Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

God Repents?


Guest DD2014

Recommended Posts

Guest DD2014

Why would God repent? Did he sin?

 

Who would he repent to? Does God have a God? And if so, does that God have a God?

 

 

Exodus 32:14

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Genesis 6:6

And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

1 Samuel 15:35

The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16

The Lord repented of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, it is enough: stay now thine hand.

1 Chronicles 21:15

And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil,

Jeremiah 15:6

Thou hast forsaken me, saith the LORD, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary with repenting.

Jeremiah 26:3

If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.

Amos 7:3

The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD.

Jonah 3:10

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would God repent? Did he sin?

 

Who would he repent to? Does God have a God? And if so, does that God have a God?

Yes, he sinned. His "god," like everyone and everything else, is "jesus." So since "god" is not only "loving," but "just," his rules apply to him as well as everyone else. So he hates himself just like he hates us. So he had to kill "jesus" so he would like himself again too. So he asks "jesus" for forgiveness and on judgment day when he condemns himself to hell, if he truly believes that "jesus" is his savior, he will be allowed into heaven to be with himself else he will go to hell to be apart from himself forever and ever. Only he knows if he is one of the "elect" and he won't say anything to himself until that day comes.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a Christian I always had a problem with these "repent" passages and god. The word repent, whoever, does not need to deal with sin, per se. The word means to change ones mind, to do a 180. Christians have made a big deal out of this word because the Bible says we are to "repent and be saved" and all of that.

 

But even though the word itself does not have to deal with sin, it is still a problem for the god of the Bible. Why? because it implies a change of mind! The Bible is clear that god never changes. It is equally clear that god supposedly knows everything ahead of time and that whatever he does is perfect. If he never changes, knows everything and is perfect, then what reason would he ever have to change his mind? That the Bible states that god repents is internal biblical evidence that the god of the Bible is not who the Bible says he is (perfect, all-knowing, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were still a Christian, it would be quite frightening to contemplate the idea that God could change his mind. What if one day he just decides the plan of salvation was a mistake? If he changed his mind on one thing, why not anything at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were still a Christian, it would be quite frightening to contemplate the idea that God could change his mind. What if one day he just decides the plan of salvation was a mistake? If he changed his mind on one thing, why not anything at all?

Excellent point, Deva. The "perfect" gawd is jealous, vengeful, and seems to change his mind a lot.

I think I'll go back to worshipping George Carlin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would God repent? Did he sin?

 

Who would he repent to? Does God have a God? And if so, does that God have a God?

 

 

Exodus 32:14

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

 

Here's the thing about the KJV. It's specific to the writer and it can't be taken in a literal fashion, merely because of the errors in the KJV. Many people say I cherry pick or whatnot, but the fact is that the whole OT is worded to writer view, or translator view. Now, whether one decides that they should take 'the writers, translators view as the 'authoritative word of God'; well that's on them, and the people that give them that idea.

 

Here's an example of KJV on Exodus.

 

The word used for repented here is also used as comforted. Though a repent form and a comfort form are both used by the original word, they are too different words with two different meanings today, and then I assume as well. The translators translated within context of what they were translating.

 

So now we could have a possible, "And the Lord comforted of the evil which...". This obviously doesn't make sense in reading. So, then we move to evil, which this wording is correct, as all the other uses for this word read as evil, wickedness, etc. 'He thought' is an interesting one. It is the only one used this way. The rest are translated speak, spake, a few worded 'promised', a couple worded 'commune'.

 

So now it gets even more twisted. "And the Lord comforted of the evil which ( let's say 'spake' as it's the most used)spake to do unto ....

 

Now, 'which' is also a headache, as it is used in some craziness, and it's use here would (in my opinion) depend solely on the sentence. The original word is translated, as whose, where, that, as, whom, when, whatsoever, because. All these words were translated from the original word into different uses throughout the Bible. Boy this is giving me a headache. LOL 'Of' this word is crazy as well, is is translated into about 10-15 different wordings: against, upon, therefore, with, thee, from,; to name a few. The most dominant wording used for this original is 'upon'; so this could be a substitute as it is more dominant throughout the Bible.

 

So, now the verse goes to, "And the Lord comforted upon the (could be evil or wickedness) wickedness spake to do unto.....

 

'To do' this little phrase also was translated from the original in application to the sentence and it is used as: made, to make, done, did, thou shalt, thou shalt make, shall offer, shalt keep, etc. The dominant use here is to make, or made.

 

"And the Lord comforted upon the evil/wickedness spake/spoke thou shall make ( for reading) unto....

 

"unto His people' is used next as a phrase in translation of the original. This wording is dominantly used as 'the people' throughout the rest of the KJV. But also is used as: among thy people, for the people, over the people, through the people,

 

So, now, we have..'And the Lord comforted upon the evil/wicked spake/ spoke thou shall make the people.' or

 

'And the Lord comforted against the wickedness spoke thou shalt make among thy people'

 

So, this makes a whole new verse, but still lies the fact that it could be turned and twisted into so many other versions, yet the weird thing about this verse, is that their are more than just one word that is used out of the 'norm' by the rest of the Bible.

 

Kind of like the word used for 'virgin' instead of young woman in Isaiah, where in the rest of the Bible it is used as 'young woman' :wink:

 

Hope that helps :grin:

 

So, maybe L4A can help more since he can translate Hebrew into English. What would your translation be L4A? I gathered all this by the KJV translations of the original words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word used there can relate to "comfort," but it is a comfort as a result of being sorry for something. In other words, the Hebrew word there means, basically, that something needs to be done to "comfort" (i.e. rectify) that which is causing the person to feel sorry. The word is generally used to mean to change ones mind (repent) or to feel sorry for. Therefore, the basic gist of the verse is that god was sorry/saddened by what he had done and needed to do something to change that. Thus, the translators chose the word "repent" because, in English, this conveys that idea (to change ones mind because of something they see or have experienced).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word used for repented here is also used as comforted. Though a repent form and a comfort form are both used by the original word, they are too different words with two different meanings today, and then I assume as well. The translators translated within context of what they were translating.

Do you know how to use a lexicon? How to even attempt to translate something? Of course it's contextual.

 

So now we could have a possible, "And the Lord comforted of the evil which...". This obviously doesn't make sense in reading. So, then we move to evil, which this wording is correct, as all the other uses for this word read as evil, wickedness, etc. 'He thought' is an interesting one. It is the only one used this way. The rest are translated speak, spake, a few worded 'promised', a couple worded 'commune'.

 

So now it gets even more twisted. "And the Lord comforted of the evil which ( let's say 'spake' as it's the most used)spake to do unto ....

You're so close but so far away. It's not a dictionary. You're not just plugging in words. You're looking for the "sense" of the word. The "feeling" that is being conveyed. So "comfort" is only a part of it. But, as L4A points out, in what sense (obviously I'm glossing a deeper understanding of the language as a whole here)? You totally overlook that aspect. That is why your "translation" is a failure.

 

You continue to compound your problem in your "argument." How you ultimately wind up with the mess that is "And the Lord comforted against the wickedness spoke thou shalt make among thy people" is a total mystery to me especially since you appear to explain your steps.

 

Just about any lexicon you choose should show that this word is not only about "compassion" but about "pity," "grief," "regret," "to be sorry," and so on. Even those few words should start to convey the idea of what the original word is about. It should show that what "thoughts" were running through "god's" mind. It's essentially one of remorse. Repent is not out of line for something like that.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word used there can relate to "comfort," but it is a comfort as a result of being sorry for something. In other words, the Hebrew word there means, basically, that something needs to be done to "comfort" (i.e. rectify) that which is causing the person to feel sorry. The word is generally used to mean to change ones mind (repent) or to feel sorry for. Therefore, the basic gist of the verse is that god was sorry/saddened by what he had done and needed to do something to change that. Thus, the translators chose the word "repent" because, in English, this conveys that idea (to change ones mind because of something they see or have experienced).

 

But L4A, even though it applies that sense, what about the rest of the sentence? How is it conveyed? The rest of the translations.

 

This was the 'end' possible other translation in my example.

'And *the Lord* comforted *against *the wickedness*spoke*thou shalt make *among thy people'

 

I put the asterisk where the original word is suppose to be to separate the verse.

 

This is the KJV

And *the LORD* repented *of *the evil*which* he thought* to do* unto his people.

 

'And' is conveyed right and is used dominantly in KJV.

'the Lord' is also conveyed right and used the same in KJV.

'repented' which is substituted to convey meaning in the verse.

 

Key words, or phrases here that I ask you to give your opinion.

 

'the evil', 'he thought', and 'unto his people'

 

How are these conveyed into this verse, as you described 'comforted'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious to what you think about this L4A because I understand the 'comforted' word, and used it because it made more sense into the new verse, instead of 'repented'.

 

It would read, 'And *the Lord* repented *against *the wickedness*spoke*thou shalt make *among thy people'

 

I was reading the new verse in a different context, for example. "And the Lord comforted (or had piety, felt sorry) toward the evil/wickedness that is spoke [and] made among the people"

 

That is the YYV, or YoYo Version :grin:

 

Seriously though, I don't see the other three phrases as a ''conveyed'' wording.

 

'he thought' is one of the few times out of many others that use that wording. This is why I ask, because I remember you said that it all depends on the next word, and so on.

 

Anyway, I wait for your input. Do you think this verse is translated correctly, and in what context and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I wait for your input. Do you think this verse is translated correctly, and in what context and why?

I don't even have to wait for L4A to say "NO" it is not translated correctly.

 

Here's the why:

32:10 "Now then let Me alone, that
My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them
; and I will make of you a great nation."

32:11 Then
Moses entreated the LORD his God
, and said, "O LORD,
why does Your anger burn against Your people
whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand ?

32:12 "Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth '?
Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people
.

That's your context. You are ignoring it. "God" is pissed. Moses says some stuff and then says "Change your mind." Then "god" does in the very verse you are trying to change. He "repents" of being angry. I'll use a different translation so you can see:

32:14 So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.

See? Instead of "repent" they use "changed his mind" which fails to convey quite the same meaning as the original word but it should highlight to you where the word "repent" can be inserted without altering the overall context.

 

But let's look at yours in the same location (I think this is your current final version):

"And the Lord comforted (or had piety, felt sorry) toward the evil/wickedness that is spoke [and] made among the people"

You're having "god" feel pity toward the evil that the people appear to be speaking amongst themselves. This is not at all what the passage is saying.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're having "god" feel pity toward the evil that the people appear to be speaking amongst themselves. This is not at all what the passage is saying.

 

mwc

 

But MWC, it still doesn't explain the other three phrases that I spoke about earlier. Here's another one! LOL It could go on and on. But, I focus more of the last part of the verse than the first.

 

And the Lord repented of the wickedness which thou spake made the people

 

My point is that these last phrases are used in a unique fashion, and when I say that I mean, out of a million other forms of the wording, this form appears. 'He thought', I believe is only used one more time, and the rest are speak, spake, etc. Is this verse so out of context that it needed a new 'creation' of wording during translation.

 

Anyhow, I see your point and raise you a yoyo :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YoYo,

 

You are just falling victim to lexicon-itus. Everyone thinks that they can translate the Bible because of the tools available to them and everyone thinks that they can do a better job then the guys with the PHDs that do nothing but work with ancient languages. While I realize that many of these people have a bias (and who doesn't), but they also have a lot more knowledge than you or I. Most of the translations on these verses are pretty much in agreement. This would indicate that it is not such a difficult section to translate and understand (for the translators).

 

The facts are, the verses are talking about god changing his mind. The Hebrew in these verses tends to be clear enough that theologians have wrestled with the meaning of this for centuries (i.e wrestling with what do we do about a never-changing, all-knowing god that changes his mind because he gets an unexpected result).

 

If you are not careful, YoYo, you will find yourself in the same theological circus jumping through the same theological hoops as these poor, trapped theologians, trying to twist easily understood verses in order to make them say something that they clearly do not in order to help save the image of the invisible sky daddy, who seems quite incapable of doing it for himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were still a Christian, it would be quite frightening to contemplate the idea that God could change his mind. What if one day he just decides the plan of salvation was a mistake? If he changed his mind on one thing, why not anything at all?

 

God's already changed his salvation plans several times. The "don't touch the tree" plan failed, so he just abandoned his creation. Later, on a whim, he decided to wipe it out with a flood but left a salvation escape hatch in the form of the "listen to the crazy man with a boat" plan. That kind of worked until Noah got totally wasted and caused a big family schism. Then there was the "follow a random shepherd from proto-Babylon" plan, but he evidently gave up on that covenant with Abraham which forms the entire basis of Judaism by the time Jesus showed up for part in the next big new plan.

 

And if you believe in the Baha'i tradition, God kept on repeating this pattern, changing his mind and his message for Muhammad and then later for Baha'uallah. Who can say what will be next? That Yahweh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God's oh so perfect plan gone awry by differnet languages. Might I remind one and all that according to the Bible, that was God's fuckup to begin with. Tower of Babel anyone? So here we have perfect god creating confusion that seems to exist to this day. His stupid book of salvation is so crappily written that the reader is bewildered and confused. Great job god...you suck ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But MWC, it still doesn't explain the other three phrases that I spoke about earlier. Here's another one! LOL It could go on and on. But, I focus more of the last part of the verse than the first.

 

And the Lord repented of the wickedness which thou spake made the people

 

My point is that these last phrases are used in a unique fashion, and when I say that I mean, out of a million other forms of the wording, this form appears. 'He thought', I believe is only used one more time, and the rest are speak, spake, etc. Is this verse so out of context that it needed a new 'creation' of wording during translation.

 

Anyhow, I see your point and raise you a yoyo :grin:

I'm going to show you something. Here's the analysis for just one word of that sentence:

 

rbd verb piel perfect 3rd person masculine singular homonym 2

0399.0 rb;D' (d¹bar) to speak, declare, converse, command, promise, warn, threaten, sing, etc.

 

(399a) rb'D' (d¹b¹r) word, speaking, speech, thing, etc.

 

(399b) rb,D, (deber) pestilence.

 

(399c) rb,Do (dœber) pasture.

 

(399d) tArb.Do (dœbrôt) floats, rafts.

 

(399e) hr'b.DI (dibrâ) cause, reason, manner.

 

(399f) hr'wObD> (d®bôrâ) bee.

 

(399g) rybiD> (d®bîr) I, oracle.

 

(399h) rybiD> (d®bîr) II, Debir, a city in Judah.

 

(399i) rB,DI (dibber) speaker, word.

 

(399j) tr,B,D; (dabberet) words.

 

(399k) rB'd.mi (midb¹r) I, mouth.

 

(399l) rB'd.mi (midb¹r) II, wilderness.

 

Some lexicographers distinguish two roots for the Hebrew dbr : 1. "to be behind, to turn back" related to Arabic dubr with the same meaning and Akkadian dabaru "to push back." Derivatives of this root include d®bîr "back chamber," dœber "(remote place) pasture," dœberôt "raft [dragged behind the ship]," and midb¹r "steppe." II. "word," mostly found in the noun d¹b¹r "word, thing" and the verb in Piel "to speak, address." Etymologically related to dbr II are dibrâ "thing," and dibb¢r a rare nominal form of the verb, and midb¹r "mouth" with instrumental mem. Although Seeligman (VT, 14: 80) derives dabberet "word" from root I, it appears more plausible to see it as a derivative of root II. While BDB and GB do not differentiate dbr as occurring as a verb in two different roots, KB assigns dbr to root I in the Piel for Job 19:18; 2Chr 22:10 and in Hiphil for Psa 18:47 [H 48] and Psa 47:3 [4]. We will limit our discussion of the verb to the putative root II.

 

No convincing etymology for dbr has been offered to this time. Akkadian possesses the vocable dab¹bu -noun and verb-with meanings strikingly similar to those of Hebrew. As a substantive it means "speech," or "legal matter" and as a verb "to speak" (CAD. D.2-14). But Hebrew also has a root dbb attested in the noun dibbâ "whispering, slander." It is questionable whether the similarity between Akkadian dbb and Hebrew dbr is due to chance or to a true etymological connection.

 

The root occurs in the Lachish ostraca and in the Siloam Tunnel Inscription. Outside of Hebrew it occurs in Phoenician-Punic with the same meaning as Hebrew and in Biblical Aramaic in a nominal dibrâ "matter.".

 

d¹bar is probably a denominate verb from d¹b¹r, as it is used almost exclusively in the Piel, Pual, Hithpael, and Qal participle. Ugaritic evidence shows no use of d¹bar "to speak" (nor of °¹mar "to say"), but does have instance of the use of midbar II, wilderness.

 

In any language the words which represent the basic verb for speaking and the noun for "word" cannot but be of supreme importance. The verb d¹bar and the noun d¹b¹r have these important spots in the Hebrew Bible. Procksch in TWNT states that the noun is the basic form and the verb stems from it.

 

These two words occur more than 2500 times in the OT, the noun more than 1400 times and the verb more than 1100. The source of the words is unclear though they are common in Semitic languages.

 

Some words cover much territory, spreading into many areas of thought and in the process compounding problems for communicators-especially for those who try to translate ideas into other languages. In the KJV d¹bar is translated by about thirty different words and d¹b¹r by more than eighty. Some of these are synonyms but many are not. All, however, have some sense of thought processes, of communication, or of subjects or means of communication. The noun d¹b¹r stretches all the way from anything that can be covered by the word thing or matter to the most sublime and dynamic notion of the word of God.

 

Many synonyms are found in Psa 119 where the message from God is eulogized. Doubtless the most important synonyms are °¹mar "to say" and the masculine and feminine " ¢mer and °imrâ which are almost always translated "word." In his discussion on synonyms for the word of God, Girdlestone mentions °¹mar "to say," millâ "word," n¹°am "utter," peh "mouth," tôrâ "law," d¹t "edict," µœq "statute," ƒ¹wâ "command," piqqûdîm "charge," °œraµ "way," derek "path," mishpa‰ "judgment," and ±ôd "testimony."

 

In this list of synonyms, the first four refer to the ordinary use of the root d¹b¹r. The word °¹mar "to say" is very like d¹bar but is usually followed by the thing said. millâ "word" was long called a late Aramaizing synonym, but now is recognized as simply a poetic and less common expression for WORD, n¹°am is mostly restricted to the nominal form ne°¥m meaning a prophetic oracle. The word peh "mouth" is a mere figurative use of the organ of speech for the speech. The rest of the words in Girdlestone's list, edict, statute, command, etc. are variant expressions for the authoritative word indicated by d¹b¹r (or °œmer or °imrâ) in some contexts.

 

[Although °mr "to say" is the closest synonym to dbr, its basic meaning stands out clearly against dbr (Piel). In the case of °mr the focus is on the content of what is spoken, but in the case of dbr primary attention is given to the activity of speaking, the producing of words and clauses. While °mr cannot be used absolutely (without giving the content of what is said), dibber can be so used (cf. Gen 24:14; Job 1:16; Job 16:4, 6). Moreover, while °mr can have a diversity of subjects by personification (land, animals, trees, night, fire, works, etc.), dbr almost always has personal subjects or designations of their organs of speech (mouth, lips, tongue, etc.). They are also distinguished with respect to the one addressed. While in the case of °mr it is sufficient to use the weaker preposition l®, dbr normally demands the stronger preposition °el (about ten times more frequently than l®). These differences, however, do not detract from the importance of what is said as the object of dbr which includes most matters pertaining to moral and ideal values. As in some other verbs used mainly in the Piel, the Qal occurrences are almost exclusively in the active participle and designate mostly one who speaks something as a commandment or on account of an inner compulsion. Thus it is used with: truth (Psa 15:2), lies/falsehood (Jer 40:16; Psa 5:6 [H 7]; Psa 58:3 [H 4]; PSa 63:11 [H 12]; PSa 101:7), right (Isa 33:15; Isa 45:19; Prov 16:13), well-being (Est 10:3), folly (Isa 9:17 [H 16]), insolence (Psa 31:18 [H 19]). It is also used of angels who bear God's message (Gen 16:13; Zech 1:9, 13, 19 [H 2.2, etc.) and of speech of abiding relevance (Num 27:7; Num 36:5). B.K.W.].

 

In the KJV some of the less common translations of the d¹bar include: "answered" (2Chr 10:14) as parallel to ±¹nâ "answer" in v. 13 (where Rehoboam answers his critics); "uses entreaties" (Prov 18:23); "give sentence" or "give judgment" in Jer 4:12 and Jer 39:5 (with mishp¹‰îm); "publish" (Est 1:22) and "be spoken for" (Song 8:8). The KJV has "subdues" in Psa 18:47 where some such notion is necessary to parallel "avenge" in the first part of the sentence. This psalm occurs also in 2Sam 22 and there (v. 48) the Hebrew word for "bring down" is used in the place of d¹bar. This corroborates the rare meaning of "subdue" for d¹bar in Psa 18:47 and Psa 47:3. Modern translations also give this meaning in these passages.

 

A most important declaration, which is reiterated over and over again (about 400 times), in the OT use of d¹bar, is that God "spoke." The Pentateuch is loaded with such statements as "The LORD said," "The Lord promised" and "The LORD commanded," all translations of d¹bar. God's spokesmen are often challenged as Moses was challenged by Miriam and Aaron saying, "Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses?" (Num 12:2). But the Lord always supports his word and his spokesman.

 

d¹b¹r. Word, speaking, speech, thing, anything, everything (with kœl), nothing (with negatives), commandment, matter, ad, event, history, account, business, cause, reason, and in construction with prepositions: on account of, because that. This noun is translated in eighty-five different ways in the KJV! This is due to the necessity of rendering such a fertile word by the sense it has in varying contexts. As "word" d¹b¹r basically means what God said or says.

 

The decalogue, "the ten words" (Exo 34:28; Deut 4:13; Deut 10:4), are ten declarations or statements, as in Deut 10:4, the ten words (d®b¹rîm) which the Lord spoke (dibb¢r). The ten words are commandments because of the syntactical form of their utterance. The ten words are what God said; they are ten commandments because of how God said them.

 

The d¹b¹r is sometimes what is done and sometimes a report of what is done. So, often in Chr, one reads of the acts (dibrê) of a king which are written in a certain book (dibrê). "Now the acts of David the king... are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and, in the book of Gad the seer." In the KJV of 2Chr 33:18 acts, words, spake and book are all some form of d¹bar / d¹b¹r. And in the next verse, sayings is added to this list! The Hebrew name for Chronicles is "the book of the words (acts) of the times" (s¢per dibrê ayy¹mîm). Here "words (acts) of the times" is equal to "history"-"annals.".

 

The revelatory work of God is often expressed by "the word of the Lord came" to or upon a person (1Chr 17:3 and often in the prophets). Jehoshaphat says of Elisha that "the word of the Lord is with him" (2Kings 3:12). When prophecy was stilled as in Samuel's childhood, "The Word of the LORD was precious" (KJV; RSV "rare"). But Moses says that Israel has the word very near, because he refers to the book of the law which had recently been given to them, as the immediately preceding context shows. In 2Sam 16:23 the counsel of Ahithophel is said to be like the counsel of an oracle (KJV, RSV), Here d¹b¹r is "oracle," though mass¹±, KJV "burden," is often used for oracle in modern translations.

 

[Gerleman notes that the singular construct chain d®bar YHWH "the word of the LORD" occurs 242 times and almost always (225 times) the expression appears as a technical form for the prophetic revelation (THAT, I, p.439). He also notes that the plural construct chain dibrê YHWH "the words of the LORD" occurs seventeen times and much more frequently than the singular construction after verbs of speaking ngd [Hiphil] (Exo 4:28); spr (Piell "to recount" (Exo 24:3); dbr [Piel] "to tell" (Num 11:24; Jer 43:1; Ezek 11:25); °mr "to say" (1Sam 8:10), qr° "to cry out" (Jer 36:6, 8; THAT, I:439). In seven passages the d®bar YHWH has a juristic character (Num 15:31; Deut 5:5; 2Sam 12:9; 1Chr 15:15; 2Chr 30:12; 2Chr 34:21; 2Chr 35:6). B.K.W.].

 

Certain characteristics of the word of the Lord are enunciated in Psalms. Among them are: "The word of the Lord is right" (Psa 33:4), "settled in heaven" (Psa 119:89), "a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" (Psa 119:105) and "true" (Psa 119:160).

 

The efficaciousness of the word of the Lord is often cited by certain phrases like "according to the word of the Lord" (1Kings 13:26), or "I will perform my word" (1Kings 6:12).

 

The chronicler says that the Lord stirred up Cyrus "that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished" (2Ch 36:22). Through Isaiah the LORD says that his word will be like the rain and the snow making the land productive. "It shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isa 55:11). Jeremiah also promises that the Lord's Spirit and word shall never depart from his people and is "like a fire" and "a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces" (Jer 23:29).

 

[in addition, the word of the Lord is personified in such passages as: "The LORD sends his message against Jacob, and it falls on Israel" (Isa 9:8 [H 7]); "He sent his word and healed them" (Psa 107:20); "He sends his command to the earth" (Psa 147:15). Admittedly, because of the figure it appears as if the word of God had a divine existence apart from God, but Gerleman rightly calls into question the almost universal interpretation that sees the word in these passages as a Hypostasis, a kind of mythologizing. Gerleman suggests that this usage is nothing more than the normal tendency to enliven and personify abstractions. Thus human emotions and attributes are also treated as having an independent existence: wickedness, perversity, anxiety, hope, anger, goodness and truth (Psa 85:11ff; Psa 107:42; Job 5:16; Job 11:14; Job 19:10) (THAT, I, p. 442). B. K. W. ].

 

deber. Pestilence, murrain, and plague. This masculine noun is commonly mentioned together with such words as famine, evil, blood, judgment, sword, and noisome beast (KJV; RSV "evil beast"). Jeremiah in his predictions of dire events quite often combines sword, famine, and pestilence. (Jer 14:12; Jer 21:7, 9; Jer 24:10; Jer 27:8, 13; Jer 29:17-18; Jer 32:24; Jer 34:17; Jer 38:2; Jer 42:17, 22; Jer 44:13).

 

Any kind of pestilence which results in death is meant. Aside from about five instances, all uses deber relate to pestilence as sent by God as punishment. Solomon in his prayer at the temple dedication speaks of the possibility of pestilence as a basis for prayer (1Kings 8:37; 2Chr 6:28). However, God in his response says, "If I send pestilence" (1Chr 7:13). Jehoshaphat speaks like Solomon but he puts the statement on the possibility of pestilence as a basis for prayer towards the temple in the mouth of the people (2Chr 20:9). Psalm 91:3, 6 refers to God saving from evil pestilence. All other references are statements of historical occurrences, or threats or prophecies of punishment from the Lord.

 

dibrâ. Cause, sake, intent, order, estate, end, regard. dibrâ occurs seven times (Job 5:8; Psa 110:4; Eccl 3:18; Eccl 7:14; Eccl 8:2; Dan 2:30; Dan 4:17). In Psa 110:4 dibrâ is usually translated "order of Melchisedek" but in NEB "succession."

 

For the compound ±al dibrat see M. Dahood Bib 33: 47f.

 

dibb¢r. Speaking or one who speaks (?). A form in Jer 5:13 which is uniformly translated as d¹b¹r "The word is not in them.".

 

dabberet. Words. A feminine singular noun; cognate of d¹b¹r found only in Deut 33:3. Probably a poetic collective for all Moses said.

 

d®bîr. Oracle, sanctuary, Debir. As a proper noun Debir is: (1) the name of a king of Eglon who joined the southern coalition against the Gibeonites and the Israelites under Joshua, (2) the name of a prominent Canaanite city, formerly called Kirjath-sepher (Josh 15:15, 49; Jud 1:11), (3) a city of the Gadites east of Jordan (Josh 13:26) and (4) another city on the northern border of Judah (Josh 15:7).

 

d®bîr also refers to the holy of holies and is translated sixteen times in KJV and ASV as "oracle," but RSV and modern versions translate as sanctuary, inner sanctuary, inner temple, inner room and other such terms. It is not used of the holy of holies of the wildnerness tabernacle.

 

Debir (Kirjath-sepher) was a prominent city in the Judean hills near Hebron. Joshua totally destroyed Debir in the southern campaign (Josh 10:38-39; Josh 11:21; Josh 12:13) but either the city was rebuilt and retaken by Othniel or else the destruction by Joshua is a general statement and Othniel actually took the town. Judges 1:11 says that Caleb gave Achsah his daughter to Othniel as wife because he conquered Debir in battle. Debir was later given to the sons of Aaron (Josh 21:15).

 

midb¹r. Wilderness or desert. midb¹r is used to describe three types of country in general: pastureland (Josh 2:22; Psa 65:12 [H 131; Jer 23:10), uninhabited land (Deut 32:10; Job 38:26; Prov 21:19; Jer 9:1), and large areas of land in which oases or cities and towns exist here and there. The wilderness of Judah has at least a half-dozen cities in it. The wilderness of Jordan (the alluvial plain) contains cities, and the wilderness of Sinai has within it a number of oases. midb¹r is also used figuratively (Hos 2:5; Jer 2:31).

 

The largest tracts called midb¹r are Sinai, the Negeb, the Jordan Valley, and the Arabian desert.

 

Specific wilderness areas are: Beer-sheba (Gen 21:14), Paran (Gen 21:21; Num 10:12; Num 12:16; Num 13:3, 26; 1Sam 25:1), Sin (Exo 16:1; Exo 17:1; Num 33:11-12), Sinai (Num 1:19; etc; Exo 19:1-2; Lev 7:38); Zin (Num 13:21 etc.; Deut 32:51; Josh 15:1), Beth-aven (Josh 18:12), Judah (Jud 1:16; Psa 63 title), Ziph (1Sam 23:14, 14; 1Sam 26:2), Maon (1Sam 23:24-25), Gibeon (2Sam 2:24), Damascus (1Kings 19:15), Edom (2Kings 3:8), Jeruel (2Chr 20:16) Shur (Exo 15:22; Exo 16:1; Num 1:19 etc.), Etham (Num 33:8), Kedemoth (Deut 2:26), Tekoa (2Chr 20:20), Kadesh (Psa 29:8; Psa 63 title), and Egypt (Ezek 20:35).

 

The wilderness is often described negatively as without grapes, fountains, pools of water, livers, pleasant places-or as in a notable statement: "Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?" (Psa 78:19).

 

Bibliography: Braulik, Georg, "Die Ausdrucke fur 'Gesetz' im Buch Deuteronomium," Bib 51: 39-66. Mckenzie, John L., "The Word of God in the Old Testament," TS 21: 183-206. Milik, J. T., "Deux Documents Inedits du Desest de Juda," Bib 38: 245-68. Mowinckel, S., "The 'Spirit' and the 'Word' in the Pre-exilic Reforming Prophets," JBL 53: 199-227., "The Decalogue of the Holiness Code," HUCA 26: 1-27., "A Postscript to the Paper 'The Spirit and the Word in the Pre-exilic Reform Prophets'," JBL 56: 261-65. O'Connell, Matthew J., "The Concept of Commandment in the Old Testament," TS 21: 351-403. Ouelette, Jean, "The Solomonic D®bîr according to the Hebrew Text of 1Kings 6,," JBL 89: 338-43. Plossman, Thomas, "Notes on the Stem d-b-r," CBQ 4: 119-32. Richardson, TWB, pp. 232, 283-85. THAT, I, pp. 43342. E.S.K.

Unfortunately the Hebrew letters didn't copy across (as well as some formatting) but that should give you an idea of what a good text on this stuff should tell you. This is just for your "to speak" issue alone.

 

Just going to an NT Bible site and looking at the most basic (probably) Strong's lexicon and plugging in words won't get you far. It's not a dictionary. Strong's is helpful if you've already got an idea of what things should be but it's harmful if you do not.

 

I'm happy that you're trying to understand all of this. I really am. It's just more complicated that how you're going about it. Just like English has grammar rules so do all these other languages and they have to be obeyed otherwise you're just inventing meanings.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the Hebrew letters didn't copy across (as well as some formatting) but that should give you an idea of what a good text on this stuff should tell you. This is just for your "to speak" issue alone.

 

Just going to an NT Bible site and looking at the most basic (probably) Strong's lexicon and plugging in words won't get you far. It's not a dictionary. Strong's is helpful if you've already got an idea of what things should be but it's harmful if you do not.

 

I'm happy that you're trying to understand all of this. I really am. It's just more complicated that how you're going about it. Just like English has grammar rules so do all these other languages and they have to be obeyed otherwise you're just inventing meanings.

 

mwc

 

I understand that the word has a long explanation, history, etc; and I do agree it takes more than just 'plugging' words into verses. I will ask this though MWC, with no pun intended. The reason I put 'emphasis' on this is solely because of the 'young woman' 'virgin' verse in Isaiah.

 

By what you and L4A just stated above, Is that also why 'virgin' is used instead of 'young woman'? Because they are professionals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you and L4A just stated above, Is that also why 'virgin' is used instead of 'young woman'? Because they are professionals?

 

No. I believe (and I want to stress that this is a BELIEF and not necessarily scientific) that the word "virgin" is used in the Isaiah 7:14 passage because of dogma. However, please understand this: the Hebrew word that is used there (almah) does not preclude the concept of virginity (nor does it necessitate it either). So there is one legitimate reason to render it virgin from the perspective of a Christian translator: because the Gospel of Matthew interprets it this way. Since the word used in Isaiah 7:14 does not preclude the concept of the young maiden being a virgin, then it is within the realm of possibility ... just barely, though. I personally believe the context of the passage (Isaiah 7:14) rules it out and this is especially true since the prophecy needs to be fulfilled immediately (i.e. within the time frame of the coming invasion against Jerusalem) and because there is no far-reaching effect (i.e. could not be pertaining to the birth of Jesus).

 

However, the situation with the verses you are questioning are not as complex. And, also, if they wanted to translate them with bias in favor of their dogma (i.e. that god cannot change, knows all, etc) then they could have done that with these repent verses. But they did not and, as a result, left a quandary for theologians to wrestle over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there is one legitimate reason to render it virgin from the perspective of a Christian translator: because the Gospel of Matthew interprets it this way.

 

That's not true though L4A, the Gospel of Matthew didn't exist when the word became virgin. It became virgin in the Septuagint, then to later carry on, ..after the Christ events. So, the Hebrews labeled it virgin, because there was reason needed. Right? Wasn't the Septuagint the main Bible used during early Christianity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true though L4A, the Gospel of Matthew didn't exist when the word became virgin. It became virgin in the Septuagint, then to later carry on, ..after the Christ events. So, the Hebrews labeled it virgin, because there was reason needed. Right? Wasn't the Septuagint the main Bible used during early Christianity?

 

That's a good point and one that I neglected to mention. The Septuagint did use the Greek word for virgin when translating Isaiah 7:14 and the Septuagint is considered a Jewish translation. However, it was the exception, not the rule. Hebrew had (and still has) a specific word for virgin and it is the Hebrew word betulah. So the question becomes, if the author of Isaiah intended his readers to understand virgin in Isaiah 7:14, then why didn't he use the specific word for virgin instead of a loose word that means young lady? And, secondly, if god is real and perfect and knows that we are flawed and can easily misunderstand things, then why didn't he guide the author to use the one specific word that they had in their language for virgin?

 

Most forms of Judaism believe that Isaiah 7:14 should not be rendered virgin. Even some Christian English Bible translations use a different word instead of virgin in their translation because they are willing to admit that this is the clearest meaning of the word almah.

 

So the real question is not what the word almah means, because that is known and not questioned. The real question is what drove the translators of the Septuagint to translate almah as parthenos (virgin)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the real question is not what the word almah means, because that is known and not questioned. The real question is what drove the translators of the Septuagint to translate almah as parthenos (virgin)?

 

That my friend is truly a mystery. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That my friend is truly a mystery.

 

Not really.

 

However, I find it interesting that people will run to the Septuagint to support Isaiah 7:14 being translated as virgin, but will completely shy away from it for other things that it has translated that seem ... odd ... out of place ... opposed to currently accepted dogma, etc. In other words, it is generally accepted that the Septuagint is a poor translation. So why then is it used so heavily with Isaiah 7:14?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That my friend is truly a mystery.

 

Not really.

 

However, I find it interesting that people will run to the Septuagint to support Isaiah 7:14 being translated as virgin, but will completely shy away from it for other things that it has translated that seem ... odd ... out of place ... opposed to currently accepted dogma, etc. In other words, it is generally accepted that the Septuagint is a poor translation. So why then is it used so heavily with Isaiah 7:14?

 

Well, for one L4A, I didn't run to it, I just pointed out the obvious. Yes, you are correct, some later have considered it poor in translation, but it was translated by Hebrews. I don't leave out the possibility that it was mistranslated, but it is what it is. It is probably used though to answer your question, as heavy, because it was the Bible used from Christianity, day one, and was considered, the true Word translated from the Hebrews. It is only since then, that scrutiny has surfaced. For a long time, the Septuagint was the direct Word from God's people the Hebrews. So, maybe that's why it still weighs heavy, because it read virgin instead of young woman, and for them, their Jesus played that role.

 

I think it's funny that the obvious, even through criticism of the Septuagint, is that this Book was the main book used around Roman areas, through Hellenization period. So, in that, this means that nobody forged, lied, conspired, made their 'own' dogma, etc. They simply trusted their fellow brother Hebrews translations, and believed that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.

 

Though, many Jews will say they are incorrect, it happened, and now it is not 'really' a matter of who is right or wrong, but a matter of opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's funny that the obvious, even through criticism of the Septuagint, is that this Book was the main book used around Roman areas, through Hellenization period. So, in that, this means that nobody forged, lied, conspired, made their 'own' dogma, etc. They simply trusted their fellow brother Hebrews translations, and believed that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.

 

Actually, no. The predominant translation used was Latin and not the Greek Septuagint. Here is an entry from Wikipedia on the Latin Vulgate:

 

The Vulgate is an early Fifth Century version of the Bible in Latin, and largely the result of the labors of Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of old Latin translations. It became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. In the 13th century it came to be called versio vulgata, which means "common translation". There are 76 books in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate Bible: 46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament, and three in the Apocrypha.

 

Found here:

 

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

 

Please note that Jerome was commissioned to do the work in 382 AD and he was to revise the OLD LATIN TRANSLATIONS. So by the 4th century, there were already Latin translations in use that were considered OLD.

 

The Septuagint was translated because so many Jews were being Hellenized that they no longer spoke Hebrew or read it with understanding. So a translation into a foreign language became necessary. However, the rabbis and those that respected their faith continued to use the Hebrew. Therefore, despite the Septuagint being a Hebrew translation, it was the common man's version and was not considered on par with the Hebrew. This is is part of the reason why modern translators go to the Hebrew instead of the Greek Septuagint. In many cases, the Hebrew referenced is from the 9th century AD (the Masoretic text). One would think that the significantly older Septuagint (2nd century BC?) would carry much more weight. It does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.