2 added 641 characters in body
source | link

My wife and I were discussing this, and her careful reading of the verse makes what I think is an important distinction between the Sinai Tradition and these Native American Traditions:

הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ-הָאֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַעְתָּ אַתָּה--וַיֶּחִי.

Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?

(Deut 4:33, emphasis mine)

I think that the most obvious implication of this preposition of place is in-corporeality, which is not claimed, or at least not specified, in the other traditions.

The claim would then be that a voice of a God disassociated from any form addressed the people. I believe that this strengthens the Sinai claim because in the other stories there is a human form of some sort associated with the address of the people, which in turn akesmakes it possible that the addressing party was just a human.

There could have been the possibility of Ventriloquy, but If you look at Ex. 19:16-19 there seems to be a great deal of ambient noise that would be difficult for a human to overcome. See specifically verse 19:

וַיְהִי קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר, הוֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק מְאֹד; מֹשֶׁה יְדַבֵּר, וְהָאֱלֹהִים יַעֲנֶנּוּ בְקוֹל.

And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice.

My wife and I were discussing this, and her careful reading of the verse makes what I think is an important distinction between the Sinai Tradition and these Native American Traditions:

הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ-הָאֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַעְתָּ אַתָּה--וַיֶּחִי.

Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?

I think that the most obvious implication of this preposition of place is in-corporeality, which is not claimed, or at least not specified, in the other traditions.

The claim would then be that a voice of a God disassociated from any form addressed the people. I believe that this strengthens the Sinai claim because in the other stories there is a human form of some sort associated with the address of the people, which in turn akes it possible that the addressing party was just a human.

My wife and I were discussing this, and her careful reading of the verse makes what I think is an important distinction between the Sinai Tradition and these Native American Traditions:

הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ-הָאֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַעְתָּ אַתָּה--וַיֶּחִי.

Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?

(Deut 4:33, emphasis mine)

I think that the most obvious implication of this preposition of place is in-corporeality, which is not claimed, or at least not specified, in the other traditions.

The claim would then be that a voice of a God disassociated from any form addressed the people. I believe that this strengthens the Sinai claim because in the other stories there is a human form of some sort associated with the address of the people, which in turn makes it possible that the addressing party was just a human.

There could have been the possibility of Ventriloquy, but If you look at Ex. 19:16-19 there seems to be a great deal of ambient noise that would be difficult for a human to overcome. See specifically verse 19:

וַיְהִי קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר, הוֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק מְאֹד; מֹשֶׁה יְדַבֵּר, וְהָאֱלֹהִים יַעֲנֶנּוּ בְקוֹל.

And when the voice of the horn waxed louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice.

1
source | link

My wife and I were discussing this, and her careful reading of the verse makes what I think is an important distinction between the Sinai Tradition and these Native American Traditions:

הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ-הָאֵשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַעְתָּ אַתָּה--וַיֶּחִי.

Did ever a people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?

I think that the most obvious implication of this preposition of place is in-corporeality, which is not claimed, or at least not specified, in the other traditions.

The claim would then be that a voice of a God disassociated from any form addressed the people. I believe that this strengthens the Sinai claim because in the other stories there is a human form of some sort associated with the address of the people, which in turn akes it possible that the addressing party was just a human.