in our image, after our likeness - and able to research responsibly

[gnostic]

Oh please....

If a Christian had started this thread, and used "Old Testament" scriptures, then I'll address the topic issue, using the same language, and will use "Old Testament" as need be.

Similarly, if a Jew, like jayhawker, or someone else who I know happened to be Jewish, started this thread or others, then I will use the "Tanakh" or simply "Hebrew Scriptures", or in the case of collection of works was attributed to Moses, "Torah" instead of the Christian "Pentateuch".

And beside all this, the Hebrew Scriptures were written by ancient Israelites for ancient Hebrew or Jewish audience (or more precisely "readers", but I think you know what I mean), not by Christians for Christian audience), so I think these works (of Tanakh) should be looked at or understood more from Hebrew or Jewish perspectives or scholarship, more so than in Christian scholarship or interpretation.

It is just a matter of simple courtesy or discussion/debate etiquette.

What Ingledsva said is true. Some Jews here don't like people addressing their topics about their scriptures as "Old Testament".

Of course, this is not some RF rules that you have to follow. I just think the discussion or debate would be less bumpy if you go by this guideline of unspoken etiquette or courtesy.

You can choose to ignore jayhawker if you like (it is your rights to do so), but the question is, why are you still posting in a thread that Jayhawker had started, when you want to ignore him?

 

[George-ananda]

Of course, this is not some RF rules that you have to follow. I just think the discussion or debate would be less bumpy if you go by this guideline of unspoken etiquette or courtesy.

Rules of etiquette and courtesy need to be explained with etiquette and courtesy like you do. That's where Jayhawker failed miserably.

You can choose to ignore jayhawker if you like (it is your rights to do so), but the question is, why are you still posting in a thread that Jayhawker had started, when you want to ignore him?

His language to me in this thread got him on my ignore list.

 

[paarsurrey]

What exactly you mean from "in the image of God"?

Is an Atheist "in the image of God"?

If yes; in what meaning? Please

Genesis says man is created in the image of God; so any interpretation whether biblical or philosophical must be inclusive of all the human beings, otherwise it will remain inconclusive.

Regards

 

[Sleeppy]

What exactly you mean from "in the image of God"?

Is an Atheist "in the image of God"?

If yes; in what meaning? Please

Genesis says man is created in the image of God; so any interpretation whether biblical or philosophical must be inclusive of all the human beings, otherwise it will remain inconclusive.

Regards

Read the very first post.

 

[gnostic]

What exactly you mean from "in the image of God"?

Is an Atheist "in the image of God"?

If yes; in what meaning? Please

Genesis says man is created in the image of God; so any interpretation whether biblical or philosophical must be inclusive of all the human beings, otherwise it will remain inconclusive.

Regards

Like what both Ingledsva and sleeppy have said to you, read the OP, and especially what Jayhawker is saying after his quote from JPS's commentary on Genesis.

Jayhawker is making a point that people shouldn't just forming their own opinion when reading any verse from any scripture, but to read, research and understand what x-number of scholars to say on the subject. Some opinion or knowledge are more relevant than other in understanding the context of any scriptural verse.

Did you understand what I am saying, paarsurrey?

Let me give a simple example:

Let say you're young (I don't know how old you are), and you reading the Qur'an, and you come across a verse, you don't understand. Would you not seek advice or opinion, from your local Imam, cleric or scholar, who would know the Qur'an better than you?

If you answer "yes", then you should get what Jayhawker is saying.

So please reread Jayhawker's OP and try to understand what he is quoting and what is saying about opinions and scholarship.

Of course, not every scholarship on scriptural studies are relevant or right. You will still get clashes of views between scholars, so picking the right scholarship to follow is no easy task.

 

[Desert Snake]

Like what both Ingledsva and sleeppy have said to you, read the OP, and especially what Jayhawker is saying after his quote from JPS's commentary on Genesis.

Jayhawker is making a point that people shouldn't just forming their own opinion when reading any verse from any scripture, but to read, research and understand what x-number of scholars to say on the subject. Some opinion or knowledge are more relevant than other in understanding the context of any scriptural verse.

Did you understand what I am saying, paarsurrey?

Let me give a simple example:

Let say you're young (I don't know how old you are), and you reading the Qur'an, and you come across a verse, you don't understand. Would you not seek advice or opinion, from your local Imam, cleric or scholar, who would know the Qur'an better than you?

If you answer "yes", then you should get what Jayhawker is saying.

So please reread Jayhawker's OP and try to understand what he is quoting and what is saying about opinions and scholarship.

Of course, not every scholarship on scriptural studies are relevant or right. You will still get clashes of views between scholars, so picking the right scholarship to follow is no easy task.

What is the position of the OP.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

History is valuable.
Philology is valuable.
Archaeology is valuable.
Research is valuable.

Uninformed opinion is worthless.

 

[paarsurrey]

Like what both Ingledsva and sleeppy have said to you, read the OP, and especially what Jayhawker is saying after his quote from JPS's commentary on Genesis.

Jayhawker is making a point that people shouldn't just forming their own opinion when reading any verse from any scripture, but to read, research and understand what x-number of scholars to say on the subject. Some opinion or knowledge are more relevant than other in understanding the context of any scriptural verse.

Did you understand what I am saying, paarsurrey?

Let me give a simple example:

Let say you're young (I don't know how old you are), and you reading the Qur'an, and you come across a verse, you don't understand. Would you not seek advice or opinion, from your local Imam, cleric or scholar, who would know the Qur'an better than you?

If you answer "yes", then you should get what Jayhawker is saying.

So please reread Jayhawker's OP and try to understand what he is quoting and what is saying about opinions and scholarship.

Of course, not every scholarship on scriptural studies are relevant or right. You will still get clashes of views between scholars, so picking the right scholarship to follow is no easy task.

I don't have to ask anybody else about Quran. Quran clears everything in the context verses; some verses before the verse in question and some verses after the verse clear the meaning or give clue to some other place in Quran where it is clarified.
Quran is a perfect guide.
Torah has lost this quality.

Regards

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually this is true.

We have had a couple of Jewish members ask us to use Tanakh, as it is not an "old" testament to them, it is current religious doctrine, just as the Christian "Bible" is for Christians.

Could you imagine the uproar if we started calling them the - OT and the SNCOT? (Slightly Newer Christian Old Testament)

Semantics. This is ridiculous.

Not "semantics," not "ridiculous."


Just plain old fashioned respect for other people's religions.



The same thing you want for your beliefs.




*

 

[Desert Snake]

Not "semantics," not "ridiculous."


Just plain old fashioned respect for other people's religions.



The same thing you want for your beliefs.




*

Again, ridiculous.