{"id":8252,"date":"2023-07-24T18:57:22","date_gmt":"2023-07-24T23:57:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=8252"},"modified":"2023-07-24T18:57:25","modified_gmt":"2023-07-24T23:57:25","slug":"notes-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/07\/24\/notes-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Notes 1"},"content":{"rendered":"\n1 Chronicles 20:3 \u2013 sawed in half?\n\n\n\nOur Greek Septuagint source text says that David took the conquered Ammonite people and had them sawed in half with saws, axes, and threshing devices. However, the parallel account in 2 Samuel 12:31 says no such thing, it says that they were put to work in jobs that both used and creating iron tools (carpenters, farm laborers, iron smelters, blacksmiths, and brick makers).\n\n\n\nThe problem seems to be in the original Hebrew source used by our Greek translator. The Pulpit Commentary reports that there was a simple copying error of just part of one letter:\n\n\n\nHebrew word \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05e8 (and he cut) instead of \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c2\u05dd (he put). Probably it is nowhere else used in the sense of “cutting,” if it is here. Its ordinary sense is to rule or put into subjection.\n\n\n\nSo the two accounts do not contradict each other, and King David did not administer a cruel and medieval punishment upon the conquered people. On the contrary, they were put to work using saws, axes, and farm tools for threshing grain.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1 Corinthians 14:22 \u2013 Why the wrong way around?\n\n\n\nAll Greek and Aramaic manuscripts have Paul saying in verse 22 that:\n\n\n\n\nSpeaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers,\n\n\n\nWhile prophesying is a sign for the benefit of believers.\n\n\n\n\nYet our translation puts this the opposite way around! Why?\n\n\n\n[...x]<\/span>
>We strongly suspect a manuscript corruption, because having it the \u2018correct\u2019 way around causes direct contradictions with the words immediately before and after!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before this verse, in verse 21, Paul mentions how the \u2018Law\u2019 (shorthand for the Law and the Prophets<\/em>, in this case, Isaiah) predicted that Jehovah will speak to his people (believers<\/strong>) in other languages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Afterwards, in verse 23, Paul remarks how unbelievers will just think Christians are crazy if they see Christians speaking in other languages; and then in verses 24 and 25, he says than if an unbeliever should hear congregation members prophesy, then the unbeliever will benefit. In other words, prophesying is for unbelievers<\/strong>, while speaking in tongues is for believers<\/strong>. Yes, exactly the opposite of what was stated in verse 22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this reason we strongly suspect that 14:22 suffered some early corruption in copying, that someone accidentally switched the statement around. Remember that it took some time for Paul\u2019s writings to be accepted as inspired scripture, and very few copies circulated for many years, allowing corruptions to be overlooked more easily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, either there was a corruption, or Paul contradicted himself. We\u2019re assuming there\u2019s a corruption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s not be too harsh on the scribal copyists. Remember, coffee was not yet known in the ancient world!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1 Corinthians 15:33 \u2013 \u2018bad company\u2019 or \u2018evil communications?\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In most Bibles, 1 Corinthians 15:33 reads something like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Do not be misled: \u201cBad company corrupts good character.\u201d\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This may indeed be a universal truth, but is it what the verse originally said? No. These words are actually a common mistranslation. You may have suspected this from seeing how it doesn\u2019t flow with the rest of the argument very well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, consider the word variously translated as company<\/em>, companionships, associating,<\/em> or friends<\/em>. According to ancient sources, the word does not refer to people at all, but to bad (or evil) ideas<\/em>, stories<\/em>, and communications<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This would make sense, because the context is Paul refuting the idea, or teaching, that the resurrection has already occurred. He is not talking about bad people<\/em>, but bad talk<\/em> and its logical consequences \u2013 and older Bibles seem to agree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the first Bible ever made in English (Tyndale, 1526) says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Be not deceived: malicious speakings<\/strong> corrupt good manners.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, the Aramaic version of the text clearly says communications<\/em> or stories<\/em>. Every English translation of the Aramaic agrees on this. For example, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English<\/em> says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Be not deceived, evil discourse<\/strong> corrupts pleasant minds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only Bibles that translate the word in a way that refers to bad people<\/em>, and not bad talk<\/em>, are those from the Greek. The Greek word is \u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9 (homilia<\/em>) \u2013 which is defined in most Bible dictionaries as meaning \u2018company, association\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, if we check the word in the Greek lexicon (which catalogs the real-world ancient uses of Greek words), we find that in ancient times it had many meanings. Yes, it included company<\/em> and association<\/em>, but also persuasion, <\/em>instruction,<\/em> and intercourse<\/em> \u2013 meaning an interaction of ideas. To put it another way, talk<\/em>. This matches up well with the Aramaic word. But wait, there\u2019s more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a very odd thing about the verse in Aramaic. The words seem to have a poetic, repetitive cadence, where the endings of the words seem to be deliberately matched up:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mablan reyaneh<\/strong> basiymeh<\/strong>
shuw-yatah<\/strong> biy-shatah<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Literally:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They\/corrupt minds fair,
stories evil<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is phrased as if this is a common saying, told in the typical way that was very common in ancient times: making a slight rhyme so it\u2019s easier to remember.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a good reason for this: it is a poetic quote! Indeed, it was probably a well-known one at the time. It was used by a popular ancient Greek poet, Menander. Unfortunately, most of his work was lost, and we only have fragments. So how do we know that Paul was using a quote also used by Menander? Because ancient writers tell us so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ancient Church historian Socrates of Constantinople reported in his book, Historia Ecclesiastica<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Again this sentence [of Paul], \u2018Evil communications corrupt good manners<\/strong>,\u2019 is a sufficient proof that he was conversant with the tragedies of Euripides.\u2019\u2013 Book III, chapter 16, verse 114<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notice that not only does this confirm that the phrase is indeed a well-known quote, but look at how Socrates quotes it from Paul: \u2018Evil communications<\/em> corrupt good manners.\u2019 He does not say \u2018bad company<\/em>\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, the Hermeneia<\/em> Bible commentary series on 1 Corinthians says \u2018This saying was widely known as a familiar quotation.\u2019 Then it gives an example of its use by the 1st century BCE historian Diodorus Siculus who, speaking of Philip II of Macedon, said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018So, organising bands of traitors in the several cities by means of bribes and calling those who accepted his gold \u201cguests\u201d and \u201cfriends\u201d, by his evil communications he corrupted the morals of the people<\/strong>\u2019 \u2013Bibliotheca Historica, 16.54.4<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do you see how it was offering bribes, and then calling these bribed people \u2018friends\u2019 \u2013 evil communications \u2013 that the people were corrupted? So it\u2019s clear why Paul was using this common phrase, because the \u2018evil\u2019 teaching that the resurrection had already occurred was corrupting the congregation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second part<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second part of the phrase, usually translated as \u2018good character,\u2019 or \u2018good morals\u2019 needs to be re-examined too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s tackle the first word. The Aramaic word mostly means sweet<\/em> or pleasant<\/em>, and the Greek word mostly means useful<\/em>, gentle<\/em>, kind<\/em>, or pleasant<\/em>. So which is it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since this is a moral<\/em> tale where something is corrupted<\/em>, it must be the opposite<\/em> beforehand, so we could collectively summarize all of these simply as good<\/em>. Things that are good<\/em> or can be corrupted, we don\u2019t really speak about corrupting things that are pleasant, kind,<\/em> or sweet<\/em>. Also, good<\/em> was the word used by Socrates of Constantinople when he quoted Paul.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what about the second word? The Aramaic word can mean mind<\/em>, thought<\/em> or attitude<\/em>, as well as will<\/em>. The Greek word is \u00e9thos, and is where we get the word ethics<\/em>. It can mean habit<\/em>, manner<\/em>, custom<\/em>, or morals<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, are we talking about corrupting a good mind<\/em>? Or good morals<\/em>? Good habits<\/em>? Good manners<\/em>? A good conscience<\/em>? All of these?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can immediately rule out habits<\/em>, because, in our modern language, a good habit<\/em> is something like brushing your teeth before bed. Good habits <\/em>\u2013 as we think of them today \u2013 do not fit in the context. No longer believing in a future resurrection will not stop you brushing your teeth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can rule out manners<\/em> for the same reason, because in modern English, good manners are things like saying please or thank you, or keeping the door open for someone behind you. This is nothing to do with being corrupted by an incorrect teaching about the resurrection!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good conscience<\/em> could fit, but when both Socrates of Constantinople and Diodorus Siculus (quoted above) used the expression, they did not say anything so specific as conscience<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So we are left with corrupting the morals<\/em> or the mind<\/em>. These are similar thoughts. However, corrupting your morals<\/em> is the best choice for two reasons: it\u2019s how Diodorus Siculus quoted Paul, and that\u2019s what Paul was talking about.<\/em> The previous verse said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018And if the dead aren\u2019t going to be raised,<\/strong> and if it was just as a man that I fought wild animals at Ephesus, what good did it do me? Why not rather say, \u2018Let\u2019s eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die!\u2019<\/strong> \u20141 Corinthians 15:32<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly the implication is that, if this life is all there is, why not just enjoy it in an immoral way? So if people believe this false teaching about the resurrection, throw your morals to the wind, and enjoy life! Then comes the warning, that evil communications, or ideas, like that, can corrupt your good morals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It makes perfect sense. Therefore our translation puts 1 Corinthians 15:33 as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018So, don\u2019t allow [anyone] to mislead you about this\u2026 Remember that \u201cevil communications corrupt good morals!\u201d<\/strong>\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This fits the context perfectly, flows extremely well, matches the ancient uses of the words, and agrees with ancient historians quoting the same expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are bad companions okay?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, are we saying that the Bible doesn\u2019t condemn associating with bad people? No, of course not. There are numerous warnings about befriending evil people, especially in the Psalms and Proverbs. However, 1 Corinthians 15:33 is not one of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This verse is warning about something else: how what you believe affects your morals!<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, the 20th century had a very stark example of evil beliefs causing people to lose their morals. Hitler\u2019s beliefs in a German master race, the pseudoscience of eugenics, Nietzsche\u2019s nihilist philosophy that life is meaningless, and Darwin\u2019s survival of the fittest, all combined to create some of the greatest horrors ever inflicted upon humanity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1 Corinthians 6:9 \u2013 \u2018the perverted\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The word that we translate as the perverted<\/em> has puzzled Bible translators for years. Usually translators assume that it\u2019s something to do with homosexuality, yet the next listed type of person is about homosexuality. So, is homosexuality listed twice? If so, why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We say that no, homosexuality is probably not listed twice, and this first mention is really talking of something else. However, most Bible translators do not share this belief, and think that there\u2019s two mentions of homosexuality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So they speculate that this first mention is actually talking about male prostitutes (as in the New Living Translation<\/em>). Others say that this first mention is specifically talking about effeminate gay men (as in the King James Version<\/em>). A few even say that it\u2019s talking about the passive<\/em> role in gay sex, whereas the next listing is the active<\/em> role in gay sex (as translated in the Berean Study Bible<\/em>). The New International Versio<\/em>n combines both terms into one, \u2018men who have sex with men,\u2019 hiding the fact that two separate things were listed. The New King James Version<\/em> really confuses things, by listing them as \u2018nor homosexuals, nor sodomites.\u2019 Huh?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s an alternative answer, found in the Aramaic word (and from a little critical thinking).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not so specific<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1 Corinthians may have originally been penned in Aramaic. The Greek text may be an ancient translation. Now, the Aramaic word used is \u0721\u071a\u0712\u0720\u0710 (m\u2019hab\u2019leh<\/em>), which comes from a root which literally means to <\/em>injure.<\/em> The exact spelling means to be defiled<\/em>, or to be corrupted<\/em>. Other words derived from this same root have meanings including to disfigure<\/em>, to act perversely,<\/em> to be perverted<\/em>, and even to deflower.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Put this all together, and it sounds like the Apostle was listing people who corrupt or pervert either themselves or others<\/em>. Or as we would say in English, perverts<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This would also solve a small puzzle. Fornication, adultery, and homosexuality all got their own special mentions by Paul, but not incest, bestiality, rape, voyeurism, pedophilia, or prostitution. Why? Well, they are all probably covered by this word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, in the old law, cross-dressers were specifically condemned to a death sentence, yet in the New Testament, there\u2019s no mention of it. How puzzling that a capital offence in Israel, would now be permitted among Christians by Paul. Why the change? Was it just forgotten? Or, in the Apostle Paul\u2019s mind, was such a thing actually covered by this word? Perhaps, but we don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What explains the Greek?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what about the word used in the Greek version? That says something quite different. It\u2019s \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03af (malakoi<\/em>). It\u2019s the masculine plural word for soft<\/em>, and so can literally mean, soft males.<\/em> It could indeed be translated as effeminate males<\/em> or passive males<\/em>. Basically, it\u2019s slang: softies<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, if this was merely the choice of an Ancient Greek translator, then it may be a mistranslation<\/em>. How so?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When our Ancient Greek translator \u2013 probably Jewish \u2013 saw the word m\u2019hab\u2019leh <\/em>(the perverted), what may have first come to his mind was how, in Ancient Greece, it was quite normal for older men to \u2018court\u2019 teenage boys and enter a relationship with them, which was often sexual. We call this pederasty<\/em>. Such relationships would often be illegal today due to age-of-consent laws. Yet the Ancient Greeks celebrated it. We can only imagine how much it must have shocked Greek-speaking Jews!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ancient Greek culture also featured male prostitutes who shaved their beards off to make themselves look more feminine. Even being clean-shaven was against the Jewish Law, never mind being a male prostitute! In the Old Law at Leviticus 19:27, all men must have beards (with a exception of a cleansing ritual in Leviticus 14:9). This ordinary part of Greek culture would have also shocked the Jews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So when our Jewish Christian translator, who perhaps lived among the Greeks in Corinth, saw the Aramaic word for the perverted<\/em>, it\u2019s not surprising that he translated it as the Greek term soft males<\/em>. To him, the pederasty and effeminacy he saw every single day were shocking perversions. Yet, by doing this, he likely mistranslated.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The term, the perverted,<\/em> can cover many persons, including many heterosexuals. By mistranslating it as soft males<\/em>, he was seriously limiting what Paul said to apply to just one group. And this was probably a mistake, as 2,000 years later, translators are puzzling over why we have two mentions of same-sex relations. Yet, it seems that we actually don\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is perverted?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exactly what things are the perverted<\/em> guilty of doing in the Apostle\u2019s mind? Well, it would very likely cover all of the sexual crimes in the Old Law; so incest, bestiality, and so on, would be included. Beyond that, it\u2019s up for debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We may get some clues from the root word, meaning to\u00a0injure<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0perish<\/em>. If an activity would injure or even kill someone\u2019s innocence or moral purity, then it might be covered by this word. It may also imply something more rare and unusual than mere fornication, adultery, or homosexuality, which are mentioned separately and are very common.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1 Corinthians 8:6 \u2013 everything made through Jesus, or everything in Jesus\u2019 hand?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In most translations (including this one, at one time), the latter half of this verse sounds like it\u2019s talking about Jesus being involved in creation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist<\/strong>.\u201d \u2013Berean Standard Bible<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the Aramaic could be taken in one of two ways. It could agree with what is said above, but it could also simply be about everything being in Jesus\u2019 hand, or power. Literally, the Aramaic reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…and-one lord, Jesus Anointed-One, all-of in\/with-his-hand\/arm also we<\/strong> in\/with-his-hand\/arm<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We translate this as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s also just one Lord, Jesus the Anointed; everything is in his hand, and we are in his hand too.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The confusion arises because the Aramaic for \u2018in\u2019 can also mean \u2018with\u2019 or \u2018by means of\u2019, and the expression \u2018hand\/arm\u2019 is part of a common way of talking about acting, fighting, and so on. Consider how many times Yahweh talks about showing his \u2018mighty arm\u2019 in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the Aramaic text could mean:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • \u2018all [is] by means of<\/strong> his hand\u2019, or<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • \u2018all [are] in<\/strong> his hand\u2019.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    Or, in other words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • Everything was created by\/through Jesus, or<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Everything is in Jesus\u2019 hand.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      Which is correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Well, the ancient Greek translator (remember, our project assumes that this book was originally in Aramaic) seems to quite clearly believe that it should mean \u2018all [is] by means of his hand\u2019. He clearly translated it as \u2018through whom all\u2019. Modern Bibles translate this to mean that everything was created by God through<\/em> Jesus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      However, could the Greek translator have made a mistake here? Was it really just a statement about everything being in Jesus\u2019 dominion? Well, if the Greek text really was just an uninspired translation, then yes, it\u2019s possible<\/em> that a mistake was made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      So is there any further context to clarify what was meant?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Well, the idea of everything being in Jesus\u2019 hand nicely fits many other scriptures, including ones further on in the same letter. Paul later talks about \u2018everything\u2019 being acceptable because \u2018everything\u2019 belongs to the Lord.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      1 Corinthians 10:22-26:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Yes, everything<\/strong> is legal, but not everything<\/strong> makes us stronger… you can eat whatever\u2019s sold at the meat markets without it bothering your consciences, for the earth and everything<\/strong> in it belongs to the Lord.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      It also agrees with many other statements, such as Hebrews 2:8, which says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      …when [God] put everything under [Jesus\u2019 feet], He didn\u2019t leave anything out… There\u2019s nothing that he isn\u2019t in charge of<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      However, this does not prove<\/em> anything. It just shows that the alternative translation could<\/em> be correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      So, does this verse talk about everything being in Jesus\u2019 hand, or everything being created through Jesus? Well, we can\u2019t ask the Church Fathers for help, since if the Greek translator really did get it wrong, then all these other men would have been working from the mistranslation!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      We really can\u2019t say which version is the correct one without stepping outside of translation<\/em> and into theology<\/em>. We are not taking sides on any controversy over Jesus\u2019 pre-human existence. The question we\u2019re considering here is one of translation of a few words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      If the Aramaic text really is the original, then it\u2019s our duty to point out that it can be translated in two different ways. We are merely using the alternative translation to bring your attention to this issue; that\u2019s all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      <\/p>\n\n\n\n

      1 John 5:7-8 \u2013 \u2018these three are one\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      In several other Bibles, 1 John 5:7-8 reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \u2018There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      However, these words are missing from every ancient Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Georgian, Coptic, and Arabic manuscript. In fact, they do not appear in any Greek manuscript of the Bible until the 14th or 15th century \u2013 approximately 1,400 years after the Apostle wrote this Bible book!<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      It does appear in one 10th century Greek manuscript, but it\u2019s clearly been added by someone later on, believed to be during the 19th century. Also, the words themselves have three significant variants, typical for a spurious addition to the Bible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Further, the Church fathers did not mention this verse, even when collecting verses that they argued supported the Trinity doctrine. Clement of Alexandria quoted these verses and didn\u2019t include these words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      You can find these words in a document from the 4th century, but it\u2019s not a Bible manuscript \u2013 it\u2019s a homily called Liber Apologeticus<\/em> by a writer called Priscillian of \u00c1vila.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      So how did these words get into the Bible? Well, the words were first deliberately added to the Latin Vulgate translation by persons working for the Catholic Church. They moved them from a marginal note into the main body of the text. It remained there, alone among Bibles, until recent centuries. However, even then, they are missing from the two oldest Vulgate manuscripts, the Codex Fuldensis and the Codex Amiatinus. This suggests that Jerome, the original creator of the Latin Vulgate, did not recognize the words. There is one quote of his that supposedly mentions it, but it\u2019s now thought to be from a pseudo-Jerome \u2013 a later impostor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Today, it is easily the most well-known fake verse in the Bible.<\/em> Entire books have been written about this. Even several Catholic Bibles now omit the \u2018verse,\u2019 including the Jerusalem Bible<\/em> and the New American Bible<\/em>, both sponsored by the Vatican.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      If that wasn\u2019t enough, even the context shows that the words do not belong there. John chapter 5 is speaking about the three witness-bearers of Jesus:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. The water (baptism),<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. The Holy Spirit (in Greek, Pneuma<\/em> \u2013 Breath),<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. His shed blood<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        So adding words mentioning \u2018the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost\u2019 makes the rest of what John wrote illogical, because he wasn\u2019t talking about that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Scholars call this fake verse the Johannine Comma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        See our list of spurious texts that are crossed out<\/del> in our Bible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1 Kings 6:1 \u2013 How many years?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        There is a disagreement here between the different Bible source texts. The Greek Septuagint says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \u2018It was in the four hundred and fortieth year<\/strong> after the sons IsraEl left Egypt … that the foundation of the Temple of Jehovah was laid.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        However, the Hebrew text says the foundation of the Temple was laid four hundred and eighty <\/strong>years after the exodus from Egypt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        So, which is correct?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Well, the period from IsraEl\u2019s entry into the promised land \u2013 from the period of the Judges to the start of the reign of King Saul (as shown in the books of Judges and 1 Samuel) \u2013 seems to have been about 400 years. Then if we add the 40 years of Saul\u2019s rule and the 40 years of David\u2019s rule, you can see that there had to be at least 480 years between the time of the Exodus and the laying of the Temple foundation by David\u2019s son Solomon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        So the Greek Septuagint text is probably is error here, and the Hebrew Masoretic text is most likely correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        It can be argued that this 480-year period may not have actually started with the Exodus, but with IsraEl\u2019s entry into the Promised Land. To learn more, see the commentary,\u00a0Who was Pharaoh during the Exodus?<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1 Samuel 24:3 \u2013 Was Saul preparing himself, having a sleep, or having a poo?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        The Greek text says that Saul entered the cave to \u201cmake preparation,\u201d while the Hebrew says he went in to \u201ccover his feet.\u201d What does this mean?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Some say that that the Hebrew expression refers to taking off your outer garments to lie down and sleep. After all, David is then spoken of as creeping up to him and cutting off part of his garment. It would make sense if he was asleep. So this may be correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        However, feet<\/em> are often used as a euphemism for your nether regions, much like the word loins<\/em>. And why not just say \u2018sleep?\u2019 Why would an expression be needed? And why would the Greek Septuagint say something completely different, unless the translators was using an equivalent Greek-language euphemism? Saul was, of course, King. If he wore many layers, he may have had to remove his outer coat and set it aside before easing nature. There was also an entire army outside, and the noise generated by it may have helped David to sneak up and cut Saul\u2019s garment without Saul hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        So it may be a euphemism for answering a call of nature. Since the Hebrew text implies pulling down underclothes to cover the feet, it seems likely that this was not just for urination, but to empty the bowels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        However, we don\u2019t know for sure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Saul may indeed have been sleeping. If Saul was easing nature, then it may add to our understanding of the account, showing why David refused to strike Saul. Not only would he be killing the King, but he would be killing him in the most humiliating way possible. Saul would have forever been known as the King who was killed while having a poo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1 Timothy 1:10 \u2013 fornicators, the sexually immoral, or whoremongers?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        There is a slight disagreement here between the Greek and Aramaic texts. In Greek, it just uses a derivative of porneia<\/em>, which means that which is sold (by prostitutes)<\/em>, just like it does in 1 Corinthians 6:9. So the Greek text is always translated as fornicators<\/em> or the sexually immoral<\/em>. It is not about prostitutes specifically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        However, in the Aramaic, the word might be slightly more specific. It is walzanayeh<\/em>. The wa-<\/em> and -l-<\/em> pieces are prefixes meaning and for\/to<\/em>, while zanayeh<\/em> just means prostitute<\/em>. So literally we have and for\/to prostitutes<\/em>. Everything in Aramaic is derived from verbs (action words), so this literally means someone who goes to prostitutes<\/em>. In English, such persons are called a whoremongers<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Now, somewhat like in Greek, the Aramaic word for fornication (sexual immorality) is derived from the word for prostitute<\/em>. So, is the word an expression that means all kinds of sexual immorality, or is it being specific to using a prostitute? It\u2019s difficult to say. The Aramaic translations are split on the matter. The George Lamsa Bible says \u2018whoremongers.\u2019 The Murdock translation says the same. However, the Etheridge translation says \u2018fornicators.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        It seems that our Ancient Greek translator also thought it implied fornicators, rather than specifically just customers of prostitutes. After all, would visiting a prostitute be wrong, while having sex with a slave be acceptable? Surely both would be wrong. 1 Corinthians 6:18 uses a different version of the same word, and the context makes it clear that we\u2019re talking about more than prostitutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        However, since we tend to trust the Aramaic, and since it is slightly different to the word used in\u00a01 Corinthians 6:9, in this instance we go with the meaning of whoremongers (or\u00a0people who use prostitutes<\/em>). Perhaps the apostle was wishing to be more specific here. After all, the entire list is slightly different to the one in 1 Corinthians. This note should explain that the true meaning might be more broad. Indeed, in\u00a01 Corinthians 6:9, the related Aramaic word\u00a0zanayeh<\/em>\u00a0is translated as\u00a0sexually immoral<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1 Timothy 1:18 \u2013 \u2018fight in a good war\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        Most Bible translations say something like he will \u2018fight the good fight.\u2019 However, in our opinion, Paul wanted to use a much stronger imagery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The Greek source seems to indicate that Timothy would act as soldier or warrior in fighting (strateun<\/em>) in a good (kalen<\/em>) war (strateian<\/em>). Presumably, this would be a spiritual war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What may be the original Aramaic source agrees, saying that Timothy would perform military work or service (d\u0259\u1e6fepl\u016b\u1e25<\/em>) in a good, or proper, (\u0161app\u012brt\u0101) war (p\u0101l\u1e25\u016b\u1e6f\u0101).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        We feel that this is more colorful than merely \u2018fight a good fight\u2019. It is also logical, because both letters to Timothy follow a theme of a soldier in battle. For example, Paul refers to him as a \u2018fine soldier\u2019 at\u00a02 Timothy 2:3-4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1 Timothy 2:9-15 \u2013 verses about women<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        Since this passage is about an emotionally-charged topic, here\u2019s a breakdown of why we translate it in this way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Verses 9-10<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        In the NKJV:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        9<\/sup> in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation<\/strong>, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10<\/sup> but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In our translation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        9<\/sup> Likewise, the women\u2019s clothing should be modest, respectable, and sensible<\/strong>; not with fancy hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive clothes. 10<\/sup> But instead, [their fancy clothing] should be good works \u2013 something befitting women who say that they fear God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The problem is that all three words used (in both Greek and Aramaic) could reasonably be translated as some variation of modesty<\/em>. So the differences must be subtle. So the question is, what are the differences?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        According to the interlinear Apostolic Bible<\/em>, the Greek literally says \u2018composed apparel with respect and discreetness\u2019<\/em>, while the Dukhrana<\/em> interlinear of the Aramaic text gives \u2018modest\/sober apparel with modesty\/reverence and modesty\/sobriety.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Now we must turn this into everyday English. If we instead look at the opposite of these words, we can start to see how to convey this in modern terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        What is the opposite of being sober and modest? Probably wild<\/em> (or drunk<\/em>) and showing off<\/em>. What\u2019s the opposite of modesty and reverence? Probably showing off<\/em> (again) and being disrespectful<\/em>. What\u2019s the opposite of modesty and sobriety? Making poor choices<\/em> that also results in showing off<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        So in everyday English, we could say modest<\/em> (opposite of wild showing off), respectable<\/em> (opposite of disrespectful), and sensible<\/em> (opposite of making poor choices). Also, if these comments are made in the context of Christian meetings (like the next comments about learning seem to be), the reference to respect<\/em> could refer to respecting the solemness of the occasion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        These Aramaic-based translations are all very similar to the Greek words, except for \u2018discreetness\u2019 instead of \u2018sensible.\u2019 However, in Greek \u2018discreet\u2019 also means \u2018wise,\u2019 \u2018sanity,\u2019 and \u2018self-control\u2019. So both languages seem to be saying the same thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Verse 11<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        In the NKJV:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        11<\/sup> Let a woman learn in silence with all submission<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In our translation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        11<\/sup> Let a woman [or, wife] learn quietly and obediently<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In this place, our translation is very similar to others, but phrases like \u201cin silence\u201d and \u201cwith all submission\u201d are old-fashioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Further, some men take the phrase \u201call submission\u201d out of context in order to tell women that they should allow themselves to be subjugated and abused because \u201cthe Bible says you ought to be silent and submit to me!\u201d However, this verse is just talking about learning<\/em> \u2013 being obedient to Christian teachers, probably in the context of Christian meetings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Look at it this way, the opposite meaning would be to behave \u201cloudly and disruptively\u201d. Should any Christian act like that when learning about their Faith, male or female?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Verse 12a<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        In the NKJV:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        12<\/sup> And I do not permit<\/strong> a woman to teach …<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In our translation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        12<\/sup> Indeed, I don\u2019t argue<\/strong> that a woman [should] teach …<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The differences between the Greek and Aramaic are interesting here. The Aramaic word is usually translated as \u2018allow\/permit,\u2019 but it\u2019s actually a stronger inflection of the verb \u2018to persuade\u2019, so it could be order<\/em>, but the root is usually used to mean beg<\/em> or plead<\/em>. If that\u2019s correct, then Paul isn\u2019t setting up a rule, rather, he is stating that he would never argue for a woman to teach. In other words, he would never demand it, nor try to make it happen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        If this is right, then it may resolve a problem, because if he really had set up a \u2018rule\u2019 that women can never<\/em> teach, then what about places where the local Christian group has no Christian men willing (or able) to teach? The problem disappears when we see that it\u2019s not a rule, it\u2019s just not what he would argue for; it\u2019s not the ideal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        While the Christian books mention women praying, prophecying, singing, and preaching, they don\u2019t mention women teaching a congregation. On the contrary, James recommended that very few \u2018brothers\u2019 should be teachers (James 3:1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Being a teacher<\/em> is, however, different from leading the congregation in song, saying a prayer, prophecying, speaking in tongues, or sharing testimonies and experiences. Teaching<\/em> is something very specific that (according to James) few should do. And nobody<\/em> (male or female) should be the Leader other than the Anointed One. (see below)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Verse 12b<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        In the NKJV:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        … or to have authority over a man<\/strong>…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In our translation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        … nor [that she should] domineer<\/strong> a man;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The Aramaic uses a strong inflection of \u2018to dare\u2019, or \u2018to be bold\u2019. The Greek can mean to be something like a despot. In the everyday English of our translation, we choose to say \u2018to domineer a man\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        One might think that authority<\/em> and domination<\/em> are the same thing, but they are not. Saying \u2018have authority<\/em> over\u2019 implies an official appointment to an office. Therefore, the meaning of the verse is changed entirely; it sounds like Paul is implying that while women can\u2019t gain such authority, men can<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        We have learned through our translation efforts that men are not permitted to have authority (or to act as \u2018Lords\u2019) over other Christians, for only the Anointed One is the Leader. Even the Apostles were mere servants. See our page on mistranslations to support the authority of men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        To \u2018have authority over\u2019 implies some official appointment, whereas anyone<\/em> can be domineering. No appointment is needed. So, if Paul was saying that a woman shouldn\u2019t be domineering over a man, it changes the sense to something much broader. Also, keep in mind that the Aramaic and Greek words for woman<\/em> and man<\/em> also mean wife<\/em> and husband<\/em>. The actual meaning is only seen by context. You could choose to read it as \u2018nor [should a wife] domineer a husband\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Verse 12c<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        In the NKJV:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        …but to be in silence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In our translation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        … rather, stop it<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Finally, instead of \u2018be silent\u2019, our translation says \u2018stop it\u2019 because the broader sense of the Aramaic word (and its root) means to cease<\/em> something, including speaking and<\/em> doing, but \u2018be silent\u2019 would be a reasonable choice too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Verses 13-14a<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        In the NKJV:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        13<\/sup> For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14<\/sup> And Adam was not deceived<\/strong>, but the woman being deceived<\/strong> …<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In our translation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        13<\/sup> For Adam was created first, then Eve. 14<\/sup> Also, Adam wasn\u2019t seduced<\/strong>, but the woman was seduced<\/strong> …<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The Aramaic word has a broad range of meanings \u2013 from simply making a mistake<\/em>, to going astray,<\/em> to be seduced<\/em>. Since we know the context \u2013 what happened in the Garden \u2013 we know that seduced<\/em> is the correct meaning here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Eve was not just deceived \u2013 there was more to it. She was enticed to look at the tree and to develop a desire for its fruit; the \u2018snake\u2019 aroused feelings in her and then used these against her. This is more than mere deception, it\u2019s seduction<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        To translate it as \u2018deceived\u2019 could imply that she was simply tricked<\/em> and that God will punish innocent people if they are fooled by someone \u2013 yes, that He punishes people for being victims!<\/em> It makes far more sense when one understands that it\u2019s not that simple; she wasn\u2019t just lied to, she was enticed to fulfill her own desires and to sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        According to HELPS Word Studies<\/em>, the scholar Deissmann stated that \u201cdeception with [this word] is often sensual (personal desires, pleasure)\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Verses 14b<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        In the NKJV:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        … fell into transgression<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In our translation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        … broke the commandment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        There are three problems with \u2018fell into transgression\u2019. First, it\u2019s old-fashioned (and our translation is supposed to be in modern English). Secondly, it speaks generally, whereas the original text is referencing a specific event. The actual words in Greek say that Eve was in violation<\/em> \u2013 meaning, she broke a law. The Aramaic says she broke the command<\/em>. Yes, she ate the fruit. So that\u2019s what we have in our translation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Finally, the more general statement, unfortunately, implies to some that through Eve, all women have fallen into transgression<\/em> (or sin) in some way that Adam (and all men) did not. Therefore, they say, women are uniquely sinful<\/em>. Yet this is not supported by the original words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        There is no implication that by extension, through Eve, all women are somehow uniquely sinful. Surely, by this logic, the men would be uniquely sinful since Adam wasn\u2019t seduced and knew what he was doing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Verse 15<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        In the NKJV:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        15<\/sup> Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing<\/strong> if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In our translation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        15<\/sup> However, she\u2019ll be sustained by her children<\/strong> \u2013 as long as they[, that is, her children]<\/strong> remain in the Faith in love, holiness, and sensibleness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        This verse has caused some to think that giving birth to multiple children will save<\/em> (or at least help to save<\/em>) women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        There are two main problems with this. First, only faith in the sacrifice of Jesus can save. Paul could hardly tell Timothy that a woman is saved by having kids. He can\u2019t say that; only Jesus saves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The problem evaporates when you realize that the word for \u2018saved\u2019 has further everyday uses (in both Aramaic and Greek) than just salvation<\/em> through Jesus. The Aramaic word can also mean the ordinary sustaining things of life (money, food, drink, shelter, etc.), or to be kept safe and well<\/em>. Also, the Greek can mean to be safe and sound<\/em>. Only the context reveals which is the correct meaning. We choose \u201csustained\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        So Paul is not saying that the woman will be saved<\/em> in a religious sense (how could he?), but looked after, sustained. But how can giving birth sustain you? Well, the Aramaic word can mean either births<\/em> or children<\/em>. Again, the context is key. Paul must be referring to the support of her grown, believing children in the Faith \u2013 not little babies!<\/em> So here our translation says \u201csustained by her children\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        If the Greek is merely a translation of an Aramaic original (as we suspect), then we can see where the misunderstanding came from \u2013 the Greek translator chose the wrong definition. He saw \u201cbirths\/children\u201d, ignored the obvious context, and turned children<\/em> into childbearing!<\/em> Suddenly, giving birth grants women salvation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Further, when it says \u201cshe\u2019ll be sustained by her children as long as they remain<\/strong> in the Faith\u201d, the Aramaic word meaning \u2018they remain\u2019 has a masculine plural<\/em> spelling. So it can\u2019t be referring back to the singular<\/em> woman<\/em>, it must refer to her children<\/em> remaining in the Faith (a mixed-sex group of people uses a plural masculine spelling). Also, newborn babies cannot be \u2018in the Faith.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Therefore, by considering the context, Paul said that a woman will be sustained via her faithful children. Sustained in what way? Perhaps sustained in the Faith, and protected from what he mentioned previously, being seduced by something and led away from the Faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

        1 Timothy 3:16 \u2013 \u2018he\u2019 or \u2018God\u2019?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

        The wording was altered \u2013 either accidentally or deliberately \u2013 in some Greek manuscripts to say that God<\/em> appeared in the flesh instead of \u2018he.\u2019 This is one of the most famous corruptions of the Bible text that researchers have found. It is corrected in most modern Bibles, but still appears in a few translations, such as the King James Version<\/em> and the World English Bible<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Sir Isaac Newton even\u00a0wrote a pamphlet about this corruption, which also covered the fake words of the \u2018Johannine Comma\u2019 too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        <\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        1 Chronicles 20:3 \u2013 sawed in half? Our Greek Septuagint source text says that David took the conquered Ammonite people and had them sawed in half with saws, axes, and threshing devices. However, the parallel account in 2 Samuel 12:31 says no such thing, it says that they were put to work in jobs that both used … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\n\n

        \n Sharing is caring<\/span><\/strong> \n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> +1<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Tweet<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n <\/i> Share<\/span><\/a>\n 6958 words 141 views<\/w>\n <\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sin-categoria"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8252","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8252"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8252\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8253,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8252\/revisions\/8253"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}