christians and jews, a few questions from genesis

[Dunemeister]

how embarrassing. you avoid the questions by questioning the author's intent. how does that change the actual questions? if an atheist or a christian asked it, it wouldnt make a difference. the question remains the same...... and then you even call quotes from the bible "trick questions"

the bible says in genesis 12:14 QUOTE " when abram came to egypt, the egyptians saw that she was a very beautiful woman"...

the bible says in genesis 20:2 QUOTE "then abimelech, king of gerar sent for sarah and took her"

my question is, DOES THIS MAKE SENSE, GIVEN SARAH'S AGE (70 AND 90), WHEN THE KING AND PHARAOH HAD NUMEROUS YOUNG VIRGINS TO CHOOSE FROM?

your answer: TRICK QUESTION! TRICK QUESTION! , AHHHM, AHHHM ... YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG DETAILS, LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE, UUUHHHM YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE TEXT, YOU INTERPRET IT THE WRONG WAY,,,...LOADED QUESTION, LOADED QUESTION....AMM UMM...YEAH,


kid, im simply quoting scripture and asking you if it makes sense...stop embarrassing yourself.

It's not I who am embarrassing myself.

Edit: The question whether it makes sense has to do with the assumptions of the writers and audience in question. Arrogating that question to modern and foreign standards is simply out of place. The question you should be asking is whether this detail plays an important part in the story and if so, what part it plays. Otherwise, merely asking whether the statement makes sense by modern standards -- not to mention decontextualized -- is to betray your ignorance (understandable given your time and place with respect to the text) of the text. It also calls into question your basic literacy skills.

Aside from that, a 90-year-old woman beautiful enough to attract kings who already have harems of beautiful women can make sense. It all depends on what other story elements there are.

 

[tomasortega]

Arrogating that question to modern and foreign standards is simply out of place.


right, because everyone knows that a few thousand years ago, 90 year old grandmas were considered hot stuff.....and tigers bears and other beasts trembled with fear at the sight of a human

 

[Dunemeister]

Arrogating that question to modern and foreign standards is simply out of place.


right, because everyone knows that a few thousand years ago, 90 year old grandmas were considered hot stuff.....and tigers bears and other beasts trembled with fear at the sight of a human

A few thousand years ago, people understood what they were dealing with in a text like Genesis. They also had basic literacy skills which reminded them that details find their meaning and plausibility within broader contextual frameworks and that isolating one or two tidbits for mockery was nowhere near a respectable intellectual exercise. Nor were they (nor should they have been) perturbed by the inane ramblings of people who had no idea what they were talking about.

Learn to read.

 

[sojourner]

And how do you know what questions NEED to be asked?

For starters, years of experience in Biblical scholarship, both on the undergraduate and graduate level, and a working knowledge of such scholarship, wherein responsible work is produced.

 

[sojourner]

If you are so "biblically intelligent" then please enlighten us with answers to the OP's questions.

As soon as the questions beg enlightenment, rather than manipulation, I may.

 

[Zorro1227]

I asked that because:
1. Certain people including you assumed the OP's goal is to insult. (which IS a judgement)
2. Your responses had nothing to do with the OP's questions.
3. It was a question to that individual and not to you
4. Please do me a favor and get the h*** off of your high horse
5. That was not a judgement on my part, it was a simple question.

 

[Zorro1227]

1. What you think is immaterial. It's not your OP.
2. Why are you? Why does anyone?
3. You're advocating it here

1. That is your opinion
2. Because I am interested in others opinions on this
3. That is once again you opinion

 

[sojourner]

I asked that because:
1. Certain people including you assumed the OP's goal is to insult. (which IS a judgement)
2. Your responses had nothing to do with the OP's questions.
3. It was a question to that individual and not to you
4. Please do me a favor and get the h*** off of your high horse
5. That was not a judgement on my part, it was a simple question.

It wasn't an assumption. It was obvious to anyone with a brain stem.

This is a public forum. If you want to communicate privately, there's a PM button at your disposal.

They had everything to do with the impetus for the questions.

I don't owe you any favors.

It was provocative, invoking judgment as the vehicle for provocation.

 

[sojourner]

1. That is your opinion
2. Because I am interested in others opinions on this
3. That is once again you opinion

What are you saying? That it is your OP?

Then ask questions instead of submitting provocative responses.

I'm entitled to an opinion, as is everyone else here.

 

[Zorro1227]

It wasn't an assumption. It was obvious to anyone with a brain stem.

This is a public forum. If you want to communicate privately, there's a PM button at your disposal.

They had everything to do with the impetus for the questions.

I don't owe you any favors.

It was provocative, invoking judgment as the vehicle for provocation.

HAHAHA I can't even think of anything to say to this.

 

[sojourner]

Because I am interested in others opinions on this

Helpful hint:
Post #30 is a perfectly informed and well thought-out opinion on the subject of the questions.

 

[sojourner]

HAHAHA I can't even think of anything to say to this.

Great! Bye!

 

[Zorro1227]

What are you saying? That it is your OP?

Then ask questions instead of submitting provocative responses.

I'm entitled to an opinion, as is everyone else here.

You are entitled to an opinion, but so am i. There was nothing provocative about my response. You need to learn not to be so sensitive.

 

[sojourner]

You are entitled to an opinion, but so am i. There was nothing provocative about my response. You need to learn not to be so sensitive.

This seems like a typical "christian" response.
Loaded questions you obviously cannot answer.
And as usual most people will not actually answer the OP's questions. Probably because you do not know the answers.
Who is to say that you understand it?
So basically you disaprove of the questions that the OP is asking? Haha typical.
2. Why are you even posting on here?

These are all provocative responses.

What you think I "need to learn" is immaterial. I have had advisors who were responsible for my learning, thank you.

 

[Zorro1227]

These are all provocative responses.

What you think I "need to learn" is immaterial. I have had advisors who were responsible for my learning, thank you.

Well sojourner...have you actually answered the OP's questions? So provacative or not, my responses were correct. Thank you

 

[sojourner]

Well sojourner...have you actually answered the OP's questions? So provacative or not, my responses were correct. Thank you

To which specific responses are you referring?

 

[tomasortega]

well, since its clear that you two christians have chosen not to answer, but rather clutter this thread with tantrums comparable to that of a 5 year old, and since every other christian/jew on this forum is afraid to even attempt to tackle these simple questions, lets move the topic in a different direction, and have you explain to me what you mean by "understanding" of the bible? does only an honest christian looking to ignore all the apparent contradictions, and interpret with as positive an attitude as possible, understand the bible, while everyone else has "no understanding" of it??? what about "look at the right details". what do you mean by that? are the wrong details all the contradictions and inconsistencies, while the right details are just useless details in the story that dont contradict the message? (such as for example the fact/detail that joseph had a better, more expensive garment than his brothers, or noahs ark was 450 by 70 feet?) because if this is so, then i pity you and your indoctrinated brainwashed mind.

 

[sojourner]

well, since its clear that you two christians have chosen not to answer, but rather clutter this thread with tantrums comparable to that of a 5 year old, and since every other christian/jew on this forum is afraid to even attempt to tackle these simple questions, lets move the topic in a different direction, and have you explain to me what you mean by "understanding" of the bible? does only an honest christian looking to ignore all the apparent contradictions, and interpret with as positive an attitude as possible, understand the bible, while everyone else has "no understanding" of it??? what about "look at the right details". what do you mean by that? are the wrong details all the contradictions and inconsistencies, while the right details are just useless details in the story that dont contradict the message? (such as for example the fact/detail that joseph had a better, more expensive garment than his brothers, or noahs ark was 450 by 70 feet?) because if this is so, then i pity you and your indoctrinated brainwashed mind.

See your last sentence, which I've highlighted. This is why no one wants to play with you. It has nothing to do with fear, as you've intimated.
I suppose the provocation of the OP wasn't "clutter?" Spam isn't "clutter?"
Come to the teacher with a true willingness to learn, and the teacher will teach. Come to the teacher with a poor attitude and you'll be soundly placed in the "naughty corner."

 

[tomasortega]

so tell, what exactly constitutes good intent and willingness to learn in your opinion? if an atheist asks you this question, you say its a trick question, but when an innocent christian child in sunday school asks you the same question namely "mr. sojourner, how come the pharaoh and king abimelech were attracted to 70 and 90 year old sarah. and, do animals tremble with fear at the sight of a human as god says in the bible"? what would you do then? yell blasphemy and pull a chair on him?

 

[Dunemeister]

Well, tomasortega, it is not we who are tantruming. We are merely pointing out that your questions betray your real intentions: to find an opportunity to mock and deride those who take seriously (not necessarily authoritatively) a text you don't understand. Thus there are actually two problems that stand in the way of serious dialogue with you. The first, which is something we can do something about, is your lack of literacy. The second, which isn't something we can do anything about, is your contempt for people who take this text seriously (not to mention your contempt of the text, illustrated by your lack of real interest in literacy). And unless something is done about the second problem, there's not much headway to be made on the first one.