|
And Sarah Palin - despiser of men!
John McCain is a despiser of women -- all women. He is a master mysogynist. He is using Sarah. And she is using him as well. I'm sure John McCain's life circumstances played a pivitol role in making him into an animal. It's not that I have no sympathy for men like him. But I don't want men like him in power positions! Nor do I want women like Sarah Palin in power positions. I think they are both using each other. The saying, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" comes to mind when I think what could happen with this pair in the White House together. The article linked below discusses his scorn and disrespect for the women in his life. Beauty and the Beast http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/wypijewski An Excerpt from the article: In Sarah Palin the right has its perfect emblem: moral avatar and commodity, uniting the put-upon woman who gushes, "She's just like me!" and the chest thumper who brays, "I'd do her, and her daughter" with those who have long exploited the fear and sorry machismo of both, with the help of another durable reactionary weapon. Now that it's official, as McCain's campaign manager said, that "this election is not about issues; this election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates," McCain's only live tag appears to be, Republicans Do It Better. Translation: small-town, gun-toting, rough-and-ready, all-American Sarah and Todd versus Barack and Michelle. White Power. (Or, close enough, White-ish.) Palin Power. And there's the rub for McCain. It looks like Palin's party now, and whatever she does for his virility, she's not the hockey mom, or the babe, or the third wife he can stomp on. If her acceptance speech was indicative, she can match the "sneering, condescending attitude" that former Republican Senator Bob Smith says is fundamental to McCain, but with a smile and a dagger's turn. Her role model Esther doesn't just win favor from the king and a reprieve for herself and her people; she enables her people to engage in bloody slaughter against the king's other subjects, maneuvers for the public execution of his closest adviser and the man's sons, sees her de facto father become the de facto king; in sum, sabotages and unmans Ahasuerus. Palin has been too cagey to identify exactly who her people are, but in playing off cronies and oilmen in Alaska and even Christians to get where she is, she does seem to have grasped the art, so vital to politics, of the exquisitely timed double cross. [This message has been edited by Anne Bryant-Hamon (edited September 13, 2008).] |
I'm sure John McCain's life circumstances played a pivitol role in making him into an animal. It's not that I have no sympathy for men like him.
Will you try and get a grip, Anne! |
Roy,
You are not being forced at gunpoint to read any of my posts. I'm worried about the future of my country. I have four children who want to finish growing up and fulfilling their life's dreams. I owe it to them to do whatever I can to keep these two out of the White House. Even if you don't think it is a very serious matter, others do. And Roy, did you bother to read the article before you told me to "get a grip"? Anne [This message has been edited by Anne Bryant-Hamon (edited September 13, 2008).] |
Actually, all four of the people running for the two highest offices have displayed bigotry toward various segments of society, Anne. It is one of the reasons I cannot get excited about even the "good" candidates. I suppose it comes down to a matter of degree, and judging by their voting records--at least two of them at least vote reasonably.
|
No, I didn't.
|
Yet another excellent article of caution: (for those who are not apathetic)
The Danger of an Unvetted Veep: An Israeli Lesson - By Dror Wahrman http://hnn.us/articles/53941.html |
God, preserve us!
|
Quote:
They don't even get it, do they? With every article like this "we" become "them." Hysterical, overwrought, hyperbolic and full of innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies. No sense in calling McCain a fear-monger when you prove you can do the mongering just as well, is there? You do not win a war of words by sinking to your opponent's level, you win it by insisting he join you on your own turf - and then making sure you remain above his reach. Right now the gutter belongs to the McCain campaign - there's no reason we need to wade into it. Left to their own devices they're not going to be able to climb out of it. Much better to let them drown all by themselves than it is to join them and sink with them. The fact is, articles such as these do little more than make they look better by comparision. [This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 14, 2008).] |
Well I never! Wait till Ethel hears about this! Ooo!
|
Inappropriate comment removed.
[This message has been edited by Roy Hamilton (edited September 14, 2008).] |
Well, when and if the fence sitters make up their minds and actually choose a candidate, one wonders if they will be able to bring themselves to actually pull that lever (or touch that touchscreen) for fear of sounding biased in their opinion. You all get a gold star for being so fair and balanced. The truth is, unless you live in a swing state (and are an American citizen) your choice will not decided anything in this election. As I've stated several times, I do believe McCain and Palin will be the next pair in the White House. But since I'm not a magician, I cannot know that for sure. In the meantime, I have chosen a side that most closely reflects my personal values and I'm not afraid to say what I think. Your piling up on me says more about you than anything. Your castigation of me for having a firm opinion is interesting, but does not change my personal perspective.
Carry on with your game. Anne |
Quote:
Perhaps I see things more clearly because I am not a Democrat or a Republican. On the other hand, I long ago gave up my membership in one of those parties precisely because I saw they were not that different from one another--only that one was more hypocritical. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/...ica/church.php In the lost post I also offered to back off as well as make a public apology to you if you could supply me the requested information. I realize now the folly of attempted fairness and I'm glad I didn't waste any more time on it. Show me, instead, where I said that I, personally, was BETTER THAN THEM? Or better than anyone, for that matter. The most I did was imply that people who stay out of the gutter are better than the people who wallow in it. I stand behind that implication. I fail to see, however, how that translates into "I AM BETTER THAN THEM." And, you, Anne, you may call me either Laura or Mrs. Heidy-Halberstein. I consider being addressed by anything other than my given name to be ad-hom. [This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 14, 2008).] |
Quote:
I don't know if you watched the Democratic National Convention or heard Obama's acceptance speech. He DID NOT leave out or leave behind the gay and lesbian community and their rights to be free from government/religious oppression. No, he didn't mention transgendered individuals, surely not because he doesn't think they have rights, but perhaps because the trans-gender community is truly a mysterious thing to most of us. I don't know any transgendered people (that I'm aware of), but that doesn't make me 'against them'. I doubt I'd have made mention of trans-gendered citizens in a speech. But I would have (as did Obama) mention the rights of gays and lesbians. Perhaps Ron Paul is the right choice for you. I don't know. Anne |
Quote:
Use Google. You'll find a good number of articles discussing that Sarah asked her pastor which woman of the Bible she should emulate as Governor of Alaska. He purportedly told her "Esther". Then you might want to read the book of Esther - a very strange book. If we are modeling this campain on the book of Esther, then I think Hillary Clinton must be Queen Vishi (yes, that makes sense if we are picking roles for this bizarro-world scenario). I don't need an apology from you, Laura. Feel free to be yourself, and I will do the same. I don't think Saint Laura sounds ad-hom, but if you do, I will refrain from it. Anne |
Anne, I despise anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-animal cruelty (the worst record in Congress), cockeyed economist Ron Paul. And you are talking about what the Democratic candidates say, and I am talking about their personal histories--what they have said and done before they were big-time candidates (and in Obama's case--even after becoming a candidate). Since you brought up LGBT issues as an example, I don't know about Biden, but Obama has shown on more than one occasion how he really feels about the LGBT community; he is a typical kind of modern "liberal" who has a number of prejudices but convinces people he does not have them.
Many LGBT citizens will support Obama because he is the better choice for them, yes, but that doesn't detract from his history. I'm not saying Obama would not help people in oppressed positions; I'm merely saying his commitment to many of them is not real. We have seen this before: Jimmy Carter, the so-called champion of women's rights, tossed women into the trash pile as soon as one of his advisers told him to. Bill Clinton, supposedly a supporter of LGBT rights, gave us DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The commitment was not there. |
Quote:
[This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 14, 2008).] |
Quote:
I'm currently a Universlaist Christian woman. And though I had read the book of Esther in the past, I did find the need to go back and re-read it in light of this very bizarre political season. Just because I told you to read it, doesn't mean I assume you've never read it. Perhaps you never forget anything you've read? I can't say that is so for myself. You've stated on a number of occasions that you are a Jewish woman. I have no idea what that means to you, however. Saying you are Jewish means little more these days than saying you're Christian. Except for the fact that I have not yet met any "Christian atheists", while there are many self-proclaimed "Jewish athiests". well, unless you count those atheists who used to be Christians and are now atheists - but I've not met a one who calls him or herself a "Christian-athiest". Generally, they just drop the religious identity. I'm a person who believes in Jesus Christ, but I certainly don't agree with the wide-spread delusion within Christianity that we are to "Take Dominion" over the earth and get rid of the infidels through political power and war. But come to think about it, the Christians are only emulating the mentality of those Old Testament Jews who acted in the same manner. Go ahead, Laura - call me anti-Semite - I dare you! Anne |
Quote:
I don't take "dares," Anne. I've got nothing I feel the need to prove to anyone. My opinions are my opinions and that's all they are. Anyone is welcome to agree or disagree with them as they see fit - there's really no need for you or anyone to throw schoolyard taunts around as I don't much care one way or the other. This is a discussion board and most discussions take place on the premise that people hold opposing opinions and views and are willing and able to discuss them intelligently and logically and that they will be capable of backing them up with facts when and if they are asked to do so. It's interesting, tho, that you keep avoiding the conversation you started. Did or did not Sarah Palin state that Esther was her role model? Did she, or did you, say that this campaign was being modeled on The Book of Esther? That's the discussion, Anne....not my religion, not your religion, not your opinion or my opinion. You've made a politically and religiously charged statement as well as linked to an article with unverified information and you've asked us to accept it as unbiased and factual - I've asked for further verification. That's all. [This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 14, 2008).] |
Laura,
First, let me say, only God the omnipotent has "all the facts". The rest of us have vantage points. Here's one of many articles on the "Sarah Palin is Queen Esther" theme. Use your search engine, you're sure to find more! Sarah Palin And The Jews http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wi..._b_124885.html But keep in mind, men like John Hagee also present themselves as "protector of the Jews" out of one side of their mouths, while out of the other side of their mouths they say things like 'unbelieving Jews will burn in hell' and are under God's eternal judgment for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. The relationship between modern Israel and American Christiandom is a use-use situation - like the relationship between Sarah Palin and John McCain who once called right-wing Christians "agents of intolerance". What happened to THAT John McCain? He doesn't exist anymore. He has morphed into whatever will help him WIN. In other words, he stands for nothing. He just wants to be President of Babylon! And he loves war! Apparently, the children of Israel in the Old Testment had an affinity for kicking ass and shedding blood as well. I see little difference in the modern evangelical Christians and the Old Testament children of Israel. Both of them missed God's point. |
Quote:
I don't give a rat's buttocks who's running around trying to bait "antisemitism" discussions on E-sphere on any given week, personally -- Laura's interactions with you aside. I'll note a couple of differences I have with you, and a couple of evident assumptions buried in your own view of the world, from my point of view, and if you like you can learn from them or reply to them, if I am missing some insight you are privy to. You cite that you have heard people declare they are atheist Jews and you don't know what that means. That just means you don't know what it is to be a Jew, nor should you have any idea. I don't fault you, though I think you may be curious as to why the categories you hear tell of may be different from those you would expect. I'll try to tell you, to the extent I can do so. Often in Jewish history, to cut to the chase, if one surrendered one's faith, it made little difference in one's daily life. To use the phrase I learned in my family, it does you no good to deny you're a Jew. The rest of the world will define you as one either way. You could wholeheartedly convert to "escape" the inquisition, for example, but conversos were in constant heightened danger of more intense scrutiny and at greater risk of torture and death -- to make sure they weren't marranos, a derogatory word for "secret Jews." Oh what a terrible thing to learn, one may say, that the world will always call you a Jew, and not always as a compliment. But it is true. My dad was a secular physicist, born in Vienna. I won't bore you with too much history. As a young person, he left, and so did most of his family, and he had particular challenges based on the fact of his Jewish heritage. He was not particularly religious, but there you go. Oddly enough being Jewish in a town in Virginia, for me, was not identical to being Christian in that town. The Dreyfus Trial was a watershed in this regard: France decided to put a man on trial, a decorated war veteran, a leader, who "happened" to be Jewish -- for a crime he happened not to commit. Read Emile Zola (J'accuse) on that subject. Or just read wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_Trial) France was regarded at the time as a bastion of "philosemitism", the country that had torn down Europe's ghettoes. I wax verbose, once again. Suffice it to say, while baptism was considered a ticket you had to punch in Europe for a couple of "enlightened" centuries, Jews were always judged at least in part by ethnicity. In the 20th century in fact, "scientific" or "racial" antisemitism became all the rage. Its primary guiding principle was that Jews were to be hated for their race, not for their religion. Of course, this is nonsense, in terms of genetics. In terms of peoplehood, however, it also makes no sense to say "how can you be an atheist Jew?," just as it makes no sense to say "how can you be an atheist Kurd?" You want to comment on Jewish identity? Learn about Jewish identity -- not some idea of the role of Jews and Judaism as simulacra of Christians and Christianity. The fact that Judaism initially came into existence prior to Christianity, in a time of national religions as it were, may be confusing, but only if you insist on interpreting Judaism as a mirror of Christianity "but different," or, as I often see in this context (from the likes of Coulter,) "imperfect." Theology in Judaism is comparatively simple. Identity is quite complex. With regard to Laura, I will let her speak for herself; I know she has never described herself as an atheist to me. So I have no idea why you believe it appropriate to bring up atheist Jews in her regard. Your "dare" is weird. I don't know what you're revving up for, but knock yourself out, if you see others with distinct identities as "playing a card" when they tell you how things look through their eyes. I hope, however, that instead you would attempt to understand Jews who differ from your personal template of what a Jew should be, on their terms, rather than yours, if it is truly mystifying to you that Judaism refers both to a kind of religious expression and to an ethnicity and a shared history. Although I have tried to study other religions, I am sure I do so at least partially through the lens of Judaism. It seems to me that if one learns enough, one sees through lenses such as "history", but they are still lenses. I do believe, however, they are superior to the lenses of one religious confessional group attempting to fit another group into its proper theological place, one pitfall that is particular tempting to modern Jews, Christians, and Muslims when they try to "understand" each other. That kind of "understanding" is probably responsible for deaths in the millions. One can not study Judaism from a Christian point of view, and one can not study Christianity from a Jewish point of view. One must study these subjective phenomena from an objective point of view, to the extent one can do so. By the way, there are many terms for the great bulk of the bible which was written before the time of Jesus. Among Jews -- or at least those seen as important voices in both reform and tradional Judaism -- "Old Testament" is not one that has currency except as a term of convenience. Within those communities that are more traditional, Tanakh is the usual hebrew abbreviation used. Within the scholarly community, "Hebrew Bible" is used. When you hear Jews use "old testament," they're either quite assimilated on this count, or they simply do not understand the bias implicit in the term. So I do not speak for all Jews when I say this, but speaking for myself, I'd prefer to have discussions about the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible (again, from the scholarly terms,) rather than old testament and new testament, which terms assume a given theology. You mention you are a Universalist. I'm assuming this is the "other U" in the UU church, not some other slightly different idea of Universalist. Well, think of it this way, Anne: there may be a Christian elsewhere of another sect, who watches UU churches attempting to find wisdom in the teachings of another faith entirely, a faith that does not proclaim a single deity. From that individual's point of view, it may look pointless for you to call yourself a Christian. Similarly, a great number of modern Christians, in private conversations with me, have denied the divinity of Jesus, but believe him to be a figure to "emulate to the nth degree," as one Christian once put it to me. I don't say I don't understand how they are Christians, although other Christians may well do so. It is not my call. It does point to a future, in my opinion. The more one concentrates on message (for the scholars,) and the more one concentrates on one's own realization of the divine (for the mystics,) the more one converges with the "other." Well, this has been quite the long and boring lecture on my part, and on a football Sunday no less. Thanks for your time, and I hope this makes some sense to you, if in fact you are perplexed about the subject of Jewish identity. Dan [This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited September 14, 2008).] |
[quote]Originally posted by Anne Bryant-Hamon:
[b]Laura, Here's one of many articles on the "Sarah Palin is Queen Esther" theme. Use your search engine, you're sure to find more! Cripes, Anne.....read your own citation. It's the first sentence. What part of "Sarah Palin took the biblical Queen Esther as her role model when she became governor, <u>according to her former pastor" </u> don't you understand? It doesn't say <u> "Sarah Palin says </u> she took the biblical Queen Esther as her role model when she became governor." It says <u>"ACCORDING TO HER FORMER PASTOR."</u> That's quite different from what you and The Nation reported. He just wants to be President of Babylon! More of the Hyperbolic Gospel, I presume? I see little difference in the modern evangelical Christians and the Old Testament children of Israel. Both of them missed God's point. I see - and you who began this post with First, let me say, only God the omnipotent has "all the facts" suddenly <u>knows</u> His points? Forgive me for asking, but doesn't that come across as just slightly contradictory? Lo edited to remove rude gospel remark and changed hypocritical to contradictory per mod suggestion. [This message has been edited by Laura Heidy-Halberstein (edited September 14, 2008).] |
This one's for you, Roy.
|
Anne—
Nice to see you holding the fort while Greg's away. |
At the risk of sounding sexist, I think the common malady causing bloodthirstiness in every population (besides whichever one we belong to), is the condition of having been born of woman.
And I do not use this in any "original sin" sense, unless one traces human descent back to the first billy badass microorganism. Anne: please provide detailed records of cultures dating from, oh, let's say 2500 years ago, which were other than "bloodthirsty" given today's moveable definition. "The children of Israel were bloodthirsty" means something to me if one examines the claim in comparison with other cultures from their time (or even our own time). It means nothing in a vacuum. Gotta go, need to slaughter a baby to make the matzo now. JUST KIDDING, Dan |
I have only just tuned in to this discussion.
In general, one can assume that if you think it MIGHT come across as ad hom, it will. So look for another wording. Some self-censoring seems advisable. Also in posted boxes. Everybody knows when they have been rude. So this is for those who have been. This is not the place for personal comments and quarrels. We have PMs for that. Thank you. Janice D. Soderling, Moderator |
I'm sorry, this whole article has me scratching my head. Half of it is conspiracy theories and biblical poppycock and the other is stuff that just makes me go "And..."?
McCain picked Palin because he wanted a woman on the ticket to pick up stray Hillary votes. They came right out and said it at the convention. This is cynical politics, certainly, but misogyny? And misandry from Palin? Because she named her sons Track and Trig? Giving a boy with Down's syndrome a name that's high school shorthand for Triganometry? WTF? I could make a better case for child abuse. The waffle about none of the politicians doing enough for the transgendered and transsexual and intersexed and I forget the rest of the relevant terms and groups that didn't get a shout-out... "And...?" On one side, you've got whacko Christians who want Evolution out of schools and on the other you've got pragmatists who are basically fine with the idea of gay rights but don't like that the issue helped cost them the last election and look at the mess the country's gotten in since. |
No, he didn't mention transgendered individuals, surely not because he doesn't think they have rights, but perhaps because the trans-gender community is truly a mysterious thing to most of us.
Anne, this has me puzzled. Why should the transexual community be more mysterious than gay or lesbian folk? |
It isn't that some groups didn't get a shout-out, it's that the Democratic candidates consider them less important than other people, as evidenced by their own statements and behaviors for years.
And what cost the Democrats the election was vote-tampering. [This message has been edited by Diane Dees (edited September 14, 2008).] |
And don't forget the people against the people who hunt the transgendered from airplanes. And the Gay and Lesbian and Undecided Alliance Against People Who Tell Them To Sit down and Shut Up Already Nobody Here Gives A Shit About What You Do Or Whom You Marry If You Would Only Stop Talking About It.
I am a Nation subscriber, and have been for many years, but think that article is batshit, and that acting as ideologically whacko as the religious right makes a just cause look idiotic. We are becoming a nation of smaller and smaller special interest groups, screaming in louder and louder voices. |
Quote:
|
One's gender, race and sexual orientation do not make one part of "special interest groups." They make one who one is, but calling these vital indicators of identity "special interest" is a way to ignore equality, and it works pretty well for both major parties.
|
Adj. 1. trig - neat and smart in appearance; "a clean-cut and well-bred young man"
That's actually a pretty cool name, Kevin. :) |
Quote:
On that we certainly agree. If you can find a candidate you want to support, then by all means, do so. But, for the reasons you mentioned above, it is getting harder and harder all the time to believe that voting makes a difference. I don't have the power to change that. So I guess we're screwed. Oh, and even though I am not a vegetarian, I think you are onto something good with being one yourself. Only in the death realm would creatures have to consume one another to survive, hence the saying "A Dog Eat Dog World". And that is what this present world is - the realm of death. Take care - Anne |
Quote:
The "Samaritan Bible" (Torah and Joshua) which is included in... The "Jewish Bible" (the regular Tanakh that everybody knows) which is included in... The "Septuagint" (Greek translation of the Tanakh that adds books: I & II Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, etc.) The "Old Testament" (for Roman Catholic & Greek Orthodox churches) = the "Septuagint" The "Old Testament" (for Protestants) = the "Jewish Bible" (Tanakh) There were a couple of reasons the "Septuagint" was the "Old Testament" of choice in the first few centuries of the Christian era. First, almost everyone spoke Greek, or a little Greek. Second, the format of the "Septuagint" was a "codex" (i.e., a "book" as we think of books today; pages bound together). At the time, the "Jewish Bible" was still always on a set of scrolls, requiring at least a couple of people using both arms to transport; while a codex, even with more data in it, fits easily into one hand. Robert Meyer [This message has been edited by Robert Meyer (edited September 14, 2008).] |
Quote:
But I try to avoid listening to the far right, so perhaps they have also attacked transgendered people and I just don't know about it. |
Robert, I have no trouble saying "Jewish Bible" then. I was wondering who would come in and correct the correctness, since the scholarly convention is erroneous if used literally. Jewish bible and Christian bible work for me, for use on this forum, using Christian bible to denote the collection of gospels, letters, acts, and end-of-the-world texts we've come to know and love. Any Samaritans (and there are still a few,) those few Ethiopian Jews (so-called Falashas) who have not accepted later texts, and Karaites reading this forum should understand that while the term "Jewish Bible" does include the entire Tanakh, notwithstanding the opinions of some Ethiopian Jews and all Samaritans reading these pages, it does not necessarily treat in any way with acceptance or rejection of later rabbinic projects such as the Talmud, and so can be understood as the same texts as read by the Karaites reading this forum.
By "Karaites" I mean to include those Karaites who in fact read the Jewish texts, not Karaites who exist (or existed; I do not know their recent wanderings, if they are in fact doing so) in the Crimea, Russia, Ukaraine, and Turkey, and were/are not, in fact, in any way Judaic, but are in fact Christian. Since the latter read the Septuagint in some guise (they are Orthodox and Catholic I believe, not Protestant), the texts they identify as the Jewish bible, as you have pointed out -- whether or not they call them the Old Testament -- may not be the same texts Jews would call the Jewish bible (although Karaites who are Karaite by faith and not only by descent would read what we call the Jewish bible.) By including Christian Karaites as readers of the Christian bible, I do not mean to imply that their forebears read the Jewish bible as rabbinic Jews, although the "Jewish" bible is shared among them. Similarly I do not mean to imply that the Karaim of Turkey who may have come by the name without intermixing with the local Karaite community (by way of simple confusion), are in fact descended from Karaites proper at all, if in fact that is not the case (in the possible case of some Kalayar Karaites.) Of course, the difficulty becomes identifying that part of the Christian bible which is not taken from the Jewish bible, to denote what Christians call the "New Testament" among themselves, and doing so in a value-neutral way. For this reason I truly hope that these texts were all first committed to writing in the koine Greek, not the Aramaic, thereby simplifying identification of those texts. However, if we have scholars here who know that is not the case, I am happy to call these books the Christian-written bible, or the Christian-only bible, or somesuch. I think using the broad terms "Hebrew bible" and "Greek bible" appeals to the scholarly community not strictly for purposes of thoroughgoing accuracy, but because it is a value-neutral way to refer to the texts of the Jews and those originated by Christians. The approximate accuracy of calling the Jewish bible the Hebrew bible (ignoring Aramaic entirely) must be considered preferable to dragging up old arguments of whether or not Christianity is the "successor religion" to Judaism -- the same basic issue implicit in the terms "New testament" and "old testament." So okay, Christian bible and Jewish bible it is, for my money. Or Hebrew bible/Greek bible if you like. Either way. Just don't tell me Judaism is replaced by Christianity every time you talk about Jewish texts dabgummit. D [This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited September 14, 2008).] |
Yeah, I prefer the term "Jewish Bible" myself when talking about the Tanakh, and "Septuagint" in its particular case. It's more accurate and when the word "apocrypha" appears, then everyone knows we are talking about Enoch, Odes of Solomon, Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Peter, etc; stuff that has never been in anyone's canon.
Robert |
In fact, my preferred terms would be "Jewish Scripture" and "Christian Scripture" because it would leave out the completeness issue (hinted at by the term "Bible") altogether.
Robert |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.