I will have to part ways with you here AP. In fact I think when the sacrifices are reinstituted it will be abomination of desolations.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
I will have to part ways with you here AP. In fact I think when the sacrifices are reinstituted it will be abomination of desolations.
Alright Ish, are purposely baiting me? Do you want me to lose my temper so you can feel superior again? I'm not KJV only guy. Not even close. I enjoy reading the KJV but it's by no means the only version I think is correct.
I've said that before in this conversatio so you're either being obtuse or not reading my posts. I suspect it's a lot of both.
Let's get something straight, you're the one floating bizarre theories and pretending they're reasonable. For 2,000 years that story has been a part of the Bible and now because some liberal scholars who don't believe anything that we do, that are in most cases aren't believers at all, decided they found some new science they can pretend to master you're willing to throw out whole portions of scripture.
Let me be clear with you. You have fallen for a lie. You are spreading lies and undermining the work of the Gospels. You claim to be learned and steeped in the scriptures so you have no excuse.
You do not have some kind of authority or aura or gravitas that you can just keep repeating the same lies, and I use that word deliberately, over and over and expect someone to just accept them.
And if people do accept your lies then you will end up having very egregious sins accounted to you. I have seen multiple times that when people start discounting portions of the Bible they frequently end up leaving the faith. You are promoting that very thing.
If we don't have an inerrant scripture then we don't have anything. Tell me, are there any parts of the Torah you don't think are authentic or is it only portions of the New Testament that you find objectionable?
They tried to put him in position of judge. First He ignored them. When that didn't work, he went to the heart of the matter. My suspicion is this: it was a case of mob justice. They didn't take this to the proper existing legal judges: the Sanhedrin or the Romans. So they were each in their hearts acting as judge via the mob. So his final statement challenged their standing to make the judgement.
IOW, he didn't dismiss the case, he challenged the validity of the proceeding and they dispersed. Then he gave the accused the same message he gave every other sinner, "go and sin no more".
He didn't dismiss the case. There was no damn case. Zero. Zip. Nein. Nada. It'd right there in the story, He couldn't find her accusers. No case. No dismissal.
You are a patently dishonest debater Ish. You ascribe to me (and all your targets it seems) false positions that we don't hold and then try to excoriate us on the positions you wish we'd take.
I don't know if you just hate to.be challenged or if you are actually trying to mislead people but either you are not acting good faith.
I do respect Biblical scholars. I do not respect people who claim to Biblical scholars while undermining the Bible. You say you are a scholar in training, may I suggest you read the Bible more and criticize it less. Since you disdain my southern culture so much you won't appreciate this but one of our great philosophers once said. "Ma'am you have obviously been educated beyond your intelligence." I believe the sentiment applies here.
Congratulations. You made me lose my temper. Do you feel smug and superior now? Obviously a man who loses his temper must be unrighteous.
Well maybe so but let me tell you who else is unrighteous, a man who set himself up as judge over God's Word. You do not have the right or the ability to add to or take away from God's Words and you have done both today. Look that up in scripture and see if that is valid or not and if it is what the penalty might be.
Cue the sanctimonious eye blinking, hands raised, innocence protesting, very obvious but supposedly hidden little bitchiness.
I think it’s probably time to take a little bit of a time out on this topic if you guys cannot keep it civil and gracious @ZecAustin and @IshChayil. Take a moment to breath deeply and step back from it for a bit.
I’m liking how it has taken this long to get to this point, but let’s make sure this doesn’t devolve any further with the personal attacks.
Thanks
I’m liking how it has taken this long to get to this point, but let’s make sure this doesn’t devolve any further with the personal attacks.
Thanks
Brother that ship has sailed. You lost your temper a long time ago (last night for me) when you started name calling.
You called me:
1. dense
2. a liberal
3. someone who doesn't believe in the bible
I'm amazed you think you hadn't lost your temper before...
Remember I started hinting about perfect repentance is when one finds himself in the similar situation to sin again but this time we repent? That was a light hint for you to cool it before repeating an old sin (name calling and such)
You obviously haven't been reading anything I wrote brother.
My whole point is that the adulterous woman story has NOT been part of the bible for 2000 years and that's where the evidence points. Please go back and reread the post I made with the pictures from the conservative NA text and critical apparatus. Reread my position and reread @FollowingHim 's honest response that many of the newer Greek texts have the story...what you called "that majoritus thingy"
After all of this now your banging your hand on the table claiming it's always been there?
It's NOT EVEN IN SINAITICUS!!!! I posted a link, go and look; it hasn't always been there.
Then you can have your "inspired translation" but you can't make claims this story was always in there when there just isn't any proof at all of that. You can't say that just because you like this story that all of the ancient Greek texts are wrong for not having it in there. The ancient bibles deserve our respect too.
Last edited:
Judges are not allowed to dismiss witnesses from capital cases
Amen, thanks for moderating brother.
I don't like getting called names and I haven't called anyone any names at all in this back and forth.
Zec I've actually grown to like you this past year please just cool the ad hominem you're better than that.
By the way you are right Zec I did misrepresent you as "King James Only" that was an accident,
I meant to say you have this idea of "inspired translations" i.e. the translation is every bit as good as the original language and since you only mentioned 2 translations and the one that was not King james you don't trust as much I inferred you view that 2nd one as fallible (since you don't trust it fully).
Hope that correction calms things down a bit, my bad. I hope you can see how it is almost the same thing in my mind, I mean if someone has a favorite translation and that translation is "inspired" i.e. infallible that by extension means the "infallible translation" is better than our partially errant critical original language manuscripts which is very similar to how King James only guys operate (the original language must be corrected to match the infallible king Jimmy translation). I hope you can see how it's an honest mistake made in the wee hours of the night.
I did not mean to retrigger you with that.
Regarding your thinking I'm a "dishonest" debater well you are entitled to your opinion.
I try my best to cede points when I think the other person has made them and others here have noted to me their appreciation that I volunteer "new evidence" which thwarts my own opinions as I come across it. Hope you can see that when you calm down; sorry I made you mad.
Last edited:
I'm literally in the verge of tears here. Jesus didn't dismiss the witnesses. They refused to testify. They literally left as in there were no witnesses. He asked for her accusers and no one was there to accuse her. It was actually not possible to have a trial.
And I was being very gentle with you Ish. I have nothing to repent of because I was telling you the truth and I was being very restrained about it. It was very much righteous anger. But I'll tell you what, I'll do a little research of my own and see what I turn up. Every time I've ever looked into these alleged errors in scripture they've turned out to have very simple and straightforward resolution. I'm sure this one will to. I'll right back. This shouldn't take too long.
Well that was a lot quicker and easier than I thought. I should have verified this first Ish and saved us all a lot of time. The Pericope is extensively referenced as being a part of the gospels most definitely by the early 300's and Jerome said it was in the "ancient" manuscripts he translated in 386. Several church fathers who were contemporary with Codex Siniaticus reference it as being a part of scripture, including Augustine who's unfortunate theology on many issues doesn't cancel the zeal and sincerity of his faith.
Also, some 1,400 early texts include while only 300 exclude it and some of those leave blank spaces where it should be which is suggestive that it was known at the time.
I was particularly interested in one text that was from a later period but showed signs of being copied straight from a 1st century text. It included the pericope.
So, this thing isn't as opened and shut as you wanted to make it seem. The story was considered ancient in 386 by authoritative sources and has legitimate claims to being present as early as the 1st century.
It seems your position that there is no debate here and all scholars agree was a bit zealous. And also modern. Oh hell, let's call it what it is, a liberal plot to undermine the integrity of the scripture.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt though. This was so easy, I found all of that in less time than it took me to type this and it was in the first three search results and most of it was on Wikipedia, that I'm going to assume you were testing us to see if we'd call you out on it.
And by the way now I'm much madder because if you didn't know all of that then you should have before you spoke so confidently and if you did know all of that you should have presented it yourself, even if you disagreed with it.
I'd like to try to get this back on topic if possible, because the issue of the passover lamb is worth discussing but it's disappearing under a pile of rather repetitive other stuff...
On this issue I agree with @ZecAustin and @steve that if we are to slaughter a lamb, each family head is to do so, that's very clearly stated and predates all temple sacrifice instruction so in my opinion is something entirely separate. On the other hand, I agree with @IshChayil that we don't need to any more. But as I don't see it as a temple sacrifice, I don't think it is sinful. I have done it in the past, but will not be doing it this year.
Regarding who is qualified to slaughter, @IshChayil made an interesting statement I'd like to tease out:
I agree that Moses said to slaughter as he showed the men - however we don't know how detailed this was. There's a very good chance his training was quite simply "Here men, slaughter it by slitting the throat, watch me do this one. Got it? Good. Off you go, make sure you teach your boys that too.". Deuteronomy 12:21 makes it clear that every man was to slaughter "as I have showed you" even when they were away from the temple. Modern kosher slaughter training is extremely detailed and takes a very long time, I don't see how every single man who ever needed to kill an animal to feed his family could have received these years of training prior to being allowed to get meat for the table. It's just not practical. This makes me think that at least a large chunk of the detail has been added later and does not reflect Moses' original instruction.
On a different note, I also think the Jewish requirements around matzah are overly stringent. This is the feast of unleavened bread. I take that to mean that we are to actually spend the week eating a decent amount of unleavened bread. So we need to be able to practically make loads of unleavened bread. But kosher matzah is complex to produce and ends up being purchased, so people don't actually eat much of it - which seems to contradict the very nature of the feast. We just make tonnes of unleavened bread and eat that, it's easy and delicious.
On this issue I agree with @ZecAustin and @steve that if we are to slaughter a lamb, each family head is to do so, that's very clearly stated and predates all temple sacrifice instruction so in my opinion is something entirely separate. On the other hand, I agree with @IshChayil that we don't need to any more. But as I don't see it as a temple sacrifice, I don't think it is sinful. I have done it in the past, but will not be doing it this year.
Regarding who is qualified to slaughter, @IshChayil made an interesting statement I'd like to tease out:
My family are many generations of shepherds. My father trained me to slaughter sheep humanely, as his father trained him, and his father before. The traditional slaughter method here is very similar to kosher slaughter, using a very sharp relatively long skinning knife used in a manner that completes the operation as rapidly as possible. I would consider myself to probably be about as well trained in humane slaughter of sheep as the average Israelite male at the time of the Exodus. @IshChayil, assuming for a moment that the passover lamb is to be slaughtered today, given your statement above that the training of a shepherd meant they knew how to slaughter an animal appropriately, would this mean that having similar training I am suitably qualified to do this? Failing that, would I be suitably qualified to slaughter for daily consumption but not for passover? Or should I never slaughter a sheep at all (and by extension, should no man in ancient Israel with a similar background have been allowed to slaughter a sheep either)?
I agree that Moses said to slaughter as he showed the men - however we don't know how detailed this was. There's a very good chance his training was quite simply "Here men, slaughter it by slitting the throat, watch me do this one. Got it? Good. Off you go, make sure you teach your boys that too.". Deuteronomy 12:21 makes it clear that every man was to slaughter "as I have showed you" even when they were away from the temple. Modern kosher slaughter training is extremely detailed and takes a very long time, I don't see how every single man who ever needed to kill an animal to feed his family could have received these years of training prior to being allowed to get meat for the table. It's just not practical. This makes me think that at least a large chunk of the detail has been added later and does not reflect Moses' original instruction.
On a different note, I also think the Jewish requirements around matzah are overly stringent. This is the feast of unleavened bread. I take that to mean that we are to actually spend the week eating a decent amount of unleavened bread. So we need to be able to practically make loads of unleavened bread. But kosher matzah is complex to produce and ends up being purchased, so people don't actually eat much of it - which seems to contradict the very nature of the feast. We just make tonnes of unleavened bread and eat that, it's easy and delicious.
Is this the commercialisation of Passover? You can't kill the lamb yourself, you have to buy it from the officially sanctioned butcher. You can't bake matzah yourself, you have to buy it from the officially sanctioned baker. But you can buy matzah, grind it back into a flour again, and then re-cook it into whatever you like (I really, really don't understand matzah meal...).
Oh Zec, you can continue with the labels that biblical scholars are "liberals" and plotting to take away your sacred inspired King James,
as we all know that "inspired translations" are a real thing right?
The vomit dump you just put on the page doesn't change anything. You didn't list a SINGLE ancient Greek Fragment even that contains the story.
That's because there are none. I'm aware that one of the church fathers, though I think it's Eusebius not Jerome references a story about Jesus and a certain womans numerous sins (not just adultery) and that there is another ancient reference to a similar story being in a now lost "Gospel of the Hebrews" this just qualifies my claim: this is a midrash.
Jews have hundreds of them, they are even in a separate compendium. Having an extra-biblical story not in the canonized bible is just that, extra-biblical, and having some ancient source saying "yeah I saw that story in some other book" does not elevate the tale to "inspired status".
Heck, I love the book of Enoch and even new testament writers reference it and quote from it but it's not canonized and I can't stick a piece of it in the middle of John just because I like the story.
I don't know how to get it through your head that just as Andrew said "textual criticism is real, it's not the devil's trickery" if you won't listen to me listen to Andrew.
If you like, make this your pet project, spend the next several months actually learning about the field of textual criticism, do your homework, and comeback and amaze us.
Heck, if it's really by John's hand you'll be able to explain to me why it uses 14 words in this small section that John doesn't use anywhere else in all of his writings (gospel, epistles, and revelation) but those words are used in the other gospels. Show us why the style is all wrong for John and how it got sandwhiched in a section where Yeshua is supposed to be at the sukhot festival. Try reading the text without it and see how smooth and continuous it all goes. Find a single ancient Greek manuscript that references, not Latin ones.
There are even numerous manuscripts that have this story in the gospel of LUKE more evidence that someone was trying to figure out where to stick it in.
Explain why EVEN the Byzantine manuscripts which DO include the story have scribal uncertainty markings in the columns calling into question the authenticity of the story.
This is actually one of the easier battles to have in textual criticism and I'm a bit exhausted having it with you.
From your ad hominem attacks to your stellar Wikipedia referencing. Hey I know, I'll go write a wikipedia article write now for you to reference OK?
You can have your "Inspired and inerrant King James" bible brother. I'll try to do a proper write up on this adulteress story to share in the "textual criticism" thread I started.
You gotta get better at sharing ideas than just labeling those you disagree with "liberals".
sheesh.
Well it's hard to assign motive to ancient sages; men who sat in study of the scriptures 12 hours or more a day.
I certainly hope it's nothing as sinister as you suggest; homeboys had a brother-in-law who is a butcher I presume is what you're getting at?
Either way its' kind of hard to assign motive and I'd prefer it if we don't; I think Jews have had enough sinister motives applied to why we do what we do (not your take I know, just hoping to avoid Jewish conspiracies here as we've had enough of that in the past here)
ALlow me to present the view like this: Jews don't kill lambs for passover any more because we aren't shepherds any more (I meant to agree with your post earlier about if you could slaughter since you grew up shepherding, it sure sounded reasonable to me). I'm certain Bava Metzia has some overkill (pardon the pun) issues regarding slaughter and inspection of the animal. This is why my take away are the 2 most important parts (in my mind): 1) suffering of the animal be minimized, including the angst you and some other fellas alluded to leading up to slaughter, 2) Proper draining of blood since the blood is not kosher.
Regarding Mazah-meal, my family has never used it on passover, I didn't even think it was kosher for passover?!
Maybe there is a special version for Passover. Regular year-round matzah is also NOT kosher for passover if you're being traditional about it.
gotta have the 'kosher l'pesach" hechsher mark on it.
Making matzah yourself, sure why not? I agree it's another area where the ancients got a bit overzealous gotta be cooked in 18 minutes, etc...
Is there anything wrong with using the matzah made by zealots? No.
Is there anything wrong with Hebrew roots torah keepers making their own without leaven? Not in my opinion. Just remember water can make it rise too.
I would think that making it yourself could be a kinda cool family activity.
Regarding the Passover lamb, Messianics don't do this any more since Yeshua is our Passover lamb.
Maybe we have a thing or two to learn from Hebrew roots folks in this area just I hope those killing it will be skilled in that area.
Last edited:
So out of curiosity only, I was wondering if those of you who do participate in Passover Seder have a method to determine if its a spotless lamb or without blemish? As I understand it, the lamb was to be kept up in the house from the 10th til the 14th for observation and perhaps to create a bond with the animal that would be their Passover.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
So.... while reading today's Torah portion, Vayikra and over and over throughbthese chapters it is the sinner or offered that does the slaughtering, NOT the priest.
See 1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:15, 24, 29, etc...
The slaying of the animal was to be done by the one who sinned. Not by a designated (and trained/licensed) representative.
Same holds true with Pesach lamb.
The stipulation is two fold: door of the tent of meeting and drain the blood which is given to the Cohen.
See 1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:15, 24, 29, etc...
The slaying of the animal was to be done by the one who sinned. Not by a designated (and trained/licensed) representative.
Same holds true with Pesach lamb.
The stipulation is two fold: door of the tent of meeting and drain the blood which is given to the Cohen.
We have never slaughtered from our flock specifically for Passover. We do try to have lamb though as one of the three required elements.
Again, very dishonest Ish. It wasn't one church father it was a doze . It would be hard to list one Greek scrap because there were 1,400.
I know you're not trying to defend ideas now, just preserve your facade of expertise but in this case the direct evidence in support of the Pericope, in the form of early church fathers attesting to it's presence in the "ancient" texts, to some of the texts that omit it having a blank space where it would fit, to manuscripts that are likely direct copies of very early texts to the fact that it was in 1,400 of the texts. 1,400. One thousand four hundred texts. If you can't admit that there is at least a debate to be had here and the burden of proof is on you to justify removing it and burden is of a necessity very high, then you are blinded by intellectual arrogance.
Obviously I'm not trying to convince you at this point. I'm trying to establish the truth so that when others read these threads in the future they will not be led astray. So I will contest the "last word" on this until I am sure that no one will think there is a thread of a victory here for your view that the Pericope is undeniably a falsehood added into the Bible.
I will admit that there are interesting questions about why it was cut out of 300 texts but conversely it would be even more interesting to explain why it was so universally added in to so many texts.
At the end of the day you want to latch onto one aspect of the debate, some limited early texts that you deem trustworthy, and completely ignore and dismiss the mountains of evidence that don't rely on textual criticism.
Jews do a seder but don't keep a lamb in the house any more. Lamb is usually purchased from a kosher butcher or synagogue for remote areas and the most important part these days is to have the shank bone in the seder. I bet some of the Hebrew roots fellas will have a better answer for you.