Evangelion

Mageth -

Nope.

Nope, they are no such thing. They are perfectly accurate translations of the original Hebrew. Just go right ahead and look 'em up for yourself.

Heck, I'll even give you a couple of examples:

• Yada - the Hebrew word for "know", which is used in the context of "knowing" someone sexually. It appears 946 times in the Old Testament. As with most Hebrew words, the meaning is defined by the context. Sexual knowledge is not necessarily meant in each case. There is, therefore, no "sanitisation" here. The KJV gives an accurate translation of the Hebrew idiom.
  
• Nâphal - the Hebrew word for "fall", which is used in the context of "falling upon" someone's neck and kissing them.
  
  Hence:
  
  Genesis 45:14.
  And he fell [nâphal] upon his brother Benjamin's neck [tsavvâ'r], and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck [tsavvâ'r].
  
  The Hebrew word which has been translated here as "fell", is indeed the Hebrew word for "fell." The Hebrew word which has been translated here as "neck", is indeed the Hebrew word for "neck."
  
  So the original Hebrew does indeed say "He fell upon his brother Benjamin's neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck."
  
  It's a very accurate translation; extraordinarily true to the original Hebrew.

Oh, and by the way - just how are these "sanitised"?

• He girded up his loins.
  He prepared himself.
  
• He fell on his neck.
  He embraced him.

No sanitisation here that I can see.

Yes, that's what I'm getting to - and yes, that's exactly what these words meant at the time.

...depending on the context, yes. This was not (let us remember) the only meaning of the word.

Yep, that's right. And it was perfectly understood by the people of King James' day, too. That's precisely why they retained the original Hebrew idiom.

Lookin' good. Classic Hebrew idioms, just like I said.

See here for even more.

Mageth

Umm, at least some of the examples you listed were euphemisms in the original Hebrew! To "Know" in the carnal sense is one example. "Cover [his feet]" is another.
From here:

cakak - 2) to cover, defecate (euphemism).

Rather than descriptively translating the words or phrases to reveal the true meaning for anyone to see, the translators chose in many cases to maintain the euphamisms. Sometimes this was done to maintain a "true" translation, but other times (as in "knew") it was done out of a sense of propriety.

One only has to note the many other examples where liberties were taken in translating other words and phrases in many translations so that they could be more easily understood, yet most of them retain the euphamisms for "offensive" terms.

Unless you think, for example, that the KJV is a "perfectly accurate translations of the original Hebrew" for every word and phrase in the original.

No sanitisation here that I can see.

Well, I did say "Many of the things you list are eupehimisms introduced in translations to "sanitize" the bible for target readers," not all of them. My only modification to this might be that many of the things you list are euphamisms in the original Hebrew maintained in the translations at least sometimes out of a sense of propriety.

Yep, that's right. And it was perfectly understood by the people of King James' day, too. That's precisely why they retained the original Hebrew idiom.

I think you may be getting things backwards here. I suspect that "know" was not present in the English language as a euphamism for sexual relations before the translation, but was introduced to the English language through the translation of the Bible into English. In other words, someone who spoke the King's English at the time and picked up a copy fresh off the press might ask "What does 'Adam knew Eve' mean? Of course he knew her!'" Reply by the scholor "Umm, to the writers of the bible, 'know' was a euphamism for 'fuck' in some cases." (No offense intended; in King James' time, that was not so distasteful a word).

The "cover his feet" bit is perhaps even a better example. I doubt if anyone, outside perhaps a few biblical scholars, actually knew what that retained euphamism meant in King James' day. Most people still don't, as that particular euphamism didn't as successfully enter the English language as "know" did.

Whatever, this is one big sidetrack. Why don't you go ahead and make your point about the text in question? As I said:

The more important question is, what did the words in the original text mean at the time they were written? (I suspect this may be what you're getting to)

This is true whether the words are "idioms" or "euphamisms". So please get to the point.

Dominus Paradoxum

Jmborr: Never mind with that passage. Instead, try explaining these away:

"Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself am against you, Jerusalem, and I will inflict punishment on you in the sight of the nations. Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds - Ezekiel 5:8-10 "

"31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was:
337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the LORD was 675;
38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72;
39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61;
40 16,000 people, of which the tribute for the LORD was 32 - Numbers 31:31-40 " (I assume "tribute" here means sacrafice.)

"the LORD our God delivered him over to us and we struck him down, together with his sons and his whole army. At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them-men, women and children. We left no survivors. - Deuteronomy 2:33-34 "

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. - 1 Samuel 15: 2-3 "

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD . Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. - 2 Kings 2: 23-24"

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen” Leviticus 25: 44-46

“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open” - Hosea 13:16


“ If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.” Deutoronomy 21: 18-21


"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.” Exodus 21: 20-21

“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.” 1 Timothy 6:1

Oh, and I'd like to know from what passages you deduce the concept of original sin, i.e., inherited guilt. That violates the principle of sola scriptura, doesn't it? Most to the Eastern Orthodox Chruches reject the doctrine of original sin as heretical.

And here's a wonderful site that you should study if you want to know what the old testament really says:
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/

Specifically, you should read these:

Could Jesus' death atone for any kind of sin?

Response to Jews for Jesus / Coud Jesus' death atone for sin con't

Dual Prophecy and the Virgin Birth

What does Judaism believe about 'original sin'?

Mageth

Dominus Paradoxum:

Thou has yet to know the Power of the Idiom!

Evangelion

Mageth - sure, I agree that some euphemisms are present. That's a given. But your "sanitisation" thing was quite a generalisation.

*snip*

You're still missing the point. Whether the word "know" was present in the English language as a euphemism before the translation or not, is totally irrelevant. The bottom line is that this is the word which the Hebrew had used, and the translators translated it accurately.

There is no "sanitisation" here on the part of the translators. They're simply presenting an accurate translation. The Hebrew says "know"; the English translation therefore says "know."

Really, this is very simple.

As with your "know" digression, this is a complete non-argument. The Hebrew here is "sâkak [to screen or cover] regel [foot.]" Hence the original Hebrew does indeed say "To cover his feet." And guess what? The English translators have rendered it "To cover his feet", according to the Hebrew.

It's a euphemism, yes - but not a "sanitisation" on the part of the translators. They're simply writing down exactly what the Hebrew says.

We're getting there. All in good time.

Before you do anything else, you need to read Leviticus 27 - and your friend Dominus Paradoxum is advised to do the same.

I'm off to work now; won't be back for another 8 hours or so.

See you then.

Dominus Paradoxum

I've read it, I must admit that I fail to see how it is relevant to any of the points we raised. And a note: I never said or implied that the passage wich opened this thread said God was complicit in the sacrifice. I know he wasn't. So if you have any explanations for the passages I quoted - especially the one from Hosea- I'd love to hear what it is. I'd also like to hear your response to the links I provided.

Ab_Normal

[de-lurk]Um, if god didn't want the daughter to be sacrificed, couldn't he have said, "Yo, Jephthah, cool your jets"? He prevented the sacrifice of Isaac, after all. I'm confused (like that's new). [/de-lurk]

Sojourner553

I realize I am off topic here. But if what you say is true,

Why is God telling SOME of his followers that the war in Iraq is good and OTHER of his followers that the war in Iraq is not good.

A Schizoid personality maybe?

Mageth

The bottom line is that this is the word which the Hebrew had used, and the translators translated it accurately.

There is no "sanitisation" here on the part of the translators. They're simply presenting an accurate translation. The Hebrew says "know"; the English translation therefore says "know."

Really, this is very simple.

OK, then, did the translators translate all of the original Hebrew just as accurately, or in many places did they take liberties for clarity of understanding, so that the English readers would know the meaning? If they took liberties in some (if not many) other places for clarity of understanding, why not for the euphemisms for "sex" and "defecate"? As I said, those euphemisms were not in the English language at the time of the original translations. Possibilities I see are 1) the translators didn't know what the euphemisms referred to, or didn't know they were euphemisms (possible in the "cover the feet" one, but unlikely in the "know" one, 2) the translators were interested in exactly translating the original Hebrew (but then why not do this everywhere else?) or 3), the euphamisms in their original form were left in for propriety.

JEST2ASK

TO Mageth / Evangelion & DP-@ Towards the end of Genesis 20 is the story of Lot and his daughters ... one of the many (IMO) points is to make an issue of the ancestory of the Moabites and the Ammonites. (Much like the later distinction between the Judea and Samaria (who is pure and of the right linage) ... I think you are focusing on translations and developed meanings before you deal with sources and context .... (as an aside what do you make of the tribal / racial undertones ie the Gileadites vs the Ephraimites / Manassites ... also Note Jephthah is mentioned in the N.T. ... Hebrews 11:30-34 so ttoake the tact that God did not approve of his vow is Bogus.... you know who this is directed towards )

The stories existed as oral history long before they were collected (redacted .. ) what you need to do is place what is Genesis - Deuteronomy context against other in this case Judges. The actual Hebrew translations are (IMO) secondary to establishing the (who / when / where / why) setting ... It is very important to include Judges 11:40 That the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Japhthah the Gileadite. as that indicates a long practice different from post (united kingdom David & Solomon) Exile seeting.

What was the source of the Jephthah story (background / intent) it may not have the same thelogical references as what is found in the Torah / Pentauch (sp??) so looking at the final version based on a developed (Judiasm) culture and language may be giving a distorted view.

Which is something the O.P. hints at (IMO)

I know for most it is sort of taken for granted but I am just learning to deal with the idea that even the O.T. does not have the simple chronological authorship (/development) as generally accepted in U.S. society.

@ (Dominus Paradoxum)