Life after Death in Ancient Israel.

[outhouse]

if you want your post to be a little more proffessional FB, you could place the year period's, [tens] [hundreds]

at what exact time did they not believe in a afterlife, and also to make this claim I think a percentage would help you, what percentage believed this, because its pretty obvious this was never a majority position.

plus the way the OT has gone through redaction based on earlier legends, I think you have your work cut out for you, to be able to claim what years and what percentage with credibility.


its a tough question to answer with credibility


I wouldnt want to start to even guess. or make said claim.

 

[fallingblood]

if you want your post to be a little more proffessional FB, you could place the year period's, [tens] [hundreds]

at what exact time did they not believe in a afterlife, and also to make this claim I think a percentage would help you, what percentage believed this, because its pretty obvious this was never a majority position.

plus the way the OT has gone through redaction based on earlier legends, I think you have your work cut out for you, to be able to claim what years and what percentage with credibility.


its a tough question to answer with credibility


I wouldnt want to start to even guess. or make said claim.

There is no reason to answer what year or percentage. The time period should be obvious enough from the books I quoted from. As for percentage, it was large enough for such works to be accepted.

We don't know exact time periods or percentages for many issues regarding the ancient Hebrews, and, especially with percentages, they are hardly asked or needed. So to put such stipulations on my argument doesn't make much sense.

 

[Levite]

Your claim that these verses are "not properly translated" is special pleading.

Don't be absurd. Special pleading is an asserted exemption to a general rule or principle or understanding based on inherently unverifiable data.

Translation is not at all inherently unverifiable. People do it all the time. Find another expert in Hebrew Bible and Jewish exegesis if you'd like to challenge my assertion. Or, even better, learn Hebrew and Jewish exegetical technique yourself and challenge my assertion. All it requires is scholarship, which anyone is capable of, presuming they have the interest and the dedication.

But it's ridiculous to assert that bad translation is equivalent to special pleading, especially considering that Jewish text is my professional area of expertise.

 

[outhouse]

Do you think trying to pull large amounts of cultural history from a fable like Job is a wise thing?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Do you think trying to pull large amounts of cultural history from a fable like Job is a wise thing?

Depends on what one's mission it. For instance, if the mission is to undermine the authority of the Bible then there are some conceivable routes one could take that included treating Job as history.

 

[fallingblood]

Do you think trying to pull large amounts of cultural history from a fable like Job is a wise thing?

If one understand the purpose of Job, then yes. Job is a theological argument, that in fact does portray various cultural ideas from that time, as well as influenced later ideas.

And after all, it is part of the wisdom tradition. To try to just brush it off as just a fable is a mistake.

 

[fallingblood]

Depends on what one's mission it. For instance, if the mission is to undermine the authority of the Bible then there are some conceivable routes one could take that included treating Job as history.

But if one's mission is to examine a theological argument, as well as part of the wisdom tradition, in order to see what some ancient Hebrews believed, treating it as what it was tended to be is ideal. There is no reason why one could not gain knowledge about what some ancient Hebrews believed by examining the book of Job.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

But if one's mission is to examine a theological argument, as well as part of the wisdom tradition, in order to see what some ancient Hebrews believed, treating it as what it was tended to be is ideal. There is no reason why one could not gain knowledge about what some ancient Hebrews believed by examining the book of Job.

That depends on who's teaching it. For instance, I've seen "teachers" who in their vast knowledge about the Bible have actually claimed that we can't know for certain what Jesus taught because he didn't leave us any of his sermons. Such a claim might make one's jaw drop considering the amount of material in the Gospels that would qualify as "teaching/instruction". As if some of the smaller portions containing his instruction weren't enough we have the Sermon on the Mount which, regardless of when the title was given, is TWO CHAPTERS long. If the same "teacher" that offered such a thought provoking analysis of Jesus attempted to teach on some other part of the Bible I wouldn't have confidence that they would to do it in a way that is faithful to the texts.

 

[waitasec]

That depends on who's teaching it. For instance, I've seen "teachers" who in their vast knowledge about the Bible have actually claimed that we can't know for certain what Jesus taught because he didn't leave us any of his sermons. Such a claim might make one's jaw drop considering the amount of material in the Gospels that would qualify as "teaching/instruction". As if some of the smaller portions containing his instruction weren't enough we have the Sermon on the Mount which, regardless of when the title was given, is TWO CHAPTERS long.

he didn't


what we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies

but i digress...

 

[-Peacemaker-]

he didn't


what we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies

but i digress...

Your gut feeling doesn't qualify as a legitimate source

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Your gut feeling doesn't qualify as a legitimate source

Then the decision at the Council of Nicea and the work produced by it doesn't either, considering that the bishops arbitrarily chose texts and rejected others based on their own personal prejudices and collective agenda.

 

[fallingblood]

Then the decision at the Council of Nicea and the work produced by it doesn't either, considering that the bishops arbitrarily chose texts and rejected others based on their own personal prejudices and collective agenda.

This would be something for a different thread, so please let us not go down that road. If you create a new thread, I would be happy to debate this idea though.

 

[rusra02]

Don't be absurd. Special pleading is an asserted exemption to a general rule or principle or understanding based on inherently unverifiable data.

Translation is not at all inherently unverifiable. People do it all the time. Find another expert in Hebrew Bible and Jewish exegesis if you'd like to challenge my assertion. Or, even better, learn Hebrew and Jewish exegetical technique yourself and challenge my assertion. All it requires is scholarship, which anyone is capable of, presuming they have the interest and the dedication.

But it's ridiculous to assert that bad translation is equivalent to special pleading, especially considering that Jewish text is my professional area of expertise.

Whether you call it special pleading or special "translating", your translation of the verses cited do not match hundreds of other translations that skilled hebrew scholars have made. Trying to change the meaning of what is written is dishonest, whatever you call it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As Psalm 146:4 states regarding those who die, "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish."

Again, not translated well:

תצא רוחו ישב לאדמתו ביום ההוא אבדו עשתנתיו׃
"Their breath leaves them, they return to their earth, and that time, their deeds are destroyed."

Alter offers: "His breath departs, he returns to the dust. On that day his plans are naught."

 

[Shermana]

Whether you call it special pleading or special "translating", your translation of the verses cited do not match hundreds of other translations that skilled hebrew scholars have made. Trying to change the meaning of what is written is dishonest, whatever you call it.

And how do you know YOU aren't changing the meaning? I don't think the number of translations that go against Levite's interpretation are in the tens, let alone the hundreds.

 

[Levite]

Whether you call it special pleading or special "translating", your translation of the verses cited do not match hundreds of other translations that skilled hebrew scholars have made. Trying to change the meaning of what is written is dishonest, whatever you call it.

I question how many non-Jewish translations are, in fact, new translations from the Hebrew, and not either translations from the Septuagint or Vulgate, or simply more colloquial rephrasing of earlier English translations.

Of those that are new translations from the Hebrew, I question the presumed inerrancy of non-Jewish scholars to comprehend the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish scholars don't even have such a great record with accurate translation to English, and they at least have better cultural context and language familiarity.

I don't call it "special" translating, I simply call it translating. And if you really want to disagree with the meaning, again, I invite you to learn Hebrew, learn Aramaic, learn about Jewish history, learn about Jewish exegetical technique, learn about both academic and Jewish religious textual critcism and analysis, and examine the verses again, yourself. The only thing standing in your way is education, and if it's that important to you, education should be no barrier.