Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: Bible Works in the Church Revisited

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    111

    Default Bible Works in the Church Revisited

    We had a guest speaker in church, who spoke about Jonah; and I was reminded of a previous discussion, in which Adelfos raised the valid question: "If the Hebrew Bible is inerrant - as you maintain - why is the verb "waited on" missing in Psalms 130:6: "My soul (waited on) the Lord, more so than watchmen (wait) for morning, watching for morning". I explained that 130:6 isn't defective but rather is an interpolation - a sort of stepping stone - that leads to another "verse" of the same sort - Jonah 2:9: "Those guarding meaningless gibberish forsake their mercy". This verse is a nonsequitur in Jonah's prayer from the belly of the fish between "When I was at a loss, my prayer came to You, to the temple of Your holiness" (verse 8) and "And I in a voice of gratitude I will sacrifice to You whatever I vowed and will repay salvation to the Lord" (verse 10), ending the prayer. Two things unite the Psalms passage with the Jonah passage: 1) The Hebrew משמרים appears only twice in Scripture - at Psalms 130:6 and Jonah 2:9; and 2) Psalm 130:7: "Israel trusts in the Lord, because with the Lord is mercy" is the opposite of Jonah 2:9: "They abandon their mercy". Just as Jonah 2:9 is despensable, so is Psalms 130:6, leaving: "I waited on the Lord - my soul waited - and for his word I waited.... Let Israel wait on the Lord, because mercy is the Lord's". I then showed how Jonah's sojourn in the belly of the fish, which forms an eleven-verse pericope (Jonah 2:1-11) parallels the sojourn of our Lord in an equally inappropriate environment - a drunken wedding party -, which also forms an eleven-verse pericope at John 2:1-11. And what do we find at the problematic ninth spot in John? A verse implying that our Lord turned water to wine to replenish the empty glasses of revellers on the verge of drunken stupor. It reads: "When the bartender tasted the water turned wine, unaware of its source (although his henchmen who poured the 'water' knew) he called the groom". Without this verse we read: "Jesus said to them: 'Fill the pots with water!' And they filled them to the top. And He said to them: 'Pour it out and take it to the bartender!' They took it.... And he said to Him, 'Most people serve the good wine first and save the dregs for the drunken. You've saved the good wine until now." The miracle isn't the conversion of water to wine but rather of drunken revellers to sober water-drinkers. John 2:10: "dregs" (lit. ελασσω "lesser") becomes the third משמרים, which - pointed differently than at Psalms 130:6 and Jonah 2:9 - means "dregs". "Purified dregs" - precursor of the product of our Lord's miracle - appear at Isaiah 25:6, which means roughly: "The Lord of Hosts did for all the peoples in this mountain a beer-party, a party of dregs enriched (?), refined dregs." These dregs aren't a sort of liquor with high alcohol content, but rather the life-giving water that our Lord promised to the Samaritan woman at the well. when He became - in a sense - her "groom" and thus the contrahent at John 2:10. Jonah's 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish (in Sheol, Jonah 2:3) parallel our Lord's 3 days in Kana of Galilee (see John 2:1), which in turn parallel the 3 days in the tomb before the resurrection.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Exclamation

    This thread is neither relevant to nor does it contribute to general discussions about Bibleworks(software)

    You are high encouraged to post in the non-bibleworks discussion section of these forums.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Dear B.K.,
    Since the Hebrew postscript following your message says roughly "Ignore what I just said, and search the Law!" I'm doing just that. The discussion about "dregs" started when my pastor made a glitch in his sermon while I was surfing the internet in church. My ears tingled and I jumped over to Bible Works, which confirmed what I suspected: "dregs" with "from" prefix occurs only twice in scripture - at Psalms 130:6 and Jonah 2:9. "Jonah 2:9" became confused with "John 2:9" in my mind, and I gained an insight into the problematic miracle about the booze at John 2:1-11. I left with computer intact when the deacons failed in their attempt to extract the hard drive with BW6 installed.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post
    Dear B.K.,
    Since the Hebrew postscript following your message says roughly "Ignore what I just said, and search the Law!"
    That is impossible. One, the word 'Torah' means instruction as it comes from the root word meaning to teach, the word however, is also used of the Pentateuch. Torah, when used with the definite article it can also refer to all of codes and teaching in Judaism. As, this is a Karaite saying it could not possible mean anything having to with Rabbinic Law as codified in the Talmuds and later codes. Two, the words "ignore" and "just" are not used at all in this quotation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post
    I'm doing just that. The discussion about "dregs" started when my pastor made a glitch in his sermon while I was surfing the internet in church.
    Why continue to attend that congregation? Why, not go else where or start your own?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post
    My ears tingled and I jumped over to Bible Works, which confirmed what I suspected: "dregs" with "from" prefix occurs only twice in scripture - at Psalms 130:6 and Jonah 2:9. "Jonah 2:9" became confused with "John 2:9" in my mind, and I gained an insight into the problematic miracle about the booze at John 2:1-11.
    It is interesting (and fun) when one can look at words through the diachronic prism of literature. One, may discover how a word/term in question was used through time in an anthology like the Bible. However, the risk may also be great.

    The Psalms and Jonah are written in vastly different genre and style. It might be better to interpret one book in relation to it's own unique historical, grammatical, and critical setting.

    The book of John is written in Koine Greek (not Hebrew) and in a time far removed from either the Psalms or the book of Jonah found in the Tanach/Hebrew Bible. The intended audience of these various texts would also not be the same. Jumping from one these texts, to another can lead to eisegesis.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Dear Brian,
    So it says, "Search in all the laws and code in Judaism, and don't rely on my words!" I went from Psalms to Jonah and to John. That's all the laws and code I know. Are you saying John isn't part of the Jewish code? By the way חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי isn't grammatical. The verb חַפְּשׂ with direct object introduced by bet is foreign to the Old Testament (so BW6).
    Change churches because the pastor made an error?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Mr. Mitchell is right. What does this have to do with the "General Bibleworks" forum, other than you have a copy of BW6?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Greetings Mr. Fincke,

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post
    So it says, "Search in all the laws and code in Judaism, and don't rely on my words!"

    No, that would be inconceivable because it is a Karaite saying. So, it must be referring to only the Torah/Pentateuch in context. Today, however, Egyptian and Israeli Karaites may sometimes use the phrase to speak of the Tanach.


    Also, in normative Judaism some people, will say this is "the torah of my teacher" meaning this the intruction of/halakha of my teacher. But, generally speaking "the Torah" speaks of the Pentateuch and "Torah" speaks of the oral Law in bodied in the Mishnah, Talmuds, Mishneh Torah, and other codes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post

    By the way חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי isn't grammatical.

    Really? So, medieval Jews and modern Israelis who used/use this phrase have been in error?

    Well, then I suggest you report this 'error' to the HaAqademya LaLashon HaIvrith and see what they have to say about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post

    The verb חַפְּשׂ with direct object introduced by bet is foreign to the Old Testament (so BW6).

    Fortunately
    חַפְּשׂ is not introduced by bet! However, if it was it would not make any difference, would it? After, all the 'saying' in question is not from the Hebrew Bible/Tanach.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default In Defense of the Masoretic Text

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post
    ... I was reminded of a previous discussion, in which Adelfos raised the valid question: "If the Hebrew Bible is inerrant - as you maintain - why is the verb "waited on" missing in Psalms 130:6
    I find the above statement to be highly misleading because:
    (1) Adelphos never questioned the inerrancy of the Hebrew Bible!
    (2) Adelphos point was made concerning the validity of the LXX's translation/interpretation of the passage being discussed.

    Notice what Adelphos said:
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    What makes you think the Greek is correct here, especially when the LXX is all over the place in the Poetic books, as well as other places?
    Because the preacher chose to preach on the Hebrew does not make his exegesis wrong. It is the Greek that is certainly wrong...
    To which you replied:
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Fincke View Post
    Dear Adelphos,
    Your attitude - "It is the Greek that is certainly wrong" - contradicts not only the raison d'etre of Bible Works - to promote dialogue between and engagement with the versions - but also the fundamental tenet of the Christian faith: the inerrancy of the Bible.
    ..
    See. it was you and not Adelphos who introduced the word incerrancy to the discussion. And, then the term incerrancy was applied to the LXX translation, which was what Adelphos was questioning. Not, the Hebrew Bible.

    Adephos then replied you stating:
    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Even though your answer is virtually a complete non-sequitur, BibleWorks does not assert that the Greek is correct. Furthermore, there are an innumerable company of translators who have asserted that the Greek is wrong, and thus you should take your own medicine and look up how many versions in BibleWorks follow the Greek. Let me save you the trouble...

    With the sole exception of the DRA, and not including the two LXX versions which don't pretend to consider the Hebrew, ALL of the English translations assert that the Greek is wrong...Like I said, the Greek is certainly wrong. Nor do you appear to know how confused the LXX is in the poetical passages of Scripture.

    Those who have stuck to the Hebrew in this verse have maintained the integrity of God's written Word.
    Clearly Adelpos defends and upholds the Masoretic Text/Hebrew Bible. (A Text exemplified in Ben Chayyim's Mikraot Gedolot)
    Last edited by bkMitchell; 09-16-2010 at 12:05 AM.
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkMitchell View Post
    IClearly Adelpos defends and upholds the Masoretic Text/Hebrew Bible.
    Aw, shucks! I was trying to keep that a secret!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Aw, shucks! I was trying to keep that a secret!
    So, it's true!
    Brian K. Mitchell
    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסתמכו על דברי
    http://www.adfontes.mitchellbk.com/


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •