-
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.
L
Especially when you consider that it is also the name of a son of Nahor’s concubine, Reumah (Genesis 22:24).
They didn't tend to name children after animals, it was usually some quality they possessed. So the indication would be that she was beautiful or fine, and possibly born with a pinkish coloration.
I kind of like the idea that some rabbis put forward that it was a giant 6 colored, one horned beast. Probably not the case, but imagine this beast with a six colored coat, one horn and large enough that it only required one skin.
They didn't tend to name children after animals, it was usually some quality they possessed. So the indication would be that she was beautiful or fine, and possibly born with a pinkish coloration.
I kind of like the idea that some rabbis put forward that it was a giant 6 colored, one horned beast. Probably not the case, but imagine this beast with a six colored coat, one horn and large enough that it only required one skin.
This has been a fascinating thread to read - many thanks to the OP for posting it.
I can't claim to know what the original language or translation was, but I just checked the Bibles I currently have at home:
* Two used the wording, "badger skins."
* One said "dolphin or porpoise skins."
* And the last one I checked said "manatee skins."
I had no idea this passage has been translated into such a different variety of animals, if it was in fact a reference to a specific animal.
No wonder there's so much confusion, depending on which Bible a person is studying.
Thanks for a most interesting discussion!
I can't claim to know what the original language or translation was, but I just checked the Bibles I currently have at home:
* Two used the wording, "badger skins."
* One said "dolphin or porpoise skins."
* And the last one I checked said "manatee skins."
I had no idea this passage has been translated into such a different variety of animals, if it was in fact a reference to a specific animal.
No wonder there's so much confusion, depending on which Bible a person is studying.
Thanks for a most interesting discussion!
-
2
- Show all
I'm not trying to derail this thread, but this is exactly why the Lord never intended us to have multiple words of authority. One book, one faith, one Savior, etc...the more versions come out, the more chaos and confusion. Believe the KJV or not, but you have to admit there is confusion with multiple so called Bibles.
25:1-9. The LORD described to Moses the materials to be assembled for building the tabernacle. The Israelites were to bring a voluntary offering… from each person whose heart prompted him to give. The metals to be used in the construction were gold, silver, and bronze. Gold was listed first probably because it is the most precious. After the three metals four materials are listed: three colors of yarn and also linen. Fine linentranslates šēš, from an Egyptian word. “Egypt excelled in the production of linen, especially twined linen, where every thread was twisted from many strands. The Hebrew slaves must have learned many Egyptian arts and crafts… during their stay in Egypt” (R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, p. 189). Next was goat hair, ram skins… and hides of sea cows. “The sea cow (dugong dugong) is a herbivorous mammal native to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, and to this day the bedouin make sandals from its skin” (Ronald F. Youngblood, Exodus, p. 114; see comments on Eze 16:10, where the word “leather” is the same as that for “sea cow” in Ex.).
-
1
- Show all
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but even if there was only "one" Bible, you are assuming it would be the KJV -- the English KJV, correct?
But English is not even the original language that the Bible was written in.
Even if there was only one English-language Bible, there was would still be differences among interpretations and wordings because that one English Bible was still translated from other original languages.
No one language translates perfectly to another.
Every language and culture has differences that are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to translate into other languages.
So even if there was only one English-language Bible among English-speaking people, there would still be differences between wordings when it was translated into Chinese, Spanish, German, etc.
I am also guessing that KJV English does not translate well into many of the world's languages, if nothing else, due to differences in syntax and sentence structure?
But English is not even the original language that the Bible was written in.
Even if there was only one English-language Bible, there was would still be differences among interpretations and wordings because that one English Bible was still translated from other original languages.
No one language translates perfectly to another.
Every language and culture has differences that are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to translate into other languages.
So even if there was only one English-language Bible among English-speaking people, there would still be differences between wordings when it was translated into Chinese, Spanish, German, etc.
I am also guessing that KJV English does not translate well into many of the world's languages, if nothing else, due to differences in syntax and sentence structure?
-
2
-
1
- Show all
That sounds like it's a valid argument, but in fact it isn't.
It speculates on God's intent with no scriptural support. It's a veiled argument for KJV-onlyism, but when used as such, it is self-contradictory since the KJV was not the first complete English translation. Finally, it assumes that whichever translation is used, that the translators got absolutely everything absolutely correct. I have yet to come across any translation with that particular attribute.
It speculates on God's intent with no scriptural support. It's a veiled argument for KJV-onlyism, but when used as such, it is self-contradictory since the KJV was not the first complete English translation. Finally, it assumes that whichever translation is used, that the translators got absolutely everything absolutely correct. I have yet to come across any translation with that particular attribute.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
If the KJV was the only true translation, what happens to everyone else in the world who does not speak English?
Are they just out of luck, because, in reasoning of your post, the Bible was not meant to have different translations (but then why was it translated into English in the first place, and how was it decided that the English version was superior?), or should everyone else in the world (including "modern" English speakers) be forced to learn KJV English?
I know I certainly wouldn't have a prayer if I were expected to read the Bible in its original languages.
Loco, I apologize for derailing your thread, but these are honest questions. I have family members and friends who speak other languages and study the Bible in their mother tongues.
I am not trying to be argumentative at all, I'm just curious as to what those who think there is only one "true" translation believe should happen with those who don't speak English, or only speak English as an additional language.
Are they just out of luck, because, in reasoning of your post, the Bible was not meant to have different translations (but then why was it translated into English in the first place, and how was it decided that the English version was superior?), or should everyone else in the world (including "modern" English speakers) be forced to learn KJV English?
I know I certainly wouldn't have a prayer if I were expected to read the Bible in its original languages.
Loco, I apologize for derailing your thread, but these are honest questions. I have family members and friends who speak other languages and study the Bible in their mother tongues.
I am not trying to be argumentative at all, I'm just curious as to what those who think there is only one "true" translation believe should happen with those who don't speak English, or only speak English as an additional language.
Post Script to my last post (#31).
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that God knew very well that there would be multiple versions of the Bible the minute He created all the languages of the world at the Tower of Babel.
No one Bible interpretation could be perfectly applied or translated every language.
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that God knew very well that there would be multiple versions of the Bible the minute He created all the languages of the world at the Tower of Babel.
No one Bible interpretation could be perfectly applied or translated every language.
I am just wondering, how do you personally teach the Bible to people who don't speak your language?
What is your personal approach?
I agree that God did not promise a Bible in every language, but I am wondering what your alternative would be.
(I mean this earnestly, as I said, I have some family members for whom language is a barrier, so I am open to advice.)
How can you take the gospel into the world if you have no way of communicating with the people you are trying to witness to?
What is your personal approach?
I agree that God did not promise a Bible in every language, but I am wondering what your alternative would be.
(I mean this earnestly, as I said, I have some family members for whom language is a barrier, so I am open to advice.)
How can you take the gospel into the world if you have no way of communicating with the people you are trying to witness to?
-
1
- Show all
L
You don't own me an apology.
I'm with you on the matter.
People all over the world speak many different languages and variations of those languages. If there was one God ordained English version it would be the King James butchery of the original language.
Anyway back to the subject at hand.
This is adiaphora, it doesn't matter what was actually used.
What matters is that there are things that we can discuss and postulate about scripture that keeps our minds on the wondrous Majesty of the Lord and his magnificent word.
I'm with you on the matter.
People all over the world speak many different languages and variations of those languages. If there was one God ordained English version it would be the King James butchery of the original language.
Anyway back to the subject at hand.
This is adiaphora, it doesn't matter what was actually used.
What matters is that there are things that we can discuss and postulate about scripture that keeps our minds on the wondrous Majesty of the Lord and his magnificent word.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
That is correct. While the KJV says "badger" the lexicons suggest porpoise, dolphin, dugong (a marine creature similar to a manatee). However since the tabernacle was being constructed far away from the oceans or any seas, it is unlikely that marine creatures were involved. And since badgers are omnivorous, they are not really clean animals. So this must remain a mystery.
-
1
-
1
- Show all