Silly Arguments Part IV

Why hello there, face-palming Picard! This must mean it's time for another...you guessed it...silly argument!

Once upon a time in the world of a social media website that shall remain nameless, I saw this argument made for the King James Bible and why we should use it alone.

psalm 12-6 purified 7 times. it was the 7th translation, it took 7 years, and english is made of 7 languages

This is a popular argument used by KJV-Onlyists, in an attempt to try to prove some level of divine connection with the KJV. I've already touched on the silliness of KJV-Onlyism before, but let's take a moment to examine this claim.

Firstly, no one at the time of the KJV translators thought this. Unlike the apostles, who realized when Christ had fulfilled a passage of scripture, we don't see any record of the KJV translators leaping up from their tables and declaring, "Psalm 12:6 has been fulfilled!" This mentality is about as recent as KJV-Onlyism (and that's very recent).

Secondly, the KJV is actually the tenth English translation, not the seventh. They are, in order:

1. Wycliffe
2. Tyndale
3. Coverdale
4. Matthew
5. Great Bible
6. Taverner
7. Geneva Bible
8. Bishops' Bible
9. Douay-Rheims Bible
10. King James Bible

This is not even counting the individual translations found in England before Wycliffe, and others found throughout the history of the other publications.

Thirdly, I have no idea what this individual means regarding English having "seven languages." English itself is the language, and if this is referring to dialects, well...there are countless English dialects to say the least. I did a Google search on this, and found out that what this person meant to argue, I think, is that the Bible, at the time of the translation of the KJV, has been translated into seven languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Old Syriac, Old Latin, German and English. This likewise is not true - by the time of the translation of the KJV, the Bible had likewise been translated into: Gothic, Armenian, Coptic, Old Nubian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Old Church Slavonic, Old French, Czech, and Hungarian. That's about seventeen languages, folks - and I'm sure if I did a little more digging, I'd find plenty more languages that holy writ had been translated into by 1611.

Fourthly, and most importantly, Psalm 12:6 is not speaking about translations! That's completely ripping it out of context. Let's examine the context quickly - here's the Psalm in full:

Save, O Lord, for the godly one is gone; for the faithful have vanished from among the children of man. Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; with flattering lips and a double heart they speak. May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that makes great boasts, those who say, “With our tongue we will prevail, our lips are with us; who is master over us?” “Because the poor are plundered, because the needy groan, I will now arise,” says the Lord; “I will place him in the safety for which he longs.” The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O Lord, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever. On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the children of man. [Psalm 12:1-8]

The Psalmist begins by describing a situation not too pretty - the godly one is gone, the faithful have vanished (v. 1), and everyone utters lies to their neighbors, using flattering lips and "a double heart" (v. 2). The Psalmist turns against these people, hoping that the Lord would cut off all the flattering lips and boasting tongues (vv. 3-4). The Lord Himself then promises His intervention in the matter, and says He will place the poor and needy in safety (v. 5). 

We then reach verse 6, where we read that "the words of the Lord are pure words"...but let's stop a moment - what "words" are we talking about? Are we talking about the entire Bible? Actually no...we're talking about the words the Lord just spoke. That is, the words pertaining to the protection of the poor and needy. The psalmist is contrasting them with the words of the haughty and boastful in verse 4. This is emphasized in the next part of the verse, where it says the Lord's words are "like silver refined in a furnace...purified seven times." Let's ask quickly: do God's words need any sort of refining? Actually no - they're already refined, as they're already pure. That's the point the psalmist is trying to make: the Lord's words don't need refining, in contrast to the words of the liar and the boastful, whose words would need plenty of refining. The phrase "seven times" (referring the number of perfection) is simply emphasizing how pure the silver is (and hence God's word). This is continued in verses 7-8, where the psalmist confirms that God will protect the poor and needy against the wicked and the vile - hence how we know that God's words truly are pure.

In short, Psalm 12:6 does not teach KJV-Onlyism.

Silly Arguments Part III

Well kids, we've been graced yet again by face palming Picard, which means it must be time again for another silly argument.

I saw the image on the left shared on social media. It's a sign held up that reads: "Claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet." I thought I would provide a brief response to it.

Firstly, the analogy here makes no sense. A person is on a diet to abstain from food - they would only be angry at the doughnut eater because they might desire the doughnut themselves. By contrast, people opposed to same sex marriage are not desiring it (let alone homosexual fornication) for themselves. The reason one might oppose homosexuality based on religious beliefs is not because of personal preference or abstinence, but because it contradicts divine truths. Comparing it to a doughnut being eaten while someone's on a diet is truly comparing apples with oranges.

Secondly, no one's "angry." Well OK, the Westboro cult, maybe, but they're special any way.

Thirdly, some might contend that the picture is trying to say, "Religious people are against same sex marriage because they think it's wrong, same as those who follow a diet think eating a doughnut is wrong." Even with this understanding, however, the analogy completely fails, because even those on a diet might recognize a doughnut as a legitimate food to eat (even if unhealthy), whereas a person who upholds belief in a Divine Creator, who has designed the natural order, are opposed to same sex marriage on the grounds that it is completely contradictory to said natural order. A closer analogy would be a person on a diet advising another person not to eat a rubber tire.

Truth be told, and being perfectly blunt, this is a really, really, really, really, really, reeeeeeally bad argument. I saw this being shared and people saying "Wow, that's awesome!" in response, and couldn't help but think...really, people? And some of these people were individuals who claimed to be Christians - do they truly not understand the difference between being on a diet and believing in a just, holy, righteous God?

We seriously need to pray for them.

Silly Arguments Part II

Well, kids, that ol' Facepalming Picard means that it's time once again for a very silly argument.

Has this ever happened to you? Have you ever been sitting in a Starbucks, minding your own business, enjoying a good venti-sized vanilla bean frappacino, when suddenly some guy crashes his Dodge Ram truck through the window, rolls out the driver door dressed as Ronald McDonald, and proceeds to tell you that the Septuagint was written in the second century AD? You were probably thankful that you hadn't been hit, then after those sentiments of survival subsided you immediately asked the person a bit more about their position. You come to found out that they believe the copy of the Septuagint written before Jesus' time was merely the Law, and the rest of the Old Testament wasn't translated until the second century AD. Hence, when Matthew and the other Gospel writers quote the Old Testament in Greek, they were either inventing their own Greek verses, or the New Testament as a whole was written from the middle to late second century. You then tased him, not for what he said, but for the simple fact he's a lunatic crashing through buildings dressed as Ronald McDonald.

OK, maybe I've exaggerated this account just a little, but I did hear someone make the argument mentioned here.

The biggest thing we need to do is discuss some biblical history. When the books of the Old Testament were originally written, they were a mix of Hebrew and Aramaic texts. In the middle third century, under the funding of Ptolemy Philadelphus (then ruler of Egypt), it was decided to translate the Law into Greek, which had become the international language during the inter-testamental time. According to various stories, seventy-two Jewish scholars were selected, and finished translating the Law during the reign of Ptolemy Soter. It was perhaps the first major organized translation of scripture in history, similar to the work done by the King James Bible translators thousands of years later (and like the KJV, there's much mythology around its translating...but that's for another post).

The original Septuagint, as previously stated, wasn't the entire Old Testament, but rather was simply the five books of the Law. The question then comes: when were the other books finished? We have no solid evidence for the exact date that all the books of the Old Testament were finished. There are many signs, however, that much of it was done before the time of Christ, as seen by external evidence: the mid-second century Jewish historian Eupolemus mentions a Septuagint Books of Chronicles; the writer known as Aristeas quotes from the Septuagint Job; a footnote in an early Septuagint version of Esther suggests that it was in circulation before the end of the second century BC; the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in the apocryphal 1 Maccabees 7:17.

One of the biggest evidences we have that the Old Testament was completed by the time of Christ is found in the apocryphal work known as the Wisdom of Sirach. In the introduction, the author writes:

You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed. [RSV]

While speaking of translating from the Hebrew into the Greek, the author makes mention of "the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books." This is compounded with the fact that Philo and Josephus - two well known Jewish authors who lived during the lifetime of the early Christian church - quoted extensively from the Septuagint, and not just the Law. All historical signs point to evidence that the Septuagint, as in the complete Old Testament, was completed by the time of Christ. Most scholarly sources place its completion in the middle second century BC.

So, was the Septuagint written in the second century AD? Absolutely positively not - there is too much evidence to the contrary. So...where did this idea that the Septuagint was written in the second century AD come from? One can't just make this stuff up out of thin air. I personally believe the individual making this argument was confusing it with the various streams of Septuagint revisions, most of which happened about the second century AD. The ones most known about:

The revision by Aquila (early 100's AD). By this time, the Septuagint was becoming unpopular among Jewish circles, partially because of the rise of Christianity which heavily utilized the Septuagint. Aquila, a Jewish proselyte, attempted to make the first major revision to the Septuagint, and did so by translating from the Hebrew into Greek almost word for word. This made for a somewhat awkward rendition, but one that was popular among the Jews for the next 500 years or so. Today it is only known through fragments.

The revision by Theodotion (late 100's AD). Theodotion was a Jewish convert that relied heavily upon the original Septuagint. His version was heavily quoted by many Church Fathers (including Justin Martyr), and his version of Daniel was especially widely preferred by many over the Septuagint's version.

The revision by Symmachus (soon afterward). Symmachus was said by the writer Epiphanius to have simply been a Samaritan convert to Judaism, although Jerome and Eusebius claim he was an Ebionite. He sought to smooth Aquila's translation by using the original Septuagint and Theodotion's work as reference. His translation likewise only exists in fragments.

Perhaps a worthy final mention is that of the Church Father Origen (late second century, middle third century AD). Origen was a Christian who understood Hebrew, and saw differences between the Masoretic texts of his time and the Septuagint. He collected together what was probably the first interlinear Old Testament, as well as the first example of textual criticism. What he did was place side by side: the Hebrew; the Hebrew transliterated into Greek characters; Aquila's work; Symmachus' work; the Septuagint; and Theodotion's work. Origen even included notes and symbols that signified when the Septuagint added or left out specific parts of a verse (not unlike the use of italics and footnotes in today's translation). Unfortunately, this momentous work only exists in fragments today, although it helped to preserve examples of the Septuagint revisions done by the other three men.

So to repeat our question of the day: was the Septuagint written in the second century AD? As we've seen, some streams of it were, but the Old Testament translated into Greek was finished and widely available by the time of Christ. The writers of the New Testament were not making up Greek verses, nor is the Septuagint evidence that the New Testament was written in the second century AD. The contention made at the beginning of this post is, as stated before, simply a silly argument.

------

UPDATE, February 12, 2013: Another possible source of this confusion might be that the individual is using KJV-Only sources. Some KJV-Only advocates try to teach that the Septuagint comes from a later date, even after the time of Christ. One such KJV-Only advocate writes: "People who believe that there was a Septuagint before the time of Christ are living in a dream world." (pg. 50; Peter Ruckman, The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, 1976).

Silly Arguments Part I

Hello, gentle readers. You're probably wondering why Facepalm Picard has graced the posts of this blog again. Well, similar to the post he was in before, we've got a doozy of a discussion for you today. Let me ask you...is there something evil behind the name of Jesus? I don't mean Jesus himself was evil - no no no. That would be too much! I just mean the name "Jesus" itself is evil. Yup, that's what someone brought forward to me. Let's start reviewing this argument:

In Scripture - names have meaning.

"Joshua" or Yah-u-shu-ah - means "YAHUAH is salvation" - the name itself points to the NAME of YHWH. It contains the FATHER'S name. It points to the Father as Savior.

True, most Hebrew names carry a meaning, as most names in any language do. For example, Isaiah's original Hebrew name (Yesha'yahu) means "the LORD is salvation." Jesus' original Hebrew name was indeed Yahushua, which means "The LORD saves." All right, so far so good.

The name "Jesus", and as you correctly say Iesous, since there was no "J" in either Greek or Hebrew means something else.

Yes, Jesus is taken from the Greek Iesous, and there is no "J" in the Greek or Hebrew alphabet. Neither is the sound related to the letter. Again, so far so good.

Transliterated - Iesous - or "H'sus" - in Hebrew means "horse".

Wait, what? Hold on a moment...you don't transliterate words backwards! The Hebrew name came before the Greek, so you generally transliterate words from the Hebrew to the Greek. Transliterating backwards makes about as much sense as putting something in English into Google Translate, translating it into Chinese, then translating it back into English and defining the English context by what comes out. Here, let's have some fun:

English (Before): I need to go down to Office Max and buy a stapler.
Chinese: 我需要去办公室最大，买一个订书机。
English (After): I need to go to the office to buy a stapler.

Ah, see? "Office Max" must refer not to a store chain that sells office supplies, but a specific office somewhere that apparently sells staplers, because when you translate the Chinese backwards, it comes out that way. Aha!

In all seriousness, the Hebrew word for "horse" used in the Old Testament is indeed sus. The form mentioned here, hassus, is, as far as I can tell, merely one such form of the word found in the Bible, and is used only eleven times out of 139 occurrences. The more popular forms are susim (used 34 times) and the regular form of sus (used 22 times).

By the way, the only connection between Iesous and Hassus is they kind of sound the same. Man, that's some hardcore etymology, I must admit.

Do you think that is a coincidence?

Why yes I do. Thank you for asking. It's just as coincidental as the fact that English word "meme" is close to the Turkish word for "boob."

In Latin it gets worse. "Sus" means pig. Greek "Geo" or "Ge" means "earth".

...wait, what? What was the relevance of going to the Hebrew? Now we're going to Latin? Also, "horse" is kind of a nice name. I mean, I'd love to have my name mean "horse." Horses are cool, man. You can ride 'em and charge into battle on 'em and leap over fences and stuff and stuff. What's wrong with your name meaning horse?

By the way, Iesous is a Greek name, not a Latin name. And why are we chopping the name up like this? So the first part of Jesus' name refers to "earth" in Greek (even though there's no "G" sound in the name), but the latter part refers to "pig" in Latin? Why does this matter? This makes about as much sense as me cutting up my name into two parts in two different languages. Observe:

"Did you know that in the name Tony, the word 'to' in Japanese is a quoting particle, whereas 'ni' means 'you' in Chinese? Don't you see! The name Tony is telling us to quote ourselves! We're our own authority, not God! OH MY GOODNESS TONY IS SUCH AN EVIL NAME D'AAAH SAVE YOURSELVES!"

See how silly that is? The name "Tony" is merely the shortened form of "Anthony," in this case specifically from the Italian António, which stems from the Latin Antonius, which means "priceless" or "praiseworthy." There's no grand conspiracy behind the name. It really is as simple as that.

In like manner, there is no grand conspiracy behind the name Jesus. The name Iesous is merely the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yehushua. There were many others in the New Testament named Iesous, but the use predates even the time of Christ. There are countless others in the Greek Septuagint (both in the Law, the Prophets, and the other books) whose names, usually seen as Joshua in the Greek, are rendered Iesous.

Do you think that is a coincidence? Could this be the name above all names?

Yes, it is a coincidence, and one you invented, by cutting the word up and picking and choosing what you wanted the bits to mean. You do this to try to prove that a bunch of third century BC Jews, desiring to preemptively insult the Messiah they had been longing for, took a Greek word that sounded kinda like "horse" in their language and just so happened to mean "pig" in a foreign language that wasn't that widely used at the time, and then combined it with the Greek word for "earth," then applied this new word to the name "Joshua," with no one in the entire Jewish community taking notice at all regarding the degrading change.

That makes perfect sense.

The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter by what rendition of his name you call upon him. Whether you speak English and you call him Jesus, whether you speak Serbian and call him Isus, or whether you speak Cantonese and call him Yasu, he will hear you. He will hear you. This is because it is not according to the specific form of his name by which he is called, but by his grace alone. Christ is not a magical being who can be summoned by a magical incantation that requires an exact pronunciation of exact words - he is the Son of the Living God, who died on the cross and rose again, suffering for the sins of his people, so that they may know true life. On the day of resurrection there shall be "a great multitude...from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb" (Rev 7:9). These shall be believers, and they shall be united not by language, but by faith, and they shall all call on the Lamb by his beautiful name, even if it be in its rendition from their own tongue. I can promise you that, to the Lord, every single rendition and pronunciation shall be beautiful, for the desire to speak such a name came from a beautiful source.