So Matt's Position Is That "All" Means "All"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

<snip>
TILL REPOSTS

>    What happened in the fifth plague, the affliction of all the livestock 

>in Egypt with murrain or pestilence, again depending on which translation

>is preferred, wasn't so incredible in and of itself.  The plagues that 

>followed it are what rendered it absolutely ludicrous.  By now the warranty

>on Aaron's rod had apparently expired, so this time, as also in the case

>of the flies, a plague was called down without the theatrics of waving 

>a magic wand.  All the livestock in Egypt, except for any that belonged to 

>the Israelites, were stricken with a pestilence of murrain or whatever, 

>and "all (a-l-l, all) the livestock of the Egyptians died" (Ex. 9:6). One 

>would think that with everything that had happened before this, pharaoh 

>would have understood he was fighting a losing battle and would have 

>given in to Yahweh's demands, but we must remember that this is a 

>Bible story we are dealing with, and Bible stories are routinely far-fetched

>and illogical. "The heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he would not 

>let the people go" (Ex. 9:7).

>

>    So what happened next will leave critical readers scratching their 

>heads.  With Aaron's rod now out of commission, Moses, standing 

>before pharaoh, took "the ashes of the furnace" (what furnace is anyone's 

>guess) and "sprinkled it (why not them?) up toward heaven," and it 

>(they?) caused boils to break forth on man and beast alike (Ex. 9:8-12). 

>Since all of the livestock of the Egyptians had been killed by the plague 

>of murrain, doesn't it seem rather strange that this plague extended to 

>beast as well as man?  Could this have been an oversight on the part of 

>the "inspired" writer of this story?  We could perhaps say that the beasts 

>stricken with boils belonged to the Israelites whose livestock were spared 

>the plague of murrain, except that it seems rather strange even for 

>Yahweh Elohim to spare herds of livestock from one plague only to turn 

>around and zap them with another.  To be honest, we must also recognize

>that the text doesn't say livestock; it says beasts or animals, again 

>depending on the translation.  So perhaps it wasn't livestock at all that 

>were afflicted with boils; it could have been rabbits, squirrels, dogs, cats, 

>and other species of animals that are not considered livestock. 

ACHILLES
Reading this it struck me to wonder whether or not, on the basis of the
hebrew text, this was indeed a possible reading. Now I have not and do not
claim any special expertise with hebrew, but I do have access to many
reference materials and know how to use them, this is often though not
always sufficient, so I gave it a try. 

Checking this in the YLT the animals affected in both plagues are translated
as "cattle," although in verse 10 they are suddenly "beasts" this is after a
reference to the boils affecting cattle. 

4 And Jehovah hath separated between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of
Egypt, and there
doth not die a thing of all the sons of Israel's; 
5 and Jehovah setteth an appointed time, saying, To-morrow doth Jehovah do
this thing in the
land.' 
6 And Jehovah doth this thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt
die, and of the cattle
of the sons of Israel not one hath died; 
7 and Pharaoh sendeth, and lo, not even one of the cattle of Israel hath
died, and the heart of
Pharaoh is hard, and he hath not sent the people away. 
8 And Jehovah saith unto Moses and unto Aaron, `Take to you the fulness of
your hands [of]
soot of a furnace, and Moses hath sprinkled it towards the heavens, before
the eyes of
Pharaoh, 
9 and it hath become small dust over all the land of Egypt, and it hath
become on man and on
cattle a boil breaking forth [with] blains, in all the land of Egypt.' 
10 and they take the soot of the furnace, and stand before Pharaoh, and
Moses sprinkleth it
towards the heavens, and it is a boil [with] blains, breaking forth, on man
and on beast; 

This was puzzling, it looked like one word was used up to verse 10 but a
second word substituted in verse 10, so I consulted Strongs, and found
contrary to the impression the YLT leaves that while there are indeed two
different words here, they switch occurs in verse 9, not verse 10. The two
words are apparently used synonymously. 

4735. miqneh, mik-neh'; from H7069; something bought, i.e. property, but
only live stock; abstr. acquisition:--cattle, flock, herd, possession,
purchase, substance. 

This is used up to verse 7. With the new plague a new word is indeed used: 

929. behemah, be-hay-maw'; from an unused root (prob. mean. to be mute);
prop. a dumb beast; espec. any large quadruped or animal (often
collect.):--beast, cattle.

So, although there are two different words here, the YLT and Strongs both
imply they are synonyms... checking further I made a table of how they
appear in several translations: 
Trans.    Miqneh        Behemah
KJV         "cattle"       "beasts"
RSV        "cattle"       "beasts" 
NASB      "livestock"  "beasts"
NIV         "livestock"  "animals"
DARBY    "cattle"       "cattle"
YLT         "cattle"       "cattle/beast"

Anyways since I already did the leg work thought I would pass it on, maybe
it will be of interest to someone... 



Achilles

"...we are not simply contending in order that my view or that
of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to be
fighting for the truth..."
from Philebus, the Dialogues of Plato 

• Previous message: Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My !!!
• Next message: So Matt's Position Is That "All" Means "All"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]