|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can fundamentalists explain Job 26:12-13 for me? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: You might like the King James and its translation (you quoted it in #42, and rested upon it's text)
quote: You prefer the latter (the 1611 King James), the 1st century Jews (like Jesus and his followers) prefered the former. The Rabbinical commentaries were also on the side of the modern scholars translations and 1st century Jews. The scholars look at the uses in the entire Bible anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
It is an interesting issue, and one that needs further research. Archaeological digs hopefully can discover much in Iran, Pakistan, and India. Much has been destroyed by changer water courses and the construction of dams. The sad fact is that civilization lived along the waterways and they have been changing course, destroying underground ruins that probably contained countless precious texts - now destroyed. Dams have been a nightmare for those who want to see some impressive discoveries. Permanent destruction that is just terrible - priceless and irreplaceable treasures (like texts) gone forever and never able to be discovered and learned from.
When Egypt, Iran, Turkey, etc. needed to build dams to help their economic situation, it is sad that we were spending our billions of $$ on bombs instead of offering compensation projects in return for not building dams. Nice if we would have funded archaeological research. It would seem a no-brainer to build solar plants in Egypt for example. Give them billions of $$ to fund solar projects instead of building a dam. Too late for that. Anyway. The issue Phat raised. From wikipedia
quote: The Hindu story is actually from the Rigveda.
quote: The issue came up earlier as to whether other stories are actually ancient. This is of an undisputed pre-1000 BCE age. Older than pretty much the entire Bible. Here is an interesting reference, related to what we have been discussing From the google cache
quote: Here is the google book link.Encyclopedia of Earth Myths: An Insider's A-Z Guide to Mythic People, Places ... - Richard Leviton - Google Books This is the titleEncyclopedia of Earth Myths: An Insider's A-Z Guide to Mythic People, Places ... By Richard Leviton We have to deal with the documents and evidence we have, not what we should have had by now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi LNA
LNA writes: You prefer the latter (the 1611 King James), the 1st century Jews (like Jesus and his followers) prefered the former. I prefer the Hebrew text. The KJV translation is the best English translation we have today, as it is truer to the original text. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I'm sure the 1611 Englishmen knew so much more about the Hebrew text than the Septuagint translators. The Septuagint dates back from 150-200 BCE (and tradition puts it close to 300 BCE) and it was a translation by Jews in the extreme part of northern Egypt, not far from Palestine.
The King James translators though that Pharoh Necho II of Egypt was fighting the Assyrians when their ignorance of the language prevented them from seeing that he was helping Assyrians. Remember the death of Josiah? No modern translation makes that same mistake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Jar didn't like my use of the NRSV so he went cherry-picking (while accusing me of what he was doing) and his examples were always the early English translations.
ICANT thinks the King James is the last word because it was somehow pristine or something. I always have used the Septuagint as a response, because it is old old old for a translation. However I never really commented on the implications of the areas where it differs from the scholars translations.
quote: It is very solid ancient testimony that Rahab was a water creature and not "pride" as the KJV translates things. It is solid evidence that there was a slaying of the serpent from verse 13 and not a making of the serpent as the KJV has it. But what about the "barriers of heaven fear him" part? Why so different. Because the Septuagint uses different Hebrew texts (than the KJV) as its source. The original Job text might have been a different one than what the KJV uses. And it could have been the LXX type as we see here. So how does the issue of "barriers of heaven" stack up to the point I am trying to make? Remember that Tehom in Genesis 1 was split up to make up the "firmament" that was a barrier between outer space and our earthly atmosphere, and what we know to be outer space was what the Bible describes as the "waters above" being divided from the "waters below" (the whole world was water below the firmament till dry land appeared). Tehom is this
quote: It is parallel to Tiamat AND parallel to Rahab both! From the same fundamentalist dictionary
quote: Got that? Rahab is" representing the evil forces of chaos" and "chaos of primeval waters " while Tehom/DEEP is "chaos existing at creation, or it may indicate the vast expanse of waters which covered the earth at creation". Got it? Fundamentalist scholarship. Now Tiamat in Enuma Elish.
quote: Sounds like "the barriers of heaven", doesn't it? Fits even better with the context! And this is the textual type that Jesus, James, and the Apostles used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi LNA
LNA writes: Then "THEN" does not answer the question, of where did you get Rahab from? You do not get it from the meaning of רהב which is what is in the Hebrew text.
LNA writes: I prefer to let scripture define scripture. No, you choose to believe what someone tells you the scripture says.
LNA writes: The so-called "formed" translation of the KJV is is chll. The Hebrew word translated formed in Job 26:13 and the Hebrew word translated wounded in Psalm 109:22 are two different words.
LNA writes: The "coiling serpent" of Is. 27:1 is Hebrew nchs 'qllt Why quote the worst translation ever since the New World Tranalation.
LNA writes: The scholars seem to be allowing the scripture to define the scripture, What scholars are you talking about? All the creation stories and flood stories came from the same source. The actual events. Stories were changed, modified,and embellished. The one Moses wrote about was given to him by God during the 80 days and nights they were together in Mount Sinai. Moses may have been privileged to even view those events, just a possibility. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: It is in various places in the scripture. Not just one place. And the Septuagint doesn't agree with you. These are ancient Jews who translated the LXX.
quote: This coming from the person who has essentially anointed a bunch of Englishmen from 1611 as the representatives of divine revelation.
quote: I admit that I was squinting to see the Hebrew characters, but they looked the same to me. Then you responded to me saying: "The "coiling serpent" of Is. 27:1 is Hebrew nchs 'qllt" Your response was
quote: Amazing that you ignored the Hebrew transliteration - the actual issue of my post. And I quoted the NIV because it was the first online text I found for Is. 27:1 (computer was going real slow). The translation was almost irrelevant. I was showing that nchs 'qllt was used for Leviathan exactly as it was used for Job 26:13. Worry about the parallel. It means that not only do the endless scriptural references to Rahab (by name!) clearly indicate a sea creature, as opposed to "proud", but the Leviathan verses also are a parallel witness to what we are dealing with when we see the word "Rahab". Not what the KJV says. It's what the Bible of Jesus, Paul, James, etc. said. The Jewish Septuagint translators of the 2nd century BCE knew it was an aquatic creature. They disagree with the Englishmen of 1611 A.D. (that you hold in higher esteem than Jesus it seems). You then took issue when I said"The scholars seem to be allowing the scripture to define the scripture" You said
quote: All the ones I quoted, including the work by scores of leading evangelicals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
From Strong's Hebrew: 2490. (chalal) -- pierce
2490. chalal Strong's Concordance chalal: pierceOriginal Word: חָלַל Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: chalal Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-lal') Short Definition: pierce Brown-Driver-BriggsI. חָלַל verb bore, pierce (Arabic perforate, pierce through, transfix, Ethiopic (hollow) read; Aramaic חֲלַל hollow out, חֲלִילָא pipe; adjective hollow, cave, sheath, etc.; Late Hebrew in derivatives חָלָל noun hollow, adjective slain, חָלִיל pipe); Qal Perfect לִבִּי חָלַל בְּקִרְבִּי my heart is pierced (wounded) within me Psalm 109:22 (? literally one has pierced my heart; or read Pu`al חֻלַּל ?); Infinitive construct חַלּוֺתִי הִיא Psalm 77:11 it is my piercing, my wound (my woe, my cross; so Ew Hi De Bae MV SS Ki. 341, but Hup Pe Bi Che read חֲלוֺתִי my sickness). Pi`el Participle plural (Baer) בְּיַד מְחַללֶי֑ךָ Ezekiel 28:9 in the hand of the ones wounding thee (Sm Co read מְחוֺלְלֶ֑ךָ). Pu`al Participle מְחֻלֲלֵי חֶרֶב pierced by the sword Ezekiel 32:26. Po`el Perfect3feminine singular חֹלֲלָה יָדוֺ נָחָשׁ בָּרִחַ Job 26:13 his hand pierced the fleeing serpent; Participle feminine מְחוֺלֶלֶת תַּנִּין Isaiah 51:9 who pierced the dragon. Po`al Participle מֲחֹלָל מִמְּשָׁעֵינוּ Isaiah 53:5 pierced, wounded because of our transgressions (of the servant of ׳י, "" מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ). II. [חלל] verb denominative play the pipe, pipe Qal Participle plural וְשָׁרִים כְּחֹלֲלִים Psalm 87:7 as well the singers as the pipe-players, compare AV; < RV Pe De Che Bae and others Polel Participle from 1. חוּל dancers. III. [חָלַל] verb pollute, defile, profane; more
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
I just found the larger body of text for the Britannica Zoroastrianism.
Before I get to that, the issue about Zoroastrianism I want to cover. Here is an example of why the religion must be understood. Just one example. Remember that even fundamentalists admit that Jews didn't believe in resurrection.
quote: Now the text.
quote: Remember how the very late book of Daniel (no earlier than 500 BCE even according to fundamentalists) introduced the concept of a resurrection?
quote: Only mentioned after contact with the Persian Empire. Interesting issue of influence, and it affected Paul's terminology (and maybe even more than just terms of speech and analogies)
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
You use the term "fundamentalist" in very strange ways. N.T. Wright is not a "fundamentalist" by any normal usage of the term. Among conservative Christian (non-fundamentalist) scholars, there are a variety of opinions on the date of Daniel and on belief in the resurrection.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Remember that even fundamentalists admit that Jews didn't believe in resurrection. If "fundamentalist" means uncompromising Bible believer, I don't know any fundamentalists who deny the many references in the New Testament to the Pharisees' belief in the resurrection, as opposed to the Sadducees who denied it, both of them Jewish sects. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
The, conservative "Sadducees who denied it" were the majority of the Temple officials.
The evidence seems to be that Zoroastrians influenced the late 2nd Temple Jews and not just with regards to the the astral issues. It is very difficult to imagine that the influence came from Palestine to Persia. Persia influenced Palestine, though there were lots of cross currents over such a long period. The astral issues seemed relevant to the topic of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The Bible is the record followed by "fundamentalists" and there is no deviation from the idea of the resurrection there, which was shared by the Pharisees and not the Sadducees.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2422 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
But it is not mentioned in the massive Psalms.
Moses didn't mention it (Genesis-Deuteronomy). There might have been a temporary raising of the dead, but every person soon died. Then no resurrection. Joshua to Esther didn't mention it. It just wasn't mentioned. Only the very late book of Daniel and possibly Isaiah. It was a late comer. And the conservative Sadducees who ran the Temple felt the idea of resurrection was contrary to the scripture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It was also not mentioned until Revelation that the true identity of the serpent in Eden was Satan, but of course he was Satan even if that wasn't mentioned in Genesis. When a concept appears in scripture has nothing to do with some supposed progression of ideas. There is "progressive revelation" but that's about when God chooses to reveal something, not about when the idea originated. That's not how scripture is understood by us fundamentalists at least. The Sadducees simply have no authoritative standing in scripture.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024