Repetition & Redundancy in the Holy Bible 2.0

[franklinmonroe]

Interesting correspondence between Jeremiah 16:14-15 & 23:7-8 (KJV)--

14 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
that it shall no more be said, The LORD liveth,
that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
15 But, The LORD liveth, that brought up
the children of Israel from the land of the north,
and from all the lands whither he had driven them:
and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.

7 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth,
which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
8 But, The LORD liveth, which brought up
and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country,
and from all countries whither I had driven them;
and they shall dwell in their own land.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

What is the purpose of this thread?

 

[franklinmonroe]

What is the purpose of this thread?

Several purposes. I assume you have read the thread from the beginning, so you may have picked up on some of the reasons [also another thread in the archives]. We read the Bible but most of these completely escape our attention. Why? Are our translations partly to blame?

Here are just some explicit reasons for the presence in the Versions & Translations forum:
1) by comparing the English renderings to the original language text a person can make various assessments of the translation work done [I have at times provided the Hebrew or Greek in the post] although this is not peculiar to these duplicate passages;
2) what is peculiar to these duplicate passages is that they allow the comparison of the English renderings done by the very same translation body which often have not rendered it the same way twice! Different punctuation, capitalization, or italicizing... but also sometimes entire words are added or dropped, word order changed, etc. [which I sometimes enumerate]. Is it desirable to always have the original language text rendered the precisely the same way?
3) naturally, the above lead to comparing an English translation to another English translation [I sometimes supply multiple English renderings].

I offer these duplicate passages [which seem to be widely unknown among Christians], but I don't always provide all the material for comparisons.

There are side issues as well: what is God communicating by allowing repeated words, phrases, verses or passages in the Bible? How do duplicate passages this fit within theological issues [the 'duplicate passage issue' comes up in apologetics] such as Inspiration and Illumination? Does the way a redundant passage is translated in both places bolster or undermine your view of a beloved translation?

 

[John of Japan]

Here is what one Victor Hafichuk has stated in part about the duplications found in the Scripture (from The Path of Truth website) --

"Any sin confounds, and idolatry makes fools of men. There are those who claim to love the Lord, but love the Bible instead, which testifies of the Lord. The Bible has been a supreme god to multitudes. Many of these Bibliolaters have placed a heavy emphasis on every word, as though each had a supernatural, holy quality of its own. Does that leave any room for translation, which can never render the original language and sense perfectly by letter?

There are many duplicate Scriptures, some repeating nothing more than unknown names that inspire no one. Perhaps Biblical scholars with some in-depth investigation might be able to glean some interesting facts from such passages, but would they need repetition of them? If all words of the Bible were so important for edifying the spiritual pilgrim, why the duplication?

And if God was given to deliberately repeating Himself, why wouldn’t He consistently repeat the more wonderfully inspirational passages many have come to appreciate so much because of the precious truths contained in them?

God isn’t trying to bore us. There isn’t some great, mysterious spiritual reason behind the duplication. The Bible, though much inspired of God, has been put together by men with infirmities. It is a collection of writings, gathered and collated over many centuries, not written consecutively, like a novel or history book, and edited to remove repeated material. This accounts for much of the inconsistencies, repetitions, and variations (some ever so slight) contained therein.

These duplications can be accepted as a weak point of the collection of books known as the Bible, they can be held up as argument that the Bible is illegitimate (though this argument fails), or they can drive a Bible-idolater (Bibliolater) mad. Or perhaps the Bibliolater, already in a state of madness, is so satisfied with his imperfect god, he couldn’t care less about the truth or the God he professes to worship. (The latter makes sense when you realize idolatry is about serving the idolater, not the idol.)

We see the purpose of these faults and apparent inconsistencies of the Bible as God’s way of saying, “I am the Lord your God…. You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2-3). That which is imperfect in any way is never to be worshipped. If the Bible is perfect, then let it be worshipped, but if it is not to be worshipped, then I say to Bibliolaters, contrary to their insistence, the Bible is not perfect, so there. ..."
​

Indeed, sadly there was more.​

By word "sadly," are you disagreeing with this website? I certainly hope so. It's an awful site, with heretical bibliology.

 

[John of Japan]

Concerning the use of the term "redundant" in this thread, I object. The passages in question are parallel, but they are not redundant. Each passage, even when parallel, has eternal truth relevant to that particular document inspired by God, with different exegetical nuances peculiar to itself, rather than duplicating the nuances of the parallel passage.

"Definition of redundant
1a: exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS
b: characterized by or containing an excessspecifically : using more words than necessary
c: characterized by similarity or repetitiona group of particularly redundant brick buildings
dchiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off
2: PROFUSE, LAVISH
3: serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (such as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component"

From: Definition of REDUNDANT

 

[Just_Ahead]

What is the purpose of this thread?

I have to agree with Squire Robertsson, Administrator.

 

[Just_Ahead]

Concerning the use of the term "redundant" in this thread, I object. The passages in question are parallel, but they are not redundant. Each passage, even when parallel, has eternal truth relevant to that particular document inspired by God, with different exegetical nuances peculiar to itself, rather than duplicating the nuances of the parallel passage.

I also agree with John of Japan.