MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
King James Bible (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why doesn't Kom just post a link to the book and we can read the theory for ourselves first hand? I don't understand what is to be gained from reading it second hand.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Kid stated:
The evidence lies elsewhere and we with open minds should be exploring that possibility. As for the Arabs consider the following from 1 King 17:6:
When Elijah was hiding in the desert the ravens brought him bread and meat every morning and evening.
This is the standard translation in Hebrew, Greek and English. Does this sound to anyone here a plausible scenario? Consider that the unvocalised word for the critical 'ravens' is the Hebrew 'rbym which has been vocalised as orbim -- ravens, but it can also be vocalised arbim which means ARABS thus changing the sentence to;
When Elijah was hiding in the desert the ARABS brought him bread and meat every morning and evening.
Now which of the above makes perfect sense?

response:
Ravens make perfect sense.

You are correct in that we should not take the text as translated, but should use as many linguistic tools at our disposal to flesh out each and every possibilty that the author may have had in mind.
Genesis:
And he sent forth a raven ('rbym) (transliterated as 'oreb), which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
Leviticus:
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven ('rbym) after his kind
So did Noah send forth an Arab from the Ark? Is an Arab to be listed among all of the abominable birds? Of course not.

Kid, I don't mean to nitpick, but it is perfectly plausible, and indeed most probable considering the whole context of the OT and the miraclulous ministry of Elijah, that the word 'rbym in 1 Kings is to be translated as 'Raven' and not 'Arab'.
Indeed, the word 'oreb', meaning raven, seems to be a primitive root related to (but not necessarily derived from) the words 'arab' and 'ereb', meaning amongst other things 'dark-evening'.
Raven and Dark are somewhat synonymous in concept, especially considering the context that Elijah is actually HIDING.

You see, a popular metaphor for the gracious provisions of God is His graciousness towards the animal kingdom, especially 'the birds'. God unconditionally feeds and shelters his creation, and Elijah here is especially acting as one of HIS choosen. The author of Kings is employing a literary twist of fate, in that 'the birds' (especially a dark bird), as an extension of the hand of God, is now providing food for the hidden Elijah.

Job:
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? ....Who provideth for the raven ('rbym) his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

Matthew:
Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Indeed, the word 'oreb', meaning raven, seems to be a primitive root related to (but not necessarily derived from) the words 'arab' and 'ereb', meaning amongst other things 'dark-evening'.

The oldest meaning of the primitive root of orb is:
1. to pledge, exchange, mortgage, engage, occupy, undertake for, give pledges, be or
become surety, take on pledge, give in pledge, to take on pledge, go surety for
2. to give in pledge
3. to exchange
4. to pledge
5. to exchange pledges
6. to have fellowship with, share


And depending on the CONTEXT it has been interpreted as the following:

3 times as:
1. to mix, join together
2. mixed
3. mingle


Dan 2:41: And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
Dan 2:43: And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay


3 times as:
1. to become evening, grow dark
2. to become evening, grow dark
3. to spend the evening, do at evening


4 times as
1. steppe-dwellers
2. the people inhabiting the country east and south of Canaan, the nomadic desert
3. Bedouins
4. Arabians, Arabs


2Chr 9:14: Beside that which chapmen and merchants brought. And all the kings of Arabia and governors of the country brought gold and silver to Solomon.
Isa 21:13: The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim
Jer 25:24: And all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people that dwell in the desert
Eze 27:21: Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar, they occupied with thee in lambs, and rams, and goats: in these were they thy merchants.


8 times as:
1. to be pleasant, be sweet, be pleasing
2. sweet, pleasant


22 times as:
1. to pledge, exchange, mortgage, engage, occupy, undertake for, give
pledges, be or become surety, take on pledge, give in pledge
2. to take on pledge, go surety for
3. to give in pledge
4. to exchange
5. to pledge
6. to exchange pledges
7. to have fellowship with, share


Genesis: And he sent forth a raven ('rbym) (transliterated as 'oreb), which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
Leviticus: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven ('rbym) after his kind


So did Noah send forth an Arab from the Ark? Is an Arab to be listed among all of the abominable birds? Of course not.

Correct assumption BUT the CONTEXT of both passages is about BIRDS so the ROOT -rb here means BIRDS as it does in the one from Job.

The passage in 1 Kings is about Elijah being fed in his exile as is clear from the following passages where he is fed by a widow woman after the brook of Cherith dries up and he has no water. Arabs fed him by the brook and a woman fed him in Zarephath when the brook dried up. The CONTEXT here is people feeding Elijah.

Raven and Dark are somewhat synonymous in concept, especially considering the context that Elijah is actually HIDING.

Here we have another one of those 'orthodox phrases' to obscure the fact that the entire sequence of passages from 1 Kings 17:3 to 17:16 are about Elijah being sustained in his exile with food and drink by various people who are not his enemies.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I know how you feel about the Septuaginta, but

1 Kings 17 (septuaginta)
"kai oi korakes epheron auto artous"
"and the ravens brought him bread"

Kid, as you know, when it comes to translation many many things are 'possible', but not many things are 'probable', and all matters are not solved by investigating the root of a word.

Not merely through my own critical analysis, but through ALL critical analysis (except those affiliated with your hypothesis), the word used in 1 Kings (the root of which is oreb meaning amongst other things...black) is to be translated as 'raven'. That being said, it is up to you to prove why all critical analysis except yours is wrong, and how your analysis make better use of The Razor.

Now, as I have briefly demonstrated, and what you have not yet villified, is that 'raven' makes perfect sense in light of my interpretive analysis and apparently ALL critical analysis. Objectively we cannot get around the fact that the Hebrew translation (ca 300 BC) of the Septuaginta seems to be consistent with my interpretive analysis in that the translators also thought that the word meant Ravens (greek: KORAKES).

Does this make my interpretive analysis a fact? By no means.
Does this make my interpretive analysis of 1 Kings stronger than yours? Apparently. Apparently the oldest translation (not copy) that we possess is via an actual living and breathing HEBREW group who, by Jove, lived like GREEKS! Yet you're telling me that they translated it wrong and/or they did not translate it? Also are you asserting that the all of the lexicons and concordances used by shmucks like me, and the more astute like you, are incorrect?

Komorokid, is there something that you know that the rest of the world has not known for 2300 years.....something that you can perhaps demonstrate a little more objectively? I mean it is our business to dispell shadows, but we're not into chasing the will o' the wisp either, and I sure hope that not too much of your hypothesis rests upon this single verse or verses 'just like it'.

The passage in 1 Kings is about Elijah being fed in his exile as is clear from the following passages where he is fed by a widow woman after the brook of Cherith dries up and he has no water

Oh I see, so there was a real super-prophet named Elijah who actually raised people from the dead, summoned fire from heaven and was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind.

You see, either these events happened or they didn't. I work from the premise that they did not happen because of the fabulous, impossible record of events that they describe. If there is some history to be found in these stories then it will inevitably rise to the surface and shed a little more light upon what I'm looking for. All in all, and knowing that I am probing into the author's mind, starting with the premise of 'fiction' makes the story much more interesting to read. You see, Komorokid, you attack the problem from the wrong end...and it's like trying to wrestle without 'going for the legs'. You are looking first for history, .......but the problem is...well...umm....history. Geddit?

Consider:
A widowed woman
A hungry, thirsty, hiding Elijah
A dried brook
A dead son
These are all symbols of despair, hopelessness and 'darkness'. They are emotive words. Even the widowed Hebrew woman, when we envision her apparel, impresses upon our mind the image of 'blackness and death'....just like a raven (a black scavenger bird). The widowed woman IS the raven, so to speak, and just as the raven at the water fed Elijah (as a sign of God's grace), the widow 'at the well' gave Elijah drink. Elijah, as a sign of God's graciousness in life, performs a miracle of 'providing food' and raises the widow's son from the dead. In these miracles Elijah can be seen as a renewed-replacement for the widow's husband.

Geddit?
Death and resurrection...plant and harvest....sexual consummation...the cycle of life. The whole story is set around 'the famine' and in epic style the impregnation of the earth by rain (you know like Zeus and Dana... etc...).

- The famine starts, symbolized by the concept of 'a widow' and a dead son. You see, the woman is EARTH.
- Elijah requests a drink from the woman. The 'fetching of water' is drawn from all of the 'well stories' in the OT that symbolized marriage, in which the woman at the well would fetch water for her would-be husband, eg Jacob's well, Isaac and Rebekah, etc.. Elijah thereafter miraculously generates food, which is a symbol of rain, planting seed and general impregnation. It is the Miracle of Life.

In pure allegorical form, to further symbolize this impregnation, Elijah generates her son from the dead. An obvious symbol of fertility. The author closes the story with these words of praise from the woman, "Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the Lord from your mouth is the truth." and begins the next story with ...you guessed it.....rain.

You see, Elijah, an emissary whose name means GOD-EXISTS, is now the Husband and Father (Seed-rain) of the Son and Woman (earth-fruit).

You called me rather ambiguously an ortho.
What did the pot say to the kettle?
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not merely through my own critical analysis, but through ALL critical analysis (except those affiliated with your hypothesis), the word used in 1 Kings (the root of which is oreb meaning amongst other things...black) is to be translated as 'raven'. That being said, it is up to you to prove why all critical analysis except yours is wrong, and how your analysis make better use of The Razor

I chose this passage because it is one that has been disputed by Biblical scholarship (Jewish and Christian) since the earliest days of Biblical criticism. It's not just me it is a long-standing questionable translation, which has been interpreted incorrectly. There are only 10 references to 'rbym on the entire Old Testament and all of them except the one in 1 Kings have the context to birds. The Elijah passage is the notable exception and the reason why this passage had been disputed. The critical analysis is divided and has been for over a century, but contemporary Biblical critics now recognise arabim as a more accurate translation.

(the root of which is oreb meaning amongst other things...black)

The root is rb, it has no vowels. There is nowhere in the Old Testament where -rb is translated as BLACK. There is one passage in Solomon where it is used as an adjective to describe the colour of someone's hair.

-kr = shachor = black appears 1 time
Solomon 5:11: His head is as the most fine gold; his locks are bushy, and black as a raven

And one and only one where it is translated as a verb to describe the melancholy of peoples spirit.

-rb ... -arab = darkened
Isaiah 24:11: There is a crying for wine in the streets; all joy is darkened, the mirth of the land is gone.

In all other passages where BLACK appears it has been translated from one of the following roots:

kmr ... kamar = black appears 1 time
Lamentations 5:10: Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine

y'wn = 'iyshown = black appears 1 time
Proverbs 7:9: In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night

kdr ... qadar = black appears 10 times
1 Kings 18:45: And it came to pass in the mean while, that the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain

The Septuagint, which you and the vast majority of scholars choose to reference, was written in the same Hellenised Alexandrian Jewish community that later encompassed the Alexandrian School that produced Philo and Paul. The earlier authors of the Septuagint were schooled in the same Greek environment as those in Philo's time. The fact that it is interwoven with Platonic and Stoic allegory is hardly surprising.

Whether these philosophical concepts were encapsulated in the original Old Testament Hebrew that was written 500 years before the philosophical concepts of Classic Greece were formulated is highly debatable. Finding philosophical undertones in ancient scripts was a cause celebre among early Greek philosophers -- the works of Homer, written around the same time as the Pentateuch, is a prime example.

Add to this the fact that the vast majority of Biblical scholars agree that Philo could not read Hebrew. His primary and possibly his ONLY reference to the Old Testament narrative was the Septuagint.

Philo claimed that Greek wisdom was based on Jewish teachings and postulated that there had been early philosophical Jewish writings, which had been mysteriously lost when the Jews went into Exile in Babylonia in the sixth century BC. He offered a complex chain of transmission, from Chaldeans to Persians to Greeks and then Romans. Philo also claimed that the wisdom and modes of thought of the Greeks had originated with Judaism and arrived in the Greek world via a circuitous route. A proper allegorical examination of the Hebrew Scripture he said would readily reveal this truth, a rather bold claim from someone who couldn't read Hebrew.

To say that Philo used a degree of legerdemain in his interpretation of the Old Testament is an understatement. He freely translated texts with Greek not Hebrew or Aramaic etymologies where it suited his purpose thereby bolstering his own beliefs of a philosophical historicity of the Old Testament.

Apparently the oldest translation (not copy) that we possess is via an actual living and breathing HEBREW group who, by Jove, lived like GREEKS! Yet you're telling me that they translated it wrong and/or they did not translate it? Also are you asserting that the all of the lexicons and concordances used by shmucks like me, and the more astute like you, are incorrect?

The Hebrew language ceased to exist sometime between the 4th and 5th Century BC. Not my assessment but the consensus of virtually all historians, linguists and Biblical scholars. The authors of the Septuagint were Greek Jews (not Hebrews -- you may not recognise the difference but Biblical scholars certainly do) who were educated in, spoke and wrote in Greek. Of the one million Jews (attested by Philo) who inhabited the Middle East between the 3rd century BC and 1st century AD only 70 scholars in the course of three hundred years could be entrusted to translate a language that had been dead for hundreds of years. Again not my assumption but one found in history books and accepted by Biblical critics for centuries.

The Jews of Alexandria in the time of Philo and the Septuagint were no different to the Jews of America now or any other nation where they choose to live. Only the educated priesthood know or can read ancient scripts and that is in an age when there is mass education. The numbers of people who can read Hebrew now are a minuscule percentage of the Jewish population and considering the degree of literacy in the ancient world 70 out of a million is not an unreasonable percentage of those with any inkling of how Hebrew was spoken and more importantly vocalised in Alexandria BC.

What you are saying is the entire Old Testament is a philosophical work and that all the various authors who wrote the individual books over a 1000 year period ALL composed their various text as philosophical myths, all adhering to a common Platonic doctrine. That all the authors were aware of the inner truth of Philo's interpretation and invented all the characters and their miraculous deeds as allegorical tales based on hitherto unknown philosophical principles in the era when they were written.

What is more likely? That the numerous authors of a discontinuous assortment of ancient Hebrew texts that were written at various time and in various places over at least 1000 years each shared a common philosophical concept that was not expounded until after these disparate texts were first compiled in Babylon. A concept that was not formulated until the time of Plato and is nowhere attested in any ancient text from the period of said compilation. Or a Platonist Jew in the 1st century AD with the mind set to read his philosophical beliefs into the Old Testament by accepting what was agreeable, rejecting what was not and judiciously altering whatever could be incorporated into his philosophy.

It all depends on whose Razor you use.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What you are saying is the entire Old Testament is a philosophical work and that all the various authors who wrote the individual books over a 1000 year period ALL composed their various text as philosophical myths, all adhering to a common Platonic doctrine. That all the authors were aware of the inner truth of Philo's interpretation and invented all the characters and their miraculous deeds as allegorical tales based on hitherto unknown philosophical principles in the era when they were written.

Nope. That is what YOU say that I'm saying.

You again are making very bold statements, without sufficient evidence, to buttress your argument, such as:

I chose this passage because it is one that has been disputed by Biblical scholarship (Jewish and Christian) since the earliest days of Biblical criticism. It's not just me, it is a long-standing questionable translation, which has been interpreted incorrectly.....The critical analysis is divided and has been for over a century, but contemporary Biblical critics now recognise 'arabim' as a more accurate translation.

Kid, the whole OT has been disputed word for word by Biblical critical scholarship for well over 100 years. There is nothing special about 1 Kings that makes it The Grail for Biblical criticism as you have presented it. You've bought a hypthothesis which required you to rewrite 1 Kings in a Grail quest and are now telling people that this is a hotly disputed word. Hyperbole.

There are only 10 references to -rbym on the entire Old Testament and all of them except the one in 1 Kings have the context to birds. The Elijah passage is the notable exception and the reason why this passage had been disputed.

There is no dispute as I see it except by those affiliated with your hypothesis. If I am wrong, then please provide a reference to a neutral scholar's exegesis of the passage.

The word 'rbym in the Elijah passage is a reference to Ravens and not Arabs, just like the rest of the OT. You just are not willing to read it outside of your hypothesis. It is a symbolic fictional story as I have briefly explained, and we don't need to change its wording. We need to understand its beauty.

The critical analysis is divided and has been for over a century, but contemporary Biblical critics now recognise 'arabim' as a more accurate translation.

That is simply is not an accurate statement. Yes, the Biblical critics (in your circle) support 'arabim as the translation, but that is only a very very very small sampling of the critical world. You need to provide a solid exegesis of the verse which would defend your view, not just a word and a blurb. It doesn't mean Arabs just because you say so. I simply don't buy it, and neither does the vast majority of critical scholarship, and ALL translations. Don't you see how you have severely undermined the Septuaginta to sell your interpretation? Much like an eyewitness being poisoned before the trial.

You know, the Massoretic text (which by the way is translated as Ravens) is not the final word when it comes to reading the OT. There are Quram scrolls that reflect readings different from the Massoretic Text. One manuscript is an early copy of Exodus (4QpaleoEx), written in old Hebrew script known as "paleo-Hebrew". This Exodus copy is dated to about 150 BC and contains some 40 columns of an original 57. At times this manuscript shows agreements with early forms of the Samaritan Pentateuch AND the Septuaginta, against the Massoretic.

Two manuscripts of the Book of Samuel are especially interesting. One (4QSam-a) from around 50 BC has preserved in fragmentary forms about 10% of 1 and 2 Samuel. The other (4QSam-b) has parts of several chapters of 1 Samuel and dates perhaps as early as the 3rd century BC. These manuscripts have attracted considerable attention because, in agreement with the Septuaginta, at times they appear to offer better readings than those of the Massoretic Text.

The fact that it (the Septuaginta) is interwoven with Platonic and Stoic allegory is hardly surprising. Whether these philosophical concepts were encapsulated in the original Old Testament Hebrew that was written 500 years before the philosophical concepts of Classic Greece were formulated is highly debatable.

I don't use the Septuaginta in my primary analysis of the OT. I use translations, and a vast set of linguistic tools, which are mostly devoted to the Massoretic Text. I consult the Septuaginta when I need a bit more clarification. I don't see any philosophical message particularly 'interwoven' within the Septuaginta that is not already within the Massoretic. In fact, like you, many times I don't agree with the Septuaginta's rendering of a passage.

You say Arab
I say Raven
Let's call the whole thing off.

Let's keep moving, we're moving at a snail's pace here.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group