Egyptian and Ethiopian Languages

[Jason Hare]

I learned about Hebrew lessons that some people don’t like criticism. They want to make their posts and let them stand, without getting feedback. Since I have caused offense, I now tend to ask someone if they want criticism rather than just criticizing (when doing shared lessons online). At least I have learned that much. I don’t generally understand how people express emotions through the written medium. I tend to just think that people mean what they say until they indicate otherwise.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Chris,
Being friendly and kidding around doesn't work here. Just discuss your topic and that is it. If you want a friendly conversation, call a friend or a relative. I am not trying to be mean to you. I think it is unfortunate, but it appears to be how things work here.

I think it’s one of my problems. I think of concepts rather than the people making the claims. When someone says something, I think of where that line of thinking would lead and what could possibly be used to support it, and then I respond. I don’t tend to think of how people feel about it, since emotions aren’t really my strong suit. I had no idea that Chris was getting frustrated to the point of leaving the forum. I was just thinking of the things that I was reading and responding to them.

Jason, it is not just you. A lot of people here go off-topic or are looking for things to criticize that don't really matter. If you say something I don't like, for example, what you just said about Ezekiel changing the rules for descendants being punished. You added a personal opinion about why he did it. It would have been better to just say that you thought he was changing the rule somehow. By giving a reason, which can be seen as anti-religious, you could "offend" some people. Even if what you said bothered me, I normally would not criticize you for giving your possibly anti-religious opinion. None of us should say why Ezekiel said what he said. We should explain what he meant, but not discuss his motives because then we become religious or anti-religious. I might he was told by God to do it, but normally I wouldn't say that because I don't push religious beliefs on people.

[Jason Hare]

Jason, it is not just you. A lot of people here go off-topic or are looking for things to criticize that don't really matter. If you say something I don't like, for example, what you just said about Ezekiel changing the rules for descendants being punished. You added a personal opinion about why he did it. It would have been better to just say that you thought he was changing the rule somehow. By giving a reason, which can be seen as anti-religious, you could "offend" some people. Even if what you said bothered me, I normally would not criticize you for giving your possibly anti-religious opinion. None of us should say why Ezekiel said what he said. We should explain what he meant, but not discuss his motives because then we become religious or anti-religious. I might he was told by God to do it, but normally I wouldn't say that because I don't push religious beliefs on people.

How is showing where religious rules changed in the development of the Hebrew / Judaic experience somehow anti-religious, though? I think it’s an important aspect of critical thought to be able to make distinctions between the actions and thoughts of different persons in history. We shouldn’t force harmonization where it wasn’t. Religion undergoes change in history. We cannot think that the religion of pre-exilic Jews in Israel was the same as what we know today as Orthodox Judaism. Nor was early Christianity the same as today’s Evangelicalism. How uncritical must we be to think that these are the same things? In the same sense, Ezekiel and Moses would be allowed to hold opinions that didn’t agree with one another, and each could feel himself just as inspired by God. That’s not an anti-religious sentiment. Do you think it is?

[Kenneth Greifer]

Jason,
I don't think it is fair to be able to give a motive for what a prophet says. If Ezekiel changed a rule, you could say it was because he felt the new rule was better, if you want to, but once you say that, you are, of course, saying that God did not tell him to do that like the Hebrew Bible says. It seems unfair to me to be able to give a non-religious motive, but to not be able to say that the rule was changed by God, and Ezekiel just told the people what God said. If you call critical thinking only thinking that says the Hebrew Bible is not telling the truth, then it seems unfair to me.

I have no problem with your opinion, except that only negative opinions about the Bible are ok to discuss. You can give a non-religious explanation, which is fine with me, but it doesn't seem like you can give a religious explanation. I would prefer that people just discuss what the prophet said and not why he said it. You don't know why Ezekiel said that. You only know that the Hebrew Bible said he said it, and it kind of hints that God wanted them to stop saying a certain saying about sons suffering for the sins of the father. When you discuss a prophet's motives, you are going beyond what the Bible says into an area that is off-limits for this discussion forum, I think.

[Jason Hare]

This is what scholars do all the time. They notice changes, differences, and they attribute them to social factors or interpret cultural values from them. If the Torah says that children share in their fathers’ iniquity, and Ezekiel overrides what’s written in the Torah, there must be a reason for that. Something must have happened to create that change. This isn’t anything but what scholars consider. How is this a non-religious motive, though? You keep saying “anti-religious” and “non-religious” as if fundamentalism were the only religious opinion. Plenty of religious people hold to biblical interpretations that go beyond “God told him to say that.”

[kwrandolph]

What I see here is that God didn’t change his command through Ezekiel, rather he continued the same practice since the time of Moses. To give a few verses, one can see what happened during the time of Moses, as well as practices from later kings.

Deuteronomy 24:16: לא יומתו אבות על בנים ובנים לא יומתו על אבות  איש בחטאו יומת
Numbers 26:11: ובני קרח לא מתו 
II Kings 14:6: ואת בני המכים לא המית  ככתוב בספר תורת משה אשר צוה יהוה לאמר לא יומתו אבות על בנים ובנים לא יומתו על אבות—כי אם איש בחטאו ימות
II Chronicles 25:4: ואת בניהם לא המית  כי ככתוב בתורה בספר משה אשר צוה יהוה לאמר לא ימותו אבות על בנים ובנים לא ימותו על אבות—כי איש בחטאו ימותו

Basically, Ezekiel continued the teaching that God originally gave to Moses.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Ezekiel saw himself as changing the way things had been up until then. I imagine that prophets felt that they had that authority, to bring in new revelations and new commandments from God (or ways to relate to God).

I was just saying that this comment seems to me to be saying a motive for what Ezekiel said. Yes, scholars can do that in their articles and books, but I don't think they would be allowed to say this on this discussion forum because you are deciding the motive of a prophet by saying they could change things if they wanted to. In a way, you are making a religiously controversial statement here that could lead to a religious argument, which is not allowed here. Can prophets change rules if they want to? That is a religious debate topic, and even if scholars discuss it, religious debates aren't allowed here. I am not against discussing this subject. I just think it is religiously controversial for this discussion forum. If a person says, no, prophets just obey God, and you are wrong. Then you have a religious debate. I think it is better to just say what you think Ezekiel meant in that quote you were discussing without mentioning his motive. I guess it is hard to know what is the rule for religious debates here. Is your comment just scholarly or is it starting a religious argument?

For example, you can discuss the grammar and word meanings in Isaiah 53, but if you discuss if it is about Israel, or the Messiah, or King Hezekiah, you are kind of starting a religious debate. Scholars discuss all of those topics, but would they be allowed to do that here? I am not the rule maker or enforcer here, but I think your comment crossed into religious debate territory when you explained Ezekiel's motive.

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,
It would be better if you also gave English translations of the quotes that are similar to what Ezekiel said. Those are interesting quotes, but do they mean that G-d won't kill people for the sins of their fathers, but he will still punish them in other ways like it says He will visit the sins of the fathers on the future generations?

[Kenneth Greifer]

Karl,
The quotes you listed are about human punishments, but Ezekiel 18 is about God punishing people. Deuteronomy 5:8-9 is about God punishing future generations of people who hate God. I think people are not supposed to punish sons for the crimes of their fathers, but God does punish future generations. Maybe Ezekiel 18 means He won't kill them, but He will punish them.
What about 1 Samuel 2:31-33 and 2 Kings 5:27 which are about Eli the prophet and Gehazi the servant of Elisha being punished and their descendants also being punished forever?

[Jason Hare]

Kenneth,

I remember when B-Hebrew had heated arguments about the time and place of the composition of the various biblical books. I can imagine that you would turn that into a “religious versus non-religious” debate. Not everything is squared away in this way. It’s problematic for me that you would suggest that people who take a less rigid interpretation of the Bible are not religious—that only strict fundamentalist readings of the text can be termed “religious” and anything else is “non-religious” or even “anti-religious.”