...
== A perfectly spherical moving object still has a back, which is the part of it which happens to be at the back
But how do you presume to speak of a "back" if it is not discernable?
== well, I'm sure what you mean but I can't describe it without using words like "back" because that is the standard way that language describes such things.
Again, it makes no sense for Moses to refer to the backparts of an object unless he can visualyl discern which parts represent his backparts and which side represents the "face." You say God has backparts, but you cannot explain how they would be discerned except through a retreating movement. This does not logically follow at all because God, even if He is some glob of spherical light, could be facing us while moving backwards. ...
== Why should a literal face kill anyone? This is clearly some kind of metaphor or extended meaning, because literally seeing a face cannot be fatal.
Surely you're not serious. By this logic, why would the ark of the covenant kill anyone? Arks don't kill people. So was it not REALLY an ark?
== This is not hypothesis, this is established fact!
That backparts are metaphor? If this is true, then you should have no problem reconciling the logical dilemma presented above. Your car analogy only made my point, I think.
phrases like HLK )AXAR are commonly used, in both literal (e.g. Ruth 2:9) and metaphorical (e.g. Gen 41:30, Ex 23:2, Deut 13:3,5 (English vv.2,4)) senses. Years don't have backs either (Gen 41:30), but they do have an )AXAR which can be followed. So do gods, and God ...
== If you disagree, please explain to me how you interpret the verses above. Try this plain reading of the text: "And he shall slaughter the young bull to the face of YHWH" (Leviticus 1:5) etc etc. Is the face of YHWH inside the tabernacle?
According to Ancient Jewish tradition, Yahweh's entire human form was present in the Holy of Holies. This included his face.
== If so, why isn't the offerer killed?
Because he didn't look at his face. I fail to see where you're going with this. Surely you're not saying a person cannot be present before God's face without actually looking at His face. This is precisely how Moses' experience is described.
== The example Van Leeuwen quoted is from the 10th dynasty "Instruction Addressed to King Merikare", quoted from Lichtheim, AEL 1:106. Here is an extract: "Well tended is mankind - god's cattle... They are his images, who came from his body..."
Thanks for that. Yes, this is the same reference cited by Westermann and Clines. Since Van Leeuwen was using Clines, I hope he at least mentioned the fact that Clines said this: "It would be tempting to regard it as an example of 'democratization' in the circles of wisdom-teaching, were it not for the fact that this text comes from a time several centuries earlier than the regular use of 'image of God' for the king. There is not likely to be any direct relationship between this isolated reference to humankind as the image of God and the biblical text."
== Well, when is their "eventually"? I would accept that this was popular belief - indeed it still is now, for people think of God as an old man sitting on a cloud. But I still see a sign of that old racism in the conclusion that it was not the original official religion, a suggestion that somehow such things could not be understood in earlier times.
Well, for the sake of avoiding racism, allow me to clarify my argument: such things were not understood in earlier times. Whether they "could be so understood" is a meaningless sidebar.
== Well, I haven't seen any which cannot be explained this way, although of course many are somewhat ambiguous. Walking eyes, fatal faces etc: this is the stuff of metaphor, or of extended non-literal senses of words.
But if this were the obvious explanation for the majority, they never would have bothered deleting them; especially given the sacred nature of written scripture. Changing it was to be a last resort.
...
== Who says it was a giant chair?
The Bible.
...
You should probably take it up with Mark Smith. He's a leading expert in this area.
Meanwhile, you still haven't justified metaphor for the use of "form." As in, βI shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy form.β( Psalms 17:15), and βHe beholds the form of the Lord.β (Numbers 12:8)
== This is nonsense. The expression "face to face" is used in English with non-literal senses, such as "Face to face with chronic disease"
Am I supposed to be disagreeing with this? Last time I checked, we're talking about biblical Hebrew. Showing me what it sometimes means in English says virtually nothing about what it "could" mean in Hebrew, let alone what it "most likely" means.
== And very likely its Hebrew equivalent could be.
And why is it "likely"?
== Would you argue from this expression that chronic disease has a face, or that if it does not it implies that the person who comes face to face with it doesn't have a face either?
See, you're doing it again (grin). You say you're not arguing that an example of metaphor proves all examples are metaphorical, but in your arguments you proceed in this fashion. One might as well insist two people having a "heart to heart" talk, don't have hearts.
== "Eye", `ayin, can also refer to inanimate objects. Even if we leave aside the meaning "spring", the earth has one (Exodus 10:5), manna and bdellium have them (Numbers 7:7), a fire has one (Ezekiel 1:4), wine has one (Proverbs 23:31). More to the immediate point, `ayin commonly means "opinion" or "knowledge", and has many other non-literal uses. `ayin be`ayin is not a very common phrase, but in Isaiah 52:8 it is probably metaphorical rather than suggesting that the watchmen will themselves see YHWH.
The word "eye" isn't the issue. The phrase "eye to eye" however, is the issue. Just because "eye" means certain things in various contexts doesn't say anything about the phrase "eye to eye." Can you show me where this phrase is used with inanimate objects which do not have eyes? You seem to be playing a game of mix and match. This is like saying, "keep your eye on the ball" doesn't refer to human eyes because "eye" is also used in other expressions such as "eye of the storm," wich clearly refers different.
I'm out of time. I didn't see anything left in your post that I really disagree with so I'll stop here.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.