Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

Chat about anything you like here that doesn't fit under Bible Doctrines. Keep the subjects clean and refreshing to all.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
Stranger
Posts: 1897
Joined: 3 years ago

Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#1 Post by Stranger » 11 months ago

While reading my Bible I came across Micah 2:12 ......(Micah 2:12 KJV)

Most translations omit Bazrah and use the word pen, fold or flock instead, including the NWT.

I was wondering why this is?

Also, in the future as I come across these omissions or insertions I will post them here, and anyone else that has some questionable scriptures should do likewise.



Stranger, (Mt 5:18 KJV)

Bobcat
Posts: 3302
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#2 Post by Bobcat » 11 months ago

Hi Stranger,

This is a great idea for a thread.

On Mic 2:12, the NET reads (as do many others - see here), "I will bring them together like sheep in a fold."

There is a footnote (# 35) in the NET at Mic 2:12 that reads:
tc The MT reads בָּצְרָה (batsrah, “Bozrah”) but the form should be emended to בַּצִּרָה (batsirah, “into the fold”). See D. R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia), 38.
For a different point of view (one that accepts Bozrah as correct), the Keil & Delitzsch OT commentary on Mic 2:12 says, in part:
The following clauses also predict the miraculous multiplication of the remnant of Israel (see Hosea 2:1-2; Jeremiah 31:10), as experienced by the people in the olden time under the oppression of Egypt (Exodus 1:12). The comparison to the flock of Bozrah presupposes that Bozrah's wealth in flocks was well known. Now, as the wealth of the Moabites in flocks of sheep is very evident from 2 Kings 3:4, many have understood by בּצרה not the Edomitish Bozrah, but the Moabitish Bostra (e.g., Hengstenberg). Others, again, take botsrâh as an appellative noun in the sense of hurdle or fold (see Hitzig, Caspari, and Dietrich in Ges. Lex. after the Chaldee). But there is not sufficient ground for either. The Bostra situated in the Hauran does not occur at all in the Old Testament, not even in Jeremiah 48:24, and the appellative meaning of the word is simply postulated for this particular passage. That the Edomites were also rich in flocks of sheep is evident from Isaiah 24:6, where the massacre which Jehovah will inflict upon Edom and Bozrah is described as a sacrificial slaughtering of lambs, he-goats, rams, and oxen; a description which presupposes the wealth of Bozrah in natural flocks. The comparison which follows, "like a flock in the midst of its pasture," belongs to the last verse, and refers to the multiplication, and to the noise made by a densely packed and numerous flock.

Barnes' Notes has a similar idea as the K&D commentary. He prefers "Bozrah":
So then, whereas they were now scattered, then, God saith, "I will put them together (in one fold) as the sheep of Bozrah," which abounded in sheep Isaiah 34:6, and was also a strong city of Edom

On the other hand, both the K&D and Barnes' Notes commentaries are a bit dated. I'll have to check some other (read 'newer') references when I get home.

The LXX has, "like sheep in trouble" (πρόβατα [sheep] ἐν [in] θλίψει [trouble]); From here.


Bobcat

Bobcat
Posts: 3302
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#3 Post by Bobcat » 11 months ago

Hi Stranger,

By any chance were you researching the "Bozrah Deliverance"?


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 1897
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#4 Post by Stranger » 11 months ago

Bobcat wrote:
11 months ago
Hi Stranger,

By any chance were you researching the "Bozrah Deliverance"?


Bobcat

Not until tonight, I started reading a little bit about it. I made it there from footnote#3 on wikipedia. Very interesting indeed.

I wasn't aware of the controversy surrounding this word until just a couple of nights ago while reading my KJV and the spirit said to me " hey look in that ol' green book and see what their brochure says about Bozrah." Lo and behold they call it a pen.

I was gonna put the link to the sight but it looks like old news but then again not well known so maybe it will get linked.


Stranger

Bobcat
Posts: 3302
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#5 Post by Bobcat » 11 months ago

Hi Stranger,

I still have some researching regarding Mic 2:12 to do. Yesterday was a busy day.

Here is the main site about the "Bozrah Deliverance." It is the idea of one Dr Gavin Finley. This, I think, is why it is not so well known. (Wikipedia article on it here.)

His main idea seems to be that in the end times there will be a mass migration of Christians to a safe place, either literal Bozrah, or some remote place that stands in its place. (Poster Kosonen recently suggested a mass migration to, possibly, Australia on another forum. But he did not mention the "Bozrah Deliverance" by name. So I don't know if he has that idea in mind, or if it was just a coincidence.)

What strikes me about the passage (Mic 2:12-13) is how much it resembles Jesus' discussion in Jn 10:1-16, especially when one views the "end times" as beginning at Jesus' first advent. (Heb 1:2)

Mic 2:1-11 is a polemic against unfaithful Jews, especially the well-to-do ones. Then Mic 2:12-13 has "Jacob" gathered together either in a "fold" or in "Bozrah" and Jehovah then breaks them out of there led by their king.

There are a number of points of similarity with Jesus' discussion in Jn 10 of leading them out of the sheepfold for pasturage. And their being joined by "other sheep."

If that similarity were to hold true, I could see "fold" or "pen" or "Bozrah" working with that. Jesus referred to the Law as the sheepfold that he leads his followers (the true Israel or Jacob) out of. Escaping the Law Covenant was something they could not accomplish on their own.

On the other hand, Bozrah was an Edomite city. Edom (i.e. Esau) was the brother of Jacob. But Edom was also known for its hostility to Israel. So I could see the Jews of Jesus' time, especially its leadership, being pictured by the use of an Edomite city that was known for its flocks. Their hostility towards Jesus and his followers would match that of an Edomite city.

Viewed from this standpoint, the great "Bozrah Deliverance" would have begun there in 29-33 CE. No 747s needed! :whistle:

The one caveat to all that is that I have not seen anyone else with that idea. So that gives me pause. On the other hand, I can also see why that idea would be hard to see if one doesn't understand Jesus' first advent as the beginning of the "end times."

Anyways, the above is just some musings. Perhaps further research will open up other ideas.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 1897
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#6 Post by Stranger » 11 months ago

Bobcat wrote:
11 months ago
I still have some researching regarding Mic 2:12 to do. Yesterday was a busy day.

Hi Bobcat,

Yes, when I made this new thread I didn't know about the Bozrah deliverance prophecy by name. What my main treat was that Micah 2:12 was the only place the NWT and others left Bozrah out of the wording of the scriptures that cite Bozrah or on the other hand it's the only place King James added Bozrah where the others did not. So we are still left with the question, intentional omission or intentional insertion?

Possibly, someone will come forward with some 411 that will be able to debunk one way or another the truth of the matter.

As always Bobcat, I appreciate you being right on top of things.


Stranger, (Pr 4:11)

Stranger
Posts: 1897
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#7 Post by Stranger » 11 months ago

Bobcat wrote:
11 months ago
Here is the main site about the "Bozrah Deliverance."

Hey Bobcat,


looking at the artwork on that website reminded me of some artwork I have seen before, I wonder if the WT has ever used Pat Marvenko Smith before? It would seem that they would have a record of it. They do consult and acquire outside services as you probably well know. They go to great extent for their "readers".

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... lications/



Stranger, (2Tim 2:15 KJV)

Stranger
Posts: 1897
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#8 Post by Stranger » 11 months ago

For those of you who do not believe punctuation is critical, omit the first comma at (Lu 23:32 KJV) and watch Jesus become an evil doer.

So, what are all those jots and tittles that so many preach about but cannot (or will not identify)?



Stranger, (Ps 139:4)

Bobcat
Posts: 3302
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#9 Post by Bobcat » 11 months ago

Hi Stranger,

The footnote in the NET on this verse (# 77) makes your point even more interesting:
tc The text reads either “two other criminals” or “others, two criminals.” The first reading (found in P א B) could be read as describing Jesus as a criminal, while the second (found in A C D L W Θ Ψ 070 0250 ƒ 33 M) looks like an attempt to prevent this identification. The first reading, more difficult to explain from the other, is likely autographic.

sn Jesus is numbered among the criminals (see Isa 53:12 and Luke 22:37).
Incidentally, in the textual comment (tc), by saying the first reading is likely "autographic," it is saying "two other criminals" (that is, the first reading) is likely the original reading. Thus, placing Jesus as a criminal along with the other two. Of course, it would only be in the sense that he was treated that way by the people that had him killed.

In connection with Lu 23:32, Constable's Notes comments:
THE CRIMINALS CRUCIFIED WITH JESUS 23:32

This verse constitutes a narrative bridge connecting Jesus’ journey to the Cross with His crucifixion. One of its functions seems to be to introduce the two criminals who feature later in the story (Lu 23:33, 39-43). More important, it associates Jesus with guilty sinners. This reference also adds to the humiliation of Jesus that Luke stressed. There are several indications that Luke wanted to point out Jesus’ humiliation in the next section. This notation also indicates a fulfillment of prophecy (cf. Lu 22:37; Isa. 53:12).

A few paragraphs above this, in the commentary introduction to Lu 23:26-31, Constable posits:
Luke omitted reference to the Roman soldiers’ mockery and flogging of Jesus (Mt 27:27-30; Mark 15:16-19). Perhaps he wanted to connect the Jews’ call for Jesus’ crucifixion and the crucifixion itself as closely as he could. This arrangement of the facts has the effect of heightening the innocence of Jesus and the guilt of those who demanded His execution.

Like I told you, this is a great idea for a thread. It has a broad enough theme to include a wide variety of comments.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 1897
Joined: 3 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#10 Post by Stranger » 11 months ago

Bobcat wrote:
11 months ago
Like I told you, this is a great idea for a thread. It has a broad enough theme to include a wide variety of comments.

Hi Bobcat,

I thought so too, but stunningly, you and I so far are the only commentators.


(Romans 16:7) mentions Junia, ( a name for a female in Greek) and as it stands most translations has changed her name to make her a him (Junias). In the Greeco/Roman world of Pauls time there was not one Junias to be found or even heard of.

Do you or anyone else have any thoughts on this?


Stranger

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests