Did Jesus hold false beliefs?
- Thread starter JohnClay
- Start date
whereloveandmercymeet
There but for the grace of God...
- Nov 12, 2018
- 386
- 596
- 33
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
You can actually die of a broken heart. I forget the medical term for it. But basically extreme emotional trauma can cause heart muscle to weaken. At least as far as I (not an anatomy specialist) understand it. They often say that could be the reason why when one elderly person in a couple dies the other dies soon after. (Again, don’t know how true that is but it has been documented)
Upvote
0
- Oct 27, 2006
- 1,129
- 186
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
There is also:
"two heads are better than one"
"use your head"
"it went over my head"
"air head"
"thick head"
"messing with your head"
"get your head around something"
"a good head on your shoulders"
"got your head screwed on"
"a head for figures"
"head in the clouds"
"level headed"
"off the top of my head"
"you need your head examined"
"off your head"
"sleepy head"
Unlike "metaphors" that say the heart is used for thinking or feeling, talking about the head is accurate.
But the Bible NEVER talks about the head in this way.
I think they mention the heart because that is what people literally believed.
The Bible also talks about the "bowels":
e.g.
Genesis 43:30
"And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother: and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there."
Song of Solomon 5:4
"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him."
Lamentations 2:11
"Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth"
Note that in all of those cases, some translations say "heart" - perhaps because bowels sounds odd. In some translations the word "liver" is removed.
The Bible also talks about the belly:
e.g.
Job 15:35
"They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit."
Some translations change that to "heart" - maybe because "belly" sounds odd.
So the KJV talks about mental processes being linked to the heart, bowels, liver and belly - which is incorrect in all cases. There are many more examples of this.
If Jesus was aware that we don't literally understand with our hearts he could have said "mind".
Upvote
0
- Oct 27, 2006
- 1,129
- 186
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
If they weren't talking about a physical heart then what part of the body did they believe was involved with feelings/thoughts? On the other hand things like the mind, soul and spirit don't necessarily involve a particular part of the body.
Obviously it doesn't mean the heart was physically circumcized though.
Upvote
0
Phil.Stein
Active Member
- Oct 28, 2018
- 223
- 194
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
i believe that the heart can feel and understand. i don't think Jesus would have got this wrong. whether this is the heart itself, or some spiritual 'heart' that somehow is more related to the heart tahn the mind (but possibly best linked to the heart, due to the reference to the heart).
haven't some brain dead people later recovered, and indicated they could hear their relatives arguing not to turn off their life support? if the brain was 'dead' for this period, how could the people be aware of (and understand) such conversations?
why do we feel emotional pain in the heart? haven't some people receiving organ donations experienced memories etc. of those donating the organ? the bible says the life is in the blood.
has it ever been proven that hearts cannot understand? i agree this is beyond the understanding of modern man, but i don't think it has really been proven that the heart cannot understand.
Upvote
0
grasping the after wind
That's grasping after the wind
- Jan 18, 2010
- 19,458
- 6,354
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
How could Tony Bennett say he left his heart in San Francisco when he knew he was still alive? Did he have false beliefs?
Upvote
0
expos4ever
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2008
- 10,661
- 5,770
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I am perfectly open to believing that Jesus really believed all sorts of incorrect things. I am confident He did know about the theory of relativity, for instance.
Upvote
0
- Jul 9, 2002
- 2,929
- 725
- 50
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Craig is a brilliant man, but he isn't perfect (nor is anyone but Christ).
To get to the heart of the matter, one must understand that Jesus often employed metaphors in His teaching. The heart is a metaphor, as it is today, for the center of one's being. What Jesus is saying has nothing to do with anatomy, and everything to do with the deepest recesses of one's being.
Hope this helps;
Michael
Upvote
0
The heart Jesus is talking about is our heart center not the physical heart .That is where God's energy flows into us giving us life every second what the eastern cultures call the heart chakra . "Without him nothing was made that was made" It is like our personal sun cut off the sun and everything would quickly die.. Scientists can't even explain how the heart beats ? because its not coming from this world , but from God . When you speak from the heart you by pass your carnal mind , that Paul talked about what today is called the ego . " Heaven and earth will pass away , but My words shall not pass away " Jesus Christ
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Oct 27, 2006
- 1,129
- 186
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
I can't seem to find a reference to kidneys being related to thoughts/feelings in word searches. When you say they are metaphorical, do you have any evidence that the writers actually believed that our thoughts/feelings come from our heads?Two other terms in Hebrew used for deep feelings/thoughts are bowels and kidneys. All these terms are metaphorical.
TD
Upvote
0
Phil.Stein
Active Member
- Oct 28, 2018
- 223
- 194
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I think bowels is just a mistranslation for insides, which one can understand. Our feelings do tend to come from inside us - either the heart area, or the stomach area.
With liver, I'm not really sure. Some type of metaphor, perhaps?
Upvote
0
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,323
- 998
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I use blueletterbible.org to do searches on Hebrew and Greek words; they are referenced to Strong's number system.
The Heb. word for heart is leb, and the word for kidneys is kilyah. A prime example is found in Jer. 11:20 (there are many others):
KJV: "But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause."
NASB: "But, O LORD of hosts, who judges righteously,
Who tries the feelings and the heart,
Let me see Your vengeance on them,
For to You have I committed my cause."
NLT: "O LORD of Heaven’s Armies,
you make righteous judgments,
and you examine the deepest thoughts and secrets.
Let me see your vengeance against them,
for I have committed my cause to you."
The phrase in question is "the kilyah and the leb" which is translated in those three versions as:
"the reins and the heart," "the feelings and the heart," and "the deepest thoughts and the secrets." Notice how the translators are taking into account the metaphorical nature of the words, as can be seen in the context of the passage. A direct translation would be "the kidneys and the heart," if it were talking strictly about physical body parts. But the prophet is using the words of body parts to convey deep and hidden secrets, thoughts, ideas, agendas, etc. in the minds of men.
In fact, you are using the word "head" as metaphorical in a sense, because the physical head doesn't actually feel anything, but rather it is the living YOU inside your body that is feeling, and that is a very complex matter. We know that the brain resides in the head and upper neck, and is the "seat" of all thoughts. Feelings and attitudes arise out of basic thoughts, and so all feelings and attitudes originate in the mind. The reason why feelings seem like they are in the heart, bowels, or kidneys is because there is a nerval connection between them and the brain. For example, if you feel threatened, your brain tells your adrenal gland to release adrenaline that helps your body to take quick action. That thought originates in the mind. You see something, and you think it a danger to you. That thought is in your mind. But it results in a feeling in your "bowels" (or belly).
So then, languages in general use these kinds of metaphors for thoughts and feelings that are basic emotional responses to circumstances, and are deeper than mere informational knowledge or reasoning. Hebrew is rich in this kind of metaphorical language. Another example is the word translated "spirit" is the word for physical breath. It is the same in the Greek. In our society, we commonly use "head" and "heart" as metaphors for "thoughts" and "feelings." In fact, inner feelings are simply thoughts at a different and deeper level.
Now, whether or not the writers believed or even knew the science of where thoughts originate is debatable, and such things are speculation. I suspect they knew, because they were just as knowledgeable and intelligent as we are, even without the modern education. What we have in the scripture is the actual words, and the meanings conveyed in the context. How the words are used by the writers shows us that they were expert on the subjects they were writing about, and their expertise came not from themselves, but from God's revelations.
Incidentally, if you want to simplify metaphorical language in the reading of the Bible and get to the basic meaning of the text, I recommend reading the NLT (New Living Translation). It makes reading scripture much easier.
Hope this helps.
TD
Upvote
0
- Oct 27, 2006
- 1,129
- 186
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Why can't you accept that the authors literally thought those body parts were involved?
Also
Lamentations 2:11
"Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth"
NIV:
"....I am in torment within; my heart is poured out on the ground..."
I think the NIV didn't want to include the odd language of bowels and liver.
Info about "kabed":
It says it is a literal liver.
No your head is used for thoughts and feeling. Not all of your head, but the head is still used.
The mind is in the head, so the head is involved.
Ancient people thought those body parts were literally involved - and not the brain at all even though the brain is the central reason for thoughts and feelings.
Yes and "head" is accurate.
No they still come from the head/brain.
There is no reason to think that the authors thought that thoughts and feelings involved the brain.
Then why do they never use the term "head" or "brain" but instead use other body parts hundreds of times? I gave many examples of metaphors they could have used with the head.
But Aristotle was extremely intelligent yet he believed the heart was the source of our thoughts and the brain was for cooling blood.
I think it is better to find out what the original words said, like "liver", which is removed in some versions, perhaps because it is odd.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,323
- 998
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
It looks to me like you think you are an expert in this, but I thought you were asking sincere questions looking for answers... In any case, I'll keep responding.
Many examples? I think you're exaggerating.
TD
It is obvious that the body parts are involved, since they are where the feelings seem to be located.
Yet his literal liver and heart did not fall out of his body onto the ground. I'm wondering why you just cannot get that this is metaphorical language. It might mean that he got down in the prone position face down in front of the altar and so his literal heart and liver was as close to the ground as they could get. But then everything in his body would also be in that position, so why specify the liver and the heart? What is the reason for the expression? The context demands the meaning be metaphorical. He is talking about feelings, not body parts. He is using body parts to express it.
So then, you admit that it is metaphorical? "Head" = mind. A metaphor is a word used to represent something else.
Can you please give me the reference where you get the information that any of the writers of scripture had such a belief?
Did I say that your usage of "head" was inaccurate? Does this mean that you think a metaphorical usage of a word is inaccurate?
So then, you agree, since this was my meaning.
Again, cite your source. I believe the authors were ever so much intelligent and knowledgable as myself.
The Hebrew word rosh means "head." It appears 598 times in the Bible, with 349 of those times it is translated "head" in the KJV. Of those 349 times the word "head" is used, almost 1/3 is a direct metaphorical usage, meaning "authority," "chief," "top," "esteem," and other such meanings. Another 1/4 of the literal meaning "head" has a metaphorical context. For example, "his guilt shall be upon his own head" means that his conscience will not be clean with God. If you deny that these are metaphorical usages, then I think you have an interpretive problem.
Many examples? I think you're exaggerating.
I don't care about Aristotle. I only care about the writers of scripture who were prophets of the only true God.
It may seem odd because it is metaphorical in nature, and not everyone understands that.
TD
Upvote
0
- Oct 27, 2006
- 1,129
- 186
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Though the real source is the brain/head.
HEART - JewishEncyclopedia.com
"The three special functions, knowing, feeling, and willing, ascribed by modern psychologists to the mind, were attributed to the heart by the Biblical writers"
LIVER - JewishEncyclopedia.com
"On the functions of the several organs of the human body this observation is found in the Talmud: "The liver causes anger"
Like you said:
"It is obvious that the body parts are involved, since they are where the feelings seem to be located"
It is very closely linked, unlike "heart".
"Ancient people thought those body parts were literally involved - and not the brain at all even though the brain is the central reason for thoughts and feelings."
See:
HEART - JewishEncyclopedia.com
"The three special functions, knowing, feeling, and willing, ascribed by modern psychologists to the mind, were attributed to the heart by the Biblical writers"
LIVER - JewishEncyclopedia.com
"On the functions of the several organs of the human body this observation is found in the Talmud: "The liver causes anger"
There are varying degrees of accuracy.
See what I quoted earlier. It probably wouldn't be hard to find more quotes like that.
I'm talking about uses clearly connected to "thoughts" or "feelings".
In post #23 I gave 16 examples where the head is being used when talking about thoughts/feelings/intelligence/understanding.
Earlier in this post I gave evidence about what the authors of the Bible thought.
What is your theory why the NIV removed the word "liver"?It may seem odd because it is metaphorical in nature, and not everyone understands that.
TD
BTW when you checked the Bible for the usage of the word "head" you missed a very important example: "visions of my head". That is used 6 times in Daniel. I am very unfamiliar with Daniel but became aware of that when I was looking at a link mentioned earlier in this post. I think that usage is only used when involving dreams rather than general thoughts/imagination.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
tdidymas
Newbie
- Aug 28, 2014
- 2,323
- 998
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
It looks to me like you are in agreement.
Ok, so this is some opinion of a writer in the Jewish Encyclopedia. I can't see the full context of the statement, so I don't know what else was there. Out of context, it appears that what you are quoting might be interpreted as physical heart and liver. Nevertheless, the first statement appears more that it is acknowledging "heart" in a metaphorical sense.
When I do a search in that encyclopedia on "heart" it yields this statement: "Biblical Data: The seat of the emotional and intellectual life." This tells me that the same Encyclopedia acknowledges the metaphorical nature of the term in a Biblical context.
In the case of the statement "the liver causes anger" from the Talmud, it appears to me to be a mere opinion by someone, and does not indicate what the Biblical writers believed. It may appear that "the liver causes anger" for someone who is unfamiliar with anatomy, since the adrenal gland is located near it and the spleen. This might explain the statement in the Talmud. But it does not in any way prove that the Biblical writers did not intend a metaphorical usage of the term in such a context. When the word is studied in all contexts, we can see that the word "liver" is of literal usage almost exclusively, as in the case of animal livers. But in Lam. 2:11, it is obvious to me the term is used metaphorically.
So whether or not the Biblical writers knew human anatomy is not the issue, nor does it put them in the category of ignoramuses. The context of words in scripture determine the usage of the words, so the context determines whether we should interpret those words as literal or figurative. This is how to properly discern the original meaning.
So the mind is located closer to the head than the heart is, and this is the reason why you don't think that "heart" in scripture is being used metaphorically? It looks to me like you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
I would like to see an authoritative reference for this statement that you are quoting, unless you are merely quoting your own opinion. I do not agree with this statement. The way I read scripture is that when the context demands a metaphorical meaning of words, I take it as metaphorical, and furthermore take it that the writers understood and intended a metaphorical usage.
I agree.
I know that, it is the context of this thread. I was merely pointing out the statistics on the term in order to get you to see that the term is used in scripture both literally and figuratively. In many cases, the word by itself is literal, but the context is figurative, so the end result is a figurative expression that is not referring to a literal body part. In many cases in scripture "head" refers to thoughts.
Since your post #23 was to someone else, I was not aware of what you were referring to. But now that I see it, all 16 of your examples are modern expressions, so the Biblical writers would not have used any of those expressions. But in regard to the metaphorical usage of the term "head," note this one:
Psa 38:4 "For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me." This is clearly a figurative usage of the term, meaning guilty thoughts and feelings.
Which I disagree with your interpretation of that evidence.
Because the NIV is not a word-for-word translation. It is a thought-for-thought translation, so in places like Lam. 2:11 where the figurative language appears awkward in modern English, they simply translate the meaning of the statement in modern language, which eliminates the awkwardness of the actual Hebrew verbage.
The expression could be taken as both literal and figurative. Just as there are degrees of accuracy, so also there are degrees of figurative usage. "Visions of my head" might mean that Daniel "saw" things that were as clear to him as seeing them with his eyes, but no one else could see them. One person might say that is literal language, but another person might say the expression has figurative qualities. I think he uses the expression not to depict a mere "dream," but a dream so vivid that it seemed like reality, such that he was able to remember it in great detail when awake. Thus the term "visions" as opposed to "dreams."
A strict literalist might say that the term "head" is a literal usage, but I would contend that the term is a replacement for "mind," since the literal "head" is the whole thing, but the "mind" is only a part of the thing, having to do with the thoughts and imagination. Therefore I would categorize "head" in this instance as figurative. In this case, it would be a synecdoche, which in this case is defined as: "A synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a term for a part of something refers to the whole of something or vice versa. A synecdoche is a class of metonymy, often by means of either mentioning a part for the whole or conversely the whole for one of its parts."
TD
Upvote
0
Similar threads
