It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It may first be noted that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB.
There is considerable dispute as to the exact meaning of the Hebrew word qip·podhʹ, variously rendered “bittern” (KJ, Da), “bustard” (NE), “hedgehog” (AT, Le), and “porcupine(s)” (AS, NW). (Isa 14:23; 34:11; Zep 2:14) In the light of Hebrew etymology, G. R. Driver rejects the rendering “bittern” and suggests that the Hebrew qip·podhʹ may apply both to the porcupine and to a bird. But he recommends “ruffed bustard” as a likely translation for qip·podhʹ in the above texts. (Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London, 1955, p. 137) Koehler and Baumgartner prefer “hedgehog” at Isaiah 14:23; 34:11, but “short-eared owl” at Zephaniah 2:14. (Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, p. 845) That one Hebrew word may apply to two entirely different animals is illustrated by the term tin·sheʹmeth, which denotes both a flying creature, “the swan,” and a swarming creature, “the chameleon.”—Le 11:18, 30.
Despite the uncertainty, however, there is good basis for consistently translating qip·podhʹ as either “porcupine” or “hedgehog,” rather than “bittern.” Both older and modern lexicons generally list “hedgehog” or “porcupine” as defining qip·podhʹ in all cases. These renderings have the support of the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, as well as of Hebrew etymology and related languages such as Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic.
On the basis of inferences drawn from Isaiah 14:23 and Zephaniah 2:14 regarding the desolation of Babylon and Nineveh, some raise the objection that the porcupine (or the hedgehog) could not be the animal intended, since this creature does not frequent reedy pools of water, nor can it sing or climb to the top of columns. However, according to Isaiah 14:23, not the reedy pools but Babylon was to become the possession of porcupines. One explorer of Babylon’s ruins reported finding “quantities of porcupine quills.” Similarly, the reference to a voice “singing in the window” at desolated Nineveh can apply to any bird that might perch in a deserted window or even to the sound of the wind and need not apply to the porcupine. (Zep 2:14) As to the porcupine’s ‘spending the night among the pillar capitals [the top portion of the pillars],’ it must be remembered that the picture drawn is of a city in ruins. Hence, it is certainly possible that the pillars are here regarded as fallen to the ground.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Eyestosee
Just out of curiosity, since we've got onto animals; Leviticus ch11 v6, does your translation go for "hare" or "rabbit"? Trnaslations seem to vary, perhaps partly because urban translators are a little hazy about the difference. I once compared their entries in Wki and concluded that the hare was more likely to have been present in that region at the time.
The Scriptural reference to the hare as a cud chewer has frequently been doubted by some critics of the Bible. (Le 11:4, 6; De 14:7) It should not be overlooked, however, that the modern, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses. Even in the 18th century, English poet William Cowper, who had at length observed his domestic hares, commented that they “chewed the cud all day till evening.” Linnaeus, famed naturalist of the same century, believed that rabbits chewed the cud. But it remained for others to supply more scientific data. Frenchman Morot discovered in 1882 that rabbits reingest up to 90 percent of their daily intake. Concerning the hare, Ivan T. Sanderson in a recent publication remarks: “One of the most extraordinary [habits], to our way of thinking, is their method of digestion. This is not unique to Leporids [hares, rabbits] and is now known to occur in many Rodents. When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated [dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this practice.”—Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114.
Certain British scientists made close observations of the rabbits’ habits under careful controls, and the results they obtained were published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159-163. Briefly this is the way the hare reingests its food: If a rabbit eats a breakfast of fresh food, it passes through the stomach into the small intestine, leaving behind in the cardiac end of the stomach some 40 or 50 grams of pellets that were already present when the fresh food was eaten. From the small intestine the morning meal enters the caecum or blind end of the large intestine and there remains for a period of time. During the day the pellets descend, and in the intestines the bacterial protein in them is digested. When they reach the large intestine they bypass the material in the caecum and go on into the colon where the excess moisture is absorbed to produce the familiar dry beans or droppings that are cast away. This phase of the cycle completed, the material stored in the dead end of the caecum next enters the colon, but instead of having all the moisture absorbed it reaches the anus in a rather soft condition. It is in pellet form with each coated with a tough layer of mucus to prevent them from sticking together. Now when these pellets reach the anus, instead of being cast away, the rabbit doubles up and takes them into the mouth and stores them away in the cardiac end of the stomach until another meal has been eaten. In this way the special rhythmic cycle is completed and most of the food has passed a second time through the digestive tract.
Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., in commenting on these findings, wrote: “There seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive tract.” He also observed that here is an explanation for “the phenomenally large caecum of rabbits as compared with most other mammals.”—Awake!, April 22, 1951, pp. 27, 28.
nobody really knows where they are going and everyone is blind and angry.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Eyestosee
The problem with modern translations has a similar problem to scientific paradigms. Erroneously believing that newer is better and more accurate being that problem.
Words evolve over time. Phrasing and such also evolve over time. Thinking that now we are better at translating ancient texts can lead to great folly.
There are many Bible translations and versions into English from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek language texts. And over the centuries since the King James Version many manuscripts have been discovered, and understanding of ancient language has become better, so that more accurate and better translations are readily available. There have also been found to be spurious passages that were added into later texts that were discovered when earlier manuscripts that omit such verses are found. The big one is in 1 John 5:7.
The cornthians and proverbs are great books to me but....(there is always a but) the guy who wrote corinthians never knew Jesus, never lived in his time, was an agent of the Romans and even admitted to being a Roman.