Badgers or sea cows/seals

[Herb Evans]

:smilewinkgrin: I like a good sense of humor.

Now addressing, the comparison:
This is assuming of course that the relative is named after an animal - a possibility, but not a necessity. Even if one did, however, there is nothing to say that the name is not applied to the dugong, or dolphin.

Again, there are other suitable explanations that have nothing to do with an animal - place names = Kurtahshi, (referred to in the Amarna tablets, contemporary with Moses), which is usually identified with a city south of Kadesh.

But again, the Gen. passage referring to Abraham's relative, doesn't give the translation of "badger" anywhere.

Much of what you say is true. So a Tachash is not an animal? Still, to base any argument on "there is nothing to say that . . ." is woefully lacking. There is nothing to say that the name is not applied to the "badger." in fact, come to think of it, it has been so applied. -- Herb Evans

 

[franklinmonroe]

Well, why did you hide them from us, were you skewing the argument in your favor...

I was not attempt to hide anything (I was not really finished with my post when you responded to it). I clearly was not hiding, because I did reveal it immediately in a separate post. Hiding would have accomplished nothing, as anyone could look this up themselves. The discussion thus far had revolved only around Exodus 25:5.

I am not interested in skewing the argument one way or the other. I am interested in fair and thorough discussion of the topic.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I can't answer why they went that route, though it is a recent translation. As I said above, the translation badger is very recent (relatively speaking). It probably has to do with the fact that that is the route many Europeans went, beginning just prior to the Reformation.

I can't firmly rule out it being a specific animal since it is placed in juxtaposition with "skins" in several places. But since badger lacks any (presently speaking) ancient support as a translation of tachash, it seems highly implausible.

No doubt you know quite a lot about the subject. But I am still a little unclear about what you are saying.

Rosenberg chose the transliteration of TACHASH SKINS everywhere except for Ezekiel 16:10 where he tranlated it [the skin of the] BADGER . He wouldn't likely have done that without good authority. Perhaps I make another mistake (?)

It looks like I will have to go fight with the students for a place in the library! It is exam time here....

A.F.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The wrong is in your statement.

There was nothing wrong with the statements as related to the passage cited (which was Exodus 25:1-9, with emphasis on verse five):

It seems that Lamsa does not have "badgers" as you implied. As can be seen, the Lamsa generally reads very similarly to the KJV (sometimes word for word) but at this particular verse chose not to follow the translation of "badgers". Both these Peshitta versions are witnesses against the KJV rendering.

That Lamsa does not have "badgers" is a true statement in the context of my post. That Lamsa reads very similar to the KJV is a true statement in the context of my post. That these two Peshitta versions cited are witnesses against "badgers" is a true statement in the context of my post.

 

[Herb Evans]

I was not attempt to hide anything (I was not really finished with my post when you responded to it). I clearly was not hiding, because I did reveal it immediately in a separate post. Hiding would have accomplished nothing, as anyone could look this up themselves. The discussion thus far had revolved only around Exodus 25:5.

I am not interested in skewing the argument one way or the other. I am interested in fair and thorough discussion of the topic.

If you say so! My post on Lamsa was not about Ex. 25:5. -- Herb Evans :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Herb Evans]

There was nothing wrong with the statements as related to the passage cited (which was Exodus 25:1-9, with emphasis on verse five):


That Lamsa does not have "badgers" is a true statement in the context of my post. That Lamsa reads very similar to the KJV is a true statement in the context of my post. That these two Peshitta versions cited are witnesses against "badgers" is a true statement in the context of my post.

Yeah! Sure! We understand! Herb Evans raying:

 

[Herb Evans]

Originally Posted by Inadequate in Myself
I can't answer why they went that route, though it is a recent translation. As I said above, the translation badger is very recent (relatively speaking). It probably has to do with the fact that that is the route many Europeans went, beginning just prior to the Reformation.

I can't firmly rule out it being a specific animal since it is placed in juxtaposition with "skins" in several places. But since badger lacks any (presently speaking) ancient support as a translation of tachash, it seems highly implausible.

Not much to sink one's teeth in here! I guess we must get ancient support for the probablies and everything, even though the Bible itself tells us that the scriptures THROUGHLY FURNISH the man of God unto all good works, doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction, and it does SEEM that the Bible is correct. But some choose to believe that everything but the Bible must furnish us the correction and instruction to make things plausible. -- Herb Evans

 

[franklinmonroe]

The places where Lamsa uses non-KJB wording for "badger" disproves your case rather than confirms it.

It is not "places", but a single occurrance. I did not claim that Lamsa was always in agreement with the KJV, only suspeciously often.

For example, notice that even the puncuation and capitalization of Lamsa mimics the KJV, even when the KJV is unconventional. Verse three begins a new sentence that runs through verse seven. The Lamsa begins each verse with a capitalized letter even though the word should not be capitalized by convention (the previous verse closes with a comma, not a period), just as the KJV does! The Aramaic English Standard Version does not capitalize the beginning of each these verse, only using the capitalization properly at the first word of a new sentence, as normally would be expected.

The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Lamsa has:

25:3 And this is the offering which you shall take of them: gold, silver, and brass,
25:4 Blue, purple, and scarlet, fine linen, and goats' hair,
25:5 And rams' skins dyed red, skins dyed with vermilion, and shittim wood,
25:6 Oil for the lamps, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
25:7 Onyx stones, and precious stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate.

KJV:

25:3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,
25:4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair,
25:5 And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood,
25:6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
25:7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.

The AESV:

25:3 This is the offering which you shall take from them: gold, silver, brass,
25:4 blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goats’ hair,
25:5 rams’ skins dyed red, sea cow hides, acacia wood,
25:6 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the sweet incense,
25:7 onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod and for the breastplate.

 

[franklinmonroe]

If you say so! My post on Lamsa was not about Ex. 25:5. -- Herb Evans

From the OP through most all posts cited only Exodus 25:5 (if one was cited). Here is a portion of the first post (I think) where Lamsa is mentioned. Notice your comment comes directly following a reference to "Ex. 25:5".

=Keith M
The Nelson King James Study Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible (NKJV) both contain the footnote "or dolphin" for Ex 25:5, indicating the fact that there is some uncertainty over the original Hebrew word.

Well, if PETA knew about those folks using poor little dolphin skins there would have been a real ruckus! I do not blindly follow notes as some do. The Lamsa Eastern Bible has badgers and they followed an Eastern text and not the Hebrew.-- Herb Evans

If your posts are not following the content of the rest of the thread, you might want to make that more explicit.

 

[Herb Evans]

Originally Posted by Herb Evans
The places where Lamsa uses non-KJB wording for "badger" disproves your case rather than confirms it.

It is not "places", but a single occurrance. I did not claim that Lamsa was always in agreement with the KJV, only suspeciously often.

For example, notice that even the puncuation and capitalization of Lamsa mimics the KJV, even when the KJV is unconventional. Verse three begins a new sentence that runs through verse seven. The Lamsa begins each verse with a capitalized letter even though the word should not be capitalized by convention (the previous verse closes with a comma, not a period), just as the KJV does! The Aramaic English Standard Version does not capitalize the beginning of each these verse, only using the capitalization properly at the first word of a new sentence, as normally would be expected.

The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Lamsa has:

25:3 And this is the offering which you shall take of them: gold, silver, and brass,
25:4 Blue, purple, and scarlet, fine linen, and goats' hair,
25:5 And rams' skins dyed red, skins dyed with vermilion, and shittim wood,
25:6 Oil for the lamps, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
25:7 Onyx stones, and precious stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate.
KJV:

Quote:
25:3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,
25:4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair,
25:5 And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood,
25:6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
25:7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.

The AESV:

Quote:
25:3 This is the offering which you shall take from them: gold, silver, brass,
25:4 blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goats’ hair,
25:5 rams’ skins dyed red, sea cow hides, acacia wood,
25:6 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the sweet incense,
25:7 onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod and for the breastplate.

Well, the KJB has long been a standard for a lot of things, so be suspicious of whatever you want to be. Nevertheless, because Lamsa copied some kind of grammar convention means nothing, especially when he ignored the KJB Badger as did the AESV but copied the capitalization and punctuation in your verse. The quote from the AESV means even less.

Still, you said that the Lamsa did not have "badgers" as I claimed. That has nothing to do with punctuation or capitalization or a single verse, no mater how hard you wriggle. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

From the OP through most all posts cited only Exodus 25:5 (if one was cited). Here is a portion of the first post (I think) where Lamsa is mentioned. Notice your comment comes directly following a reference to "Ex. 25:5".

If your posts are not following the content of the rest of the thread, you might want to make that more explicit.

That was your post that I responded to here not the rest of the thread. I was explicit when I posted that Lamsa had "badger" in this thread. Your denial was based on what I said not mine on what you said in regard to Lamsa's "badger." -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Well, if PETA knew about those folks using poor little dolphin skins there would have been a real ruckus! I do not blindly follow notes as some do. The Lamsa Eastern Bible has badgers and they followed an Eastern text and not the Hebrew.-- Herb Evans

This was posted in post #72, before you denied my claim that "badger" was in the Lamsa. -- Herb Evans

 

[franklinmonroe]

If you say so! My post on Lamsa was not about Ex. 25:5. -- Herb Evans

Herb, you poor fellow. You don't even know what verse is being discussed.

Herb, you poor fellow. You brought up Lamsa, a source that doesn't even support your position at this verse.

Well, with scholarship like that, we can all go home.

 

[Herb Evans]

Herb, you poor fellow. You don't even know what verse is being discussed.

Herb, you poor fellow. You brought up Lamsa, a source that doesn't even support your position at this verse.

Well, with scholarship like that, we can all go home.

Franklin you poor fellow, this was my post on Lamsa to begin with. I am the one that started talking about Lamsa, so it is you that do not follow the thread. -- Herb Evans

Quote:

Well, if PETA knew about those folks using poor little dolphin skins there would have been a real ruckus! I do not blindly follow notes as some do. The Lamsa Eastern Bible has badgers and they followed an Eastern text and not the Hebrew.-- Herb Evans


This was posted in post #72, before you denied my claim that "badger" was in the Lamsa. -- Herb Evans

 

[franklinmonroe]

...Did you check Ex. 39:34; 36:19; Num. 4;6,8,10, 12? Of course, you didn't...

... The Lamsa does use "badgers" at those references.

... why did you hide them from us, were you skewing the argument in your favor... -- Herb Evans

Herb, you poor fellow. Making many accussations that are untrue.

Well, if you are used to the MV's that might cause you to get that impression. --Herb Evans

Herb, you poor fellow. Making assumptions.

I read some wise advise once: It is better to remain silent (when you don't know the answer for sure) and seem foolish, than to open your mouth (or write) and remove all doubt.

Too bad you did not take it. -- Herb Evans

Herb, you poor fellow. Insulting others.

 

[Herb Evans]

Herb, you poor fellow. Making many accussations that are untrue.


Herb, you poor fellow. Making assumptions.


Herb, you poor fellow. Insulting others.

What is the matter, tired of the issue at hand? Or not able to address it. Thanks for the history lesson. -- herb Evans

 

[franklinmonroe]

...I am the one that started talking about Lamsa... -- Herb Evans

... You brought up Lamsa...

Yes Herb, I know. We all know.

 

[franklinmonroe]

What is the matter, tired of the issue at hand? Or not able to address it. Thanks for the history lesson. -- herb Evans

Yeah! Sure! We understand!

 

[Herb Evans]

Yeah! Sure! We understand!

We sure do. You got caught, and are trying to cover up. -- Herb Evans

 

[franklinmonroe]

...this was my post on Lamsa to begin with... -- Herb Evans

Quote:

Well, if PETA knew about those folks using poor little dolphin skins there would have been a real ruckus! I do not blindly follow notes as some do. The Lamsa Eastern Bible has badgers and they followed an Eastern text and not the Hebrew.-- Herb Evans

I'm looking, but I do not see an explicit verse reference. Therefore, every reader of this thread would have to assume you were addressing Exodus 25:5 (the verse every other poster had addressed).