Pi and the Torah
March 14th, 2012 at 8:21:47 AM
permalink
Or this link might help.Quote: WizardI have a friend here who is fluent in Yiddish. Perhaps you'd like to meet him to brush up. He doesn't have many people to speak it with in Vegas.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 14th, 2012 at 9:33:37 AM
permalink
Please tell me it's not Shel Adelson ... :)Quote: WizardI have a friend here who is fluent in Yiddish. Perhaps you'd like to meet him to brush up. He doesn't have many people to speak it with in Vegas.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
March 14th, 2012 at 12:46:46 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI have a friend here who is fluent in Yiddish. Perhaps you'd like to meet him to brush up. He doesn't have many people to speak it with in Vegas.
Thanks, but by mostly forgotten it I mean I can't as much as form a simple phrase or understand one. This frustarted my father no end, since he was fluent and thought I should be also. My brothers and sister, I think, still understand some of it. Anyway, brushing up will only stir the ashes. I'd have to re-learn it, and I can't see a reason for it.
But do ask your friend if he wants to jion us at WoVCon ][, or to meet elsewhere. He can scold me in Yiddish, and I can tell him about a Yiddish joke he could tell.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
March 14th, 2012 at 9:28:38 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardA major plot point to Pi was trying to find the name of God by unlocking a numerical code on the Torah. They believed the main character Max had the ability to do it. The movie mentions a particular number, something in the low 200s. Can anyone who has seen the movie, and is well versed in Hebrew numerology, explain what was going on?
Here is a clip of a real life sermon on the relationship between pi and the Torah. I would take it this guy is rather outside the mainstream?
However, with such a reverence for the original Hebrew, is there still a respected English translation? I tend think the percentage of American Jews who can read Hebrew is not very high. For them, who are willing to accept a translation, what is available?
Pi is about 10 parts creative screen writing, 1 part esoteric (far out there) Jewish mysticism. In the actual Torah, God has many titles ("names" if you like), but only one personal name, which is only four letters long. We know exactly what this name is, although we've lost the exact pronunciation. We do, however, know what it means. In brief, it comes from the root word "to be." Based on its grammar and structure, it could roughly be translated as "he who was, he who is, he who will be." The "Eternal" would arguably be a good translation.
If you've got an interest in Jewish numerology generally, the subject is principally known as Gematria Many (perhaps most) Orthodox Jews place great stock in it, particularly followers of Hassidic movements. But other Orthodox Jews think it's basically nonsense. It's not a universally accepted Jewish doctrine even among Orthodox Jews. In my Orthodox synagogue, you'd get laughed at if you tried to reason through Gematria.
March 15th, 2012 at 9:20:49 AM
permalink
Welcome to the board, Rambam!
Rabbi Moses Ben-Maimon (1135-1204), a.k.a. the RaMBaM:
Rabbi Moses Ben-Maimon (1135-1204), a.k.a. the RaMBaM:
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
March 15th, 2012 at 10:13:50 AM
permalink
Quote: RambamWe do, however, know what it means. In brief, it comes from the root word "to be." Based on its grammar and structure, it could roughly be translated as "he who was, he who is, he who will be." The "Eternal" would arguably be a good translation.
Thanks, and welcome to the forum. I hope you'll stick around. I did some digging into what you wrote. Here is the passage in question:
Quote: Exodus 3:13-14Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
All along I thought Popeye coined that phrase, or at least the version with a speech impediment.
This is getting off topic, but we already have a resident Catholic providing a weekly homily. I'd enjoy seeing something similar, but from a member of the Jewish faith providing the forum with a weekly word of inspiration or encouragement that all might enjoy and learn from. Anyone care to volunteer?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 15th, 2012 at 2:59:19 PM
permalink
Not quite. That passage is a pun on God's name, not his actual personal name. Hebrew words are constructed from a series of roots (mostly 3 letter roots). The letters are then rearranged to reflect tense (past, present, future, imperative), verb, noun, passive/active voice, etc. God's name is a contraction of the words for "was," "is," and "will be." I won't say or type the actual name, for obvious reasons, but a quick Google search should let you know what it is.
Incidentally, "I am that I am" is wrong. A better translation would be "I will be what I will be."
Incidentally, "I am that I am" is wrong. A better translation would be "I will be what I will be."
March 15th, 2012 at 5:30:09 PM
permalink
You mean Jehovah?Quote: RambamI won't say or type the actual name, for obvious reasons, but a quick Google search should let you know what it is.
[Strike of Lightning]
Owww!
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
March 15th, 2012 at 6:39:06 PM
permalink
A popular translation. But unquestionably wrong. Hebrew has no "J" sound, and those vowels don't follow Hebrew grammatical rules.
March 15th, 2012 at 8:14:22 PM
permalink
Quote: RambamIncidentally, "I am that I am" is wrong.
"I yam what I yam". Popeye the Sailor
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 15th, 2012 at 8:57:42 PM
permalink
Quote: RambamA popular translation. But unquestionably wrong. Hebrew has no "J" sound, and those vowels don't follow Hebrew grammatical rules.Quote: teddysYou mean Jehovah?
So how about Yahweh? And whatever happened to Elohim?
March 15th, 2012 at 9:00:54 PM
permalink
Posted above: "For what it's worth, "Adonai" is a substitute for the correct pronunciation, since, as previously discussed, we don't know the correct pronunciation."
Gee, back in second grade Sunday school we were told to pronouce the Hebrew word as "Adonai" because we are not supposed to speak G-d's name which is what the pronounciation of the Hebrew letters is supposed to be.
I've never heard of any kind of mystery about what G-d's name was. It's OK with me if different religions have different names for the one, true G-d.
I do pray when I have four to the royal. I really do.
I do pray when I need to make the sixth point for the fire bet. I really do.
Gee, back in second grade Sunday school we were told to pronouce the Hebrew word as "Adonai" because we are not supposed to speak G-d's name which is what the pronounciation of the Hebrew letters is supposed to be.
I've never heard of any kind of mystery about what G-d's name was. It's OK with me if different religions have different names for the one, true G-d.
I do pray when I have four to the royal. I really do.
I do pray when I need to make the sixth point for the fire bet. I really do.
September 1st, 2013 at 7:41:57 PM
permalink
I'm going to watch this movie tonight even
though I just read this review:
"I watched Pi with a bunch of mathematicians, and they winced at it being full of mathematical nonsense. Some of them complained Aronofsky really should have had a maths student take a look at the plot before release, and I ended up feeling awful for torturing scientists..."
Hmm.
though I just read this review:
"I watched Pi with a bunch of mathematicians, and they winced at it being full of mathematical nonsense. Some of them complained Aronofsky really should have had a maths student take a look at the plot before release, and I ended up feeling awful for torturing scientists..."
Hmm.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 1st, 2013 at 8:26:51 PM
permalink
Quote: teddysYou mean Jehovah?
[Strike of Lightning]
Owww!
"But in the latin alphabet jehovah begins with an i"
J...
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:35:52 AM
permalink
Not sure what caused this thread to be revived, but a pretty interesting discussion nonetheless. As to the movie, I found it incomprehensible, not least for the editing, when it first came out, but I'm going to try slogging through it again for the heck of it based on this discussion.
I actually found a bit of my personal religion, which is closest to agnostic, in the Arthur C. Clarke story "The Nine Billion Names of G-d", so I was surprised to see that Nareed didn't care for it. Short synopsis; monks dedicated for centuries to figuring out and chanting each of the names to G-d's greater Glory ask for help from a computer scientist (written in 1953). He does, and they get to work. Some months later, the scientist notices the world is going out; realizes that the monks were on the right track all along and have brought on the Rhapsody. I took it as a sort of parable suggesting that we each can and should know G-d in a direct and personal way that is as individualized as fingerprints, and our communication with Him by whatever form was legitimate prayer, not needing intervention from priests, popes, ministers, or even Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed. It was more of an affirmation than a light bulb of a concept, but ACC was a very devout scientist, and I remain fond of the story. Sidebar: if ACC was on to something, we should reach 9 Billion population in the next 30 years or so. Look out, world.
Speaking of movies, those of you who have Netflix might find this TED series fascinating: I certainly am enjoying it. Hell, some of you may be in it, with the quality of this forum.
TED Talks: Numbers Speak Louder Than Words. (The URL had my member id embedded in the link, so I removed that. You should be able to bring it up by pasting the title into the search box.) You can also find them individually, and maybe as a group, on the TED website.
I actually found a bit of my personal religion, which is closest to agnostic, in the Arthur C. Clarke story "The Nine Billion Names of G-d", so I was surprised to see that Nareed didn't care for it. Short synopsis; monks dedicated for centuries to figuring out and chanting each of the names to G-d's greater Glory ask for help from a computer scientist (written in 1953). He does, and they get to work. Some months later, the scientist notices the world is going out; realizes that the monks were on the right track all along and have brought on the Rhapsody. I took it as a sort of parable suggesting that we each can and should know G-d in a direct and personal way that is as individualized as fingerprints, and our communication with Him by whatever form was legitimate prayer, not needing intervention from priests, popes, ministers, or even Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed. It was more of an affirmation than a light bulb of a concept, but ACC was a very devout scientist, and I remain fond of the story. Sidebar: if ACC was on to something, we should reach 9 Billion population in the next 30 years or so. Look out, world.
Speaking of movies, those of you who have Netflix might find this TED series fascinating: I certainly am enjoying it. Hell, some of you may be in it, with the quality of this forum.
TED Talks: Numbers Speak Louder Than Words. (The URL had my member id embedded in the link, so I removed that. You should be able to bring it up by pasting the title into the search box.) You can also find them individually, and maybe as a group, on the TED website.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
September 2nd, 2013 at 12:07:00 PM
permalink
Quote: beachbumbabsNot sure what caused this thread to be revived, but a pretty interesting discussion nonetheless. As to the movie, I found it incomprehensible,
I revived it because I tried watching it last
night. I lasted 20min. The b/w cinematography
and the acting was so dreadful that I couldn't
figure out what was happening, so I gave up.
Its like a college art film. They blast out the
b/w film by over lighting the set. This is supposed
to give a dramatic effect, here its just annoying.
I read a review where a guy said he watched
this 3 times because of the reviews it got and
still doesn't know what its about. Its like 'Blair
Witch', unwatchable.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 2nd, 2013 at 12:18:20 PM
permalink
Really enjoyed this thread. Just some comments:
The use of the dash in G-d is a mistake that has become a pious tradition among Jews and now among some Christian groups. The biblical God’s “real” name is not G-d. God’s name in English would be pronounced Yahweh. But Yahweh is not allowed to be pronounced without good reason. So it is best to substitute all those other appellations including the word God.
Christians and Jews believe Yahweh is God’s real name although (and this is sad) many Christians have no idea that God’s name is Yahweh. (So much for religious education.)
In fact, the Canaanite god was El and the Hebrews used Elohim (plural) as a substitute for Yahweh's name. Those of you who have “el” at the end of your name will usually have some meaning connecting you to God. I think Michael means something such as “who is like God?”
Jehovah is merely a Latin iteration of Yahweh.
The reason there are a “billion” names for Yahweh is that you cannot pronounce his name without violating the commandment – “You shall not take the name of God in vain.” (Different beliefs have changed the order of the commandments.) So folks kept using other names which referred to Yahweh without using Yahweh's actual name.
I think Arthur C. Clarke was influenced by the Buddhist and Shinto religions (which are kind of combined in Japan) --- I believe the Shinto religion has millions of gods – gods for everything in nature and “out there” in space.
Rambam is right on the money. “I will be what I will be” is the best translation.
Finally, the best bible I’ve read is “The New English Bible” with Apocrypha. If there are disputes in translations, this bible will discuss them and give you the various opinions. The Apocrypha are those books that almost but didn’t quite make the cut for the regular bible.
Great discussion.
The use of the dash in G-d is a mistake that has become a pious tradition among Jews and now among some Christian groups. The biblical God’s “real” name is not G-d. God’s name in English would be pronounced Yahweh. But Yahweh is not allowed to be pronounced without good reason. So it is best to substitute all those other appellations including the word God.
Christians and Jews believe Yahweh is God’s real name although (and this is sad) many Christians have no idea that God’s name is Yahweh. (So much for religious education.)
In fact, the Canaanite god was El and the Hebrews used Elohim (plural) as a substitute for Yahweh's name. Those of you who have “el” at the end of your name will usually have some meaning connecting you to God. I think Michael means something such as “who is like God?”
Jehovah is merely a Latin iteration of Yahweh.
The reason there are a “billion” names for Yahweh is that you cannot pronounce his name without violating the commandment – “You shall not take the name of God in vain.” (Different beliefs have changed the order of the commandments.) So folks kept using other names which referred to Yahweh without using Yahweh's actual name.
I think Arthur C. Clarke was influenced by the Buddhist and Shinto religions (which are kind of combined in Japan) --- I believe the Shinto religion has millions of gods – gods for everything in nature and “out there” in space.
Rambam is right on the money. “I will be what I will be” is the best translation.
Finally, the best bible I’ve read is “The New English Bible” with Apocrypha. If there are disputes in translations, this bible will discuss them and give you the various opinions. The Apocrypha are those books that almost but didn’t quite make the cut for the regular bible.
Great discussion.
September 2nd, 2013 at 2:09:04 PM
permalink
I'm not one that takes things on faith. If the Many World's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is accurate then it's a certainty God exists in one form or another. Whether it's my form or someone else. However, I am also quite fond of nihilism, and at times I question my own existence. Payer has been very helpful for me.
I'm sure there will come another time where I go to Him, Poor in Spirit, and gladly cast myself upon His Graces in times of anxiety beyond my understanding as I ask for Spiritual Guidance.
I'm sure there will come another time where I go to Him, Poor in Spirit, and gladly cast myself upon His Graces in times of anxiety beyond my understanding as I ask for Spiritual Guidance.
Buffering...
September 2nd, 2013 at 2:45:22 PM
permalink
I often wonder why Jesus's "resurrection" does not count as the second coming - since he was crucified and died.
Wouldn't his first time on earth born of the "virgin Mary" count as his 1st coming and his rising from the dead his 2nd coming?
Other than that...what EvenBob said.
Wouldn't his first time on earth born of the "virgin Mary" count as his 1st coming and his rising from the dead his 2nd coming?
Other than that...what EvenBob said.
September 2nd, 2013 at 2:48:55 PM
permalink
Quote: FrankScoblete
The reason there are a “billion” names for Yahweh is that you cannot pronounce his name without violating the commandment – “You shall not take the name of God in vain.” (Different beliefs have changed the order of the commandments.) So folks kept using other names which referred to Yahweh without using Yahweh's actual name.
I always thought that "Not taking the name of god in vain" was actually based upon the sanctity of business and personal contracts, which were sworn in the name of god. If someone was perpetrating a fraudulent contract, then swearing to god's name in making the deal would be taking god's name in vain.
September 2nd, 2013 at 2:55:58 PM
permalink
Quote: AlanMendelsonand manna falling from heaven was an air drop of supplies from the alien spaceships, and the aliens parted the Red Sea so the "chosen people" could escape.
Video re: Manna Machine
September 2nd, 2013 at 3:47:43 PM
permalink
Quote: FrankScobleteFinally, the best bible I’ve read is “The New English Bible” with Apocrypha. If there are disputes in translations, this bible will discuss them and give you the various opinions. The Apocrypha are those books that almost but didn’t quite make the cut for the regular bible.
Frank, I'm an amateur genealogist. I have this direct ancestor, 14 generations back from me, John Rogers. This was during the time of the English Reformation. John Rogers was one of the first Catholic priests to denounce Catholicism and become a Protestant minister. He had to get the hell out of England, so went to Belgium and Germany. He edited and published the first English bible, considered heresy at the time, in 1537. He used the alias of Thomas Mathew. The bible is still known as the Thomas Mathew Bible and was the prototype for the King James version.
Henry VIII died in 1548. His son Edward VI took over. Edward, influenced by his mother, was a protestant. Roger's returned to England under his protection. But Edward died in 1553. His half-sister, Mary, took over. She was a devout Catholic. She had John Rogers put to the stake in 1555. He was the first of about 300 Protestant ministers she had burned at the stake. Rogers had the option of recanting -and surviving- all the way to the end. He refused. And by all accounts he marched to the stake as if it were some sort of celebration.
Ironically, Mary died in 1558. Her half sister, Elizabeth, a Protestant, took over and had many Catholic priests put to the stake.
"Quit trying your luck and start trying your skill." Mickey Crimm
September 3rd, 2013 at 3:06:39 AM
permalink
Aceofspades, your idea is a good one but the original thought --- at its prime or most primitive --- concerns the fact that when you use the personal name of God you had better not do so for a frivolous reason. Why is that? Because as soon as you say God's name, he must hear you. You have gained his attention. Now that you've got his attention it better be worth what you're calling him for. The same would hold for your real name. If your name is Jed and I call out, "Jed!" Even in a crowded place you would react to your name.
The bible is a primitive book. However those commentators over the centuries interpreted the various stories in increasingly more sophisticated ways. Just let me give one example, The Book of Job. The book opens with God bragging about how loving and loyal Job is to Him. Satan (the adversary who roams the earth to report on various things) confronts God with the fact that of course Job is loving Him; after all, God has given Job wealth, a great family, good health, etc. Why don't you just start nailing Job by taking stuff away and see if he still worships you?
Make a long story short (because I have to go out to swim). Over the course of the story God nails Job's property, his animals, his family (killing all of them), and finally gives Job every possible skin disease imaginable. Job is sitting on a bone/ash pile scratching like a maniac. At this point, after a few of his religious friends have tried to convince Job that he must have done something to anger God, Job questions what God has done to him.
God explodes in a wild monologue about how insignificant Job is and how great He, God, is.
The story is really simple in its prime form. Satan tempts God into doing horrible things to Job because God was bragging. God keeps hammering Job throughout the story, falling for the temptation and gets petulent when Job finally ask God why God has visited such suffering upon him.
Yes, at the end, God gives Job some new property, a new family, a new wife, a bunch of animals and clean skin. But you see that the elements of the story are primitive. Not so when the great religious thinkers grab hold of the story through the centuries. In fact, "why do bad things happen to good people?" became a title of a modern book. The story of Job resonates far beyond its primitive self.
So too with calling upon God in vain. If you swear to God; not a big deal. But if you swear to Yahweh, that's a whole different story --- that swearing is not a smart thing to do. So even today in an American court, you do not use Yahweh when you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth --- "so help you God." That is the type of swearing that one would do with a contract.
By the way, one last thing for now. The world Job lived in was world where God rewarded you for good behavior and punished you for bad behavior. In addition, it was a world of collective punishment and reward. We are all punished for Adam and Eve's eating of the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Christians believe that we can all be saved because of Christ's sacrfice.
It took some time to realize that bad things do in fact happen to good people. In many ways, The Book of Job is a transitional book in our history of religious thought.
Mickeycrimm, wow!
The bible is a primitive book. However those commentators over the centuries interpreted the various stories in increasingly more sophisticated ways. Just let me give one example, The Book of Job. The book opens with God bragging about how loving and loyal Job is to Him. Satan (the adversary who roams the earth to report on various things) confronts God with the fact that of course Job is loving Him; after all, God has given Job wealth, a great family, good health, etc. Why don't you just start nailing Job by taking stuff away and see if he still worships you?
Make a long story short (because I have to go out to swim). Over the course of the story God nails Job's property, his animals, his family (killing all of them), and finally gives Job every possible skin disease imaginable. Job is sitting on a bone/ash pile scratching like a maniac. At this point, after a few of his religious friends have tried to convince Job that he must have done something to anger God, Job questions what God has done to him.
God explodes in a wild monologue about how insignificant Job is and how great He, God, is.
The story is really simple in its prime form. Satan tempts God into doing horrible things to Job because God was bragging. God keeps hammering Job throughout the story, falling for the temptation and gets petulent when Job finally ask God why God has visited such suffering upon him.
Yes, at the end, God gives Job some new property, a new family, a new wife, a bunch of animals and clean skin. But you see that the elements of the story are primitive. Not so when the great religious thinkers grab hold of the story through the centuries. In fact, "why do bad things happen to good people?" became a title of a modern book. The story of Job resonates far beyond its primitive self.
So too with calling upon God in vain. If you swear to God; not a big deal. But if you swear to Yahweh, that's a whole different story --- that swearing is not a smart thing to do. So even today in an American court, you do not use Yahweh when you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth --- "so help you God." That is the type of swearing that one would do with a contract.
By the way, one last thing for now. The world Job lived in was world where God rewarded you for good behavior and punished you for bad behavior. In addition, it was a world of collective punishment and reward. We are all punished for Adam and Eve's eating of the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Christians believe that we can all be saved because of Christ's sacrfice.
It took some time to realize that bad things do in fact happen to good people. In many ways, The Book of Job is a transitional book in our history of religious thought.
Mickeycrimm, wow!
September 3rd, 2013 at 3:17:02 AM
permalink
I equate the way believers use the Bible to the way political parties use gerrymandering.
September 3rd, 2013 at 6:39:56 AM
permalink
I agree. The bible can be used any which way. Some of the Southern preachers love the Old Testament (Torah and Scriptures) because God is fierce, mostly unforgiving, violent. In short, God reflects these preachers' personalities. That Westboro Bible church's pastor is a great example of that kind of preacher. His flock eats up his hatred and uses Old Testament quotes to prove that God is the angry God we should all fear.
Many other Christian churches tend to push the Old Testament aside in favor of a loving and gentle Jesus who promises us forgiveness. You won't hear too many sermons about God wanting to kill all the Israelites after they partied while Moses was getting the 10 Commandments. Moses (luckily) was able to talk God down to killing some 3,000 Israelites --- if I recall correctly Moses himself did the killing. Instead, those Christians learn that even their worst sins can be forgiven if they turn to the Lord.
And you have everything in between. The bible has been used to justify slavery (Ham's descendents), war, pacifism, burning witches, collective guilt, collective reward, jihad (the Koran is the Old Testament and New Testament by way of Mohammed), killing women for adultery, divorce, no divorce, and on and on.
Many other Christian churches tend to push the Old Testament aside in favor of a loving and gentle Jesus who promises us forgiveness. You won't hear too many sermons about God wanting to kill all the Israelites after they partied while Moses was getting the 10 Commandments. Moses (luckily) was able to talk God down to killing some 3,000 Israelites --- if I recall correctly Moses himself did the killing. Instead, those Christians learn that even their worst sins can be forgiven if they turn to the Lord.
And you have everything in between. The bible has been used to justify slavery (Ham's descendents), war, pacifism, burning witches, collective guilt, collective reward, jihad (the Koran is the Old Testament and New Testament by way of Mohammed), killing women for adultery, divorce, no divorce, and on and on.
September 3rd, 2013 at 11:44:41 AM
permalink
Quote: FrankScoblete
The story is really simple in its prime form. Satan tempts God into doing horrible things to Job because God was bragging. God keeps hammering Job throughout the story, falling for the temptation and gets petulent when Job finally ask God why God has visited such suffering upon him.
!
Job is the strangest book in the Bible. The devil and god
are hanging out together one day (say what?), and they
make a bet that god can't irritate Job into forsaking him.
What the hell. Why would anybody find this story anything
but appalling. Its like your dad and the principal at your
grade school making a bet that you can driven insane
by the end of the semester. And people based a religion
around this nonsense.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 3rd, 2013 at 1:25:44 PM
permalink
Hi Even Bob,
Just bring yourself back to tribal, primitive thinking. The gods are responsible for the good and bad things that happen to you. You feared the gods as much as you loved them or, more often than not, placated them with sacrifice. In the Torah, the first five books, God delights in animal sacrifices. "They are of pleasing odor to the Lord." (My quotes come from memory.) You have to make Him happy. (The origin of circumcision is quite interesting in terms of what this practice came from.)
So Satan, who is not a "devil" in the story but is a wandering angel on the earth or an "antagonist" would often bring God messages. You don't get any other stories quite as good as this one where Satan really tempts God. However, in the New Testament, Satan, now more of a demon in control of the world than just a messenger, tempts Jesus. The results are far different. (The morphing of Satan into SATAN is interesting too!)
I think if you as a modern man can look at the book as primitive man trying to figure out why people who obey God, and are good people, still get hammered by life. My wife the Beautiful A.P. and I always say, "No one escapes." By that we mean no one escapes the bad things in life.
By now, few Rabbis would interpret God as so weak as it appears in the story. No priest would either. A bigger philosophical context would be presented. But that context was developed over time. Except for really fundamentalist thinkers, a lot (a LOT) of liberties are taken with the original stories in how we interpret them.
Just bring yourself back to tribal, primitive thinking. The gods are responsible for the good and bad things that happen to you. You feared the gods as much as you loved them or, more often than not, placated them with sacrifice. In the Torah, the first five books, God delights in animal sacrifices. "They are of pleasing odor to the Lord." (My quotes come from memory.) You have to make Him happy. (The origin of circumcision is quite interesting in terms of what this practice came from.)
So Satan, who is not a "devil" in the story but is a wandering angel on the earth or an "antagonist" would often bring God messages. You don't get any other stories quite as good as this one where Satan really tempts God. However, in the New Testament, Satan, now more of a demon in control of the world than just a messenger, tempts Jesus. The results are far different. (The morphing of Satan into SATAN is interesting too!)
I think if you as a modern man can look at the book as primitive man trying to figure out why people who obey God, and are good people, still get hammered by life. My wife the Beautiful A.P. and I always say, "No one escapes." By that we mean no one escapes the bad things in life.
By now, few Rabbis would interpret God as so weak as it appears in the story. No priest would either. A bigger philosophical context would be presented. But that context was developed over time. Except for really fundamentalist thinkers, a lot (a LOT) of liberties are taken with the original stories in how we interpret them.
September 3rd, 2013 at 2:09:09 PM
permalink
Quote: FrankScobleteHi Even Bob,
Just bring yourself back to tribal, primitive thinking. The gods are responsible for the good and bad things that happen to you. You feared the gods as much as you loved them or, more often than not, placated them with sacrifice. In the Torah, the first five books, God delights in animal sacrifices. "They are of pleasing odor to the Lord." (My quotes come from memory.) You have to make Him happy. (The origin of circumcision is quite interesting in terms of what this practice came from.)
So Satan, who is not a "devil" in the story but is a wandering angel on the earth or an "antagonist" would often bring God messages. You don't get any other stories quite as good as this one where Satan really tempts God. However, in the New Testament, Satan, now more of a demon in control of the world than just a messenger, tempts Jesus. The results are far different. (The morphing of Satan into SATAN is interesting too!)
I think if you as a modern man can look at the book as primitive man trying to figure out why people who obey God, and are good people, still get hammered by life. My wife the Beautiful A.P. and I always say, "No one escapes." By that we mean no one escapes the bad things in life.
By now, few Rabbis would interpret God as so weak as it appears in the story. No priest would either. A bigger philosophical context would be presented. But that context was developed over time. Except for really fundamentalist thinkers, a lot (a LOT) of liberties are taken with the original stories in how we interpret them.
God as petulant child does not serve the purposes of those who lead the flocks. But indeed, He was in that case. Also when He sent bears to tear 42 children to bloody bits for mocking the baldness of one of His prophets, Elijah. THERE'S a mortal sin for you. Ditto extolling Lot as a righteous man after he turned his two virgin daughters over to a murderous mob to be raped and mutilated rather than the Angel messenger they came after. God's only mercy on them was to kill them quickly with a rain of fire; they didn't escape with Dad. Dozens of those incidents in the OT, where the innocent are made victims of God's capricious nature. They were the red-shirts of God's 5 year mission, the original expendables. Maybe God was in God-training at the time, but all-knowing, all-loving, all-seeing? Later, if ever.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
September 3rd, 2013 at 2:54:10 PM
permalink
I remember from my early days that Job is the
oldest book in the OT, way older than the rest.
Many believe it shouldn't even be in the Bible,
its more tribal folklore than anything else. There
was a time when yahweh was just one god among
many. It wasn't till later that he became the only
god, they blended them all together.
oldest book in the OT, way older than the rest.
Many believe it shouldn't even be in the Bible,
its more tribal folklore than anything else. There
was a time when yahweh was just one god among
many. It wasn't till later that he became the only
god, they blended them all together.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 3rd, 2013 at 3:30:33 PM
permalink
The Lot story had more to do with the protection that a host must give a guest. The angels (or messengers) of God were guests in Lot's house --- really good looking guests. When the city of rather unfriendly homosexuals asked to rape the guests, Lot offered his daughters. He even says something about doing such a horrible deed to "the men who have come into my house." His daughters were rejected. Yes, in every way this is a nasty story. (Oh, someday I will tell you a star trek episode I wrote about Lot, his daughters and the guests. It almost made it.)
Job is thought to come from a Chinese tale and made its way into the bible.
Yes, there is little monotheism early on in the bible. The serpent (the talking serpent) says to Eve something to the effect, "If you eat this fruit you will be like gods knowing both good and evil." Elohim, a name used to replace Yahweh, is plural (meaning gods) even though some Jews might not be aware of the significance of that (at least my Jewish friends). The first commandment does not seem to eliminate the other gods, it just puts Yahweh in the forefront for the Israelites. The pharoah's magicians (real magicians) did some great miracles but Moses' God was just immensely stronger. There is no denying that the Egyptians had magic and that magic came from their gods. Of course, today this assertion of mine would be challenged;rabbis and priests would say that monotheism was the norm in these stories. I would respectfully disagree.
The modern (well, kind of modern) version of why Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt has pushed forth a story that she withheld salt to her guests when they came over for dinner. Therefore her punishment for looking back was to become the salt she withheld. This is an apocryphal story to say the least.
(I always do my quotes from memory because I am too lazy to look them up. They are pretty accurate I think.)
Job is thought to come from a Chinese tale and made its way into the bible.
Yes, there is little monotheism early on in the bible. The serpent (the talking serpent) says to Eve something to the effect, "If you eat this fruit you will be like gods knowing both good and evil." Elohim, a name used to replace Yahweh, is plural (meaning gods) even though some Jews might not be aware of the significance of that (at least my Jewish friends). The first commandment does not seem to eliminate the other gods, it just puts Yahweh in the forefront for the Israelites. The pharoah's magicians (real magicians) did some great miracles but Moses' God was just immensely stronger. There is no denying that the Egyptians had magic and that magic came from their gods. Of course, today this assertion of mine would be challenged;rabbis and priests would say that monotheism was the norm in these stories. I would respectfully disagree.
The modern (well, kind of modern) version of why Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt has pushed forth a story that she withheld salt to her guests when they came over for dinner. Therefore her punishment for looking back was to become the salt she withheld. This is an apocryphal story to say the least.
(I always do my quotes from memory because I am too lazy to look them up. They are pretty accurate I think.)
September 3rd, 2013 at 4:46:05 PM
permalink
Quote: FrankScobleteJust bring yourself back to tribal, primitive thinking. The gods are responsible for the good and bad things that happen to you....
I agree 100%. Humans are significance junkies and always have been. Baccarat players try to find the pattern in the shoe while craps players search for the hot table. In same way, most of need a story like Job to explain why bad things happen to good people. I can see that need for that under "tribal, primitive thinking" but at least a billion people believe in the Old Testament/Torah, which contains the story. Maybe the Koran has a version of it too -- I don't know.
Hopefully, someday, the human race will advance to the point where we accept randomness, and that there isn't necessarily some divine cause to everything. In other words sh*t happens.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
September 3rd, 2013 at 5:32:10 PM
permalink
Great discussion, guys. I said my piece for now, but appreciate the variety of commentary.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
September 5th, 2013 at 5:58:57 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardThe movie mentions a particular number, something in the low 200s. Can anyone who has seen the movie, and is well versed in Hebrew numerology, explain what was going on?
216
216=6^3
216=3^3+4^3+5^3
216 is the sum of the letters in God's 72 hidden names.
216 is the numerical value of Gevurah, the fifth sephirot in the kabbalistic tree of life.
There is some discussion of 216 on bible wheel website
