Matthew 1/14
I am not sure how many people are critical reading Till's words. He keeps
writing that I am biased, that my sources are biased, etc. Yet, I suppose
that he claims not to be biased. I am sure that he will have some waxing
way to comment on this, but I do hope that some of you think about it.
Think about the following information. I have given this to Till twice, and
I believe that he has commented on it twice, the above comment being taken
from his last comment. Read it closely. It is a mixture of conservative
Christian and Jewish sources (although granted more Christian). Has he
commented on the definition of "rah?" No. Has he commented on the Jewish
translation? No. Has he commented on the cross reference to another verse
which shows how to translate Isa 47:5? No.
(BTW, I agree that I do not always interpret Scriptures the way Jews do, but
here we do agree. Interesting, isn't it. Another hermeneutic for me is
interpret Scripture with Jesus Christ in mind; this hermeneutic was
instituted by Jesus in Luke 24:25-27...this is the biggest difference.)
>From Till's viewpoint, everything that I or anyone who writes like me will
be wrong, as his biases dictate this. I guess that this means that he is
just trying to get rid of me. Typical Till. Of course, everything that he
writes is biased by his presuppositions, and I think he has shown that his
only goal is to win a debate, not to try to find the truth.
For example with sources, he denied mine, but usually does not show any of
his own. Till's way or the highway, I guess. Don't look for data, except
what I say. Perhaps, the "rah" could be translated the way he wants it
translated, but also clearly translating it the way the Tanakh translates it
is also good...indeed, better
If you could, please read through the below note and ask yourself why Till
does not address the points in it, but only tries to take potshots at the
NAS and NIV versions, which basically are not really important to the note
itself.
Matthew 1/12
Given that I have providentially been put once again on Till's embargo list,
I have a little extra time to answer some of the other posts in more detail
on this list. Here is an interesting problem that arose yesterday.
I think that this point is illustrative of the big deal that
non-Bible-believers make in trying to show something in the Bible that is
not there. They start with a legitimate question and then turn it into
something which sounds to them as though the Bible is not consistent.
First, if "evil" were present in Isa. 45:7, this would not cause be a huge
amount of difficulty in that I have agreed that God as the creator of
everything has some indirect responsibility for "creating" evil through the
allowance of free will in some of His creation.
Here are a couple of versions of Isa. 45:7
7 The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and
creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
(NAS)
Isa 45:7
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
the LORD do all these things.
(KJV)
As you can see, KJV has evil in it, translated as "evil" for Hebrew "rah"
which is a correct translation in many other parts of the Bible for "rah."
Yet, the NAS translates it as "calamity," and I tend to consider the NAS as
the most literal of the modern translations (not including literal
translations, which are not composed for regular reading). Earlier I also
published NIV, RSV, and KJV versions of Isa. 45:7; I have not checked
through lots of other newer translations but I doubt that very many, if any,
translate Isa: 45:7 with evil in it.
Why is this? Certainly, it is not caused by trying to read into the verse
what the Christian believes. I don't think that the NAS would do this; I
know of other cases where the RSV does not hold two Bible inerrancy; so, I
would doubt that it does either.
So, why? My belief is that it is felt that this is the best translation.
Let's look at some reasons, by starting with another translation: The Jewish
Publication's Society's Tanakh:
Isa 45:7
7 I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe--I the
Lord do all these things.
(Tanakh)
Now, this should be pretty convincing evidence that this is the correct
translate for "rah" in this passage. The reason why I write this is that
many of the Jewish readers of this translation will be very familiar with
the Hebrew language; for some, it will be their first language. Therefore,
it follows that the translators felt that tranlating "rah" as "woe" is the
best translation for it.
Also, if translating "rah" as "woe," "calamity," etc. rather than "evil" is
acceptable, then where else is it appropriate.
Amos 3:6-14
6 If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a
*calamity* occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?
7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To
His servants the prophets.
8 A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken! Who can but
prophesy?
9 Proclaim on the citadels in Ashdod and on the citadels in the land of
Egypt and say, "Assemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria and see
{the} great tumults within her and {the} oppressions in her midst.
10 "But they do not know how to do what is right," declares the LORD, "these
who hoard up violence and devastation in their citadels."
11 Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "An enemy, even one surrounding the
land, will pull down your strength from you and your citadels will be looted."
12 Thus says the LORD, "Just as the shepherd snatches from the lion's mouth
a couple of legs or a piece of an ear, so will the sons of Israel dwelling
in Samaria be snatched away-- with {the} corner of a bed and {the} cover of
a couch!
13 "Hear and testify against the house of Jacob," declares the Lord GOD, the
God of hosts.
14 "For on the day that I punish Israel's transgressions, I will also punish
the altars of Bethel; the horns of the altar will be cut off, and they will
fall to the ground.
(NAS)
ADDED NOTE: THE TANAKH READS SIMILARLY HERE IN REGARDS TO "RAH." THE NAS
IS USED HERE SINCE IT IS EASY FOR ME TO DOWNLOAD RATHER THAN HAVING TO TYPE
OUT THE TANAKH VERSION.
"Rah" is "calamity" in Amos 3:6, again in the NAS. I used this passage to
show that the context of "rah" here is God punishing a nation. If you read
the context of Isa 45:7, you will see that it concerns God giving other
nations over to Cyrus, which would also include punishing nations.
Here is the Strong's definition for it:
7451 ra` (rah);
KJV-- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress,
evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous),
harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief (-vous), misery,
naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex,
wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st), wretchedness, wrong. [Incl. feminine
ra` ah; as adjective or noun.].
Finally, let me quote this verse one more time from a verse which I think
illustrates its meaning very well:
Isa. 45:7
7 I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the
one who sends good times and bad times. I, the Lord, who does these things.
(New Living Bible)
In Christ,
Matthew
burdette@net2.netacc.net
burdette@net2.netacc.net
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.