There are some curious idioms in the Old Testament; at least I suspect their existence from odd-looking translations. Examples:

Those with some quality or that are associated with something are sometimes called "sons/daughters/children of <it>".

Thus, one might refer to someone as a son of Bible-banging.

A superior example of entity X is sometimes called "X of X's". Thus, someone with a superior understanding of the Bible might be called a Bible scholar of Bible scholars.

And there is "nakedness" for sex organs and "know" for the sex act.

It would be interesting to know which of these idioms appear in the originals and which are translation artifacts.

lpetrich & SD,

There are so many idioms, euphemisms, innuendos and argots that are used in today’s English version Bibles, that they often lose their precise meaning of what is meant in the older Hebrew language, and those who are not familiar with it, won’t catch it. I know I didn’t. Not that the KJV doesn‘t give us plenty to talk about already, but I know when I go back to these Hebrew words, it often has me shaking my head of just what was really being said, so it’s good you brought this subject up. If one wants to know some of this stuff, it takes a lot of work and time, and is quite cumbersome, and one has to rely on others who know the older languages well, and so it’s not something that the average person is going to have the time and patience or interest to seek out before they tire of it; nor will many theologians come forward with what is really meant, and this is precisely how the theologians want it to be. The KJV does a lousy job, but so do other English versions of translating, but if they would translate more honestly, I think it would shock ‘em right out of their socks, so they prefer to do it the old fashioned way of keeping all in ignorance and still making it “The greatest Story ever told” and this way they can still read it in Sunday schools and preach about morality in the pulpit while the flock gleefully listens. Gene Kasmar actually devotes a great deal of his 500 page book covering this particular subject. There are so many pages that are devoted to human reproduction and also sexual misbehavior, rape, whoredom, concubinage, abortion, homosexuality, that I won‘t be able to comment but to a very small portion of it. My time on the computer isn‘t going to be as much as it has been in the past, but there are literally hundreds and hundreds of instances. Let’s pick back up on the sex act, and I’ll briefly relate Noah and Ham one more time of which I did a board on back in September.

The way the KJV translates this story, it says Noah “... planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father...And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be...” (Genesis 9:20-25)

Done what unto him? Here are the Hebrew words and what they mean in this text, using Kasmar for a primary source but I‘ll give others towards the end of my post. He first states the obvious; that this particular text has been obscured and abbreviated. But that the sense of “uncovering their nakedness’ is simply a euphemism for ‘sexual intercourse’. The Hebrew word ‘galah’ translated ‘uncovered’, also is a euphemism for ‘sexual intercourse’. And the Hebrew term ‘raah erwat’, translated ‘saw the nakedness’ usually means ‘have sexual intercourse’. So what likely happened is that ole Noah got sodomized by his son, Ham. But yet, Noah gives Ham’s son, Canaan the curse, and not any of his other sons. Go figure.... And what do the scholars who care to share an honest opinion say what happened? One thing we know for certain, is that there is a hell of a lot more going on than just Ham seeing his father drunk and naked. If one disagrees, then feel free to take it up with Kasmar or some of his sources for this material which he lists such as, the “Jewish Talmud” (Bab.Sanhedrin70a), “The Interpreters Bible“, “Rashi’s Commentary“, and the Torah anthology “Me Am Lo’ez”, all of which specify that either sodomy, castration, or incest took place between Noah and Ham.

Another brief argot. Males groping each other was commonly done in biblical days to seal an agreement by clutching each other’s testicles and there are plenty of scriptures where this occurs. The first testament occurs in Genesis 24:9 and the Hebrew word ‘yarek’ which gets translated ‘thigh’ means ‘testicles’(ib). And we think football players are bad about patting each other on the but.

One last one for now. “Emerods” in the KJV are actually hemorrhoids. So when you read in Deuteronomy 28:27 that “The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed” be sure and give thanks to the Lord if you ever become afflicted.

John

Hmm...

This kind of lends a different interpretation to "Son Of God", doesn't it?

Chewable_Dinosaur: This kind of lends a different interpretation to "Son Of God", doesn't it?

Me: Yes, certainly. In the Old Testament, this phrase would have been understood to be "one of God's favorites" or "someone who is like God"; while in the NT it gets understood in the literal sense that's familiar from pagan mythology (God making that person's mother pregnant with him).

Ipetrich:
"Those with some quality or that are associated with something are sometimes called "sons/daughters/children of <it>". Thus, one might refer to someone as a son of Bible-banging."

Please quote me your source for this information. I am studying semitic languages and ancient near eastern history and I have not heard this definition before. I would like to read your source for myself.

Respectfully,
Ish

John is right in his perception of English translations. The problem is both money, (why would Christian would buy a Bible that says something different than what he was used to hearing), and the fact that English sensibilities and monkish aestheticism was not held in biblical times (nor America's perception of the erotic). They were earthy people who mentioned such matters without a chuckle or blink.

Besides all the (very) covered symbols for sex in Song of Songs, there are many others. God is patient is God has a long nose. And majesty in the ancient world is closely linked to fatness (both from Pratico's new Hebrew Grammar). Figure of course though. There is an excellent book, Figures of Speech in the Bible by Bullinger, which does a scholarly, quite comprehensive, and easily index by passage, on the topic. This helps greatly to distinguish intended symbol and intended belief. By next week, I should have access to the book if any one has questions on his take on controversial passages.


[This message has been edited by Josephus (edited January 15, 2001).]

Opus1

Ipetrich wrote:
I could've sworn that "sons of God" in the OT meant "angels," a la Job and Gen. 6:4. At least, that's what the authors of Enoch and Jubilees thought.

I would very much like to hear what Bullinger has to say, and hope that you do find the time to post some of his work. Kasmar's book is no longer in print, but if any one is lucky enough to get it, I can assure you, it is quite an expose.

Anyway, I'll check this particular subject out every few days, and will be looking forward to what you want to share with us, and I'll post some more from Kasmar's book too, if anyone is interested. When you've got 500 pages to work with, it's difficult to know which ones to bring up for discussion.

John

It's another problem with belief for me. Why would god use figures of speach only known to the locals, and then likely to fall out of use even there.

I'm sure he would have employed much more specific language which could not be misinterpreted (or proved to be false).

"And God created the laws of physics, and used them to create the world and universe in it's entirety, in an appropriate amount of time (not days).

There. How's that for a first stab at Genesis?

Boro Nut