Hebrew civilization

[demokratickid]

Rabid Veggie-Umm... I'm Catholic so ya I've read the bible. I ask you what the Churches position on the creation story until only recently. They stated the Earth was created in seven days until science proved otherwise. They then said that the seven days could mean a different amount of time. Evolution is another example of this which was proven by Darwin and fought by the church and eventually Adam and Eve were changed. I did not say that those that believe in the bible are stupid, I said those that take each story literally and refuse to look at the deeper meaning are stupid. I think the Bible has many good lessons but if you begin thinking that somehow the first humans Adam and Eve actually ate from Forbidden fruit and were cast out where they proceeded to have two sons, one killing the other being the first man well... That doesn't make a lot of sense. Also I believe the Papacy is a corrupt governing body which have become too inflexible and are killing off the faith. I don't remember anywhere in the Bible saying that God would select a divine individual to lead the church through time. Pope John Paul II is one of the few good Popes not corrupted by their power.

Does that clarify my position?

Thank you for clarifying your position. Sometimes, I go off my rocker on misinterpereted things like that. I see your point now. I have an intolerance for intolerant people, so I naively assumed you were one as well. I agree with what you said on John Paul II. Thank you again for clarifing your position.
Most Apolegetically,
demokratickid

 

[rabidveggie]

no problem what I said earlier could easily have been misinterpreted to an anti religious sentiment.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Cu Chulainn- of course there were no giants slain. The bible's measuring system is different and often times confusing. Golaith was inbetween 6'6" and 7'6" tall. It sounds tall today, but then it would have been gargantuan, a veritable 'giant.' Their perspective was very different from our own, and, therefore, that's how we incorretly assume he is a GIANT, not a giant. (If you follow...)

back then 5 and a half feet was pretty huge. most people were about 4'10" or something like that.

 

[yewsef]

I believe you misunderstand me. Existed? Absolutely. Slew giants with slings? Probably not so much. Egypt had a great many Pharaohs. That there's one that appears to have drowned is highly circumstantial evidence and is rather irrelevant seeing how the large amount of magic in Exodus makes it nearly completely untenable. If the writers are willing to fudge big things, then they certainly will mess with the more mundane details.

Do you people actually understand it like that? WOW That's one big example of how TRANSLATION is MESSED up big time. GIANT? LOL OH MY GOD!

Did you just say GIANT?

This is SO funny. Let me explain. There IS a tribe called Amaleeq. Amaleeq if translated literally would be "Giants" they are NOT giants however, that's there "name". LOL.

Jalut was a Giant. Which means, from the Tribe Giants. He was not a "Giant" literally. That's what I know from what I've heard. I'm not sure if the Bible "insist" them to be really Giants. What I know since I'm from the Middle East and I know this story is very famous here. That tribe is well recognized, the Amaleeq. Which if translated it means Giants. Which is just a name, like Lions, Eagles, Dragons..etc

It has been said that David killed Jalut with a sling. What's odd with that? do people get shot with guns now? they do. People used to be killed by slings back then. I don't see anything out of ordinary.

Giant.. LOL


Edit: Jalut is recognized as Golaith in the English language I think.

 

[yewsef]

The Pharaoh who chased the Hebrews did not drown, G-d permitted him to live and return to tell the tale so that the Egyptians would know that G-d really existed and was more powerful than the Egyptian idols.

I believe he did die in the sea but his "body" survived, found by the Egyptians, and was buried.

 

[yewsef]

Umm... I'm Catholic so ya I've read the bible. I ask you what the Churches position on the creation story until only recently. They stated the Earth was created in seven days until science proved otherwise. They then said that the seven days could mean a different amount of time. Evolution is another example of this which was proven by Darwin and fought by the church and eventually Adam and Eve were changed. I did not say that those that believe in the bible are stupid, I said those that take each story literally and refuse to look at the deeper meaning are stupid. I think the Bible has many good lessons but if you begin thinking that somehow the first humans Adam and Eve actually ate from Forbidden fruit and were cast out where they proceeded to have two sons, one killing the other being the first man well... That doesn't make a lot of sense. Also I believe the Papacy is a corrupt governing body which have become too inflexible and are killing off the faith. I don't remember anywhere in the Bible saying that God would select a divine individual to lead the church through time. Pope John Paul II is one of the few good Popes not corrupted by their power.

Does that clarify my position?

It does and I agree with most of what you said. Indeed if you're not aware of how different people write things or how people recognize things hundreds of years ago. Like, the 7 days mentioned in the bible is very well known that they are not Earth days. You know, each planet has different time for a day which is the time it takes for a planet to revolve around itself. So, when God says 7 days you'd have to think of it in another prospective. 7 times the universe revolved maybe? it doesn't matter, what it matters is it has been created in 7 periods and not instantly. That's what the Bible said I assume. Not really 7 days, 24 * 7 hours.

Also, since I haven't read the bible in English. I did read it in other languages though. I'm well aware of the Amaleeq tribe that someone just mentioned. If translated literally, it means Giants. So, like someone said he thought David killed a "giant" but rather he killed a leader of people called Giants. With translation being imperfect, you'd get such some twisted meanings.

Another example, in ancient time and I think still today people commonly recognize themselves as Eyal of God. Let's look at Eyal's meaning. Eyal means to be Dependent On. It is also used by a father to his children. They are his Eyals. His children admits that they are Eyal of their Father. Which means, dependent on him. It is also a word that means Children. Not begotten children, but just Dependent people as in children. People used that term to call their children too. "Come my Eyals I'll tell you a story". So, when it's written in a holy book that we are Eyals of God. Does this mean we're Children of God? no, it means we're dependent of him. Not the Begotten Children of God but just Dependent on God. That's another Translation error that people tend to misunderstand.

 

[yewsef]

back then 5 and a half feet was pretty huge. most people were about 4'10" or something like that.

Is this sarcasm? lol

I believe people were relatively bigger in ancient times, not the opposite.

 

[LightSpectra]

I ask you what the Churches position on the creation story until only recently. They stated the Earth was created in seven days until science proved otherwise.

This is not true. The Church has never endorsed a literal seven-day creation.

They then said that the seven days could mean a different amount of time.

They've ALWAYS said this. Go back to the writings of the first Christians, and even some of the first Jewish theologians, and you'll find that many people debated whether or not Genesis is figurative -- before the scientific method, and way before evolution.

Also I believe the Papacy is a corrupt governing body which have become too inflexible and are killing off the faith. I don't remember anywhere in the Bible saying that God would select a divine individual to lead the church through time.

The Pope is truly not that powerful. Jesus assigns Peter the office of the Pope in Matthew 16:17-16:19.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

It's a Jewish thing, I think. IIRC, it's because it's forbidden to destroy or erase the name once it's been written, so they don't write it at all most of the time.

Thanks. I learn something new every day. I wish the "OMGZ GOD DUZN'T EXIST AND YU ARE ALL NOOBZORZ FOR BELIEVING IN GOD LOLZ !!!!111!!!!!ELEVENTY-ONE!!!!!111!!!!11!!!!!" people thought the same.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Do you people actually understand it like that? WOW That's one big example of how TRANSLATION is MESSED up big time. GIANT? LOL OH MY GOD!

Giant.. LOL

There is also the matter of Goliath being described as over Ten feet tall.

 

[rabidveggie]

People were certainly smaller further back in history. Also to you LightSpectra I'm fairly certain that the 7 day story was endorsed until quite recently, if by chance thats not the case the church never dissuaded that view. As for the Pope not being powerful give your head a shake. The Pope even had standing armies, influenced the crusade, has one of the largest treasuries, has a say in modern sciences course, is the the leader of millions of Catholics, and speaks to the leaders of nations. It is said that one of the leading causes to the fall of Communism was Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict's careless reading of Muslims spreading the religion by the sword lead to violence.

 

[cybrxkhan]

The Pope even had standing armies, influenced the crusade

thats why in Medieval Total War there is a "Papacy" Faction that if you piss off, that means your screwed because unless your powerful enough, everyone Catholic will hate you.

 

[yewsef]

There is also the matter of Goliath being described as over Ten feet tall.

I'm not sure if the measurements are accurate, I mean did they go to him and ask him to please stand still while we measure you? and is that an estimate of a person who studied them or is it a statement of a person who's seen this guy? and is this estimate written in the Bible, or just commentary? (am just curious)

Besides, I've seen people who are 7feet tall (odd people though) and since thausands years back people used to be taller, 8-9 tall would be a really tall guy but not a giant either.

 

[yewsef]

People were certainly smaller further back in history. Also to you LightSpectra I'm fairly certain that the 7 day story was endorsed until quite recently, if by chance thats not the case the church never dissuaded that view. As for the Pope not being powerful give your head a shake. The Pope even had standing armies, influenced the crusade, has one of the largest treasuries, has a say in modern sciences course, is the the leader of millions of Catholics, and speaks to the leaders of nations. It is said that one of the leading causes to the fall of Communism was Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict's careless reading of Muslims spreading the religion by the sword lead to violence.

What is your proof that people used to be smaller back in history? what I know based on history books a man used to be VERY tall when we study there measurements and the instruments they used. It is also genetically proven that people do get smaller but you can't notice that in hundred years rather you can notice it in thausand years differences.

 

[cybrxkhan]

the usage of the word of "Giant", actually, may have been just an overexaggeration or something to make the story sound more epic or whatever; this was a tactic often used by ancient and modern writers, even when writing on non-fiction topics.

What is your proof that people used to be smaller back in history? what I know based on history books a man used to be VERY tall when we study there measurements and the instruments they used. It is also genetically proven that people do get smaller but you can't notice that in hundred years rather you can notice it in thausand years differences.

well, from what i know, people on average used to be a bit smaller historically. if, and if, you believe in the theory of evolution, than obviously if chimps stood up they'd not be that very tall.

but, i dunno... this is a very interesting thread...

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't mean to start a long debate here, but I wish to clear up some misconceptions.

if by chance thats not the case the church never dissuaded that view.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18524

As for the Pope not being powerful give your head a shake. The Pope even had standing armies, influenced the crusade, has one of the largest treasuries, has a say in modern sciences course, is the the leader of millions of Catholics, and speaks to the leaders of nations.

(1) In the Middle Ages, government stability as an issue. Italy was comprised of several nation-states. Thus, in order to protect themselves, the Papal States needed a standing army. Even with that, they were still sacked by the Huns.

(2) "Influenced the Crusade" is misleading, since it implies he had a large deal in it. Not so. He can only call for one, but in reality, if Europe didn't want to attempt to reclaim the Holy Land, it wouldn't have.

(3) Yes, the Pope was rich in the Middle Ages. This was because a lot of the Roman treasures fell in their hands. It's not true anymore.

(4) The reason why he had a say in scientific courses because before laboratories and science companies, the only real scientific achievements came from monks.

(5) He's the leader of millions of Catholics. So what? People have disobeyed the Pope before. Henry VIII, Emperor Basil II, etc.

(6) He speaks to nation leaders, but that doesn't necessarily make him powerful.

 

[cybrxkhan]

(1) In the Middle Ages, government stability as an issue. Italy was comprised of several nation-states. Thus, in order to protect themselves, the Papal States needed a standing army. Even with that, they were still sacked by the Huns.

the Huns were before the middle ages. and anyhow, if you ever played Total War, you would know that the Papacy has great influence, and that getting a Pope of your nationality would be very very good.

(2) "Influenced the Crusade" is misleading, since it implies he had a large deal in it. Not so. He can only call for one, but in reality, if Europe didn't want to attempt to reclaim the Holy Land, it wouldn't have.

but the Pope called to the first real one, and he went around gathering support for it. if he didn't do that in the first place, than no Crusade to start with.

(5) He's the leader of millions of Catholics. So what? People have disobeyed the Pope before. Henry VIII, Emperor Basil II, etc.

in the middle ages, however, his word was almost usally taken, at least for Catholic countires. Basil II was from the eastern church, so he didn't really care, because he still would then have the support of the Pope's equivilent in the East, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Henry VIII was in the reinessance, after medieval times. and that was when the Pope's influence was starting to decline.

(6) He speaks to nation leaders, but that doesn't necessarily make him powerful.

thats only in more modern times. of course he wouldn't be as powerful internationally, because people are starting to lose faith in religion. but back in the medieval era, his word was pretty much law.


im not saying im a Catholic or a supporter of the Papacy, though.

 

[LightSpectra]

the Huns were before the middle ages.

Whoops, my mistake. I meant to imply that as soon as the Roman Empire began to decline, the Pope was very vulnerable to outside attacks, thus the Papal States needed a standing army to protect him.

and anyhow, if you ever played Total War, you would know that the Papacy has great influence, and that getting a Pope of your nationality would be very very good.

I have played Medieval II, and it's not entirely accurate. The Pope would not randomly excommunicate Catholic leaders that declared war on each other.

but the Pope called to the first real one, and he went around gathering support for it. if he didn't do that in the first place, than no Crusade to start with.

But again, it's not like Pope Urban II single-handedly engineered a continental war. Spain was eager to drive out the Moors, Byzantium was getting edgy because of the Seljuks, and all of Christendom was eager to reclaim the Holy Sepulchre. The Pope just gave the final order. Do you honestly think half of Europe would've attacked Jerusalem just because the Pope asked them?

in the middle ages, however, his word was almost usally taken, at least for Catholic countires.

Read up on your history. Loyalty to the Pope was ambiguous, lots of people disobeyed him, but only a few leaders went far enough as to start their own sect of Christianity. For example, take the Spanish inquisition.

"Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured pope Sixtus IV to agree to letting him set up an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. Sixtus VI later accused the Spanish inquisition of being overzealous, accused the monarchs for being greedy and issued a bull to stop it, but he was pressured into withdrawing the bull. On both occasions Sixtus IV went along with Ferdinand II of Aragon."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)

 

[rabidveggie]

I'm fairly certain (Though don't hold me to this) that scientists were able to measure the size of the bones of the deceased. The Papacy is still wealthy though no longer in gold. They have many priceless pieces of art stashed in their vaults or whatnot. You can't really use Medieval Total War to explain the real Popes, but it does do a fairly good job on representing the Papacy. A very good example of the Papacy's corruption was when they sold tickets to heaven to the families of the deceased.

 

[cybrxkhan]

i love these exhanges.

I have played Medieval II, and it's not entirely accurate. The Pope would not randomly excommunicate Catholic leaders that declared war on each other.

yes, the last part is true, but the Pope's word was still influential.

But again, it's not like Pope Urban II single-handedly engineered a continental war. Spain was eager to drive out the Moors, Byzantium was getting edgy because of the Seljuks, and all of Christendom was eager to reclaim the Holy Sepulchre. The Pope just gave the final order. Do you honestly think half of Europe would've attacked Jerusalem just because the Pope asked them?

Byzantium wasn't listening to the Pope by then. Europe needed the Pope to ask them. they were a bunch of idiot warlords fighting each other... then the Pope said to the people, "if you die while going to fight the muslim infidels, immediate FREE entry to heaven! no catch!"... now what peasant wouldn't like that? so then everybody just hurry over to the Holy Land. the Pope gave them an "incentive", so they were much more encouraged to do it than if their king said it.

Read up on your history. Loyalty to the Pope was ambiguous, lots of people disobeyed him, but only a few leaders went far enough as to start their own sect of Christianity. For example, take the Spanish inquisition.

"Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured pope Sixtus IV to agree to letting him set up an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. Sixtus VI later accused the Spanish inquisition of being overzealous, accused the monarchs for being greedy and issued a bull to stop it, but he was pressured into withdrawing the bull. On both occasions Sixtus IV went along with Ferdinand II of Aragon."

of course there are examples of defiance. there will always be defiance. im not saying the Pope was all powerful. but there were also examples of the opposite of what you said. for example, when the English King John pissed off the pope, the Pope ordered that all church services in England - baptisms, funerals, sin-forgiving (whatever you call it), etc. etc. etc. - would be useless and have no purpose, i.e., excommunication of England (i think thats what it was). the people of England panicked, and it was that way for a number of years. finally, the people of England were so pissed off at their king that the King had to go to Rome to beg the pope for forgiveness, which the pope gave.

another similar instance was of Frederick Barbarossa the German emperor/king or whatever. he pissed off the Pope too, who excommunicated him. Frederick had to go to the Pope's residence, in winter snow, naked, and wait there to convince the pope he still "loved" him.

if Kings would have to do crazy things for Popes, obviously they have some power.

im not saying, again, the Pope's authority was absolute and everyone followed it. but i don't think they were that weak either.


anyhow, we're going off topic... we're supposed to be arguing about hebrew civilization, not popes.