• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Badgers or sea cows/seals

Status
Not open for further replies.

Inadequate in Myself

Member
Site Supporter
As I posted earlier, there is good etymological, cognate, and contextual evidence for simply reading the text as "fine Egyptian leather" - Without it making any specific reference to a certain animal. In this way the description parallels references to "fine gold" and "burnished bronze."

The Egyptian verb ths which means to "stretch" and is most commoly applied to leather. the noun form in the biblical text would derive its meaning accordingly to simply refer to that type of leather. This is the evidence put forward in the leading Hebrew Lexicon (not inerrant) KBL.
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
...it hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain,) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with St. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis:

It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.

Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as St. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.

Now, in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.

Therefore, as St. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

PREFACE TO THE KJV
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Inadequate in Myself said:
As I posted earlier, there is good etymological, cognate, and contextual evidence for simply reading the text as "fine Egyptian leather" - Without it making any specific reference to a certain animal. In this way the description parallels references to "fine gold" and "burnished bronze."

The Egyptian verb ths which means to "stretch" and is most commoly applied to leather. the noun form in the biblical text would derive its meaning accordingly to simply refer to that type of leather. This is the evidence put forward in the leading Hebrew Lexicon (not inerrant) KBL.

Thanx for the two best explanations to-date on this thread! I started this thread ONLY because some people have insisted that 'badger' is correct, and is the ONLY possible rendering.
 

Jim1999

<img src =/Jim1999.jpg>
That leather thing would make my KJ Bible the real thing. It says on the cover.."Genuine..."///////Oh, wait, that is genuine leather..

Cheers,

Jim
 

Inadequate in Myself

Member
Site Supporter
robycop3 said:
Thanx for the two best explanations to-date on this thread! I started this thread ONLY because some people have insisted that 'badger' is correct, and is the ONLY possible rendering.

What is interesting about the translation "badger" is that it has no cognate support. In other words, there are no ancient languages that have a similar word that can be applied to badger. At least "porpoise" has Arabic support.

The translation badger, may have arose out of a confusion of the Latin "taxus" with the Hebrew "tachash." (I am still researching where the KJV translators could have derived the word, at present this is my best guess).

Interestingly, the Vulgate uses the term "ianthinis" in the involved texts so that the phrase is rendered as "violet blue skins." The LXX does so similarly with the Greek. Again this leads to the conclusion that the ancients viewed it as a type of leather, not the skin of a particular animal.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Inadequate in Myself said:
What is interesting about the translation "badger" is that it has no cognate support. In other words, there are no ancient languages that have a similar word that can be applied to badger. At least "porpoise" has Arabic support.

The translation badger, may have arose out of a confusion of the Latin "taxus" with the Hebrew "tachash." (I am still researching where the KJV translators could have derived the word, at present this is my best guess).

Interestingly, the Vulgate uses the term "ianthinis" in the involved texts so that the phrase is rendered as "violet blue skins." The LXX does so similarly with the Greek. Again this leads to the conclusion that the ancients viewed it as a type of leather, not the skin of a particular animal.

In related passages, the Bishop's Bible uses 'taxus'.

Badgers are common in England, but if I understand correctly, the british badger isn't nearly as tough as the African honey badger.

Again, thanx to all who've contributed to this thread. Lemme repeat that I started it only because some folks elsewhere insisted that the ONLY possible correct rendering was 'badger'. I knew the folks here are a LOT smarter than the group with whom I was dealing.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Deacon said:
...it hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain,) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with St. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis:

It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places.

Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, etc., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as St. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.

Now, in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.

Therefore, as St. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

PREFACE TO THE KJV


yes, the AV men sometimes had to make their best guess as to the meanings of certain nouns. Thus, they wrote unicorn and badger they had no reason to believe unicorns didn't exist, as one is depicted on KJ's coat-of-arms, nor did they know badgers didn't live in the areas the Israelis covered during the Exodus.

However, certain people must be reminded that the AV men, and others before them, were GUESSING about the meanings of re'em and tachish. They set nothing in stone, as they stated above in their preface.

Thanx, Deacon, for that reminder.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Inadequate in Myself said:
What is interesting about the translation "badger" is that it has no cognate support. In other words, there are no ancient languages that have a similar word that can be applied to badger. At least "porpoise" has Arabic support.

The translation badger, may have arose out of a confusion of the Latin "taxus" with the Hebrew "tachash." (I am still researching where the KJV translators could have derived the word, at present this is my best guess).
Pre-KJV Bibles that influenced the translators here were Tyndale (taxus), Luther (dachs), Geneva (badger), and Bishops (taxus).
They were indeed relying on cognate theory, but wrongly. Some European and Semitic words are related, but these probably are not. Late Latin taxus "badger" was probably borrowed from Germanic or Celtic, not Hebrew.

I believe that the strength of the Arabic cognate is based on the language's geographic proximity rather than its use in ancient times.
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
This is an interesting discussion.
The Hebrew WORD remains, but nobody
knows what the Hebrew WORD really means.

This shows proof posivite:
God's meaning is superior to God's Words
(i.e. man's symbols used to represent God's meaning).
 

Inadequate in Myself

Member
Site Supporter
Jerome said:
Pre-KJV Bibles that influenced the translators here were Tyndale (taxus), Luther (dachs), Geneva (badger), and Bishops (taxus).

Thank you for the additional information.

Jerome said:
They were indeed relying on cognate theory, but wrongly. Some European and Semitic words are related, but these probably are not. Late Latin taxus "badger" was probably borrowed from Germanic or Celtic, not Hebrew.

I assumed that they were working off of some form of cognate -- People do not simply make up words they think might fit. I was not aware of European cognates (Hebrew and Aramaic are my specialties). Again, thank you for the information. I was not suggesting that the Latin taxus was derived from the Hebrew, only that it might have some loose relationship to why the KJV translators rendered the Hebrew the way they did. Since your information of the European cognates makes the comparison, I can see that I was partially right (i.e. Hebrew related to European by translators, Latin derived from European). The mistake was missing the European links - thank you.

Jerome said:
I believe that the strength of the Arabic cognate is based on the language's geographic proximity rather than its use in ancient times.

You are of course correct, but geographic proximity in this case is rooted in the belief that behind the Arabic of the 6th century AD (Classic Arabic) grew out of a more ancient Semitic reality. Hence, my use of the term "ancient." Probably overstatement, but a reasonable expression.
 

Inadequate in Myself

Member
Site Supporter
Ed Edwards said:
This is an interesting discussion.
The Hebrew WORD remains, but nobody
knows what the Hebrew WORD really means.

This shows proof posivite:
God's meaning is superior to God's Words
(i.e. man's symbols used to represent God's meaning).

I appreciate the sentiment. I would agree that God is in many ways beyond expression and even beyond being conceived of totally. But it would seem that if God's "Meaning" is going to truly serve as the revelation it was meant to serve as, the expressions must be discernable even within the limitations of human language.

In this case we are dealing with something that is of no eternal significance, but we need to be careful that we don't turn the Scriptures into some reality that is beyond the scope of comprehension.

(Having read your posts many times Ed, I know you are not doing this. I simply want to make certain the point about the necessity of understanding and revelation is made).
 

rbell

Active Member
Bro Tony said:
A badger by any other name is still a rodent..:smilewinkgrin: :tongue3:

Bro Tony

cagney.jpg


you dirty rat!
:tongue3:
 

av1611jim

New Member
I really do not believe that the word is porpoise or seal. Why? The Hebrews were DESERT people.
Of course there COULLD have been a sand seal? Or rock porpoise?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hawwhhhaaaahahahaha!
 

Exile

New Member
The Hebrews were a desert people ...living not far from the ocean. Whatever the right translation is, their knowing about sea creatures is certainly not out of the question.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
av1611jim said:
I really do not believe that the word is porpoise or seal. Why? The Hebrews were DESERT people.
Of course there COULLD have been a sand seal? Or rock porpoise?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha hawwhhhaaaahahahaha!

Coulda been water badgers, too...a freshwater species & a saltwater species.
 

av1611jim

New Member
I am of the opinion that God would have them use something readily available. During the Exodus period, I do not see them approaching the sea or significant bodies of water. Could not have been some "water creature".

I'll be back.
 

av1611jim

New Member
Couldn't findmuch, but I did find this;
[SIZE=-1]We know of no varieties in this species: We have endeavoured, without success, to find the sow-badger spoken of by hunters. ...
faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4badger.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]

Interesting read.

As has been mentioned, we have no way of knowing whether or not the ancient Hebrews knew of such an animal. this discussion falls under;
Ro 14:1
¶ Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

the context is obviously disputations aboutfood, but it also applies to silly arguments about some animal.

I repent. I'll leave you all to disparage the choice of the translators.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top