CHRISTIANITY

Pilate: 'Quid est veritas?' – Gospel Truth? – 1

Leave a Comment

Pontius Pilate: Then you are a king.
Jesus: It’s you that say I am. I look for truth, and find that I get damned.
Pontius Pilate: And what is ‘truth’? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?

 

If that dialogue sounds a bit off from what you might remember of the original gospel text, you are right. It is a dialogue rewrite of John 18:38 by Tim Rice, lyricist of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Jesus Christ Superstar. [See JCS – “Confessions of an Idolater”]. It is a clever rewrite for the following [among many] reasons:

  • It fits the intense music that builds up during the trial scenes in JCS,
  • It makes you pause and ponder the 3-word question, ‘Quid est veritas?‘ albeit in Latin,
  • placed in the mouth of a Roman prelate assigned to oversee among other Roman territories, Judea under King Herod the Idumanean,
  • It makes you think who was this Pontius Pilate,
  • is the gospel portrayal accurate
  • and does it fit the records about this historical Roman figure?

Already, we’re grappling with just one “truth”—an accurate biographical sketch of Pilate.  Speaking of which, (not to be sidetracked but have  patience, there is a point to this),  “religious films” or movies that portray biblical stories are no doubt one successful evangelical method of bringing the Bible to the masses; after all, there are more film-goers than there are church-goers, so that many movie buffs get biblically-educated while they’re being entertained. The problem with film is of course the spin that film-makers put into any original story; let’s face it, Hollywood isn’t exactly as interested in accuracy as it is in box office $$$ success.  And of course, they are dependent on screenwriters who transform biblical text into screen storytelling and dramatic dialogue. Just read this write-up about a film on Pilate who is to be portrayed by . . . . 
 

Brad Pitt is being lined up for the lead role in a new Hollywood film about the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, who oversaw the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, reports Deadline.

 

 Studio Warner Bros is backing the big-budget project, which is based on a screenplay by Woman On Top author Vera Blasi. Her take, details of which first emerged in the summer, follows Pilate from his youth as the sensitive son of a Roman knight to the reluctant governorship of Judea, climaxing with his decision to order Christ’s crucifixion. The screenplay, which Blasi claims to have researched for more than a decade, imagines the Roman prefect as an unfortunate figure caught amid antagonistic religious factions who is forced to make the fateful decision after finding himself in desperate need of popular goodwill. As well as Christ, it features the Roman emperors Caligula and Tiberius and New Testament figures such as John the Baptist, Salome and Mary Magdalene.

 

 In a brief review of Blasi’s screenplay, Deadline’s Mike Fleming Jr writes: “Rather than a straight-ahead biblical film, Blasi’s script reads almost like a biblical-era Twilight Zone episode in which a proud, capable Roman soldier gets in way over his head. [Pilate’s] arrogance and inability to grasp the devoutness of the citizenry and its hatred for the Roman occupiers and their pagan gods leads him to make catastrophic decisions.”

 

 Biblical epics are currently flavour of the month in Hollywood, with movies based on the lives of Noah, Moses and battling brothers Cain and Abel (under the auspices of Darren Aronofsky, Steven Spielberg and Will Smith) all being mulled by executives. So far only Aronofsky’s Noah, with Russell Crowe as the animal-hoarding antediluvian patriarch, has actually entered production.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jan/08/brad-pitt-pontius-pilate]

 
What is the point of bringing this up?  Historical, Biblical, biographical films do have mass appeal to illiterates, non-readers, lazy readers, or interested readers who have no access to the books, they at least get exposed to history, bible, biography. The problem is, people hardly go farther than viewing films and what is recorded in their memories are film versions.  The HIstory Channel does a better job than Hollywood, but both rely on written records . . . and written records are written from a point of view, sometimes selective, often reconstructed from available evidence, etc.  

 

To get back to Pilate—is the NT depiction of this historical figure accurate?  Here are excerpts from one of our  MUST READ books, Josephus and the New Testament, by Steve Mason.  But first a word about Josephus for those who are not familiar with this name:
 

. . .  the importance of Josephus for the serious study of the New Testament . . . He was born in 37 C.E, just a few years after Jesus’ death and very soon after Paul’s conversion to Christianity.  He grew up in Jerusalem and was intimately acquainted with the religion of Israel, its temple and its feasts, at one of which Jesus had been arrested.  He knew a lot about the important background figures in the gospel—King Herod and his own sons, Roman governors such as Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees and Sadducees—and he was a priest himself. Having lived for a time in Jesus’ home region of Galilee, he knew intimately its geographical and social conditions.  Josephus was reaching maturity at about the time that the apostle Paul was imprisoned and sent to Rome; he even moved to Rome within a decade of Paul’s execution there, though under circumstances very different from Paul.

 

This means that when Josephus undertook his literary career in Rome, from about 70 to 100, he was an exact contemporary of the gospel writers, whose work is usually assigned to the same period.  His compositions . . . are four: Jewish War (7 volumes), Jewish Antiquities (20 volumes), Life (1 volume), and Against Apion (2 volumes).  Further, Josephus did not write only about political and social life in Judea and the Eastern Mediterranean; he reached back to begin the story of the Antiquities from creation with an extensive paraphrase of the Bible.  Thus his writings provide abundant examples of the ways in which a first-century Jew read the “Old” Testament.

So, Josephus’s works offer us a potential gold mine for understanding the world of the New Testament.  . . .

 

Here is where the problems begin.  Although everyone realizes the value of Josephus’s writings, not many are able to sit down and read through them with profit.  

 
Steve Mason’s Chapter 1 is titled Chapter 4:  Who’s Who in the New Testament World?  Excerpts from In the New Testament:
 

How does Josephus’s portrayal of the Roman governors throw light on the various NT presentations?  . . .  Knowing Josephus’ account allows us to penetrate beneath the surface. . . . [S6K:  the inconsistency between historical fact and gospel portrayal of Roman rulers in Acts is discussed.]

 

Much more difficult to understand in the light of Josephus are the gospels’ presentations of Pontius Pilate.  Whereas Josephus (like Philo) treats him as the prototype of the cruel, capricious, and insensitive Roman governor, slaughtering Jewish provincials on a whim, the gospels all show him insisting on Jesus’ innocence, and deeply concerned that he receive a fair trial.  [S6K: He then discusses difficulties with historical facts in Luke and Mark, particularly Pilate’s supposed reluctance to give in to the Jews demand for the crucifixion of Jesus.]

 

This unusual presentation of Pilate as a sensitive and just man, as a pawn in the hands of the Jewish leaders, is intensified in Matthew.  This gospel says that Pilate’s wife, having suffered in a dream because of this “righteous man,” told her husband not to harm Jesus (27:19).  The dutiful and conscientious governor even declares his innocence in Jesus’ death with the Jewish symbol of washing his hands (27:24; cf. Deut 21:6-9).  Who then is responsible?  The author [S6K: Matthew writer] leaves no doubt that it is “all the Jewish people” and their descendants (27:25), who deliberately assume the blame.  Once again, Pilate appears here as the instrument of the Jewish leaders who had long since plotted against Jesus.  Though committed to justice, he was compelled to carry out the people’s wishes.

 

The author of John seems to be aware of the problem of reconciling Pilate’s reputation with the claim that he was innocent in Jesus’ death.  So he begins his relatively lengthy exchange between Jesus and Pilate by having the governor act in a suitably cavalier and distracted manner.  He says to the Jewish leaders, “You take him and judge him by your own law” (18:31).  In response to Jesus, he scoffs “Am I a Jew?” (18:35).  And this jaded bureaucrat rhetorically poses the famous question, “What is truth?” (18:38).  His soldiers, in character with Josephus’s portrayal, beat and mock Jesus even before the trial (18:2-3).  Still, Pilate quickly becomes afraid when he hears that Jesus calls himself the son of God (19:8–not mentioned in the other accounts) and wants to release him in response to Jesus’ wise answers (19:12).  He protests on behalf of Jesus’ innocence, and John seems to say that he even handed Jesus over to the Jewish leaders so that they would conduct the execution (19:16).  Only John answers the question why, if Pilate was innocent in Jesus death, he was involved at all.  John has the Jewish leaders helpfully remind the Roman governor that he alone has the power of capital punishment (18:31).

 

A particular problem in the gospel accounts is their claim that Pilate used to release a criminal chosen by the Jews every year at Passover (Mark 15:6; Matt 27:15; John 18:39).  The story is difficult for several reasons:

(a)  it violates both Jewish and Roman law, according to which the guilty, especially murderers, must be punished—they cannot simply be freed by public vote;

(b)  it is not attested anywhere else in Jewish or Roman history and literature;

(c) according to Josephus, feasts such as Passover were precisely the occasions when the Romans were most concerned about maintaining order, and so were most severe in their punishments (War 2.10-11, 42, 224, 232-234); 

(d)  if Pilate could release one man to the crowds, he could presumably also have released Jesus;

(e)  Luke, who seems most familiar with Roman law, transforms the story so that Pilate simply yields to popular demand for Barabbas as a one-time concession, not as an annual custom (23:18); and

(f)  Barabbas is a peculiar name because it means “son of a father,” which is hardly a distinction. 

 

None of this means that the episode is impossible, only that it is difficult to understand.  On the other hand, the story does fit well with the gospels’ attempts to demonstrate the depth of Jewish opposition to Jesus: given the opportunity to choose him over a convicted terrorist, they chose the terrorist.

 

The gospels’ attempts to relieve Pilate of any guilt and to place it squarely on Jewish heads are understandable in light of the Christians’ social-political situation after 70 C.E.:  the Jews were already considered troublemakers as a result fo their failed revolt, and the Christians were in desperate need of a claim to legitimacy.  Christians had to explain to the Roman world (and to themselves) how it happened that their Lord had been crucified by a Roman governor.  It was natural that in such circumstances, the Jewish role in Jesus’ death would be exaggerated and the Roman role minimized.  And it was inevitable that Christian portrayals written in these circumstances would conflict with the writings of the Jewish author Josephus.  The Roman governors’ misdeeds were so predictably notorious that Josephus could cite them as causes of the revolt while still maintaining that Jews were on the whole committed to peace with the central, divinely supported Roman government.

 Next:  What is gospel truth?

NSB@S6K

DISCOURSE

Sinaite/Atheist – 3 – Q&A: What would the TORAH say about today's business practice of "outsourcing"?

Leave a Comment

[Actually the title of this post should be: “Atheist/Benmara” since they are the discussants here.  This is a question raised by DN whose letters started this open-discussion series; the answer to this question has been provided by Benmara of hearoyisrael.net. Anyone else interested is invited to join this discussion, please fill up the REPLY box below.]

 

Q: Darius Nease  <www.smashwords.com/profile/view/lotuseater>

I have just gone through another “negotiation” with my boss again–constantly trying to get more for less…And since this is an outsourced position, and though forced to take on outsourcing work or earn PHP250 a day as a construction worker, I have always been against outsourcing so I post here and now on this subject. However, to relate to you, the site owners as well as your visitors, I thought maybe we could relate it to the law that you discuss and follow, the word of YHWH. For example, I’ve learned that the Jews have all kinds of special laws concerning business and money–and I mean ancient laws, not the modern ones that Gentiles keep giving them grief for. For instance, the law that all debt shall be forgiven following a 7 year cycle, things like that. Whether these laws are truly divine or passed down from human ancestors over the millennia, most I have come across are sound and level the playing field such that each individual has a fair chance at a good life.

 

What does Hebraic law say about the issues concerning outsourcing-related activities (which I find to be a major evil in the world)? Besides the numerous statements warning people not to be greedy and to look after the poor, what does Hebraic law say about outsourcing-specific sins?

 

Large companies are greedy enough as it is. My view is that outsourcing allows them to rake in even more profits by denying work to home country laborers and underpaying outsourced labor. Furthermore, workers on both sides of the ocean have no say in the matter and are powerless. Of course outsourced laborers will take PHP10,000 a month over PHP5000! And those left without jobs in the home country usually end up working for minimum wage if nothing better is available. Though, and to branch into another topic that I am working on, at least one can survive on, let’s say, US minimum wage where it is impossible to do so independent of a family support system in the Philippines.

 

What is the word on this insidious business practice? What is outsourcing according to YHWH? 

A.  Benmara of hearoyisrael.net

 

Regarding the outsourcing question, it is imperative to remember that Yahuwah ‘Elohiym judges us by our actions in ALL that we do.

 

Yahuwah tells us that a workman is worth his wages. The Towrah gives us many instructions regarding how we treat the poor, the downtrodden, our neighbors, our families and even our employees. We are told in many places that we are to avoid greed and avarice and we’re not to refuse to help others. Hell, even when we LOAN the money to another, we have to expect not to get that money when the seven year period of time is over. And this is not seven years from one we loaned it, it is the every seven years cycle of a release. So if money is loaned two years from the end of the cycle– it is only two years until the debtor is released from repayment! This amnesty applies only to us, we can charge you gowyim the interest the whole time:

Dabariym 15 [reformatting and highlights added]

AT the end of every seven years you will make an amnesty.

2. And this is the institution of the amnesty:

  • every creditor will absolve what he has lent to his neighbor;
  • he will not require it from his neighbor and his brother;
  • because the amnesty יהוה has been proclaimed.

3. From a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever you have of your brother’s your hand will release.

4. However there will be no poor with you; (for יהוה will surely bless you in the land which יהוה your ‘Elohiym [Mighty One] gives you for an inheritance to possess it);
 
But even though we are allowed to continue to charge the gowyim, please look at verse four. That’s somewhat of a silly addition if it’s speaking about us alone. After all, He has just, in verse one, declared the seven year amnesty. He is obviously talking about the foreigner– while we can still be charging money if you can afford it and if you’re not in hardship; if you are in a hardship I am to be merciful (considering all the other verses and the Towrah about mercy and giving I don’t think one should wait for seven years!) 

and 

Shemoth 23:
6. You will not turn aside the justice of the impoverished in his cause.
and
9. And a sojourner you will not oppress:

  • for you know the nephesh of a sojourner,
  • seeing you were sojourners in the land of Mitsrayim.

Read the Towrah for many, many more verses.

The point of all of that, is that the corporate world is generally set up to benefit only a select few at the top.
 
This greed and selfishness is what leads to outsourcing. The desire of the leaders of these companies claw their way to the top and die with more money in the bank than they could ever hope to spend in 1000 lifetimes is a disgusting thing before the Face of Yahuwah ‘Elohiym! No righteous individual could possibly make the claim that Yahuwah is not against this practice merely because there is no actual phrase “Thou shall not outsource…” 
 
It is a process that is both greedy and avaricious as well as one that causes harm to the great many individuals.
 
Let me know if you need something more specific.

 

 

 

 

 

DISCOURSE

Sinaite/Atheist – 3 – Q&A: What would the TORAH say about today's business practice of "outsourcing"?

Leave a Comment

[Actually the title of this post should be: “Atheist/Benmara” since they are the discussants here.  This is a question raised by DN whose letters started this open-discussion series; the answer to this question has been provided by Benmara of hearoyisrael.net. Anyone else interested is invited to join this discussion, please fill up the REPLY box below.]

 

Q: Darius Nease  <www.smashwords.com/profile/view/lotuseater>

I have just gone through another “negotiation” with my boss again–constantly trying to get more for less…And since this is an outsourced position, and though forced to take on outsourcing work or earn PHP250 a day as a construction worker, I have always been against outsourcing so I post here and now on this subject. However, to relate to you, the site owners as well as your visitors, I thought maybe we could relate it to the law that you discuss and follow, the word of YHWH. For example, I’ve learned that the Jews have all kinds of special laws concerning business and money–and I mean ancient laws, not the modern ones that Gentiles keep giving them grief for. For instance, the law that all debt shall be forgiven following a 7 year cycle, things like that. Whether these laws are truly divine or passed down from human ancestors over the millennia, most I have come across are sound and level the playing field such that each individual has a fair chance at a good life.

 

What does Hebraic law say about the issues concerning outsourcing-related activities (which I find to be a major evil in the world)? Besides the numerous statements warning people not to be greedy and to look after the poor, what does Hebraic law say about outsourcing-specific sins?

 

Large companies are greedy enough as it is. My view is that outsourcing allows them to rake in even more profits by denying work to home country laborers and underpaying outsourced labor. Furthermore, workers on both sides of the ocean have no say in the matter and are powerless. Of course outsourced laborers will take PHP10,000 a month over PHP5000! And those left without jobs in the home country usually end up working for minimum wage if nothing better is available. Though, and to branch into another topic that I am working on, at least one can survive on, let’s say, US minimum wage where it is impossible to do so independent of a family support system in the Philippines.

 

What is the word on this insidious business practice? What is outsourcing according to YHWH? 

A.  Benmara of hearoyisrael.net

 

Regarding the outsourcing question, it is imperative to remember that Yahuwah ‘Elohiym judges us by our actions in ALL that we do.

 

Yahuwah tells us that a workman is worth his wages. The Towrah gives us many instructions regarding how we treat the poor, the downtrodden, our neighbors, our families and even our employees. We are told in many places that we are to avoid greed and avarice and we’re not to refuse to help others. Hell, even when we LOAN the money to another, we have to expect not to get that money when the seven year period of time is over. And this is not seven years from one we loaned it, it is the every seven years cycle of a release. So if money is loaned two years from the end of the cycle– it is only two years until the debtor is released from repayment! This amnesty applies only to us, we can charge you gowyim the interest the whole time:

Dabariym 15 [reformatting and highlights added]

AT the end of every seven years you will make an amnesty.

2. And this is the institution of the amnesty:

  • every creditor will absolve what he has lent to his neighbor;
  • he will not require it from his neighbor and his brother;
  • because the amnesty יהוה has been proclaimed.

3. From a foreigner you may exact it, but whatever you have of your brother’s your hand will release.

4. However there will be no poor with you; (for יהוה will surely bless you in the land which יהוה your ‘Elohiym [Mighty One] gives you for an inheritance to possess it);
 
But even though we are allowed to continue to charge the gowyim, please look at verse four. That’s somewhat of a silly addition if it’s speaking about us alone. After all, He has just, in verse one, declared the seven year amnesty. He is obviously talking about the foreigner– while we can still be charging money if you can afford it and if you’re not in hardship; if you are in a hardship I am to be merciful (considering all the other verses and the Towrah about mercy and giving I don’t think one should wait for seven years!) 

and 

Shemoth 23:
6. You will not turn aside the justice of the impoverished in his cause.
and
9. And a sojourner you will not oppress:

  • for you know the nephesh of a sojourner,
  • seeing you were sojourners in the land of Mitsrayim.

Read the Towrah for many, many more verses.

The point of all of that, is that the corporate world is generally set up to benefit only a select few at the top.
 
This greed and selfishness is what leads to outsourcing. The desire of the leaders of these companies claw their way to the top and die with more money in the bank than they could ever hope to spend in 1000 lifetimes is a disgusting thing before the Face of Yahuwah ‘Elohiym! No righteous individual could possibly make the claim that Yahuwah is not against this practice merely because there is no actual phrase “Thou shall not outsource…” 
 
It is a process that is both greedy and avaricious as well as one that causes harm to the great many individuals.
 
Let me know if you need something more specific.

 

 

 

 

 

OPINION

Is our God a "jealous, wrathful, and a vengeful God"?

Leave a Comment
[There is an updated/revisited version of this post, contributed by BAN@S6K—please check out:  Revisit: Is our God a “jealous, wrathful, and a vengeful God”? —Admin1.]
———————
Is our God, a jealous, wrathful, and a vengeful God? This is a perplexing question asked by  believers and non-believers alike, not only in our times but in times past.  It causes a lot of pondering and discomfort for many, and historically, a source of derision and disapproval. 

 

Why do we ask such a question? I  believe the answer lies in our understanding of the words used to describe God with our 21st century comprehension.  It is through a misinterpretation of the words that causes us to attribute these words when describing God.  We have to remember that the prophets wrote the scriptures during a period when gods were perceived by the ancient near east culture as gods who can be capricious depending on their whims.

 

This issue is most of the time stated as a contrast between “God’s wrath and vengeance in the OT” as against “God’s love as exemplified in the NT”.  Unfortunately, the use of the words wrathful, angry, jealous, and vengeful are clouded by the English language and western culture of today, since the concepts involved in the biblical portrayal of God in which these words are used, are difficult to translate into single words.  For our times,  the best recourse is to examine the words as used in its context at the time of writing.  The three terms as used in Nahum 1:2 represents it best:

 

“The Lord is a jealous and avenging God;  the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath.  The Lord takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies.”
 
A reading of the OT consistently portrays God as a passionate Being where the inner experiences of love, compassion, grief, delight, joy, peace, anguish and moral outrage at atrocity dwarfs ours in the extreme.  The bible speaks unashamedly of God’s passion, presenting him as an intense and passionate Being, very much involved in the world of man.  There is no embarrassment in God’s expressing emotions; rather, it is celebrated (2 Sam. 8:9-16, Ps. 145:8). 

 

The God of the OT desired fellowship and interaction with people in HIs World, but that He is a person and anger is part of the actualization of His desire.  This is fundamental to understanding the bible and to knowing God.  Emotions can be appropriate responses to given situations. For instance, the bible argues that just like us people, emotions are not mutually exclusive and exhaustive at any given moment.  Just as our parents could have felt anger, compassion, etc. all at the same moment, so too can we, and so too can God. God is described in these terms in the Prophets in his love for His people, Israel (compassion and affection) is also simultaneous with his feeling of anger at their atrocities against each other ad His hopefulness that they will end up treating one another better in keeping with the covenant contract they signed as a community. 

 

Hosea 11 is so vivid in showing the struggle in God’s heart.  There is no contradiction in ascribing multiple emotional stress to a person since we consistently experience these in our lives.   And God is apparently no different in that respect. 

 

Image from www.wheatandtares.org

Image from www.wheatandtares.org

As an example, God is said to be angry with the wicked everyday.  Wickedness in biblical term is generally related to treachery, atrocity, and oppression.  Of course, God is disturbed by this, at the same time, the bible says, God is patient, hoping the wicked will come around and rejoin the community in love, even nurturing them and influencing them in that direction.  His moral anger at personal evil has nothing to do with His being caught “off guard” or surprised by it.  His response is in the treachery involved, not the circumstance of it.  Same with us, if we read about human atrocity, in individual or group scale, there is no element of surprise in our response but still, we get upset.

 
JEALOUSY:  In biblical sense, this is essentially a passionate commitment to someone and his/her wellbeing.  The word refers to an exclusive single-mindedness of emotion which may be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy depending on whether the object of the jealousy is the self or some cause beyond the self.  In the former, the result is envy, or hatred of others, (Gen. 30:1, Priv. 3:31, Ezk. 31:9) which for the NT is the lack of love and therefore the enemy of a true believer’s fellowship.  However, the OT also presents the other possibility which is divine jealousy.
 
Divine jealousy is a consuming single-minded pursuit of a good end, (1King 19:10, Exo. 20:5)  This positive usage is frequently associated with the marriage relationship where a jealousy for the exclusiveness of the relationship is the necessary condition of its permanence (Numbers 5:11ff, Ezk. 16:38)
 
Jealousy is used solely of God, primarily in His self-revelation at Sinai (Exo. 20:5, 34:14).  Against this covenantal background, it denotes the Lord’s deep, fiercely protective commitment to his people and His exclusive claim to obedience and reciprocal commitment (Deut.4:24, 5:9).  When this reciprocal commitment is threatened either by Israel”s unfaithfulness or by foreign oppression, the inevitable expressions of such jealousy are “vengeance and wrath” directed to restoring that relationship. (Numbers 25:11).
 
Jealousy can be morally good or bad, depending on the motive behind the zeal.  As stated above, it refers to single-mindedness of emotion which may be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy depending on whether the object of jealousy is self or some other causes beyond self.
 
God is often presented as a jealous God in the OT.  Jealousy in essence is intolerance of rivals.  It can be a virtue or sin depending on the legitimacy of the rival.  God would allow no rivals in the covenant between Him and Israel.  He bound Israel exclusively to His service and swore to protect them against all enemies (Nahum 1).  It is important to note that divine jealousy is part of the “fire” that is ardent love.  Song of Solomon 8:6ff – the beloved’s desire to be the cause of such jealous zeal.
 
“Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong death,  its jealousy unyielding as the grave.  It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame.  Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away.  If one were to give all the wealth  of his  house for love, it would be utterly scorned.”
 
In OT times, a seal was used to indicate ownership of a person’s valued possessions.   So the beloved asked to be her lover’s most valued possession that would influence his thoughts (over your heart) his actions (over your arm). 
  • Verses 8:6-7 sum up the nature and power of the love depicted in the song.  It is as universal and irresistible as death, exclusive and possessive (in the sense of being genuinely concerned of the one loved) as the grave, passionate as blazing fire, and as invincible and persevering as many waters ad rivers or all of this is true because love is supported by the Creator who possesses all power.  The words like a mighty flame are like the very flame of the Lord.  Thus, the Lord is portrayed as the source of this powerful love. 
  • Verse 8:7. The final statement about love depicted in the song is that it is priceless.  All one’s wealth would be totally inadequate to purchase such love.  In fact such love would be scorned because love cannot be bought.  If love is priceless, the answer is, it must be given, ultimately love is a gift of God.
This is a picture of the love God has and puts “jealousy” into a different light.  It is not insecurity or self-interest, but a powerful emotion in support of loyalty and intimacy.  We often fail to appreciate the intensity of this yearning of God’s heart for us, but OT prophets understood.  Hosea gives us a disturbing look at the inside of God’s heart.  But besides using the picture of marriage, Hosea uses the picture of a father to describe God’s unfathomable love for Israel, whom He loved in Egypt and drew to himself with bonds of love(Hosea11:1ff).  Israel turned away, so Hosea pictured the struggle which he saw as going inside God’s heart as that between the jealous wrath of a deceived father and His glowing love (Hosea 11:8ff) and shows the zealous and passionate love of God.  The love of God does not show destructive power, but tender and compassionate love, which suffers thru the faithlessness of His people and does not hand them to ultimate ruin.
 
Too often, our English language makes “jealous of” the default meaning of jealousy instead of the biblical “jealous for”.  Jealous of is envy and is not ascribed to God.  The “jealous for” means jealous for protecting and maintaining our enjoyable and fruitful relationship of intimacy.  “Jealous for” in context of His love for His people is used predominantly of God.
 
Joel 2:18ff:  “Then the LORD will be jealous for His land and on His people.  The LORD will reply to them:  I am sending you grain, new wine and oil enough  to satisfy you fully; never again will make you an object of scorn to the nations. (See the link between and pity)
Zechariah 1:14ff:  Then the angel who was speaking to me said, “Proclaim this word, This what the LORD Almighty says:  “I am very jealous for Jerusalem and Zion but very angry with the nations. that feel secure.  I was only a little angry but they added to the calamity. 
Therefore, this is what the LORD says, I will  return to Jerusalem with mercy, and there my house be rebuilt.  And the measuring line will be stretched out over Jerusalem, declares the LORD Almighty.
 Proclaim further,  This is what the LORD Almighty says:  My towns will again overflow with prosperity, and the LORD will again comfort Zion and choose Jerusalem (Note the contrast between “very jealous” and “very angry” and that it is aimed at mercy and blessing for His people)
 Zechariah 8:1ff:  Again, the word of the LORD Almighty came to me.  This what the LORD Almighty says:  “I am very jealous for Zion; I am burning with jealousy for her.”
This is what the LORD says; I will return to Zion and dwell in Jerusalem.  Then Jerusalem will be called the City of truth and the mountain of the LORD Almighty will be called the Holy Mountain. 
This is what the LORD Almighty says;  Once again men and women of ripe old age will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each with cane in hand because of his age. City streets will be filled with boys and girls playing there.  (Note that this jealousy produces closeness with God and benefits for His people)
 
We can appreciate how different the meaning of “jealousy” in the OT is, from our modern, negative sense.  It is a beautiful passionate commitment to someone, not a petty, insecure, suspicious outrage.  What is clear in biblical usage of jealousy is not equal to modern use.  What we have is not our customary meaning of jealousy but an expression showing commitment, intense ardor and protective love.,  God’s jealousy is a guarantee that we do not drift away.  He is our good shepherd and loving spouse.  This kind of intense and loyal and active trustworthy love is sought by all.
God’s wrath is often a topic of discussion.  As we read the OT about God’s wrath, we will come to a conclusion that it is not generally an emotion ascribed to God.  Most of the time, we compare God’s wrath to human anger.  The wrath of God in the OT is not the same as human anger.

 

As Abraham Heschel had written in his book, The Prophets, “it is essentially in some respects the difference between “passion and pathos.” 
  • Passion can be understood as an emotional combustion  which makes it impossible to exercise free  consideration of principles and the determination of conduct in accordance with them.  The OT discusses human anger much less frequently than divine wrath.  It shows human anger as a loss of self control and censures it as shown in the Wisdom writings. (Prov. 14:29, 16:32. 19:19, 29:22, 30:33. eccl. 7:9) 
  •  “Pathos on the other hand is an act formed with care and intention, the result of determination and decision.  It is not a “fever of the mind” that disregards standards of justice and ends in irrational and irresponsible action.  It is righteous indignation.  The wrath of God tends to be portrayed this way in the OT, especially in the Prophets, it seems not be an essential attribute or fundamental characteristic of Yahweh’s persona but an expression of His will;  it is a reaction to human history, an attitude called forth by human misconduct.”
 In the ancient near east, this kind of wrath was divine responsibility which the ANE (Ancient Near East) kings or gods carried out  to their human community as an act of judicial sentencing.  God is portrayed as angry with Israel for its repeated violation of its covenant obligations.  The driving force is duty to uphold moral foundation for human life. 

 

Wrath of God results because of His commitment to His people and not sudden rage.  Wrath of God is equal with the implementation of God’s judgment.  This judgment is not an angry response but judgment proceeding from a just legal context.  In justification of God’s wrath, the motive has rationality.  It helps us understand why God is angry.  It provides motivation for proper behavior. 
This leads us to the goal and purpose of God carrying out the judicial sentence; fulfilling His duty to His subjects/community, to intervene in support of the community welfare and moral stability of the group.  In short, the purpose for which royal wrath  is to re-instate the moral, civil, just order, by a restructuring event or series of events, primarily  dealing with removal of power or existence of the oppressors and or treacherous.
 
Various means are used to depict God’s wrath, but it always threatens the existence of those concerned.  The final aim of divine wrath is total destruction in the form of historical defeat and banishment from the land, this dealing with internal and nearby oppressors.
 
Note that the first OT occurrence of God exhibiting anger appears in passages intimately tied to God’s deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 15:7)  God’s divine anger first appears as God’s response not to generic human sinfulness but to whatever would impede efforts to free the Israelites from Egyptian enslavement.  Note that the restructuring is aimed at freedom for the oppressed Israelites.  Once done, the wrath is no longer active or needed.
 
The failure to provide the social justice implicit within the stipulations of the covenant also makes Israel liable to divine wrath (Ps. 50:21-22, Isaiah 1:23-24; 42:24-25, Amos 8:3-10; Micah 6) which is designed to lift up the poor and needy in the land.  Thus God’s wrath is righteous because it destroys the wickedness that impedes deliverance, (isaiah 34:2) and for this reason, the psalmists repeatedly yearn for it. (Ps. 59:14)  It is a means to an end—the goal is deliverance.
 
God’s anger is always a lawful reaction to the violation of a law or to opposition against his historically determined activity, in which God not only requires the violation or opposition, but also wills to effect the restoration and maintenance of the order, he has set between Him and man.
 
Reluctance in the performance of God’s duty is always evident.  God is often portrayed tempering his anger against Israel with compassion and love (Exodus 32:12-14, Isaiah 54:7-8, Hosea 11:8, Micah 7:18)  God is depicted as having the desire to restrain His anger.  God is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.  Despite its tragic necessity, God’s anger is not depicted as an emotion God delights in, it grieves God to be angry.  God does not give free rein to wrath, but is long suffering.  He warns people to repent as the writings of the prophets bear witness.  He is quick to show clemency, He exercises restraint as in the case of Nineveh.
 
Hence, wrath is associated not so much with final judgment as with the expression of divine judgment within history.  The biblical usage of wrath is the vigorous and welfare motivated intervention by God in breaking oppression and delivering His people, by forceful removal of the habitually and aggressively treacherous from their lives, and by a restructured reality, characterized by blessing and peace for the good.  This is indeed the hope of the abused, the exploited, the victimized, the violated everywhere that the good hearted God would see all this in history and say once again with reference to a wider group —
” I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt.  I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering.  So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land.”
TORAH STUDY

What is God's answer?

Leave a Comment

In the previous post Want to cyber-eavesdrop? you got a glimpse of a commentary that went progressively nasty; we now feature a different kind of commentary where bloggers were much more respectful of one another, even if they did not agree with the article nor with each other’s opinion. As we have repeatedly stressed, often the comments left by readers are just as interesting as the posts.

 

But first, here are excerpts from the article featured in chabad.org., please read the complete post at [http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/35871/jewish/What-is-G-ds-Answer.htm].  You may read the commentary there or return here and when you do, please remember to start reading from the bottom upward.  Excerpts:

  • “Truth” is that which is consistent and unchanging, the core reality of a thing that remains unaffected by all external circumstances. 
  • Often, a person who calmly accepts the painful realities of life is described as “taking it philosophically,” while one who agonizes over his own or others’ troubles is seen as “being emotional.” Behind these categorizations is the notion that, in purely rational terms, the cause, or even need, for human suffering can be explained. On the other hand — goes this line of thinking — a person with a sensitive heart will not accept any rationalization of evil, however undeniable its logic.
  • It is true that logical explanations for evil and suffering have been presented by a succession of philosophers and theologians. For example, it is proposed that suffering refines the human being, teaching him compassion and sensitivity. It has also been explained that there is no greater satisfaction than the overcoming of adversity and no greater pleasure than the conquest of pain. The philosophical mind can also appreciate that a persons finest and most potent abilities are unleashed only under conditions of challenge and trial. Finally, there can be no denying the axiom that without a truly free choice between good and evil, nothing we do could possibly be of any significance.
  • These explanations are all valid, in their way; . . . But when they are approached from a purely rational standpoint, the mind of the believer will not be satisfied by any of them. Because after all is said and done, after each of these explanations is examined and the questions that can be asked on them are posed and resolved, there remains one final question: Why must it be this way?
  • This perfectly logical question has no logical answer. Thus, the mind of the believer will never accept the “necessity” for evil and pain.
 
Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson; adapted by Yanki Tauber.
————————————————————-
RESPONSES TO THE ARTICLE:  [Please read from the bottom and go upward, taking note of the dates, starting from 2006].
January 14, 2013
RE Reading this very deep subject in the early morning hours
It is a misty day here, and as the fog lifts, so does everything have a different clarity, and so it is, in life and in this piece of writing. I am doing a profound walk across languages so I see in the very words written here, the subject matter, as I deconstruct language, and it deconstructs in ways that are gifted to me. This is not a game, and what I have written over the years on Chabad is what I am supposed to be doing, as you are doing your part in a cosmic dance, that will culminate in a Promise.I never thought this would be part of my life, and yet, now, going down the years, I see how the threads, that bind me, to the circumstances and story, my story, connect to a greater whole, as if, the entire story, was pre scripted. I am saying you too. A prescription is for well ness, and I am saying the profound metaphoric connects within life, are telling a story, that is deep, that could be, beautiful, and a new but old truth. As why is to Y is to man, hands outstretched.
ruth housman
marshfield hills, ma
January 12, 2013
What is the answer, Richard WA
Blessings. I don’t agree with you. Only good comes from G-d so we credit Him when things are good, meaning we are not sinning and so everything is well including nature. when we sin, we affect our surroundings. When there is judgement in Heaven on us, so it is on earth. Look at the world around us, and see the worse than sodom and gomorrah behaviour. The animals seem to behave more morally than us, and when the fault is all ours, what is there to blame G-d. Let’s look within ourselves and we will surely know our own deficiencies.
Anonymous
SE Asia
January 7, 2013
Mind over the heart
On the path of conversion from christianity, having the mind rule the heart is quite a switch.It’s like trying to drive on the left side of the road when you’re used to driving on the right. Everything has to change; your orientation, the hand you change the gear stick, most difficult is how you negotiate bends.Slowly getting used to the switch. No accidents so far. Not to worry. Car and driver are insured. Blessed be He!
Fatu
Samoa
January 17, 2011
for Mark
You are probably “on the mark” here but I am unsure what you mean by being righteous, and then unrighteous. Sometimes one gets a sense of something but it’s good to define such terms. Doing right can be a relative term as there is a morality of ethics that lies in the gray areas, and no one really can say for another in these cases, which is right, and which wrong but the angst is in that decision point.The joy from doing good deeds could be independent of faith. If faith is predicated on good deeds then of course you are right.
But is it?
ruth Housman
marshfield hills, MA
January 17, 2011
G-d existed before us and after us, too.
to Ruth above; ponder on these pearls to find Truth. When you are righteous your faith is elevated and when you are unrighteous your faith oscillates. Can we concur then, for our faith to grow we must at all times be doing right and not wrong! Finally! Opposites balance and affirm their differences, but dichotomies must first be tested.
mark alcock
Dbn, za
January 16, 2011
evil
so far the most satisfying explanation of a difficult to accept subject
henoch
elmont, ny
January 4, 2011
Classical Jewish life ,philosophy and thought !
Is at its best when interpreted simply , even for a child to understand ,so the seeds of wisdom might grow to fulfill his Jewish heritage and reach his final pre-ordained destiny .
mark alcock
Durban, ZA
January 2, 2011
justice
I want to respond to Anonymous, directly above, because you ask the deepest, most profound question of all. I think this question has caused so many to question the existence of G_d. Yes, I see this dichotomy in thinking, and that the miracles are attributed to the Divine but not the sad parts, the terrible, the agony. For me, it’s not possible to separate out these two threads.Since I deeply do believe, and in fact for me, I feel my faith is based on deep knowledge there is a G_d, then I have to challenge myself to comprehend this split, because I am human like you, and it’s very painful to think about God in terms of the sorrow and the worst calamities being also part of God’s justice.I do deeply believe there is a story that surrounds the individual and collective stories, and that this story, once revealed, will illuminate all of this. Perhaps this is an apocalyptic feeling, about redemption and a messianic future.I do know all opposites do deeply fold together.
ruth housman
marshfield hills, ma
January 1, 2011
What is the answer?
When I think about God’s justice, I think about all the innocent and pious Jews who suffered and died at the hands of the nazis, as well as innocent gentiles. Also, lost to history it seems, is the atrocities against Jews committed by the communists of the Soviet Union. It seems to me that we give God credit when it all goes well, and absolve him from blame when evil is manifest.
Anonymous
Richland, WA
December 28, 2010
how belief takes root/takes its routes
Many children learn as they grow, about G_d through their parents, and this may reinforce an inborn knowledge of the existence of Deity. But many children are also taught to doubt by their parents as a child’s first gods are their parents and they do believe, often, without thinking what they are told.There are different ways to achieve a belief in God, and of course some never do. We have agnostics and atheists in this world.In my opinion, the deepest of journeys involves a person who questions the absolute belief in Divinity which they have been taught or not taught, and the journey of arrival is one that takes them very far, into the depths of a personal spirituality that then informs their entire life, going down all the years.There are different ways of knowing, different routes to knowing, but perhaps, the most enlightened of all, are those who take the journey from doubt or unbelief towards the Absolute. They are Unshakeable and affirm the journey!
ruth housman
marshfield hills, MA
May 3, 2008
Which Sicha?
חלק ג’ פרשת וארא, חלק ל”א פרשת וארא א
This is from a reader, and not the writer.
I’m still looking for the source of the answer to why Rashi says וארא אל האבות.
Chavi
January 4, 2008
Commentary on Parshah of Vaeira
The article “What is G-d’s Answer?” helped me to understand the relationship between the Torah portion and my own spiritual quest. Thank you so much for making this beautiful material available!I like the Hassidic teachings so much; it is a pity you still maintain the antiquated patriarchal attitudes and taboos about women. But for that, I would participate so much more.
Anonymous
December 29, 2007
thanks
which sicha is this based on?
Dovid Usiskin
Brooklyn, United States
January 23, 2006
Thank you for the beautiful discussion on this weeks parsha. It waas timeley and appropriate for my life and will be used as part of a Dvar Torah this week.
Ed Mazr
chabadcenter.com
January 22, 2006
Your site is just amazing. If someone wants to say chitas easily, with no difficulty–they definitaly know were to turn. If someone wants to learn about the Parsha, learn some Sichos, or just get inspired, they just turn to Chabad.org. If kids want to play some Jewish games, They know exaclty what site to go on, and if someone wants to learn about Yiddishkeit, there is only one good website available.I would just like to take this oppertunity, to thank you wholeheartedly for eveything youve done for the whole Jewish community worldwide as a whole and for eme especially.Thank you, again and may your wonderful site just go from strength to strength.
Anonymous
OPINION

Want to cyber-eavesdrop?

Leave a Comment
Image from www.quotessays.com

Image from www.quotessays.com

[Now that we’ve opened up the “No God” discussion, we’re keeping it open by featuring bloggers who initially reacted to a You Tube lecture by Dr. Gerald Schroeder on Genesis and the Big Bang Theory, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAdDwLXO4Xg, then got into a long discussion of their own.  First, click the link and watch the lecture, then you might prefer reading the blogs on that same page; if not, join us in this cyber-eavesdropping adventure.  Often the comments are just as interesting as the lecture.  Sample the following and notice the original dates of the interactive exchanges, you might learn a thing or two—specially how the rest of the world thinks differently from you (or maybe not) and if nothing else, you will be amused.  Warning — language is uncensored, at some point it reads like a reality show.

 

Original format edited for this post, you might wish to start from the bottom [3 years ago] and read upward [2 months ago] for it to make sense. Some comments showed up as “spam” and therefore were not posted.–Admin1.]

 

—————————————

 

All Comments (161) 

 
  • kingseho 2 months ago

    I don’t agree with this aspect of time, tesla refuted it and i refuse to accept any of einsteins plagiarized theories which are incorrect. There is no physical aspect of time.

 
  • muslUnbounded6 months ago

    rehzon, if by “agree with the biblical story” you mean “not agree with much at all”. the bible is a cheap rip-off of the previous stories. the biblical stories are so brief that they only raise questions that have to be enlarged by the earlier non-biblical sources. considering that the non-biblical sources are condemned by the bible itself, that means that the bible isn’t doing anyone any favors by mentioning anything in the first place.

 
  • TN BN6 months ago

    If you mean stories like gilgamesh etc., there have been tablets found in

    other parts of the world (that are possibly older), that agree with the

    biblical story. 

 
  • muslUnbounded9 months ago

    this loser doesn’t understand that every primitive philosophy believed the same thing, that matter condensed from something flimsier than matter. there is nothing special about genesis, which is just the hebrew plagiarism of pagan babylonian philosophy.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    If making false assertions is preferable to finding the facts, then I think he may have gotten too much “funk” in his “soul”.

 

 You’re right, pot doesn’t seem to be helping you. It makes you think other people are smoking it when they are clearly sober and you are not.

I completely and utterly reject your entire way of thinking. It solves nothing, it offers nothing. But it’s your right to hold said position. It just smacks of religion, which I explained to you long ago. Don’t be a hypocrite. Science is not your personal dogmatic tool.

 

Good luck on your spiritual quest, circus.


Biology isn’t your enemy.

Pot doesn’t seem to be helping.

Doesn’t seem odd to you that gods only hide where we can’t see them–in the gaps of our understanding?

 

Yeah, its precisely a god of the gaps argument.

It doesn’t fly.

 

It’s not God of the gaps, I’m not saying God is responsible for this unknown over here. It’s not a gap at all. It’s about holding different starting assumptions.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    “Let’s say I’m totally wrong and it’s just a stochastic process that gives rise to all the variety we see.”

    Strawman.

    SELECTION is non-random.

 

It’s not God of the gaps, I’m not saying God is responsible for this unknown over here. It’s not a gap at all. It’s about holding different starting assumptions.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    “Let’s say I’m totally wrong and it’s just a stochastic process that gives rise to all the variety we see.”

    Strawman.

    SELECTION is non-random.

 

“And it doesn’t explain things like consciousness…”

God of the Gaps.

“God dunnit” doesn’t explain anything, circus.

You haven’t discovered anything that indicates that non-random evolutionary processes are guided by magic.

 

Let’s say I’m totally wrong and it’s just a stochastic process that gives rise to all the variety we see, and the variety we don’t see is that which failed to live up to the demands of the environment. Essentially it’s random, but with the unbiased “guiding hand” of chemistry. It still doesn’t explain the genetic expression system. It doesn’t explain the deterministic, non-random genetic mechanisms that have been discovered. And it doesn’t explain things like consciousness…

 

 It is quite apparent that I’m the ONLY one of us who is looking past bias to evaluate it.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    make sense.

    You can’t see past your religious opinion to grasp the fact that zebras and bacteria don’t have similar methods of reproduction.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    “They don’t have to be passed on in the same way for my logic to be consistent..”

    Bacteria simply split in two.

    Zebras don’t do that , or your assertion that they could control their genome MIGHT

 

  • odinata11 months ago

    DON’T forget that random mutation in DNA transcription is only ONE of MANY stochastic processes that have the affect of increasing variation in a population of individuals.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    Lets not forget that NOTHING in ANY of these DIFFERENT processes indicates a Jeebus–or any magical sky fairies of any sort.

 

 No, your logic ISN’T consistent because there is no way that meiosis and sexual reproduction can produce variety that is PLANNED.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    If your assertions about bacteria are true, it STILL doesn’t remove stochastic processes as a MAJOR source of individual variety in MULTICELLUAR life.

    THINK about it.

 

They don’t have to be passed on in the same way for my logic to be consistent because it isn’t about reproduction. It’s about the PRE-EXISTING genetic mechanisms. You can’t think outside of your bias to even evaluate it. 

 

 Prokaryotes don’t pass on heritable traits in the same way RATS do, so your generalizations between the two are a really good example of highly flawed logic.

 

No, this isn’t about where information comes from.

That’s your religious opinion.

Organisms inherit there traits and PASS them on.

The copies aren’t identical.

 

 The information doesn’t “come” from any process.

Genetic information is inherited–imperfectly.

The variation in the heritable traits of organisms is due to this

 

 Variation? No, this is about information and where it comes from and how it is utilized in the first place. I’ve already explained variation. It comes through adaptive non-random adaptive mechanisms. In bacteria, it simply leads to further and further specialization. In animals it leads to variety in the gene pool. Little of it has to do with random.

 

 You can’t seem to wrap that religious head around the FACT that stochastic processes are just ANOTHER source of variation in the gene pool…..

As is SEX.

 

 You are claiming that you agree with evolution and disagree with it, all at the same time you aren’t understanding what it is or what science claims it is.

 

 Bacteria don’t reproduce in the same way that vertebrates do, or plants, so your conclusion about there intelligence has no bearing on them.

 

 Yes, actually they are. Study bacteria. But I think I see the flaw in your logic. You are assuming that information ONLY comes from stochastic processes, where randomness generates something that wasn’t there before. Actually, that isn’t correct. And if you’d just grasp what I’ve said ad nauseum, there are pre-existing mechanisms that dynamically alter genomes adaptively according to information about the environment that is processed by the organism (i.e. bacteria).

 

 First of all, there is LAMARKIAN type inheritance in the epigenomes of many organisms. Second, I’m not claiming to explain evolution in the sense you are describing it, I’m only talking about adaptations within existing populations. I don’t believe that zebras magically became giraffes. That’s your deal. 

 

 What you are proposing isn’t tenable, circ.

You are proposing LAMARKISM.

Evoluiton doesn’t happen that way.

Organisms don’t decide what they need to survive, stretch there necks, and then magically alter their genome to make babies with longer necks.

THINK about how gametes are formed and how they are introduced during sexual intercourse.

You AREN’T thinking critically.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    @circusOFprecision

    YOU love to side with the YECs and claim evolution doesn’t happen when you CONCEDE it happens, and nothing you propose changes how it unfolds in any discernible way.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    @circusOFprecision

    YOU argue just to argue, because if you thought this through, you would see that there is ZERO DISCERNIBLE DIFFERENCE between what you propose and what we already see.

 

 This is why I don’t like conversing with you. You twist things around.

 

 What you CAN’T do is think critically, because if you could, you would understand that there is no way that stochastic processes COULDN’T be involved in the content of gene pool.

 

 You are arguing just to argue. But no, adaptation is the process that leads to beneficial changes in an organism.

 

 RANDOM processes ADD variety to the gene pool.

THAT is what natural selection acts upon to produce the evolution you CONCEDE occurs.

 

 No–adaptationS-occur.

Adaptation isn’t a proccess–its a trait.

“An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life…”

LOOK IT UP!

 

 YOU haven’t proposed a mechanism that would enable meiotic crossover to be non-stochasti.

You haven’t demonstrated how two gametes would meet in a non-random way

 

 Yeah, adaptation occurs. Yes, natural selection selects. But the creatures that end up being selected are often simply the lucky ones. Natural selection acts on organisms, we’ve already been through this a dozen times. You have to look deeper, down at the molecular level, at the programming.

 

 No, stochastic processes aren’t an opinion..

They are demonstrable, and if you would THINK THROUGH your assertion, you would find that they are necessary.

 

 Stochastic processes…you are just assuming them to be nothing more than unbridled chemical reactions. But that’s just your opinion. Take a computer program that utilizes both stochastic and deterministic programming. That’s probably what it takes to achieve the dynamic necessary for adaptation. Life is complex, surely we agree on that point.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    Adaptations are NOT acquired by individuals.

    That is called acclimatization.

    What you are proposing is called LAMARCKISM.

    And its shown to be WRONG.

    You aren’t usin’ yer noggin–again….

 

“I showed you that adaptation isn’t always about selection,”

Adaptation is a TRAIT, not a process.

Another example of you misunderstanding the terminology.

 
 You CONCEDE that evolution occurs.

You CONCEDE that natural selection acts upon populations.

Now turn on your thinking cap:

WHAT does natural selection act upon.

You are equivocating.

You NEVER showed that stochastic processes were not involved in evolution.

Not once.

I’ve challenged you to think through why you CAN’T…

 

You might as well be talking to an imaginary friend. I never said random processes CAN’T be involved. I simply showed you where they were NOT involved. I showed you that adaptation isn’t always about selection, it’s often about intelligent biological mechanisms that alter the organism purposefully for its survival. You need critical thinking, and a lot of it.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    This is the real reason that circusOFcision has decided to STOP thinking things through…..

The facts are on my side, circus.

You have had to capitulate on every assertion you have made then subsequently thought through.

I’m not the one claiming that random processes can’t be involved in evolution.

If you thought that through, you would find there is no critical thinking in it.

 

You are wrong. The thing is, you are wrong because you don’t know how to think critically. You don’t even understand, hopeless.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    This is the way it always goes.

    You deny evolution, then you admit it.

    You deny common ancestry, then you admit it.

    Now you deny randomness, now you admit it.

Fine.

You tell me what wasn’t black about your denial of randomness in genetic processes.

Or white.,

I’m starting to think you don’t really know.

…disturbing.

 

I’m not saying it can’t be stochastic. You are interpreting what I am saying that way because you can only think in black and white.

 

 You CAN’T correct anything.

You can’t demonstrate that crossover isn’t stochastic.

And if you though about it CRITICALLY, you would find something very….

 

 “It’s the crap that’s destroying this world.”

Sorry, but that’s completely ridiculous. In fact, it’s so ridiculous that the fact you actually think that tells me just how stupid you are.

You want to know what is destroying this world? Do you really want to know? Because you don’t have the slightest clue.

 

 Actually, no. You have never paid attention and connected the dots. So, again, you are just asserting things out of confusion. It’s sad really. So sad that I no longer even care to try and correct your ignorance.

 

 FOCUS!

You claim that evolution can’t have ANY assistance from random processes–nothing stochastic.

What does that mean about the varied individs ina populatin?

I get off on shutting down YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST BULLSHIT.

Its the crap that is destroying this world.

Now stop with the secondary insults and back your talk!

 

Stop with the insults and THINK THROUGH your main assertion–that genetic drift can’t be stochastic, that meiotic crossover can’t be stochastic.

Think CRITICALLY

 

Do you get off on dragging people into your stupid arguments and then projecting every facet of your pathetic existence onto them? I should get an award for my patience with you, offering you countless chances to articulate a point with integrity. But you aren’t interested in that. You aren’t good at that. You are good at being a sleezy troll though. So enjoy having people call out out as the retard that you are. I guess you get off on it.

 

 Disrespect is the only thing you are good at.

If its science, you hate on it.

If it doesn’t back Young Earther garbage, you’ll poo poo it.

You hate facts.

 You didn’t start out objecting to Biolgy–you started out with a religious opinion, and when you found out (2nd hand) that science didn’t back u, you threw a fit

 

 No, I’m just letting him know that his certitude can be flipped on him in the same disrespectful manner with which he pushes it on other people.

 

 No, I just have a thing against lying intellectual failures who troll angrily because they lack the ability to articulate any sort of respectable intellectual position what so ever (yes, that’s you).

 

 YOu haven’t the ability to articulate how your only objection to evolution–“random mutation”–would appear differently if the mutations weren’t random.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    Think critically for once.

    You claim that you don’t believe in common ancestry in all cases.

    Redefine biology for us–which organisms AREN’T related?

    Try it! you’ll find it doesn’t work your way.

 

That’s probably because you only use one half of your brain. Why do you put subjective limits on the potential of individual human intelligence? Seems jealousy won and out and has angered the closed minded half brain.

 

Another content -free statement.

You don’t have the capacity to put your doped brain behind your religious opinions.

 

 Think it through for once.

Put down the pipe and tell the world what the functional difference is between stochastic genetic processes and non-stochastic ones.

 

I’ll give you one more chance. Watch your false accusations. Try and put forth an argument, or continue to be an angry, mentally retarded troll. The choice has always been yours. I personally have no hope in you. You are a sad, pathetic, frustrated person.

 

Watch your accusations. Not only are they false (potentially slanderous), but they make you a bold faced liar.

Seriously, what is the point of your question? How about take some time to articulate it, perhaps give me a little context. Good grief. Even if I think I understand what you are trying to ask, I’m tired of you setting me up with ambiguous questions. It’s called intellectual fortitude. Try it.

 

Your bitching and pot-smoked bellyaching about how Biology is wrong doesn’t make that science which you have no knowledge about wrong.

It makes you a zealot.

 

And another empty assertion. You really love to just pile them on. Respect is something you will never achieve until you actually DO show anything what so ever. Put forth a coherent argument yourself, or a coherent refutation with facts and sources. Now there are some good ideas. Your welcome.

 

You are the master of empty.

You start with a religious opinion, and fight any science that shows it was just one of your dope smoking fantasies.

Worthless.

 

Dope smoking? It’s real simple my retarded friend. I don’t embrace your assumptions and/or your pathetic worldview. I don’t think you are worthless, but your world view most certainly is. Your whining changes NOTHING. Your anger…FUTILE. Do you understand?

Why don’t you think one of your pot smoke fantasies through for once?

What is the implication of a MULTI-CELLED organism producing gametes intelligently?

 

That’s just another empty assertion, one you put forth habitually. The problem is that it’s completely false. YOU have shown nothing, because all you like to do is whine about my religious opinion and assert my “failings”. Not very intellectual, kind of ant-intellectual actually.

 

Bullshit.

You turn to name calling when you are shown to be wrong.

YOU have the burden of proof, but you don’t have the tools to build it.

No new phylogeny…

 

No new phylogeny? Yeah, and I don’t have a new theory of gravity either. So I guess you don’t have to take me seriously then. That’s cool, I could care less.

 

Yeah–you have a GOD OF THE GAPS and an argument from incredulity.

YOu claim that evolution isn’t the FOUNDATION of Biology…But manly you just don’t LIKE it.

 

You could care less about TRUTH.

What you care about is lashing out at everyone who doesn’t believe your marijuana hallucination that Jeebus made everything.

 

YOu deny stochastic processes, but you haven’t shown they don’t exist.

You don’t seem to know the difference between bacteria and Buffaloes.

 
  • odinata11 months ago

    circus has a thing against anyone that doesn’t subscribe to his drugged up viewpoints and pot-based religious opinions.

 

Wow, that was a great argument!

“Shove it up your ass?”

I guess its as good as anything you’ve come up with so far.

This guy is a JOKE, and you just can’t stand ANYONE that doesn’t share your religious opinions.

KEep up the great work!

Failure.

 

 No offense, but my comments are Shakespeare compared to the mental retardation you display on a daily basis.

 

 No offense but “stick it up your ass” is probably your most cogent argument.

 

 Actually, when I make a slightly crude joke you mistake it for an argument because all of my other arguments are so far beyond your pathetic intellect. And that is the sad truth. And the crazy part, you have never even made a single argument. Wait…just one. Evolution IS Biology. Nice.

 

Actually, you think your turds don’t smell.

As we can see, you are quite impotent.

You’ve never studied biology, and you can’t seem2separate it from evolution…

“all of my other arguments are so far beyond your pathetic intellect. “

You’ve been smoking the drugs AGAIN, eh clown?

 

If the arguments aren’t beyond your intellect, than perhaps addressing them is beyond your ability of articulation. Either way, you’ve got nothing to show. Assertions without evidence don’t count…isn’t that your little intellectual escape route? Try it on yourself. Maybe even improve yourself. What an idea! Self improvement. Maybe one day people will take you seriously! Wow, anything is possible with a little humility and some genuine intellectual effort. It’s on you.

 

Iv’e shown you precisely what is flawed with your assertions.

Every one.

From your misunderstanding of the def. of evolution, to your incredulity about “random”.

 

You make an assertion that I show beyond doubt to be FLAWED, then you turn to insults and run away.

Every.

Single.

Time.

 
  • ThinkCritically10001 year ago

    How can a scientist and a RABBI co-exist in the same mind. Sounds like a contradiction and a paradox. Seems like the Rabbi won out and has zombied the scientist.

 

 
  • gubodun1 year ago

    So if the universe has a beginning, then time also has a beginning? If time started at the onset of the big bang, then there was no time “before” the big bang?

    … did the big bang also happen by chance? -But without time, how can there be chance?

 
  • cykoaudio7771 year ago

    scientists are re-arranging their “definties” every couple years…what they “knew” 40 years ago,has been re written and re written..you must not know too much about this doctor,or think your credentials match up in the same universe of scientific knowledge,huh? but the Bible and those first verses have been un changed for millenia and still proven exact even w/ time/energy mathematics…if that doesn’t look even a little like a miracle, your eyes are closed.

 

Einstein was a brilliant scientist, but I don’t think he was educated in the original hebrew translations of all of the texts that Schroeder knows inside and out. Schroeder is no idiot. He has a good argument, and he may be entirely wrong. So if he is, show me how instead of insulting him. By the way Einstein did believe in an impersonal intelligence (not the God of Abraham, but a God of sorts) precisely because he was so brilliant, he could see the obvious.

 
  • azcentralsurprise1 year ago

    @circusOFprecision,

    Schroeder IS an insult.

    If you can not figure this out for yourself…pick up the talmud and thump 10 times on your head for all answers to modern Physics and Cosmology.

    ‘He has a good argument…’ maybe, you should thump 20 times.

 

He’s an insult to what? Your simple minded, arrogant view of reality? Maybe you should pick it up and shove it up your ass.

 

 I don’t need to try very hard to rationalize it, I would need to try a lot harder to prove it. But creatures in the past lived with more carbon dioxide, more sunlight, more cosmic radiation, why couldn’t they have lived with “less” time? You are the one who can’t seem to grasp the true implications of relativity. So please, before you claim that the bible is wrong (which isn’t even the real issue), I would try to actually tackle Schroeder’s argument.

 
  • circusOFprecision1 year ago

     Ironically, you are the one that lacks understanding here. Time is RELATIVE. It slows down in terms of it’s relationship to light as the universe expands. So what if the first creatures lived much shorter compared to us. It doesn’t matter. Trying to compare our experience of time to what happened billions of years ago is futile, plus it changes nothing. You have a subjective conceptual problem, maybe the public does too. But don’t cry pseudoscience from your own ignorance.

 
  • Damscot22 years ago

    Dr Schroeder states in part 3 that time “took hold” a “moment” = 10^-x seconds after the bang began, when there was only dark energy, no physical laws yet. But a moment is a finite duration of time. Thus, in effect, he said “there was time before there was time.” Unless there were two different forms of time, this is a logical contradiction. Either The big bang, as theorized, is a physical impossibility, or logic is wrong.

 


(cont.) “Christians (and others) are never happy unless they have CONVERTED everyone, because that is what their fucking holy books tell them.”

So? If they want to let them. It’s not like they are forcing anyone to believe it like Islam is so why should you care?

 
  • Johanan Raatz2 years ago

    “Scheroder’s “theory” in science but nobody with a relevant credential will support this quacky stuff.”

    Ok, so he has 3 premises in it. 1.) The age of the universe, 2.) The Big Bang expansion factor. 3.) The equations of general relativity. Now I have 2 questions. 1.) Which one of these premises is quacky? 2.) Can a quacky conclusion logically follow from quacky premises?

    “Nothing is compatible with religion.”

    Well it seems that his calculations from general relativity are.

 
  • Johanan Raatz2 years ago

    LOL I get it now! In other words you are not so much concerned with whether or not Schroeder is correct. It’s that you don’t like the fact that what he found happens also to be compatible with religion. You’re one of those anal-retentive anti-theists who throws hissy fits about religion.

    Ok, forget if it’s right for a second. Let’s look at this from a social point of view. Religion is a natural mechanism for keeping societies glued together. As such it’s good to promote it.

 
  • Johanan Raatz2 years ago

    “is like blending a validated relativity theory with stories from ancient text, is garbaging-down science.”

    But the point is that what he is doing is not ALL about science. He’s trying to bridge the science vs religion gap. Naturally he’s going to talk about stuff from both ends. As long as it doesn’t mess up the science in the process so what?

 
  • Johanan Raatz2 years ago

    It’s not about “garbaging down” science though. It’s just regular science. All he’s using are the age of the universe, the big bang expansion factor and general relativity equations. Nothing that isn’t already accepted. And if it happens to line up with what people believe about Genesis then so what? Why would you care? It’s not like the scientific half of it is using anything that isn’t already known elsewhere.

 

  • Johanan Raatz2 years ago

    How is it harmful though? It meshes nicely with the data and so there is no threat to science. As for the Christian (or in this case Jewish -Schroeder is Jewish) aspect of it, that is neither scientific nor pseudoscientific. Schroeder is just pointing out that the science half is compatible with the religious half, and so we can have both our burger and our fries with our Happymeal instead of just one or the other.

 
 

if thats the case enlighten me

 
  • gregrutz2 years ago

    the age of the universe is only valid from a particular point in space time,

    NO, IT STARTED AT ONE TIME, THE BEGINNING OF TIME. EVERY PLACE IN THE UNIVERSE LOOKS THE SAME AS OUT VIEW.

 
  • gregrutz2 years ago

    The bible says a thousand days is a year and a year is a thousand weeks, and a thousand weeks is one 24 hour day and anything else you want.

 
 
  • gregrutz2 years ago

    Four people are smart enough to know he is wrong. Have you ever studied Einstein’s Theories?

 
  • Calixtus2 years ago

    Has anyone realised this yet? Actually what is said on the 7th Day of creation in the Bible destroys the mythological belief that the discovery of evolution destroys the sanctity of the substance of the Bible. As it is said, God rested after all His creating was completed. He had no need left to interfere with the motions of the universe from that point, since everything has been set in placed and prepared for the eventuality of the completion of the Universe, which happened on the 7th Day.

 
  • gregrutz2 years ago

    Why did God have to rest?

     

     

  • Calixtus2 years ago

    You want to know? I don’t know if this is a serious question, but I will answer. It is a metaphorical statement of a state of rest being a state of completion. There’s no need to rest, but there’s no need to do anything anymore, since the blueprints have been set in place. This is a question that assumes of itself the question, the Bible was ever written literally or with metaphorical meaning. I don’t understand what it is trying to state, or what it insinuates.

 
  • gregrutz2 years ago

    This is a question that assumes of itself the question,

    WHAT IS THAT IS SECULAR ENGLISH?

 
  • revahp0013 years ago

    Richard Feynman, smart man, also a Jew. I dont think he gets it as well as Schroeder does though

 

 
  • Knowwheretorun19843 years ago

    I honestly dont believe you have understood the theory he has put forth, and are arguing only what you think he means. and so there is no use arguing with you at this point.

 

  • Knowwheretorun19843 years ago

    the age of the universe is only valid from a particular point in space time, as Schroeder states, this is well accepted and caused not just by moving at light speed but rather gravity’s effect.. therefore the time must be calculated based on a the dynamics of a particular location and they would vary vastly depending on several factors, putting all this aside the reason you are wrong is because it is not based on a arbitrary hypothetical observer but rather…..

 
  • Knowwheretorun19843 years ago

    on the accepted calculations of the speed of the expansion and slowing down. that is why I said you dont understand it, or if you do, you are simply arguing your own straw man. which was anticipated and is why I put the first line in the description section after the link.

 
  • Knowwheretorun19843 years ago

    For someone who obviously claims to have more understanding than the “general public” about relativity, you sure did whif badly on understanding Schroeder’s theory. Lets say i live on the sun, minute for me would seem like days or even years on earth, which one is passing faster? or are they relative to the observer? entire eons could have passed in “real” time while the conception of those times changed with the ever expanding universe.

 
  • arizonaviking3 years ago

    “Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum

    star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in

    which there are far more galaxies than people” Carl Sagan

 
  • annxtte3 years ago

    Pontecanis,

    He already stated the first six days are from the perspective of God – then it shifts to ‘our’ time (still from God’s perspective). Obviously you are not a believer – but consider for one moment that God is real… God created a story that is easy enough for a child to understand without compromising scientific truth —- throughout the ages. (How would you explain time dilation & evolution/ eons to the people beginning 4000 years ago?)

 
  • pontecanis3 years ago

    No he isn’t…his mistake is in assuming it is valid to observe Earth FROM Earth and from the edge of the expanding universe, and then to conclude that the Talmudic and Biblical timelines are valid due to the relativistic behavior of time…this is reverse extrapolation taken from the vantage point of space, which is NOT where the Talmud/Bible were written…it is completely invalid, as are the subsequent conclusions drawn from the original error.

 
 
  • gregrutz3 years ago

    Time is not the same Anywhere, it depends on the warped space-time environment it is in.

     

     

TORAH STUDY

A Child's Simple Logic – right on the dot!

Leave a Comment

Grandpa VAN@S6K recounts the bible study he had with his grandson who has not had any Christian orientation regarding foundational Scripture.  It went somewhat like this: 

VAN:  What is the very first animal ever mentioned in the book of Beginnings, specifically Genesis 3?

GS:  Snake!

VAN: So, when the first man and woman violated the Creator’s command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and they were afraid and ashamed so they made aprons from leaves to cover themselves, but the Creator changed the leaf covering with animal skin, what animal skin did the Creator use?

GS:  Snake skin!

——————————————————————

Out of the mouths of babes . . . just like what the Jewish sages teach.  

For further discussion of why snake skin (aside from the logical progression of the narrative), please review: 

DISCOURSE

Discourse: Sinaite/Atheist – 2

Leave a Comment

[This is the 1st reply to Letters from an Atheist].

Dear DGN:

Thank you for your visit to this website and the views you have expressed in your two letters.  In our private email exchange, this is what I answered (which I now share with our website readers with some elaboration from the original):

 

In answer to your question—
Have you ever considered starting from scratch? I.e. without the foundational paradigm of monotheism or, for that matter, anything non-secular whatsoever?  In my opinion as another seeker of the truth, like yourself, I find that any study or work based on any premise or within a pre-established paradigm (whether provable or not) will already be beset by bias–which will remain in the final conclusion–thus, your end “truth” may not be objectively truthful.

 

I speak only for myself and not my Sinaite group—-at my age, I do not have the luxury of time to “start from scratch” but age aside, I really do believe that anything that exists was made by someone.  It is simple logic in my simplistic  thinking.
 To me, to be an atheist requires more faith than to believe that—–
  • there is a Creator Who has perfectly designed this magnificent universe,
  • Whose attributes (some of it) are evident in its “intelligent design”,
  • Who speaks to His created beings,
  • Who is manifest through His acts in the history of the one nation He set aside for purposes He expressed in their Scripture,
  • Who actually responds to personal quests to know Him by leading them on to more knowledge of Him;  
  • Who left instructions progressively in what we might relate to a “manufacturer’s manual.”  

Unfortunately readers don’t quite know how to read His revelation in “context”  (literary, historical, cultural).   My literature background prods me to simply teach “how to read a book” — any book — including the Hebrew Scriptures. That is all I try to do in my articles: endeavor to explain what I have accepted as the Creator’s “revelation” to humankind, the TORAH of YHWH.  As you will note after reading our articles, we have barely scratched the surface; are we able to answer questions such as what you brought up at a casual conversation with another Sinaite, that you cannot believe in a god who orders the slaughter of Canaanites, the killing of Pharaoh’s son? I’m working on it although the Jewish websites on our links have already answered such questions. There is much to learn from them, they are millennia ahead and read their Scriptures in Hebrew, among other obvious advantages.

 

I have no illusions about our website audience — eliminate Jews, atheists and agnostics, diehard Christians —-it’s those in transition from a religion, or disgusted with religion, yet still in search who might be interested and give us a hearing. 

 

We are a ‘resource center’.  We’re not out to “convert” . . . we’re just recording the last lap of a faith journey which is shared by our small community of like-minded individuals. Whether anyone is listening out there, only YHWH knows who they are. We will fade from the scene eventually, hopefully the younger ones will continue the sharing in our site.  For now, we’re putting in as much as we’re relearning and unlearning. What we are capable of explaining, we do; when we are not, we redirect inquirers like yourself, to the ‘experts’ (please go through the links listed on P.S.). 
Our articles record the journey; some are collective thinking which I articulate for all; others are my personal thoughts.
Appreciate your visit,
NSB@S6K
————————————————————————
P.S.  In our “Resources” and MUST READ books, we have recommended the writings of a scientist who has written several books which you might wish to check out: for starters, here are posts in our website: Gerald L. Schroeder

Also, check out  Understanding Creation Week,  and that will lead you to other articles at one of our links aish.com, featuring Dr. Gerald Schroeder:
Age of the Universe

Age of the Universe

Ancient commentators propose that the world may be simultaneously young and old.

More Articles by Dr. Gerald Schroeder:

Stephen Hawking & God

Stephen Hawking & God

Is God needed to create the universe?

The Origins of Life

The Origins of Life

One reason why I know there is a God active in our world.

An Atheist Turns

An Atheist Turns

Unable to disprove the message, The NY Times tries to discredit the messenger.

 

Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness

Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness

An M.I.T. trained scientist takes a look at Darwin, the fossil record, and the likelihood of random evolution.

DAILY POSTS

SOS for our FWH! – January Searches

Leave a Comment

Image from www.stlucasucc.org

Image from www.stlucasucc.org

[UPDATE 2017:  This monthly “aid” for searchers has been replaced first by “Yo Searchers!  Need Help?”  Then to use a word closer to our cultural Filipino/Tagalog word for strangers, we resorted to “Hoy” shortened to “Oy!”  And it  became — “Oy Searchers!  Need Help?” for every month of every year. The original intention was to help web visitors find the topic (search term) they entered that made them land on many websites including this website.

Rather than figuring out a witty title for every month such as–

—we resorted to a uniform title after running out of ideas and confusing searchers.  It is not surprising the visitors still click this link in past years, there is much to learn from answers provided to past searches.  Go check!—Admin1]

 

 

——————

 

This “SOS” is not meant to ask for help for us; it is meant to extend a helping hand to our “FWH” — “Frequent Website Habitues”. There are those who have visited and returned and returned, remembering topics and have often been successful in digging out articles. There are others who have had difficulty finding what they came back for.

 

Admittedly, our posts could be better organized and we will continue working on a better format. For now, on our ADMIN “DashBoard” we see the search words that lead to our site, and see what FWH read and come back to reread or miss finding altogether.

 

Here are sample search words for which we are providing the link:

 

 

 

There are some searchers in the category of “Oops” who realize they might have landed in the wrong webpage:

  • “referring to gays out of the closet does it need hyphens”
  • “pediatrician dies scuba diving las vegas” [for some reason, this search shows up quite frequently]

Some are simply not answerable, at least by us:

  • “leviticus doomsday”
  • “ask the rabbi what the tanakh say about curses on family members”
  • “noah roitman yad vashem”
  • “yeshua is the light of circumcision”
  • “pastor alin apostol”
  • “further to our book no”
  • “sheepsheerers festival timnah”
When searches don’t yield results, some resort to the “FORUM” to leave a message but we apologize that our FORUM has not functioned usefully nor easily so no comments manage to get through. Our webmaster has redesigned the FORUM so please try it again.

Here are sample “Searches” which yielded no results; if you’re the one concerned or even if you’re not but the title interests or intrigues you, please read the post and leave a reply; feedback is helpful whether good or bad; otherwise it’s like writing love letters left unrequited.

SOS searchers:

—————————————————————————–

SEARCHES FOR IMAGES:

————————————————————————————–

ASSORTED:

These are random samplings of searches for the month of January, 2013. SOS for FWH will be repeated monthly, or whenever necessary.

SEARCHES ON HEBREW TRANSLATIONS:

  • “artscroll tanach read online free download”As for a FREE DOWNLOAD, the previous searcher [who put in “Artscroll”] might have been looking for “HIS NAME TANAKH” by Benmara, because that is the FREE DOWNLOAD; please go to hearoyisrael.net and follow Benmara’s instructions on how to download his latest 8.0 version of HNT.
    • for “artscroll tanach” you have to go to their website artscroll.com and order from them, they have quite a wide variety of Hebrew Bibles, of all sizes, in English and Hebrew, or English only.
  • As for 2 searchers who wrote “my name tanakh, hard back version” and “his name tanakh in print?” — you might have read Q&A: His Name Tanakh – Translator’s Notes where we announced that we printed a few paperback copies of HNT 8.0 version, distributed free for those who could not afford the printing/mailing cost; we could reprint orders for those who can afford to pay both mailing/printing cost. The printing cost is P407.00 (Philippine currency), about US$10. Email us at sinai6000@gmail.com and leave your mailing address please. We will figure out how you will pay us.
  • “the book of bereshiyth translated to english” – We recommend only two Hebrew Bibles in this website, ArtScroll Tanach and His Name Tanakh; as we’ve explained in previous posts:
    • [As indicated in our “Translations Used in this Website” we use 2 Hebrew translations:
    • One is “AST” or ArtScroll Tanach, the Stone Edition, which is available in book form of all sizes from ArtScroll.com – ArtScroll Library www.artscroll.com/Mesorah Publications. AST like most Jewish translations avoids using the Tetragrammaton Name, substituting “HaShem” instead, so we use it only as a supplementary translation when HNT is not so clear in some verses.
    • The other is “HNT” – His Name Tanakh by Benmara of hearoyisrael.net who offers a free download of his translation. Our choice of HNT as we have explained in other posts is that — having read “LORD” as a substitute word in Christian translations, we wanted a Hebrew translation where we can read YHWH instead of substitute words like HaShem and LORD. It was a blessing enough to have found such a translation, but an added blessing that it was offered FREE, downloadable from the translator’s website.
There are interested individuals in our Sinaite community who are not computer-savvy, have no wifi access, but wish to read a translation where they could see the Name of God; we asked permission from Benmara if Sinai 6000 could print his translation and he graciously allowed it for his 8.0 version, explaining it is a work in progress and not yet in final form. Indigent individuals got their copies for free, compliments of S6K, while others who could afford to pay ordered reprints.]
Leviticus/Waiqrah

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 12-15 – Again, do we have to read these chapters?

Leave a Comment

Image from theearthdiet.blogspot.com

 [I was tempted to post these chapters without any comment and echoed a title I had previously used in Exodus/Shemoth 35-39: Do we have to read these chapters? 

 

When you start reading through, you will understand why; it reads like a medical student’s textbook about excreted body fluids after childbirth that are considered impure; and detailed instructions on how to prevent the spread of a particular disease called tzaraas through quarantine and purification. Again the thought recurs, what has this got to do with my wanting to live a ‘godly’ life?

 

Just when I think there’s nothing more to glean from these chapters, the Jewish commentaries always have the effect of making me reread and rethink my first impression because they link tzaraas with violations of TORAH, similar to the thinking of Christian ‘health and wealth’ gospel proponents who impress upon their flock that the reason they are sick is because they have sinned.  

 

Shades of the reasoning of Job’s friends.

Sample:  AST note: Tzaraas is the physical manifestation of a spiritual malaise.  The primary cause of tzaraas is the sin of slander  Similarly, it is a punishment for the sins of bloodshed, false oaths, sexual immorality, pride, robbery, and selfishness (Arachin 16a, Midrash).  Thus tzaraas is a Divine retribution for the offender’s failure to feel the needs and share the hurt of others.  God isolates him from society, so that he can experience the pain he has imposed on others —and heal himself through repentance.

 

We can understand that when we violate dietary laws of Leviticus 11, we suffer the consequences of eating unclean meat.  And in these chapters, the God of Israel teaches His chosen people how to live with disease, giving as early as that time what medical science took millennia to discover:  the importance of quarantine and purification to prevent communicable disease from spreading further.  We learn that certain body discharges are impure, etc. In fact, without studying medicine, if we simply listen and heed instructions given in this ‘book of antiquity’ we would know how to deal with ‘dis-ease’, not necessarily because we have ‘sinned’ but because we trust the Creator’s instructions about how to be healthy and stay healthy throughout the lifetime we are allotted on this earth.

 

So, do we have to read these chapters?  ABSOLUTELY.  The Creator of the human body is the Creator of germs and bacteria which, for sure, have their place and value in the created order but have the potential of causing harm to human health.   When something goes awry in the ecosystem, it is usually because man had caused some imbalance in the natural order.

 

 Remember that the Creator declared His creation “good” and “very good” . . . it is the two-legged creature with the brain and free will who keeps messing up so that in due time, we reap the consequences or our mismanagement.

 

P&H commentary/excerpts: 

We now have laws of purification in regard to  (a)  childbirth (XII); (b) leprosy (XIII, XIV); (c) bodily secretions (XV).  There is abundant evidence that the laws of purity and impurity were from the earliest times faithfully observed in Israel.  These laws, however, underwent various amplifications in the course of centuries; and not long after the Destruction of the 2nd Temple, disappeared, for the greater part, from Jewish life, even in Palestine.

 

There are two distinct views in regard to the laws of purity and ipurity:  one, that they are hygienic; the other, that they are ‘levitical’, i.e. purely religious.  Advocates of the hygienic view hold that the sources of impurity in Scripture—disease or death, the disintegrating corpse of man or beast, skin-diseases, and disorders in connection with sex-life—are in the main physical.  In all these cases—they hold—impurity is equivalent to infection or the danger of infection; the rules of separation are intended to prevent the spread of infection; and the prescribed purification, whether by water or fire, is really disinfection.  The procedure of purification bears out the character of disinfection.  At no stage is there prescribed any prayer or formula to be recited; and the sacrifice, which invariably takes place after purification, is merely the token of readmission into the camp (Katzenelsohn).  The sanitary interpretation of the laws of purity is, however, contested by other authorities, who, on their side, would rule out the hygienic motive altogether.  They point to the Scripture passages which over and over again state that the supreme end of these laws is to lead men to holiness, and preserve men from anything that is defiling or that would exclude them from the Sanctuary.  Strong arguments can thus be marshalled in favor of either view.  However, while neither the hygienic nor the levitical motive can by itself account for all the facts the two views are not mutually exclusive.  Thus, in regard to Sabbath observance, Scripture assigns both a religious motive (Exod. XX, 11) and a social motive (Deut. V, 14).  In the same manner, the eating of flesh of an animal torn in the fields is forbidden for reasons of holiness (Exod. XXII, 30), and in another place plainly for reasons of hygiene (Lev. XI, 39,40).

 

It is to be noted that most laws of purity and impurity apply only in reference to the Sanctuary and the holy objects connected with it.  They did not apply in ordinary life, or to persons who did not intend to enter the Sanctuary.

 

In the HNT translation used here, you might almost be distracted or irritated by the repeated (enclosed) explanation of Hebrew words every time each word occurs but please understand that the translator, Benmara of hearoyisrael.net has endeavored to make available [for free to anyone interested], a version that prints the Tetragrammaton Name in Hebrew alphabet, as well as Hebrew words that need definition and redefinition depending on the context they appear in.  By the end of this reading, you will most likely not forget what tame’, niddah, tohorah, and other significant Hebrew words mean. 

 

Commentary is from Pentateuch and Haftorah’s, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz; translation is EF/Everett Fox, The Five Books of Moses.––Admin1.]

——————————–

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 12

1 YHVH spoke to Moshe, saying:
2 Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: 
A woman-when she produces-seed and bears a male, 
she remains-tamei for seven days, 
like the days of her infirmity of being-apart she shall remain-tamei;
3 and on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin is to be circumcised.
4 For thirty days and three days she is to stay in her period of blood purification; 
any holy-thing she is not to touch, the Holy-area she is not to enter, 
until the fulfilling of the days of her purification.
5 Now if (it is) a female (that) she bears, 
she remains-tamei for two-weeks, like her time of being-apart; 
and for sixty days and six days she is to stay for (a period of) blood purification.
6 And at the fulfilling of the days of her purification, for a son or for a daughter, 
she is to bring a lamb, in its (first) year, as an offering-up, 
and a young pigeon or a turtledove, as a hattat-offering,
to the entrance of the Tent of Appointment, to the priest.
7 He is to bring-it-near, before the presence of YHVH, and is to effect-purgation for her, 
then she will be purified from her source of blood.
This is the Instruction for one giving-birth, (whether) to a male or to a female.
8 But if her hand does not find enough (means) for a sheep, 
she is to take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, 
one for an offering-up and one for a hattat-offering; 
when the priest effects-purgation for her, 
then she is pure.

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 13

1 YHVH spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying:
2 (Any) human being-when there is on the skin of his body a swelling or a scab or a shiny-spot and it becomes on the skin of his body an affliction of tzaraat, he is to be brought to Aharon the priest or to one of his sons the priests.
3 The priest is to look at the affliction on the skin of the flesh; 
should hair in the afflicted-area have turned white, and the look of the affliction is deeper than the skin of his flesh, 
 it is an affliction of tzaraat;
 when the priest looks at it, he is to declare-him-tamei.
4 Now if it is a white spot on the skin of his flesh, and deeper its look is not than the skin, 
and the hair has not turned white,
 the priest is to shut up the afflicted-one for seven days.
5 When the priest looks at him on the seventh day,
 and here: the affliction is at a standstill in his eyes,
 -the affliction has not spread on the skin- 
 the priest is to shut him up for seven days a second time.
6 When the priest looks at him on the seventh day a second time, 
 and here: the affliction has faded, and the affliction has not spread on the skin, 
 the priest is to declare-him-pure -it is (only) a scab- when he scrubs his garments, he is pure.
7 But if the scab has spread, yes, spread on the skin after he has had the priest look at him, for declaring-him-pure, 
 he is to have the priest look at him a second time.
8 When the priest looks, and here: the scab has spread on the skin,
 the priest is to declare-him-tamei,
 it is tzaraat!
9 An affliction of tzaraat-when it shows on a person, and he is brought to the priest,
10 when the priest looks, and here: a white swelling is on the skin, 
 and it has turned into white hair,
 with a live-patch of “live” flesh in the swelling:
11 it is mature tzaraat in the skin of his body,
 and the priest is to declare-him-tamei;
 he is not to shut him up, for he is tamei.
12 Now if the tzaraat sprouts, yes, sprouts on the skin so that the tzaraat covers all the skin of the afflicted-one, from his head to his feet, 
 wherever the priest’s eyes look:
13 if the priest looks, and here: the tzaraat has covered all his flesh, 
 he is to declare the afflicted-one pure -all of it has turned white,
 then he is pure!
14 But at the time of there reappearing on him live flesh, he is to be considered-tamei.
15 When the priest looks at the live flesh, he is to declare-him-tamei; 
 the live flesh-it is tamei, it is tzaraat.
16 Or when the live flesh recurs and turns back to white,
 he is to come to the priest;
17 when the priest looks, and here: the affliction has turned back to white,
 the priest is to declare the afflicted-one pure, 
 he is pure.
18 Now flesh-when there is in its skin a boil, and it heals,
19 but there is in place of the boil a white swelling or a white (and) reddish shiny-spot:
 he is to have the priest look at him.
20 When the priest looks, and here: its look is lower than the skin, 
 and its hair has turned white,
 the priest is to declare-him-tamei,
 it is an affliction of tzaraat, in the boil it has sprouted.
21 But should the priest look at it, and here: there is not in it any white hair, 
 and it is not lower than the skin, but it has faded, 
 the priest is to shut him up for seven days.
22 Now if it should spread, yes, spread on the skin,
 the priest is to declare-him-tamei-
 it is an affliction.
23 But if, under it, the affliction is at-a-standstill, not having spread, 
 it is the inflammation of the boil;
 the priest is to declare-him-pure.
24 Or flesh-when there is on the skin a burn by fire and on the live-patch of the burn is a shiny-spot, white (and) reddish, or white,
25 when the priest looks at it, and here: hair has turned white in the shiny-spot, 
 and its look is deeper than the skin,
 it is tzaraat, in the burn it has sprouted; 
 the priest is to declare-him-tamei- 
 it is an affliction of tzaraat!
26 But if the priest looks at it, and here: there is not in the bright-
 spot any white hair, and lower it is not than the skin, and it has faded, 
 he priest is to shut him up for seven days.
27 When the priest looks at him on the seventh day:
 if it has spread, yes, spread on the skin, the priest is to declare-him-tamei- 
 it is an affliction of tzaraat.
28 But if, under it, the shiny-spot is at-a-standstill, not having spread on the skin, and it has faded, 
 it is a swelling from the burn, 
 the priest is to declare-him-pure,
 for it is an inflammation from the burn.
29 Now a man or a woman-when they have an affliction on the head or on the (site of the) beard:
30 when the priest looks at the affliction, and here: its look is deeper than the skin, 
 and in it there is thin yellow hair, 
 the priest is to declare-him-tamei- 
 it is a scall, it is tzaraat of the head or of the beard.
31 But when the priest looks at the affliction of the scall, and here:
 its look is not deeper than the skin,
 and black hair there is none on it, 
 the priest is to shut up the one afflicted with the scall for seven days.
32 When the priest looks at the affliction on the seventh day, and here: 
 the scall has not spread, and there is not in it (any) yellow hair,
 and the look of the scall is not deeper than the skin,
33 he is to shave himself,
 but the scall he is not to shave, 
 and the priest is to shut up the scall-bearer for seven days a second time.
34 When the priest looks at the scall on the seventh day, and here: 
 the scall has not spread on the skin,
 and its look is not deeper than the skin,
 the priest is to declare-him-pure; 
 when he scrubs his garments, then he is pure.
35 But if the scall has spread, yes, spread on the skin, 
 after his being-purified,
36 when the priest looks at him, and here: the scall has spread on the skin, 
 the priest need not examine (him) for the yellow hair, 
 he is tamei.
37 Now if in his eyes the scall is at-a-standstill, and black hair has sprouted in it, 
 the scall has healed, 
 he is pure,
 and the priest is to declare-him-pure.
38 Now a man or a woman- 
 when there is in the skin of their flesh shiny-spots, 
 white shiny-spots,
39 when the priest looks, and here: in the skin of their flesh (are) shiny-spots, faded (or) white, it is a rash, it has sprouted on the skin, 
 he is pure.
40 Now a man-when his head becomes smooth, he is bald, he is pure.
41 And if on the edge of his face his head becomes smooth, he is forehead-bald, 
 he is (still) pure.
42 But when there is on the bald spot or on the forehead an affliction, white (and) reddish,
 it is sprouting tzaraat, on his bald spot or on his forehead.
43 When the priest looks at him, and here: the swelling of the affliction is white (and) reddish, on his bald spot or on his forehead,
 like the look of tzaraat on the skin of flesh:
44 he is a man with tzaraat, he is tamei, (yes), tamei, 
 tamei shall the priest (declare) him, on his head is his affliction.
45 Now the one with tzaraat that has the affliction,
 his garments are to be torn,
 his head is to be made-bare, and his upper-lip is to be covered; 
 Tamei! Tamei! he is to cry out.
46 All the days that the affliction is on him, he shall remain-tamei, 
 tamei is he, 
 alone shall he stay, outside of the camp is his staying-place.
47 Now a cloth: 
 when there is on it an affliction of tzaraat,
 on a cloth of wool or a cloth of linen,
48 or in the woof or in the warp of the linen or of the wool,
 or in an animal-skin or in anything worked of skin:
49 if the affliction is greenish or reddish on the cloth or the skin, or on the woof or on the warp, or in any vessel of skin,
 it is an affliction of tzaraat, 
 he is to have the priest look at it.
50 When the priest looks at the affliction,
 he is to shut up the afflicted-item for seven days;
51 when he looks at the affliction on the seventh day,
 if the affliction has spread on the cloth or on the woof or on the warp or on the skin, 
 for whatever might be done with the skin for work:
 the affliction is acute tzaraat, it is tamei.
52 It is to be burned, the cloth, or the woof or the warp in the wool or in the linen, or in any vessel of skin that has in it any affliction,
 for it is acute tzaraat, in fire it is to be burned.
53 But if the priest looks, and here: the affliction has not spread in the cloth 
 -whether in the woof or in the warp, or in any vessel of skin-
54 the priest is to command that they scrub that which contains the affliction,
 and he is to shut it up for seven days a second time.
55 When the priest looks, after the afflicted-thing has been scrubbed, and here:
the affliction has not changed its aspect, the affliction has not spread-
it is tamei, in fire you are to burn it,
it is decay, on its “bald-spot” or on its “forehead.”
56 But if the priest looks, and here: the affliction has faded, after it has been scrubbed,
he is to tear it from the cloth or from the skin or from the woof or from the warp,
57 and if it is seen again on the cloth-whether in the woof or in the warp, or in any vessel of skin, it is a sprouting-thing, in fire you are to burn it, anything in which there is the affliction.
58 But the cloth or the woof or the warp or any vessel of skin that you have scrubbed, so that the affliction disappears from them,
when it is scrubbed a second time, then it is pure.
59 This is the Instruction for the affliction of tzaraat in cloth of wool or linen, or the warp or the woof, or any vessel of skin,
for declaring-it-purified or for declaring-it-tamei.

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 14

1 YHVH spoke to Moshe, saying:
2 This is to be the Instruction for the one-with-tzaraat, on the day of his being-purified: 
he is to be brought to the priest.
3 The priest is to go outside the camp;
when the priest looks, and here: the affliction of tzaraat has healed on the one-with-tzaraat,
4 the priest is to command that they take for the one-to-be-purified two birds, live, pure, 
and wood of cedar and scarlet of the worm and hyssop.
5 Then the priest is to command that they slay the one bird
in an earthen vessel, (held) above living water,
6 and the live bird-he is to take it, and the cedar wood, the scarlet of the worm and the hyssop, and is to dip them and the live bird in the blood of the slain bird, (held) above living water.
7 Then he is to sprinkle (it) over the one-to-be-purified of tzaraat seven times, declaring-him-pure, and is to send-out the live bird into the open field.
8 When the one-being-purified scrubs his garments, shaves his entire (head of) hair and washes in water, 
then he is pure,
afterward he may enter the camp, 
staying outside his tent for seven days.
9 And it shall be on the seventh day: when he shaves all his hair-his head, his beard and his eyebrows, 
all his body-hair he shaves- 
and scrubs his garments and washes his flesh in water, 
then he is pure.
10 On the eighth day he is to take two lambs, wholly-sound, and one lamb in its (first) year, wholly-sound, 
and three tenth-measures of flour as a grain-gift, mixed with oil, and one log of oil.
11 The priest making-purification is to stand the man to-be-purified and them
before the presence of YHVH, at the entrance to the Tent of Appointment;
12 the priest is to take the one lamb and is to bring-it-near as an asham-offering, with the log of oil, 
and is to elevate them as an elevation-offering, before the presence of YHVH.
13 Then he is to slay the lamb in the place where one slays the hattat-offering and the offering-up, 
in a holy place, 
for like the hattat-offering, the asham-offering is the priest’s, 
it is a holiest holy-portion.
14 Then the priest is to take some of the blood of the asham 
and the priest is to place it on the ridge of the right ear of the one-being-purified, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the thumb-toe of his right foot.
15 And the priest is to take some of the log of oil and is to pour it on the left palm of the priest.
16 Then the priest is to dip his right finger in some of the oil that is on his left palm
and is to sprinkle some of the oil with his finger, seven times, before the presence of YHVH.
17 From the remainder of oil that is on his palm, the priest is to place some on the ridge of the right ear of the one-being-purified, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the thumb-toe of his right foot, 
on top of the blood of the asham-offering.
18 And what remains of the oil that is on the palm of the priest 
he is to place upon the head of the one-being-purified;
then the priest is to effect-purgation for him, before the presence of YHVH.
19 Then the priest is to sacrifice the hattat-offering and is to effect-purgation for the one-being-purified from his tum’a, 
afterward he is to slay the offering-up.
20 And the priest is to offer-up the offering-up and the grain-gift on the slaughter-site, 
and when the priest effects-purgation for him, 
then he is pure.
21 But if he is poor and his hand does not reach (far), 
he is to take one lamb as an asham, for elevating, for effecting-purgation for him,
and one tenth-measure of flour, mixed with oil, as a grain-gift, and a log of oil,
22 and two turtledoves or two young pigeons, (as far as) his hand can reach, 
the one shall be the hattat-offering and the other, the offering-up.
23 He is to bring them on the eighth day of his being-purified, to the priest, 
to the entrance of the Tent of Appointment, before the presence of YHVH.
24 Then the priest is to take the lamb of asham-offering and the log of oil, 
and the priest is to elevate them as an elevation-offering, before the presence of YHVH;
25 he is to slay the lamb of asham-offering, 
then the priest is to take some of the blood of the asham-offering
and is to place (it) on the ridge of the right ear of the one-being-purified, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the thumb-toe of his right foot,
26 and some of the oil the priest is to pour out on the left palm of the priest;
27 the priest is to sprinkle with his right finger some of the oil that is on his left palm, seven times, before the presence of YHVH.
28 Then the priest is to place some of the oil that is on his palm 
on the ridge of the right ear of the one-being-purified, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the thumb-toe of his right foot, 
on the place above the blood of the asham-offering;
29 what-is-left of the oil that is on the palm of the priest he is to place on the head of the-one-being-purified, 
to effect-purgation for him, before the presence of YHVH.
30 Then he is to sacrifice one of the turtledoves or the young pigeons, from (within) what his hand can reach
31 -whatever his hand can reach- 
the one as a hattat-offering and the other as an offering-up, along with a grain-gift,
and the priest is to effect-purgation for the one-being-purified, before the presence of YHVH.
32 This is the Instruction for the one who has an affliction of tzaraat, 
whose hand cannot reach (means) for his purification.
33 YHVH spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying:
34 When you enter the land of Canaan, that I am giving you as a holding, 
and I place an affliction of tzaraat on a house in the land of your holding,
35 there shall come the one whose house it is 
and report to the priest, saying: 
(Something) like an affliction has been seen by me on the house!
36 Then the priest is to command that the house be cleaned before the priest enters to look at the affliction,
so that nothing that is in the house becomes-tamei; 
after that the priest may enter to look at the house.
37 When he looks at the affliction, and here: the affliction (is) on the walls of the house (as) greenish or reddish eruptions, 
their look lower than the wall:
38 the priest is to go out of the house, to the entrance of the house, 
and is to have the house shut up for seven days.
39 When the priest returns on the seventh day, 
and he looks, and here: the affliction has spread on the walls of the house,
40 the priest is to command that they pull out the stones on which the affliction is 
and throw them outside the city, into a tamei place;
41 the house someone shall scrape inside, all around, 
and they are to pour the dried-mud that was scraped off outside the city, into a tamei place.
42 Then they are to take other stones and bring them in place of the (original) stones, 
other dried-mud they are to take, and are to replaster the house.
43 Now if the affliction returns and sprouts in the house 
after one has pulled out the stones,
and after the house’s being-scraped, and after its having-been-plastered,
44 the priest is to enter, 
and when he looks, and here: the affliction has spread in the house,
it is acute tzaraat in the house, it is tamei.
45 Then one is to demolish the house-its stones, its wood and all the dried-mud on the house, and one is to take (it) outside the town, to a tamei place.
46 One entering the house (during) all the days of its being shut up
is to remain-tamei until sunset;
47 one lying in the house is to scrub his garments; 
one eating in the house is to scrub his garments.
48 Now if the priest should enter, yes, enter 
and look, and here: the affliction has not spread through the house 
after the replastering of the house, 
the priest is to declare the house pure, since the affliction has healed.
49 He is to take, to decontaminate the house, two birds, 
and cedar wood, scarlet of the worm, and hyssop,
50 and he is to slay the one bird in an earthen vessel, over living water,
51 then he is to take the cedar wood and the hyssop and the scarlet of the worm, and the live bird, 
and is to dip them in the blood of the slaughtered bird, and in the living water, 
and is to sprinkle (it) on the house seven times.
52 So he is to decontaminate the house with the blood of the bird and with the living water, 
with the live bird, with the cedar wood, with the hyssop and with the scarlet of the worm;
53 then he is to send-free the live bird, outside the town, toward the open field. 
When he effects-purgation for the house,
then it is pure.
54 This is the Instruction for any affliction of tzaraat, for scalls,
55 for tzaraat of cloth or of a house,
56 for swelling, for scabs or for shiny-spots,
57 to provide-instruction, at the time of the tamei and at the time of the pure. 
This is the Instruction for tzaraat.

Leviticus/Wayyiqrah 15

1 YHVH spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying:
2 Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them: 
Any-man, any-man, when he becomes one-with-a-flow from his “flesh,” 
his flow-it is tamei.
3 And this is his tum’a during his flow, 
(whether) his “flesh” oozes with his flow or his “flesh” is sealed up by his flow, 
it is his tum’a:
4 any place-of-lying that the one-with-a-flow lies on becomes tamei, 
and any vessel that he sits on becomes tamei.
5 A man that touches his place-of-lying is to scrub his garments and wash in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
6 One who sits on the vessel on which the one-with-the-flow sits
is to scrub his garments and wash in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
7 One who touches the flesh of the one-with-the-flow
is to scrub his garments and wash in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
8 Now if one-with-a-flow spits on one (who is) pure, 
(that one) is to scrub his garments and wash in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
9 Any saddle-mounting that one-with-a-flow mounts, becomes-tamei.
10 Anyone who touches anything that is under him 
will remain-tamei until sunset, 
one-who-carries them is to scrub his garments and wash in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
11 Anyone whom the one-with-the-flow touches, not having rinsed his hands in water,
is to scrub his garments and wash in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
12 And an earthen vessel that the one-with-a-flow touches is to be broken, 
and any wooden vessel is to be rinsed in water.
13 Now when the one-with-a-flow is purified from his flow,
he is to number himself seven days of being pure;
when he scrubs his garments and washes his flesh in living water,
then he is pure.
14 On the eighth day he is to take himself two turtledoves or two young pigeons 
and is to come before the presence of YHVH, at the entrance to the Tent of Appointment, 
and is to give them to the priest.
15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one as a hattat-offering and the other as an offering-up, thus will the priest effect-purgation for him before the presence of YHVH, from his flow.
16 Now a man, when there goes out from him an emission of seed, 
he is to wash in water all of his flesh, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
17 Any garment or any animal-skin on which there is an emission of seed 
is to be scrubbed in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
18 And (also) a woman with whom a man lies, (with) an emission of seed:
they are to wash in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
19 A woman-when she is one-with-a-flow, her flow being of blood from her “flesh,”
seven days shall she remain in her (state of) being-apart. 
Anyone who touches her is to remain-tamei until sunset.
20 Anything that she lies upon in her (state of) being-apart becomes tamei, 
anything that she sits upon becomes tamei.
21 Anyone who touches her lying-place is to scrub his garments and wash in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
22 Anyone who touches any vessel that she sat upon is to scrub his garments and wash in water, 
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
23 Whether it is upon the lying-place or upon the vessel that she has sat upon,
on touching it he will remain-tamei until sunset.
24 And if a man lies, yes, lies with her, so that her (state of) being-apart is upon him, 
he will remain-tamei for seven days,
any place-of-lying upon which he lies becomes tamei.
25 Now a woman-when the flow of her blood flows for many days, when it is not the time of her being-apart,
or when it flows out over-and-above her being-apart, 
all the days of her tamei flow she shall be like (during) the days of her being-apart,
she is tamei.
26 Any lying-place upon which she lies, all the days of her flow, shall be for her like the lying-place (during) her being-apart, 
and any vessel that she sits upon shall be tamei, like the tum’a of her being-apart.
27 Whoever touches them becomes tamei;
he is to scrub his garments and wash in water,
and will remain-tamei until sunset.
28 Now when she is purified from her flow, 
she is to number seven days, 
and afterward, she becomes pure.
29 And on the eighth day she is to take herself two turtledoves or two young pigeons 
and is to bring them to the priest, to the entrance of the Tent of Appointment.
30 The priest is to sacrifice the one as a hattat-offering and the other as an offering-up,
the priest is to effect-purgation for her before the presence of YHVH, from her tamei flow.
31 You are to have the Children of Israel avoid their tum’a, 
that they not die from their tum’a
when they make my Dwelling tamei that is in their midst.
32 This is the Instruction for the one-with-a-flow 
and for (one) from whom goes out an emission of seed, becoming tamei thereby,
33 and for one infirm in her (state of) being-apart, for one who has-a-flow with his flow, male or female, 
and for a man that lies with a tamei-woman.