Disprove The Bible, Not Modern Christianity

[Neon Genesis]

Please note that idolatry is described as an enticement to go after other (false) gods, and this is further described as wickedness. So there is a heinous crime that is being perpetrated and condemned by execution.

How is it wickedness to worship other gods? So, do you believe that all non-Christians religions and atheism should be illegal and that we should all be executed for not worshiping your god? If you don't believe we should be executed for not worshiping God, why not? If you do believe we should be executed for not believing, why is this moral? How is it wickedness for us to be minding our own business? And how do you justify God's action in this?

[Vixentrox]

Good ole Jephthah. A story I'll wager the majority of Christians don't know about.

[RationalOkie]

Does this sound like Genesis to you?

 

3.4 Billion Years Ago Single-Celled Life ( Fossil Record )

2.4 Billion Years Ago Oxygen was released from the seas as a byproduct of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria (Single-Celled Life).

800 Million Years Ago Oxygen levels reached about 21 percent and began to breathe life into more complex organisms.

600 Million Years Ago Multicelled Soft-Bodied Life

580 Million Years Ago Fish

405 Million Years Ago Amphibians

310 Million Years Ago Reptiles

210 Million Years Ago Mammals

40 Million Years Ago Apes

3.5 to 4 Mill. Yrs Ago Australopithecus

2.5 - 1.6 Mill.Yrs Ago Homo habilis

1.6 Mill - 500,000 Yrs Ago Homo erectus - Recently a Homo erectus lower jaw has been found in Georgia and said to be 1.6 million years ago.

500,000 to 275,000 Years Ago Homo sapiens

[Pandora Moon]

In fact, Neon Genesis, that's not contradiction. The commandment "You shall not murder" had specific meaning, that left the way open for the killing in war or as capital punishment.

 

 

 

Badger that is a contradiction as the commandment does not say "you shall not murder unless I tell you to murder" which was what God did in the passage Neon Genesis refered to.

 

I would've thought that if God was prefect then surely he would put himself to a higher standard instead God tells us not to do something and then turns around and does it himself.

 

Lets look at the passage that Neon Genesis quoted again as I don't think you read it the first time round

 

1 Samuel 15:2-3?

 

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. ,Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'

 

I put the emphasis there as I think this was the part that Neon Genesis wanted to point out, it scares me actually as in what situation is it ever ok to kill children & infants?.

 

Personally I think that this shows that if the God in the bible does exist then that God is evil and does not deserve to be worshiped.

 

I am aware that a lot of Christians will be offended at what I just wrote and will try to prove me wrong by quoting passages such as 1 John 4:8 which says that God is love. All I say to that is have you ever heard of the saying actions speak louder then words?

[rayskidude]

Context determines the exact translation of a word. THe Hebrew word "Elohim" can mean either God, or it can refer to false gods, or even be used to decribe powerful men who act as judges of the people - so how you translate a word exactly depends on the context.

 

Is this news to you?

Yes. This is news to me. Please continue but with the word in question. Show context.

 

mwc

 

The Hebrew word elohim, which literally translated means "gods" is translated a few different - but very related - ways in the OT. According to the Concordance for the New American Standard version;

 

elohim = God nearly 2400x

elohim = gods, false gods over 200x. Ex are Gen 31:30 for household gods; Gen 35:2,4 & Ex 15:11 & Psalm 96:5 for false gods

elohim = powerful mighty men, or judges 6x - most notably in Psalm 82:6, which is quoted by Jesus in John 10:34.

 

Hebrew words for murder are "harag" & "ratsach"; but with only "ratsach" being translated as manslayer (manslaughter). The context determines the translation in Numbers chap 35 - as a murderer is described as one who kills by striking his victim, but he can be convicted only on the testimony of at least 2 witnesses. The word "ratsach" is translated manslayer when it states that he killed unintentionally or without enmity or lying in wait, or he was not seeking injury to an ememy.

[rayskidude]

Please note that idolatry is described as an enticement to go after other (false) gods, and this is further described as wickedness. So there is a heinous crime that is being perpetrated and condemned by execution.

How is it wickedness to worship other gods? So, do you believe that all non-Christians religions and atheism should be illegal and that we should all be executed for not worshiping your god? If you don't believe we should be executed for not worshiping God, why not? If you do believe we should be executed for not believing, why is this moral? How is it wickedness for us to be minding our own business? And how do you justify God's action in this?

 

Once again allow me to introduce context - the theme of the Book of Judges is found in 17:6 & 21:25 >> every man did what was right in his own eyes. The people generally did not seek God, except when they had gotten themslves into deep yogurt. There are several horrendous accounts of wickedness in this book - all done by the Jewish people and the surrounding peoples. This is not an endorsement by God, but rather an accounting of what Man will do left to his own devices. However, there are times when the Jews cried out to God, because they were suffering under great oppression - and God would raise up a judge to deliver them (Gideon and Samson are examples of God's direct work in choosing judges).

 

But Jephthah's story begins in Judg 10:6 as "the sons of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD" - taking on wicked Canaanite practices, which would have included temple prostitution, hetero- and homosexual - and child sacrifice to their false god Molech. Note that God never chose Jephthah, he was chosen by the people. And God never sanctioned Jephthah's vow, nor the "worthless fellows" that gathered around him. And note in 12:4-7, that Jephthah killed many Jews from the tribe of Ephraim.

 

SO Jephthah is yet another example of Man's sinfulness.

[Neon Genesis]

Once again allow me to introduce context - the theme of the Book of Judges is found in 17:6 & 21:25 >> every man did what was right in his own eyes.

How can the context of an event be set after the event took place?

 

But Jephthah's story begins in Judg 10:6 as "the sons of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD" - taking on wicked Canaanite practices, which would have included temple prostitution, hetero- and homosexual - and child sacrifice to their false god Molech. Note that God never chose Jephthah, he was chosen by the people. And God never sanctioned Jephthah's vow, nor the "worthless fellows" that gathered around him. And note in 12:4-7, that Jephthah killed many Jews from the tribe of Ephraim.

 

SO Jephthah is yet another example of Man's sinfulness.

The scriptures clearly say God agreed with Jephthah's vow in Judges 11:30-32

30And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ 32So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the Lord gave them into his hand.

Is God not all-knowing and knows everything before it happens? So, if God allows Jephthah his victory against the Ammonites knowing full well ahead of time that Jephthah's daughter would be the one to come out of the gate first, how is that not approval from God? Furthermore, nowhere in the scriptures does it say God condemned Jephthah for offering his daughter as a sacrifice. God seems to either not care one way or the other or seems to enjoy the sacrifice. And clearly God praises Jephtah's actions in Hebrews 11

And what more should I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.

If this was an evil time where the Isrealites did whatever they wanted, why does God praise Jephthah for his actions in verses 32-34?

[mwc]

Hebrew words for murder are "harag" & "ratsach"; but with only "ratsach" being translated as manslayer (manslaughter). The context determines the translation in Numbers chap 35 - as a murderer is described as one who kills by striking his victim, but he can be convicted only on the testimony of at least 2 witnesses. The word "ratsach" is translated manslayer when it states that he killed unintentionally or without enmity or lying in wait, or he was not seeking injury to an ememy.

I see. Interesting. And what is the "context" that causes this translation if I might ask? What would be the "clue(s)" to knowing when I would translate the word one way and when I should translate it another? Can you be a little more specific?

 

mwc

[rayskidude]

Hebrew words for murder are "harag" & "ratsach"; but with only "ratsach" being translated as manslayer (manslaughter). The context determines the translation in Numbers chap 35 - as a murderer is described as one who kills by striking his victim, but he can be convicted only on the testimony of at least 2 witnesses. The word "ratsach" is translated manslayer when it states that he killed unintentionally or without enmity or lying in wait, or he was not seeking injury to an ememy.

 

I see. Interesting. And what is the "context" that causes this translation if I might ask? What would be the "clue(s)" to knowing when I would translate the word one way and when I should translate it another? Can you be a little more specific?"

 

Intentionality would be the key. And as you correctly state - the Hebrew word is often the same when killing a human is the topic, so the context of intention would determine how we understand the text - and so how we would translate the Hebrew word into English.

 

So, it appears the Hebrews had "killing with intent" which we call murder; and they had "killing without intent" which in English we call manslaughter.

 

In the NT, the Greek word "cosmos" (translated world) can have related meanings depending on context. In John 3:16, "God so loved the world (cosmos) that He gave His one and only Son... Here we understand cosmos to refer to all the peoples of the world - which is in keeping with what we see in Revelation 5:9,10 and 7:9,10. Also, Jesus Christ died and rose for the salvation of humans.

 

However, in I John 2:15 we read - "Do not love the world (cosmos) nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world. love for the Father is not in him." Here we understand that 'cosmos' refers to the "world-system" - the general attitude of world leaders and the ways of the world which reject God and His ways. SO the believer is admonished to love God and not this world and its ways of conducting life apart from God's rule & guidance.

[rayskidude]

"How can the context of an event be set after the event took place?"

 

It's not uncommon in Literature for the theme to be stated clearly well after the story is being told - and may not become very clear until the end. SO that - as you read the book and get a sense of the theme, the entire book comes into clear view as the theme is stated.

 

But Jephthah's story begins in Judg 10:6 as "the sons of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD" - taking on wicked Canaanite practices, which would have included temple prostitution, hetero- and homosexual - and child sacrifice to their false god Molech. Note that God never chose Jephthah, he was chosen by the people. And God never sanctioned Jephthah's vow, nor the "worthless fellows" that gathered around him. And note in 12:4-7, that Jephthah killed many Jews from the tribe of Ephraim.

 

SO Jephthah is yet another example of Man's sinfulness.

 

"The scriptures clearly say God agreed with Jephthah's vow in Judges 11:30-32; 30And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ 32So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonites to fight against them; and the Lord gave them into his hand. Is God not all-knowing and knows everything before it happens? So, if God allows Jephthah his victory against the Ammonites knowing full well ahead of time that Jephthah's daughter would be the one to come out of the gate first, how is that not approval from God?"

 

The fact that God used Jephthah to accomplish His purpose, does not mean that God approved everything he did. Jephthah is yet another example of God using sinful men to accomplish His purposes. God certainly used Peter to preach His Gospel and lead the Early Church - and yet God did not approve of Peter denying Jesus three times - which God knew would happen and Jesus clearly stated would happen - to Peter's protestation.

[mwc]

Intentionality would be the key. And as you correctly state - the Hebrew word is often the same when killing a human is the topic, so the context of intention would determine how we understand the text - and so how we would translate the Hebrew word into English.

 

So, it appears the Hebrews had "killing with intent" which we call murder; and they had "killing without intent" which in English we call manslaughter.

I understood this from earlier. What I'm asking for, and you did not provide, were examples using this word: "ratsach."

 

I wish to see the contexts that define when one would translate it in the different ways you describe.

 

mwc

[Guest Davka]

You've got it backwards. "Lirtsoakh" is "to murder." This is the word found in the 10 Commandments: "al tirtsakh; don't murder."

 

That's the word that "ratsakh" is derived from. "Ratsakh" is third-person past tense: "he murdered."

 

"Laharog" is "to kill." This is the verb that "harag" is derived from. It's used pretty much the same way we use it in English: killing in cold blood, with malice aforethought, is murder. "Harag" is, once again, third-person past tense: "he killed."

 

Just as in English, killing can be murder in the right context. If I plot to kill a man and track him down and kill him, that's murder.

[mwc]

You've got it backwards. "Lirtsoakh" is "to murder." This is the word found in the 10 Commandments: "al tirtsakh; don't murder."

 

That's the word that "ratsakh" is derived from. "Ratsakh" is third-person past tense: "he murdered."

 

"Laharog" is "to kill." This is the verb that "harag" is derived from. It's used pretty much the same way we use it in English: killing in cold blood, with malice aforethought, is murder. "Harag" is, once again, third-person past tense: "he killed."

 

Just as in English, killing can be murder in the right context. If I plot to kill a man and track him down and kill him, that's murder.

I appreciate this. Have you ever heard of the term "lemma?" If not I'll just post this bit from wikipedia:

In linguistics a lemma (plural lemmas or lemmata) has two distinct interpretations:

 

1. morphology / lexicography: the canonical form or citation form of a set of forms (headword); e.g., in English, run, runs, ran and running are forms of the same lexeme, with run as the lemma.

I'm not certain the tenses will effect the overall discussion.

 

mwc

[Guest Davka]

I'm not certain the tenses will effect the overall discussion.

They don't. It was just extra information because I'm a verbose journalistic type and often don't know when to shut up.

 

What is important, however, is that he reversed the meaning of the two words. Harag= kill(ed), Ratsakh = murder(ed) - not the other way around.

 

Kind of messes up the point he was trying to make, IMO. "manslayer" in this case is the same as "murderer." Which is really weird, because as you pointed out, there is a provision for murdering someone unintentionally.

 

It is possible that there's something tweaky in the way the words are used in Biblical Hebrew (although quick research tells me that 90% of the time the definitions are as posted above), because to be honest, I speak modern Hebrew, not ancient.

[Neon Genesis]

But Jephthah's story begins in Judg 10:6 as "the sons of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD" - taking on wicked Canaanite practices, which would have included temple prostitution, hetero- and homosexual - and child sacrifice to their false god Molech. Note that God never chose Jephthah, he was chosen by the people. And God never sanctioned Jephthah's vow, nor the "worthless fellows" that gathered around him. And note in 12:4-7, that Jephthah killed many Jews from the tribe of Ephraim.

But God is all-knowing and knows everything that happens before it does, right? And God is all-powerful and can perform miracles, right? If God really objected to Jephthah's actions, why didn't he perform a miracle and save his daughter from being sacrificed? God had no problems saving Abraham's son from being sacrificed, so why didn't he save Jepthah's daughter if he didn't approve of it? I wonder if God approves of Psalms 137

Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites

the day of Jerusalem’s fall,

how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down!

Down to its foundations!’

8O daughter Babylon, you devastator!*

Happy shall they be who pay you back

what you have done to us!

9Happy shall they be who take your little ones

and dash them against the rock!

 

 

 

The fact that God used Jephthah to accomplish His purpose, does not mean that God approved everything he did. Jephthah is yet another example of God using sinful men to accomplish His purposes. God certainly used Peter to preach His Gospel and lead the Early Church - and yet God did not approve of Peter denying Jesus three times - which God knew would happen and Jesus clearly stated would happen - to Peter's protestation.

Isn't saying Jephthah was a good man like saying Osama bin Laden was a good man?

[rayskidude]

What is important, however, is that he reversed the meaning of the two words. Harag= kill(ed), Ratsakh = murder(ed) - not the other way around. Kind of messes up the point he was trying to make, IMO. "manslayer" in this case is the same as "murderer." Which is really weird, because as you pointed out, there is a provision for murdering someone unintentionally. It is possible that there's something tweaky in the way the words are used in Biblical Hebrew (although quick research tells me that 90% of the time the definitions are as posted above), because to be honest, I speak modern Hebrew, not ancient.

 

I looked at some more reference material - Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.

 

Both harag and ratsach can mean "murder, kill" >> but only ratsach is translated as "man-slayer" or what we would call manslaughter. We see this in Numbers 35:6,12. Only ratsach is used for unpremeditated, accidental killings. While harag is used in the OT for murder, judicial execution, and killing men in war.

 

So whether ratsach is translated as "murder" or "man-slayer" is determined by the context of whether the killing was intentional or accidental.

[mwc]

I looked at some more reference material - Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.

 

Both harag and ratsach can mean "murder, kill" >> but only ratsach is translated as "man-slayer" or what we would call manslaughter. We see this in Numbers 35:6,12. Only ratsach is used for unpremeditated, accidental killings. While harag is used in the OT for murder, judicial execution, and killing men in war.

 

So whether ratsach is translated as "murder" or "man-slayer" is determined by the context of whether the killing was intentional or accidental.

Okay. But this doesn't address my concerns. Why are you seemingly avoiding doing this? I'm quite interested in seeing examples using this word in some real examples. I want to see what exactly it is about the context that allows for these varied translations you mention.

 

mwc

[Guest Davka]

What is important, however, is that he reversed the meaning of the two words. Harag= kill(ed), Ratsakh = murder(ed) - not the other way around. Kind of messes up the point he was trying to make, IMO. "manslayer" in this case is the same as "murderer." Which is really weird, because as you pointed out, there is a provision for murdering someone unintentionally. It is possible that there's something tweaky in the way the words are used in Biblical Hebrew (although quick research tells me that 90% of the time the definitions are as posted above), because to be honest, I speak modern Hebrew, not ancient.

 

I looked at some more reference material - Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies and the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.

 

Both harag and ratsach can mean "murder, kill" >> but only ratsach is translated as "man-slayer" or what we would call manslaughter. We see this in Numbers 35:6,12. Only ratsach is used for unpremeditated, accidental killings. While harag is used in the OT for murder, judicial execution, and killing men in war.

 

So whether ratsach is translated as "murder" or "man-slayer" is determined by the context of whether the killing was intentional or accidental.

And you studied Hebrew for how long? I actually speak the language. My wife, who is Israeli-American, is fluent in Hebrew and has studied Biblical Hebrew as well. I enlisted her help in the following explanation.

 

There are numerous deliberate mis-translations of the Hebrew in English Bibles. Why? Because a direct, literal translation would screw up someone's pet theology. Translators have an unfortunate tendency to read a passage, think "that can't be what it really means," and look for commentaries that allow for an alternate translation. Thus the twisting of harag (killed) and ratsakh (murdered) according to doctrinal understanding of the passages.

 

For the record, HRG (heh, resh, gimel) is found in the Tanakh 164 times. It is most often translated in the NASB as a variant on "kill." The translations break down as follows: destroyed(1) kill(45) kill at once(1) killed(59) killing(3) kills(2) murdered(2) murderer(1) murderers(1) occurs(1) slain(16) slaughter(1) slay(14) slayer(2) slays(2) slew(11) smitten(1) surely kill(1).

 

For comparison, RTSH (resh, tsadi, heh) occurs only 47 times. most notably in the Ten Commandments. It is translated in the NASB as kills(1) manslayer(19) murder(7) murdered(2) murderer(13) murderers(1) murders(1) put to death(1) slain(1) slew(1).

 

This means that RTSH is rendered as a variant on "murder" 51% of the time, while HRG is translated as "murder" only 1/4 of 1% of the time, or 0.024% of the time, for a total of 4 times. If you closely examine the 19 renderings of RTSH as "manslayer" you will find that every single one of them is in reference to the Cities of Refuge, where those accused of murder can find safety. Jewish commentaries tell us that RTSH is used in these instances because the person in question is accused of murder, and is considered by his pursuers as a murderer, even if he claims it was an accident.

 

It is worth noting that the traditional Jewish translation of the OT, the Masoretic text, is the most likely source for the translation of RTSH as "manslayer." Jewish Rabbinic arguments are famously convoluted.

 

RTSH as "manslayer"

 

Look, I appreciate the effort, but trying to "translate" either the Hebrew OT or the Greek NT with study guides is pretty pointless. Unless you can read the original in context, with some understanding of how translations are done and how the language works, you're groping in the dark.

 

Conclusion:

RTSH means "murder." When translated as "manslayer," it would be more accurate to say "falsely accused of murder." The translations are interpreting, not merely translating.

 

HRG means "kill." It can be used for humans or animals, or in the case of Buffy, vampires.

 

PWN means "you're out of your depth here."

[Guest Davka]

There are numerous deliberate mis-translations of the Hebrew in English Bibles. Why? Because a direct, literal translation would screw up someone's pet theology. Translators have an unfortunate tendency to read a passage, think "that can't be what it really means," and look for commentaries that allow for an alternate translation.

 

Wait, that's hopeful!

 

Let's re-translate so women are allowed to speak and lead in the same religious settings men can. And a little re-translation making homosexuality A-ok would be good, too.

 

Thanks!

 

Phanta

LOL - I can see it now: the New Atheist Translation!

 

"In the beginning was the singularity. And the singularity expanded, and after some very weird incomprehensible stuff culminating in Planck time, the laws of physics as we know them began to operate and there was light. Had there been an observer, they might well have said 'it is good.' Then again, they might not."

[Dagan]

PWN means "you're out of your depth here."

 

 

Thanks for that post though, I am reading through Asimov's Guide to the Bible and he briefly touches on the translation notes in the original texts. This is stuff I never knew about, and stuff you'll never hear from a pastor. They just look in the commentaries, decide which interpretation of the word fits their sermon topic, and full speed ahead.

 

Your post sheds light on the complex nature of translating, of Hebrew annotations and how unless you can speak the language, you're basically making best guesses.

 

Wow, I lerning stuff!

[rayskidude]

There are numerous deliberate mis-translations of the Hebrew in English Bibles. Why? Because a direct, literal translation would screw up someone's pet theology. Translators have an unfortunate tendency to read a passage, think "that can't be what it really means," and look for commentaries that allow for an alternate translation. Thus the twisting of harag (killed) and ratsakh (murdered) according to doctrinal understanding of the passages."

 

Please list a few examples of purposeful mis-translations to feend pet theology.

 

"For the record, HRG (heh, resh, gimel) is found in the Tanakh 164 times. It is most often translated in the NASB as a variant on "kill." The translations break down as follows: destroyed(1) kill(45) kill at once(1) killed(59) killing(3) kills(2) murdered(2) murderer(1) murderers(1) occurs(1) slain(16) slaughter(1) slay(14) slayer(2) slays(2) slew(11) smitten(1) surely kill(1).

 

For comparison, RTSH (resh, tsadi, heh) occurs only 47 times. most notably in the Ten Commandments. It is translated in the NASB as kills(1) manslayer(19) murder(7) murdered(2) murderer(13) murderers(1) murders(1) put to death(1) slain(1) slew(1)."

 

You make my point - there are nuances in translating from one languiage to another; that's been my point all aong - and this is perfectly legit. Someone else was trying to force a transation based on 'it's the same word!' Context is key in translating - and the use of ratsach in Numbers 35 is an example - killing by accident is not murder - it is manslaughter, thus the translation 'manslayer' rather than 'murderer.' And I have listed several possible, legitimate translations of both these words.

 

"It is worth noting that the traditional Jewish translation of the OT, the Masoretic text, is the most likely source for the translation of RTSH as "manslayer."

Is this a criticism or commendation? Most Hebrew & OT studies & BIble translations that I have seen rely on the Masoretic Text.

 

"RTSH means "murder." When translated as "manslayer," it would be more accurate to say "falsely accused of murder." The translations are interpreting, not merely translating."

 

Are you saying that the translation 'manslayer' is patently incorrect? How big a difference do you see between 'manslayer' and 'falsely accused of murder'?

[rayskidude]

God certainly used Peter to preach His Gospel and lead the Early Church - and yet God did not approve of Peter denying Jesus three times - which God knew would happen and Jesus clearly stated would happen - to Peter's protestation.

 

"So, for God, the ends justify the means. Is that right? Or do you mean to say that God has no choice but to use sinful men to accomplish his purposes, because all men are going to fuck up any task he sets them to somewhere along the line. Is that right? Does it ever strike you as odd that God pure and light uses broken beings to do so badly His "good" work?"

 

God is intimately involved in life on Earth, He uses a variety of people (all of whom are sinners) to accomplish His purposes. He used righteous Noah to save Mankind, and then converted the pagan Abram to establish His chosen people to work through and bring forth His Messiah. God used pagan kings Cyrus, Artaxerxes, and Ahaseurus to deliver the Jews and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple. God used the wicked Assyrians to judge the Jewish people who had apostasized - much to the consternation of the prophet Habakkuk. God also converted the city of Nineveh through a very reluctant missionary - Jonah.

 

God converted the vehement anti-Christian Saul and converted him into a great Christian leader and missionary.

1Ti 1:12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service,

1Ti 1:13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,

1Ti 1:14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

1Ti 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

1Ti 1:16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

1Ti 1:17 To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

 

God uses sinful men to accomplish His purposes - so that all will recognize that only God Himself could have done such an amazing thing in this miraculous way. It is a testament to God's patience, mercy, love, grace, and sovereignty that He can use anyone He chooses to accomplish His will.

 

Do you fault God for this?

[Guest Davka]

Please list a few examples of purposeful mis-translations to feend pet theology.

 

I'll give you my favorite, from the KJV:

 

"When men are cast down, then thou shalt say, There is lifting up; and he shall save the humble person.

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

Job 22:29,30

 

The translators of the KJV had the Septuagint to go by so they really had no excuse for this mistake. Look up this passage in any other English Bible and it says "He shall deliver those who are not innocent." or even "He shall deliver the guilty."

 

In Hebrew, the letter yod is used as a prefix meaning "not" or "un." It's pronounced like a long "E" - example: "possible: in Hebrew is efshar, "impossible" is ee-efshar. In Job 22:30, this prefix is used before the word naki, which is pure, innocent, clean. The full word in Hebrew therefore is ee-naki, unclean or impure or non-innocent.

 

But the KJV translators and their contemporaries could not imagine that the Bible said God would deliver the guilty and unclean. So they looked for another possible meaning, and found it: when it stands all by itself, the letter yod is a word, like "a" and "I" are words in English. And all by itself, yod means "island" - thus, the "island of the innocent." Whew - no nasty conundrums where God rescues guilty people.

 

Context is key in translating - and the use of ratsach in Numbers 35 is an example - killing by accident is not murder - it is manslaughter, thus the translation 'manslayer' rather than 'murderer.' And I have listed several possible, legitimate translations of both these words.

Nice try, but no cigar. Again, the ONLY, repeat ONLY time that ratsakh is translated as "manslayer" is when it refers to a person accused of murder who is fleeing to a City of Refuge. This is the ONLY context in which is is translated this way, and according to Rabbinic commentary this is because the translators are using a sort of "innocent until proven guilty" approach to the translation. A literal translation would render ratsakh as "murderer" here as well.

"It is worth noting that the traditional Jewish translation of the OT, the Masoretic text, is the most likely source for the translation of RTSH as "manslayer."

Is this a criticism or commendation?

Neither. It is stating that this translation most likely came from Jewish source material, and that therefore the most cogent explanation as to why the word "manslayer" was used must also come from Jewish source material.

 

"RTSH means "murder." When translated as "manslayer," it would be more accurate to say "falsely accused of murder." The translations are interpreting, not merely translating."

 

Are you saying that the translation 'manslayer' is patently incorrect? How big a difference do you see between 'manslayer' and 'falsely accused of murder'?

OK, I'll spell it out a little clearer. Yes, manslayer is patently incorrect. As is my first attempt, "falsely accused of murder." The best possible translation I can think of that works in Modern English is "alleged murderer." We don't say that an alleged murderer is the same as someone who allegedly committed manslaughter. That's why the Bible uses ratsakh here: to make it clear that the alleged crime is murder. Not manslaughter. Murder.

 

Someone accused of manslaughter had no need of the Cities of Refuge. Only an alleged murderer would flee to those cities.

[Neon Genesis]

But one must wonder what good things did Jephthah do because I'm just not seeing it.

[RubyHypatia]

Most of the YouTube videos I make disprove the Bible. My latest is on Ananias and Sapphira. They're the couple that held money back for themselves when donating to the early church, and for that God struck them dead. Lovely story. Ananias and Sapphira