People do know that the word they use in Hebrew in Leviticus 19:34 and is גֵּר (ger) and that has distinct meaning right? Sojourner is actually used accurately in this case. The spirit of the text is that you shouldn’t abuse some (nig)ger who lives among you and is a polite decent member of your society who abides by your rules. It can also imply a convert if you go by the Greek, but it can also mean they are assimilating into the culture or respectful. Typically, I believe that the phrase for a non-Jew who’s okay beyond a good Goy is ger toshav. Basically legal resident who is different than us.
They actually do have a word for rude foreigner or someone who doesn’t respect the law of the land or the Kingdom/ Land of Israel. נָכְרִי (Nokri) is used in Deuteronomy 17:15 and Proverbs 2:16
There is also זָר (Zar, I find this one funny because it sounds like Tsar) and basically from what I it means stranger in a more literal sense and kind of a stranger danger sense. You are to be wary of it.
I find the modern discussion about immigration to be extremely Boomer and commie spic liberation theology bullshit. Enjoy your children being Dhimmis in a few years because you needed GDP go up to get that pension you voted yourself.
Edit: there were 4 major sects of Jews during the 2nd Temple period. Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls), and Zealots. Pharisees were effectively like Catholics/ Orthodox in the view that they held sacred tradition along with the Old Testament books along with commentary and philosophy, Sadducee’s were akin to Episcopalians/ Anglicans in that they drew power from politics and believed whatever Rome told them were Sola Scriptura, Essenes were withdrawn and kind of like anyone who gets autistic when faith is used to justify politics, and the Zealots were kind of like the Trad Cath Zoomers and Orthobros who are frustrated at society and the interference of foreigners into their culture. The Zealots and their sub-group the Sicarii actually did carry out rebellion.
Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot by tradition are often considered Zealots. Supposedly a lot of Early Christians were Essenes. Sadducees died out because they had influence with the Temple. Some Jews sperg about them getting absorbed and fucking things up. Zealots from what I’ve read actually split pretty evenly when they didn’t die from Romans beating them into paste.
There is also זָר (Zar, I find this one funny because it sounds like Tsar) and basically from what I it means stranger in a more literal sense and kind of a stranger danger sense. You are to be wary of it.
This is really cool, but I don't know hebrew and I really think I'm too old to acquire a non-indo-european language at this point. Do these same nuances have reflection in LXX's greek? I'll be honest that I'm a total sperg for "YAAAA LXX ONLY" or even really a preference for vulgate's latin. Like I do not trust the masoretic text to be not tampered with by jewish theological qualms given the lateness of its provenance in manuscripts.
This is really cool, but I don't know hebrew and I really think I'm too old to acquire a non-indo-european language at this point. Do these same nuances have reflection in LXX's greek? I'll be honest that I'm a total sperg for "YAAAA LXX ONLY" or even really a preference for vulgate's latin. Like I do not trust the masoretic text to be not tampered with by jewish theological qualms given the lateness of its provenance in manuscripts.
Kinda. You lose some of the nuance. Zar and Xenos (alien) are paired. Ger is translated as proselyte which is in English close to convert. Nokri is allophylos which means another race.
The vulgate is similar where ger is translated to advena, but nokri and zar get less nuance as alienus and peregrinus. Peregrinus were non-Roman free people, who lacked the rights of Romans. They actually had less rights than Roman Freedmen. It’s also where the name for Peregrine falcon came from and its connotation depends on the era. It can be associated with pilgrims.
Advena is actually important in the context of other shit. Cicero in a few legal documents uses and it keeps the meaning that most would associate with it, not a citizen but someone with legal protections and in good standing with authorities.
The vulgate is similar where ger is translated to advena, but nokri and zar get less nuance as alienus and peregrinus. Peregrinus were non-Roman free people, who lacked the rights of Romans. They actually had less rights than Roman Freedmen. It’s also where the name for Peregrine falcon came from and its connotation depends on the era. It can be associated with pilgrims.
Also, I am like 95% certain that Job, while a commentary on suffering and refuting the concept that everyone who suffers is suffering as a punishment, starts with metacommentary in the wager with God and the devil. Mostly because the young man who calls out Job and his boomer friends is right and his name which I forget implies redemption.
I take it like Jonah where it’s comedic. We as readers know why Job is suffering, the young man who God doesn’t rebuke is right and that’s part of the joke.
Also, I am like 95% certain that Job, while a commentary on suffering and refuting the concept that everyone who suffers is suffering as a punishment, starts with metacommentary in the wager with God and the devil. Mostly because the young man who calls out Job and his boomer friends is right and his name which I forget implies redemption.
I take it like Jonah where it’s comedic. We as readers know why Job is suffering, the young man who God doesn’t rebuke is right and that’s part of the joke.
The wager is not a metacommentary, but a revelation of the nature of devils and how they are so powerless before God that they can only do what they do by Gods will.
Elihu (meaning “My God is He”) was not right, he accused Job of unrighteousness and arrogance when Job is blameless and righteous. Specifically, he misquotes what Job said:
“For Job has said, ‘I am righteous,
And the Lord has taken away my judgment.’
But he spoke untruth in my judgment when he said, ‘My wound is severe, though I am without wrongdoing.’ What man is like Job, Who drinks scorn like water? For he says, ‘I have not sinned, nor committed ungodliness, Nor had anything in common with the workers of lawlessness,
So as to walk with ungodly men.’” (34:5-
Further, he directly contradicts what God had said before:
“Then the Lord said to the devil, ‘Have you considered my servant Job, since there is none like him on the earth: an innocent, true, blameless, and God-fearing man, and one who abstains from every evil thing?Moreover he still holds fast to his integrity, though you told me to destroy his possessions without cause.’” (2:3)
It becomes clear then that, while Elihu is different and closer to the truth than any of his friends, he is also wrong, speaking arrogantly and presumptuously. Job never sinned in this instance; He kept the faith perfectly, and was blameless, innocent, and righteous. Even in this struggle, he maintained his innocence. Just because Elihu is not mentioned among the three Job repented for does not indicate he was right. It is silent about this, and we cannot draw that conclusion as a firm sign.
I’d argue that instead of being right, he was either redeemed by Jobs continual redemption (being a man from Ausitis, as was Job), or he was so far gone that he was beyond it. His sin would be worse because it was hidden in righteousness, whereas the others were blatantly wrong. But even this is just speculation.
It’s why I say like 95% sure. I’ve read it a few times and it kind of comes across like Jonah where it feels like the oral tradition the writing comes from dips into the idea of the audience being aware of why, not that the concept that God is so powerful that devils can’t do shit is wrong.
Also part of the criticism of Job I’ve discussed is that Elihu critique of Job is not wrong, but he’s angry and passionate about it and in his anger starts accusing Job of treading into the realm of thinking that he is worthy of God answering why.
I know a lot of Jewish commentary take the view that God doesn’t address Elihu because he’s ignored because he’s angry. Not right, and God ignores him because he’s angry and doesn’t want to justify his anger.
Catholics take the view that he’s not wrong, gets a lot right and is well-intentioned but comes across to hot.
I just had the worst nightmare. I take medication that gives me the most intricate, life-like, HD dreams possible. Each one is like an entire movie, and I have multiple dreams per sleep cycle.
Anyway, right after my dream about exposing corrupt politicians, I went to Mass in the church where I got baptized. Except the priest was a woman, and when I looked at the paper they hand out to parishioners to follow along, I saw she was also a lesbian and instead of following the liturgical calendar, she was following the lunar phase calendar! This was not right at all.
I didn't take communion, and at the end I was gathering my stuff when I noticed they had put makeup and lipstick on Jesus on the crucifix. So I tried to wipe it off but ended up taking the whole thing off the wall to remove the sacrilege. The remaining parishioners had all lost their minds and were basically brainrotted by the service.
And then God saved me by waking me up to go to real Mass. Go to church, boys, it's Sunday. No excuses!
This question has probably been asked pretty often, but what’s the most accurate, 1:1 English translation of the Bible without any tacked on or extra additions to it? I figure you guys might have a few different answers, but I’m hoping to see what you guys believe.
This question has probably been asked pretty often, but what’s the most accurate, 1:1 English translation of the Bible without any tacked on or extra additions to it? I figure you guys might have a few different answers, but I’m hoping to see what you guys believe.
I just had the worst nightmare. I take medication that gives me the most intricate, life-like, HD dreams possible. Each one is like an entire movie, and I have multiple dreams per sleep cycle.
Anyway, right after my dream about exposing corrupt politicians, I went to Mass in the church where I got baptized. Except the priest was a woman, and when I looked at the paper they hand out to parishioners to follow along, I saw she was also a lesbian and instead of following the liturgical calendar, she was following the lunar phase calendar! This was not right at all.
I didn't take communion, and at the end I was gathering my stuff when I noticed they had put makeup and lipstick on Jesus on the crucifix. So I tried to wipe it off but ended up taking the whole thing off the wall to remove the sacrilege. The remaining parishioners had all lost their minds and were basically brainrotted by the service.
And then God saved me by waking me up to go to real Mass. Go to church, boys, it's Sunday. No excuses!
That nightmare sounds terrifying, glad you got to go to the real deal. You'll be in my prayers and to second that motion. Go to Church, boys. It's Sunday , no excuses
This question has probably been asked pretty often, but what’s the most accurate, 1:1 English translation of the Bible without any tacked on or extra additions to it? I figure you guys might have a few different answers, but I’m hoping to see what you guys believe.
Assuming you're looking for a hyper-literal translation, that is, an exact "word-for-word" translation, none exist in English, and none can ever exist. Even interlinear Bibles have some departure from the raw text. Translation, by its very nature distorts the original text, there's no way around it.
For instance, Genesis 11:3 reads: "And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar." (ESV)
The interlinear reads: "And they said to one another come let us make bricks and bake thoroughly and they had brick for stone and asphalt for mortar."
As you can see there are three different wordplays:
nilbenāh ləḇênîm
wəniśrepāhliśrêpāh
wəhaḥêmār/laḥōmer
These literally translate to "And they said man to his neighbor come let us brick bricks and let us burn for a burning and was to them the brick for stone and the bitumen (ḥêmār) for mortar(ḥōmer)" and as far as I know, no english Bible translates that literally, not even the interlinear.
Another passage, Genesis 25:30: "And Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted!” (Therefore his name was called Edom)." (ESV)
The interlinear reads: "And Esau said to Jacob, "Please feed me with this red [stew], for I am weary!" Thus, his name was called Edom."
The transliterated hebrew reads: wayyōmer ‘ēśāw ’el-ya‘ăqōḇ hal‘îṭēnî nā min-hā’āḏōmhā’āḏōm hazzeh kî ‘āyēp̄ ’ānōḵî ‘al-kēn qārā-šəmōw ’ĕḏōwm
hal‘îṭēnî means “gulping down” and occurs nowhere else in the Bible, and in rabbinic Hebrew it is reserved for the feeding of animals. min-hā’āḏōmhā’āḏōm literally means "this red red." The famished brother cannot even come up with the ordinary Hebrew word for “stew” (nazid) and instead points to the bubbling pot impatiently as “this red red.” ’ĕḏōwm, and to top it all off, the pun is on his own name: Edom, which forever associates crude impatient appetite with Israel’s perennial enemy. The name only makes sense in light of the Hebrew ʾadom-ʾadom, “this red red stuff."
So this literally translates to "And said Esau to Jacob cause me to gulp down please from this red red stuff for weary I am. Upon thus was called his name Edom."
And those are only two examples. There are so many more I could spend the rest of my life here, but here are some other notable translation difficulties (hyper-literal in italics, dynamic thought-for-thought translation from the NLT in bold):
And formed YHWH God the human dust from the ground and breathed in his nostrils breath of life and became the human to soul living.
Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.
And trembled Isaac trembling greatuntil very and said who then he the hunter game and brought to me and I ate from all before you came and I blessed him also blessed he will be.
Isaac began to tremble uncontrollably and said, “Then who just served me wild game? I have already eaten it, and I blessed him just before you came. And yes, that blessing must stand!”
Not will depart scepter from Judah nor lawgiver from between his feet until that comes Shiloh and to him obedience of peoples.
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will honor.
And it will cover eye of the land and not will be able to see the land and it will eat the remnant the escaped the remaining to you from the hail and it will eat every tree the sprouting to you from the field.
They will cover the land so that you won’t be able to see the ground. They will devour what little is left of your crops after the hailstorm, including all the trees growing in the fields.
And all the people seeing the thunders and the torches and the sound the horn and the mountain smoking and saw the people and they trembled and they stood from afar.
When the people heard the thunder and the loud blast of the ram’s horn, and when they saw the flashes of lightning and the smoke billowing from the mountain, they stood at a distance, trembling with fear.
And he came to enclosures of the sheep upon the way and there cave and Saul went in to cover his feet and David and his men in rear of the cave sitting.
At the place where the road passes some sheepfolds, Saul went into a cave to relieve himself. But as it happened, David and his men were hiding farther back in that very cave!
And it was as their crossing and said Elisha to Elijah ask what I shall do for you before I am taken from with you and said Elisha let be please mouth of two in your spirit to me.
When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, “Tell me what I can do for you before I am taken away.” And Elisha replied, “Please let me inherit a double share of your spirit and become your successor.”
Circumcise yourselves to YHWH and remove foreskins of your heart man of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem lest goes out like fire my wrath and burns and none quenching from face of evil of your deeds.
O people of Judah and Jerusalem, surrender your pride and power. Circumcise your hearts, or my anger will burn like an unquenchable fire because of all your sins.
To seize spoil and to plunder to turn your hand upon ruins inhabited and to people gathered from nations doing cattle and possessions dwelling upon navel of the earth.
I will go up to attack the land of those who are at rest, living securely, all of them living without walls and bars. I will plunder and loot and attack the restored ruins and the people gathered from the nations, who are rich in livestock and goods and who live at the center of the world.
As you can see, it's not much fun to read, and even if it were, you need so much ancient Israelite cultural context just to make sense of the text that it's almost impossible to grasp the core meaning. That's not even mentioning the constant use of puns and wordplay linking pretty much everything together. Almost every single name and location. in the Bible is a pun or has a meaning, which is completely lost in translation. For instance, Jesus is born in Beth-Lehem, the House of Bread, and He is "the living bread that came down from heaven". Or that the word for "man" is ’adam, and the word for "ground" or "earth" is ’adamah. So, a hyper-literal translation of Adam should be "The Glebous," or "The Earthling."
And that's just the literary aspect, we haven't even touched theology yet.
But to cut to the chase, good readable "word-for-word" Bibles are:
Mickelson Clarified Translation (MCT), novel translation using compound words for precise Hebrew/Greek word equivalents,
Concordant Literal Version (CLV) uses one English word per Hebrew/Greek term,
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible, uses typography to highlight Hebrew/Greek grammar.
And a good 'literary' translation is Robert Alter's "The Hebrew Bible" and a surprisingly good dynamic translation is the New Living Translation (NLT).
Each have their own theological biases, so that also needs to be taken into consideration.