Skip to comments.The Bible is Wrong!!! (Grammatically)
Posted on 12/28/2013 7:17:56 PM PST by Phinneous
How can this thing be divine?!?
The Pentateuch, if divine, is full of mistakes from the very first word (we're talking Hebrew here...the basis of the Greek/Latin/English translations everyone in the world uses.) How could that be?
Example: In the beginning G-d created, in the Hebrew version, is actually literally "In the beginning OF... G-d created" There are thousands of examples of the Pentateuch making no sense in its grammar or syntax. So how do we know how to interpret it even on a literal level?
Well... behold, the Oral Torah...
The link is to an hour-long class (in English y'all) on the rational proofs of an Oral Torah (the Mishnah) given to Moses concurrently with the Pentateuch. Rabbi Kelemen is a great speaker so pastors, etc will have loads of sermon material from this...
We’re talking about syntax that was perhaps used at that time (of inscription) for subject of great import. Many languages have various dialects for specific purposes. I believe the Japanese language has a dialect for business use, one for home use, maybe more than that. Olde English is found in many historic documents from England and America, when it was still new to most of the earth.
The books that were left out were left out for good reasons. Not sure about any "lost" books.
Never existed. Maybe you mean Old English (sometimes called Anglo-Saxon)? If you mean older English forms - when people used ye, thou, thine, and the like - that was simply early modern English not “Olde English”.
Like Chinese, there is a lot of implication in Hebrew. B’reishit means at (or in) the head of [something implied]. You have to follow the story to get the sense of what this was at the head of (in this case, the creation order). If you try to turn it into mathematical equations you will fail.
The need to follow the story doesn’t mean that what non-Christian Jews today call the Oral Torah is what they crack it up to be! There is a spiritual sense however, and it’s carried by the Holy Spirit. And it’s ultimately a redemption story with a happy ending, except for those who dig in and refuse it.
Dude, I scanned 33 (Larry Bird!) pages...you know what they say about philologists, right? (I don’t...tell me if you do)
Can you summarize?
Shakespeare’s English was Early Modern English, AFAICR. Chaucer’s language was apparently a London dialect of Middle English.
If you’re serious about the Hebrew or Greek check out teknia.com.
Lots of good stuff on both languages.
I’m currently studying the Greek. It gives you an even firmer foundation of the Word.
Well, as far as the Masoretic texts go (which omit all the Apocrypha and or “Deuterocanon”), I’ll trust the apostle Paul when he says that the Jews were entrusted with the “oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2).
Nobody’s stopping you; they can be seen online.
It makes sense to respect existing worship communities, however. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. The proof of understanding God’s story is in the worship. Accounts that direct too much ultimate attention to man’s affairs and don’t pass the glory back to God are suspect. IMHO.
But it’s not math...it’s a language that has its own rules too. The rules are frequently broken by G-d. Does He get a mulligan or is there a deeper meaning. It’s critical, actually, for understanding and makes no sense whatsoever as a guide to life without the key to “unlocking” the “mistakes” or ambiguities.
I doubt you’ll listen to the class, which is fine...but for example, the root word for milk and fat [a type of fat from the sacrifices which is prohibited for consumption] is the same, a Ch, an L, and a V sound. Depending on how they’re vowelized (the vowels appear under the word in Hebrew and are often left out, relying on context and tradition) the Jews could be prohibited from mixing meat and milk (no cheeseburgers) or meat and...fat. I will be pissed if we got it wrong...
That’s a “cute” example but the point is to prove the Oral Law, for Jews. Christians may and do feel free to negate it all, not being bound by it at all save for the seven Noahide laws from Genesis (http://www.noahide.org/?p=669) BUT realize that insofar as you “believe” in the “OT,” you are believing in something that cannot be understood as G-d instructing Man how to live without any further explanation.
I wouldn’t be surprised. Language is more spiritually electric than we think (for lack of a better word) and the biblical languages especially. Though this property does carry somewhat even into English. The chief danger here would be in bogging yourself down in the details and forgetting the One to Whom this is all put there to be a witness!
You know what they say about philologists, right? (I don’t, please tell me!)
I hate to tell you this but your Sabbath was over at 6 PM...
Typically the commandments make sense on more than one level. Dietary rules prohibited things that were common pagan sacrifices. Since all eating is a sacrifice offering to God, it was considered a safeguard against confusion with pagan practices. Its relative importance can be seen by the prescribed penalty for transgressing (to be put outside the camp and be ritually unclean until evening).
You’re treating God like Someone who is throwing dice in a corner then daring you to match what He just threw. Rather than Someone who is offering to save your souls in love. You’ve created a need which isn’t even there except in your desire to be dignified.
Hello! Yup, walk home with chatty 4-year old: 6:15
1st to bed: 6:30
2nd to bed: 6:45, 7:05, 7:45
3rd to bed: 8:00-9:00
9:00-10:00 burb infant sleeping on my shoulder, read drudge, FR, work emails, and other essentials until now while cholent reheats on the stove...
The defense rests.
Yes, Shakespeare used early modern English.
Chaucer used Middle English.
Old English is different from both: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/oldenglish.htm
You have my sympathies...
Is it possible this was changed after the influx and overall acceptance of Political Correctness ? Every Gender , Religion , Creed and Race is effected either Inversely or Adversely by PC !
Agree to disagree? We believe that the world was instructed by G-d on how to live and how to make it into a G-dly dwelling-place. 613 commandments for Jews and 7 for non-Jews. You believe something different.
You see dietary law to differentiate from pagans only. We don’t refute that, in fact our scholars have codified that...and there is a deeper level still.
Imagine if G-d spoke to you, HiTech RedNeck, and said, HTRN, please dig a hole for me, then fill it in. Would you balk at the instruction of fulfill His will? Jews know what G-d told us to do. We follow everything (optimally) with joy and love. Imagine to be commanded by the King of Kings! If your experience with Jews and your study of them doesn’t reflect that, I don’t think it can be changed—nor need it be.
Well, we kind of think we have the original. No PC in “though shall not lie with a man....” right? A&E has emailed the L-rd though...cut off His reality series.
Interesting post—but there is an alternative to mistakes—you use the word ambiguities as well. One of my old instructors was fond of the phrase “deliberate Hebrew ambiguities” which wasn’t bad. The point (or rather, the lack of pointing) being that multiple meanings can indeed be intended.
(I offer the above primarily as an alternative to making the contribution of “self-ping”—I hope to listen to it later).
> Example: In the beginning G-d created, in the Hebrew version, is actually literally “In the beginning OF... G-d created”...
Actually, I’ve heard tell that the definite article is also missing, making it “In A Beginning...”. Thanks Phinneous.
You are right. The original languages offer many words and phrases that are difficult to translate into English. Translators have done a commendable job, but the original reads “deeper”. All of my studying is done from the original languages.
Thanks. Of course I wanted the title to be edgy... :)
“In the beginning”
Make perfect sense to me.
There has only been one “Beginning” so it is not a matter “of”.
The point is that there is a proper way to say it in Hebrew and it is common and known. The way G-d writes it in the Torah BEGS for explanation. Ergo....the Oral Law. Listen to the class...give it a try.
You have me curious now.
I recommend studying this amazing meeting of the early fathers of Christianity, hosted by Emperor Constantine. Even Nikolaos of Myra attended. We know him as Santa Claus.
Nicaea didn’t definitively settle the Biblical Canon, or even take any steps in that direction. The fringes of the canon continued to be discussed with some intensity through the early fifth century, and only Trent definitively settles the issue. A number of late 4th and early 5th century local gatherings made practical local decisions on what would be used liturgically, which did point the way to the ultimate solution, but it was over a millennium in being ratified. (Last month I was reading John Damascene, writing in the 8th century, who excluded but quoted the deutero canon but included Clement).
> Interesting post.
You think that's interesting, you should hear what they say about philatelists. (nudge nudge, wink wink)
Sadly, starting with St. Jerome, Western Christianity has looked largely to the Hebrew texts for biblical translations. The Greek text is actually much more reliable. Jerome presumed the Greek text was a poor translation of the Hebrew text; in fact the Septuagint is based on a different Hebrew text than the one used by post-Temple Jews.
Read my previous comments: you may want to read the Old Testament from the Greek text of the ancient Christians, rather than the Hebrew text of the non-Christians.
Many languages omit both definite and indefinite articles.
BTW, I do not see “in the beginning of” in the words “Bereshith bara”. Can anyone clarify?
Non-Christians? Well, that now goes to the original Apostles, who knew the Masoretic Text. Paul the Apostle, a Pharisee, was especially reliant on the Masoretic Text.
Greek vs. Hebrew is much more complex than that. Any conclusions reached on a level higher than that of an individual book are pretty worthless.
It’s irrelevant, however, to the intent of my post. The Hebrew (G-d’s language, the Holy Tongue) original is full of “mistakes.” How could this be so? Because there is more to the story.
It may be true that the Greek Septuagint is best for rendering the Christian theology from the NT... I’m sure no one thinks this is so for the Five Books of Moses
I find the Hebrew better for many purposes from the standpoint of Christian theology—and about half of my job involves teaching Biblical courses.
It’s humans that make mistakes, not the Maker.
The Septuagint is a translation.
My above comments about the Hebrew shouldn’t be taken to say that the Greek isn’t useful as well, but if I were limited to one or the other, there is no question about which one I would opt for. I should also say that I work from Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, and the Greek isn’t much use in that instance.
I have long been impressed that only a few years after Christian persecutions, the Roman Emperor, Constantine, could call a council to begin to address defining the Cannons of the Church even as you point out that the discussion of the issues continued over a millennium.
Please allow me to disagree somewhat regarding the Council of Trent, as I am a Protestant and the outcome of that body was the permanent rejection of any Protestant faiths as against the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. I suppose to you, I am in the first category of crazies.
Actually I come from a long line of Baptists on my mother’s side and Lutherans on my father’s, so I’d tend to identify you more as kin than crazy. And while I myself am Catholic, better a Protestant who sincerely seeks to do all he can with what he has than a Catholic who is full (or even half-full) of apathy.
The crazies were out well before Constantine—try reading Irenaeus, a second century missionary to France, who had been instructed by Polycarp who had been instructed by St. John. He was dealing with some real nut-jobs. I remember reading a good analysis (I think by Msgr Hughes) of second century heresies that noted that even at this time, all basic forms of heresy could be found. I’d try to recall more, but it is past midnight here.
And two additional follow-ups on my previous reply to this post—there are many good reasons for going back to the Hebrew, and if you know Greek and look at my screen name, you will see that this one is personal :)
I have to ask, with you knowledge and background, have you seen the film “The Name of the Rose” (1986) and if so, how do you feel about it?