-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
Oh, now I'm really confused. Exodus 4:24-26
The NRSV says:
On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, “Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” [SUP]26 [/SUP]So he let him alone. It was then she said, “A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.”
(many other translations say Zipporah threw her son's foreskin at Moses' feet)
The Message says:
On the journey back, as they camped for the night, God met Moses and would have killed him but Zipporah took a flint knife and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ member with it. She said, “Oh! You’re a bridegroom of blood to me!” Then God let him go. She used the phrase “bridegroom of blood” because of the circumcision.
The NRSV says:
On the way, at a place where they spent the night, the Lord met him and tried to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ feet with it, and said, “Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” [SUP]26 [/SUP]So he let him alone. It was then she said, “A bridegroom of blood by circumcision.”
(many other translations say Zipporah threw her son's foreskin at Moses' feet)
The Message says:
On the journey back, as they camped for the night, God met Moses and would have killed him but Zipporah took a flint knife and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched Moses’ member with it. She said, “Oh! You’re a bridegroom of blood to me!” Then God let him go. She used the phrase “bridegroom of blood” because of the circumcision.
Well, we are talking cutting off part of the son's "MEMBER" with a flint knife. And the conversation is between a husband and wife, talking bridegroom relationship through the blood of that foreskin.
I'd say the prudes back then might have been barely able to handle what pretty obviously went down in the "touching" department. I think they chose to use "FEET". to keep it PC.
I'd say the prudes back then might have been barely able to handle what pretty obviously went down in the "touching" department. I think they chose to use "FEET". to keep it PC.
T
Yes, I guess was rather sheltered. I was first exposed to The Message about 10 years ago. And many of the translations I read mentioned Zipporah throwing her son's foreskin at Moses' feet. I guess the 'throwing' bit and the 'feet' made sense to me. Not that this part of the story ever made much sense to me up until 5 or so years ago. But that it refers to Moses' member, not feet, makes a lot more sense given the context of the story. Thanks for your help, brother. 
Well, did you ever stop to think that Jewish men were only accepted into new towns and synagogues IF they could prove they were circumcised? How do you suppose they did this? Did they carry a medical card or wear an EMT bracelet to prove the fact?
I don't think so. I'm fairly sure there is only one way to show the proof.
I don't think so. I'm fairly sure there is only one way to show the proof.
R
i didn't like the message...
it is more than just a paraphrase...there is actually additional text in it that has absolutely no basis in the hebrew and greek...i know the translator often did this simply to clarify or increase the vividness of the english translation...but i would have liked to see much more transparency as to when the translator basically inserted phrases of his own invention...
also the message includes numerous word choices and phrases that have seem to have been influenced by the language of the new age movement...for example in the message translation of the lord's prayer it says 'as above so below'...a phrase familiar in wicca and in hermeticism...instead of 'on earth as it is in heaven'... i am not going to guess at the translator's intentions here...but running across these kinds of things in a bible translation is disturbing to say the least...
finally i don't really find the message's attempt at 'contemporary' language to be particularly appealing or even convincing...to me it often sounds more like those times when you were a teenager and your parents were trying to be 'hip'...and sometimes the message's renderings really come off as almost immature...
it is more than just a paraphrase...there is actually additional text in it that has absolutely no basis in the hebrew and greek...i know the translator often did this simply to clarify or increase the vividness of the english translation...but i would have liked to see much more transparency as to when the translator basically inserted phrases of his own invention...
also the message includes numerous word choices and phrases that have seem to have been influenced by the language of the new age movement...for example in the message translation of the lord's prayer it says 'as above so below'...a phrase familiar in wicca and in hermeticism...instead of 'on earth as it is in heaven'... i am not going to guess at the translator's intentions here...but running across these kinds of things in a bible translation is disturbing to say the least...
finally i don't really find the message's attempt at 'contemporary' language to be particularly appealing or even convincing...to me it often sounds more like those times when you were a teenager and your parents were trying to be 'hip'...and sometimes the message's renderings really come off as almost immature...
in re: Exodus 4:25 --
see, here's where it is helpful to be able to look at the Hebrew, because the question you two came to is "is it supposed to say 'feet' or 'member' ?" and you're not sure if you should trust all these other English versions, because maybe they were just prudish translators..
someone who knows better can correct or back me up, but i used some websites that show the original languages, and they all say "feet"
so why does the Message say "member" ?
who knows? it wasn't Mr. Peterson's intention to be literal, but to present his own personal impressions & interpretations. if there's an intrinsic problem with paraphrasing or giving ones own impressions, then we're all in trouble because here we are on a forum doing pretty much that every day. but my issue with the Message is that it's presented as scripture, even though it's obviously not literal. there's a place for it - and i think that's like where you would place a devotional book or a commentary; alongside a literal translation. not as a replacement for one.
see, here's where it is helpful to be able to look at the Hebrew, because the question you two came to is "is it supposed to say 'feet' or 'member' ?" and you're not sure if you should trust all these other English versions, because maybe they were just prudish translators..
someone who knows better can correct or back me up, but i used some websites that show the original languages, and they all say "feet"
so why does the Message say "member" ?
who knows? it wasn't Mr. Peterson's intention to be literal, but to present his own personal impressions & interpretations. if there's an intrinsic problem with paraphrasing or giving ones own impressions, then we're all in trouble because here we are on a forum doing pretty much that every day. but my issue with the Message is that it's presented as scripture, even though it's obviously not literal. there's a place for it - and i think that's like where you would place a devotional book or a commentary; alongside a literal translation. not as a replacement for one.
weird! never heard that one before. and most euphemisms make some kind of sense but..
gee, thanks Tintin, now in the back of my head all day i'm going to be trying to figure out how that works
i guess for whatever reason Peterson figured this makes more sense than Zipporah throwing the foreskins at his feet - which is a kind of universal expression of "deal with it"
???
gee, thanks Tintin, now in the back of my head all day i'm going to be trying to figure out how that works
i guess for whatever reason Peterson figured this makes more sense than Zipporah throwing the foreskins at his feet - which is a kind of universal expression of "deal with it"
???
T
weird! never heard that one before. and most euphemisms make some kind of sense but..
gee, thanks Tintin, now in the back of my head all day i'm going to be trying to figure out how that works
i guess for whatever reason Peterson figured this makes more sense than Zipporah throwing the foreskins at his feet - which is a kind of universal expression of "deal with it"
???
gee, thanks Tintin, now in the back of my head all day i'm going to be trying to figure out how that works
i guess for whatever reason Peterson figured this makes more sense than Zipporah throwing the foreskins at his feet - which is a kind of universal expression of "deal with it"
???