Changes

Bible (view source)

Revision as of 02:16, September 16, 2026

12 bytes removed , September 16

Remove unwanted space before period preceding reference

Line 456: Line 456:

The ''Acts of the Apostles'' are a continuance of the Gospels, documenting the history of the early Church, beginning immediately following Jesus' death and resurrection. Some lists put Acts as a separate category from the Gospels.

−

Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Eusebius, in his ''Ecclesiastical History'', says: <blockquote>Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it from necessity. Matthew also, having '''first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew''' when on the point of going also to other nations, '''committed it to writing in his native tongue''', and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. But after, when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three Gospels previously written, having been distributed among all and also handed to him, say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ, among the first of his deeds, and at the commencement of the Gospel. And this was the truth. —Book III, Chapter XXIV.<ref>''The Ecclesiastical History Of Eusebius Pamphilus: Bishop Of Caesarea, In Palestine'', translated from Greek, by the Rev. C. F. Crusé, A.M., assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania. With Notes from the Edition of Valesius. London: George Bell and Sons, York Street, Covent Garden. 1874. ''Legacy Reprint Series''. Book III, Chapter XXIV The order of the Gospels. page 97</ref> (Boldface emphasis added) .</blockquote> Eusebius relates the already-existing tradition in his day that Matthew wrote the first Gospel. In every manuscript of the New Testament, Matthew is always placed first, and for almost 1900 years the traditional view prevailed unchallenged that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This is called the [[Augustinian hypothesis]], which holds that Matthew was the first Gospel, written by Matthew the Evangelist. Mark, according to tradition a Roman, and a companion of Peter, was the author of the second Gospel, but beginning in the 19th century Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, together with other German scholars, abused the literary tools of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|historical-critical methods]] in opposition to Christian tradition, declared on their authority as German scholars that [[Gospel of Mark|Mark's Gospel]] was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. This theory is called "Marcan priority", and it was aggressively spread as part of [[Otto von Bismarck|Bismarck's]] anti-Catholic 'Kulturkampf' policy .<ref>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/KULTGOS.TXT Kulturkampf and the Gospel, by John Beaumont] [http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer%28n%29.htm Church in History. The ChurchinHistory Information Centre. BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS 1870 - 1914, by William R. Farmer (University of Dallas) Editor of A NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY. The theory that Mark's Gospel was published before Matthew's is widely held in German and English-speaking countries. This article shows how this theory, with little supporting evidence, came to be spread as part of Bismarck's anti-Catholic 'Kulturkampf' policy. BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM. THE FOUR GOSPELS. 1992] (churchinhistory.org)</ref> This view is widely held by liberal biblical scholars in German and English-speaking countries. In the United States acceptance of Marcan Priority has often been a test of the "academic competency" of those faculty members who teach Biblical Studies .<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=UYKvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=academic+persecution+regarding+Augustinian+hypothesis&source=bl&ots=iDysvbe5ii&sig=oNOrQku42-Tx-n-yBzhQtzAeQls&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VHKkVNa7IceiyAStsYKYAw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=academic%20persecution%20regarding%20Augustinian%20hypothesis&f=false Mark's Gospel--Prior or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order, By David Neville]</ref> Luke is traditionally considered to be the author of both the third Gospel and the ''Acts''.

+

Of the authors, only Matthew and John had met Jesus; they were among His disciples during His earthly ministry. Eusebius, in his ''Ecclesiastical History'', says: <blockquote>Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it from necessity. Matthew also, having '''first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew''' when on the point of going also to other nations, '''committed it to writing in his native tongue''', and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. But after, when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three Gospels previously written, having been distributed among all and also handed to him, say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ, among the first of his deeds, and at the commencement of the Gospel. And this was the truth. —Book III, Chapter XXIV.<ref>''The Ecclesiastical History Of Eusebius Pamphilus: Bishop Of Caesarea, In Palestine'', translated from Greek, by the Rev. C. F. Crusé, A.M., assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania. With Notes from the Edition of Valesius. London: George Bell and Sons, York Street, Covent Garden. 1874. ''Legacy Reprint Series''. Book III, Chapter XXIV The order of the Gospels. page 97</ref> (Boldface emphasis added) .</blockquote> Eusebius relates the already-existing tradition in his day that Matthew wrote the first Gospel. In every manuscript of the New Testament, Matthew is always placed first, and for almost 1900 years the traditional view prevailed unchallenged that Matthew was the first Gospel written. This is called the [[Augustinian hypothesis]], which holds that Matthew was the first Gospel, written by Matthew the Evangelist. Mark, according to tradition a Roman, and a companion of Peter, was the author of the second Gospel, but beginning in the 19th century Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, together with other German scholars, abused the literary tools of [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|historical-critical methods]] in opposition to Christian tradition, declared on their authority as German scholars that [[Gospel of Mark|Mark's Gospel]] was the first to be written down, about A.D. 50. This theory is called "Marcan priority", and it was aggressively spread as part of [[Otto von Bismarck|Bismarck's]] anti-Catholic 'Kulturkampf' policy.<ref>[http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/KULTGOS.TXT Kulturkampf and the Gospel, by John Beaumont] [http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer%28n%29.htm Church in History. The ChurchinHistory Information Centre. BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS 1870 - 1914, by William R. Farmer (University of Dallas) Editor of A NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY. The theory that Mark's Gospel was published before Matthew's is widely held in German and English-speaking countries. This article shows how this theory, with little supporting evidence, came to be spread as part of Bismarck's anti-Catholic 'Kulturkampf' policy. BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM. THE FOUR GOSPELS. 1992] (churchinhistory.org)</ref> This view is widely held by liberal biblical scholars in German and English-speaking countries. In the United States acceptance of Marcan Priority has often been a test of the "academic competency" of those faculty members who teach Biblical Studies.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=UYKvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=academic+persecution+regarding+Augustinian+hypothesis&source=bl&ots=iDysvbe5ii&sig=oNOrQku42-Tx-n-yBzhQtzAeQls&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VHKkVNa7IceiyAStsYKYAw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=academic%20persecution%20regarding%20Augustinian%20hypothesis&f=false Mark's Gospel--Prior or Posterior?: A Reappraisal of the Phenomenon of Order, By David Neville]</ref> Luke is traditionally considered to be the author of both the third Gospel and the ''Acts''.

*[[Gospel of Matthew]]

*[[Gospel of Mark]]

Line 655: Line 655:

−

Beginning in the 17th century, the same century in which it was published, Protestant scholars, orientalists, hebraists and linguists began pointing out defects in the [[King James Bible|Authorized King James Version]] .<ref>Isaac H. Hall. [http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html ''The Revised New Testament and History of Revision'' (1881) "Defects of the King James Version"]

+

Beginning in the 17th century, the same century in which it was published, Protestant scholars, orientalists, hebraists and linguists began pointing out defects in the [[King James Bible|Authorized King James Version]].<ref>Isaac H. Hall. [http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html ''The Revised New Testament and History of Revision'' (1881) "Defects of the King James Version"]

:"Our translators of the seventeenth century, in a great many instances, misunderstood the sense."</ref> One of these was the translation of 'orot tachashim as "badgers' skins", because it so plainly violates the biblical context of [[Leviticus]] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:4-8&version=KJV chapter 11:4-8], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:24-28&version=KJV 24-29], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2011:42-45&version=KJV 42-45], and [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%205&version=KJV Leviticus chapter 5]. "Badgers' skins" is the King James Version (AV) translation of the Hebrew word '''תחשׁ''' '''''taḥash''''', and of the Hebrew term (singular) '''עור תחשׁ''' '''''uwr taḥash / 'or taḥash''' "skin taḥash"'', and of the plural form '''ערת תחשׁים''' '''''uwr't taḥashim / 'orot taḥashim''' "skins taḥashim"''. [[Adam Clarke]] himself ([http://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/exodus/25.htm ''Adam Clarke's Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible'' (1831) Exodus 25]) has pointed out the substantial inaccuracy of the KJV interpretive translation:

:"badgers' skins, (rather violet-coloured skins)...Badgers' skins — ערת תחשים oroth techashim. Few terms have afforded greater perplexity to critics and commentators than this."

−

See [[Badger skins (Bible)#Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries|Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries]]The original meaning of ''' תחשׁ ''t'''a'''ḥ'''a'''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.Jud.>''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 LORD ([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>[https://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>

+

See [[Badger skins (Bible)#Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries|Protestant commentaries 17th through 19th centuries]]The original meaning of ''' תחשׁ ''t'''a'''ḥ'''a'''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.Jud.>''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 LORD ([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>[https://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:

Line 686: Line 686:

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 sequitur'' 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, detestable, 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 LORD 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, detestable, 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 LORD 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.ORG —Rashi's commentary Vayikra-Leviticus-Chapter 11],

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

Line 694: Line 694:

*[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.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.?] —''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. See [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13646-sifra ''Jewish Encyclopedia'': Sifra]; ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' Vol 18 San-Sol 18:560-562 SIFRA; 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 LORD is with us'? But behold, the false pen of the [[Scribes (Bible)|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). 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.?] —''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. See [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13646-sifra ''Jewish Encyclopedia'': Sifra]; ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' Vol 18 San-Sol 18:560-562 SIFRA; 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 LORD is with us'? But behold, the false pen of the [[Scribes (Bible)|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). Three sources:

*[https://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."

Line 705: Line 705:

:'''''Halicore australis''''' Owen 1847 (this nomenclature lasted 51 years)

:'''''Halicore cetacea''''' Heuglin, recombined as '''''Halicore dugung''''' Trouessart 1898 (this nomenclature lasted 65 years)

−

:It was recombined as "'''''Dugong dugon'''''" Scheffer and Rice 1963 also Husar 1978, Domning 1994, 1996, and Rice 1998 (this nomenclature has lasted for 35 years+).</ref> The 1843 published ''scientific'' nomen ''Halicore tabernaculi'', expressing as it did the personal opinion of a ''professional zoologist'', Eduard Rüppell, was soon discarded by the scientific community, but it has nevertheless persuaded many to this day that science has established that the ''dugong'' was indeed the animal whose skins were used to cover the tabernacle. However, it has no fins or scales. According to the Bible, this creature is an abomination to the Jews (loathsome / abhorrent / detestable / filthy / disgusting) (Leviticus 11:10-12) .<ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003867?q=Bible&p=sen Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY: Insight, Volume 2 it-2 pp. 883-884 Sealskin.]</ref> [[Jesus]] himself commented on the practice of constantly seeking pretexts for making exceptions to the ''[[Torah]]:''<blockquote>"You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" (Mark 7:9 RSV).<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%207:9-13&version=KJV Mark 7:9-13]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:1-9&version=KJV Matthew 15:1-9]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2023:16-22&version=KJV 23:16-22]</ref></blockquote>

+

:It was recombined as "'''''Dugong dugon'''''" Scheffer and Rice 1963 also Husar 1978, Domning 1994, 1996, and Rice 1998 (this nomenclature has lasted for 35 years+).</ref> The 1843 published ''scientific'' nomen ''Halicore tabernaculi'', expressing as it did the personal opinion of a ''professional zoologist'', Eduard Rüppell, was soon discarded by the scientific community, but it has nevertheless persuaded many to this day that science has established that the ''dugong'' was indeed the animal whose skins were used to cover the tabernacle. However, it has no fins or scales. According to the Bible, this creature is an abomination to the Jews (loathsome / abhorrent / detestable / filthy / disgusting) (Leviticus 11:10-12).<ref>[http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003867?q=Bible&p=sen Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY: Insight, Volume 2 it-2 pp. 883-884 Sealskin.]</ref> [[Jesus]] himself commented on the practice of constantly seeking pretexts for making exceptions to the ''[[Torah]]:''<blockquote>"You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" (Mark 7:9 RSV).<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%207:9-13&version=KJV Mark 7:9-13]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2015:1-9&version=KJV Matthew 15:1-9]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2023:16-22&version=KJV 23:16-22]</ref></blockquote>

====King James Only====

−

Advocates of the [[King James Only]] movement are fully persuaded that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible always chose the correct reading [interpretation] of the biblical text, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself, and that therefore the translation ''badgers' skins'' is the most accurate possible English translation of the Hebrew ערת תחשׁים and עור תחשׁ and תחשׁ. They declare without reservation that the King James Bible is the divinely preserved, infallible Word of God, and that it is the only and final authority on all matters of faith and morals and practice for the whole of the English-speaking world .<ref>James D. Price. [http://www.truth.sg/resources/KJV%20Onlyism%20-%20a%20New%20Sect%20-%20Introduction%20-%20Dr%20J%20Price.pdf ''King James Onlyism: A New Sect.'' Introduction: The King James Only Doctrine Is a New Idea].</ref>

+

Advocates of the [[King James Only]] movement are fully persuaded that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible always chose the correct reading [interpretation] of the biblical text, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself, and that therefore the translation ''badgers' skins'' is the most accurate possible English translation of the Hebrew ערת תחשׁים and עור תחשׁ and תחשׁ. They declare without reservation that the King James Bible is the divinely preserved, infallible Word of God, and that it is the only and final authority on all matters of faith and morals and practice for the whole of the English-speaking world.<ref>James D. Price. [http://www.truth.sg/resources/KJV%20Onlyism%20-%20a%20New%20Sect%20-%20Introduction%20-%20Dr%20J%20Price.pdf ''King James Onlyism: A New Sect.'' Introduction: The King James Only Doctrine Is a New Idea].</ref>

:–See the [http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm '''''Preface to the King James Version of 1611'''''].<blockquote>"...wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, '''is the word of God'''..."</blockquote>

Line 719: Line 719:

Although the KJV remains the most popular English version, the 19th through 21st centuries have seen an explosion in the number of English translations available. For a list of translations, see below.

−

==Other Languages==Today, the Bible has been translated into languages spoken by the vast majority of people on Earth, and even portions of it have been translated into the fictional language of [[Klingon]] from the world of [[Star Trek]], .<ref>[http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible Translation Project]</ref> The past two decades saw the emergence of [[Internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as [[E-Sword]] and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

+

==Other Languages==Today, the Bible has been translated into languages spoken by the vast majority of people on Earth, and even portions of it have been translated into the fictional language of [[Klingon]] from the world of [[Star Trek]],.<ref>[http://www.kli.org/wiki/index.php?Klingon%20Bible%20Translation%20Project Klingon Bible Translation Project]</ref> The past two decades saw the emergence of [[Internet]] use; the creation of the Bible as a software program was inevitable, and several, such as [[E-Sword]] and Theophilos, are available at no cost with a wealth of Bible-study material as well.

==Bible Scientific Foreknowledge==

Line 761: Line 761:

:Philemon 1:11, Ὀνήσιμον—ἄχρηστον—εὔχρηστον ''Onesimon—achreston—euchreston''. Onesimus in Greek literally means "profitable". In the Greek New Testament, "useless" is ἄχρηστον achrēston, and "useful" is εὔχρηστον euchrēston. The prefix "a-" is a negative, meaning "not-". The prefix "eu-" is a positive, meaning "good-". The phrase in the Greek text of Philemon verse 11 is: τόν ποτέ σοι '''ἄχρηστον''' , νυνὶ δὲ καὶ σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ '''εὔχρηστον'''.

−

:Matthew 16:18 σὐ εἶ '''Πέτρος''' (a huge rock), καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ '''πέτρᾳ''' (huge boulder, rock) οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν .<ref>See Strong's numbers [http://biblehub.com/greek/4073.htm ''4073''] and [http://biblehub.com/greek/4074.htm''4074'']. Curiously, Strong's definition of "small rock, pebble", is inaccurate: "''properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway''". Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

+

:Matthew 16:18 σὐ εἶ '''Πέτρος''' (a huge rock), καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ '''πέτρᾳ''' (huge boulder, rock) οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.<ref>See Strong's numbers [http://biblehub.com/greek/4073.htm ''4073''] and [http://biblehub.com/greek/4074.htm''4074'']. Curiously, Strong's definition of "small rock, pebble", is inaccurate: "''properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway''". Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament.

:*Joseph H. Thayer, '''Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the [[New Testament]]''' (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507

:*D.A. Carson, “'''Matthew''',” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., '''The Expositor’s Bible Commentary''' (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.

Line 777: Line 777:

:In Matthew 3:9 (see Luke 3:8) John the Baptist says δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ Ἀβραάμ ''dynatai o Theos ek ton lithos touton egeirai tekna to Abraham''. The Hebrew words for the Greek λίθοι ''lithoi'' ("stones") and τέκνα ''tekna'' ("children") are similar in sound: "God can from these stones (אֲבָנִים ’ăbânîm) raise up children (בָּנִים bânîm) to Abraham."

−

In the paronomasia of John 2:19-21 Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple and to raising it up again: {{cquote|Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.}} Scholars have pointed out the multiple examples of paronomasia in the profound double meanings used in John's Gospel .<ref>

+

In the paronomasia of John 2:19-21 Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple and to raising it up again: {{cquote|Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.}} Scholars have pointed out the multiple examples of paronomasia in the profound double meanings used in John's Gospel.<ref>

*[https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdn/p/paronomasia.html Paronomasia - Bible Dictionaries: Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament (studylight.org)]

RoadtoEmmaus2

apieditor, Automoderated users, edit, ratelimit-exempt

627

edits

Changes

Bible (view source)

Revision as of 02:16, September 16, 2026

Navigation menu

Search