From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Thu May 13 09:54:41 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA08810 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 09:54:41 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id JAA03204 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Thu, 13 May 1999 09:51:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 09:51:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199905131451.JAA03204@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1221 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Thursday, May 13 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1221 In this digest: Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... Re: IN> Kyriotates and Shedim: Remnant Question Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... Re: IN> Kyriotates and Shedim: Remnant Question Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:16:09 +0100 (GMT) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... On Wed, 12 May 1999 MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: > The Abrahamic Covenant was "I shall bless your seed and they shall become a > mighty people, and he shall bless all the nations." The Abrahamic Covenant is > considered (at least by Christian theologians) to be one of grace. The LORD > chose Abraham to be His channel without consideration of Abraham's merits. That seems a bit odd, given the LORD's words at the time - "Because thou hast done this thing, and hath not withheld thy son, thy only son, that in blessing I will bless thee." Abraham got the goodies because he was willing to sacrifice his son just because God told him to. Steve. - ------ If you ate pasta and antipasto, would you still be hungry? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:59:53 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... Steve Jessop wrote: "That seems a bit odd, given the LORD's words at the time - "Because thou hast done this thing, and hath not withheld thy son, thy only son, that in blessing I will bless thee." "Abraham got the goodies because he was willing to sacrifice his son just because God told him to." That was not the establishment of the covenant with Abraham; it was a test of it. The covenant was established before Isaac was born. God gave Abraham his blessing in return for Abraham's devotion. The demand to sacrifice Isaac is a test of that devotion. As such, it is, of course, a pretty inhuman thing to do. But I, at least, also see in it a "change of precedent." In the surrounding culture, sacrifice of your firstborn was an approved form of a major sacrifice. Abraham would have been unhappy, but not surprised. Then God backs out at the last moment. I think this says, "I don't want that kind of sacrifice. I want the devotion." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 07:09:32 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... Our spies report that on 08:59 AM 5/12/99 -0500, Earl Wajenberg said: >Steve Jessop wrote: > > "That seems a bit odd, given the LORD's words at the time - "Because >thou hast done this thing, and hath not withheld thy son, thy only son, >that in blessing I will bless thee." > > "Abraham got the goodies because he was willing to sacrifice his son >just because God told him to." > Someone the other day postulated to me that the sacrifice actually did happen and that out of three knowledge sources comprising the modern text, only one involved the Lord staying Abraham's hand. Their explanation was lengthy. I can't quote it, but in essence they believed many things in the text are found in triplicate, which might indicate melding of three sources. But not the cessation of the sacrifice. Hmm. I think I'll take some Old Testament with me to read while waiting in line for Star Wars tickets. Sean ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:33:43 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... In a message dated 5/12/99 7:11:09 AM, sean@dangerzone.org writes: >Our spies report that on 08:59 AM 5/12/99 -0500, Earl Wajenberg said: >>Steve Jessop wrote: >> >> "That seems a bit odd, given the LORD's words at the time - "Because >>thou hast done this thing, and hath not withheld thy son, thy only son, >>that in blessing I will bless thee." >> >> "Abraham got the goodies because he was willing to sacrifice his son >>just because God told him to." >> > > Someone the other day postulated to me that the sacrifice actually did >happen and that out of three knowledge sources comprising the modern text, >only one involved the Lord staying Abraham's hand. > "A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep, or taste not...." In order for Abraham to have actually sacrificed Isaac, the entire rest of Genesis would have to be rejected. Later in the narrative, Isaac marries Rebekah, has Jacob and Esau, gives Jacob his blessing by mistake, and dies of old age. The Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron (Where the Jewish militant killed a lot of Palestinian worshipers) exists, and at least putatively holds his remains. And the remains are those of an elderly man. Your friend's postulate is, in essence, hogwash. Sorry. > Their explanation was lengthy. I can't quote it, but in essence they >believed many things in the text are found in triplicate, which might >indicate melding of three sources. But not the cessation of the sacrifice. > This part is partially true. The final editor of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the 'Old Testament' -- also known as the Torah) gathered from many sources, including the "E Source," the "J Source," the "A Source," and at least two other sources (I believe they are known as "L" and "P," and only show up in Leviticus and Deuteronomy). "E", "J", and "A" are called that based on what they use for God. "E" uses "Elohim" (possibly properly translated "The Gods"), "J" uses the Tetragrammation (Yod-Heh-Waw-Heh, "The LORD" or "Jehovah" or "YHWH"), God's personal name, and "A" uses "Adonai" (The Lord, occasionally used of mortal kings as well...). Each comes from a different time in Jewish development, and tells a slightly different story. For instance, Genesis 1 is "E", while Genesis 2 is a compilation of "J" and "A". (But I'm now straying into Theo 541 or so...) > Hmm. I think I'll take some Old Testament with me to read while waiting >in line for Star Wars tickets. > >Sean > Do it. It'll make them wonder. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:42:49 +0300 From: "Tick Tock" Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Shedim: Remnant Question - -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth McCoy >>Ah, well. It's always fun until canon rears... > >So make up your own rules... > >(Sometimes I wish people would say if they want a canon answer, or >if they just want to collect all the neat, nifty non-canon ones they >can find. I can come up with those, as well...) I cry your pardon, dear lady, for any perceived slight on my part. The product of your insight and cunning are often wickedly fun to peruse. My lament was due only to the suspicion that a canon answer often spells the end of a thread and I was so enjoying this particular one. In short, my apologies. I beg to remain, your servant. Tick Tock ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:49:30 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: "This part is partially true. The final editor of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the 'Old Testament' -- also known as the Torah) gathered from many sources, including the "E Source," the "J Source," the "A Source," and at least two other sources (I believe they are known as "L" and "P," and only show up in Leviticus and Deuteronomy). "E", "J", and "A" are called that based on what they use for God. "E" uses "Elohim" (possibly properly translated "The Gods"), "J" uses the Tetragrammation (Yod-Heh-Waw-Heh, "The LORD" or "Jehovah" or "YHWH"), God's personal name, and "A" uses "Adonai" (The Lord, occasionally used of mortal kings as well...). " The other two sources are P (for "Priestly") and D (for "Deuteronomy"). D is found almost exclusively in Deuteronomy, but P is found all over, I think. I hadn't heard of the A source. I have heard of R (for "Redactor," editor), used of little bits of bridge text presumably put in by the editor to pull the sources together. In Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" the author theorizes that the Redactor was Jeremiah, or his faithful sidekick and scribe Baruch. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:19:31 -0400 From: Elizabeth McCoy Subject: Re: IN> Kyriotates and Shedim: Remnant Question At 5:42 PM +0300 5/12/99, Tick Tock wrote: >From: Elizabeth McCoy >>>Ah, well. It's always fun until canon rears... >> >>So make up your own rules... >>(Sometimes I wish people would say if they want a canon answer, or >>if they just want to collect all the neat, nifty non-canon ones they >>can find. I can come up with those, as well...) > >I cry your pardon, dear lady, for any perceived slight on my part. The product >of your insight and cunning are often wickedly fun to peruse. My lament was due >only to the suspicion that a canon answer often spells the end of a thread and >I was so enjoying this particular one. *sigh* Well, if people want to come up with _other_ ideas, go for it. I won't stomp all over everything and say it's not canon unless somebody says something clueless that implies they think people _are_ stating canon. And I like reading them too. Foo. (And the players in my Amnesia game don't have to worry about what happens to Kyriotates and Shedim. Really. There aren't any PC ones. Really.) - --emccoy@nh.ultranet.com // arcangel@io.com In Nomine Line Editor GURPS, Roleplayers, In Nomine stuff; Art: http://www.io.com/~arcangel/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:26:48 EDT From: MarkDEddy@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... In a message dated 5/12/99 8:53:39 AM, earlw@mc.com writes: >MarkDEddy@aol.com wrote: > > "This part is partially true. The final editor of the Pentateuch (the >first five books of the 'Old Testament' -- also known as the Torah) >gathered from many sources, including the "E Source," the "J Source," >the "A Source," and at least two other sources (I believe they are known >as "L" and "P," and only show up in Leviticus and Deuteronomy). "E", >"J", and "A" are called that based on what they use for God. "E" uses >"Elohim" (possibly properly translated "The Gods"), "J" uses the >Tetragrammation (Yod-Heh-Waw-Heh, "The LORD" or "Jehovah" or "YHWH"), >God's personal name, and "A" uses "Adonai" (The Lord, occasionally used >of mortal kings as well...). " > >The other two sources are P (for "Priestly") and D (for >"Deuteronomy"). D is found almost exclusively in Deuteronomy, >but P is found all over, I think. I hadn't heard of the A >source. I have heard of R (for "Redactor," editor), used of >little bits of bridge text presumably put in by the editor to >pull the sources together. In Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" >the author theorizes that the Redactor was Jeremiah, or his >faithful sidekick and scribe Baruch. > >Earl > I would have thought that the Redactor would have been earlier than that. Most of the scholars I've run into state that Deuteronomy was the Book of the Law that King Josiah found tucked away. (Josiah being approximately 300 years pre-Jeremiah...). And there are internal evidences for a complete text of Exodus available to the author of First and Second Samuel. But we're getting far afield of In Nomine, so, unless there are objections, we should probably take this to private e-mail if you want to continue... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 07:50:51 -0700 From: Sean McCarthy Subject: Re: IN> Interesting spam? Nah... Our spies report that on 10:33 AM 5/12/99 EDT, MarkDEddy@aol.com said: > >In a message dated 5/12/99 7:11:09 AM, sean@dangerzone.org writes: > >>Our spies report that on 08:59 AM 5/12/99 -0500, Earl Wajenberg said: >>>Steve Jessop wrote: >>> >>> "That seems a bit odd, given the LORD's words at the time - "Because >>>thou hast done this thing, and hath not withheld thy son, thy only son, >>>that in blessing I will bless thee." >>> >>> "Abraham got the goodies because he was willing to sacrifice his son >>>just because God told him to." >>> >> >> Someone the other day postulated to me that the sacrifice actually did >>happen and that out of three knowledge sources comprising the modern text, >>only one involved the Lord staying Abraham's hand. >> >"A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep, or taste not...." > >In order for Abraham to have actually sacrificed Isaac, the entire rest of >Genesis would have to be rejected. Later in the narrative, Isaac marries >Rebekah, has Jacob and Esau, gives Jacob his blessing by mistake, and dies of >old age. The Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron (Where the Jewish militant >killed a lot of Palestinian worshipers) exists, and at least putatively holds >his remains. And the remains are those of an elderly man. Your friend's >postulate is, in essence, hogwash. Sorry. Somehow I feel insulted. Out of an interest in list harmony, I will not press that issue. Now, what do you do when the man you have all lined up to be the father of the master race up and does something really pagan and Fate-approaching? Besides telling him next time to make sure the Lord doesn't speak to him through messengers with Really Good Hair, you don't seem to have an awful lot of options. This, of course, is why Servitors of Yves get the high pay that they do. Sean ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1221 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.