Changes

The Orthodox Greek Bible since the 1st century has always included Psalm 151 as appended to Psalm 150, and the Third Book of the Maccabees, and, in an appendix to the Old Testament, the Fourth Book of the Maccabees, a treatise on the superiority of wisdom. These were never included among the Protestant Apocrypha in the 16th century—but they also have never been included among the books of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles. Martin Luther and the leaders of the Reformation did not address their canonical status, and did not discuss them. The Book of 1 Esdras has always been included in the Orthodox Bible among the Historical Books between 2 Chronicles and Ezra, but is regarded since the Council of Trent by both Catholics and Protestants as non-canonical and apocryphal and is not included by them in the Old Testament. The Latin apocalyptic 2 Esdras, which was never part of the Greek Old Testament, but was included in the Vulgate, is not included in the canon of standard Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Bibles, and is included with 1 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh in the Protestant Apocrypha. The same 2 Esdras is included as ''Ezra Sutuel'' in the canon of the Ethiopic Bible of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Orthodox Ethiopian Church]], which as a whole differs both in the Old and New Testament from that of any other churches. The Ethiopic canonical books, written in the [[Geez language]] and on parchment, are numerous. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 46 books of the Old Testament and 35 books of the New Testament, bringing the total of canonized books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible to 81. The canon of the Ethiopic Bible appears to date back to the 5th century. See [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1292150/Worlds-illustrated-Christian-bible-discovered-Ethiopian-monastery.html World's first illustrated Christian bible discovered at Ethiopian monastery, By Daily Mail Reporter. Updated: 11:33 EST, 5 July 2010] Carbon dating gives a date between 330 and 650.</ref> The English King James Version of the Protestant Bible has 593,493 words in the Old Testament and 181,253 words in the New Testament.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html ChristianAnswers.Net. About the Bible] (christiananswers.net)</ref>

The Orthodox Greek Bible since the 1st century has always included Psalm 151 as appended to Psalm 150, and the Third Book of the Maccabees, and, in an appendix to the Old Testament, the Fourth Book of the Maccabees, a treatise on the superiority of wisdom. These were never included among the Protestant Apocrypha in the 16th century—but they also have never been included among the books of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles. Martin Luther and the leaders of the Reformation did not address their canonical status, and did not discuss them. The Book of 1 Esdras has always been included in the Orthodox Bible among the Historical Books between 2 Chronicles and Ezra, but is regarded since the Council of Trent by both Catholics and Protestants as non-canonical and apocryphal and is not included by them in the Old Testament. The Latin apocalyptic 2 Esdras, which was never part of the Greek Old Testament, but was included in the Vulgate, is not included in the canon of standard Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Bibles, and is included with 1 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh in the Protestant Apocrypha. The same 2 Esdras is included as ''Ezra Sutuel'' in the canon of the Ethiopic Bible of the [[Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church|Orthodox Ethiopian Church]], which as a whole differs both in the Old and New Testament from that of any other churches. The Ethiopic canonical books, written in the [[Geez language]] and on parchment, are numerous. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 46 books of the Old Testament and 35 books of the New Testament, bringing the total of canonized books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible to 81. The canon of the Ethiopic Bible appears to date back to the 5th century. See [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1292150/Worlds-illustrated-Christian-bible-discovered-Ethiopian-monastery.html World's first illustrated Christian bible discovered at Ethiopian monastery, By Daily Mail Reporter. Updated: 11:33 EST, 5 July 2010] Carbon dating gives a date between 330 and 650.</ref> The English King James Version of the Protestant Bible has 593,493 words in the Old Testament and 181,253 words in the New Testament.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/about.html ChristianAnswers.Net. About the Bible] (christiananswers.net)</ref>

    

    

==name=%253D

==name=%2525253D

The word "Bible" had its origins in an ancient [[Phoenicia]]n seaport called [[Byblos]], which was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of writing material based on the [[papyrus]] or byblos reed, used extensively in antiquity for making [[scroll]]s and [[book]]s.  The [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''biblos'' was based upon this, and it came to be the word for ''book'' (a small book was termed ''biblion''), and by the 2nd century A.D. Greek [[Christianity|Christians]] had called the Scriptures ''ta Biblia'' ('''τα βιβλία''' ''the books''), which was transferred to [[Latin]] by dropping the ''ta''; the word made its way to Old French where the plural was dropped in favor of the singular, hence becoming the [[English]] word ''Bible''.<ref>Unger, pg 143; Moulton; Blass</ref>

The word "Bible" had its origins in an ancient [[Phoenicia]]n seaport called [[Byblos]], which was so-named as a result of the trade and manufacture of writing material based on the [[papyrus]] or byblos reed, used extensively in antiquity for making [[scroll]]s and [[book]]s.  The [[Greek language|Greek]] word ''biblos'' was based upon this, and it came to be the word for ''book'' (a small book was termed ''biblion''), and by the 2nd century A.D. Greek [[Christianity|Christians]] had called the Scriptures ''ta Biblia'' ('''τα βιβλία''' ''the books''), which was transferred to [[Latin]] by dropping the ''ta''; the word made its way to Old French where the plural was dropped in favor of the singular, hence becoming the [[English]] word ''Bible''.<ref>Unger, pg 143; Moulton; Blass</ref>

The Bible is the first book in antiquity to declare the revelation that death is not final, and that there will be a physical resurrection of all the dead at the end of time. In its collected writings the people of God have testified to the revelation of the total condemnation of the wicked who have chosen to reject both him and the gift of communion with him, and in it they have collectively testified to the revelation of the total salvation from ruin and the gift of communion with him of those who have not resisted him and his way of living and acting and whom he has made holy by his own power alone. No other book is like it. The whole community of believers past and present in its leadership has discerned and testified to this day that the whole collection of the books of the Bible is inspired by God, and that God is their true author. The Bible is the Word of God expressed in the written form of human language. Its chief value is as a stable unchanging resource for understanding the mind of God, for establishing a just society with just laws and true justice, for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that each leader of the community (each "''man of God''") may be fully equipped for every good work as a witness to the one true God. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2timothy%203:16-17&version=KJV 2 Timothy 3:16-17]

The Bible is the first book in antiquity to declare the revelation that death is not final, and that there will be a physical resurrection of all the dead at the end of time. In its collected writings the people of God have testified to the revelation of the total condemnation of the wicked who have chosen to reject both him and the gift of communion with him, and in it they have collectively testified to the revelation of the total salvation from ruin and the gift of communion with him of those who have not resisted him and his way of living and acting and whom he has made holy by his own power alone. No other book is like it. The whole community of believers past and present in its leadership has discerned and testified to this day that the whole collection of the books of the Bible is inspired by God, and that God is their true author. The Bible is the Word of God expressed in the written form of human language. Its chief value is as a stable unchanging resource for understanding the mind of God, for establishing a just society with just laws and true justice, for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that each leader of the community (each "''man of God''") may be fully equipped for every good work as a witness to the one true God. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2timothy%203:16-17&version=KJV 2 Timothy 3:16-17]

But just as Jesus has appeared to many to be no more than an ordinary human being, and just as Christianity has appeared to many to be no more than a merely human institution of religion, so the Bible too has appeared to many to be no more than a traditional collection of ordinary human literature. However, even the tools of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|ordinary literary criticism]] have clearly shown the Bible to be more than a collection of merely human literature, and its scriptures to be much more than ordinary human writings.<ref name=LiteraryCriticism%252F>

But just as Jesus has appeared to many to be no more than an ordinary human being, and just as Christianity has appeared to many to be no more than a merely human institution of religion, so the Bible too has appeared to many to be no more than a traditional collection of ordinary human literature. However, even the tools of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|ordinary literary criticism]] have clearly shown the Bible to be more than a collection of merely human literature, and its scriptures to be much more than ordinary human writings.<ref name=LiteraryCriticism%2525252F>

==Books of the Bible==

==Books of the Bible==

==Non-uniformity of language and style of original Scriptures==

==Non-uniformity of language and style of original Scriptures==

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if they are one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way throughout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, embedded in the Hebrew within the narrative of the deeds of the prophetess Debora, have in the Song of Deborah (Judges chapter 5) a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew than that of the main text of the book, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself, plainly evident to any person who has studied Hebrew language. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. The human authors, inspired by God, were careful to preserve the integrity of the original inspired songs which they had faithfully recorded or otherwise copied and included in their narratives. There are even different Hebrew languages (rather dialects) from the same historical period but from different authors living during the same time, having come from different origins and cultural levels.<ref name=Steinberg%252F>

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the original languages of Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, exhibit a non uniformity of style and language. This is in sharp contrast to most modern translations which treat the Scriptures throughout as if they are one book instead of the many books they are. Modern translations can be erudite, dignified, folksy and common, clear and geared for the "common man", or replete with language resonant with literary associations for the "accomplished" reader. But they are that way throughout. The Biblical originals, on the other hand, for example, embedded in the Hebrew within the narrative of the deeds of the prophetess Debora, have in the Song of Deborah (Judges chapter 5) a much more ancient and even archaic Hebrew than that of the main text of the book, probably emanating from a chant from the time of Deborah herself, plainly evident to any person who has studied Hebrew language. The same with the narrative and poetic portions concerning Moses. The human authors, inspired by God, were careful to preserve the integrity of the original inspired songs which they had faithfully recorded or otherwise copied and included in their narratives. There are even different Hebrew languages (rather dialects) from the same historical period but from different authors living during the same time, having come from different origins and cultural levels.<ref name=Steinberg%2525252F>

For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of language in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel (a technique called "back translation"), it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene", and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations.

For the New Testament, an example of non-uniformity can be found in the stark differences of language in the Gospel of Luke, written by Luke the physician. The early accounts, those concerning the birth of Jesus and early life, are written in a stilted and often crude Greek while the rest of the Gospel is written in fine Greek befitting of the background and ability of a learned physician. But when the stilted and crude Greek is retranslated, word for word and phrase for phrase, into the Hebrew current in the first century in most parts of Israel (a technique called "back translation"), it becomes excellent Hebrew - Mishnaic Hebrew. This is because of the intent and fastidiousness of Luke, who derived his material, as he says, from people that had been "on the scene", and his success in transmitting it faithfully as he had received it. Both the Old and New Testaments, for various reasons, exhibit little or no concern to "level through" or override the content of what they are saying by stylistic considerations.

See [[Badger skins (Bible)#Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries|Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries]]

See [[Badger skins (Bible)#Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries|Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries]]

The original meaning of ''' תחשׁ ''t'''<small>a</small>'''ḥ'''<small>a</small>'''š / taḥash / tachash / techash / t'khesh''''' has been debated for centuries. According to ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' the AV and JPS 1917 translation ''[[badger]]'' has no basis in fact.<ref name=Enc%252EJud%252E>''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' 2nd Edition Volume 19:435. TAḤASH.</ref><ref>''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'' page 161. Badger Skins</ref> Translating ערת תחשׁים ''skins taḥashim'' as "badgers' skins" also presents a [[contradiction]]. The Book of Leviticus, chapter 11, forbids touching the carcasses of all animals that walk on '''paws''', because they are '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [[Taboo|unclean]]. This is no trivial matter, as [[God]] Himself is thus represented in the KJV as commanding the handling and use of skins of carcasses He forbids the Israelites to touch, and as commanding them to cover the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant with unclean skins and then commanding them to remove from the camp all that is unclean so that nothing unclean will be seen by Him in the camp ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%205:2-3&version=KJV Numbers 5:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2023:14&version=KJV Deuteronomy 23:14]). They are forbidden to defile the tabernacle, the sanctuary of the L<small>ORD</small> ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:2-3&version=KJV Leviticus 20:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2021:10-12&version=KJV 21:10-12]), and they are commanded to cover it with '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [http://bibleapps.com/hebrew/2931.htm unclean/polluting/defiling "badgers' skins" (KJV).] Even on the sole [[hermeneutics|hermeneutical principle]] of "Scripture interprets Scripture" this is not accurate, and it presents a serious difficulty. [[John Grigg Hewlett]], D.D. (''Bible difficulties explained'' 1860) says:<blockquote>"It would involve a great inconsistency, that the ark of the covenant, which was considered so holy, that no human hand could touch it with impunity, except the hands of those who had been consecrated to God, that it should constantly be covered with the skins of unclean animals...Therefore the coverings of purple, or blue, which our translators have called 'badgers' skins', were of a material that was accounted pure, and could not impart any impurity to those who prepared them, or to those whose office it was to adjust them amidst the vicissitudes of the camp of Israel."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=J5kCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA159&SOURCE=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=badger&f=false ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860) "Badgers' skins" pages 159–163].</ref></blockquote>

The original meaning of ''' תחשׁ ''t'''<small>a</small>'''ḥ'''<small>a</small>'''š / taḥash / tachash / techash / t'khesh''''' has been debated for centuries. According to ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' the AV and JPS 1917 translation ''[[badger]]'' has no basis in fact.<ref name=Enc%2525252EJud%2525252E>''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' 2nd Edition Volume 19:435. TAḤASH.</ref><ref>''Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary'' page 161. Badger Skins</ref> Translating ערת תחשׁים ''skins taḥashim'' as "badgers' skins" also presents a [[contradiction]]. The Book of Leviticus, chapter 11, forbids touching the carcasses of all animals that walk on '''paws''', because they are '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [[Taboo|unclean]]. This is no trivial matter, as [[God]] Himself is thus represented in the KJV as commanding the handling and use of skins of carcasses He forbids the Israelites to touch, and as commanding them to cover the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant with unclean skins and then commanding them to remove from the camp all that is unclean so that nothing unclean will be seen by Him in the camp ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers%205:2-3&version=KJV Numbers 5:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2023:14&version=KJV Deuteronomy 23:14]). They are forbidden to defile the tabernacle, the sanctuary of the L<small>ORD</small> ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2020:2-3&version=KJV Leviticus 20:2-3]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2021:10-12&version=KJV 21:10-12]), and they are commanded to cover it with '''טָמֵא''' ''tame'' [http://bibleapps.com/hebrew/2931.htm unclean/polluting/defiling "badgers' skins" (KJV).] Even on the sole [[hermeneutics|hermeneutical principle]] of "Scripture interprets Scripture" this is not accurate, and it presents a serious difficulty. [[John Grigg Hewlett]], D.D. (''Bible difficulties explained'' 1860) says:<blockquote>"It would involve a great inconsistency, that the ark of the covenant, which was considered so holy, that no human hand could touch it with impunity, except the hands of those who had been consecrated to God, that it should constantly be covered with the skins of unclean animals...Therefore the coverings of purple, or blue, which our translators have called 'badgers' skins', were of a material that was accounted pure, and could not impart any impurity to those who prepared them, or to those whose office it was to adjust them amidst the vicissitudes of the camp of Israel."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=J5kCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA159&SOURCE=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=badger&f=false ''Bible difficulties explained'' (1860) "Badgers' skins" pages 159–163].</ref></blockquote>

The KJV was first published in 1611, a year after the [[Douay-Rheims|Douay-Rheims Bible]]. The later KJV revision of 1769 <ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html Changes in the King James Version]</ref> is the version generally published today as the [[King James Bible]], and is the form of the text cited here:

The KJV was first published in 1611, a year after the [[Douay-Rheims|Douay-Rheims Bible]]. The later KJV revision of 1769 <ref>[http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html Changes in the King James Version]</ref> is the version generally published today as the [[King James Bible]], and is the form of the text cited here:

*[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%252F> 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%2525252F> 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."