No- the Bible does not damn Witchcraft or Pagans

[Kuroiban]

Well put together. Like some of the others, I know about as much about the original Hebrew language as I do about how to milk a cow, so I can't really say much. It's a very good read at the least.

I used to work at a Chik-fil-a near a Christian college. For those of you who don't know, Chik-fil-a is a very Christan company, and many of the students from said college worked there part time. One such woman who I worked with talked about (watch me butcher some spelling kids!) Hermanutics, which is apparently the study of translating the bible "properly".

As a side note Tea, do you know anything about that? Did you take any of it into account? I honestly coudn't tell you if it is a well put together transaltion method or merely hyperbole at it's most putrid form.  

[TeaDidikai]

Kuroiban

As a side note Tea, do you know anything about that? Did you take any of it into account? I honestly coudn't tell you if it is a well put together transaltion method or merely hyperbole at it's most putrid form.

Very familiar with the study. Ananel is a delight to read in M&R.

For me, the Bible needs cultural context and accurate translation to be understood. Just like Bushido. But that's another story.  

[Kuroiban]

TeaDidikai

Kuroiban

As a side note Tea, do you know anything about that? Did you take any of it into account? I honestly coudn't tell you if it is a well put together transaltion method or merely hyperbole at it's most putrid form.

Very familiar with the study. Ananel is a delight to read in M&R.

For me, the Bible needs cultural context and accurate translation to be understood. Just like Bushido. But that's another story.

So Hermanutics is just one method?  

[TeaDidikai]

Kuroiban

TeaDidikai

Kuroiban

As a side note Tea, do you know anything about that? Did you take any of it into account? I honestly coudn't tell you if it is a well put together transaltion method or merely hyperbole at it's most putrid form.

Very familiar with the study. Ananel is a delight to read in M&R.

For me, the Bible needs cultural context and accurate translation to be understood. Just like Bushido. But that's another story.

So Hermanutics is just one method?

Depends on the school of Hermanutics.

There are some who suggest that infallability comes from the Holy Spirit within the Reader.

I disagree with that. It undermines the nature of a revealed religion.  

[Triste-chan]

Seriously, can we infodump with this?  

[TeaDidikai]

Triste-chan

Seriously, can we infodump with this?

If you have to. Sure. Just let me know if you do, that way I can keep you updated with new revisions.  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

Please forgive the jittery thoughts of one with admittedly limited knowledge of ancient Hebrew culture. Since I can't back this up with fact - it's just a thought on the concept - I can't really post this in the war on M&R. But my thought is this. If the specific form of the root kashaph that is used in Exo 22:18 is m'khashepah, specifically the feminine form of the word, could this not be seen as a proscription against allowing a woman who practiced Judaic mysticism to live? Again, openly admitting to limited knowledge, so constructive correction is more than welcome, but was it not forbidden in the time of the Old Covenant for a woman to have formal religious training, especially not in the mystic practices, especially those mentioned in Sanhedrin as relates to usage of Sefer Yezirah to actually create things (which could be given as a possible alternate definition of chayyah)? In other words, could it not be argued (I'm seriously asking, not arguing) that a translation may have been "Do not allow women to practice creation magic?" Or, keeping with the idea that "lo chayyah" means exactly "do not allow to live", might it be that the penalty for a woman's practice of Judaic mysticism is death?

As I said, I look forward to any constructive/deconstructive criticism on this thought. Only problem is, like I said, I can't really back it up with more than "I made different connections than your scholars did and came to a different conclusion".  

[TeaDidikai]

Henry Dorsett Case

Please forgive the jittery thoughts of one with admittedly limited knowledge of ancient Hebrew culture. Since I can't back this up with fact - it's just a thought on the concept - I can't really post this in the war on M&R. But my thought is this. If the specific form of the root kashaph that is used in Exo 22:18 is m'khashepah, specifically the feminine form of the word, could this not be seen as a proscription against allowing a woman who practiced Judaic mysticism to live?

Yes and no. There are prohibitions as to the involvement of women's roles in formal Jewish Mysticism, but that has more to this rather strange concept presented in I believe the Zorah- as to the nature of the Human soul. You'll forgive my inability to directly quote it, it has been over a decade since I was reading this stuff.

The other thing one has to keep in mind is that even the Jewish traditions have a strong "witchcraft" element.

The short of it is that there were some cultural issues with how the shift from polytheism to monotheism was going- as is shown in that whole lovely golden calf issue.

Quote:

Again, openly admitting to limited knowledge, so constructive correction is more than welcome, but was it not forbidden in the time of the Old Covenant for a woman to have formal religious training,

This part- no. Becuase there were specific spiritual skills a woman was to have.

Quote:

especially not in the mystic practices, especially those mentioned in Sanhedrin as relates to usage of Sefer Yezirah to actually create things (which could be given as a possible alternate definition of chayyah)? In other words, could it not be argued (I'm seriously asking, not arguing) that a translation may have been "Do not allow women to practice creation magic?" Or, keeping with the idea that "lo chayyah" means exactly "do not allow to live", might it be that the penalty for a woman's practice of Judaic mysticism is death?

Formal mysticism as a concept is present in writings outside of the Torah, so if you applied them universally as a cultural context- one could see it that way. But you have to understand, the Jewish texts are very against applying external context to themselves. Unlike Christian texts that added upon the Gospels, the Jewish texts made new books "for consideration" rather than adding to them.
It is a lovely theory and the lingustical understanding isn't too far off, but one cannot rely on lingustics alone. We have to understand the culture too. Otherwise me saying something like "******** Reagun!" someone could misapply that as me sleeping with him.  

[Mykellex]

Tea you sure do your homework  

[TeaDidikai]

Mykellex

Tea you sure do your homework

I should hope so. I hate to think I passed my Comp Religion Classes on charm alone.

Not to mention I am allergic to most of the stuff Evergreen students smoke- so if I wasn't doing homework, I want to know how I had those hallucinations without killing myself.  

[ShadowSharrow]

Some more info on the translations.

Ying the Shadow Dragon

Question, what about "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

(Exodus 22:18)

?

Orginally it stated thou shalt not suffer a poisioner to live but was retranslated from the greek to the latin to early english for the king james verision of the bible and so it became " Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

As King Jim had little time for witches


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England

Quote:

Witch trials and Sodomy Act

James returned from Denmark via Leith on 1 May, and soon after, he attended the trial of the North Berwick Witches, in which several people were convicted of having used witchcraft to create a storm in an attempt to sink the ship on which James and Anne had been travelling. James became obsessed with the threat that witches and witchcraft might pose to him and his country. During this period, he wrote a treatise on demonology, as a result of which hundreds of Scottish men and women were put to death for witchcraft, their bodies later being found in what was then called Nor Loch, now Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh.

Intent on strengthening the Church of England and reaffirming the Buggery Act 1533, James adopted a severe stance towards sodomy. His book on kingship, Basilikon Doron 1598, lists sodomy among those “horrible crimes which ye are bound in conscience never to forgive.”

http://www.hollowhill.com/fun/halloween/witch-bible.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_bibl2.htm

Quote:

Exodus 22:18 in 19 English translations of the Bible:

Various Biblical translations render this verse as:

1. American Standard Version "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live."
2. The Answer: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
3. Amplified Bible: You shall not allow a woman to live who practices sorcery.
4. Good News Version: Put to death any woman who practices magic.
5. James Moffatt Translation: You shall not allow any sorceress to live.
6. Jerusalem Bible: You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
7. King James Version: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
8. Living Bible: A sorceress shall be put to death.
9. Modern Language Bible: Allow no sorceress to live.
10. New American Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
11. New American Standard Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
12. New Century Version: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
13. New International Version: Do not allow a sorceress to live.
14. New Living Translation: A sorceress must not be allowed to live.
15. New Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.
16. New World Translation: You must not preserve a sorceress alive.
17. The Promise: Contemporary English Version: Death is the punishment for witchcraft.
18. Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
19. Revised English Bible: You must not allow a witch to live.

In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah to describe the person who should be killed. The word means a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly "evil sorceress" or "woman who does evil magic" would be the most accurate phrases in today's English usage for this verse.

The Good News Bible uses the term "magic." This is also a poor selection because that term has been used to refer to:
bullet stage magic, sleight of hand, magic tricks.
bullet ceremonial magic used to harm other persons.
bullet ceremonial magic used to heal other persons.

The King James Version and Revised English Bible use the term "witch." In North America, the term normally refers to Wiccans -- the followers of the Wiccan religion. According to the Scofield Reference Bible this verse from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) was written in the year 1491 BCE. This is some 650 years before the origin of the Celtic people circa 850 BCE from whom some elements of Wicca were taken. So Exodus 22:18 can hardly be referring to Wiccans.

I guess that Thos shalt not suffer a mekhashshepheh was too vauge and too much of a mouthful.  

[Operation Shoestring]

I've always argued, since.. gawd, i dunno when, that the bible condemned "spirit-summining for fortune telling purposes" not ceremonial magic.

Heh. hope you have better luck getting it across than me.  

[TeaDidikai]

ShadowSharrow

Orginally it stated thou shalt not suffer a poisioner to live but was retranslated from the greek to the latin to early english for the king james verision of the bible and so it became " Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

This is incorrect.
If I may direct your attention to the word kashaph, it would be worthy to note that it does not address anything to do with "poison".  

[TeaDidikai]

PhantomPhoenix0

Well, I found a verse for the whole "other people" argument that can be thrown in, to help cement the argument.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (NIV)

5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),
6. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I popped through it in a few different translations, and the only one I saw that didnt support this was the New Living Translation (NLT).

This has actually become one of my favorite passages.

Indeed, the scripture says for "us" meaning those who have been bound to YHVH.

Of an interesting point- I find the use of "so-called" to be a rather inaccurate translation. The idea is closer to that of "those who are titled gods".