Queen James Bible

rubato · Post by **rubato** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:25 am

Well there you go.

By running around and killing off most of their Jews the Europeans nearly eliminated the ability to understand Christianity at all.

What were they thinking?

yrs,
rubato

MajGenl.Meade · Post by **MajGenl.Meade** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:32 am

rubato wrote:Per GrossDad the Hebrew version of the OT is very substantially different from the English translations.
Apparently users of var. European translations for exegesis are not to be trusted. Hire a Rabbi!
yrs,
rubato

Unless that is sarcasm (because GrossDad messed up his first citation), then I have to say that the three references he does give are not at all "substantially different from the English translations". They are the same.

His first should not be Numbers 30, 33 but Numbers 16:30 and 16:33. Most English bibles (ESV, NASB, ASV, ISV, Darby, ERV, Youngs and so on) translate "Sheol" or "pit", either of which is acceptable. The NIV (which should be ditched in favour of the ESV) uses the word "grave".

The other two citations are also the same in English translations.

What is not the same are all the Hebrew "commentaries" GrossDad referred to which of course are just that - commentaries.

Meade

GrossDad · Post by **GrossDad** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:40 pm

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
rubato wrote:Per GrossDad the Hebrew version of the OT is very substantially different from the English translations.
Apparently users of var. European translations for exegesis are not to be trusted. Hire a Rabbi!
yrs,
rubato
Unless that is sarcasm (because GrossDad messed up his first citation), then I have to say that the three references he does give are not at all "substantially different from the English translations". They are the same.

His first should not be Numbers 30, 33 but Numbers 16:30 and 16:33. Most English bibles (ESV, NASB, ASV, ISV, Darby, ERV, Youngs and so on) translate "Sheol" or "pit", either of which is acceptable. The NIV (which should be ditched in favour of the ESV) uses the word "grave".

The other two citations are also the same in English translations.

What is not the same are all the Hebrew "commentaries" GrossDad referred to which of course are just that - commentaries.

Meade

While we're trying to be accurate, here: "GrossDad" did not mess up any citations. GrossDad, quite clearly, quoted another source. That other source may have messed up it's citations, but GrossDad accurately quoted his source.

In my experience, Jewish translations simply use the word "Sheol".

Of course the Jewish commentaries are just that--commentaries. That's the point. They're commentaries--and speculative ones at that--because the Bible doesn't elaborate on the nature of Sheol, treating it rather as a concept with which people are familiar.

MajGenl.Meade · Post by **MajGenl.Meade** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:58 pm

I stand corrected - GrossDad's source messed up the citation - it being fairly clear that two entire chapters of Numbers do not devote themselves to (and in this case do not even mention) 'Sheol'. Rather calls the entire quote into question don't it so?

Actually GD I was rather complaining about rubato's either satirical or nonsensical claim that your OT differs from the "Christian" OT, as if they are not the same thing (granted translation variations such as 'Sheol', 'pit', 'grave').

I appreciate your point about "know". Personally I have never seen the Lot story as having anything to do with homosexuals per se, although it certainly involves a homosexual act.

Meade

GrossDad · Post by **GrossDad** » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:18 pm

MajGenl.Meade wrote:I stand corrected - GrossDad's source messed up the citation - it being fairly clear that two entire chapters of Numbers do not devote themselves to (and in this case do not even mention) 'Sheol'. Rather calls the entire quote into question don't it so?

Meade

Not necessarily. It's a simple typographical error, easily sussed out.

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Actually GD I was rather complaining about rubato's either satirical or nonsensical claim that your OT differs from the "Christian" OT, as if they are not the same thing (granted translation variations such as 'Sheol', 'pit', 'grave').

I didn't understand Rubato to be saying that the Jewish OT differs from the Christian OT, except insofar as translations from the original oftentimes fail to convey the entire sense of the original--a fact that folks sometimes fail to take into account. All you have to do to recognize the truth of that assertion is to look at the sheer number of different translations, of varying quality, that exist. It was something like this--seeing the effect that different translations of the same source material can have on the understanding of the original that you come away with--that motivated my oldest son to study German: reading Doctor Zhivago (in English) while spending a few months working on a kibbutz several years ago, he saw many different translations of the Lara poems. He had become interested in reading Schiller, based on having read Crime and Punishment, but decided that he would have to read him in the original German.

Me? I've never learned to read Biblical Hebrew, but I've come to rely on primarily Jewish resources for the sense of the original. Richard Elliott Friedman is a favorite.

MajGenl.Meade · Post by **MajGenl.Meade** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:09 am

Good for your son learning to read Schiller in the original. I was confused there for a moment since Dr. Zhivago was written in Russian by Pasternak! Then I saw that was two different things.

All you have to do to recognize the truth of that assertion is to look at the sheer number of different translations, of varying quality, that exist.

A prime example being the subject QJV which takes as its standard not the oldest manuscripts in e.g. Hebrew but the poetic and yet very defective (in many places) KJV. I don't read Hebrew either.

The sheer number of translations of any writing is not evidence that any or all fail to convey the entire sense of the original - especially given that no one in the world possesses the "original". It's an assertion without evidence but perhaps an example or two would make this clear? Granted, none of us experienced (say) the Exodus and early Hebrew culture and idiom personally and so it is not likely that anyone today, Jewish or not, is aware of the "entire" sense of scripture.

As to sussing out the error, who other than me bothered to check? And why should not one simple error (which the author and the quoter should have easily sussed out) not cause the entire opinion piece to be suspect? Perhaps it is all equally careless?

After all, that is what the atheists insist is the case with the Scriptures, Hebrew or not. Putting out false information leads to ignorant assumptions (or perhaps sarcasm) such as:

Per GrossDad the Hebrew version of the OT is very substantially different from the English translations.
Apparently users of var. European translations for exegesis are not to be trusted. Hire a Rabbi

I note that rubato did not use qualifying words such as "except", "insofar as", "oftentimes" and "entire". Mind you, he gets poins for "apparently".

I didn't understand Rubato to be saying that the Jewish OT differs from the Christian OT, except insofar as translations from the original oftentimes fail to convey the entire sense of the original

Evidently understanding is difficult to achieve even when a statement is clear and unambiguous

Meade

Rick · Post by **Rick** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:15 pm

These sort of things are just examples of the willfulness of man not the fallibility of God.

The main reason I don't get very involved in such discourse...

GrossDad · Post by **GrossDad** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 4:15 pm

Sheer number of translations "of varying quality," and of the Bible, specifically. There are many, many translations, and they are different. They cannot all convey the exact sense of the languages from which they were translated, or they would not be different. Whether any of them does is a matter of speculation. Hence, "the Hebrew version of the OT is very substantially different from the English translations" is, to my mind, a fair statement. With respect to the Jewish Scriptures, only the most Orthodox of fundamentalists might claim that the original Pentateuch was written by Moses himself; to my understanding, it is generally acknowledged among Jews that what we now call the Bible is a compilation of stories that were transmitted orally for centuries before being committed to paper. Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? is an excellent exposition how, and by whom, this might have been done.

Rick · Post by **Rick** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:02 pm

However even after writing what I did above:

GrossDad, if you actually believe in God try reading Hebrews in the New Testament it was written for you. If you think someone is lying get yersef a Greek to English New Testament (mine happens to be The King James I'm sure Meade's is different), a Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament(mine is from Thayer), and an Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament. Do yer own research.

It requires reading with an open and honest heart, it was written for the common man with common knowledge. It does not require a knowledge of rocket science...

GrossDad · Post by **GrossDad** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:09 am

I was proselytized by the Campus Crusade for Christ back when I was in college. Checked out all of the 130+ Christian supposed proof texts in the Jewish Scriptures claimed to be prophecies of Christ. Was not convinced. Many of them were simply egregious extractions of quotes from their rightful context. Interesting in this regard: David Klinghoffer's Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History (a book that I read years later, but which illuminates the issues well).

I find the concept of a God who so loves us that he condemns to an eternity of suffering anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus was his only son/simultaneously God himself to be philosophically beyond the Pale.

(Favorite book in the NT: Book of James (the book that Martin Luther could have excised, had he had the power to do so). Favorite part of James, Chapter 2, verses 14-17:

14What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

GrossDad · Post by **GrossDad** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:20 am

Favorite part of the Scriptures: Isaiah 58:6-10:

6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the fetters of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

8 Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of HaShem shall be thy rearward.

9 Then shalt thou call, and HaShem will answer; thou shalt cry, and He will say: 'Here I am.' If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking wickedness;

10 And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in darkness, and thy gloom be as the noon-day . . .

Rick · Post by **Rick** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:26 am

James is a fine book indeed, although it hurts the feelings of the faith only crowd.

Sorry you find no appeal in the New Testament but I would be remiss if I had not brought it to the fore...

GrossDad · Post by **GrossDad** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:32 am

No offense taken. Some of my closest family members are Christians.

Sue U · Post by **Sue U** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 6:17 am

If there were only one book in the Bible, it should be Isaiah.

Rick · Post by **Rick** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:43 pm

Funny you should say that, in the 1st Century many a sermon about Christ started with Isaiah...

Sue U · Post by **Sue U** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:39 pm

I have no doubt. When it comes to exhortations about what faith requires us to do, he is pretty colorful.

Rick · Post by **Rick** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:47 pm

That, and prophesy of the coming Christ unfortunately ignored by the Jews of the 1st Century and maintained to this day.

Thus my sadness...

GrossDad · Post by **GrossDad** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:14 pm

One fairly common Jewish point of view: Isaiah 53 The Suffering Servant: Cutting through the distortions and mistranslations of this enigmatic text.

It begins:

The 53rd chapter of Isaiah is a beautiful, poetic song, one of the four “Servant Songs” in which the prophet describes the climactic period of world history when the Messiah will arrive and the Jewish people assume the role as the spiritual leaders of humanity.

Isaiah 53 is a prophecy foretelling how the world will react when they witness Israel's salvation in the Messianic era. The verses are presented from the perspective of world leaders, who contrast their former scornful attitude toward the Jews with their new realization of Israel's grandeur. After realizing how unfairly they treated the Jewish people, they will be shocked and speechless.

While the original Hebrew text clearly refers to the Jewish people as the “Suffering Servant,” over the centuries Isaiah 53 has become a cornerstone of the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Unfortunately, this claim is based on widespread mistranslations and distortion of context.

In order to properly understand these verses, one must read the original Hebrew text. When the Bible is translated into other languages, it loses much of its essence. The familiar King James translation uses language which is archaic and difficult for the modern reader. Furthermore, it is not rooted in Jewish sources and often goes against traditional Jewish teachings. Modern translations, while more readable, are often even more divorced from the true meaning of the text.
. . .
The Context of Isaiah 53

The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Though the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:

“You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)

“You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)

see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.

rubato · Post by **rubato** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:47 pm

MajGenl.Meade wrote:
rubato wrote:Per GrossDad the Hebrew version of the OT is very substantially different from the English translations.
Apparently users of var. European translations for exegesis are not to be trusted. Hire a Rabbi!
yrs,
rubato
Unless that is sarcasm (because GrossDad messed up his first citation), then I have to say that the three references he does give are not at all "substantially different from the English translations". They are the same.

His first should not be Numbers 30, 33 but Numbers 16:30 and 16:33. Most English bibles (ESV, NASB, ASV, ISV, Darby, ERV, Youngs and so on) translate "Sheol" or "pit", either of which is acceptable. The NIV (which should be ditched in favour of the ESV) uses the word "grave".

The other two citations are also the same in English translations.

What is not the same are all the Hebrew "commentaries" GrossDad referred to which of course are just that - commentaries.

Meade

You didn't read this one?

_____________________________
".

Re: Queen James Bible

Postby GrossDad » Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:53 am
"Are Biblical Laws Against Homosexuality Eternal?" presents a nuanced discussion by an author who is an expert in Biblical Hebrew.

The text identifies male homosexual acts by the technical term to'ebah, translated in English here as "an offensive thing" or in older translations as "an abomination." This is important because most things that are forbidden in biblical law are not identified with this word. . . .

The question is: Is this term to'ebah an absolute, meaning that an act that is a to'ebah is wrong in itself and can never be otherwise? Or is the term relative -- meaning that something that is a to'ebah to one person may not be offensive to another, or something that is a to'ebah in one culture may not be offensive in another, or something that is a to'ebah in one generation or time period may not be offensive in another -- in which case the law may change as people's perceptions change?

When one examines all the occurrences of this technical term in the Hebrew Bible, one finds that elsewhere the term is in fact relative. For example, in the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis, Joseph tells his brothers that, if the Pharaoh asks them what their occupation is, they should say that they're cowherds. They must not say that they are shepherds. Why? Because, Joseph explains, all shepherds are an offensive thing (to'ebah) to the Egyptians. But shepherds are not an offensive thing to the Israelites or Moabites or many other cultures. In another passage in that story, we read that Egyptians don't eat with Israelites because that would be an offensive thing (to'ebah) to them. But Arameans and Canaanites eat with Israelites and don't find it offensive. See also the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where Moses tells Pharaoh that the things that Israelites sacrifice would be an offensive thing (to'ebah) to the Egyptians. But these things are certainly not an offensive thing to the Israelites.

. . .

An act or an object that is not a to'ebah can become one, depending on time and circumstances. The word to'ebah does not automatically mean that something is immoral. Depending on the context, the period and the persons involved, it means that it offends some group.

Now, one might respond that the law here is different because it concerns an offensive thing to God -- and is therefore not subject to the relativity of human values. But that is actually not the case here. The Bible specifically identifies such laws about things that are divine offenses with the phrase "an offensive thing to the LORD" (to'ebat yhwh). That phrase is not used here in the law about male homosexual acts. It is not one of the laws that are identified as a to'ebah to God!

If this is right, then it is an amazing irony. Calling male homosexual acts a to'ebah was precisely what made the biblical text seem so absolutely anti-homosexual and without the possibility of change. But it is precisely the fact of to'ebah that opens the possibility of the law's change. So, (1) whatever position one takes on this matter, left or right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex between males but not between females. And (2) one should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is eternal and unchanging. . . .

In the late 1990s, the rabbi of the congregation we belonged to (part of the Union of Conservative Congregations) took several months to present a course on Jewish canonical law ("halacha"), as part of which he provided us with copies of four proposed statements of policy (including supporting rationale) that had been presented to the Rabbinical Assembly addressing the issue of same-sex relations. (There was, at the time, a moratorium on performing commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples.) Based on the principles of halacha, our rabbi determined that he would perform such ceremonies.
Be excellent to each other--and, party on, dudes!

User avatar
GrossDad

Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:11 pm
__________________________________________

Apparently the text does not say that homosexual relations are sinful, forbidden by god. Only 'culturally disapproved of' in some times and places.

yrs,
rubato

MajGenl.Meade · Post by **MajGenl.Meade** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:59 am

Sorry but I did not connect your post to Grossdad's first (about to'ebah) but to his second about sheol which immediately preceded yours I believe.

However, apparently your conclusion now is incorrect:

ABOMINATION:
Rendering in the English versions of different Biblical terms denoting that which is loathed or detested on religious grounds and which, therefore, is utterly offensive to the Deity.
(1) (to'ebah): . . . . Sexual transgression is particularly denounced as an Abomination (to'ebah) (Deut. xxii. 5, xxiii. 19 [18, A. V.], xxiv. 4); especially incest and unnatural offenses (Lev. xviii. and xx.): "For all these abominations have the men of the land done who were before you, and the land became defiled; lest the land vomit you out also when ye defile it" (Lev. xviii. 27, 28, Heb.; compare also Ezek. viii. 15 and elsewhere

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... bomination

NIV translates:
Deut 22:5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this

Deut 23:18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both

Deut 24:4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Lev 18:18 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Lev 18:27-28 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Lev 20:13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads