deut 14:21 you shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner.
for you are a people consecrated to yhwh.... it seems quite self evident the ritual of blood letting prior to eating meat was understood by the deuteronomist as binding only on jews..
Deut 14:21 You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people consecrated to YHWH...
It seems quite self evident the ritual of blood letting prior to eating meat was understood by the Deuteronomist as binding only on Jews.
"you must not boil a kid in its mother's milk" - huh?
why on earth did god feel the need to point this out?
was this a popular thing to do?
Thought I'd share this explanation suggests by a Rabbi centuries ago. First, the prohibition of boiling kid in mothers milk is repeated three times:
Exod 23:18 You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened; and the fat of My festal offering shall not be left lying until morning. 23:19 The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of YHWH your God.You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk(
(a doublet at ) Exod 34:25 You shall not offer the blood of My sacrifice with anything leavened; and the sacrifice of the Feast of Passover shall not be left lying until morning. 34:26 The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of YHWH your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.
and the Deuternonymists revision at Deut 14:21 You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people consecrated to YHWH your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.
In the Exodus context the emphasis is upon the notion of proper sacrifices, specifically not delaying sacrifice until the full crop has come in while the later Deuteronomist interprets the phrase as being a food prohibition.
R. Joseph ben Isaac Bekhor Shor (12th cent.) Sees the issue as a matter of mistranslation by the Deuteronomist himself.
He writes:
According to the plain meaning, the term “bishul” here means grow or complete, similar to its use [in the verse (Gen. 40:10)]: “its clusters ripened (הבשילו) into grapes.” This is what the verse is saying: do not allow [the kid] to grow up and be weaned from its mothers milk. [In other words, do not] wait until [the kid]’s mother grows it with her milk, rather bring it at the beginning. This fits with the context of the first part of the verse, “the choice first fruits of your soil [you shall bring].”
While, as was mentioned in this thread, there MAY have been some specific ritual in mind, this explanation certainly sounds persuasive.
proverbs 26:4. do not answer a fool according to his folly,.
proverbs 26:5. answer a fool as his folly deserves,.
that he not be wise in his own eyes.
Well, I'm glad someone found something to contemplate. Contradiction wasn't really the point of the thread but rather whether to engage with people who are not open to disproof. This collection of sayings (Proverbs) from countless anonymous authors is probably one of my favorite parts of the Bible precisely because it represents many ancient viewpoints.
Simon, ..............Margaret Keane eyes.
How the ending of the new film set with you?
proverbs 26:4. do not answer a fool according to his folly,.
proverbs 26:5. answer a fool as his folly deserves,.
that he not be wise in his own eyes.
The proverbs are not "my" proverbs they are a set of contradicting proverbs posted here to stimulate constructive discussion. And yes you are right many times the person convinced his opponent is being the fool is in fact not only mistaken but being belligerent about it.
Anna Marina, made a logical comment that she felt addressed the topic. You are free to think it is a waste of time.
How the ending of the new film set with you?
proverbs 26:4. do not answer a fool according to his folly,.
proverbs 26:5. answer a fool as his folly deserves,.
that he not be wise in his own eyes.
First it must be noted that Simon does not engage in spiteful and foolish talk, he has a bit of a self righteous moment in his heart. So not really a good example of what what we are discussing.
But ultimately your comment was, that its good to respond to "fools" if we don't have the same attitude? Is that likely to work? We don't have the benefit of having readers ponder the wisdom of the witty response. Or is that the motivation. We engage fools in debate hoping third parties are moved by our arguments.
proverbs 26:4. do not answer a fool according to his folly,.
proverbs 26:5. answer a fool as his folly deserves,.
that he not be wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
OR
Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes
Doesn't one of these ancient proverbs encourage engaging in debates with those unwilling to be persuaded and at the same time the other say doing so will only drag you down with them?
Please, use self control, no divisive topics be posted, Only discuss the value of, or lack of value of discussions with someone unable to see another position.
i find it astonishing that humanlike feet could have existed that long ago.
i wonder if some non-human upright ape might have had that kind of feet that long ago.
see https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/humanlike-footprints-in-crete-dated-to-6-million-years-muddle-archaeologists-1.10301706 and https://scitechdaily.com/oldest-footprints-of-pre-humans-identified-in-crete-six-million-years-old/ .
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. (1987) -- Carl Sagan
