Badgers or sea cows/seals

Much of what you say is true. So a Tachash is not an animal? Still, to base any argument on "there is nothing to say that . . ." is woefully lacking. There is nothing to say that the name is not applied to the "badger." in fact, come to think of it, it has been so applied. -- Herb Evans

 

I was not attempt to hide anything (I was not really finished with my post when you responded to it). I clearly was not hiding, because I did reveal it immediately in a separate post. Hiding would have accomplished nothing, as anyone could look this up themselves. The discussion thus far had revolved only around Exodus 25:5.

I am not interested in skewing the argument one way or the other. I am interested in fair and thorough discussion of the topic.

 

No doubt you know quite a lot about the subject. But I am still a little unclear about what you are saying.

Rosenberg chose the transliteration of TACHASH SKINS everywhere except for Ezekiel 16:10 where he tranlated it [the skin of the] BADGER . He wouldn't likely have done that without good authority. Perhaps I make another mistake (?)

It looks like I will have to go fight with the students for a place in the library! It is exam time here....

A.F.

 

There was nothing wrong with the statements as related to the passage cited (which was Exodus 25:1-9, with emphasis on verse five):

That Lamsa does not have "badgers" is a true statement in the context of my post. That Lamsa reads very similar to the KJV is a true statement in the context of my post. That these two Peshitta versions cited are witnesses against "badgers" is a true statement in the context of my post.

 

If you say so! My post on Lamsa was not about Ex. 25:5. -- Herb Evans :smilewinkgrin:

 

Yeah! Sure! We understand! Herb Evans :praying:

 

Not much to sink one's teeth in here! I guess we must get ancient support for the probablies and everything, even though the Bible itself tells us that the scriptures THROUGHLY FURNISH the man of God unto all good works, doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction, and it does SEEM that the Bible is correct. But some choose to believe that everything but the Bible must furnish us the correction and instruction to make things plausible. -- Herb Evans

 

It is not "places", but a single occurrance. I did not claim that Lamsa was always in agreement with the KJV, only suspeciously often.

For example, notice that even the puncuation and capitalization of Lamsa mimics the KJV, even when the KJV is unconventional. Verse three begins a new sentence that runs through verse seven. The Lamsa begins each verse with a capitalized letter even though the word should not be capitalized by convention (the previous verse closes with a comma, not a period), just as the KJV does! The Aramaic English Standard Version does not capitalize the beginning of each these verse, only using the capitalization properly at the first word of a new sentence, as normally would be expected.

The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Lamsa has:

KJV:

The AESV:

 

From the OP through most all posts cited only Exodus 25:5 (if one was cited). Here is a portion of the first post (I think) where Lamsa is mentioned. Notice your comment comes directly following a reference to "Ex. 25:5".

If your posts are not following the content of the rest of the thread, you might want to make that more explicit.

 

Well, the KJB has long been a standard for a lot of things, so be suspicious of whatever you want to be. Nevertheless, because Lamsa copied some kind of grammar convention means nothing, especially when he ignored the KJB Badger as did the AESV but copied the capitalization and punctuation in your verse. The quote from the AESV means even less.

Still, you said that the Lamsa did not have "badgers" as I claimed. That has nothing to do with punctuation or capitalization or a single verse, no mater how hard you wriggle. -- Herb Evans

 

That was your post that I responded to here not the rest of the thread. I was explicit when I posted that Lamsa had "badger" in this thread. Your denial was based on what I said not mine on what you said in regard to Lamsa's "badger." -- Herb Evans

 

This was posted in post #72, before you denied my claim that "badger" was in the Lamsa. -- Herb Evans

 

Herb, you poor fellow. You don't even know what verse is being discussed.

Herb, you poor fellow. You brought up Lamsa, a source that doesn't even support your position at this verse.

Well, with scholarship like that, we can all go home.

 

Franklin you poor fellow, this was my post on Lamsa to begin with. I am the one that started talking about Lamsa, so it is you that do not follow the thread. -- Herb Evans

Quote:

Well, if PETA knew about those folks using poor little dolphin skins there would have been a real ruckus! I do not blindly follow notes as some do. The Lamsa Eastern Bible has badgers and they followed an Eastern text and not the Hebrew.-- Herb Evans


This was posted in post #72, before you denied my claim that "badger" was in the Lamsa. -- Herb Evans

 

Herb, you poor fellow. Making many accussations that are untrue.

Herb, you poor fellow. Making assumptions.

Herb, you poor fellow. Insulting others.

 

What is the matter, tired of the issue at hand? Or not able to address it. Thanks for the history lesson. -- herb Evans

 

Yes Herb, I know. We all know.

 

Yeah! Sure! We understand!

 

We sure do. You got caught, and are trying to cover up. -- Herb Evans

 

Quote:

Well, if PETA knew about those folks using poor little dolphin skins there would have been a real ruckus! I do not blindly follow notes as some do. The Lamsa Eastern Bible has badgers and they followed an Eastern text and not the Hebrew.-- Herb Evans

I'm looking, but I do not see an explicit verse reference. Therefore, every reader of this thread would have to assume you were addressing Exodus 25:5 (the verse every other poster had addressed).