Were lambs used as a sin sacrifice?

[kaufmannphillips]

RND wrote:
Yes, I understand that you are extremely anal retentive KP and I should have stated it this way: "Much of Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin done in ignorance." Please forgive me for not recognizing your extreme sensibilities to ultimate accuracies.

I may have an extreme sensibility about accuracy corresponding to truth, and inaccuracy corresponding to untruth.

You may have a normal insensibility to the same.

RND wrote:
What other construction might verses 1-12 deal with?

4:1-2 establishes the unifying thread for the chapter, without referring to corporate sin. The diction of the Hebrew text of 4:3 does not specifically refer to corporate sin, but to the guilt and/or the indebtedness of the people; some parties might attempt to make theological hay of this, distinguishing it from sin. For the purpose of our discussion, it is not necessary for me to take a definitive stand on that subsection. Whether the subsection is construed as dealing with corporate sin or not, the latter part of the chapter - the key to our discussion of the lambkin - makes no reference to corporate sin.

RND wrote:
Most Bible scholars, including Jewish Bible scholars would agree that much of Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin done in ignorance.

(a) Will you please provide references to these scholars?

(b) Regardless, this was not your assertion, and its stipulation would not substantiate your construal of the material in 4:22ff.

[RND]

I may have an extreme sensibility about accuracy corresponding to truth, and inaccuracy corresponding to untruth.

You may have a normal insensibility to the same.

Nothing untrue in what I said.

4:1-2 establishes the unifying thread for the chapter, without referring to corporate sin. The diction of the Hebrew text of 4:3 does not specifically refer to corporate sin, but to the guilt and/or the indebtedness of the people; some parties might attempt to make theological hay of this, distinguishing it from sin. For the purpose of our discussion, it is not necessary for me to take a definitive stand on that section. Whether the subsection is construed as dealing with corporate sin or not, the latter part of the chapter - the key to our discussion of the lambkin - makes no reference to corporate sin.

So I'm untrue based on your unwillingness to take a position? Wow, what double mindedness you have grandma!

... For the purpose of our discussion, it is not necessary for me to take a definitive stand on that section....

Then what are you arguing about? Just to hear yourself think?

(a) Will you please provide references to these scholars?

Nope, sorry, consider it a "homework" assignment. Besides, you'll just try to finagle your way out of whatever I post by not taking a stand one way or the other!

(b) Regardless, this was not your assertion, and its stipulation would not substantiate your construal of the material in 4:22ff.

I changed my assertion to match your frailty and hubris. What more would you like? Blood? You know, I've noticed KP that not many people engage you for whatever reason, but I think I'm beginning to see why. There really is no point to your madness is there?

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I may have an extreme sensibility about accuracy corresponding to truth, and inaccuracy corresponding to untruth.

You may have a normal insensibility to the same.

RND wrote:
Nothing untrue in what I said.

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.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The material of 4:1-21 might be construed as dealing with issues of corporate sin; clearly, 4:13-21 does so. But the material in 4:22-35 does not introduce the concept of corporate sin.

The unifying concept in chapter four is not corporate sin, but unintentional sin (q.v., 4:2).

RND wrote:
Yes, I understand that you are extremely anal retentive KP and I should have stated it this way: "Much of Leviticus 4 deals with corporate sin done in ignorance." Please forgive me for not recognizing your extreme sensibilities to ultimate accuracies. What other construction might verses 1-12 deal with?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
4:1-2 establishes the unifying thread for the chapter, without referring to corporate sin. The diction of the Hebrew text of 4:3 does not specifically refer to corporate sin, but to the guilt and/or the indebtedness of the people; some parties might attempt to make theological hay of this, distinguishing it from sin. For the purpose of our discussion, it is not necessary for me to take a definitive stand on that section. Whether the subsection is construed as dealing with corporate sin or not, the latter part of the chapter - the key to our discussion of the lambkin - makes no reference to corporate sin.

RND wrote:
So I'm untrue based on your unwillingness to take a position?

A feckless maneuver on your part here. My point does not hinge upon the limited subsection where I did not take a position. Your margin of inaccuracy/untruth does hinge upon the section that I commented on without reservation.

RND wrote:
Wow, what double mindedness you have grandma!

I recently heard that [s]cornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise [men] turn away wrath. But you can't always take hearsay at face value.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Will you please provide references to these scholars?

RND wrote:
Nope, sorry, consider it a "homework" assignment.

Ah - rather like old times:

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(b) What is your basis for claiming that "Luke travelled with Paul extensively in a roughly 30 year period"?

(c) What is your basis for claiming that Luke is the author of Acts?

RND wrote:
Be serious. A casual glance at both the scriptures and history answers your point and questions for you. Study up!

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(a) I am serious. Did I seem to be joking?

(b) Are we "casual" now? We are no longer diggers beneath the surface?

(c) Don't be so indolent as to ask me to do your work for you. If you're going to argue your point from these claims, let me know your bases for them. And if you don't have a solid foundation for the claims, then bust a move and see if you can't put some pilings under your castle in the air.

And then you broke off the discussion.

RND wrote:
I changed my assertion to match your frailty and hubris. What more would you like? Blood?

(a) 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.

(b) I'll pass on the blood. It's a ritual liability.

RND wrote:
You know, I've noticed KP that not many people engage you for whatever reason, but I think I'm beginning to see why. There really is no point to your madness is there?

I do find you maddening at times.

[RND]

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.

"...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!

A feckless maneuver on your part here. My point does not hinge upon the limited subsection where I did not take a position. Your margin of inaccuracy/untruth does hinge upon the section that I commented on without reservation.

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.

I recently heard that [s]cornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise [men] turn away wrath. But you can't always take hearsay at face value.

And some aren't grown-up enough to know the difference or even see a little in an effort to convey the mood in which a comment was offered. Some pout.

Ah - rather like old times:

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(b) What is your basis for claiming that "Luke travelled with Paul extensively in a roughly 30 year period"?

(c) What is your basis for claiming that Luke is the author of Acts?

RND wrote:
Be serious. A casual glance at both the scriptures and history answers your point and questions for you. Study up!

kaufmannphillips wrote:
(a) I am serious. Did I seem to be joking?

(b) Are we "casual" now? We are no longer diggers beneath the surface?

(c) Don't be so indolent as to ask me to do your work for you. If you're going to argue your point from these claims, let me know your bases for them. And if you don't have a solid foundation for the claims, then bust a move and see if you can't put some pilings under your castle in the air.

And then you broke off the discussion.

Yeah, I did. That's because arguing with you is like mud wrestling a pig. Pretty soon you realize the pig likes it. Look, I'm not gonna do your homework for you.

In the time it took for you to find that old thread you could'a found the answer you were looking for.....priority's son.

(a) 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.

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. 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.

It's obvious you are only looking for things on the surface...lest you get you hands, and heaven forbid, or knees dirty. BTW, why'd you leave out the clarity I left you with? "In other words, individual sin is more costly and more grievous than corporate sin." Ewe lambs were much more valuable than male lambs.

Ah, but I hear the wheels turning already. "Prove it," "Show me in scripture," "The scripture doesn't say that."

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

http://www.messianic-torah-truth-seeker ... rings.html

Dig son! Dig! The truth is out there if you're willing to look for it!

(b) I'll pass on the blood. It's a ritual liability.

Only for the one bleeding.

I do find you maddening at times.

I bet. Look deeper.

[kaufmannphillips]

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.

[RND]

I'll have you let you have the last word KP. "Here we go round the mulberry bush, The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, Here we go round the mulberry bush, So early in the morning"