The Hebrew New Testament . . .

[marks]

Yes it was written in Greek but has also been translated into Hebrew.
View attachment 7008
(Brit Chadashah = New Covenant)
Hebrew New Testament

Why did God choose common (koine) Greek over Hebrew at this time? Because the Bible was to go into the whole Roman empire through the apostles, and Greek had become the lingua franca of the *world*. Jews were conversant with Greek, and Hellenistic Jews (outside Palestine) used Greek for communication. As later history shows, the Byzantine Empire was a Greek-speaking empire (and corresponded to all the regions visited by Paul and his companions).

Not to mention, Greek is wonderfully specific! And excellent choice for teaching us spiritual doctrine in ways that can be correctly understood.

One thing I've seen in common with people I've come across who are deeply steeped in the Old Testement Hebrew word studies, they seem to have a common tendency to drift into various mystical doctrines, and never the same, always onto what seems to me to be flights of fancy loosely based on Scripture, but at the end of the day unrecognizable as anything Scriptural.

One thing I think a lot of people forget is that Biblical Hebrew is truly a dead language, but being a pictographic language, there's a lot more we don't actually know about how the original speakers used that language. Koine Greek, on the other hand, doesn't have that particular weakness. It's form of syntax renders it extremely specific in most cases.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Why would the New Testament be uninspired if it was originally written in Hebrew? I don't understand that.

Jesus presumably taught in Aramaic (the 'everyday' language of the Jews at that time), so all His words have been translated into Greek anyway.

All the OT Scriptures quoted in the NT are from the Septuagint translation into Greek.

Does that remove their inspiration? I don't think so.

If translation de-inspired Scripture, we'd all have to learn Hebrew in order to know what God was actually saying to us - just as the Muslims maintain that the Qur'an can only really be understood in the original Arabic.

Hi Deborah,

I don't thing that a Hebrew New Testament Original would be uninspired, rather, that I don't have access to it. If the NT was originally Hebrew, I'd like to have have at least the English translation straight from the Hebrew.

If the original was written in Hebrew, and later the Holy Spirit caused someone to render a faithful translation into Greek, and that's what we have, then perfect! I have a Greek NT that is a Holy Spirit inspired work. And then it isn't important to me whether there was a Hebrew one or not, since mine is True.

On the Greek OT quotes, I think not that they become uninspired, rather, that their inclusion commends the translation.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Just to clarify. It is not like we can sin and not be condemned. We don't sin against our conscience in the first place.

Understand?

If I remember rightly, we've discussed this before. That which is born of God sins not.

Much love!

 

[Deborah_]

Hi Deborah,

I don't thing that a Hebrew New Testament Original would be uninspired, rather, that I don't have access to it. If the NT was originally Hebrew, I'd like to have have at least the English translation straight from the Hebrew.

If the original was written in Hebrew, and later the Holy Spirit caused someone to render a faithful translation into Greek, and that's what we have, then perfect! I have a Greek NT that is a Holy Spirit inspired work. And then it isn't important to me whether there was a Hebrew one or not, since mine is True.

On the Greek OT quotes, I think not that they become uninspired, rather, that their inclusion commends the translation.

Much love!

Thanks, but if that's what you're thinking, then where's the problem?

 

[marks]

Thanks, but if that's what you're thinking, then where's the problem?

When I posted this, it was with a few threads in mind where this topic came up, that there were Hebrew predecessors to the Greek NT, I was hoping to hear more of what they thought that think that way.

But it's not a problem with me.

Much love!

 

[shnarkle]

All the OT Scriptures quoted in the NT are from the Septuagint translation into Greek.

Does that remove their inspiration? I don't think so.

If translation de-inspired Scripture, we'd all have to learn Hebrew in order to know what God was actually saying to us

When I was in the first grade, I learned with HORROR that the bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. I didn't like reading much to begin with, but this was just too much for me to withstand. Even at that young age, I saw no reason to believe the interpretations of someone else. I'm glad I stuck to that suspicion because I've found so many places where translators simply toss out the inspiration of the original authors in favor of their own dull translations.

Here's a prime example. In the scene where David is hiding in a cave that Saul coincidently decides to use to relieve himself, the translators of the NIV present the situation devoid of anything one could view as inspired. Yet when we look at the originals, it is nothing less than divine. The NIV simply states that Saul "relieved himself", but the original manuscripts depict Saul "covering his feet". The wonderful thing about this euphemism is that it can still be employed today! It is criminal to take an author's figurative language and discard it in favor of making the meaning more clear for the sake of the dullards among us. They could just as easily footnoted the passage and explained it in the footnote.

 

[OzSpen]

. . . was written in Greek. There is no Hebrew New Testament.

Psalm 119:88-90
88 Quicken me after thy lovingkindness; so shall I keep the testimony of thy mouth.
89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
90 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

Consider . . . if the New Testament, or parts of it, were written in Hebrew, then what we must have is an uninspired translation, and then where is God's faithfulness towards me? I've never seen an Hebrew New Testament, or any part of one. Other that what we know are more modern translations from the Greek into Hebrew.

Or . . . if you would like to assert that the Greek "translation" of the "Hebrew New Testament" were inspired, then the point is moot, since the Greek New Testament is therefore inpired Scripture.

Much love!

marks,

I am aware of The Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament Research Institute that includes some informative articles on the Hebraic influence on the NT:

The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the “New Testament”

An Aramaic Approach to the “Church Epistles”

The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

Why the Hebrew/Aramaic NT Origin is Important

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Here's a prime example. In the scene where David is hiding in a cave that Saul coincidently decides to use to relieve himself, the translators of the NIV present the situation devoid of anything one could view as inspired. Yet when we look at the originals, it is nothing less than divine. The NIV simply states that Saul "relieved himself", but the original manuscripts depict Saul "covering his feet". The wonderful thing about this euphemism is that it can still be employed today! It is criminal to take an author's figurative language and discard it in favor of making the meaning more clear for the sake of the dullards among us. They could just as easily footnoted the passage and explained it in the footnote.

shnarkle,

I do wish you would do your study to determine the meaning of this phrase, 'cover his feet'. It doesn't bring a meaning for this 'dullard' that you infer.

The NIV translates 1 Samuel 24:3 as ''he came to the sheep pens along the way; a cave was there, and Saul went in to relieve himself. David and his men were far back in the cave'.The Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) translates as: 'Saul came to some sheep pens beside the road. There was a cave near there, so Saul went in to relieve himself. David and his men were deep inside that same cave'.

This phrase is used also in Judges 3:24.

The more literal ESV translates 1 Sam 24:3 as: 'And he came to the sheepfolds by the way, where there was a cave, and Saul went in to relieve himself.a]">[a] Now David and his men were sitting in the innermost parts of the cave'. As you indicated, the ESV uses the footnote for 'relieve himself' = 'cover his feet'.

The NASB gives an identical translation and footnote to the ESV.

• The point is: What does 'cover his feet' mean in the Hebrew? Leading OT commentators, Keil & Delitzsch, make this comment on 'cover his feet': It 'is a euphemism, according to most of the ancient versions, as in Judg 3:24, for performing the necessities of nature, as it is a custom in the East to cover the feet' (Commentary on the Old Testament, vol 2, Eerdmans).

The NIV, ESV, NASB and ERV provide perfectly legitimate translations for 'cover his feet' and its meaning for contemporary English. Or, would you prefer, 'Saul went into that place, removed his cloak to around his feet so he could do a poo and a pee'?

That's what the phrase means and the NIV has given us a jolly good dynamic equivalence (meaning for meaning) translation of the phrase, 'to relieve himself'.

• Ellicott's Commentary explains 'cover his feet': 'It is an Eastern euphemism taken from spreading out the garments while relieving the needs of nature'.
• Matthew Poole's Commentary (Judg 3:24), 'It is commonly understood in both places, of easing nature; because the men not then wearing breeches, as we do, but long coats, they did in that act cover their feet, as women do: but a late judicious interpreter expounds it of composing himself to take a little sleep or rest, as was very usual to do in the day-time in those hot countries;
• Gill's Exposition (Judg 3:24), 'he covereth his feet in his summer chamber; that is, was easing nature; and, as the eastern people wore long and loose garments, when they sat down on such an occasion, their feet were covered with them; or they purposely gathered them about their feet to cover them, and so this became a modest expression for this work of nature'.

So brother, the NIV translators did not 'simply toss out the inspiration of the original authors in favor of their own dull translations'. Instead, they accurately translated the meaning of 'covered his feet' with 'relieved himself'.

The fact is that the NIV got it right and you got it wrong.

Oz

 

[shnarkle]

shnarkle,

I do wish you would do your study to determine the meaning of this phrase, 'cover his feet'. It doesn't bring a meaning for this 'dullard' that you infer.

The NIV translates 1 Samuel 24:3 as ''he came to the sheep pens along the way; a cave was there, and Saul went in to relieve himself. David and his men were far back in the cave'.The Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) translates as: 'Saul came to some sheep pens beside the road. There was a cave near there, so Saul went in to relieve himself. David and his men were deep inside that same cave'.

This phrase is used also in Judges 3:24.

The more literal ESV translates 1 Sam 24:3 as: 'And he came to the sheepfolds by the way, where there was a cave, and Saul went in to relieve himself.a]">[a] Now David and his men were sitting in the innermost parts of the cave'. As you indicated, the ESV uses the footnote for 'relieve himself' = 'cover his feet'.

The NASB gives an identical translation and footnote to the ESV.

• The point is: What does 'cover his feet' mean in the Hebrew? Leading OT commentators, Keil & Delitzsch, make this comment on 'cover his feet': It 'is a euphemism, according to most of the ancient versions, as in Judg 3:24, for performing the necessities of nature, as it is a custom in the East to cover the feet' (Commentary on the Old Testament, vol 2, Eerdmans).

The NIV, ESV, NASB and ERV provide perfectly legitimate translations for 'cover his feet' and its meaning for contemporary English. Or, would you prefer, 'Saul went into that place, removed his cloak to around his feet so he could do a poo and a pee'?

That's what the phrase means and the NIV has given us a jolly good dynamic equivalence (meaning for meaning) translation of the phrase, 'to relieve himself'.

• Ellicott's Commentary explains 'cover his feet': 'It is an Eastern euphemism taken from spreading out the garments while relieving the needs of nature'.
• Matthew Poole's Commentary (Judg 3:24), 'It is commonly understood in both places, of easing nature; because the men not then wearing breeches, as we do, but long coats, they did in that act cover their feet, as women do: but a late judicious interpreter expounds it of composing himself to take a little sleep or rest, as was very usual to do in the day-time in those hot countries;
• Gill's Exposition (Judg 3:24), 'he covereth his feet in his summer chamber; that is, was easing nature; and, as the eastern people wore long and loose garments, when they sat down on such an occasion, their feet were covered with them; or they purposely gathered them about their feet to cover them, and so this became a modest expression for this work of nature'.

So brother, the NIV translators did not 'simply toss out the inspiration of the original authors in favor of their own dull translations'. Instead, they accurately translated the meaning of 'covered his feet' with 'relieved himself'.

The fact is that the NIV got it right and you got it wrong.

Oz

Dearest OZ,

I do wish you would take a moment to reflect on the fact that you're missing the point of my post. I not only didn't miss the meaning, but provided it in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Your assumption that the translators have translated these texts accurately is patently false as what they have done is to translate a meaning rather than what is actually written.

The fact is that an accurate (and INSPIRED!) translation would have been "cover his feet" which is a figurative way of saying he relieved himself. It is what is known as a Euphemism. They replaced a quite unique euphemism for a woefully uninspired one. That is the issue here which has evidently been completely lost to you.

The point I'm making, which you can't seem to focus on, is the fact that they have elected to ignore what another author has written, preferring to eliminate it completely from the text. You're effectively doing the same thing by ignoring my point, and then presenting the meaning of the euphemism as if this is the point of the post. The point isn't that the meaning isn't accurate, but that the meaning deprives the reader of an incredibly inspired euphemism that is just as useful today.

What the translators have done is to interpret the meaning, which while undeniably quite accurate, doesn't negate the fact that it isn't what the author actually wrote. He wrote "covered his feet". That's exactly what he wrote, and that's what anyone who is interested in accurate INSPIRED translation should have in their copy.

Again, I pointed out that a footnote is preferable to placing an explanation within the text. They've removed a beautiful euphemism and replaced it with one that is not only uninspired, but boring.

The fact is that you not only got it wrong, but wasted a whole lot of time researching evidence that not only DOESN'T refute what I've posted, but supports it.

 

[OzSpen]

Dearest OZ,

I do wish you would take a moment to reflect on the fact that you're missing the point of my post. I not only didn't miss the meaning, but provided it in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Your assumption that the translators have translated these texts accurately is patently false as what they have done is to translate a meaning rather than what is actually written.

shn,

The translators translated 1 Sam 24:3 according to the meaning of the text. Translating word for word, without understanding the cultural meaning of 'cover his feet' is not translating to give English speaking people the meaning.

So, what's the meaning of 'covered his feet' in 1 Sam 24:3? Did Saul go into that cave, sit down, and cover his tootsies because they were cold. Please tell me what the meaning of the translation is. I've done the exegesis for you but you don't want to accept that.

We have 2 options in the church:
(1) We have Bible translations that are literal, e.g. 'cover his feet', and we don't know what that means - unless we assume a blanket to keep his feet clean and warm.
(2) Preachers who explain what that literal interpretation means. That will place interpretation only within the boundaries of those capable of investigating the original languages and the culture of the day.

The point I'm making, which you can't seem to focus on, is the fact that they have elected to ignore what another author has written, preferring to eliminate it completely from the text. You're effectively doing the same thing by ignoring my point, and then presenting the meaning of the euphemism as if this is the point of the post. The point isn't that the meaning isn't accurate, but that the meaning deprives the reader of an incredibly inspired euphemism that is just as useful today.

That's like asking me to go to Bunnings hardware store to purchase a 'squatter'. The very helpful people at Bunnings know that a squatter is 'a person who unlawfully occupies an uninhabited building or unused land'. They would be justified in saying, 'We don't sell such people here'.

What I want is a toilet commode that I can squat over, so to ask for a 'squatter' is irrelevant nonsense when I don't explain exactly what I'm wanting to buy.

For Saul to 'cover his feet' is parallel with my request for a Bunnings' squatter. You are wanting from the God-breathed Scripture something that the Scripture does not require.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17 NIV).​

For Scripture to be 'useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness', it must be understandable. 'Covered his feet' in the cave has no more meaning than going to Bunnings to ask to purchase a squatter.

Oz

 

[marks]

marks,

I am aware of The Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament Research Institute that includes some informative articles on the Hebraic influence on the NT:

The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the “New Testament”

An Aramaic Approach to the “Church Epistles”

The Aramaic Origin of the New Testament

Why the Hebrew/Aramaic NT Origin is Important

Oz

I'll take a look, thank you!

Much love!

 

[shnarkle]

shn,

The translators translated 1 Sam 24:3 according to the meaning of the text.

Yep, we got that already. In fact, if you would care to actually read what I originally posted, you might notice I pointed this out myself.

Translating word for word, without understanding the cultural meaning of 'cover his feet' is not translating to give English speaking people the meaning.

Again, I already addressed this issue in my original post. Did you bother to read it? I pointed out the fact that the text is inspired and a simple footnote was all that was necessary to provide the reader with the meaning. This doesn't rob the reader of being able to appreciate the euphemism.

So, what's the meaning of 'covered his feet' in 1 Sam 24:3? Did Saul go into that cave, sit down, and cover his tootsies because they were cold. Please tell me what the meaning of the translation is. I've done the exegesis for you but you don't want to accept that.

No, the problem here is that you don't seem to have the most rudimentary reading comprehension skills. No one is denying the meaning of the figure. We're just pointing out that tossing it out in favor of a less than inspiring substitute is not only immoral, but pathetic.

We have 2 options in the church:

How about returning to the subject at hand which is "translation"? What we're dealing with is whether or not a translation can be inspired, and I just provided an example where the NIV completely dropped the ball in favor of a pathetically uninspired translation.

Again, a simple footnote is all that is necessary to not only retain the author's inspiration, but to alleviate any and all confusion on the part of those reading it. The NIV is quite simply a translation for those who aren't looking for inspiration.

It is the translator's responsibility to know the languages they're dealing with, and it is up to them to do what they see best. I happen to prefer those who are able to present what the author actually wrote, and if necessary an footnoted explanation for those passages that aren't as accessible to the modern reader.

What you're essentially doing is ignoring my point as if it has no merit, and pretending that simply providing an explanation is the only possibility worth considering. I've not only addressed your error, but refuted it.

For Saul to 'cover his feet' is parallel with my request for a Bunnings' squatter. You are wanting from the God-breathed Scripture something that the Scripture does not require.

You're post is completely incoherent. You're analogy is pointless as you've completely left the tracks of this topic, which again is the fact that "relieve himself" is NOT anywhere near as inspired as "covered his feet". It's blatantly pathetic, but then to each his own.

Inspiration from God cannot be improved upon by translators who toss an inspired figure of speech out for their own lifeless substitute.

Again, how many times are you going to ignore my original point of simply providing a footnote????????

 

[farouk]

I know he was a doctor, but that's all I know.

This is probably among the more widely known facts about Luke, yes...

 

[farouk]

Why would the New Testament be uninspired if it was originally written in Hebrew? I don't understand that.

Jesus presumably taught in Aramaic (the 'everyday' language of the Jews at that time), so all His words have been translated into Greek anyway.

All the OT Scriptures quoted in the NT are from the Septuagint translation into Greek.

Does that remove their inspiration? I don't think so.

If translation de-inspired Scripture, we'd all have to learn Hebrew in order to know what God was actually saying to us - just as the Muslims maintain that the Qur'an can only really be understood in the original Arabic.

Interesting concept - de-inspired (I know you're not promoting it...)

 

[farouk]

. . . was written in Greek. There is no Hebrew New Testament.

Psalm 119:88-90
88 Quicken me after thy lovingkindness; so shall I keep the testimony of thy mouth.
89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
90 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.

Consider . . . if the New Testament, or parts of it, were written in Hebrew, then what we must have is an uninspired translation, and then where is God's faithfulness towards me? I've never seen an Hebrew New Testament, or any part of one. Other that what we know are more modern translations from the Greek into Hebrew.

Or . . . if you would like to assert that the Greek "translation" of the "Hebrew New Testament" were inspired, then the point is moot, since the Greek New Testament is therefore inpired Scripture.

Much love!

There is one by Delitzsch and another by Salkinson; but they are Hebrew translations from the Greek...

 

[OzSpen]

Yep, we got that already. In fact, if you would care to actually read what I originally posted, you might notice I pointed this out myself.

Again, I already addressed this issue in my original post. Did you bother to read it? I pointed out the fact that the text is inspired and a simple footnote was all that was necessary to provide the reader with the meaning. This doesn't rob the reader of being able to appreciate the euphemism.

No, the problem here is that you don't seem to have the most rudimentary reading comprehension skills. No one is denying the meaning of the figure. We're just pointing out that tossing it out in favor of a less than inspiring substitute is not only immoral, but pathetic.

How about returning to the subject at hand which is "translation"? What we're dealing with is whether or not a translation can be inspired, and I just provided an example where the NIV completely dropped the ball in favor of a pathetically uninspired translation.

Again, a simple footnote is all that is necessary to not only retain the author's inspiration, but to alleviate any and all confusion on the part of those reading it. The NIV is quite simply a translation for those who aren't looking for inspiration.

It is the translator's responsibility to know the languages they're dealing with, and it is up to them to do what they see best. I happen to prefer those who are able to present what the author actually wrote, and if necessary an footnoted explanation for those passages that aren't as accessible to the modern reader.

What you're essentially doing is ignoring my point as if it has no merit, and pretending that simply providing an explanation is the only possibility worth considering. I've not only addressed your error, but refuted it.

You're post is completely incoherent. You're analogy is pointless as you've completely left the tracks of this topic, which again is the fact that "relieve himself" is NOT anywhere near as inspired as "covered his feet". It's blatantly pathetic, but then to each his own.

Inspiration from God cannot be improved upon by translators who toss an inspired figure of speech out for their own lifeless substitute.

Again, how many times are you going to ignore my original point of simply providing a footnote????????

shnarkle,

I can't see us getting any further in this discussion unless you understand that God used figures of speech in the God-breathed Scripture. They are not meant to be interpreted literally.

Are Bible translations meant to help understanding of the text or to confuse the reader? ‘Cover his feet’ when Saul went into the cave does not convey what Saul did. The modern translations of 1 Sam 24:3 are meant to communicate what the biblical text means: ‘At the place where the road passes some sheepfolds, Saul went into a cave to relieve himself. But as it happened, David and his men were hiding farther back in that very cave’ (NLT).

Your claim is: ‘The point isn't that the meaning isn't accurate, but that the meaning deprives the reader of an incredibly inspired euphemism that is just as useful today’. I see your point but it is useless to any readers who do not know the meaning of 'to cover his feet
to have an inspired euphemism presented to them - without its meaning.

Other biblical euphemisms

It is estimated that there are about 200 figures of speech used in the Bible (Bullinger 1898/1968). A figure of speech is ‘an expression that uses words to mean something different from their ordinary meaning’ (Cambridge Dictionary 2019. s.v. figure of speech).

Jesus said, ‘I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture…’ (John 10:9 ESV). He did not mean he was a literal wooden door/gate. He used a metaphor to describe how a person could be saved.

‘You are the salt of the earth’ (Matt 5:13) and ‘you are the light of the world’ (Matt 5:14) are further examples of metaphors.

Other instances of figures of speech include simile, irony, pun, hyperbole, oxymoron and euphemism.

You’ve missed something fundamental about language and that’s the use of euphemism as a figure of speech. Euphemism is ‘a word or phrase used to avoid saying an unpleasant or offensive word’ (Cambridge Dictionary 2019. s.v. euphemism). A contemporary example would be: ‘“Senior citizen" is a euphemism for "old person"’ (Cambridge Dictionary 2019).

Where in Scripture do we see the use of the figure of speech called euphemisms – changing what is unpleasant for something pleasant?

• In Gen 4:1 it states that ‘Adam knew his wife’. We know this is a euphemism for sexual intercourse with her because ‘she conceived’ (Genesis 4:1). It is an example of euphemism because it substitutes an inoffensive expression for one that may offend. There was no intent in ‘Adam knew’ as meaning Adam had some intellectual knowledge about his wife.
• Genesis 15:15, “You, however, will go to your fathers (die) in peace…”
• Isa 8:3 (NRSV), ‘And I went to [had sex with] the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz'.
• John 11:11, 13 (NRSV) ‘He told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep [died]…. Jesus, however, had been speaking about his death, but they thought that he was referring merely to sleep’.

God arranged for euphemisms to be written in the God-breathed Scripture for them to be interpreted as changing the unpleasant to the pleasant. First Sam 24:3 uses 'cover his feet' as a more pleasant way of saying it than the unpleasant, 'doing a poo and a pee' or 'to relieve himself'.

Oz

 

[shnarkle]

shnarkle,

I can't see us getting any further in this discussion unless you understand that God used figures of speech in the God-breathed Scripture. They are not meant to be interpreted literally.

oz, you don't seem to be cognizant of the fact that I've never claimed figures of speech were meant to be taken literally. It's ironic because this is actually one of my pet peeves. I'm a stickler for noting the distinction between figurative and literal speech.

You don't seem to be aware of what I'm posting. That's the problem. Perhaps we could skip a whole lot of pointless back and forth if you made an honest attempt to actually present my position. I don't think you're aware of what my position is in the first place. I say this because you've basically been presenting one strawman argument after another.

There's a method used in debate to eliminate this problem. It's referred to as "steelmaning" which is to say you present my actual argument, and THEN present your argument to refute it. This precludes anyone from trying to change their position as well as eliminating your ability to continue presenting Strawman arguments.

What I've noticed you presenting one Red Herring after another. There's no point in having a discussion when one party pretends that what the other party has posted isn't worth even addressing in the first place. This is a debate forum, but frankly you're not even engaging in a discussion. The point I addressed was:

If translation de-inspired Scripture, we'd all have to learn Hebrew in order to know what God was actually saying to us

Here's what I originally posted as a response,

In the scene where David is hiding in a cave that Saul coincidently decides to use to relieve himself, the translators of the NIV present the situation devoid of anything one could view as inspired. Yet when we look at the originals, it is nothing less than divine. The NIV simply states that Saul "relieved himself", but the original manuscripts depict Saul "covering his feet". The wonderful thing about this euphemism is that it can still be employed today! It is criminal to take an author's figurative language and discard it in favor of making the meaning more clear for the sake of the dullards among us. THEY COULD JUST AS EASILY FOOTNOTED THE PASSAGE AND EXPLAINED IT IN THE FOOTNOTE.

After your subsequent response which completely ignored my point, I again pointed out to you what you ignored in my previous post which was:

Again, I pointed out that a FOOTNOTE is preferable to placing an explanation within the text. They've removed a beautiful euphemism and replaced it with one that is not only uninspired, but boring.

The fact is that you not only got it wrong, but wasted a whole lot of time researching evidence that not only DOESN'T refute what I've posted, but supports it.

The fact is an asterisk with a footnote of "relieved himself" is all that was necessary to alert the reader to the meaning while retaining what is truly inspired. Those who read the NIV are oblivious. The euphemism doesn't exist for them. I've made my point so there's no point in continuing as you're not advancing an argument, or even addressing what I've posted in the first place.

Contrary to the popular opinion of some, there are people today who can figure out what "covered his feet" actually means, and actually prefer and enjoy figuring it out. Figures of speech are intended to stop the reader in their tracks, and chew on the text for awhile. The author wants the reader to look at the whole scene and really get into it to appreciate the tension, not to mention the incredible irony, humor, etc.

The translators of the NIV don't have that as part of their goal or purpose. Their goal is to make the text "flow". They've eliminated any need to stop for dramatic effect and ponder what's happening. The inspiration is lost to them completely, and replaced with a superficial understanding that is all but forgotten by the time they're half way down the next page.

The NIV is for people who have graduated from Cliff's Notes, but still just want to get through the bible so they can get back to the newspaper, the football game, or the latest reality tv show. The NIV is uninspired because it was written for the uninspired.

 

[OzSpen]

oz, you don't seem to be cognizant of the fact that I've never claimed figures of speech were meant to be taken literally. It's ironic because this is actually one of my pet peeves. I'm a stickler for noting the distinction between figurative and literal speech.

When in this thread did you state that the euphemism of 1 Sam 24:3, 'Cover his feet', was a figure of speech, a euphemism?

What I've noticed you presenting one Red Herring after another.

You gave no examples so I'm left to understand you are making assertions of your own opinions.

The NIV is uninspired because it was written for the uninspired.

No translation is inspired/God-breathed. Only the original documents (the autographa) are God-breathed.

Oz

 

[shnarkle]

When in this thread did you state that the euphemism of 1 Sam 24:3, 'Cover his feet', was a figure of speech, a euphemism?

Again, you've shown that there's essentially no reason for me to respond to what you're posting. I will simply assume that you seek to be treated the same way you treat me, and click "ignore". Now you can post to your heart's content all manner of irrelevant posts, and see exactly what it feels like to post one post after another only to be ignored.

 

[marks]

There is one by Delitzsch and another by Salkinson; but they are Hebrew translations from the Greek...

My K&D commentary is about the most technical on Hebrew I think I've seen. If I read Hebrew I'd be interested in reading what they did.

Much love!