kaufmannphillips wrote:
You wrote: "
Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin in a general sense." Later you wrote: "
Much of Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin done in ignorance." The margin of difference in accuracy between the two is the margin of untruth.
This margin may be gauged by the fact that the former statement leads to the inference behind your following comment "
The sin of leadership, that stems from ignorance, that causes others to sin, the common folk, is not as grievous as individual sin {emphasis added}" far more easily than the latter does. Said inference is not implied in the text, but is implicit in your former statement.
RND wrote:
"...corporate sin in a general sense..." and "...corporate sin done in ignorance..."
In reality there is no difference from the application of scripture. Both are dealt with. Therefore, in a general (non-specific) sense does preclude adding a specific. C'mon, that's easy enough to read from the scripture isn't it? Do you need you hand held down every aisle of scripture you venture sonny boy!
Wrong end of the sentences,
navi'. I was looking at the difference between "
Leviticus 4 deals with" and "
Much of Leviticus 4 deals with." And if you yourself weren't sensitive to the distinction, why did you make the modification?
RND wrote:
That's it place the blame on someone who can't read your mind or on your inability to offer a definitive answer based on the clear word of the Bible.
Mind-reading shouldn't be a categorical obstacle to the
navi'. But I am glad that you find the word of the bible here to be so clear. Please explain
yechta' le'ashmat ha'am to me, and the grammatical operation involved. The KJV, NASB, and Gesenius construe it differently, but those guys wouldn't know "clear" if it bit them in the
chemor.
RND wrote:
Hardly, yo'd scream like a stuck pig.
and
Yeah, I did. That's because arguing with you is like mud wrestling a pig. Pretty soon you realize the pig likes it.
Keep bringing those porcine references. You must win lots of Jews to Christ that way.
RND wrote:
Most Bible scholars, including Jewish Bible scholars would agree that much of Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin done in ignorance.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Will you please provide references to these scholars?
RND wrote:
Nope, sorry, consider it a "homework" assignment.
kaufmannphillips reminisced:
Don't be so indolent as to ask me to do your work for you.
RND wrote:
Look, I'm not gonna do your homework for you.
Apparently, you don't do your homework for you.
Either back up your assertions or back off them. It's not my responsibility to prove your points.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
I would like you to cede that your interpretive construal in your comment "The sin of leadership, that stems from ignorance, that causes others to sin, the common folk, is not as grievous as individual sin {emphasis added}" is not substantiated by the text - or to offer a cogent argument to the contrary. I'll be satisfied either way.
RND wrote:
Have you ever pealed back the layers of an onion? On the surface of Leviticus 4 it doesn't say exactly what I said, but the meaning has to be dug up and found, kinda like buried treasure.
Lots of things are dug up, but most of them ain't treasure. I'll take your admission as the best I'm likely to get.
RND wrote:
That's the difference in what was offered, female lamb versus male lamb. One is much more valuable than another. One can produce many offspring and much milk, the other only can only bread. One male can satisfy the needs of many ewes.
I didn't debate that the female was the most valuable of the flock. I challenged the idea that this was the operative issue in the significance of the sacrifice.
RND wrote:
"In other words, individual sin is more costly and more grievous than corporate sin." Ewe lambs were much more valuable than male lambs.
This still appears to hinge upon your construing the leader's sacrifice of a male animal (a goat, not a lamb) as a matter of corporate sin, which is not indicated by the text. It is also contrary to reason. A sin that leads thousands astray is more costly and grievous than a merely individual sin. And it is also an individual sin to boot, so it should not be valued
less than an individual sin.
RND wrote:
Hebrew Bible scholar Ehud Ben Zvi has suggested that Biblical texts were written for attentive rereaders who mined their sacred traditions, delighted in them and struggled with them again and again. - Ben Zvi, Ehud. Micah. Forms of the Old Testament Literature, Vol. XXIB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000
See, that wasn't so hard. You can provide a reference!
Now why don't you take a look at
Dr. Ben Zvi's CV and tell me if you think he reads the bible your way.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
I'll pass on the blood. It's a ritual liability.
RND wrote:
Only for the one bleeding.
Not if you happen to transfer some of it from one item to another in such a way that you wind up swallowing it. That's some serious bidness.