Changes

The ''[[motivation]]'' for interpreting and translating ''tachash skins'' in the Bible as being skins of creatures the Israelites are clearly forbidden to touch is unclear, and a mystery, what is known in [[Logic]] as a [[non sequiter]] (Lat. "''it does not follow''"). The ''[[purpose]]'' being served by a deliberate translation of תחשׁ as badger and of ערת תחשׁים as badgers' skins, by scholars who have a thorough knowledge of the whole of the Bible, and of the history of the Hebrew language and of the ''fauna'' and varied customs of the ancient Middle East, is also a ''non sequiter'' mystery, involving an [[Evidence|evident]] contradiction of the context of the Bible. Alternate word choices, harmoniously consistent with the biblical context, and attested by the ancient sources as cited in scholarly published commentaries both technical and general, were available to the translators, who chose not to use them. Their translation covers the tabernacle, the ark and the sacred vessels with the equivalent of ''' טָמֵא ''' ''tame''  unclean [[Pig|swine]]s' skins ([http://biblehub.com/multi/leviticus/11-8.htm Leviticus 11:3-8], [http://biblehub.com/multi/leviticus/11-27.htm 11:24-28]). The inconsistency is not in the ancient biblical text, but in the interpretations of translators which violate its context.<blockquote>"A text without a context is a pretext for a [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|proof text]]." Donald A. Carson, ''Exegetical Fallacies''.<ref>Carson, Donald A., Ph.D. ''Exegetical Fallacies'', Nov. 30, 1983, 2nd edition Mar. 1, 1996. Baker Publishing Group. 160 pages. ISBN 978-0801020865.</ref></blockquote>

The ''[[motivation]]'' for interpreting and translating ''tachash skins'' in the Bible as being skins of creatures the Israelites are clearly forbidden to touch is unclear, and a mystery, what is known in [[Logic]] as a [[non sequiter]] (Lat. "''it does not follow''"). The ''[[purpose]]'' being served by a deliberate translation of תחשׁ as badger and of ערת תחשׁים as badgers' skins, by scholars who have a thorough knowledge of the whole of the Bible, and of the history of the Hebrew language and of the ''fauna'' and varied customs of the ancient Middle East, is also a ''non sequiter'' mystery, involving an [[Evidence|evident]] contradiction of the context of the Bible. Alternate word choices, harmoniously consistent with the biblical context, and attested by the ancient sources as cited in scholarly published commentaries both technical and general, were available to the translators, who chose not to use them. Their translation covers the tabernacle, the ark and the sacred vessels with the equivalent of ''' טָמֵא ''' ''tame''  unclean [[Pig|swine]]s' skins ([http://biblehub.com/multi/leviticus/11-8.htm Leviticus 11:3-8], [http://biblehub.com/multi/leviticus/11-27.htm 11:24-28]). The inconsistency is not in the ancient biblical text, but in the interpretations of translators which violate its context.<blockquote>"A text without a context is a pretext for a [[Cafeteria Christianity#Proof texts|proof text]]." Donald A. Carson, ''Exegetical Fallacies''.<ref>Carson, Donald A., Ph.D. ''Exegetical Fallacies'', Nov. 30, 1983, 2nd edition Mar. 1, 1996. Baker Publishing Group. 160 pages. ISBN 978-0801020865.</ref></blockquote>

[[Study Bible]] footnotes, along with published articles, Bible dictionaries, commentaries, encyclopedias, and books on the Bible, and a multitude of internet online blogs and pages, which strongly support the translation of ערת תחשׁים as badgers' skins or as the skins of any kind of sea mammal, often omit the fact that within the context of the Bible these creatures are classified as unclean, defiling  '''שִׁקַּץ ''' ''sheqats'' abominations, as loathsome, abhorrent, detestible, filthy and disgusting for the people of Israel. Those that do mention it offer various speculative [[Excuse|rationale]]s, [[debate]]s and [[Editorial|discussions]] to explain why in their [[opinion]] God would command the Israelites to cover the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant and the sacred vessels for worship with skins of unclean animals and abominations they are explicitly forbidden to touch, skins and hides that according to the word of the L<small>ORD</small> defile any Israelites who touch them. Many of them assert that the prohibitions in Leviticus 11 are ''dietary'' rules only ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:2&version=KJV Lev. 11:2], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:46-47&version=KJV 11:46-47]), and declare that touching and wearing skins and leather of unclean animals is permitted as long as their flesh is not eaten.<ref name=opinion>Eight examples:  

Study Bible footnotes, along with published articles, Bible dictionaries, commentaries, encyclopedias, and books on the Bible, and a multitude of internet online blogs and pages, which strongly support the translation of ערת תחשׁים as badgers' skins or as the skins of any kind of sea mammal, often omit the fact that within the context of the Bible these creatures are classified as unclean, defiling  '''שִׁקַּץ ''' ''sheqats'' abominations, as loathsome, abhorrent, detestible, filthy and disgusting for the people of Israel. Those that do mention it offer various speculative [[Excuse|rationale]]s, [[debate]]s and [[Editorial|discussions]] to explain why in their [[opinion]] God would command the Israelites to cover the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant and the sacred vessels for worship with skins of unclean animals and abominations they are explicitly forbidden to touch, skins and hides that according to the word of the L<small>ORD</small> defile any Israelites who touch them. Many of them assert that the prohibitions in Leviticus 11 are ''dietary'' rules only ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:2&version=KJV Lev. 11:2], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:46-47&version=KJV 11:46-47]), and declare that touching and wearing skins and leather of unclean animals is permitted as long as their flesh is not eaten.<ref name=opinion>Eight examples:  

*[http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9912/jewish/Chapter-11.htm#showrashi=true Chabad.<small>ORG</small> —Rashi's commentary Vayikra-Leviticus-Chapter 11],

*[http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9912/jewish/Chapter-11.htm#showrashi=true Chabad.<small>ORG</small> —Rashi's commentary Vayikra-Leviticus-Chapter 11],

*[http://ravkooktorah.org/TRUMA61.htm Terumah: Tachash Skins in the Tabernacle, Rabbi Chaim Morrison],

*[http://ravkooktorah.org/TRUMA61.htm Terumah: Tachash Skins in the Tabernacle, Rabbi Chaim Morrison],

*[http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm Judaism 101. Treatment of Animals. Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim <big>'''צער בעלי החיים'''</big>: Cruelty to Animals © Copyright 5756-5771 (1995-2011), Tracey R Rich],  

*[http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm Judaism 101. Treatment of Animals. Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim <big>'''צער בעלי החיים'''</big>: Cruelty to Animals © Copyright 5756-5771 (1995-2011), Tracey R Rich],  

*[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003867 Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY: Insight, Volume 2 it-2 pp. 883-884 Sealskin. Copyright © 2014 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania],   

*[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003867 Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY: Insight, Volume 2 it-2 pp. 883-884 Sealskin. Copyright © 2014 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania],   

*[http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/badgers-skin-or-another-type-of-leather-in-exodus-255-et-al KJV Today: "Badgers' skin" or another type of leather in Exodus 25:5 et al.?]<br/>—''compare multiple commentaries on:'' [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/5-2.htm Leviticus 5:2]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-8.htm 11:8] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-27.htm 11:27]</ref> These commentaries say that touching the carcass of these animals is only a minor offense which did not require an atoning sacrifice, and that it applied only to ''kohanim'' (priests) and applied to the laity only during the three feasts of Passover/Unleavened Bread, Weeks/Pentecost, and Booths/Tabernacles (Deut. 16). And some cite the ''Talmud'' as their authority, for example, Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'' 16b,<ref>[http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Rosh_HaShanah.pdf Babylonian Talmud, Seder ''Mo'ed'', Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'', Folio 16b] —''scroll down to page'' 40</ref> and the ''Sifra'', ''Torath Kohanim'' 11:74,<ref>'''Sifra''' (Aramaic <big>'''סִפְרָא'''</big>, "book" or "The Book"), a ''midrash halakhah'' from the school of R. Akiva on the Book of Leviticus.<br/>See [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13646-sifra ''Jewish Encyclopedia'': Sifra];<br/> ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' Vol 18 San-Sol 18:560-562 SIFRA;<br/>See [http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%90 Sifra Hebrew text, ed. I. H. Weiss 1862 Vienna.]</ref> and Rashi's commentary,<ref name=opinion/> providing us with an example of what the prophet Jeremiah said, <blockquote>"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the L<small>ORD</small> is with us'? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/jeremiah/8-8.htm Jeremiah 8:8]).</blockquote> They omit any reference to that part of Leviticus which decrees that wilfully touching the carcasses of unclean animals (which must be done to harvest their skins) is a '''sin''', which even Rashi's commentary confirms. No mention is made by them of the law in the Torah which says: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable...neither shall ye make yourselves unclean...neither shall ye defile yourselves" (Leviticus 11:43-44) <ref>See: '''Exodus''' 31:14; '''Leviticus''' 7:19, 21; 10:10; 11:43-44; 18:20, 24, 30; 20:25; 21:4, 11; 22:8; '''Numbers''' 5:3; 6:7; 19:13, 20; 35:33-34; '''Deuteronomy''' 23:14; 27:26.</ref> and that anyone who wilfully does this will be cut off.<ref>see [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:2-6&version=KJV Leviticus 5:2-6], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:17-19&version=KJV 5:17-19]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2015:29-31&version=KJV Numbers 15:29-31]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2019:20&version=KJV 19:20.]</ref> Some commentaries on the Old Testament supporting ''badgers' skins'' and ''sea mammals' skins'' as the covering of the tabernacle cite the [[New Testament]] example of [[Saint Paul]] working with Simon the tanner (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 32), as if both of them were examples of Jews wilfully working with the skins of ''non-kosher'' beasts. Some cite [[Pliny]]'s ''Natural History'' 2:56,<ref>previously cited in the 19th century: [http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/B/badger.html ''McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature'' (1887) B: badger]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/exodus/25.htm ''Adam Clarke's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible'' (1831) Exodus 25]</ref> which says that [pagan] temples had roofs of sealskin, as if this applied to the Israelites under the Law of Moses, and cite Eduard Rüppell's short-lived ''taxonomic'' designation of the dugong as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' "dugong of the tabernacle" as an additional support for their opinion.<ref>While travelling the Middle East around the Red Sea and the [[Arabian Peninsula]], Rüppell observed a variety of [[dugong]] which he subsequently designated ''[[Taxonomy|taxonomically]]'' as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' (1843) according to his view that the skin of this animal was certainly used as the outer covering of the tabernacle of the Hebrews, because the Bedouin harvested its skin for tent-curtains and for shoes and called it ''tukhesh, duchash''. His taxonomic designation ''Halicore tabernaculi'' did not last long (1843-1847) and has since been recombined several times, more recently as ''Dugong dugon'' (1963-1998).<br/>Three sources:

*[http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/badgers-skin-or-another-type-of-leather-in-exodus-255-et-al KJV Today: "Badgers' skin" or another type of leather in Exodus 25:5 et al.?]<br/>—''compare multiple commentaries on:'' [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/5-2.htm Leviticus 5:2]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-8.htm 11:8] and [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-27.htm 11:27]</ref> These commentaries say that touching the carcass of these animals is only a minor offense which did not require an atoning sacrifice, and that it applied only to ''kohanim'' (priests) and applied to the laity only during the three feasts of Passover/Unleavened Bread, Weeks/Pentecost, and Booths/Tabernacles (Deut. 16). And some cite the ''Talmud'' as their authority, for example, Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'' 16b,<ref>[http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Rosh_HaShanah.pdf Babylonian Talmud, Seder ''Mo'ed'', Tractate ''Rosh Hashana'', Folio 16b] —''scroll down to page'' 40</ref> and the ''Sifra'', ''Torath Kohanim'' 11:74,<ref>'''Sifra''' (Aramaic <big>'''סִפְרָא'''</big>, "book" or "The Book"), a ''midrash halakhah'' from the school of R. Akiva on the Book of Leviticus.<br/>See [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13646-sifra ''Jewish Encyclopedia'': Sifra];<br/> ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' Vol 18 San-Sol 18:560-562 SIFRA;<br/>See [http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%90 Sifra Hebrew text, ed. I. H. Weiss 1862 Vienna.]</ref> and Rashi's commentary,<ref name=opinion/> providing us with an example of what the prophet Jeremiah said, <blockquote>"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the L<small>ORD</small> is with us'? But behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie" ([http://biblehub.com/multi/jeremiah/8-8.htm Jeremiah 8:8]).</blockquote> They omit any reference to that part of Leviticus which decrees that wilfully touching the carcasses of unclean animals (which must be done to harvest their skins) is a '''sin''', which even Rashi's commentary confirms. No mention is made by them of the law in the Torah which says: "Ye shall not make yourselves abominable...neither shall ye make yourselves unclean...neither shall ye defile yourselves" (Leviticus 11:43-44) <ref>See: '''Exodus''' 31:14; '''Leviticus''' 7:19, 21; 10:10; 11:43-44; 18:20, 24, 30; 20:25; 21:4, 11; 22:8; '''Numbers''' 5:3; 6:7; 19:13, 20; 35:33-34; '''Deuteronomy''' 23:14; 27:26.</ref> and that anyone who wilfully does this will be cut off.<ref>see [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:2-6&version=KJV Leviticus 5:2-6], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205:17-19&version=KJV 5:17-19]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2015:29-31&version=KJV Numbers 15:29-31]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%2019:20&version=KJV 19:20.]</ref> Some commentaries on the Old Testament supporting ''badgers' skins'' and ''sea mammals' skins'' as the covering of the tabernacle cite the [[New Testament]] example of [[Saint Paul]] working with Simon the tanner (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 32), as if both of them were examples of Jews wilfully working with the skins of ''non-kosher'' beasts. Some cite Pliny's ''Natural History'' 2:56,<ref>previously cited in the 19th century: [http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/B/badger.html ''McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature'' (1887) B: badger]; [http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/exodus/25.htm ''Adam Clarke's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible'' (1831) Exodus 25]</ref> which says that [pagan] temples had roofs of sealskin, as if this applied to the Israelites under the Law of Moses, and cite Eduard Rüppell's short-lived ''taxonomic'' designation of the dugong as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' "dugong of the tabernacle" as an additional support for their opinion.<ref>While travelling the Middle East around the Red Sea and the [[Arabian Peninsula]], Rüppell observed a variety of [[dugong]] which he subsequently designated ''[[Taxonomy|taxonomically]]'' as ''Halicore tabernaculi'' (1843) according to his view that the skin of this animal was certainly used as the outer covering of the tabernacle of the Hebrews, because the Bedouin harvested its skin for tent-curtains and for shoes and called it ''tukhesh, duchash''. His taxonomic designation ''Halicore tabernaculi'' did not last long (1843-1847) and has since been recombined several times, more recently as ''Dugong dugon'' (1963-1998).<br/>Three sources:

*[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/512932/Eduard-Ruppell ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. "Eduard Rüppell"]

*[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/512932/Eduard-Ruppell ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. "Eduard Rüppell"]

*[http://www.probertencyclopedia.com/B_DUGONG.HTM The Probert Encyclopedia of Nature. "Dugong".] "A variety [of dugong] was discovered in the Red Sea by Ruppell, and called Halicore tabernaculi."

*[http://www.probertencyclopedia.com/B_DUGONG.HTM The Probert Encyclopedia of Nature. "Dugong".] "A variety [of dugong] was discovered in the Red Sea by Ruppell, and called Halicore tabernaculi."