume that because I acknowledge the Holy Bible is not the pristine, inerrant word of god, that I harbor "bias" against it.

There is much wisdom, ancient wisdom, timeless wisdom in the Holy Bible. I value timeless wisdom greatly, and I regard the Golden Rule (from our Holy Bible) as one of the most fundamental principles for human living. I consider it allied with libertarianism, and I've been a libertarian for generations, and a Libertarian for decades.

Not yet fully clear to me d why you went astray. Friendly word of caution: it's best to verify that you are correct before you make an accusation as serious as bias, particularly insulting to a trained scientist.

Rubbish. Not surprising given your source of errors'. Citing verses out of context of the books they are in is of course the major 'error' by those trying to be clever via semantic contortions.

 

[there4eyeM]

Looking at the basics, "Yahweh" translates more or less into "I am", or "I am what I am", or "I am that which I will be", etc. Jesus/Jehoshua means Yahweh saves.
Does that make understanding a bit easier?

 

[sear]

If you aren't reading the passages to discover the intent of the author then you aren't being objective.

Amusing, but simple.
CERTAINLY one may take that approach.

But I've found reading for literal meaning is often more useful than attempting to infer original intent.

"These [Biblical] books existed in the oral tradition for hundreds of thousands of years. They finally wrote them down in aramaic, later translated into Greek, & then Latin, and finally English, hundreds and hundreds of revisions: and this is supposed to be absolute direct word of God." actor John Fugelsang

So if we're going for original intent, whose? The one that addressed it first? That's "original". But I can't extract that from KJV. So I settle for what's available to me, the words as printed.

Of course we can apply the technique you would substitute, as I have done.
But to be done correctly requires more biblical scholarship than I have. So I generally leave that to authors whose scholarship is equal to the task.


DS #84
I don't mean to ignore you. But "Rubbish" is not a logical argument. Perhaps you dismiss it on basis of source. Do you have reason to believe the scholarship of that book is inferior to others that take the opposite argument? You assume this before you've seen the book you ostensibly criticize? You'll have to do better than that.

 

[DudleySmith]

Amusing, but simple.
CERTAINLY one may take that approach.

But I've found reading for literal meaning is often more useful than attempting to infer original intent.

"These [Biblical] books existed in the oral tradition for hundreds of thousands of years. They finally wrote them down in aramaic, later translated into Greek, & then Latin, and finally English, hundreds and hundreds of revisions: and this is supposed to be absolute direct word of God." actor John Fugelsang

So if we're going for original intent, whose? The one that addressed it first? That's "original". But I can't extract that from KJV. So I settle for what's available to me, the words as printed.

Of course we can apply the technique you would substitute, as I have done.
But to be done correctly requires more biblical scholarship than I have. So I generally leave that to authors whose scholarship is equal to the task.


DS #84
I don't mean to ignore you. But "Rubbish" is not a logical argument. Perhaps you dismiss it on basis of source. Do you have reason to believe the scholarship of that book is inferior to others that take the opposite argument? You assume this before you've seen the book you ostensibly criticize? You'll have to do better than that.

Already responded to. Just because you didn't do the research is no reason for anybody to keep repeating themselves. You have nothing, and your claim has been rebutted, by several people.

And, you cited verses, not the reasons for them.

 

[sear]

You have nothing, and

This approach is often associated with atheists.
In any case if you DS are a believer, then right back atcha. The difference is, even if we accept your dismissal as correct, I have nothing, and I need nothing in that regard.
It's the believer that bears the burden of proof. So far, ZERO.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Dr. Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

You have nothing

 

[ding]

Amusing, but simple.
CERTAINLY one may take that approach.

But I've found reading for literal meaning is often more useful than attempting to infer original intent.

"These [Biblical] books existed in the oral tradition for hundreds of thousands of years. They finally wrote them down in aramaic, later translated into Greek, & then Latin, and finally English, hundreds and hundreds of revisions: and this is supposed to be absolute direct word of God." actor John Fugelsang

So if we're going for original intent, whose? The one that addressed it first? That's "original". But I can't extract that from KJV. So I settle for what's available to me, the words as printed.

Of course we can apply the technique you would substitute, as I have done.
But to be done correctly requires more biblical scholarship than I have. So I generally leave that to authors whose scholarship is equal to the task.


DS #84
I don't mean to ignore you. But "Rubbish" is not a logical argument. Perhaps you dismiss it on basis of source. Do you have reason to believe the scholarship of that book is inferior to others that take the opposite argument? You assume this before you've seen the book you ostensibly criticize? You'll have to do better than that.

I doubt you will ever get much out of the Bible if you read allegorical accounts literally.

The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not really write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

Approximately 800 years before Moses recorded the allegorical accounts of the history of the world. The Chinese recorded this history as symbols in the Chinese language. They drew pictures to express words or ideas. Simple pictures were combined to make more complex thoughts. They used well known history and common everyday things to make a word so people could easily remember it. The account of Genesis found it's way into the Chinese written language because the Chinese had migrated from the cradle of civilization. Prior to this migration they all shared a common history and religion.

The Bible even explains how it was possible for the Chinese to record the account of Genesis 800 years before Moses recorded it. The account of the Tower of Babel was the allegorical account of the great migration from Mesopotamia. This also explains why all ancient cultures have an account of a great flood. Because they all shared a common history and religion before the great migration from the cradle of civilization.

So if we start from the belief that the first eleven chapters of the Torah are an allegorical account of world history before the great migration from Mesopotamia - which was an actual historical event - then the first eleven chapters of the Torah takes on new meaning. Seen in this light these accounts should be viewed less like fairy tales and more like how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong. Most people don't even realize this wisdom is in the Torah because they read it critically instead of searching for the wisdom that ancient man knew and found important enough to include in his account of world history.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom. Shame on us.

 

[sear]

allegorical accounts

al·le·go·ry (ălĭ-gôr′ē)

​

n. pl. al·le·go·ries
1.
a. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
b. A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby-Dick are allegories.
2. A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice.

---

[Middle English allegorie, from Latin allēgoria, from Greek, from allēgorein, to interpret allegorically : allos, other; see al-1 in the Appendix of Indo-European roots + agoreuein, to speak publicly (from agorā, marketplace; see ger- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots).]

ac·count (ə-kount)

​

n.
1. A narrative or record of events.

h ttps://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=account

"allegorical accounts" (your term), not merely a generous embellishment on your part, but rather oxymoronic.

d #89
You continue to take a simple approach in a compound universe. NO WONDER you are astray.
You seem to harbor the delusion that I read / think in one and only one absolutely defined and confined manner.
The opposite is true, part of the reason I'm able to so easily shoot down the feeble nonsense tossed at me in these fora.

Step one in reading is reading. That's not the end of it. Merely the beginning.
You're welcome to continue to criticize my methodology in ignorance.
But the reality is I apply unimpeachable techniques, starting with Ockham's Razor. I'm fully prepared to answer to god for my conscience, my life.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 10 Aug. 1787

 

[ding]

al·le·go·ry (ălĭ-gôr′ē)

​

n. pl. al·le·go·ries
1.
a. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.
b. A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby-Dick are allegories.
2. A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice.

---

[Middle English allegorie, from Latin allēgoria, from Greek, from allēgorein, to interpret allegorically : allos, other; see al-1 in the Appendix of Indo-European roots + agoreuein, to speak publicly (from agorā, marketplace; see ger- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots).]

ac·count (ə-kount)

​

n.
1. A narrative or record of events.

h ttps://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=account

"allegorical accounts" (your term), not merely a generous embellishment on your part, but rather oxymoronic.

d #89
You continue to take a simple approach in a compound universe. NO WONDER you are astray.
You seem to harbor the delusion that I read / think in one and only one absolutely defined and confined manner.
The opposite is true, part of the reason I'm able to so easily shoot down the feeble nonsense tossed at me in these fora.

Step one in reading is reading. That's not the end of it. Merely the beginning.
You're welcome to continue to criticize my methodology in ignorance.
But the reality is I apply unimpeachable techniques, starting with Ockham's Razor. I'm fully prepared to answer to god for my conscience, my life.

This is what Genesis captures in an allegorical fashion:

1. God created existence
2. Everything he created is good
3. What he created was done in steps
4. Man is a product of that creation
5. Man is unlike any other creature in creation; only man has knowledge of good and evil
6. Man is made in God’s image in that he is a being which knows and creates
7. Man was told to go forth and be fruitful
8. Man was told to do as the original creator; to create for 6 days and then rest
9. Man knows right from wrong
10. Rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when man does wrong, he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong
11. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success
12. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure
13. Pass it down to the next generation

So what is it that you believe Genesis is saying?

 

[Meriweather]

I'm fully prepared to answer to god for my conscience, my life.

What if it is being prepared to talk about what we learned about loving others, loving God?

 

[.oldschool]

So, what is your point?

My point is I believe only the angel of the Lord was in the burning bush.


Shoftim - Judges - Chapter 2

1And a messenger of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bochim and said (in God's name), "I will take you up from Egypt and I have brought you to the land that I have sworn to your forefathers and I said, 'I will not break my covenant with you forever. אוַיַּ֧עַל מַלְאַךְ־יְהֹוָ֛ה מִן־הַגִּלְגָּ֖ל אֶל־הַבֹּכִ֑ים ס וַיֹּאמֶר֩ אַעֲלֶ֨ה אֶתְכֶ֜ם מִמִּצְרַ֗יִם וָאָבִ֚יא אֶתְכֶם֙ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֚ר נִשְׁבַּ֙עְתִּי֙ לַאֲבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם וָאֹמַ֕ר לֹֽא־אָפֵ֧ר בְּרִיתִ֛י אִתְּכֶ֖ם לְעוֹלָֽם:
2And you shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land, their altars you shall smash,' but you have not obeyed Me, what have you done? בוְאַתֶּ֗ם לֹֽא־תִכְרְת֚וּ בְרִית֙ לְיֽוֹשְׁבֵי֙ הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את מִזְבְּחוֹתֵיהֶ֖ם תִּתֹּצ֑וּן וְלֹֽא־שְׁמַעְתֶּ֥ם בְּקֹלִ֖י מַה־זֹּ֥את עֲשִׂיתֶֽם:
3And I also said, 'I will not drive them out from before you, and they will be pokers to you and their gods will be a stumbling block to you.' " גוְגַ֣ם אָמַ֔רְתִּי לֹֽא־אֲגָרֵ֥שׁ אוֹתָ֖ם מִפְּנֵיכֶ֑ם וְהָי֚וּ לָכֶם֙ לְצִדִּ֔ים וֵאלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ם יִהְי֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם לְמוֹקֵֽשׁ:
4And it was while the messenger of the Lord was saying these words to all the children of Israel, that the nation raised their voices and cried

 

[justinacolmena]

Does the Father draw us to Jesus, or does Jesus alone draw us to the Father? Your thoughts?

The Father wouldn't be a Father except for the Son, because the Bible says Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father.

 

[onefour1]

My point is I believe only the angel of the Lord was in the burning bush.


Shoftim - Judges - Chapter 2

1And a messenger of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bochim and said (in God's name), "I will take you up from Egypt and I have brought you to the land that I have sworn to your forefathers and I said, 'I will not break my covenant with you forever. אוַיַּ֧עַל מַלְאַךְ־יְהֹוָ֛ה מִן־הַגִּלְגָּ֖ל אֶל־הַבֹּכִ֑ים ס וַיֹּאמֶר֩ אַעֲלֶ֨ה אֶתְכֶ֜ם מִמִּצְרַ֗יִם וָאָבִ֚יא אֶתְכֶם֙ אֶל־הָאָ֗רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֚ר נִשְׁבַּ֙עְתִּי֙ לַאֲבֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם וָאֹמַ֕ר לֹֽא־אָפֵ֧ר בְּרִיתִ֛י אִתְּכֶ֖ם לְעוֹלָֽם:
2And you shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of this land, their altars you shall smash,' but you have not obeyed Me, what have you done? בוְאַתֶּ֗ם לֹֽא־תִכְרְת֚וּ בְרִית֙ לְיֽוֹשְׁבֵי֙ הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את מִזְבְּחוֹתֵיהֶ֖ם תִּתֹּצ֑וּן וְלֹֽא־שְׁמַעְתֶּ֥ם בְּקֹלִ֖י מַה־זֹּ֥את עֲשִׂיתֶֽם:
3And I also said, 'I will not drive them out from before you, and they will be pokers to you and their gods will be a stumbling block to you.' " גוְגַ֣ם אָמַ֔רְתִּי לֹֽא־אֲגָרֵ֥שׁ אוֹתָ֖ם מִפְּנֵיכֶ֑ם וְהָי֚וּ לָכֶם֙ לְצִדִּ֔ים וֵאלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ם יִהְי֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם לְמוֹקֵֽשׁ:
4And it was while the messenger of the Lord was saying these words to all the children of Israel, that the nation raised their voices and cried

In Judges it was an Angel but in Exodus 3 and also 6 it was the Lord Jehovah.

Exodus 5:22-23
22 And Moses returned unto the Lord, and said, Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people? why is it that thou hast sent me?

23 For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people; neither hast thou delivered thy people at all.

Exodus 6:1-13
1 Then the Lord said unto Moses, Now shalt thou see what I will do to Pharaoh: for with a strong hand shall he let them go, and with a strong hand shall he drive them out of his land.

2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.

5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.

6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:

7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord.

9 And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.

10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

11 Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

12 And Moses spake before the Lord, saying, Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips?

13 And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, and gave them a charge unto the children of Israel, and unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.

 

[.oldschool]

In Judges it was an Angel but in Exodus 3 and also 6 it was the Lord Jehovah.

In your opinion. My opinion is different. Now I have no wish to "convert" you to my opinion so let's just leave it at that.

Bereishit - Genesis - Chapter 31​

11 And an angel of God said to me in a dream, 'Jacob!' And I said, 'Here I am.'		יאוַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֵלַ֜י מַלְאַ֧ךְ הָֽאֱלֹהִ֛ים בַּֽחֲל֖וֹם יַֽעֲקֹ֑ב וָֽאֹמַ֖ר הִנֵּֽנִי:
12 And he said, 'Now lift your eyes and see [that] all the he goats mounting the animals are ringed, speckled, and striped, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you.		יבוַיֹּ֗אמֶר שָׂא־נָ֨א עֵינֶ֤יךָ וּרְאֵה֙ כָּל־הָֽעֲתֻּדִים֙ הָֽעֹלִ֣ים עַל־הַצֹּ֔אן עֲקֻדִּ֥ים נְקֻדִּ֖ים וּבְרֻדִּ֑ים כִּ֣י רָאִ֔יתִי אֵ֛ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר לָבָ֖ן עֹ֥שֶׂה לָּֽךְ:
13 I am the God of Beth el, where you anointed a monument, where you pronounced to Me a vow. Now, arise, go forth from this land and return to the land of your birth.'"		יגאָֽנֹכִ֤י הָאֵל֙ בֵּֽית־אֵ֔ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר מָשַׁ֤חְתָּ שָּׁם֙ מַצֵּבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָדַ֥רְתָּ לִּ֛י שָׁ֖ם נֶ֑דֶר עַתָּ֗ה ק֥וּם צֵא֙ מִן־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את וְשׁ֖וּב