Is the Judeo-Christian god favoring people based on race racist?

[Anonymous1977]

Even so, one of the definitions of 'above' is 'rather than.' Once more, Jews tend to see themselves as a people chosen for a particular purpose.

Jesus was making a comparison. People are fed before dogs; Jesus came for the faithful before others. Once read a commentary on this, where someone saw the entire episode as Jesus having fun with the Apostles. They were so embarrassed that a woman was following after them and making a scene, and they were elbowing Jesus to get him to make the woman go away. Instead, causing them greater embarrassment, he a male speaks to a woman--and a non-Jewish woman at that--engages her in conversation. Just when their faces cannot become any redder, Jesus (with perhaps a twinkle in his eye) reminds the woman that not only is she female (gasp), she's not a Jew (whom the mean portion of the population refers to as dogs). The woman seems to see the humor, because apparently the word she uses to reference dogs translates better as little dogs or puppies.

But the reason the story is included in the Gospel (whether there was actual humor or not) is to make the point that Jesus helped people of faith, no matter what their nationality, no matter what their standing with the Jews.

Can't get to a respectable dictionary source but the meaning of the word "above" is obvious. If SCOLARS chose to translate the Hebrew as "above," as opposed to "in preference to"/"rather than," then it's pretty obvious to me what the Hebrew means.

And as for Jesus' "dogs" reference, I'll quote the NKJV of Mark 7:24-30 and one can see for him/her self what Jesus was saying:

"(24)From there He arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And He entered a house and wanted no one to know it, but He could not be hidden. (25)For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. (26)The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. (27)But Jesus said to her, 'Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.' (28)And she answered and said to Him, 'Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.' (29)Then He said to her, 'For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.' (30)And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed."

Anyone can claim that it's really saying this or that or that it really means this or that but the facts are that her not being one of "the children" made her "a little dog" according to Jesus...that is clearly racism Ma'am.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think Meriweather addressed that. However, again I say consider who wrote it. Of course a Jew is going to say that the Jews are loved by God. What else would you expect him to say? Every nation thinks their country is preferred by God.

No she didn't address why Jesus called non-Jews "dogs" reinforcing the Jews being somehow above everyone else in Judeo-Christianity.

She says the KJV is faulty but as one can see the most universally respected translations use the word "above." Lol so I ask again, why are the Jews somehow above everyone else in Judeo-Christianity and is that racist?

Ok...let me try to get more thorough here. There are two words that are commonly translated in Deuteronomy 10:5. One is 'mikkal' and the other is "achri'em". Which word is used depends on which manuscript you are reading. Mikkal is more common from what I can tell, but can be translated several different ways. It can mean 'above all'. It can also mean 'apart from all', 'from all', or 'rather than' (as Meri translated it). Achri'em literally means 'after all'.

The KJV (and most other Bibles) is an English translation of a Greek translation of an earlier Greek translation of the Hebrew. So a lot of things get screwed up when it bounces from language to language. Further, the language of the KJV itself is antiquated. Take for example Revelation 17:6 where it is written in the KJV "6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." Ok...why would the author look upon the whore of Babylon with admiration? This is a terrible image. Why would he admire her? It's because when the KJV was written to "admire" something meant to be in disgusted awe of it. The meaning of the word has changed over the centuries so that it now means to look upon something with respect. It now means the opposite.

So, respectfully, I think you are looking too deeply into this and getting caught in trivialities that are based upon traditions that are in turn based upon quirks in languages and translation and how languages change over the course of the centuries.

 

[BluePhantom]

"Above" does not mean "rather than," Ma'am. "Rather than" means "rather than." Here are the definitions for "above:" Above Define Above at Dictionary.com ..

Anonymous...you understand that's a translation right? I mean you understand that the Bible was not written in English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. You understand that certain words don't translate cleanly from one language to another, right? I don't mean to be insulting but I just want to make sure you are aware of that.

 

[Anonymous1977]

Anonymous...you understand that's a translation right? I mean you understand that the Bible was not written in English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. You understand that certain words don't translate cleanly from one language to another, right? I don't mean to be insulting but I just want to make sure you are aware of that.

Well I have my views on the Bible and you have yours I guess, but SCHOLARS translated those most respected translations that I referred to, so.

 

[Penelope]

"Above" does not mean "rather than," Ma'am. "Rather than" means "rather than." Here are the definitions for "above:" Above Define Above at Dictionary.com ..

Anonymous...you understand that's a translation right? I mean you understand that the Bible was not written in English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. You understand that certain words don't translate cleanly from one language to another, right? I don't mean to be insulting but I just want to make sure you are aware of that.

Well I have my views on the Bible and you have yours I guess, but SCHOLARS translated those most respected translations that I referred to, so.

The Hebrew bible was wrote by many authors and years ago people were tribal, but the Hebrews seem to be tribal today as well, so yes most of them do think they are the "chosen" , but of course to even compare them to knowing or be equated to the God of the universe is absurd. Its a Hebrew book and its their god of which they adopted from the lands they conquered.

 

[Anonymous1977]

To Meriweather, I amended this post (post #21) if you already read it: Is the Judeo-Christian god favoring people based on race racist Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum .

 

[BluePhantom]

Anonymous...you understand that's a translation right? I mean you understand that the Bible was not written in English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. You understand that certain words don't translate cleanly from one language to another, right? I don't mean to be insulting but I just want to make sure you are aware of that.

Well I have my views on the Bible and you have yours I guess, but SCHOLARS translated those most respected translations that I referred to, so.

Well no actually they didn't. Theologians, scribes, and priests translated them and throughout time they translated them to fit certain criteria. The KJV was translated in such a way where traditional views of the Church were maintained and not necessarily adhering to a literal reading. They were also translated to maintain authority by either the Church in Rome or the king immediately after the Reformation and give justification to certain policies.

Specific to Deuteronomy, one must take into account that it has a history of its own. It was not added to Torah until after the Babylonian exile. Torah originally only had four books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers) and Deuteronomy was added later in order to save the religion. When the Zadokite priests added Deuteronomy to Torah they edited it very heavily so we have two versions. One is shorter and one is longer and they both say very different things. We don't know which one came first. Scholars still argue about that, but in reality no one knows. When Dead Sea Scrolls were found there was great celebration because scholarship hoped to be able to settle that debate, but unfortunately both versions were in the scrolls as well so even that didn't help.

So you are looking at one specific word that has been edited, interpreted countless times in many different ways, exists in two different forms, and is in a different language and trying to draw a conclusion about the nature of God. All I am saying is that we probably shouldn't draw such conclusions when we know neither the original form nor the intent of the author.

 

[Anonymous1977]

Well no actually they didn't...

Yeah actually they did lol...where going no where here blue...you might be speaking from a viewpoint or way at viewing things that I wouldn't be interested in e.g. man's hand & the possible affects of it in transmitting scripture. That's not what I'd be interested in. I'll just accept the fact that scholars translated the Hebrew as "above," and not as "in preference to"/"rather than."