Far too often, my train of thought gets derailed when someone claims the Bible means something completely different from the English version I'm familiar with. For example:

Me:
"Aha! The Bible says God hates little children! But those wouldn't be the words of an all-loving being!"

Fundy:
"That's because in the original Hebrew, "children" means "sin" so it makes perfect sense.

(Okay, this is a hypothetical example)

At that point I'm pretty much helpless. So is there any all-purpose counter-argument I can use when my worthy foe plays the Hebrew card?

Ask such a critic to show what the Hebrew originals are. That can then be checked against some Hebrew reference.

And the same thing can be done for the New Testament, which is in Greek.

This would be a good argument for literary censorship. Either you or the fundie or both are wrong which just might be the reason why theists and atheists argue over the existence of the same God. Could this also means that both are wrong and that bible reading should be for adults only? I mean mature adults.

Amos

Amos;
This would be a good argument for literary censorship. Either
you or the fundie or both are wrong which just might be the
reason why theists and atheists argue over the existence of
the same God. Could this also means that both are wrong and
that bible reading should be for adults only? I mean mature
adults.

Offa;
That was an excellent reply, especially, "I mean mature
adults." Too often we have theists and atheists arguing
over something they do not fathom.

You: "If the God who allegedly inspired the Bible meant to talk about sin rather than about children, why didn't he use a different Hebrew wording so as to make his intention unambiguous?"

[This message has been edited by Throbert McGee (edited May 11, 2001).]

If the Big G really inspired the Bible, I don't think it will be likely in alot of languages & constantly being updated such that ALL human would be able to understand it instead of in one which scholars of Hebrew nowadays can't even decide on what he really meant to say.

Get the "original" Hebrew from the person making the claim. About 95% of the time, the fundie doesn't know the Hebrew word; they're just repeating what someone told them. The other 5% of the time, they know the word, but the interpretation is very strained and won't withstand scrutiny.

When you have that, you can check it against Strong's Concordance.