I bought a Bible .

Post Reply New Topic

no. There is a plain Hebrew word for "virgin". Euphemism would not be called for. The Moisheach (Messaiah) would be natural born of a human women who had sexual relations with a human male. Virgins do not give birth. If they are penetrated and sperm meets their egg, they are no long virgins.

Last edited by BaalChatzaf on 28 Aug 2016, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are we introducing our biblical ancestors? Yay!

Is a modern version of The Wrestle. By One Time Blind.

I'm a new fan of the drama group talking about The Bible in every day language.

Please render the plain Hebrew word for "virgin" in English sounds and typing?

Ambiguity: "a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways"
(per Merriam-Webster)

The two views are NOT seen at the same instant. First one, then the other.... but not both at the same instant.

Same for the Necker Cube. First seen as an insie next seen as an outsie.

And yet, when I see the cube or the young/old woman illusion, I first see it as a whole containing both perspectives. Perhaps when I first saw it, I saw one of the contained images, then shifted to the other, but now I see the image as the object that contains both simultaneously. I may not have both perceptions simultaneously, but I have a thought that represents both.

There is a passage in the introduction to the Harper Collins Study Bible that attempts to addresses the variety of perspectives on the bible:



It seems surprising that having taken pains to create an inclusive, ecumenical and interfaith perspective, they should only consider readers who belong to a religious community, but the general idea seems extensible to all.

I like this edition because it includes the apocryphal books that give perspective on key editorial decisions made at various times.

It's obviously no guide to objective truth, but a set of books with diverse purposes and styles. Only an absolutist insisting on some kind of totality of knowledge or inhuman authorship would insist that it should be infallible or free of self contradiction. People are irrational and contradict themselves. This collection of short books about them should be expected to have these qualities as well.

The Hebrew Scriptures (called the Old Testament by Christians) is for the most part a collection of late Bronze Age fairy tales, legends and just-so stories. Embedded in all this as some rather good songs and poems. For example the song sung by the Israelites after crossing the Sea of Reads. (It is in the book of Exodous) and Moses fair well poem in the book of Deuteronomy.

What about the David stele?

...One can look at the statements in the Bible many ways ~ Including the " turn or burn/h___fire ones " - or even just not eating shellfish ???

I like your substitution of "Sea of Reads" for "Sea of Reeds" -- Sea of reads seems like a poetic description of the Bible itself.

It is hard to read parts of it without realizing how important it has been in the cultural tradition of the English speaking world. It's impossible to read Ecclesiastes, for example, without repeated moments of realization that this is the source of resonant phrases found throughout the literature you know--Shakespeare, Faulkner, Steinbeck. etc.

There's nothing new under the sun, and all is vanity and a chasing after wind.

Not coming from a religious background, I nevertheless found a study of these passages a refreshing discovery of one of the most important sources of my culture.

Now that I am familiar with them, I find it strange and terrifying that people try to imagine them as a source of literal history or absolute truth. The multiplicity of truths and importance of relative perspective seems a key message in the diversity of the books collected in the Bible, but this aspect of it seems lost on many of it's most obsessive fans.

Obviously, the Bible, over all, was more "true" during its historic time than it is now.

Its precepts are a reflection of how its chroniclers "saw things" during the time when they were writing. It was a reflection of their overall "take" on things--especially that which pertains to morals.

In many ways, especially in its sections dealing with genealogy and the descent of rulers, the "standards" of the "historian" were similar to the "standards" of the chroniclers of the day.

Overall, I feel like it would be quite an interesting read--and various versions (e.g., King James, Good News) would offer me various sorts of enjoyment).

In a few thousand years, our writings about Donald Trump will not be believed either. Not literally, anyway.