Badgers or sea cows/seals

[Inadequate in Myself]

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 about food, but it also applies to silly arguments about some animal.

I repent. I'll leave you all to disparage the choice of the translators.

Nice, because we are interested in how to properly translate a word and discussing its possibilities, we are suddenly weak in the faith? The only reason I continued in the discussion was because it was devoid of the mean spiritedness and disregard for meaningful reflection upon the Word of God that your statement reflects. (Yes, the conversation is about an animal and has no impact on salvation or the truthfulness of Scripture, but the discussion is helpful in understanding translation techniques and the way translatiors arrive at the conclusions they do)

When the conversatino turns in the direction you are taking it, I am done.:BangHead:

 

[robycop3]

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.

Jim, I've said several times I started this thread because some people elsewhere have insisted that only 'badger' is correct. It has nothing to do with food or salvation. Apparently, the evidence is against 'badger' being correct, but we cannot dismiss it entirely, since we don't know from exactly where translators of the past came up with that rendering. The most likely explanation is that it was some sorta "skins" whose exact origin wasn't given in the Hebrew.

 

[deacon jd]

Nice, because we are interested in how to properly translate a word and discussing its possibilities, we are suddenly weak in the faith? The only reason I continued in the discussion was because it was devoid of the mean spiritedness and disregard for meaningful reflection upon the Word of God that your statement reflects. (Yes, the conversation is about an animal and has no impact on salvation or the truthfulness of Scripture, but the discussion is helpful in understanding translation techniques and the way translatiors arrive at the conclusions they do)

When the conversatino turns in the direction you are taking it, I am done.:BangHead:

I will assure you that it mattered whether it was a badger of a sea cow to Moses and it matters to me and it ought to matter to you. The Word of God says that it was badger skins I don't know what the rest of the books out there say.

 

[robycop3]

I will assure you that it mattered whether it was a badger of a sea cow to Moses and it matters to me and it ought to matter to you. The Word of God says that it was badger skins I don't know what the rest of the books out there say.

Several other copies of the word of God say it was the hides of other animals. You're only guessing your copy is right.

 

[Herb Evans]

Early English Bibles rendered the word as jacynth, violet, taxus("badger"), tarus("bull"?), doe, and badger.

Luther used dachs, derived from Latin taxus "badger"

Friedrich Delitzsch discussed this extensively 120 years ago in Prolegomena eines neuen hebräisch-aramäischen Wörterbuchs zum alten Testament, p. 76ff, concluding that the word was related to an Assyrian word for a type of ram.

Which certainly makes more contextual and logical sense than badger or manatee hides.

The Septuagint merely renders the word as "blue." Blue fish skins or scales rather than seals and DUGONGS? Interesting use, that of Luther. Could it be a the skins of Dachshunds(badgerdogs)?

 

[rsr]

While you're guessing, don't forget the giraffe ...

http://www.zootorah.com/essays/unicorn.html

 

[Herb Evans]

While you're guessing, don't forget the giraffe ...

http://www.zootorah.com/essays/unicorn.html

LOL! get's ridiculous don't it? -- Hreb Evans

 

[Keith M]

I will assure you that it mattered whether it was a badger of a sea cow to Moses and it matters to me and it ought to matter to you. The Word of God says that it was badger skins I don't know what the rest of the books out there say.

It is true the word of God uses the word badger in some versions, but even that is not agreed in all the versions prior to the KJV. Let's look at some of the various renderings...

and skynnes of iacynt Ex 25:5 Wycliffe (1395)

reed skynnes of rammes, doo skynnes, Fyrre tre Ex 25:5 Coverdale (1535)

And Rammes skynnes that are red, & the skynnes of Tarus, & Sittim wood Ex 25:5 Bishops' (1568)

And rammes skinnes coloured red, and the skinnes of badgers, and the wood Shittim Ex 25:5 Geneva (1587)

And rams’ skins dyed red, and violet skins, and setim wood Ex 25:5 Douay-Rheims (1609)

The word of God in various versions has various renderings for the Hebrew tachash. The Bishops' Bible, from which the KJV is revised, translates this word as Tarus (bull) as is shown above. The word is variously translated as sealskins (ERV, ASV), porpoise skins (NASB), manatee skins (CSB), badger skins (KJV, NKJV), goat skins (RSV, ESV), and fine leather (NRSV). The ESV and the NRSV indicate in footnotes that the meaning of the original is uncertain.

It is inaccurate to say "the Word of God says that it was badger skins" when, in fact, various translations of the word of God give various renderings or the Hebrew tachash. The original said tachash and we don't really know what that word meant. Just because one particular word is used in one particular translation or another doesn't mean that the chosen word is absolutely correct. This is one of those places where the original Hebrew word should have been transliterated rather than translated as the original meaning of the word is so uncertain.

 

[Herb Evans]

It is true the word of God uses the word badger in some versions, but even that is not agreed in all the versions prior to the KJV. Let's look at some of the various renderings...

The word of God in various versions has various renderings for the Hebrew tachash. The Bishops' Bible, from which the KJV is revised, translates this word as Tarus (bull) as is shown above. The word is variously translated as sealskins (ERV, ASV), porpoise skins (NASB), manatee skins (CSB), badger skins (KJV, NKJV), goat skins (RSV, ESV), and fine leather (NRSV). The ESV and the NRSV indicate in footnotes that the meaning of the original is uncertain.

It is inaccurate to say "the Word of God says that it was badger skins" when, in fact, various translations of the word of God give various renderings or the Hebrew tachash. The original said tachash and we don't really know what that word meant. Just because one particular word is used in one particular translation or another doesn't mean that the chosen word is absolutely correct. This is one of those places where the original Hebrew word should have been transliterated rather than translated as the original meaning of the word is so uncertain.

Well, I gues because many of them disagree, none of them can be right; is that it? Just pick the one that you prefer. Dugong and Dachshunds are nice choices. If it is inaccurate to say "badger skins," why is it not inaccurate to say something else? Who died and left you boss as to what should have been done? -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

I will assure you that it mattered whether it was a badger of a sea cow to Moses and it matters to me and it ought to matter to you. The Word of God says that it was badger skins I don't know what the rest of the books out there say.

Odd that Luther and the KJB got it right as opposed to a trying for a Bronotachashaurus. The quibblers miss the typology in the whole thing. The tabernacle was Christ. The skins underneath, rough and unseemly badger skins, fit only for shodding one's feet through this world, dipicted Christ's humanity, the Ram's skins on top of them died red depicted something far more than the quibblers imagine. -- Herb Evans

 

[Ed Edwards]

Exodus 25:5 (KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers):
And rams'352 skins5785 dyed red,119 and badgers'8476 skins,5785
and shittim7848 wood,6086

Tee Hee! look what Strong's says:

H8476
תּחשׁ
tachash
takh'-ash
Probably of foreign derivation; a (clean) animal
with fur, probably a species of antelope: - badger.

Tee, hee, another place where Strong throws in the
KJV translation at the end as a total non sequitur.

Amen, Brother Ed Edwards - You
are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Not to mention you had the answer back on post #3 :1_grouphug:

Maybe I aught to do a study of such non sequitor's that
Strong uses???

 

[Herb Evans]

Amen, Brother Ed Edwards - You
are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

Not to mention you had the answer back on post #3 :1_grouphug:

Maybe I aught to do a study of such non sequitor's that
Strong uses???

Yes, Ed Squared, almost as good as the non-squirters on here. -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

Several other copies of the word of God say it was the hides of other animals. You're only guessing your copy is right.

Tell me, Philip, is it the "word of God" that gets it right or the "word of God" that gets it wrong? Or both? -- Herb Evans

 

[AntennaFarmer]

There is a lack of logic here. A, B and C all disagree. That doesn't prove that either A, B or C is wrong.

This thread dd not prove the KJV to be inaccurate.

 

[Lacy Evans]

There is a lack of logic here. A, B and C all disagree. That doesn't in itself prove that either A, B or C is wrong.

This thread in no way proved any thing about the accuracy the KJV.

No it just "proves" that there is no REAL right or wrong. We get to choose! Praise the god of your choice!

lacy

 

[Herb Evans]

AntennaFarmer]There is a lack of logic here. A, B and C all disagree. That doesn't in itself prove that either A, B or C is wrong.

This thread in no way proved the KJV to be inaccurate

Okay! Would you then say that none are right and/or all wrong?

How about a little logic sysllogism?

1. a seal is a mammal
2. a badger is a mammal
3. Therefore a seal is a badger, for things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Yawn! -- Herb Evans

 

[Herb Evans]

He will have his people clean, and if not here, unrepented sins will be burned out in the fires of the Judgment Seat of Christ! M.R. DeHaan, M.D.

Man you fellows even jump on badgers to prove your doctrines. As if our new body needed to be cleaned at the JSOC. I wonder if DeHaan had a scripture for that or if you do. Oops! this is not the place for this. Brother moderator, forgive us both. -- Herb Evans

 

[AntennaFarmer]

This thread in no way proved the KJV to be inaccurate

Okay! Would you then say that none are right and/or all wrong?

A, B and C all disagree.
A and B admit they don't have a clue.
Given no other information, I will go with C.

A.F.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Herb Evans: // As if our new body needed to be cleaned at the JSOC.//

Yep, no sin can enter heaven but some folks seem to
want to our new body whipped bloody to atone for
unforgiven/unpunished sins on earth.

Maybe that is where all the blood comes from???

Rev 14:19-20 (KJV1611 Edition):
And the Angel thrust in his sickle into the earth,
and gathered the vine of the earth, & cast it into
the great winepresse of the wrath of God.
20 And the winepresse was troden
without the citie, and blood came out
of the winepresse, euen vnto the horse bridles,
by the space of a thousand and sixe hundred furlongs.

 

[Herb Evans]

Herb Evans: // As if our new body needed to be cleaned at the JSOC.//

Yep, no sin can enter heaven but some folks seem to
want to our new body whipped bloody to atone for
unforgiven/unpunished sins on earth.

Maybe that is where all the blood comes from???

Rev 14:19-20 (KJV1611 Edition):
And the Angel thrust in his sickle into the earth,
and gathered the vine of the earth, & cast it into
the great winepresse of the wrath of God.
20 And the winepresse was troden
without the citie, and blood came out
of the winepresse, euen vnto the horse bridles,
by the space of a thousand and sixe hundred furlongs.

Ed Squared, you know I had a math guy figure out how many people that came out to, based on whatever pints in one person and the distance of the blood flow and depth of a horse's bridle, and he came up with the two hundred thousand that were slain in Rev. 9:16. I wish that I could find the figures.

Well since old MR said that unfortunate thing incidently, the doctrine has been formulated, systematized, and propogated, so be careful of loose lips that sink ships. Just think something that we say may one day be used to create a cult. -- Herb Evans