The UNholiness of the Bible

[Amanda]

The OT law concerning the woman who is suspected of adultry, seems to have had their own 'lie detector' at their disposal. IF the woman believes this is true, she could very well make herself sick enough to lose the baby. The placebo effect in reverse. It was important to these Jews to give their inheritance to their decendents only.

 

A lie detector? Amanda, I'm very surprised to hear this coming from you and to be truthful, a little troubled by it. She could miscarry for other reasons because that is just what happens, in the meantime there were probably many women who had another mans baby and nothing happened. Miscarriages still happen today, imagine how common this must've been back in those days. So now, this poor woman has not only lost her baby but is now shamed among her husband and community. I think it very cruel and cold. Do you believe Amanda, that biblegod gave those laws or that the Jews came up with them on their own? This would help me, in understanding you a whole lot better because then, whether allegory or not, I have to question a few things from you...

 

Hi Serenity Now! I went away for the holidays and am behind here.... my apologies!

 

Yes, you're right! There could of been many reasons for a miscarriage! This would of been awful to especially accuse an innocent person. I was just saying that the mind and belief are very powerful. Much more powerful than I think anyone knows or even suspects! If they perpetrated this belief that a woman of adultry, now pregnant, is suspected and accused... her belief of losing the baby can become a reality. This technique could be like the placebo in reverse, or the lie detector. Lie detectors can only work if you believe it can. Placebos often bring healing. It's the mind. This could work like a lie detector... which is known to be fallible, and not relieable enough to be used in court.

 

The problem was that a man only wanted to leave his inheritance to his own children. That is one reason why adultry was soooo unacceptable. I think it would be best to have love and acceptance of ANY baby! That seems to be a problem in many blended faimilies today. People have preference for their own child, and step children can be thought of as inferior. Tragic!

 

I think these Jews were attempting to know the mind of God. This is meant in regards to discerning what is 'sacred'. Where exactly is it best to draw the line of what is acceptable and what is not... hence, the 10 commandments. Were ALL there laws perfect? NO, but it was a start. It was better than total barbaric ramblings. They had to deal with what they came out of then. I think this process of defining what is 'sacred' is refining as we go along through life. Looking back with todays knowledge is probably like 'Monday morning quarterbacking'.

 

BTW, I don't think these teachings of Jesus were so much an extension of Judaism, although his roots are from there. It seems to me, these teachings of Christ are more in line of Buddhism... yet include probably all major teachings... including Druids, Wiccas, Hindus, etc. It seems to me he put more emphasis on these teachings from the east.

 

I think Jesus teaches to love the baby any way, even if it is not yours.

 

Jesus says to love your neighbor but then in another area of the gospels he says that if you deny god you are of your "real" father...the devil. He holds off the "good news" to the gentiles and even calls a samaritan woman a dog. I'm sorry but I cannot understand that even in an allegorical sense. To me, it seems Jesus was a big hypocrite, preaching one thing and then doing another.

 

I can see where it appears that way. I think what he is saying in regards to deny God... is to deny Truth and what is sacred... and doing so, we would be of the creation of the devil... the lie and being pleasure seekers at the cost of others. I don't know of the samaritan woman being called a dog. I looked for it, yet couldn't find it.

 

Serenity Now, I could think of no one that has a better nature than you! I respect how you think, and can never complain of how you got here. You're someone I could trust with my most dearest possessions... like my children and my pets... materialistic things too, but I don't consider those my most dearest. (Don't worry, my kids are grown now. )

[chohan]

I don't know of the samaritan woman being called a dog. I looked for it, yet couldn't find it.

 

 

Mark 7:24-30

 

24 Jesus got up and went away from there to the region of Tyre. And when He had entered a house, He wanted no one to know of it; yet He could not escape notice. But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.

 

 

I think verse 28 is where she knocks his fictional teeth out for being a racist.

[Amanda]

I don't know of the samaritan woman being called a dog. I looked for it, yet couldn't find it.

 

 

Mark 7:24-30

 

24 Jesus got up and went away from there to the region of Tyre. And when He had entered a house, He wanted no one to know of it; yet He could not escape notice. But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.

 

 

I think verse 28 is where she knocks his fictional teeth out for being a racist.

 

Thank you Cohan for taking the time to find it for me!

 

I, personally, do not perceive these teachings literally. As allegories there's a hidden message. The nature of seeking to understand the hidden message, causes a transformation by the process of this search for understanding, IMO. If you're the type to like to solve a mystery, it can be fun.

 

It seems to me... this woman came and asked Jesus many times to heal her daughter, and it seems there are many children there. So Jesus said to her (I think part of his strategy), lets first wait and give these children all of what they could possibly ever want of what nourishes their spirituality, because it is of no use to throw tiny little pieces of spirituality to these impure minds (of ALL these children). Let's give them all they need to know! Probably using the metaphor of 'dogs' sparked her thinking in defense of her daughter and other children! (Again, part of the strategy to prompt her to think!) And the mother, obviously being anxious, answered him saying that there are even more impure minds under the place of which these children sit to be nourished, that can even grow from just tiny pieces of these pieces of spirituality you can offer them just for now! You don't have to teach them EVERYTHING first! And he answered her... that her understanding of this was to be what healed her daughter. Read the verses that followed the ones you posted...

 

7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

 

So my interpretation is that this woman, originally, probably expected too much from her daughter too fast! She wanted her to act like a 'grown up' now!!! Once she realized and learned to defend the concept that it's normal for all children to learn little by little from each other at different levels, and it's ok to be like that, it's wonderful what they have to offer each other at every stage... then the mother's new belief brought a different, more loving perception of her daughter and a different relationship with her daughter, causing the little girl not to react in the same way any more... being healed. Actually, I think the 'devil' was in the mother, the child only reacted accordingly... but the mother had perceived it a different way initially. The moral, I suppose, is that if we think something is wrong with our children... maybe we should look at ourself first?

 

Of course... that's just my way of seeing it.

[NotBlinded]

Thank you Cohan for taking the time to find it for me!

 

I, personally, do not perceive these teachings literally. As allegories there's a hidden message. The nature of seeking to understand the hidden message, causes a transformation by the process of this search for understanding, IMO. If you're the type to like to solve a mystery, it can be fun.

 

It seems to me... this woman came and asked Jesus many times to heal her daughter, and it seems there are many children there. So Jesus said to her (I think part of his strategy), lets first wait and give these children all of what they could possibly ever want of what nourishes their spirituality, because it is of no use to throw tiny little pieces of spirituality to these impure minds (of ALL these children). Let's give them all they need to know! Probably using the metaphor of 'dogs' sparked her thinking in defense of her daughter and other children! (Again, part of the strategy to prompt her to think!) And the mother, obviously being anxious, answered him saying that there are even more impure minds under the place of which these children sit to be nourished, that can even grow from just tiny pieces of these pieces of spirituality you can offer them just for now! You don't have to teach them EVERYTHING first! And he answered her... that her understanding of this was to be what healed her daughter. Read the verses that followed the ones you posted...

 

7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

 

So my interpretation is that this woman, originally, probably expected too much from her daughter too fast! She wanted her to act like a 'grown up' now!!! Once she realized and learned to defend the concept that it's normal for all children to learn little by little from each other at different levels, and it's ok to be like that, it's wonderful what they have to offer each other at every stage... then the mother's new belief brought a different, more loving perception of her daughter and a different relationship with her daughter, causing the little girl not to react in the same way any more... being healed. Actually, I think the 'devil' was in the mother, the child only reacted accordingly... but the mother had perceived it a different way initially. The moral, I suppose, is that if we think something is wrong with our children... maybe we should look at ourself first?

 

Of course... that's just my way of seeing it.

Wow...that is beautiful Amanda!

[chohan]

 

Thank you Cohan for taking the time to find it for me!

 

You're welcome Amenda!

 

I, personally, do not perceive these teachings literally. As allegories there's a hidden message.

It seems to me... this woman came and asked Jesus many times to heal her daughter, and it seems there are many children there.

 

That's not in the text. It states, "she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter". Also there is no mention of ANY children there at all. Children in this passage refers to the Jews of the time just as 'dogs' refers to Gentiles.

 

So Jesus said to her (I think part of his strategy), lets first wait and give these children all of what they could possibly ever want of what nourishes their spirituality, because it is of no use to throw tiny little pieces of spirituality to these impure minds (of ALL these children). Let's give them all they need to know!

 

A nice example of wishful thinking on your part but what he actually said to her was:

 

"Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."

 

And what he said is much clearer to me than what you just said.

 

Probably using the metaphor of 'dogs' sparked her thinking in defense of her daughter and other children! (Again, part of the strategy to prompt her to think!) And the mother, obviously being anxious, answered him saying that there are even more impure minds under the place of which these children sit to be nourished, that can even grow from just tiny pieces of these pieces of spirituality you can offer them just for now! You don't have to teach them EVERYTHING first!

 

Calling someone a dog in biblical (or even present-day) Palestine is NOT a metaphor for an "impure mind"; it is the highest insult in the culture, equating you with an unclean scavenger and if you don't know this then I recommend you spend some time in Iraq or at least listen to some speeches by the current Iranian president.

 

And you shall be holy men unto me: neither shall you eat [any] flesh [that is] torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs. Ex. 23:31

 

Within the culture, a dog is about as low and inferior as you can be within the animal kingdom.

 

 

And he answered her... that her understanding of this was to be what healed her daughter. Read the verses that followed the ones you posted...

 

7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

 

Yes, her response to his insult. Maybe you should read the verses again and realize that 'healed' or 'healing' is never mentioned. Jesus didn't heal her, he ran the devil out of her daughter. The devil which you say was really in the mother, not the daughter.

 

So my interpretation is that this woman, originally, probably expected too much from her daughter too fast! She wanted her to act like a 'grown up' now!!! Once she realized and learned to defend the concept that it's normal for all children to learn little by little from each other at different levels, and it's ok to be like that, it's wonderful what they have to offer each other at every stage... then the mother's new belief brought a different, more loving perception of her daughter and a different relationship with her daughter, causing the little girl not to react in the same way any more... being healed. Actually, I think the 'devil' was in the mother, the child only reacted accordingly... but the mother had perceived it a different way initially.

 

Thank you for your interpretation; I found it fascinating although very strained.

 

 

The moral, I suppose, is that if we think something is wrong with our children... maybe we should look at ourself first?

 

The moral that the writer is attempting to convey is that even an inferior gentile dog can obtain what the want if they know their place, accept their fate and are willing to beg.

 

Granted, it's not as eloquent as your interpretation but why sugarcoat it?

 

Now how an enlightened person like yourself, who knows by intuition and observation that all things (including non-Jews) are portions of the Whole, can still cling to this racist nonsense is beyond me. You are still trapped within the belief system so you make excuses for Jesus and the Bible. I did the same thing for years until I realized the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.

 

Children and dogs, sheep and goats, chosen and not chosen, believers and unbelievers, jews and gentiles, righteous and unrighteous, vessels for honor and vessels for destruction, in-group and out-group... whee the polarities! Nice beat and easy to dance to... have fun with it Amanda.

 

Perhaps you just have to be a member of the 'in-group'; the chosen in order to grasp all those hidden messages and mysteries. His sheep know his voice and all that. The nice, safe, comfortable christian belief system... who can blame you for clinging to it?

 

Let's be friends... call me cho.

[NotBlinded]

That's not in the text. It states, "she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter". Also there is no mention of ANY children there at all. Children in this passage refers to the Jews of the time just as 'dogs' refers to Gentiles.

I'm gonna butt on in here...

 

I'm just curious why the metaphors you choose has more meaning than what Amanda said? Children = Jews and dogs = gentiles...why?

 

A nice example of wishful thinking on your part but what he actually said to her was:

 

"Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs."

 

And what he said is much clearer to me than what you just said.

Food for what? Their physical well-being said from a spritual person?

 

"Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Doesn't this say satisfied and not fed? And the meaning of bread goes far beyond just ordinary food or Christians would eat cookies instead of bread on Sunday.

 

Calling someone a dog in biblical (or even present-day) Palestine is NOT a metaphor for an "impure mind"; it is the highest insult in the culture, equating you with an unclean scavenger and if you don't know this then I recommend you spend some time in Iraq or at least listen to some speeches by the current Iranian president.

 

Animals can also represent the predatory desires of people. If one has an impure mind, they can become a predator. What does it mean when someone equates you to an unclean scavenger? Are they talking about your physcial actions with no intent in mind?

 

And you shall be holy men unto me: neither shall you eat [any] flesh [that is] torn of beasts in the field; you shall cast it to the dogs. Ex. 23:31

 

What happens when one 'eats' lies and deceptions? They become impure because they have faith in that lie. Throw the lie towards the ones that are impure of mind and do not believe them. That makes sense to me.

 

Yes, her response to his insult. Maybe you should read the verses again and realize that 'healed' or 'healing' is never mentioned. Jesus didn't heal her, he ran the devil out of her daughter. The devil which you say was really in the mother, not the daughter.

Correct, Jesus did not heal her, her understanding did.

 

The moral that the writer is attempting to convey is that even an inferior gentile dog can obtain what the want if they know their place, accept their fate and are willing to beg.

That is a horrible moral! The moral I see is that, yes, everyone can achieve peace and understanding, which, of course, everyone does desire, if they realize that it is something that cannot be given to them. They have to achieve it on their own.

 

The rest was just kinda mean, so I won't address it. Amanda is more cordial than I!

[chohan]

 

I'm just curious why the metaphors you choose has more meaning than what Amanda said? Children = Jews and dogs = gentiles...why?

 

I'm a bit lost on what Amanda's metaphors were so I'll just deal with mine.

You say Jews... I say Jews of the time:

 

"Children in this passage refers to the Jews of the time just as 'dogs' refers to Gentiles."

 

I base the analogy on the same account given in a parallel passage where Jesus supposedly gives the meaning himself.

 

Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Matt. 15:21-27

 

House of Israel = children. Dogs = those outside the House of Israel. (Canaanites, Greeks i.e. Gentiles)

 

5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt 10:5-6

 

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

 

I also notice the 'children' in Mark 7:28

 

"even the little dogs under the table eat from the children's crumbs."

 

have become the masters of the dogs by the time we make it to Matthew 15:27

 

"even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."

 

As ssel was fond of saying, it is what it is.

 

Yes, well bread or even crumbs will satisfy you if you eat enough. I simply see it as "needs being met". She wants a demon out of her daughter so that is her need. But the offer of this bread (needs met, salvation, whatever) is to the House of Israel first.

 

"You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews." JC

 

The rest was just kinda mean, so I won't address it. Amanda is more cordial than I!

 

Jesus calls her a dog and now I'm the meany. Oh well, no messiah here.

 

Amanda,

 

I hold you in the highest regard and have read most of your posts which lead me to believe you may be one of the nicest humans I have ever 'met' within internet forums. At the same time, I have high expectations for you(which is the only reason I posted) and imho the fact that you are so 'nice' causes many ex-christians in this forum to handle you with kid gloves. No offense intended.

 

Now you mates can hash this all out, figure out the allegories and give closing arguments or whatever. This stuff is too much of a time sink, it cuts into my sim-racing and besides, in the end we all believe what we want to regardless.

 

cheers,

cho

[Amanda]

 

Hi Cho! Thank you for your time and insight! More importantly, for your friendship!

 

I certainly want to be open minded, and I do think our point of perspective may have contributions in how we interpret an allegory. If one perceives this man's nature to be of demeaning intentions, or if he is perceived as a spiritual teacher with insights, probably has implications on how we discern his stories. As a metaphor... then it is up to the listener.

 

IMO, FWIW, from what research I've done into these teachings, there's a basic foundational concept for humbleness. No one is more or less than anyone else, therefore his intentions of calling her daughter a dog in a sincere derrogatory sense would be quite conflicting with the rest of his teachings. Since your post is the first time I've considered examining these verses, I quickly looked them over. Now, with this new post of yours , I've decided to take time to be more focused on it and to research it further. I researched about every word back to it's prime root meaning from here , by just clicking on the words and clicking on their path of evolution to its prime root. This gives a more comprehensive idea of what the words meant then.

 

Mark 7:24-30

7:24

Jesus came into these borders of Tyre and Sidon, two wealthy, prosperous, and flourishing towns, of probably Hebrew origins. He entered very discretely for privacy. Although, he entered so that no man would know, he couldn't keep his presence hidden.

7:25

A woman, in need of enlightenment, to help her daughter with significant inferior behavioral/mental problems, heard of the spiritual savvy of Jesus, and came to show homage, falling at his feet, and to learn from Jesus.

7:26

This woman was a Greek, of a very different religion and way of life, she came from a Syrian-Phonecian nation, and pleaded to Jesus to get rid of the severe inferior thinking/behavior out of her daughter. I think Jesus could discern many things of her right away, and that is why this extra info is included.

7:27

So, Jesus said, let the ones who follow me, are my disciples be satisfied first. (see definition of children=students here .) Because it is not conferring honour to take my disciples spiritual nourishment and give it to someone who does not care about it or intend to make use of it or marked by contemptuous disregard of others. (Definition of cast here and prime root meaning of dogs here .)

7:28

And she agreed saying, yes, you have the power to decide such things, yet the impure under the place of plentiful spiritual nourishment, wait to eat your disciple's pieces of nourishment. (So why can't I just have/deserve some of these pieces of enlightenment from you now?)

7:29

And he spoke, breathed his spirit unto her as his thoughts flowed out of him, that through the reasons by which she spoke out these words, to take this with her, then the inferior spirit no longer has power over her daughter, who is acceptable to God, rejoicing in God's pecular care and protection.

7:30

When she decided to follow him and his ways in her house, she found the inferior spirit was gone, her daughter was trusted into these teachings of Jesus', where she recognized her daughter was able to recline and rest.

 

I still think the woman had to change her self, her sense of dignity and sense of being equal, and how she related this to her daughter. Also, trusting in these enlightened ways to have their effect on her daughter. Giving this teaching more focus did not come out exactly as my faster version, but basically the same principles. This could use even further examination for refinement and enlightenment, but I didn't think you wanted to wait a few more days.

[thunderbolt]

The UNholiness of the Bible

 

It sure gives a whole new meaning to "Be ye perfect as I am perfect ..." Hahahaha

[Amanda]

Hi Cho!

 

Hey... I just now had an opportunity to read the subsequent posts... as I've been too busy researching the questionable post of mine a little better.

 

One thing for sure... no beliefs in regards to spiritual insights are worth a personal friendship! That would be a silly thing to happen.

 

Hey... it's not important to me... really. What is important is where someone is, not how they got there, IMO. I will readily admit that the common perception of these teachings seem to be imposing just about the worst behavioral outcomes in the majority of those that claim its 'truth'. I just hope I interpret it by a different method, which you're right... it is very time consuming, but hey... I like ALL these spiritual teachers, Atheist teachers, and science too!!! You turned out really impressive Cho, however you got there!

 

And BTW, what's sim-racing?

[SkepticOfBible]

That is a horrible moral!

 

 

So do you disagree with the interpretation of Chohan? Why, what is the flaw in his analysis?

 

Incidently that story is told again in Matt 15:21-26, and the identity of the woman is different.

 

The Disturbing Ramifications Of Noah's Ark

 

The end result of this sorry episode is that Canaan and his offspring are cursed because his father Ham saw Noah naked and passed out in a drunken stupor. The offspring of Canaan, known as Canaanites, are the very people that God instructs Moses and his followers to utterly destroy as part of God's cosmic script being acted out on earth(Deut 7:1-2).

 

The effects of the curse on Canaan are present over thousands of years and vividly illustrated when Jesus himself referred to Canaanites as "dogs", and reinforces the inferior role of these people in society.

 

Matt 15:21-26

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

 

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

But he(Jesus) answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.By virtue of being a descendant of the cursed Canaan

[chohan]

One thing for sure... no beliefs in regards to spiritual insights are worth a personal friendship! That would be a silly thing to happen.

 

Thanks Amanda. I admit to being a bit relieved that you're not upset.

 

Hey... it's not important to me... really. What is important is where someone is, not how they got there, IMO. I will readily admit that the common perception of these teachings seem to be imposing just about the worst behavioral outcomes in the majority of those that claim its 'truth'.

 

You sure talk funny Amanda. Can you bring it down a level? I think you're saying that, "these teachings (biblical) result in rather naughty behavior from the majority who believe them as truths." The majority being christians. Did I get it?? How copy, over?

 

 

I just hope I interpret it by a different method, which you're right... it is very time consuming, but hey... I like ALL these spiritual teachers, Atheist teachers, and science too!!!

 

I think it's safe to assume you are definitely interpreting by a different method and are to be commended on your curiosity. Curiosity will take us a long way imo. I didn't mean the "time-sink" reference as a brush-off, it's just hey... a human only has time for so many addictions and in my past experience, forums can be very fun but very addictive.

 

You turned out really impressive Cho, however you got there!

 

Getting here was an adventure. Thank you for the compliment... and the 'cho'.

 

And BTW, what's sim-racing?

 

My other addiction:

 

http://www.gt-legends.com/home_en.php

 

I have a steering wheel, pedals /w clutch... and a wife who puts up with me. Ahh... life is good.

 

I think we wandered off topic, may the moderators have mercy.

 

cheers,

cho

[NotBlinded]

 

Chohan, I'm sorry for being so defensive. Of course everybody has a right to their own opinion and as you said, we will believe what we want to anyway. I hope I didn't offend you.

[SkepticOfBible]

I've decided to take time to be more focused on it and to research it further. I researched about every word back to it's prime root meaning from here , by just clicking on the words and clicking on their path of evolution to its prime root. This gives a more comprehensive idea of what the words meant then.

 

Hey Amanda,

 

Please excuse me but I already see 3 flaws in your "research"

 

1)You are asserting that the various translation of the bible that we have today have certain bias(both theological and semantic). I agree to some extent with that assertion. However what makes you think you are immune from the same bias?

You are already going with priori assumption that this teaching of Jesus has be consistant, and off course you will find what you are looking for. Look at what you are doing, you are trying to sugar coat the whole issue by saying well this word doesn't have to mean that but it could mean something else.

 

But tell me how your approach that different than any other inerrantist?

 

And if you think that God inspired the NT, then it seems that this god is incompetant because he seems to need a army of translators to actually explain to the masses what he really means.

 

2)You assume that the copies of the original manuscript you are referring to are inerrant. There is a huge number of variation in both text and length between the manuscripts. So how do you know that the choice you made is perfect?

 

3)The last assumption you are making is that the original writers did not a have bias in their writings. That has been proven false beyond doubt, and there are various examples of that.

 

That was my 2 cents

 

Pritish

 

Links

 

Manuscript Fallacies

Is the Bible Perfect?

[chohan]

 

Chohan, I'm sorry for being so defensive. Of course everybody has a right to their own opinion and as you said, we will believe what we want to anyway. I hope I didn't offend you.

 

Not at all... I merely wanted to satisfy you as to the 'why' of my position. If I ever feel offended Sur, my second will notify your second and we shall settle the dispute at dawn via naval hangers. (Just kidding. )

 

Amanda,

 

Countless scholars have studied those fragments to give me a decent english translation. Plenty of translations as a matter of fact, so I can even compare and see if the texts state pretty much the same. I don't need to reverse engineer it back to the greek, thereby undoing all their hard work. And why? Just so I can re-write the passage into a new-improved, paraphrased, amplified version that has meaning that satisfies me? Yes, I like to research the occassional Greek or Hebrew word but in my view... a dog is a dog.

 

Btw, "of all the synoptic manuscripts which can be dated to the fourth century or earlier, only two (P45and P75, both of the third century) contain more than a chapter." G. A. Wells

 

Something to consider.

 

cheers,

cho

[Antlerman]

Amanda,

 

Countless scholars have studied those fragments to give me a decent english translation. Plenty of translations as a matter of fact, so I can even compare and see if the texts state pretty much the same. I don't need to reverse engineer it back to the greek, thereby undoing all their hard work. And why? Just so I can re-write the passage into a new-improved, paraphrased, amplified version that has meaning that satisfies me? Yes, I like to research the occassional Greek or Hebrew word but in my view... a dog is a dog.

 

Btw, "of all the synoptic manuscripts which can be dated to the fourth century or earlier, only two (P45and P75, both of the third century) contain more than a chapter." G. A. Wells

 

Something to consider.

 

cheers,

cho

Greetings Cho,

 

I'm going to jump in here for a brief post and say I agree with your approach to biblical hermeneutics. On the one hand there is the "spiritual" nature of biblical passages, and on the other you have to deal with literary criticism with the same critique as you do any piece of ancient literature. We can't merely pull words out of context to fit the "hidden" meaning we may be seeing words. Using the original language to find justifications must be tested through a system of checks and balances. Faith and reason need to coexist, not co-opt each other, IMO.

 

Everything in my experience with hermeneutics demands word usage be taken in the context of the passage, other writings by the same author, use of external contemporary authors, etc. Exegesis can never be done on an island. Simply claiming some hidden mystical meaning that jumps completely out of any contexts, in many if not most cases sets itself against all accepted methods of determining knowledge. I see it as almost on the same level as the Creationists bypassing and defying any sort of rational method as they come to their conclusions on the age of the earth.

 

I seem to be hearing sometimes by those who don't accept the bible as literal, that the whole thing is metaphors and contains "hidden" meanings. This assumes the Bible was divinely guided in it's evolution as a collection of edited and modified writings of various individuals. It assumes an underlying divine purpose or intention in it's existance! The contractions of the Bible are far easier to see as just that, rather than some mystery which can be unlocked with the keys of some secret knowledge of special word meanings or numerical significances.

 

This is not meant to kill to spiritual content of various passages. Men wrote these at some point as they have elsewhere in other sacred texts. We all have a thirst for some sort of ultimate meaning, and these are ideas of common desire, therefore meaningful. But they are not mystical words. They are human words. My approach, if I were to go there again, would be study the most reasonable understanding of what was being said, then either choose that it has some meaning that speaks to me, or understand it as something they believed that was part of their culture, for right or for wrong, and not accept it as anything that has relevance or meaning to me personally. I would then appreciate it as a look at the mindset of an ancient culture as an anthropological curiosity. I would not try to redifine the language, or destroy contexts in order to make it work into how may want to see things.

[Amanda]

Hello Pritishd, Cho, and Antlerman...

 

May I say, if I take these teachings literally and superficially... they don't make sense to me. IMO, the process of seeking the understanding is the process by which there is inner transformation. As I think it is with much Buddhist and other spiritual teachings too.

 

Maybe I'm delusional, however... studying it the way I do has imparted revelations in my life that have helped me. Whatever I am doing, I can't deny that. Can this method help someone else? IDK. I did not invent this method, it was taught to me. I'm sure it's not for everyone.

 

IMO, I feel I can challenge those who translated the Bible, for its meaning in my own life. Yes, they probably were biased when they translated it, and I probably include my biases too. I enjoy when people point those out to me in a constructive way. Further, I am in no way interested in writing a new sacred text of any kind, nor feel capable of such. If everyone chooses to call me crazy, fine with me... I still like you all anyway. Am I promoting to read these teachings in a new way? Absolutely not, just informing you all how I arrived to these insights I share.

 

Can I learn from you all? I think so, and have very much so in the past. It seems you all have reached a wonderful place, and this site has shared perspectives that IMO contrubuted to a more clear view for me. I sincerely appreciate those insights, and feel it has enriched my life. If you think I have nothing to offer... I appreciate it that those on here seem to tolerate me anyway.

 

What else can I say?

[All Gods Fail]

I seem to be hearing sometimes by those who don't accept the bible as literal, that the whole thing is metaphors and contains "hidden" meanings. This assumes the Bible was divinely guided in it's evolution as a collection of edited and modified writings of various individuals. It assumes an underlying divine purpose or intention in it's existance! The contractions of the Bible are far easier to see as just that, rather than some mystery which can be unlocked with the keys of some secret knowledge of special word meanings or numerical significances.

 

Thank you Antlerman!

 

This is exactly with what I find wrong about 'mystical' interpretations of Genesis/the bible. The bible, whether literal, metaphorical, etc. either was or wasn't divinely inspired. The many contradictions and mistakes, taken in context as you mention, certainly points to imperfect man as the author.

 

Nicely expressed!

[chohan]

Greetings Cho,

 

I'm going to jump in here...

 

 

Hello Antlerman,

 

I'm glad you did, you expressed your views in way that comes difficult to me but it sums up my feelings on the issue far better than I can myself.

 

cheers,

cho

[Antlerman]

I seem to be hearing sometimes by those who don't accept the bible as literal, that the whole thing is metaphors and contains "hidden" meanings. This assumes the Bible was divinely guided in it's evolution as a collection of edited and modified writings of various individuals. It assumes an underlying divine purpose or intention in it's existance! The contractions of the Bible are far easier to see as just that, rather than some mystery which can be unlocked with the keys of some secret knowledge of special word meanings or numerical significances.

 

Thank you Antlerman!

 

This is exactly with what I find wrong about 'mystical' interpretations of Genesis/the bible. The bible, whether literal, metaphorical, etc. either was or wasn't divinely inspired. The many contradictions and mistakes, taken in context as you mention, certainly points to imperfect man as the author.

 

Nicely expressed!

Other than I misspelled "contradictions" as "contractions", thanks

 

I feel I need to further qualify my challenge I made to this approach. When I speak of "divine intent", I do not mean to throw out the baby with the bath water. "Divine Inspiration" is a term that some could use to speak of those qualities of the human spirit expressing thoughts and ideas that transcend the mundane, or temporal. The same is intended in the use of the word "sacred". It means those things which are transcendent in nature. I may speak of the "divine" in this same sense, but it would have nothing to do with a white-bearded deity on a throne in heaven, or even some celestial soup deity with a willful purpose or intent towards man.

 

The Bible does contain "the word of God", in the sense that "God" is that divine ideal, that transcendent desire of human beings that we personify or hang the sign "God" on to expresses our notions of the "sacred". So reading the Bible, when "Jesus" says, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself", is this meaningless?

 

I am an atheist, and I say it is not meaningless. It does have great spiritual value. But the approach I would take to glean value from it, would not be not find a secret meaning to the words to avoid the literal or traditional teachings, but to simply understand first, contextually what idea, what principle it's original authors were actually trying to convey. Then secondly, philosophically that what the idea of God was/is all about from the human notions of it, and take it to say that their ideas of the fulfillment of a spiritual life centers around two basic connected principle: To set your mind upon the sacred (to transcend one's thoughts outside the mundane cares of everyday life to focus your energies towards the ideals of love, peace, hope, etc). Secondly, from that higher thought and emotional mindset (spiritual mindset), let your actions then flow outward to others, through the ideal of love. "Love works no ill". If you love others, you will not steal from them, harm them, maliciously deceive them, etc. Love is the fulfillment of all the principles of the Bible. "Jesus" "said", "On these two laws (or I would call them principles and approaches), hang the Law and the Prophets (the entirety of their Bible of their day).

 

This is something that is spiritual and I feel reasonable and well founded. My intention is not to hurt or dismiss others by challenging methodologies. This is about an exchange of ideas. I see potential flaws in that particular approach that I see as ultimately being less helpful, but I may be overstating the point. But certainly I do agree that the pursuit of the question of meaning is one that we all grow from. In the end, there is no "truth" but the answer of no real answer. I always fear the potential effect of speaking my thoughts, and would feel horrible if it actually harmed or discouraged anyone. But I believe it was Cho who made the valid point that we shouldn't let our feelings about someone personally prevent the exchange of ideas in this venue (something to that effect). I do respect the pursuit of these ideals, even though I differ in my thoughts about it.

 

I have had gone down different roads that I discovered went askew, down a road with sparse fruit, but ultimately it all becomes part of forming our spiritual mind. The one "approach" if you can call it that, which I would fight to destroy for all mankind, would be that of fundamentalism - because it is not about the pursuit of understanding. It is not even a religious system. There is no system at all. It is taking the easy way out in finding "the answer", and it bears no spiritual fruit whatsoever. It is death: death of mind, and death of spirit. (You tell my biggest gripe, no? )

[All Gods Fail]

I have had gone down different roads that I discovered went askew, down a road with sparse fruit, but ultimately it all becomes part of forming our spiritual mind. The one "approach" if you can call it that, which I would fight to destroy for all mankind, would be that of fundamentalism - because it is not about the pursuit of understanding. It is not even a religious system. There is no system at all. It is taking the easy way out in finding "the answer", and it bears no spiritual fruit whatsoever. It is death: death of mind, and death of spirit. (You tell my biggest gripe, no? )

 

I agree 110%!

 

Antlerman, you're 10x the 'sage' that Ssel ever thought he was!

 

This is the kind of spirituality we all need. Humanity is poisoned by fundamentalism of any kind, where thinking is simply a knee-jerk reaction based on simplistic dogma.

[NotBlinded]

I seem to be hearing sometimes by those who don't accept the bible as literal, that the whole thing is metaphors and contains "hidden" meanings. This assumes the Bible was divinely guided in it's evolution as a collection of edited and modified writings of various individuals. It assumes an underlying divine purpose or intention in it's existance! The contractions of the Bible are far easier to see as just that, rather than some mystery which can be unlocked with the keys of some secret knowledge of special word meanings or numerical significances.

If I may, Antlerman,

 

I make no assumptions about the bible being divinely guided at all. As far as I can tell, mystery schools did exist and the reason they felt it necessary was because of the 'understood' power the message could bring about. It is said that Moses was an initiate in one of those schools in Egypt.

 

This is true in the Toltec tradition also. One initiate used the power (knowing how to manipulate people) to do bad things so they hid the meanings. This was in Mexico (I believe).

 

I agree that it is far easier to see the contradictions as just that...they didn't dedicate entire schools for the simplicity of it.

 

As Don Miguel Ruiz states when he took the tradition and sought the meaning: "Get rid of the non-sense and keep the common sense."

 

The Bible does contain "the word of God", in the sense that "God" is that divine ideal, that transcendent desire of human beings that we personify or hang the sign "God" on to expresses our notions of the "sacred". So reading the Bible, when "Jesus" says, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself", is this meaningless?

I just want to point out a little something with that passage. Notice it does not say to love your neighbor as you love yourself. It says to love your neighbor AS yourself. The meaning here, IMO, is to know that you and your neighbor are one. Just a little hidden message.

[Antlerman]

If I may, Antlerman,

 

I make no assumptions about the bible being divinely guided at all. As far as I can tell, mystery schools did exist and the reason they felt it necessary was because of the 'understood' power the message could bring about. It is said that Moses was an initiate in one of those schools in Egypt.

 

This is true in the Toltec tradition also. One initiate used the power (knowing how to manipulate people) to do bad things so they hid the meanings. This was in Mexico (I believe).

 

I agree that it is far easier to see the contradictions as just that...they didn't dedicate entire schools for the simplicity of it.

 

As Don Miguel Ruiz states when he took the tradition and sought the meaning: "Get rid of the non-sense and keep the common sense."

 

The Bible does contain "the word of God", in the sense that "God" is that divine ideal, that transcendent desire of human beings that we personify or hang the sign "God" on to expresses our notions of the "sacred". So reading the Bible, when "Jesus" says, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself", is this meaningless?

I just want to point out a little something with that passage. Notice it does not say to love your neighbor as you love yourself. It says to love your neighbor AS yourself. The meaning here, IMO, is to know that you and your neighbor are one. Just a little hidden message.

Alright then, I'm going to ask you for some clarification to help my understanding of this approach. At the outset, I am basing my thoughts about this from my perception of what I hear and what I've seen. I may no doubt be lacking some understanding that might alter my feelings about it, and so will ask you for some clarification, and to possibly address my challenges I may bring up.

 

First off, I certainly do respect you and feel a mutual appreciation with you in that we both share the pursuit of meaning and higher ideals. We may differ in method (I have none), or ways of looking at things, but that does not diminish that common spirit.

 

You comment at the end of your reply points out the word choice to possibly mean that you and your neighbor are one. First of all, even if this tested out to be the best reading of it, I would not consider that a "hidden" meaning. It's just simply clarifying contextually the correct emphasis as best we can of the author's original intentions in word choices. This is scholarship, not mysticism. Even within our own native languages, a simple emphasis of a word can completely alter the meaning. But linguistics is not mysticism.

 

The other night I asked my partner when we were at a stop sign if I should turn left, and she answered "right", to which I mistakenly changed direction! I then commented how great it would be if we only had one word for every single idea. She laughed at how overwhelmingly large the language would be if we actually did that. Understanding language and especially reading ancient literature from a time and culture far removed from us is a science, not a meditation, IMO.

 

I see people doing all sorts of mystical word plays with languages that when held up to scholarship cannot pass the test. If at that point, someone still feels the meaning is understood outside that, now we're ignoring rational thought in pursuit of a spiritual understanding. I believe that to do that, is to do a disservice to our spirit. The reason why I see it that way is that we are not one or the other, rational or spiritual, we are both, and I believe that to be a whole person, both must be satisfied. Those that are purely rational and ignore the greater ideals such as the question of finding meaning, IMO, and personally speaking from experience, missing the joy of being alive.

 

So I guess then, my question to you would be do you believe that if a reading is based on a complete disregard of scholarship that we should still try to understand it that way because we find it speaks to us emotionally or spiritually? Should we hold up a reading to the light of rational sholarship?

 

I do understand that emotional or spiritual understandings are on a different plane that rational thought, but my concerns are that the methods actually create a divorce of our own humanity. I don't believe that divorce is necessary.

 

Me thinks, my next lengthy discussion will be with you!

[NotBlinded]

Alright then, I'm going to ask you for some clarification to help my understanding of this approach. At the outset, I am basing my thoughts about this from my perception of what I hear and what I've seen. I may no doubt be lacking some understanding that might alter my feelings about it, and so will ask you for some clarification, and to possibly address my challenges I may bring up.

 

First off, I certainly do respect you and feel a mutual appreciation with you in that we both share the pursuit of meaning and higher ideals. We may differ in method (I have none), or ways of looking at things, but that does not diminish that common spirit.

Back at ya!

 

I hope I haven't bitten off more than I can chew, but I'll give it go!

 

You comment at the end of your reply points out the word choice to possibly mean that you and your neighbor are one. First of all, even if this tested out to be the best reading of it, I would not consider that a "hidden" meaning. It's just simply clarifying contextually the correct emphasis as best we can of the author's original intentions in word choices. This is scholarship, not mysticism. Even within our own native languages, a simple emphasis of a word can completely alter the meaning. But linguistics is not mysticism.

Maybe it's not a hidden meaning and is at the same time. A meaning that cannot be grasped on the surface. Since the understanding of god must transcend physical reality, it can only be understood by a knowing that the words point to. Not the words themselves. When we take a literal reading of that verse, we understand it to mean that we should love others the way that we love ourselves which creates a division of you and me. A division, IMO, was not what was being spoke about. When taking the words for pointers (or in a mystical sense), we can understand that it is pointing to something transcendent of what our minds can understand by knowledge alone. It says that no one is separate from anything...we (everything) are all one. So, love your neighbor as yourself because you and your neighbor are one. It speaks to the 'soul' of the person, not the mind and when the soul of the person is understood to be 'god within us' or 'we are one', it is understood in a whole different light. So, whether this was a purposeful intent or whether it is a natural effect of speaking to what the mind cannot 'know', I don't know. I think it was both, IMO, because I feel many people thought that when one understood the mystic meanings, power could be obtained. Or, maybe, they didn't reveal the meanings because of this thought, not that they purposefully made them obscure. Hmmmm...a new thought for me!

 

The other night I asked my partner when we were at a stop sign if I should turn left, and she answered "right", to which I mistakenly changed direction! I then commented how great it would be if we only had one word for every single idea. She laughed at how overwhelmingly large the language would be if we actually did that. Understanding language and especially reading ancient literature from a time and culture far removed from us is a science, not a meditation, IMO.

It is both, IMO. When the literature is of a spiritual nature, I don't think science can do it justice by analyzing the words themselves. They are just the pointers, not the meaning. This is removing an element that was originally intended.

 

I see people doing all sorts of mystical word plays with languages that when held up to scholarship cannot pass the test. If at that point, someone still feels the meaning is understood outside that, now we're ignoring rational thought in pursuit of a spiritual understanding. I believe that to do that, is to do a disservice to our spirit. The reason why I see it that way is that we are not one or the other, rational or spiritual, we are both, and I believe that to be a whole person, both must be satisfied. Those that are purely rational and ignore the greater ideals such as the question of finding meaning, IMO, and personally speaking from experience, missing the joy of being alive.

I don't think we differ that much Antlerman! What scholarship is doing the testing may I ask? I think what does a disservice to our spirit is doing just what you mention. So I agree that both must be satisfied, but what is there for us to judge that we 'know' that it is not rational? Maybe we just don't understand what the word is pointing to yet or maybe it is total bunk. It must be common sense when understood, not non-sense such as a literal talking donkey! If it appears as non-sense, I would think that there must be something else that was meant. If there is nothing that that could possibly mean, then I would say it is non-sense. But, when read with this understanding in mind, it is possible for it to make perfect sense. (I don't know about the talking donkey, so don't ask! )

 

So I guess then, my question to you would be do you believe that if a reading is based on a complete disregard of scholarship that we should still try to understand it that way because we find it speaks to us emotionally or spiritually? Should we hold up a reading to the light of rational sholarship?

I can only say it matters who is doing the tests and what is being tested. So I guess my answer would be yes. If it speaks to us as more than words and it addresses something that is spritual in nature (pun intended!) then it has meaning. Now, I am not saying that one can pick up any book that is not spritually related and try to understand it in a spritual nature. It must be one that is directly dealing with the spirtual nature of humankind. It's 'hidden' meaning is a natural side-effect of using forms (words) to speak of the formless (god). I don't think god guided anyone to write about 'It'; people just used the only method of communication they have to speak of something that can't be described.

 

I do understand that emotional or spiritual understandings are on a different plane that rational thought, but my concerns are that the methods actually create a divorce of our own humanity. I don't believe that divorce is necessary.

Well crap! Why did I just write all that stuff? Just kiddin! I don't think it is divorcing our humanity. I think it is perfectly rational to understand the effect of using words to convey a different plane.

 

Me thinks, my next lengthy discussion will be with you!

Don't hurt me too bad!

[Antlerman]

Maybe it's not a hidden meaning and is at the same time. A meaning that cannot be grasped on the surface. Since the understanding of god must transcend physical reality, it can only be understood by a knowing that the words point to. Not the words themselves. When we take a literal reading of that verse, we understand it to mean that we should love others the way that we love ourselves which creates a division of you and me. A division, IMO, was not what was being spoke about. When taking the words for pointers (or in a mystical sense), we can understand that it is pointing to something transcendent of what our minds can understand by knowledge alone

I’m not finding any real problem for myself with the ideas of what you’re saying. I’ve been suspecting it’s a matter of terminology and that’s what I’m hoping this discussion will flesh out for me. I don’t like having unnecessary road blocks getting in the way of hearing what someone may be saying. Plus it may also help both of us in communicating our thoughts better to others.

 

To offer a couple thoughts to the above: What we are really talking about here is dealt in the study of Semiotics. Various Semioticians have different theories of how language works, but it’s essentially examining how words become signs, and how signs become myth, and how we derive meaning from language.

 

When someone speaks of a sign, it is broken down into two components: Signifier and Signified. The “signifier” would be for instance, “a rose”. The “signified” is the idea of “love”. The signifier plus the signified equals a “sign”. The rose caries the idea of love, though it has nothing to do with a rose’s essential nature. A rose is a sign of love. Next, if you take a sign, and add another signifier to it, you move into the beginning of myth, where the original meanings of words as signs begin to be tossed into a huge morass of meanings that are difficult to separate.

 

Here’s a brief blurb I was just reading that might add some light to the discussion:

 

The interpretation process in the receiver's mind may attribute meanings completely different to those intended by the senders. Why might this happen? Neither the sender nor the receiver of a text has a perfect grasp of all language. Each individual's relatively small stock of knowledge is the product of personal experience and their attitude to learning. When the audience receives the message, there will always be an excess of connotational meanings available to be applied to the particular signs in their context (no matter how relatively complete or incomplete their knowledge, the cognitive process is the same). The first stage in understanding the message is, therefore, to suspend or defer judgement until more information becomes available. At some point, the individual receiver decides which of all the possible meanings represents the best possible "fit". Sometimes, uncertainty may not be resolved so meaning is indefinitely deferred, or a provisional or approximate meaning is allocated. More often, the receiver's desire for closure (see Gestalt psychology) leads to simple meanings being attributed out of prejudices and without reference to the sender's intentions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28semiotics%29

So… you see there really is in a way as you say a “mystical” understanding of words, but I would call that more just the nature of language. In dealing with concepts such as God or Love, we are dealing with emotional experience that is best accessed using language through the use of signs. Best example: poetry. It is not the words; it is the rhythm, meter, connotations, etc. Poetry is best understood through experience, not analysis. I would say the same of music, but we’re speaking of spoken or written words here. However, having an understanding of its construction or the history and meanings of the words used can deepen one’s experience of it.

 

But again my point in all of this, I take care not to take the nature of the complexity of communication in human experience and deify it. I have a knee-jerk reaction to terms like “hidden meaning” in a mystical context. It smacks of mystery religions, seeking the knowledge their god had deliberately masked from the world through various esoteric “keys”. There’s just way too much baggage that comes along with that system that I feel sends people off on ultimately distracting paths.

 

What I’m hearing you really saying is you’re seeking a deeper experience of its message. You are seeking greater “meaning”. Maybe it’s just the word choice that’s the problem.

 

I don't think we differ that much Antlerman! What scholarship is doing the testing may I ask? I think what does a disservice to our spirit is doing just what you mention. So I agree that both must be satisfied, but what is there for us to judge that we 'know' that it is not rational? Maybe we just don't understand what the word is pointing to yet or maybe it is total bunk. It must be common sense when understood, not non-sense such as a literal talking donkey! If it appears as non-sense, I would think that there must be something else that was meant. If there is nothing that that could possibly mean, then I would say it is non-sense. But, when read with this understanding in mind, it is possible for it to make perfect sense. (I don't know about the talking donkey, so don't ask! )

I really do think that we are talking much the same thing here as you say. What you say above is in fact what we do need to do in approaching anything in any form of communication. We have to step back and try to strip off all the accumulated baggage of cultural connotations and prejudices, and try to understand the best we can contextually and culturally the meaning of the words. The donkey example, I would try to see if there was any sort of contemporary sign of talking donkeys in other literature, etc. and see if they are using it as a “metaphor” so to speak (give the benefit of the doubt that they may have had a serious intention), then if nothing else added up, put in into a category of tall tales to tell the story of a hero figure – like Jesus walking on water.

 

 

Me thinks, my next lengthy discussion will be with you!

Don't hurt me too bad!

See... I was nice to you, wasn’t I?