The Book of Leviticus Contains Many Silly Ideas

I put forth knowledge. I ask you Tarzan. What possible logical reason could ever be "discerned" that would justify ignoring the people that wrote the Bible? Their very words both wrote the words of Leviticus and shaped the understanding of Leviticus. The first 5 books of the Bible were not divided out as they are today but they were called the Torah or Moses. We divided them out much later to make the easier to find and reference material. They are not separate books. The people who wrote the Bible, those individuals that lived, breathed, slept and died IN the very culture we are discussing wrote all of the words in the Bible. Do you trust yourself when you claim that the man who wrote those same words in Leviticus is irrelevant or that the very ones who are approved by God and cannon are irrelevant? That is SADLY absurd and illogical. Do you ignore the Mechanic's teacher when your car mechanic's teacher says something? Might he have bearing on your mechanic's statement? Do you read the 4th chapter on a book about the stock market and ignore the rest? Where is wisdom in this so called LOGIC? Why do most Christian Scholars not completely agree with you(Tarzan) that Leviticus is silly? (Not Ad Populum fallacy, it is an appeal to the authority of Christian scholars and not quantity appeal based upon belief but upon their resident knowledge.) We see from your rebuttal that you (Tarzan) desire to ignore context when it is inconvenient to his winning the debate. We also see that you have no knowledge of the Culture of Middle Eastern Judaism in Africa at the 2500-3500 B.C. timeframe. We also see that you have no knowledge of the Semitic languages these books were written in. Let me use an analogy of a person that is attempting to criticize the content of a different book with the same constraints on his knowledge. Here is an excerpt: ""He rode forth proud and astrid his powerful warhorse with lance in hand. He cried "Avanti!" and charged down the rail the sun glinting off of his metal suit of armor."" The critic is as follows: Is this author a completely silly person? There is not one person riding around yelling "Avanti!", and even "charging down a rail" is plain and simply silly and makes absolutely no sense, and who wears metal armor as clothing! Foolishness! Back to my rebuttal: Clearly you would think the person absurd to criticize such a document in such a way. We all KNOW what the author is talking about, but the critic and potentially his audience does not. The rail is a jousting tourney rail. Avanti means forward or charge and is not in use today. In the Medieval age people wore metal armor to do combat. I am asserting that this is exactly how you are criticizing the Bible. You do so with no knowledge and are playing "Chicken with God". Now I do not blame any of the audience for agreeing with Tarzan. I completely understand why you would. If you just read what Tarzan is putting forth it completely sounds foolish! But realize you are NOT putting your trust in Tarzan's contextual criticism to get a good grade…. You are trusting in Tarzan's ability to listen to God. You are in agreement when you may not know these things as well. I will address all of the points of Leviticus in my video. But first the rebuttal. "< >" The standard use of Silly is this. Silly- an adjective describing the lack of intellect: Foolishness. That was the context you used silly in your first round. Please do not redefine. I do believe my opponent has a problem with understanding context. <<"My opponent asserts that something done with intelligence behind it cannot be silly. This is simply false, as I'm sure every person reading this debate is seen someone intelligent do something silly.>>" Yep I saw that coming. The definition of the word silly indicates lack of intellect. My opponent is trying to redefine his own usage in the first round to – "An intellectual person can do something silly" but generally when you are critiquing a silly book you are indicating of the author an overwhelming lack of intellect to propose such information as we see in the quote below. "<>" The above shows that you even used the word Silly to point to more than just "a mere instance". If you misspoke or failed to clarify I believe that burden rests on you at this point. "Immaterial - we are talking about ONLY the book of Leviticus." I will redirect a couple of assertions. Leviticus is not (despite my opponents misunderstanding) a stand-alone book. It is a part of the Torah, it is only separate books to reference key events. All books of the Bible point to and reflect information in that book. The Torah is keystone for the Bible. This may help my opponent in understanding the over arching context of the Bible. Just think, If I am right and it should be read in the context of the whole Bible it "might" NOT be SILLY! (Facetious statement) <<"This is all well and good, except that my opponent does not say anything about what that meaning IS. Thus, without elucidated further meaning, they qualify as trifling or frivolous and fulfill the resolution.">> I have encountered this with you before. You failed to study or read the source. The source was the "source" of elucidation. I even chose one that taught these things with very few words due to our repeated encounter with your attention span. <<"However, this is the same line of reasoning as to consider slavery to not be a silly idea simply because the people that HAD the idea were intelligent.">> My opponent is now implying that I am asserting something different. The assertion is this (If my opponent had read the source he might be a bit more lucid) each of the laws in Leviticus has a particular symbol behind them, and were DONE with intent and intellect behind them. They are intellectual laws. I used even other Biblical references to show the context of this very thing, which my opponent promptly ignored. He ignored the references because of ignorance. He declared them irrelevant. My Opponent has a severely nasty habit of ignoring context and sources. It is causing me to state the same things over and over again in different ways and wasting rounds. <<"(even though other places in the Bible say he doesn't like sacrifices... but that's immaterial to this debate...)">> I again put forth how is the context of the Bible's understanding of the sacrifices in that very Bible not relevant? These statements from Tarzan are Silly. So now that my entire understanding was rejected I must point the audience to first my video. The video will give a critique on Leviticus and the supposed silliness. Like Tarzan that completely misquotes the Bible and ignores relevant context, anyone can justify anything. Be careful who you agree with or listen to. The video directly address the points in Tarzan's arguments. http://www.sil.org... Information contained on this site for rebuttal in video. This is not complete but the quote and charts utilized from this site are in the video. http://www.godtube.com...