Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 05-15-2002, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad:
In response to a cite of Israel Finkelstein as a scholastic source of information by another poster, Haran intimated that he was excessively amused and posted this:

First, let me apologize for the tone of that post. Sometimes the things posted here amuse me. It was late and I was tired. Unfortunately, I let more of my 'late-night-giddy amusement' dribble onto my post than I should.

Regardless, my response was not necessarily intended as a slight against Israel Finkelstein, though I happen to agree more with others such as Devers. My amusement was generated by the fact that Major Billy presented a one-sided case (what I believe is a minority theory), then preceded to back it up with a biased article obviously meant to bolster Finkelstein's credibility and theories. One gets a different view reading Dever, or perhaps Kenneth Kitchen's works, among others. If one reads only stuff biased in their direction, they will have no idea of actually how strong that scholar's arguments are.

Quote:

I'm curious as to how he determined that the scholastic work of the chairman of the Tel Aviv University archeology department qualifies as "junk scholarship".

Again, I did not intend for it to come across like this. The 'junk scholarship' was directed more at the article about Finkelstein and others I've seen posted here lately, like Acharya S.

However, I do not necessarily agree with the bulk of Finkelstein's work either.

Quote:

Perhaps he can explain?

Thanks. I should have clarified this a little better. I posted rashly...

Haran

Haran · 05-15-2002, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:
(on difficulties in doing translations...)
Haran:
You're right, there are nuances that do not come across in translation. Though I don't think it is necessary for most to believe, it is necessary to study if one wishes to criticize the Bible ...

That's a horse-excrement attitude that I refuse to subscribe to.[/qb]

Nicely put...

Quote:

That's like saying that one has no right to reject Islam unless one first reads the Koran in the original Arabic, no right to reject Hinduism unless one first reads the Vedas in the original Sanskrit, no right to reject Hellenic paganism unless one first reads the works of Homer and Hesiod in the original Greek, no right to reject Norse paganism unless one first reads the Eddas in the original Old Norse, etc.

Look, what I was saying was very simple and can be used for the other religions as well. If, for instance, you want to criticize the Qur'an, then you had better know the language. I believe you can understand its general message, just as with the Bible, but the details will only be found in the Arabic (this is why I, myself, have the Qur'an in Arabic). You must learn Arabic if you truly wish to criticize the Qur'anic in detail, especially against someone who knows that detail, or your efforts will be fruitless and your conclusions likely wrong, just as with the Bible.

Haran

Haran · 05-15-2002, 03:38 AM

I wish I could respond to everyone, but I'm afraid that I simply do not have the time. Believe what you like about my information without proper study, it is your integrity on the line, not mine.

Ana mashghoul...

Haran

Steven Carr · 05-15-2002, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran:


I was not attempting to obfuscate anything. I merely mispoke. There are two words, and the translation would not be of 'qatan na'ar', as you have it, but 'u-ne'arim qe'tanim' (literally translated 'and boys young/small') as the actual text of the OT has it (you didn't include the conjunction and correct forms of the words - but then you knew that, right?).

I have not seen a translation that says, specifically, gang, but many scholars do give this impression. As a matter of fact, many translations are almost there as NoGods4Me pointed out earlier.

ASV - 'young lads'
NIV - 'some youths'
NLT - 'group of boys'
NAU - 'young lads'
etc.

As a matter of fact, here is a entry under na'ar in the TWOT:

"South Arabic Tigri language of Ethiopia yields a [lexicographically similar] verb: 'instigate rebellion', noun: 'mischief, revolt', which sheds helpful light on the incident of Elisha's tormentors who were attacked by bears (2Kings 2:23-24). Assuming it likely that this large band of boys (42 were gashed by the bears, while still others must have escaped!) were teenage rowdies, the ASV translative, 'young lads,' would be more appropriate than either KJV 'little children' or RSV 'small boys'."

Haran

Haran complains that people don't know Hebrew, yet he then has the amazing audacity to say that the word is actually best translated by turning to the South Arabic Tigri language of Ethiopia!

This is just ridiculous.

If I said that 'eventually' could mean 'possibly' in English and when challenged retored that the similar word 'eventuell' in German (which shares many words with English) does mean 'possibly', everybody would die laughing, yet this is what Christian apologetics is reduced to!

However at least Haran has the grace to concede that qe'tanim means small.

The Hebrew means 'small boys', as Haran stated, which is why he had to turn to the South Arabic Tigri language of Ethiopia.

Steven Carr · 05-15-2002, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:


Haran throws obfusaction in peoples faces.
There are two words , not one, (n matter how many times Haran tries to say there was a word translated little children). One of the words is small. I defy Haran to find an example in the Bible where these *two* words are translated 'gang'.

I defied Haran to find an example in the Bible where 'u-ne'arim qe'tanim' could be translated 'gang'

It seems Haran was not capable of doing so.

Haran · 05-15-2002, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
Haran complains that people don't know Hebrew, yet he then has the amazing audacity to say that the word is actually best translated by turning to the South Arabic Tigri language of Ethiopia!

Earth to Steven...

The language mentioned is also a semitic language in which word origins and meanings can be found. It is a common scholarly practice. As a matter of fact, the source I mention is a scholarly source. You did make note of that?

Quote:

This is just ridiculous.

Uh, huh... We see how much you truly know...

Quote:

However at least Haran has the grace to concede that qe'tanim means small.

This word can also mean small in years...young, just as in 'young lads' as some translations have it. I do not see how this in any way excludes the idea of a 'gang'.

BTW, I noticed that you conveniently avoided any discussion of your translating abilities (unable to understand the Greek of P52/unable to present the correct Hebrew for this passage). Why are you challenging me on something you know so little about?

Haran

Haran · 05-15-2002, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
I defied Haran to find an example in the Bible where 'u-ne'arim qe'tanim' could be translated 'gang'

It seems Haran was not capable of doing so.

This is a strawman of your own making. I said think of a 'gang' and not it should be translated 'gang'. It makes not difference to me. The TWOT mentioned a group of 'rowdy ruffians' (or something to that effect). Perhaps 'gang' is not a part of these translators mostly archaic language.

Any other strawmen you'd like to set up to avoid the fact that you don't know what you're talking about?

Haran

The Other Michael · 05-15-2002, 05:46 AM

Hi Haran,

Quote:

This word can also mean small in years...young, just as in 'young lads' as some translations have it. I do not see how this in any way excludes the idea of a 'gang'.

I've got no pretensions to foreign language expertise, but it does look like you are going to some extremes to justify your conclusion.

"Group of television evangelists", by your reasoning, doesn't seem to exclude the idea of "pack of idiots". Forty-two "young lads" doesn't exclude the idea of "group of high-spirited but usually well-behaved youths" either.

You can drive by any number of junior high schools after school is out and find a similar group of kids, but you might get in trouble for siccing a bear on them if they shout out something rude at you.

cheers,
Michael

Steven Carr · 05-15-2002, 06:09 AM

Perhaps Haran can bring himself to admit what is obvious to anybody looking at this thread. The Hebrew in 2 Kings 2:23 means 'small boys', and he cannot find an example in the Bible where the Hebrew used in 2 Kings 2:23 means anything else.

It seems Haran's 'gang' isn't even a translation.

It is just something the Christian apologists thought police say we have to think.

It is typical of fundamentalist thought control. When Haran reads Bible passages, he is told what to think. In this case, he is taught to think 'gang', although he concedes that there is no such word on the page!

Is it really standard Christian scholarship to translate Hebrew by pretending it is Ethiopian, when it suits?

nogods4me · 05-15-2002, 08:00 AM

Well, one might expect that, had the point of the story been that god has saved, or protected the prophet from possible harm, the boys/children/gang members, might have done something more dastardly than mock his lack of hair, at the very least they could have called him fat. There is, in the story, no inkling that the prophet was in any sort of danger or distress, merely that he was mocked, and god will not suffer a mocker to live, even a little mocker.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2002, 03:38 AM	#53
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	I wish I could respond to everyone, but I'm afraid that I simply do not have the time. Believe what you like about my information without proper study, it is your integrity on the line, not mine. Ana mashghoul... Haran

05-15-2002, 06:09 AM	#59
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Perhaps Haran can bring himself to admit what is obvious to anybody looking at this thread. The Hebrew in 2 Kings 2:23 means 'small boys', and he cannot find an example in the Bible where the Hebrew used in 2 Kings 2:23 means anything else. It seems Haran's 'gang' isn't even a translation. It is just something the Christian apologists thought police say we have to think. It is typical of fundamentalist thought control. When Haran reads Bible passages, he is told what to think. In this case, he is taught to think 'gang', although he concedes that there is no such word on the page! Is it really standard Christian scholarship to translate Hebrew by pretending it is Ethiopian, when it suits?

05-15-2002, 08:00 AM	#60
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	Well, one might expect that, had the point of the story been that god has saved, or protected the prophet from possible harm, the boys/children/gang members, might have done something more dastardly than mock his lack of hair, at the very least they could have called him fat. There is, in the story, no inkling that the prophet was in any sort of danger or distress, merely that he was mocked, and god will not suffer a mocker to live, even a little mocker.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.