Where did Josiah die? [3/5][context2]
aaron errancy@infidels.org
Sun, 25 Apr 1999 01:41:48 -0500 (00925040508, 4.2.0.32.19990422180421.0097cf00@mr.mailbank.com)
>> |aaron|
>> I have already explained to you why you
>> can not just attribute *any* definition/shade to any occurrence of the
>> word. The Hebrew scholars who have made the English translations we
>> have used the definitions/shades that they used for reasons. In 2 Kings
>> 2330, they say that Josiah was dead while still in Megiddo. Are you
>> saying you're just fine with the words that are used in the NASB? ("body"
>> with the footnote "Lit. him, dead") If not, then which translation do you
>> accept as having the correct translation. If you don't accept them, then
>> you are asking for a meaning other than what is translated, so you would
>> need to justify that.
>>
>> You also need to understand what "ad hominem" means
>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
>>
>> Pointing out that you want a different meaning for the text is not an
>> "ad hominem". It could possibly be an incorrect statement, but it's not
>> an "ad hominem".
>
>SHERMAN
>Did I say anything like the above? When did I accuse you of that? I would
>like to stand corrected if wrong, certainly. -)
|aaron|
Here is the text that I was replying to above:
>>|aaron|
>>Not exactly right, Matt. The oldest texts *are* composed entirely
>>of consonants, but even then, certain consonants lead "double-lives"
>>and could be used to indicate vowel sounds.
>>
>>As for "arrogantly" handling the text, I never wanted to leave the
>>meaning given by the various translations available to us. You
>>are the one who wants to assign a different meaning to the text.
>
>SHERMAN
>But I have not done so. Mem-taw means several different things
>in Hebrew. If you have the Hebrew weapons, use them. Kindly
>stop making ad hominem arguments and show me the Hebrew,
>please. Will you admit the word has multiple meanings throughout
>the OT or not?
>>>SHERMAN
>>>Can you work the Hebrew?
>>
>> |aaron|
>> Nope...
>
>SHERMAN
>Neither can I. So how can I give you Hebrew evidence? Why don't we
>discuss another "contradiction" that is plain in the English...because you
>cannot find one, perhaps? This is why I submit to you that you ought
>to become a Christian!
|aaron|
This contradiction *is* "plain in the English", even in the NASB. Asserting
that the Hebrew says something other than what the translators have
rendered it as is your action and responsibility.
As for me not being able to find any others that are "plain in the English",
I would have to disagree, but we can deal with them later.
>> |aaron|
>> So, you recant you suggestion that 2 Chronicles can be safely taken out
>> of the Canon?
>
>SHERMAN
>No. It is a conditional suggestion and you will have to withdraw the
>contradiction if I concur. Your use of the word "recant" to address my
>poor fundamentalist self is making me a little wary, by the way... ;-)
|aaron|
If you truthfully mean that you do not consider 2 Chronicles to be
part of the Christian Bible, then I will consider this to not be a contradiction
for those who agree with your revelation that 2 Chronicles (or maybe 2
Kings?) is not part of the Christian Bible. Of course, this will call into question
the canonical status of all the other books, but at least you will have rid
yourself of an apocryphal work in "God's Word".
>> |aaron|
>> As for your problems with me mentioning the BoM, why? The Mormons
>> believe that the Bible and BoM go together beautifully, because they
>> are both written by the same author. Of course, you and I don't agree,
>> so we would never allow them to say that the BoM can't contradict the
>> Bible, because they are both from God.
>
>SHERMAN
>We don't agree? You think the BoM and the Bible go together beautifully,
>while I don't? Why didn't you tell me you are a Mormon?!
|aaron|
Surely you are joking around now...You know I'm not Mormon...LOL!
>> |aaron|
>> Now, in our case, I won't allow you to start off with the presupposition
>> that all of the Bible was inspired by your god, because, that is what is
>> in question.
>
>SHERMAN
>Then how in the [ pardon my strong language here ;-) ] heck am I supposed
>to argue my side of the resolution for any Biblical errancy question? Am I
>supposed to indulge in (pardon, please, no wisecracks, list members) mental
>masturbation with the members of the list as we say again and again "this is
>good, this is out, this is good, this is out"?
|aaron|
Well, you can assume that the Bible was inspired by your god, and therefore
can not have any errors, if you will allow Muslims to argue from the same
vantage point. If you point out an error in the Qur'an to a Muslim, it is
ok for that Muslim to say "Allah gave the Qur'an to us, therefore it can
have no error". And then they can argue from that assumption back to
the conclusion "The Qur'an has no errors, Allah gave us a perfect text."
You ask how you are supposed to argue your side of the resolution?
By giving evidence to support your proposed meaning for the text. This
does not require the presumption that the texts *cannot* contradict. We
could find "apparent" contradictions in texts that do not claim to be inerrant
(or even the word of some god), and then provide evidences to harmonize
them, and this would work just fine.
>> |aaron|
>> 2 Kings & 2 Chronicles were written by separate authors,
>> at separate times. They are two separate books, which have been
>> canonized into a collection of books, or biblia, now called the Bible.
>> Still, they were not written by the same person at the same time. So,
>> assuming before hand that they were inspired by a truthful god, so
>> they can't contradict, is completely "begging the question"/"circular
>> reasoning".
>
>SHERMAN
>So all Jews and Christians who hold to a canon regardless of their
>errancy beliefs are guilty of circular reasoning? You owe more than
>a billion people an apology, but you can start with me.
|aaron|
If a person (wether Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever) were
to say "I believe this text was written by my god, so they can not
contradict." when they came upon a contradiction, then yes, they
would be employing circular reasoning.
>SHERMAN
>We are discussing the Bible, please, not the Gita. The word Bible
>means "the books". Plural, books. If you want to sit on 2 Kings
>and tell me it stinks, that's fine. But please do not ever again say
>"Bible" or "Biblical" errancy unless we accept some type of canonicity.
>This is ridiculous of you--and circular in reasoning.
|aaron|
Of course, we are using the Protestant Christian Canon. This is what
I've considered the "canon" we are working from this whole time.
>>>SHERMAN
>>>The sole evidence I gave was that the NAS seems to have made the more
>>>sensible translation. As you pointed out and entrapped yourself in doing so,
>>>the NAS renders "dead body" as a second possible Hebrew meaning in the
>>>footnotes. Therefore, the NAS translators saw two meanings from the
>>>Hebrew.
>>
>> |aaron|
>> I hate to repeat myself again, but the footnote says "Lit. him, dead".
>> It isn't a "second possible meaning", it is the *literal* meaning. We have
>> the rendered english in the verse itself, which says "body", and then
>> we have the *literal* meaning, which is "dead".
>
>SHERMAN
>And so the main text is rendered the way it is for an English idomatic
>difficulty, thus causing untold havoc and controversy between us?
>This is stretching. You have a lot of faith, Aaron!
|aaron|
Precisely...(though I doubt any translators of the NASB thought that
someone would question wether their footnote saying "Lit him, dead"
actually meant that the the text literally means "him, dead", and therefore
causing "untold havoc and controversy".) The NASB describes its usage
of footnotes quite well, which I have pointed out in [3/5][context2] and
[4/5][conjugates]. It takes no faith at all, just reading.
>>>SHERMAN
>>>How many do you see? (You saw several and rather than admit the
>>>possiblity of the several, you ask me to translate the Hebrew which
>>>I am unequipped to do.)
>>
>> |aaron|
>> (1) I see several meanings based on the *root* "muwth".
>> I *don't* see several for "mem-taw". I don't suppose you could
>> show me where I saw the several meanings for "mem-taw".
>
>SHERMAN
>NIV concordance. Someone read it to me over the phone, actually.
>
>> (2) I haven't asked you to translate the Hebrew. I asked you to
>> supply evidence for your assertions. This can include research
>> you do, or even asking someone you know who is knowledgeable
>> of Hebrew (and you should now know what the fallacy of
>> "appeal to authority" entails, so you're ready to go).
>
>SHERMAN
>I might do that, but feel you would benefit more from doing your own
>work. (Waiting to get blasted by list.) I am going to heaven, you and I
>are unsure if you are going, and you want to send me to do your work
>for you, not for a salary or for love's sake, no, you ask me to hit the
>books in my free time so I may help you get saved by God's inerrant
>Word? Aaron, I can lead a horse to water but I cannot make him drink.
>I have put off Sunday's message for some hours now, and thus my
>family and responsibilities, to share with you. You are welcome!
|aaron|
Matt, I have done my own work, and have had excellan contributions
from Joseph and other list members (both on and off the list). I try to
double-check what they say as well as I can. I did some more research,
in the UT library, two days this past week. But...When you are the one
who wishes to have the Hebrew translated differently, then it is up to
you to supply the evidence for that. Not me.
I have used plenty of time on this also, and I also have a family. We
give our time to such things by our own accord. We can both be
thankful that each of us is willing to give our time.
>> |aaron|
>> Where did I accept the books as "God's Word". I accept that you and many
>> other Christians accept them as "God's Word". Obviously, I wouldn't discuss
>> this if you didn't. That would be like looking for contradictions between
>> apocrypha and the Bible.
>
>SHERMAN
>Let's look for them. Let's choose. Choose. Choose. Is it canon or is there
>no contradiction. Choose.
|aaron|
Tell me why I cannot accept the Protestant Canon as what you and many
other Christians think is, as a whole, the inspired word of a truthful god,
but am not allowed to see it as the work of humans, who are fallible, and
therefore can have errors. Do this without assuming that the text is written
by a truthful god, so it must be without error, because that is exactly what is
in question.
>>>>|aaron|
>>>>By-the-way, where did you get "limp body"? It was not in your original
>>>>statement of "I carried his body". I added no such thing in my experimental
>>>>text. I only changed names and places. Did you as one author, within a
>>>>small area of writing, give a variant account?
>>>
>>>SHERMAN
>>>An allusion to your out-of-context survey. 2 Chronicles tells us of Josiah's
>>>state, a few words breathed--and then a limp body forcibly moved from
>>>chariot to chariot.
>>
>> |aaron|
>> Hmmm...but it didn't say "limp body"...it said "body"...just like in the NAS.
>> Yes...2 Chronicles speaks of a Josiah who speaks and is taken to Jerusalem,
>> where he dies. In contrast, 2 Kings describes a Josiah who is dead when
>> his body is taken out of Megiddo and transported to Jerusalem.
>
>SHERMAN
>I don't understand. The Kings and Chronicles are separate books without a
>harmony, but you wish to force a harmony with what I devoutly believe and
>what the friends you survey or what CREA devoutly believes. Talk about
>calling good, evil, and evil, good! I think you said it yourself--this is
>like debate class for you rather than a resolution regarding truth. Try to
>learn something!
|aaron|
You quoted me as using "limp body", but I did not use it, so I was asking
where you got it from, and you said it was an allusion to my little
"experiment". I pointed out that I did not use "limp body" in my "experiment",
then here you are making this comment. I think this little sub-thread
is ready to be dropped and dubbed "useless". As for your idea that I
am not "regarding truth", you are wrong. This is not "debate class" for
me.
>>>>|aaron|
>>>>Strong's #3462 "yashen"
>>>>http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/?id=03462
>>>>It appears to represent a variety of "depths" of sleep throughout the
>>>>OT. Two interesting examples are found in Jerimiah 5139 & 5157.
>>>
>>>SHERMAN
>>>Jermiah 3159 is hardly comatose or death in the context. Same for
>>>verse 57,
>>
>> |aaron|
>> Yet, the translation was "perpetual sleep", no doubt a very deep and long
>> sleep. Add that into the context of being fatally wounded in a battle, and
>> it works quite well. Being in a coma does not require that you are fatally
>> wounded. Perhaps you demand from me a hebrew word meaning
>> "coma caused by fatal injuries"? Even in english, that is not communicated
>> by a single word, and even if it were, it would not automatically mean
>> there should be a single word to describe the state in hebrew.
>
>SHERMAN
>Jeremiah 31 is a battle?
|aaron|
I was stating that using "yashen" in the context of a battle would lend
its translation to more of the meaning you wish to be there. Without
the context of a battle, I can understand why the "perpetual sleep" would
not be seen as a "coma".
>> |aaron|
>> Why would the word for "comatose" need to refer to "death" in any
>> way? People can be in comas and not be terribly injured. Your
>> requirement that the word have some reference to "death" goes
>> further than necessary. Still, I have addressed the issue further in
>> [4/5][conjugates]. If you don't like my suggestions for comatose,
>> here or in [4/5], then find it yourself. My arguments do not depend
>> on it.
>
>SHERMAN
>I have not found it nor will you for it isn't within.
|aaron|
Have you actually been looking for the Hebrew equivalent of "comatose"?
If you don't like my suggestions, then your wish to have <mem-taw>
be "comatose" would require such. But, now you think it could mean
"assassinated". I will get to that soon enough.
>SHERMAN
>God used the pictorial Hebrew for His purposes and the Greek has even
>more to say, doesn't it? Hypothetical, could God make it elusive to trap
>unbelievers as in Jesus' statements about His parables?
|aaron|
If your god likes creating elusive traps, then he is definitely not the
admirable, loving, and truthful god I thought he was supposed to be.
Especially since I have prayed to your god to not fall into any "traps",
wether of my own creation (or, per your statement, *his* creation).
>SHERMAN
>If the Bible was inerrant but you lived today after the facts would you
>do the moral requirements of God's law?
|aaron|
The inerrancy of the Bible would be, for me, a compelling reason to
believe it is the "Word of God".
>>>>>SHERMAN
>>>>>The NAS relegates "dead body" to the footnotes with good reason!
>>>>
>>>>|aaron|
>>>>First of all, it does not say "dead body", it says "Lit. him, dead".
>>>>Second, the "good reason" is that the translators knew the literal
>>>>meaning is "dead".
>>>
>>>SHERMAN
>>>Source for this, please, that the translators made this choice for that
>>>stated reason. This is your assumption. Say so!
>>
>> |aaron|
>> Hmmm...ok...cite the source which shows that the translators gave
>> the footnote saying "Lit. him, dead" because they knew the literal
>> meaning was "dead"?
>
>SHERMAN
>Not what I am saying. You have left their choice away from the literal
>to your assumption this was an awkward idomatic expression. Then
>you send me dozens of notes saying, "It's such a clear choice--dead is
>the simple rendering, Matt, don't you see it?" You cannot have it both
>ways! Which is it--an awkwardness in English from the difficult to
>render Hebrew assassination sense or a plain and blithely obvious
>"dead" that the NAS relegates to the footnotes?
|aaron|
The NASB notes on footnote usage says both, perhaps you should
present your challenge to them? They say that, if the literal translation
seemed inappropriate for expression in modern English, they used more
modern phraseology in the text, and moved the literal meaning to a
footnote.
>> |aaron|
>> But, I don't expect you to take *my* word for it...
>> http//www.gospelcom.net/lockman/mail/mail.htm
>> I called (714) 879-3055, in order to ask, first hand, the sponsors of the
>> NASB, what do the footnote abbreviations mean...
>>
>> I was told that "Lit." means (as seems obvious) "the literal translation".
>> Then, I asked how "an alternate translation" would be marked, and my
>> contact said, "Or", which simply stands for "Or". This "Or"
>> That. Beautiful...
>>
>> So, there you have it. The footnote at 2 Kings 2330 is there to make
>> sure the person reading that verse knows that the text says LITERALLY
>> "him, dead" where "his body" is.
>
>SHERMAN
>Please do not patronize me. I am familiar with the abbreviation "lit."
|aaron|
I know, but I also wanted to see if there was a specific designation for
when they were noting an "alternate" translation. They used "Or" in
these cases. That way we could know that the NAS translators didn't
mean "alternatively: him, dead".
>SHERMAN
>Why not his "dead body"?
|aaron|
Because that would not be the LITERAL translation of the word.
>SHERMAN
>Call them back if you like--don't bother, I sent them a letter and will
>let you know their reply.
|aaron|
Good...I look forward to their comments...
>> |aaron|
>> The example given by Joseph was a clarification of the text "fruit-fly".
>> In other words, the footnote was a *more exact* term for "fruit-fly".
>>
>> In our case, "Lit him, dead" is the literal rendering of the word
>> <mem-taw>, translated in the main text as "his body".
>
>SHERMAN
>The fruit fly example was off topic--a dodge.
|aaron|
It is not a dodge to present an example of footnote usage.
>SHERMAN
>The literal rendering of mem-taw is not dead but dead; variously
>"assassinated, killed, etc."
|aaron|
Yes...The literal meaning of <mem-taw> *is* dead, just as you pointed
out above. As for it non-literally meaning "assassinated, killed, etc."
(but still alive, of course, which is your reason for stating these words),
you will get to see my take on that in [4/5][conjugates].
>> |aaron|
>> I'm not sure if you received the email from Ed, but here it is again, just
>> in case
>>
>>
>> [[ED]]
>> I'm not a Hebrew scholar either, but my office is down the hall
>> from a couple, both of whom confirmed that the body of Josiah
>> removed from Megiddo to Jerusalem in the Kings account was
>> dead, according to the reading of the Masoretic text. They also
>> confirm that the death of Josiah in Chronicles occurred after his
>> arrival in Jerusalem.
>>
>> However, I do not expect you to take my word for it that these
>> two experts confirm the contradiction. They were kind enough
>> to steer me toward published sources by other experts on the
>> subject. It would seem that Mr. Sherman is the only person in
>> the world who claims that "dead" in 2 Kings 2330 does not really
>> signify "dead."
>>
>> I quote here from the conservative "Word Biblical Commentary,"
>> a prestigious and universally respected work whose general editors
>> are David A Hubbard and the late Glenn W. Barker. The Old
>> Testament Editor is John D. W. Watts.
>>
>> |aaron|
>> The "Word Biblical Commentary", published by Thomas Nelson (an
>> excellent conservative/evangelical publisher in New York), was
>> begun in 1983 and the most recently issued volume was Revelation 1-5
>> in 1997.
>>
>> [[ED]]
>> IN his commentary on the 2 Kings account [which came out in 1985],
>> T. R. Hobbs of McMaster University writes
>>
>> Hobbs
>> According to this account, Josiah's dead body was transported
>> back to Jerusalem for burial, whereas 2 Chr 3520-27 has the
>> wounded Josiah being taken back to Jerusalem to die. The conflict
>> is obvious and irreconcilable.
>>
>> [[ED]]
>> While Raymond B. Dillard of Westminster Theological Seminary in
>> his volume on 2 Chronicles [which came out in 1987] writes
>>
>> Dillard
>>
>> Whereas 2 Kgs 2330 states that Josiah's servants took him "dead
>> from Megiddo," the Chronicler is at pains to show that "They
>> brought him to Jerusalem and he died." (3524).
>>
>> [[ED]]
>> All the attempts to reconcile the accounts rely on translating "dead"
>> as "dying," but they simply do not work, because "dying" is a particle
>> form of a verb.
>>
>> |aaron|
>> So, Ed *did* ask some Hebrew scholars what the two accounts of Josiah's
>> death said. He also cited some works discussing the subject. They made
>> it quite clear that it is a contradiction. Do I still need to talk to a Rabbi?
>> Does Joseph still need to translate the hebrew for you?
>
>SHERMAN
>Yes and yes answer both your questions above. Ed points out accurately
>that "All the attempts to reconcile the accounts rely on translating "dead"
>as "dying," but they simply do not work, because "dying" is a particle form
>of a verb..." in the case of mighty Word scholars including Ed himself,
>apparently. My case is based on rendering it "assassinated" rather than
>"dead" or "dying". Assassinated is "past" not "present" tense, Ed. I am not
>arguing "dying" from "dead", the straw man you quoted. Try understanding
>what others have to say before you seek to be understood, Ed, please.
>You make the errancy list look like they rush to judgment which they do.
|aaron|
So, Ed acquired the comments of two Hebrew scholars, and quoted from
two works discussing the issue, and you still think I should talk to a rabbi,
and think Joseph should translate the text?
First, what will you say if Joseph *does* translate the text. Do you think
he is going to somehow translate it in your favor? Or do you just want
to see if he can do it?
Second, I have asked some rabbis about the text and am waiting on their
replies. Should I make sure they meet anymore of you criteria before
accepting their comments? (Perhaps they should be inerrantist rabbis?)
>>>SHERMAN
>>>The support is there as surely as you will admit that the Hebrew in Isaiah
>>>714 may be rendered either "virgin" or "young maiden" and has been
>>>rendered differently in a number of translations. Do you admit it or no?
>>
>> |aaron|
>> You keep wanting to divert us to this "virgin"/"young maiden" issue.
>> Unfortunately we are not discussing this issue, and I don't have a
>> firm stance either way on this translation. You can discuss it on the list
>> at a later time if you wish. Now, the meaning of some Hebrew words
>> is more in question than others. Obviously, you think there is some
>> amazing controversy over the "virgin"/"young maiden" issue. Fine.
>> Show me where such controversy has been had over the meaning of
>> "mem-taw", and you'll have something of a comparison.
>
>SHERMAN
>Aaron, you are both extremely naive and unlearned in the Jewish ways and
>means I am far more knowledgable in. Anti-missionaries travel the world
>telling young people Isaiah 714 is "young maiden" knowing the bone of
>contention there for the Christian witness, not found in Kings/Chronicles as
>under discussion. 2 Kings/2 Chronicles is so easily dismissed by a basic
>examination of muwth and mem-taw that it makes *most* critical thinkers
>slumber by comparison.
|aaron|
Really...Can you show me these critical thinkers that slumber when
you present your basic examination of "muwth" and "mem-taw"?
I can make the statement "2 Kings/2 Chronicles are so easily seen to be
contradictory by a basic examination of muwth and mem-taw that it
makes *most* critical thinkers slumber by comparison". What would
this be but an attempt to make you look foolish (in comparison to
those "critical thinkers")? It would be an empty "ad hominem" statement,
which would be better off supported by evidence. So, give me
evidence that "*most* critical thinkers" slumber when presented with
your "basic examination" of the text in question.
--
aaron rainwater
"Dear old world, you are very lovely,
and I am glad to be alive in you"
~ Anne of Green Gables