Onias

But I only posted it 9 minutes before you replied to it!

Onias

Your nasty language is not appropriate for a scholarly discussion. I normally post over at JesusMysteries at Yahoo, an historical list. Comments such as you make would not be allowed.

Sheshbazzar

Whoop de doo. I don't play in your sandbox. And care less if they would allow me there or not.
Your Evangelical scholar of 'impeccable credentials' is biased, and is a piss-poor translator of Hebrew.
I'm not a Christian or a Jew and don't need to buy the biased horse shit produced by either source.

Onias

I am also non-religious, but that does not mean I automatically dismiss everything a person says just because they are religious. I notice you avoid arguing issues and instead engage in ad hominem attacks that are wholly lacking in substance.

By the way, the presently accepted translation of Gen 15:6 is the one beloved by the faith-based religion of Xianity.

spin

If you don't want to deal with my analysis, that's fine. But trying to pass the issue off to Ramban is a waste of time. While I acknowledge Ramban as a wise source for the analysis of the material from a late medieval point of view, but he was writing 600 years before the emergence of coherent linguistic analysis. What I posted was indeed a modern linguistic analysis. I have no stake in the issue. I just gave a fresh analysis. I pointed out that the subject of the verb חשב is not grammatically easy to discern, as there are two antecedents. However, if the subject were Abram, it makes the subject of the verb אמר in the following clause harder to connect, being separated from its antecedent by another clause. This is discourse analysis. The following clause helps us to understand the subject of "he reckoned", a verb of judgment rather than recognition and one by convention does not judge god.

You can ignore this analysis. I just thought I should clarify what is happening before you do ignore it.

Does that necessitate that it is wrong?

Onias

Ok, what you are saying is reasonable and worthy of consideration, and I am hoping that others will also calmly join in the discussion. I have been writing to Robert Eisenman, Hermann Detering and Barrie Wilson (How Jesus Became Christian) on this topic. I also need to ask James Tabor for his view. So far there has been a variety of opinions.

The reason Ramban is relevant is not just because he sees the Hebrew as ambiguous but also because he analyses the context of the verse in some detail for several pages. Too bad Ramban is not yet available online.

As to humans 'judging' God as righteous, this is done many times throughout the Tanakh. Just do a word search at blueletterbible.com. David alone calls God righteous and/or just many times.

Looking forward to further discussion with you and others who will hopefully join in a cordial interchange.

Oh, and just because Xians like the traditional definition of Gen 15:6 does not mean it is right or wrong, but the same is true of the analysis performed by Prof Hamilton, who happens to be an evangelical Xian tho he also sees much ambiguity in the verse even tho such a view conflicts with his faith.

Sheshbazzar

I don't dismiss everything they say just because they are religious.
In this case it was because they were pretending to be translating a text while they were actually engaged in corrupting that text for their own ends.
Which thing certainly does not get their credibility or integrity off on the right foot with me.

I most certainly argued the issue of their blatant mistranslation and misrepresentation of Genesis 15:6, going right to the source.

As they proceeded to build their following sand castle upon that faulty foundation, I do not see any need to address every ignorant and faulty statement and erroneous conclusion they leap to in the rest of that linked article within the confines of this thread.

So? I don't interpret a verse on the basis of what Christians may believe about it, but what it actually says in Hebrew, and what the overall context reveals about what it says.
That 'Christians' may correctly interpret the sense of this verse, to me in no way validates other of their claims. No more than a Jew correctly interpreting some verse validates all of the claims of Judaism.

Onias

Sheshbazzar
This is the type of inappropriate language that undermines anything you say. It is emotional and inflammatory and marginalizes the reputation of this forum.

Sheshbazzar

Twas what it twas. I call a spade a spade. I didn't ask them to produce their false statements and fudged and faulty translation. Which is what it is.


Some folks appreciate having these things laid bare in plain comprehensible language rather than the evasive speech of the mealy mouthed who won't say 'shit' even when their mouths are full of it.

sotto voce

'By the way, the presently accepted translation of Gen 15:6 is the one beloved by the faith-based religion of Xianity.'