Badgers or sea cows/seals

[Herb Evans]

robycop3]Well, now you have switched the issue from the badger to KJVO's and Herb Evans. But what you do not know is that I know the tactics of those who like to correct Bibles and am prepared for them. -- Herb Evans

Ahh, but being prepared and being RIGHT are often two different things, eh, Dr. Evans?

Yes, Philip, I wish you would do it more. -- Herb Evans

And I do...Come up with any more Onlyist excuses lately? Yer last ones tanked....

Philip, I don't have to. I am not the one that hides things. -- I'm up front! -- herb Evans

So, can ya say WITH CERTAINTY it was badgers?

More certain than you are that they are not. Seems like all the uncertainty is on your side. -- Herb Evans

Yes, ya certainly GUESS...That's fer certain...Howdja ketch them bajjerzz...wiff yer UNICORN'S HORN?

No, I use a Dachshund, a badger dog, just Luther. -- Hreb Evans

 

[rsr]

John Gill leaned toward the Sepuagint reading, rendering parallelism between the "rams' skins died red" and "rams' skins died blue." He did not consider badger a likely choice, liberal modernist that he was.

I'm still partial to giraffe ...

 

[Keith M]

There you go again, with such certainty saying "should have" without any authorative basis except to assumje assumptions.

It seems you're looking in thed mirror, Herbie. The one who is assuming without any authoritative evidence is you - assuming that just because the KJV uses the word "badger" that this is the only possible wording for this passage. Where is your authority, Herbie? And don't say your authority is the KJV, because the KJV is only one of many English translations of God's word. And since the KJV is a man-made translation of God's word there are errors within its pages which have been shown in these forums over and over again.

Well, now you have switched the issue from the badger to the KJVO's and Herb Evans. But what you do not know is that I know the tactics of those who like to correct Bibles and am prepared for them.

What about the places where the KJV differs from the early manuscripts, Herbie? Are those not examples of "Bible correction?" Or are those holy writ since they are in the KJV? No, it was not I who "switched the issue." Rather it was you and others who have the attitude that if a passage doesn't agree with the KJV then it cannot possibly be correct. Such faith in a man-made myth is totally unfounded, Herbie. There is not one shred of evidence, biblical or otherwise, to support this KJVO myth.

 

[franklinmonroe]

...The Lamsa Eastern Bible has badgers and they followed an Eastern text and not the Hebrew.-- Herb Evans

The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (the so-called "Lamsa Bible") is so very similar to the KJV text that the accusation hangs over it that Lamsa plagerized the KJV text, only alterting it slightly to suit his Aramaic agenda. It is precisely this type of unique translation (such as "badger" in this passage where the reader might expect something different from the Peshitta) that make his work suspect.

In addition, I doubt you would approve of some of Mr. Lamsa's published doctrinal views and comments. Generally, using Lamsa to support an assertion will not improve the likelyhood of its acceptance among evangelical and conservative Baptists.

 

[Herb Evans]

John Gill leaned toward the Sepuagint reading, rendering parallelism between the "rams' skins died red" and "rams' skins died blue." He did not consider badger a likely choice, liberal modernist that he was.

I'm still partial to giraffe ...

What? You don't like DUGONG? Gill? The one Spurgeon said chilled many a church with his doctrine? You might get that to work in a few of the occurences of TACHASH but not every occurence, especially when there is a Hebrew word for blue, TEKAY'LETH. But if you want to get technical, perhaps a relative of Abraham was skinned to provide the covering.

And his concubine, whose name was Reumah, she bare also Tebah, and Gaham, and Thahash (TACHASH), and Maachah. --Gen. 22:24

But then Thahash could have been called Thahash the Seal, or Thahash the sea cow. Giraffe? Nah! -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (the so-called "Lamsa Bible") is so very similar to the KJV text that the accusation hangs over it that Lamsa plagerized the KJV text, only alterting it slightly to suit his agenda. It is precisely this type of unique translation (such as "badger" in this passage where the reader might expect something different from the Peshitta) that make his work suspect.

In addition, I doubt you would approve of some of Mr. Lamsa's published doctrinal views and comments. Generally, using Lamsa to support an assertion will not improve the likelyhood of its acceptance among evangelical and conservative Baptists.

You are right about one thing, I would not endorse nor approve Lamsa's work. But it would be nice for you to provide the basis for the accusation that is made against him, especially in this place. What should we expect the Peshitta to say here? -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

There you go again, with such certainty saying "should have" without any authorative basis except to assume assumptions. -- Herb Evans

It seems you're looking in thed mirror, Herbie. The one who is assuming without any authoritative evidence is you - assuming that just because the KJV uses the word "badger" that this is the only possible wording for this passage. Where is your authority, Herbie? And don't say your authority is the KJV, because the KJV is only one of many English translations of God's word. And since the KJV is a man-made translation of God's word there are errors within its pages which have been shown in these forums over and over again. franklinmonroe

Well, if you can't approach this issue in any other way, I guess it is best for you to make Herbie the issue and his convictions about which Bible is the best, even though herbie has not brought it up except to answer those who have. But are you not assuming that the KJB is wrong on the word "badger?" is it possible that it is right here? -- Herb Evans

Originally Posted by Herb Evans
Well, now you have switched the issue from the badger to the KJVO's and Herb Evans. But what you do not know is that I know the tactics of those who like to correct Bibles and am prepared for them.

What about the places where the KJV differs from the early manuscripts, Herbie? Are those not examples of "Bible correction?" Or are those holy writ since they are in the KJV? No, it was not I who "switched the issue." Rather it was you and others who have the attitude that if a passage doesn't agree with the KJV then it cannot possibly be correct. Such faith in a man-made myth is totally unfounded, Herbie. There is not one shred of evidence, biblical or otherwise, to support this KJVO myth.

Are you trying to change the subject and trying to bait me into an off topic discussion with your non-specific "what abouts"? -- Herb Evans

 

[rsr]

Gill? The one Spurgeon said chilled many a church with his doctrine?

Yep. But this is not about doctrine; it's about Hebrew, of which Gill was an avid student.

Nice try at diversion, though.

 

[franklinmonroe]

You are right about one thing, I would not endorse nor approve Lamsa's work. But it would be nice for you to provide the basis for the accusation that is made against him, especially in this place. What should we expect the Peshitta to say here? -- Herb Evans

I do not want to elaborate upon Lamsa under this topic. Perhaps there is enough interest to start a new topic devoted to his 'translation' at another time. (I will say this much: I have read a little of Lamsa's version and it was just like reading the KJV to me)

As shown throughout this thread, there is little consensus among the many translators. The point is: it is not that the Lamsa must have something different at this particular passage; it just that Lamsa (a purely Syriac source?) so rarely has anything different from the KJV (with its unique and eclectic use of underlying materials) at any 'difficult' passage. With a few notorious exceptions, it seems Lamsa could be used to support most KJV wording.

 

[Herb Evans]

Yep. But this is not about doctrine; it's about Hebrew, of which Gill was an avid student.

Nice try at diversion, though.

No, it is about the Septuagint reading. Gill would have a hard time being an avid student of Hebrew in the Septuagint. -- Herb Evans

John Gill leaned toward the Sepuagint reading, rendering parallelism between the "rams' skins died red" and "rams' skins died blue." He did not consider badger a likely choice, liberal modernist that he was. -- RSR

 

[Herb Evans]

I do not want to elaborate upon Lamsa under this topic.

You just did elaborate on it. All I would like to know from you is what the Peshitta says if Lamsa copied the KJB as you accused him. -- Hreb Evans

Perhaps there is enough interest to start a new topic devoted to his 'translation' at another time. (I will say this much: I have read a little of Lamsa's version and it was just like reading the KJV to me).

Well, if you are used to the MV's that might cause you to get that impression. --Herb Evans

As shown throughout this thread, there is little consensus among the many translators.

That means nothing more here than it does other places, especially regarding the MV's. -- Herb Evans

The point is: it is not that the Lamsa must have something different at this particular passage; it just that Lamsa (a purely Syriac source?) so rarely has anything different from the KJV (with its unique and eclectic use of underlying materials) at any 'difficult' passage. With a few notorious exceptions, it seems Lamsa could be used to support most KJV wording.

I have not found the Lamsa to be so in a number of cases, and believe me, I tried. Still, I see that altogether differently in that an independent Peshitta witness not connected with the English bibles would be a very important evidential witness. Aso the German Bible that predated the KJB and some other English Bibles also is a very good evidential witness. -- Herb Evans

 

[rsr]

No more than the Hebraists who translated the KJV were disqualified because they referred to the Septuagint to understand the Hebrew.

 

[Herb Evans]

No more than the Hebraists who translated the KJV were disqualified because they referred to the Septuagint to understand the Hebrew.

Sorta like referring to the KJB English to understand the Hebrew and the Greek?

Well, you would think that the KJB Hebraists would have made the same discovery as Gill, if that were so. Seems to me that an avid student of Hebrew like Gill, would not have to do that unless he did not know what the Hebrew meant. Then there is the question of why Gill would follow the Septuagint and not the Hebrew, if he knew what the Hebrew meant? Aaron Pick's Dictionary 1845 says "badgers." -- Herb Evans

 

[Keith M]

But are you not assuming that the KJB is wrong on the word "badger?"

Here comes the good old KJVO tactic of putting words in the mouths of others. This is a dishonest tactic you guys use to try to hide the dishonesty of the KJVO myth. You guys fall back on this as one of many tactics when you're getting painted into a corner, don't you? Herbie, if you'll stop throwing around these false accusations, and if you check what I have said, you will find that not once did I say the KJV is wrong. I have said that, since the meaning of the original Hebrew tachash is unknown, we have no real way of knowing what is the proper word and what isn't the proper word. You blindly believe that the word "badger" can be the only possible word in this passage simply because that is the word chosen by KJV Bible and manuscript correctors.

But what you do not know is that I know the tactics of those who like to correct Bibles and am prepared for them.

Oh, I'm sure you are, Herbie. You folks who follow the KJVO myth must spend hour upon hour coming up with new and creative ways to try to fight the truth. All you come up with are the same old methods and falsehoods, Herbie. It is actually those who follow the KJVO myth who are the "Bible correctors," Herbie. Followers of the KJVO myth seek to make all Bible versions agree with the KJV. And if those versions don't agree with the KJV, then they need to be corrected in your reasoning.

It is sad when anyone falls into the trap of the KJVO myth. The KJVO myth is based on deliberate misrepresentations and ignorance of the truth. I am praying that one day soon you will accept the truth, Herbie. I suppose that until that day your lame tactics and excuses will continue. I now have another name to add to the ignore list. It is strange that the majority of names on my ignore list are supporters of the KJVO myth. Wonder why that is???

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Keith M: Please calm down before you have a stroke.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Does anyone know if a porpose, seal, sea cow or dugong is kosher?

A.F.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Pre-KJV Bibles that influenced the translators here were Tyndale (taxus), Luther (dachs), Geneva (badger), and Bishops (taxus). They were indeed relying on cognate theory, but wrongly.,,,

That cognate theory has been suggested by several commentators. I suspect it is merely conjecture though.

It appears that the French Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (AKA RASHI) (1064 to 1105) equated TACHASH to BADGER in his comments at Ezekiel 16:10. This is likely where Luther and the others got it from. Presumably RASHI got it from rabbinical sources. I have no clue where though. This was well before Luther (bn. 1483) or Tyndale (bn. 1494).

It seems to me that the KJV translation was consistent with the best available scholarship.


A.F.

 

[Keith M]

Keith M: Please calm down before you have a stroke.

Thanks for your concern A.F., but unless the good Lord knows something I don't I'm not about to have a stoke, or a caniption, or a cow...

Why would I do that over someone preferring a myth over truth? That is their own decision...

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Thanks for your concern A.F., but unless the good Lord knows something I don't I'm not about to have a stoke, or a caniption, or a cow...

Good deal. You sounded upset.

A.F.

 

[Jerome]

French Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (AKA RASHI) (1064 to 1105) equated TACHASH to BADGER in his comments at Ezekiel 16:10.

What exactly were his comments?