mark9950

I received this response for the person who claimed to have corrected the SAB so called errors.

Here they are

This is from my book:

40:22 - According to this verse, the earth is a flat disc that God looks down upon from his throne in heaven. (The NRSV says, "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth....")

* This verse never says that the Earth is a flat disc. However, this verse does pre-date the scientific claims that the Earth was not flat. Isaiah indicates that the Earth isn't flat by calling it a circle. Unfortunately, the ancient Israelites didn't have a word for "ellipse".


4:10-11, 20 - Daniel's tree is tall enough to be seen from "the end of all the earth." Only on a flat earth would this be possible.

* It is clear, from the scriptures, that this tree was in a vision. This passage does not make a clear and defined statement that an actual tree exists that can be seen from all places on Earth. This tree was used as a symbol.


4:5-8 - The devil kidnaps Jesus and takes him up to the top of the temple, and then to the top of "an exceedingly high mountain," high enough to see "all the kingdoms of the world." I guess the earth was flat in those days.

* The scriptures don't necessarily indicate that Jesus was kidnapped. However, they were taken to a place where they could see all the kingdoms of the world.

* These verses don't say that the earth was flat. Most people think they were given a vision of all the kingdoms of the world.

* This Greek word for "showed", in the phrase, "showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory," can be used figuratively.

93:1 - According to the Bible, Galileo was wrong; the earth does not move.

* This verse never says or implies that the Earth doesn't revolve or rotate. However, this passage does imply that the Earth's revolutions and rotations cannot be moved because they are established.


2:8 - In Job (26:7) it is said that the earth sets upon nothing, but this verse says it sets upon pillars.

* This language is used to indicate that God is in control of the foundation of the Earth. It doesn't mean that there are literal pillars that hold the Earth.


Now, I'm sure you can see why the Skeptic's Annotated Bible needed to be corrected and explained! You'll have to get the book if you want to read the rest, though.

In reason,
JG

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 5000 Links!

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.org
If you want to see answers to thousands of Bible difficulties, then you'll want to read the "SAB: Corrected and Explained"!

Evangelion

Actually, the issue here turns upon the correct translation of the Greek word for "world" that is used in this verse.

The word is oikoumene, and it was not used in the same way that we use the word "world" today. It was, in fact, extremely flexible. The Greeks used it in reference to their own land (as opposed to the lands of the barbarians); the Romans used it in reference to their Empire; the Jews used it in reference to (a) the Roman occupied territory of Judea and (b) the inhabited land of Palestine as a whole.

Clarke's Commentary observes:

• But if we take the world to mean only the land of Judea, and some of the surrounding nations, as it appears sometimes to signify, (see on Luk_2:1 (note)), then the mountain described by the Abbe Mariti (Travels through Cyprus, etc). could have afforded the prospect in question.
  
  Speaking of it, he says, “Here we enjoyed the most beautiful prospect imaginable. This part of the mountain overlooks the mountains of Arabia, the country of Gilead, the country of the Amorites, the plains of Moab, the plains of Jericho, the river Jordan, and the whole extent of the Dead Sea. It was here that the devil said to the Son of God, All these kingdoms will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.”
  
  Probably St. Matthew, in the Hebrew original, wrote הארץ haarets, which signifies the world, the earth, and often the land of Judea only.
  
  What renders this more probable is, that at this time Judea was divided into several kingdoms, or governments under the three sons of Herod the Great, viz. Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip; which are not only called ethnarchs and tetrarchs in the Gospels, but also βασιλεις, kings, and are said βασιλευειν, to reign, as Rosenmuller has properly remarked. See Mat_2:22; Mat_14:9.

Clarke's observations on Luke 2:1 are also relevant here:

• That all the world should be taxed - Πασαν την οικουμενην, the whole of that empire. It is agreed, on all hands, that this cannot mean the whole world, as in the common translation; for this very sufficient reason, that the Romans had not the dominion of the whole earth, and therefore could have no right to raise levies or taxes in those places to which their dominion did not extend.
  
  Οικουμενη signifies properly the inhabited part of the earth, from οικεω, to dwell, or inhabit.
  
  Polybius makes use of the very words in this text to point out the extent of the Roman government, lib. vi. c. 48; and Plutarch uses the word in exactly the same sense, Pomp. p. 635. See the passages in Wetstein. Therefore the whole that could be meant here, can be no more than that a general Census of the inhabitants and their effects had been made in the reign of Augustus, through all the Roman dominions.
  
  But as there is no general census mentioned in any historian as having taken place at this time, the meaning of οικουμενη must be farther restrained, and applied solely to the land of Judea.
  
  This signification it certainly has in this same evangelist, Luk_21:26. (Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth, τη οικουμενη this land._
  
  The whole discourse relates to the calamities that were coming, not upon the whole world, nor the whole of the Roman empire, but on the land of Judea, see Luk_21:21. (Then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains. Out of Judea, therefore, there would be safety; and only those who should be with child, or giving suck, in those days, are considered as peculiarly unhappy, because they could not flee away from that land on which the scourge was to fall: for the wrath, or punishment, shall be, says our Lord, εν τω λαω τουτω, On This Very People, viz. the Jews, Luk_21:23.)
  
  It appears that St. Luke used this word in this sense in conformity to the Septuagint, who have applied it in precisely the same way, Isa_13:11; Isa_14:26; Isa_24:1. And from this we may learn, that the word οικουμενη had been long used as a term by which the land of Judea was commonly expressed.
  
  Η γη, which signifies the earth, or world in general, is frequently restrained to this sense, being often used by the evangelists and others for all the country of Judea. See Luk_4:25; Jos_2:3.
  
  It is probable that the reason why this enrolment, or census, is said to have been throughout the whole Jewish nation, was to distinguish it from that partial one, made ten years after, mentioned Act_5:37, which does not appear to have extended beyond the estates of Archelaus, and which gave birth to the insurrection excited by Judas of Galilee. See Josephus, Ant. book xx. c. 3.

Clarke's argument is vindicated by the renowned classical scholar H. H. Scullard, in his benchmark classic From the Gracchi to Nero (universally recognised as the definitive summary of this period.)

I shall be quoting from the 5th edition, which was published in 2002:

• Roman towns had to hold a census every five years which was conducted by local magistrates called quinquennales. It was not probably that a simultaneous census was taken of all the provinces, but gradually the resources of the whole Empire would be revealed.
  
  In Gaul, for instance, censuses are mentioned in 27 and 12 BC, and again in AD 14 just after Augustus' death, while the assessment by Quirinius of Judea on its annexation in AD 6 is famous.

Thankyou, H. H. Scullard. :notworthy

Cretinist

The Greek word in Matthew 4:8 is kosmos, not oikoumene.

lpetrich

To me, that's splitting hairs. One wonders why a supposed revelation does not come with a translation guide that clarifies the meaning of obscure words and phrases.

One counterargument is that the Bible is not meant to be some sort of technical document.

But there are parts of the Bible that do have a technical-document sort of quality.

The genealogies.

Many of the laws, like the detailed directions for animal sacrifices in Leviticus and the temple furnishing and priestly clothing in Exodus.

This emphasis on precision is even apparent in Leviticus 10, which tells us how Nadab and Abihu were zapped for burning incorrect incense.

With such details, then why not also a translation guide?

Magus55

So it requires a life time of study and is more valuable. A book that takes in depth thought has more value and importance than a novel than you skim through and throw on a shelf to collect dust cause you already figured out everything there is to know in a few days.

Evangelion

True. But in Luke 4 it is oikoumene. And in any case, kosmos is equally flexible, being used to denote everything from "world" (in the abstract) to "age" (similar to aeon.)

The Liddell-Scott-James Greek Lexicon makes this abundantly clear:

• kosmos
  
  I. order, kosmôi and kata kosmon in order, duly, Il., etc.; maps atar ou kata kosmon id=Il.; oudeni kosmôi in no sort of order, Hdt., attic
  
  2. good order, good behaviour, decency, Aesch., Dem.
  
  3. the form, fashion of a thing, Od., Hdt.
  
  4. of states, order, government, Hdt., Thuc.
  
  
  II. an ornament, decoration, embellishment, dress, Il., etc.; esp. of women, Lat. mundus muliebris, id=Il., Hes., etc.:--in pl. ornaments, Aesch., etc.
  
  2. metaph. honour, credit, Hdt., Soph., etc.
  
  
  III. a regulator, title of the chief magistrate in Crete, Arist.
  
  IV. the world or universe, from its perfect order, Lat. mundus, Plat., etc.
  
  2. mankind, as we use "the world," NTest.

The temptation account in Matthew therefore uses kosmos in the sense of "states", which corresponds with Luke's use of oikumene.

Calzaer

It also allows for more people to be sent to Hell! Praise the all-loving one!

Cretinist

Mattew 4:8 - Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

So I suppose that would be more accurately translated "all the kingdoms of the states"?

Kirby, CX (or anyone else who actually knows Greek), care to comment?

Evangelion

ROTFL!

No, all the kingdoms (basileia) of the state (kosmos.) In this case, the state of Judea.

You see, kosmos is not always plural. (Duh!)

Sorry to disappoint you.

Evangelion

Explaining the correct use of an ancient word by reference to ancient sources is not "splitting hairs." Both ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek (but ancient Hebrew in particular) contain words which possess a vast array of different meanings, all of which are entirely dependent upon the context. The problem is further compounded by the fact that ancient Hebrew does not even have vowels, let alone tenses.

So it is important to study each word carefully, in order to determine its exact meaning.

They were perfectly clear to the people for whom they were originally written. The Jews understood their own language; the Greeks understood theirs.

The "not a technical document" defence is both irrelevant and unnecessary. Clearly, the Bible does indeed contain many technical references. But many of these are explained in the text itself. And those which are not, can be understood with a little study.

For whom? Were the Jewish scribes supposed to sit down and write out the Law of Moses in English, Japanese, Finnish, Spanish, Russian, German, French, etc. as well?

It makes more sense to ask "Why don't modern Bibles contain a translation guide?" And indeed, some do. The New English Bible (for example) has an excellent array of footnotes. Dr James Tabor's translation (still in the making) promises to be even better.