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
Bobcat
Posts: 4134
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Pr 25:23

#51 Post by Bobcat » 1 month ago

Another good catch Stranger. You must be doing your Bible reading with two translations (a good practice).

Below is the footnote in the NET for "north wind":
sn One difficulty here is that it is the west wind that brings rain to Israel (e.g., 1 Kgs 18:41-44). C. H. Toy suggests that the expression is general, referring to a northwest wind—unless it is an error (Proverbs [ICC], 468). J. P. M. van der Ploeg suggests that the saying originated outside the land, perhaps in Egypt (“Prov 25:23, ” VT 3 [1953]: 189-92). But this would imply it was current in a place where it made no sense. R. N. Whybray suggests that the solution lies with the verb “brings forth” (תְּחוֹלֵל, tkholel); he suggests redefining it to mean “repels, holds back” (cf. KJV “driveth away”). Thus, the point would be that the north wind holds back the rain just as an angry look holds back slander (Proverbs [CBC], 149). But the support for this definition is not convincing. Seeing this as a general reference to northerly winds is the preferred solution.

The NAC-Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs commentary (Duane A. Garrett, p. 209) regarding Pr 25:23 has this:
This little proverb is extraordinarily beset with problems. The first is that the north wind does not bring rain in Israel; the second is that the phrase "brings rain" is literally "has the birth pangs of rain" (which is subject to various interpretations), 15 and the third is that the Hebrew does not make clear whether the "sly tongue brings angry looks" or whether it is the other way around. Yet one could interpret it, with paraphrase, as follows: "As a cold wind gives birth to rains, so cold looks give birth to a storm of slander." The point of the north wind is not meteorological accuracy for Israel. The proverb may have arisen in Egypt, where the rains could be from the north and are as unwelcome as they are usually welcomed in Israel. Rather, the north wind is cold, and it corresponds to cold looks on the faces of people in a hostile environment. The downpour of water in the rains corresponds to a flood of secret defamation that occurs where people do not communicate with one another.


Footnote 15: This phrase could be taken to mean that the north wind is frightful to rain and thus inhibits it, but I consider this implausible.

Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Pr 25:23

#52 Post by Stranger » 1 month ago

Bobcat wrote: 1 month ago You must be doing your Bible reading with two translations (a good practice).
Hi Bobcat,

Actually, three, four and five at times. You may have noticed in the NWT they even added "brings forth as with labor pains a downpour.

I know of quite a few opposites in different translations but I am only putting them out there one at the time. It's nice to know that you are looking at them, however nobody else ever seems to comment about them so I'm assuming they just don't give a hoot about what's in their Bibles that they choose to believe.


Stranger

Bobcat
Posts: 4134
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Pr 25:23

#53 Post by Bobcat » 1 month ago

Hi Stranger,

I added a reference to Pr 25:23 in my post above, and cross-linked it to here.

Over time we should have quite a resource for difficult verses.


Bobcat

Bobcat
Posts: 4134
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#54 Post by Bobcat » 1 month ago

Hi Stranger,

I thought I'd mention that this thread is nearing 10,000 views. So even though few comment, there are many checking the thread out.


Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#55 Post by Stranger » 1 month ago

Bobcat wrote: 1 month ago I thought I'd mention that this thread is nearing 10,000 views. So even though few comment, there are many checking the thread out.
Yes, that is true Bobcat. I admit that I was a little hasty with my comment and would like to apologize. I know everyone here is very concerned about 'what the Bible actually teaches", so if I offended anyone then I'm am very sorry.


Stranger, (Pr 18:17)

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Rom 14:10

#56 Post by Stranger » 1 month ago

Okay, well here we go with another discrepancy.

(Rom 14:10 KJV) vs. (Rom 14:10)


Stranger, (2Tim 4:1)

Bobcat
Posts: 4134
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions? - Rom 14:10

#57 Post by Bobcat » 1 month ago

Hi Stranger,

I take it that the difference is between "of Christ" (KJV) and "of God" (ESV).

The difference is along the same lines as in the last line in this post: The TR (upon which the KJV is based), Byzantine, and Greek Orthodox favor "of Christ." And the Western readings favor "of God." See the various readings in this post. You just have to scroll down a little. The difference is in the last two words of each one (τοῦ χριστοῦ = "of Christ"; τοῦ Θεοῦ = "of God")

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (pp.468-69; my goto textual resource) says:
At an early date (Marcion Polycarp Tertullian Origen) the reading Θεοῦ, which is supported by the best witnesses, was supplanted by Χριστοῦ, probably because of influence from 2Co 5:10 (ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; "before the judgment seat of Christ")

Bobcat

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#58 Post by Stranger » 1 month ago

Bobcat wrote: 1 month ago The difference is along the same lines as in the last line in this post: The TR (upon which the KJV is based), Byzantine, and Greek Orthodox favor "of Christ." And the Western readings favor "of God."

Yes Bobcat, I fully understand those borderlines where the dubitable discernments rest.

As always, thank you for your valued input.


Stranger, (Eph 3:9 KJV) vs. (Eph 3:9)

User avatar
FriendlyDoggo
Posts: 263
Joined: 4 months ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#59 Post by FriendlyDoggo » 1 month ago

Posted in the wrong place, sorry for that.
FriendlyDoggo wrote: 1 month ago "In the name..." or "In my name..." ?

Tadua's articles let me jaw dropped!

https://understandtheword.com/christian ... -scripture

https://understandtheword.com/christian ... -centuries
viewtopic.php?p=50678#p50678
My english isn't very good, sorry any inconvenience.

Stranger
Posts: 2417
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: Intentional omissions or intentional insertions?

#60 Post by Stranger » 1 month ago

FriendlyDoggo wrote: 1 month ago Posted in the wrong place, sorry for that.
FriendlyDoggo wrote: ↑2 days ago
"In the name..." or "In my name..." ?

Tadua's articles let me jaw dropped!

https://understandtheword.com/christian ... -scripture

https://understandtheword.com/christian ... -centuries
viewtopic.php?p=50678#p50678


Hi FD,

Everyone makes mistakes, but how did you repost it again in the wrong place after having already posting it in the right place (I'm assuming), two days ago?


Stranger

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest