By the numbers...

Oct 22, 2010 10:45

For anyone who wants to take the Bible literally, we have to remember that it was written in a foriegn language. The Old testament was written largely in Hebrew , with some Aramaic ( Read more... )

biblical criticsm. military history.

Leave a comment

Comments 13

abomvubuso October 22 2010, 19:13:07 UTC
Lets not forget also that the King James version hugely diverts from the actual thing it was translating.

Looking forward to your report about the trip in Israel! :)

Reply

gwyd October 23 2010, 00:23:46 UTC
Well, what you have there is a translation of a translation of a translation.

The King James was based on Jerome's crappy vulgate translation of an Alexandran Greek translation of the source materials. Just saying.

Reply

abomvubuso October 23 2010, 09:42:08 UTC
Yes, and the patron/sponsor of that translation had a certain political agenda on his hands. That shouldnt be omitted either.

Reply

gwyd October 23 2010, 15:45:30 UTC
Absolutely, but then so did Jerome.

Reply


torpidai October 22 2010, 20:25:56 UTC

Didn't someone once say "All translation is falsification"?

And of course, we also have to understand that even the eye-witnesses in stoies there don't get the same story, hell 3 days is 3 days no matter the position of the observer ;)

not had time to click the link yet, but I guess the numbers are 40 meaning many (The way we say millions for over-exaggeration) and 6 for all hell will be let loose, or lots of trouble, but do they claim translation of 666 or 616? 616 (a possible true number of the beast) I'd suggest is 1 surrounded by evil? or 25.806975801127880315188420605149 = root of all evil? (Sqrt 666) ;)

Reply

mintogrubb October 22 2010, 21:15:39 UTC
well, actually, 40 ~does# have specific meaning in scripture ( ... )

Reply

torpidai October 22 2010, 21:37:44 UTC
greek uses different sounds / letters than hebrew , latin or english. this is why some manuscripts have 616, not 666.

Isn't it about time these "learned preachers" explained some of this to the congregation?

Right Soldiers, Get in line, stand to attention and number off. *Clunk.

I,II,III,IV,V......

Reply

mintogrubb October 22 2010, 22:57:09 UTC
Weell, if the congregation really wanted to know, there was a time when they would be kept in ignorance by lack of books - or not knowing wot book to look in.
However, these days, one only has to go to Wiki to find all this out, and if cannot b bothered to look, it's yer own fault.

Another problem is that the 'learned few' often do not know thier own traditions well enuff. Some of them do not even know their ecclesiastical arrrchdeacons from their elbows :)

Yeah, don't take to much notice of anyone who tells u that they only read the NIV, or can't explain the diff between 'formal equivalent' and 'dynamic equivalent'.

Reply


gwyd October 23 2010, 00:20:13 UTC
And Greek, don't forget Greek.

For ancient world documents, we generally take large numbers as guesses by the chroniclers meaning "lots." That's true up through the early modern period, really. Unless we can count corpses, always take those battle accounts with a grain of salt.

Reply

mintogrubb October 23 2010, 08:05:01 UTC
As I recall it, it was the ~New~ testament that was written in Greek ( ... )

Reply

gwyd October 23 2010, 15:47:51 UTC
Yes, the new testement is Greek.

Like I said, all the big numbers are suspect.

Reply

mintogrubb October 23 2010, 23:41:32 UTC
~Like I said, all the big numbers are suspect.~
Yes, but like I said, the OT was Hebrew and Aramaic. It's the NT that is Greek, and that is why i refer strictly to the OT in the OP.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up