Davka

Yes, that's the correct translation. "Guilty" = "not innocent."

KJV says "He shall deliver the island of the innocent:
and it is delivered by the pureness of thine hands."

Iskander

Changing “ island of the innocents” to “ deliver the guilty” is not a correction of the KJB text , but a rewriting of the text.


The Catholic Study Bible, second revised edition, published in 2011, translates job 22:30 as

“He will deliver whoever is innocent; you shall be delivered if your hands are clean”

Note k, sends the reader to Job 17: 9; PS 18:21, 24; 24:4
Is this translation not what the text was intending to say? Yes, it is

The catholic change is a correction of the text ; it preserves the original meaning and improves the text.


Biblos interlinear is :

“of your hands the cleanliness will be delivered innocent the island will deliver”
http://interlinearbible.org/job/22-30.htm

Davka

Bullshit.

You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. You've never studied Hebrew, you don't understand how the prefix yod works, you were never aware of this mistake in the KJV until I pointed it out to you, and you're simply spewing nonsense because you feel like arguing.

Iskander

It makes the book of Job one impossible to understand. If god is so good that he treats the guilty as generously as he treats the innocent, then he is a merciful god. Why to consider the justice of god?

The Catholic Study Bible, second revised edition, published in 2011, translates job 22:30 as

“He will deliver whoever is innocent; you shall be delivered if your hands are clean”

Note k, sends the reader to Job 17: 9; PS 18:21, 24; 24:4
Is this translation not what the text was intending to say? Yes, it is

The catholic change is a correction of the text ; it preserves the original meaning and improves the text.


Biblos interlinear is :

“of your hands the cleanliness will be delivered innocent the island will deliver”
http://interlinearbible.org/job/22-30.htm

J-D

'Evolution is a result of differential survival rates of varying replicators' is my summary of the description provided at the link you posted. If you have given a specific explanation of how that might work in the evolution of a Jesus-meme, I'm sorry, but I missed it.I don't see where, or how, Doherty describes anything on an evolutionary line of Jesus-belief that predates Paul.When you ask me questions, I answer them. I asked you a question and you didn't answer it. Looks to me as if you're the one who's dodging.

You think I'm not serious about that question? Humour me and try answering it just the same. It might be instructive.I mean that it's possible that a memetic-evolution model could provide an explanation of the origin of Christianity, but I would see more reason to think so if there were examples of a memetic-evolution model providing explanations of anything else.I just did provide examples! Lutheranism, Mormonism, Ahmadiyya, Hare Krishna, Sikhism, Baha'i, and Scientology. What I mean by calling those examples 'well-documented' is that there is a significant documentary record that provides clear direct evidence of how those religions began.That is an outright falsehood. I have not deliberately omitted any examples that would falsify what I'm saying.And I did not attribute that position to you.What I have said is that all the As I know about are Bs. I did not say that this proves that all As are Bs. That would be fallacious reasoning; I have not engaged in it.No, you haven't. You talked about Taoism and Judaism; I responded to what you said about those cases.So what you're saying, in effect, is that this process you're talking about can happy, but only in circumstances where it goes unrecorded.In which documents?I did not insist that there was. But you have not offered an alternative explanation (beyond abstract generalities) of its origin.All of which I have already discussed.I did not suggest that Luther founded 'Jesus-belief' (that's not the name of any religion I know of, anyway); I only implied that he founded Lutheranism.

I don't see why I should accept your bare denial that Theophilus Lindsey founded the Unitarian religion.Then I'll post on the subject to that thread.

steve_bnk

Of course biological evolution not literally a perfect comparison to religion, evolution is a good metaphor for religion and politics as well.

The new pope can be viewed as an unpredictable variation.

The evolution of Hubbard's original thoughts to Dianetcs and then Scientology are traceable.


'....Richard Dawkins noted the three conditions that must exist for evolution to occur:[20]..'

variation, or the introduction of new change to existing elements;

The passing forward of a theology. Errors occur with misinterpretations. Change occurs due to human variability over time. In the case of the RCC the unpredictable appearance of figures like Augustine and Aquinas.

heredity or replication, or the capacity to create copies of elements;

Theology is passed forward containing both literal information and subjective interpretation.

differential "fitness", or the opportunity for one element to be more or less suited to the environment than another..'

We can look at the long history of the RCC. The RCC has 'evolved' to accept evolution within caveats of being part of god's plan.

Mormonism evolved from the violent pilgrimage to establish a western theocracy to becoming true blue patriotic Americans. Mormonism was/is a variation on the existing Christian themes.

And the leap from that is to observe what became mainstream Christianity had its origins in variation on Jewish themes. IOW the adaptations in Paul's version that mead it palatable to gentiles..

Davka

This is a nonsensical sentence construction. Why would you imagine that mercy and justice cannot coexist? Why would you imagine that Job's friends would continually press Job to admit to his sin, if such an admission would gain Job nothing?

Why do you imagine that YHWH expresses anger at Job's friends for assuming Job is guilty?

Since a significant number of major translators have determined that the proper reading is "he will even deliver those who are not innocent," and that this reading makes perfect sense in the context of Job, I can only imagine that your refusal to accept this is based on something other than actual knowledge.

steve_bnk

Job makes no sense unless you understand possible historical context. I read Jiob was probably allegory or Jewish oppression and captivities.

The moral of the tale is shit happens to good Jewish people regardless of being in accordance with Jewish traditions and requirements.

According to my Oxford Commentary, Job was likely part o a larger lost set of Jewish teaching materials.



A side note. Looks like Job may be a plagiarism from Babylon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job

Granted we reject the supernatural, but I am puzzled as to why some make such a sharp rejection of the OT as literature, no more or less than the human moral tales in Shakespeare.

Iskander

The admission of guilt would gain Job absolutely nothing, but it would allow the friends to vindicate god, it would show that god is a just god.


In sentencing a convicted criminal the judge may under certain circumstances show some mercy by reducing the usual sentence. Job does not see any evidence of mercy in the justice of god, because he has to find some evidence of his justice first.


Job says that bad people often have a better life than the good people, Job claims that the justice of god is absent from this world.


God explains: “I know what you know not"

Iskander

This is what Professor Christine Hayes says in her Yale lectures on the Hebrew Bible

We are not excused from the task of righteous living because the need to do good is our need and it is meaningful and a source of joy and beauty.