Bibical beginning

[Guest guest]

,

I have read dominion,rule and subdue,I'm sure their meaning is ment

to look- after,guide,help, those types of meanings.I am more

interested in opinions on the suggestion that we are to help the

animals, as well as humans to stop eating animals.

vegg

 

 

EBbrewpunx@c... wrote:

> as far as i can tell..it sez dominion....

> depends on intreptation..

> if yer folks go out and leave you in charge of yer little

sister...you are given " dominion " over her...

> doesn't mean you are going to club her over the head and eat her....

> fraggle

>

>

> " vegicate1 " <simonpjones@o...> wrote:

>

> >This is for those that have read or will read Genisis,1-27 through

to

> >chapter 2.It seems to be saying we should be ruling over the Earth

> >and subduing the creatures and that we should be helping to make

sure

> >that they eat the plants and not each other.Is there anyone else

out

> >there that can see that interpretation as being the correct one?

> >vegg    

> >

> >

> >

> >To send an email to -

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

B " H

 

Excuse me, but I have been accused (wrongly) of not letting anyone

talk about their beliefs, of assuming that all people believe in One

G-d and Only One G-d and of stifling debate.

 

Honestly, I don't care how long you have STUDIED Judaism. You

obviously still know very little about it. The sources you mention

are like, I hope I'm using a good analogy, but it seems to me that

this is like asking Martin Luther about Catholicism or asking the

Taliban about Buddhism. Studying inaccuracies doesn't make you an

expert on something. Now, if you had spent 10 years studying with

Menachem Mendel Shneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, or Rav Ovadiah

Yosef, the Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, or with any one of many

true experts on Judaism, then maybe you could tell me about Judaism.

I've been studying Judaism since I was born, basically, through

practice, school, classes, one-on-one study with Rabbis, etc. I think

my 47 years beats your 10 years. Especially since my 47 years has

been steeped in Judaism. I live Judaism 24 hours a day 7 days a week

365 days a year. How many hours a day do you spend studying (not

doing, mind you) Judaism?

 

I have taken great pains to NOT put down any one else's beliefs (by

beliefs I mean faith, spiritual essense etc.). If someone's " beliefs "

(and by this I don't mean faith, I mean what someone believes to be

true) are inaccurate (remember, GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out --

just as you would get inaccurate nutritional information by reading

the nutritional information put out by the meat and dairy industry,

so too you will get inaccurate information about Judaism by reading

anti-Jewish sources or sources that take all religions to be

primitive, ignorant rantings of superstitious people).

 

If someone puts down my belief (and, believe me, you aren't the

first), I will continue to defend it. If you choose to misinterpret

this defense as my saying that only Jews are right, then that's your

choice, but I never said that (in part because I don't believe it --

anyone can be a good person -- and there are guidelines for people

who aren't Jewish in the Torah too -- basically, these guidelines

include not murdering, not stealing, etc.)

 

I also have said on numerous occasions that when I state what the

Torah says, I'm stating what the Torah says. I'm not saying that

anyone is a horrible person if they don't follow it or even that they

are stupid or wrong or anything like that. I choose to follow (my

interpretation of) the Torah. I also find that my life is better when

I follow these but I know that's not true of everyone. And that's

cool. That's what makes the world go round. But we also must be

respectful of people's beliefs and not assume we know what someone

else's beliefs are based on something we read in someone's book or

because we once knew someone who prefessed to that faith. I've been

exposed to more misunderstanding and misinformation about Judaism

that people are SO, SO sure is true and that I, who have been doing

this for my entire life, am wrong, so so wrong.

 

I'm also kind of disappointed. I'm disappointed that people who I

thought were open minded might not be as open minded as I thought

they were.....

 

Sigh!

 

Debbie

 

 

 

 

Hi Debbie

 

> But it seems to

> me that some people are taking quite a number of liberties with my

> beliefs, assuming they know what Judaism is and what it says about

> this or that. I'm sorry, but I find that offensive.

 

As I have been studying the history of religions for about 10 years,

and obviously quite a bit of that time has involved study of the

history of Judaism - I also run the Ancient Bible History list, which

is filled with some very knowledgable people from all religions - I

believe that I am probably more qualified to comment on the history

of that religion than anyone else on this list. I do not see that,

just because you follow that religion, you have any right to stifle

debate on how it began or what it has entailed in the past. I guess

Cathy was right - it's OK for you to state your beliefs as though

they are fact, but it's not acceptable for anyone else to even state

their beliefs!

 

BB

Peter

[Guest guest]

,

What is your opinion on the verse in Genesis 1-27 on to Gen 2,my

interpretation is,that no human or animal should be eating animal and

that we should be trying to bring that about!whats your

interpretation?

simon

 

 

 

 

" compugraphd " <compugraphd@e...> wrote:

> B " H

>

> Excuse me, but I have been accused (wrongly) of not letting anyone

> talk about their beliefs, of assuming that all people believe in

One

> G-d and Only One G-d and of stifling debate.

>

> Honestly, I don't care how long you have STUDIED Judaism. You

> obviously still know very little about it. The sources you mention

> are like, I hope I'm using a good analogy, but it seems to me that

> this is like asking Martin Luther about Catholicism or asking the

> Taliban about Buddhism. Studying inaccuracies doesn't make you an

> expert on something. Now, if you had spent 10 years studying with

> Menachem Mendel Shneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, or Rav Ovadiah

> Yosef, the Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, or with any one of many

> true experts on Judaism, then maybe you could tell me about

Judaism.

> I've been studying Judaism since I was born, basically, through

> practice, school, classes, one-on-one study with Rabbis, etc. I

think

> my 47 years beats your 10 years. Especially since my 47 years has

> been steeped in Judaism. I live Judaism 24 hours a day 7 days a

week

> 365 days a year. How many hours a day do you spend studying (not

> doing, mind you) Judaism?

>

> I have taken great pains to NOT put down any one else's beliefs (by

> beliefs I mean faith, spiritual essense etc.). If

someone's " beliefs "

> (and by this I don't mean faith, I mean what someone believes to be

> true) are inaccurate (remember, GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out --

> just as you would get inaccurate nutritional information by reading

> the nutritional information put out by the meat and dairy industry,

> so too you will get inaccurate information about Judaism by reading

> anti-Jewish sources or sources that take all religions to be

> primitive, ignorant rantings of superstitious people).

>

> If someone puts down my belief (and, believe me, you aren't the

> first), I will continue to defend it. If you choose to misinterpret

> this defense as my saying that only Jews are right, then that's

your

> choice, but I never said that (in part because I don't believe it --

 

> anyone can be a good person -- and there are guidelines for people

> who aren't Jewish in the Torah too -- basically, these guidelines

> include not murdering, not stealing, etc.)

>

> I also have said on numerous occasions that when I state what the

> Torah says, I'm stating what the Torah says. I'm not saying that

> anyone is a horrible person if they don't follow it or even that

they

> are stupid or wrong or anything like that. I choose to follow (my

> interpretation of) the Torah. I also find that my life is better

when

> I follow these but I know that's not true of everyone. And that's

> cool. That's what makes the world go round. But we also must be

> respectful of people's beliefs and not assume we know what someone

> else's beliefs are based on something we read in someone's book or

> because we once knew someone who prefessed to that faith. I've been

> exposed to more misunderstanding and misinformation about Judaism

> that people are SO, SO sure is true and that I, who have been doing

> this for my entire life, am wrong, so so wrong.

>

> I'm also kind of disappointed. I'm disappointed that people who I

> thought were open minded might not be as open minded as I thought

> they were.....

>

> Sigh!

>

> Debbie

>

>

>

>

> Hi Debbie

>

> > But it seems to

> > me that some people are taking quite a number of liberties with my

> > beliefs, assuming they know what Judaism is and what it says about

> > this or that. I'm sorry, but I find that offensive.

>

> As I have been studying the history of religions for about 10

years,

> and obviously quite a bit of that time has involved study of the

> history of Judaism - I also run the Ancient Bible History list,

which

> is filled with some very knowledgable people from all religions - I

> believe that I am probably more qualified to comment on the history

> of that religion than anyone else on this list. I do not see that,

> just because you follow that religion, you have any right to stifle

> debate on how it began or what it has entailed in the past. I guess

> Cathy was right - it's OK for you to state your beliefs as though

> they are fact, but it's not acceptable for anyone else to even

state

> their beliefs!

>

> BB

> Peter

[Guest guest]

B " H

 

[

[Guest guest]

, " vegicate1 " <simonpjones@o...> wrote:

> ,

> What is your opinion on the verse in Genesis 1-27 on to Gen 2,my

> interpretation is,that no human or animal should be eating animal

and

> that we should be trying to bring that about!whats your

> interpretation?

 

That it's a load of cobblers!

 

(no disrespect Simon)

 

:-)

[Guest guest]

Hi Debbie

 

I would just like to make it quite clear that nobody in my family reads any

" anti-Jewish " (or any other ant-irace or religion) literature, and I hope

you will not try to make it look as though we do.

 

I for one do not want it hinted at that I or any of my family are

anti-Jewish.

 

Jo

 

 

 

> > so too you will get inaccurate information about Judaism by reading

> anti-Jewish sources or sources that take all religions to be

> primitive, ignorant rantings of superstitious people).

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02

[Guest guest]

Hi Debbie

 

> Honestly, I don't care how long you have STUDIED Judaism. You

> obviously still know very little about it. The sources you mention

> are like, I hope I'm using a good analogy, but it seems to me that

> this is like asking Martin Luther about Catholicism or asking the

> Taliban about Buddhism.

 

I have studied many different sources. The difference between us is that I

am able to look at both sides and make a rational decision on what is

correct, not based on a belief which constricts my abilities to make these

decisions. I should mention that the Ancient Bible History list I run is

recommended as an educational tool by numerous colleges and universities

worldwide, which I think gives me some ability to comment. However, I should

point out that the sources I cite are from very well respected authors.

Martin Noth is, I believe, Jewish, but he does not let it affect hsi view of

history. Karen Armstrong is generally recognised as one of the leading

experts in monotheistic religions (and was a Catholic nun), others are

atheists and one or two Moslems.

 

> Studying inaccuracies doesn't make you an

> expert on something. Now, if you had spent 10 years studying with

> Menachem Mendel Shneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, or Rav Ovadiah

> Yosef, the Chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel, or with any one of many

> true experts on Judaism, then maybe you could tell me about Judaism.

 

I am talking about the history of Judaism. I have very little interest in

what modern Judaism means. I do believe that my degree from a well respected

university does tend to suggest that I am actually an expert in the subject.

 

> I'm also kind of disappointed. I'm disappointed that people who I

> thought were open minded might not be as open minded as I thought

> they were.....

 

Open minded means able to discuss both sides of the story - you only seem

willing to accept what is stated by the scriptures and the elders of your

religion, and this is not an open minded attitude.

 

I would very much welcome your historical input, but find your attacks on

views which oppose your own to be a little tiresome.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02

[Guest guest]

,

 

 

 

y..., " vegicate1 " <simonpjones@o...> wrote:

> > ,

> > What is your opinion on the verse in Genesis 1-27 on to Gen 2,my

> > interpretation is,that no human or animal should be eating

animals

> and

> > that we should be trying to bring that about!whats your

> > interpretation?

>

> That it's a load of cobblers!

>

> (no disrespect Simon)

>

> :-)sorry, whats a load of cobblers! I was asking for opinions on

the verses,as I am interested in hearing how others interpret what

the writer was trying to say!''what was in the writers mind before

writing the verses?,''.Do you have an opinion or an interpretation?.

Pretend you have never heard of,or have read the Bible before in your

life and just stumbled across it somewhere and just opened the first

page and read the verses,what would you make of the writers'intent?

 

(no disrespect taken Graham,I just hope you are able to understand

the question)

[Guest guest]

Pretend you have never heard of,or have read the Bible before in

your

> life and just stumbled across it somewhere and just opened the

first

> page and read the verses,what would you make of the writers'intent?

>

 

What is the verse? Can you quote it please?

[Guest guest]

B " H

 

Actually, I was referring to Karen Armstrong -- she's a former nun

who converted to Islam.... more than enough motivation to make

Judaism seem like an ancient mythological throwback. Peter mentioned

her and used his study of her as " proof " of his " knowledge " of the

history of Judaism.

 

Just because someone writes a book that says something doesn't mean

it's true. And her views are decidedly not.

 

Debbie

 

 

 

Hi Debbie

 

I would just like to make it quite clear that nobody in my family

reads any " anti-Jewish " (or any other ant-irace or religion)

literature, and I hope you will not try to make it look as though we

do.

 

I for one do not want it hinted at that I or any of my family are

anti-Jewish.

 

Jo

 

> > so too you will get inaccurate information about Judaism by

reading

> anti-Jewish sources or sources that take all religions to be

> primitive, ignorant rantings of superstitious people).

[Guest guest]

B " H

 

[

[Guest guest]

Debbie

 

> Actually, I was referring to Karen Armstrong -- she's a former nun

> who converted to Islam

 

No she didn't - she is still Christian, just not affiliated to any church.

Regardless of her religion, her credentials as a theologist and historian

are very well respected - except by those who have a particular religious

viewpoint to promote. But, she isn't the only author I have cited.

 

> Just because someone writes a book that says something doesn't mean

> it's true.

 

Except, apparently, the Bible?

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02

[Guest guest]

Debbie

 

> I find your opposition to my perspective not only tiresome,

> but insulting and bordering on the anti-religious.

 

I am merely presenting historical views, backed up by historical arguments.

It seems to me that you are proselytising your religion, and then attacking

anyone who disagrees with your religious view points. I am beginning to find

some of your comments (accusing me of being anti-religious) to be bordering

on libellous, and I expect an immediate apology.

 

> You dismiss my beliefs as superstitious nonsense.

 

Where do you get that from - I have made no comment about your beliefs, just

about stuff that happened 2,500 years ago. You could only find that an

attack on your beliefs if your beliefs rely on a dubious historical model.

If they are - what does that say for your beliefs?

 

> It is

> quite difficult to have an honest and open discussion with someone

> who treats your beliefs and learning and opinions as though they are

> childish ignorance.

 

Ah - well, at least you admit that you are difficult to have intelligent

conversations with.

 

> You only have directed your comments at twisted

> interpretations of minor points I have made. You seem totally

> unwilling to discuss or accept that there might be another

> perspective.

 

You haven't presented one - you have just attacked everything I have said.

 

> You are the one who seems unwilling to

> acknowledge any other opinion.

 

If you will present on, with a well argued historical basis, I will be very

happy to acknowledge it - to date you have done nothing but attack.

 

> All I ask is that my beliefs be respected. I don't ask anyone to

> adopt them.

 

Yet, you keep on going on about them as though you expect others to have the

same beliefs. In fact, it is rare for you to post anything which does not

mention your religion.

 

> We Jews have been subject to persecution for thousands of years.

 

I sincerely hope that you are not trying to accuse me of anti-Semitism. I

find the implication to be highly insulting, and completely unacceptable.

Cathy was definitely right - we daren't state opposing views, otherwise we

get attacked - now, even going so far as to accusing me of being racist!

 

Debbie - I am now calling an end to this discussion, as it is clear that you

are not willing to conduct it on a mature level, and have taken to petty

name calling, which is against the one list rule. This will be the last post

on the subject.

 

Peter

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02

[Guest guest]

and if its not..can you please publish a play by play..cuz, i'm horridly lost

 

can we all play nice now?

you can yell at me if you like..i can take it

ok..i'll cry like a baby warthog missin its mommy..but..still...

go ahead

*braces to take all the abuse*

*closes eyes*

*peeks*

 

fraggle

>

>Debbie - I am now calling an end to this discussion, as it is clear that you

>are not willing to conduct it on a mature level, and have taken to petty

>name calling, which is against the one list rule. This will be the last post

>on the subject.

>

>Peter

>

>

>

>---

>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02

>

>

>

>To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " quercusrobur2002 " <grahamburnett@b...> wrote:

> Pretend you have never heard of,or have read the Bible before in

> your

> > life and just stumbled across it somewhere and just opened the

> first

> > page and read the verses,what would you make of the

writers'intent?

> >

>

> What is the verse? Can you quote it please?

[Guest guest]

, " Peter " <Snowbow@b...> wrote:

> Debbie

>

> > I find your opposition to my perspective not only tiresome,

> > but insulting and bordering on the anti-religious.

>

> I am merely presenting historical views, backed up by historical

arguments.

 

Peter, I note that you ignore any of my questions which appear

inconvenient. For example, your continued use of the name

of the Holy One, (which can be considered offensive to many).

 

I asked repeatedly where you get the name that includes vowels,

when the Torah contains no vowels. I provided examples of many

religions that did in fact use the names of their various dieties.

You continued to use that name of Holy One with vowels. Who gave

you the vowels?

 

Also, you called Moses an Egyptian " magician " . I asked on what

basis you declared that description. That question was also ignored.

Please note that Moses was probably the single most important

historical figure in Jewish history, a man who historically

existed, and forsaked royalty and wealth to stand up for his

people. Even ignoring any religious flavor, calling him an

Egyption Magician really is worthy of an explaination.

 

Those statements have a certain flavor which would upset a

Traditional Jew such as Debbie. Had someone said similar statements

about Jesus, other people would have found that offensive.

 

Perhaps this will help you understand her feelings, and why any

Jew would find what you wrote offensive. I happen a very liberal

Jew, but even I found what you've written offensive, and could

be considered mockery or even racist.

I'm not saying you intended it as such, but the mockery and insults

are clear.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob

 

I know nothing about Judaism (excuse me if that is the wrong name for the

religion) but I do know that, as a Pagan, giving the description of magician

to someone is certainly no insult, and should therefore not be taken as one.

I hope this clarifies that part of the situation.

 

BB

Jo

 

> Even ignoring any religious flavor, calling him an

> Egyption Magician really is worthy of an explaination.

>

> Those statements have a certain flavor which would upset a

> Traditional Jew such as Debbie.

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02

[Guest guest]

Bob

 

I have spent the last 45 minutes looking back over the relevant emails, and

have a few things to say. (Maybe I shouldn't comment as it is Peter's

argument, but then I have a few things to say anyway).

 

Peter has not ridiculed anyone's religion or beliefs. He has not been rude.

I was unaware of the use of the name of the Holy One offending anyone - just

as they seem to be unaware that viewing the description of magician as an

insult could offend Pagans. It doesn't really matter that it offends

Pagans - there is little point in getting upset about perceived insults

which are not intended as such - if you see what I mean!!!!!

 

I do not see the " certain flavor which would upset a Traditional Jew such

as Debbie " , nor do I see the connotations of racism or mockery and insults

to which you allude. And no, I do not understand Debbie's feelings. In

my opinion her reaction to this discussion was overly sensitive and

aggressive.

 

The email, an answer to a question from yourself, copied here, is what

apparently started the accusations of racism:-

 

" Hi Bob

 

> Since the Torah is written without vowels, where does the a or e

come from? That's just a guess.

 

All of the early OT stories are drawn from much earlier Sumerian

myths - Yahweh (written as Yhwh in Hebrew - OK, obviously using

Hebrew lettering, but I don't have the font!) was a minor Babylonian

storm god. I don't speak or write ancient Hebrew, but I believe the

written language does have the occassional vowel. The best book I've

read on the breakdown of the two gods which became the god of

monotheists is Karen Armstrong's " A History of God " .

 

> No one can say the holy one's name.

 

This is also a throwback to much older religions. In ancient belief

systems there is much more importance on the specific sound

vibrations made by words - this had specific importance to magic and

invocations: if the name of a god was pronounced, the speaker had the

power to control that god. That is why, when Moses (the great

Egyptian magician) sees the burning bush, Yahweh refuses to tell

Moses his name and simply says " I am who I am " - if Moses had known

the name of the god, he could have had power over him. "

 

Can you please point out where the ridicule, insult and racism are?

 

We have belonged to the Anti Nazi League and have demonstrated on many

occasions for equal rights for many races.

 

I am offended and upset at the implications that my son is racist when he

has said nothing in his emails which could be construed as such.

 

BB

Jo

 

 

> Peter, I note that you ignore any of my questions which appear

> inconvenient. For example, your continued use of the name

> of the Holy One, (which can be considered offensive to many).

>

> I asked repeatedly where you get the name that includes vowels,

> when the Torah contains no vowels. I provided examples of many

> religions that did in fact use the names of their various dieties.

> You continued to use that name of Holy One with vowels. Who gave

> you the vowels?

>

> Also, you called Moses an Egyptian " magician " . I asked on what

> basis you declared that description. That question was also ignored.

> Please note that Moses was probably the single most important

> historical figure in Jewish history, a man who historically

> existed, and forsaked royalty and wealth to stand up for his

> people. Even ignoring any religious flavor, calling him an

> Egyption Magician really is worthy of an explaination.

>

> Those statements have a certain flavor which would upset a

> Traditional Jew such as Debbie. Had someone said similar statements

> about Jesus, other people would have found that offensive.

>

> Perhaps this will help you understand her feelings, and why any

> Jew would find what you wrote offensive. I happen a very liberal

> Jew, but even I found what you've written offensive, and could

> be considered mockery or even racist.

> I'm not saying you intended it as such, but the mockery and insults

> are clear.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

> To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob

 

> I note that you ignore any of my questions which appear

> inconvenient. For example, your continued use of the name

> of the Holy One, (which can be considered offensive to many).

 

I didn't ignore what you asked at all - check the archives, and you'll see

my answer.

 

> I asked repeatedly where you get the name that includes vowels,

> when the Torah contains no vowels.

 

You asked once, and I answered.

 

> Also, you called Moses an Egyptian " magician " . I asked on what

> basis you declared that description.

 

I don't recall seeing that question, but on the biblical passages which

state he was a magician. As an Egyptian Prince, he would have been educated

in the mystery traditions of Egypt. Perhaps I misinterpret your tone, but I

get the impression you feel that the term " magician " is somehow insulting -

I don't see why this would be, as magicians were highly respected in the

ancient world.

 

> Please note that Moses was probably the single most important

> historical figure in Jewish history, a man who historically

> existed,

 

This has actually been a topic of some discussion on the Ancient Bible

History list, and, historically, there is some considerable debate over

whether or not he can be considered an historical character. Personally, I

accept that he was, but your statement is not as clear cut as it might seem.

 

> Those statements have a certain flavor which would upset a

> Traditional Jew such as Debbie. Had someone said similar statements

> about Jesus, other people would have found that offensive.

 

I don't see why this would be offensive. Many people consider Jesus to be a

Shaman, Prophet, Magician - all are terms which are used (in my experience)

with the utmost respect.

 

> Perhaps this will help you understand her feelings, and why any

> Jew would find what you wrote offensive. I happen a very liberal

> Jew, but even I found what you've written offensive, and could

> be considered mockery or even racist.

 

I am absolutely fed up with this. There is nothing which I have said which

could possibly be construed as racist. I consider your above comment to be

libellous, and expect an immediate apology.

 

It does seem to be a tactic with many groups that as soon as somebody

contradicts their version of events, they come back by tagging them as

racist. It is a dirty trick, and one which is potentially dangerous, as

people can find themselves in court for defamation. I note that the ADL last

year had to pay out over 5 million US Dollars in compensation for attempting

just this tactic.

 

Now, let me make it clear again - this is the final word on the subject. If

anybody accuses anybody else of racism without very good reason, they will

be put on moderation. I will not accept potentially libellous comments.

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon et al

 

> I have tried to post the quotes, but the computer only seems to send the above, you will

> have to read from a bible or some one else might post the quotes from Genesis;1-27 until

> Gen;chapter;2. Here, in itself, is a big question. Before deciding on how to interpret, you need to decide on which translation to use. For sake of argument, here's the NIV:

 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

Just to give a flavour of the difference in translation, in the KJV, the phrase "be fruitful and increase in number" is "go forth and multiply" - although these may seem to have basically the same meaning, the implications behind them are vastly different. The KJV gives an instruction to go and get on with it, while the NIV suggests that if you are fertile you will have offspring!

 

BB

Peter

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02

[Guest guest]

 

-

quercusrobur2002

Tuesday, August 27, 2002 8:07 PM

Re: Bibical beginning

 

Pretend you have never heard of,or have read the Bible before in your > life and just stumbled across it somewhere and just opened the first > page and read the verses,what would you make of the writers'intent?> What is the verse? Can you quote it please?

 

I have tried to post the quotes, but the computer only seems to send the above, you will have to read from a bible or some one else might post the quotes from Genesis;1-27 until Gen;chapter;2. To send an email to -

[Guest guest]

, " simonpjones " <simonpjones@o...> wrote:

>

> -

> Peter

>

> Wednesday, August 28, 2002 6:34 PM

> Re: Re: Bibical beginning

>

>

> Hi Simon et al

>

> >

>

> Here, in itself, is a big question. Before deciding on how to

interpret, you need to decide on which translation to use. For sake

of argument, here's the NIV:

>

> So God created man in his own image,

> in the image of God he created him;

> male and female he created them.

> God blessed them and said to them, " Be fruitful and increase in

number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea

and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on

the ground. "

> Then God said, " I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face

of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it.

They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and

all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the

ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every

green plant for food. " And it was so.

> God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was

evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

>

> Just to give a flavour of the difference in translation, in the

KJV, the phrase " be fruitful and increase in number " is " go forth and

multiply " - although these may seem to have basically the same

meaning, the implications behind them are vastly different. The KJV

gives an instruction to go and get on with it, while the NIV suggests

that if you are fertile you will have offspring!

>

> BB

> Peter

>

> I have only the NIV translation at the moment, but have read KJV

and the catholic version,I agree ,that the different translations can

be interpreted

> differently,more so because of different words having different

meanings, however,I think the aim is to reach the same target in the

translations I have read.

 

> Would you totally rule out that the Author is saying,we are to

help or make or encourage animals to eat plant foods,when saying

" fill the earth and subdue it and rule or have dominion over the

creatures for they and everything that has the breath of life, it

that shall be theirs for food. "

If the Author is not saying that,what is the Author saying?

For it would be hard for anyone to deny we have authority on this

earth over animal and birds etc and if we were to except the Author's

idealism, Can there be a better way for us to put that authority into

practice, for why would anyone bother to write such literature anyway?

A reality of the Author's intent would have to be a good one, no

matter how you looked at the literature,except of course from the

misinterpreted view of most church-goers,or so it seems?

 

> Simon

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Simon

 

> Would you totally rule out ,the writer is suggesting that we try and make or encourage all animal-eaters, be them animal

> or human,to choose fruit and plant foods for a diet and not animals?

First off, let me say that I am more of an historian than a theologist, so specific interpretations of passages is not really my forte - having said that....

 

The NIV could be read that way - but then, it could also be taken as suggesting that we should eat *only* green plants - which could cut down the diet quite a bit. I'd also like to better understand the version in the original language before really coming to make any judgements - it's not a passage I've particularly looked into, so do not know the accuracy of the translation.

 

BB

Peter

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02

[Guest guest]

 

-

Peter

Wednesday, August 28, 2002 6:34 PM

Re: Re: Bibical beginning

 

Hi Simon et al

 

> Here, in itself, is a big question. Before deciding on how to interpret, you need to decide on which translation to use. For sake of argument, here's the NIV:

 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

Just to give a flavour of the difference in translation, in the KJV, the phrase "be fruitful and increase in number" is "go forth and multiply" - although these may seem to have basically the same meaning, the implications behind them are vastly different. The KJV gives an instruction to go and get on with it, while the NIV suggests that if you are fertile you will have offspring!

 

BB

Peter

 

I have only the NIV translation at the moment, but have read KJV and the catholic version,I agree ,that the different translation can be interpreted

differently,more so because of the different words having different meanings, however, The writer's aim seems to suggest the same result in them all,I think.

Would you totally rule out ,the writer is suggesting that we try and make or encourage all animal-eaters, be them animal or human,to choose fruit and plant foods for a diet and not animals?SimonTo send an email to -

[Guest guest]

Hello Peter

I'd like to think that the original writings were easily understood, even the later translations,I'm sure the Author ment them to be easily acessible and easily understood by all, and not seen as a complex piece of literature to be debated,even though it is good to look at things from different angles,anyhow the writer makes the over all ideal very clear, I think most people would agree if they really read the verses with a clear head.

Simon.

-

 

Peter

Thursday, August 29, 2002 6:40 PM

Re: Re: Bibical beginning

 

Hi Simon

 

> Would you totally rule out ,the writer is suggesting that we try and make or encourage all animal-eaters, be them animal

> or human,to choose fruit and plant foods for a diet and not animals?

First off, let me say that I am more of an historian than a theologist, so specific interpretations of passages is not really my forte - having said that....

 

The NIV could be read that way - but then, it could also be taken as suggesting that we should eat *only* green plants - which could cut down the diet quite a bit. I'd also like to better understand the version in the original language before really coming to make any judgements - it's not a passage I've particularly looked into, so do not know the accuracy of the translation.

 

BB

Peter

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release 02/08/02To send an email to -