SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Propitiation and the red heifer

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

Italics is achieved either by using the little interface above the posting box, or by putting an "i" in straight brackets before the text to be italicized and an "/i" in straight brackets after it.

like this:
[x]text to be italicized[/x]
But with i instead of x (if I put i there, it would italicize the text and you wouldn't see the tags), or a b for bold, or a u for underline.

edit:
And yes, italics vs. caps would help lessen the sensation of being yelled at :-)

 2004/12/25 2:10Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Eric
I suspect you know as well as I do that the word 'purification' has been inserted by the translators. The text just says 'sin' or 'sin offering'. As 'sin' would make no sense unless you add 'purification' so determining the given word by the added one; which is an odd way of interpreting scripture to say the least.

The whole context of Numbers is Israel on the march. The transitory nature of this stage of Israel's experience may be guaged by the fact that this journey ought to have taken eleven days; [b](There are eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadeshbarnea.) (Deu 1:2 KJV)[/b] as it was, it took the best part of 40 years.


Quote:
PSS: The whole "while they were on march" has got to go. You have not one shred of evidence to back you up on that one. (Nor is there any to be had.) So, quit with the fanciful exegesis already!

(Don't get me wrong, I still think it's an intriguing notion....)


I have to say again, Eric, that I am not finding the tone of your posts very conducive to real discussion. I want to resist the temptation to get into street fighting and if I have to 'flee' the temptation by moving onto another thread I am ready to do so. Perhaps if we knew one another or had developed some sense of fellowship this street corner rhetoric would be part of the fun, but as we don't and we haven't, I am struggling here.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/12/26 17:50Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Ron--

I imagine when you mention my tone that you are sensing my impatience. I don't wish a street fight...or any verbal violence whatsoever. But I am having trouble with your stubbornness. The text [i]does not[/i] say "sin" or "sin offering." The text says "chatta't." This word may be translated many different ways, and in this context (Num. 19:9) the scholars of the B-D-B say "purification offering for sin" and the translators of the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NRSV all concur. Nothing has been added in. (Yes, "sin" and "sin offering" are very common renderings of the word "chatta't," but they don't fit this context.)

It doesn't matter how long the Israelites were on the march: we have no record of them offering sacrifices (or of using stored ashes) while en route. They had to stop and set up the Tabernacle in order to offer sacrifices. All I have said is that you are using an argument from silence (i.e., you are speculating). I am sorry if calling such reasoning "fanciful" was offensive to you. I just don't see how we can get anywhere based on your speculations. I want you to use the text.

I look forward to talking this through,

--Eric

 2005/1/6 22:49Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Eric,

Quote:
I imagine when you mention my tone that you are sensing my impatience. I don't wish a street fight...or any verbal violence whatsoever. But I am having trouble with your stubbornness. The text does not say "sin" or "sin offering." The text says "chatta't." This word may be translated many different ways, and in this context (Num. 19:9) the scholars of the B-D-B say "purification offering for sin" and the translators of the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NRSV all concur. Nothing has been added in. (Yes, "sin" and "sin offering" are very common renderings of the word "chatta't," but they don't fit this context.)


Stubbornness is an irregular verb which is usually conjugated thus:
[b]I[/b] am not easily moved
[b]Thou[/b] art stubborn
[b]He[/b] is just plain pig-headed.
[b]We[/b] are steadfast
[b]You[/b] are intransigent
[b]They[/b] are plain obstinate ;-)and as 'stubbornness' is sin it is an accusation that should not be made lightly. (1Sa 15:23) However, I am not easily intimidated either.

My BDB says
chaṭṭâ'âh / chaṭṭâ'th
BDB Definition:
1) sin, sinful
2) sin, sin offering
2a) sin
2b) condition of sin, guilt of sin
2c) punishment for sin
2d) sin-offering
[b]2e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness[/b]
As far as I understand this the ‘common’ expectation decreases as we move down the list. This puts 2e at the least likely translation for chattaah in any situation. We then have to add the context, and the context of the sacrifice of the Red Heifer has so many similarities with the Sin Offering that Gill says that it is serving the same function.

The ‘scholars’ of the Tyndale, Geneva, ASV, ESV, HCSB, LITV, all concur and show their understanding by having translated the word as ‘sin offering’. In fact I find the KJV translators swing from the Tyndale/Geneva 'sin offering' to 'purifying of sin' slightly ominous in the light of the KJV accommodation to a more Roman Catholic theology.

From 296 instances the KJV translates ‘chattaah’ as
sin 182,
sin offering 116,
punishment 3,
purification for sin 2,
purifying 1,
sinful 1,
sinner 1;
In fact the only time that KJV ever translates chattaah as ‘purification for sin is in the Numbers 19 passages. YOu say that 'sin offering' is a common rendering for 'chattaah'; what I am saying is that 'purification for sin' is a unique rendering of chattaah, only to be found in the KJV in Numbers 19:

Uses of 'chattaah' in KJV translation of Numbers.
Num 5:6; Num 5:7; [b]Num 6:11; Num 6:14; Num 6:16; Num 7:16; Num 7:22; Num 7:28; Num 7:34; Num 7:40; Num 7:46; Num 7:52; Num 7:58; Num 7:64; Num 7:70; Num 7:76; Num 7:82; Num 7:87[/b]; [i]Num 8:7[/i]; [b]Num 8:8; Num 8:12[/b]; Num 12:11; [b]Num 15:24; Num 15:25; Num 15:27[/b]; Num 16:26; [b]Num 18:9[/b]; [u]Num 19:9; Num 19:17[/u]; [b]Num 28:15; Num 28:22; Num 29:5; Num 29:11; Num 29:16; Num 29:19; Num 29:22; Num 29:25; Num 29:28; Num 29:31; Num 29:34; Num 29:38[/b]; Num 32:23;

All the bold face references have'[b]sin offering[/b]'. The underlined face have '[u]purification for sin[/u]', and the italics face has '[i]purifying[/i]'. Out of 37 possible translations of 'chattaah' in Numbers the KJV has 'sin offering' for 34 . (the remaining 5 instances have 'sin')

In fact the only time that KJV ever translates chattaah as ‘purification for sin’ is in the Numbers 19 passages. (It is also translated ‘purifying’ in Numbers 8:7.)

The fact is that 'purification for sin' is a highly unusual rendering in the light of the rest of the KJV's testimony to chattaah. I think the burden of proof rests with you, and if for ‘stubbornness’ you substitute the word ‘unconvinced’ you would be more accurate (and more generous).

BTW I just found this comment in Adam Clarke. [i]Num 8:7 -
Sprinkle water of purifying - מי חטאת mey chattath, water of sin, or water of the sin-offering. As this purifying water was made by the ashes of the red heifer, cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet; and the heifer herself was sacrificed, and her blood sprinkled seven times before the tabernacle, Num_19:3-6; she may be considered as a proper sacrifice for sin, and consequently the water thus prepared be termed the water of the sin-offering. As the ashes were kept ready at hand for purifying from all legal pollutions, the preparation might be considered as a concentration of the essential properties of the sin-offering, and might be resorted to at all times with comparatively little expense or trouble, and no loss of time. As there were so many things by which legal pollution might be contracted, it was necessary to have always at hand, in all their dwellings, a mode of purifying at once convenient and inexpensive.[/i]

I find encouragement in Gill and Clark inasmuch as the original my original postings here were just my 'own' meditations and had not derived from others. To find that others of such note have come to similar conlcusions is a comfort. Even folk like me get a little lonely being out on a limb 'all the time'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/1/7 5:15Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Ron--

For the life of me, I can't understand why you are so defensive. Yes, you are stubborn only from my point of view. But wasn't I giving [i]my[/i] point of view? By "stubborn" I simply meant two things: 1.) You are steadfast and not easily swayed. 2.) Your argument--at least in my mind--is not particularly strong. (You use commentaries from the 18th and 19th Centuries from men who are not specifically OT scholars, let alone experts on the Pentateuch. You use obscure Bible translations. You don't appear to fully understand the B-D-B....)

The B-D-B does not just give a range of meanings and say, here, you decide. It gives its definition of Num. 19:9 as "purification offering for sin." The reason the translation is more or less limited to this passage is that this passage's context is unique.

It is irresponsible exegesis to come to the text with a set meaning in mind as you did. One can always "find encouragement" for one's own personal interpretations if one combs through countless commentaries looking for corroboration.

Besides all that, this text can be translated as "sin offering" and still be interpreted as being for purification. There is not a clear delineation in the OT between uncleanness and (what we would call) sin. This is probably why translations such as the RSV and the ESV opt for "sin offering." The context of the passage cannot possibly construed as a garden-variety sin offering. Purification is so clearly in mind here that some translators might see it as redundant to explicitly state the case.

I've looked through a ton of literature on this topic, and I know of no modern-day OT scholar who would agree with you. (Also, all the rabbinic writings see it as purification.) And [i]that's[/i] why I think you're being "stubborn."

I have no agenda here, Ron. If I found validity in your viewpoint, it would please me no end to say so. It wouldn't be the undoing of any cherished tenet of mine. I simply see no evidence at all to back you up and wonder in amazement that you're still pushing it.

I love you anyway, brother!

--Eric

 2005/1/8 13:45Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

And just so you know:

I had no intention of accusing you of sin. The word that the KJV translates as "stubbornness" is translated by the NIV as "arrogance," by the NASB as "insubordination," and by the ESV as "presumption." And the context is Saul's unlistening disrespect and disobedience before God...not before man. No, I don't see stubbornness as a positive character trait (and I inherited a goodly portion of it from my father), but I hardly see it as a sin of any great consequence.

--Eric

 2005/1/8 14:03Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I simply see no evidence at all to back you up and wonder in amazement that you're still pushing it.


I'm not pushing it, just giving you the reasons why I am still unconvinced. It is of little interest or consequence to me, but if you keep on asking questions I will keep on trying to answer them.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/1/8 14:33Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Well, I still think the ashes of the Red Heifer teaching is a good one and biblically sound.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2005/1/8 20:04Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Well, I still think the ashes of the Red Heifer teaching is a good one and biblically sound.


Me too, perhaps we should start a new abomina..., sorry, denomination?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/1/9 7:02Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Ron and Robert,

If it's any consolation to you, I attend a non-denominational church. But until you come up with something better, I'll continue to support the concept of denominations as a necessary evil. (Most non-denoms are in actuality just one-church denominations. Unfortunately, to be Protestant is to be denominational. And to be Catholic or Orthodox is just as sectarian.)

I'm glad for your mutual admiration society. It does my heart good when brothers live together in harmony.

Would it do anyone irreparable harm to come up with the first semblance of a Scripture passage that corroborated Ron's "biblical soundness"? Somehow I always felt that biblical soundness and biblical evidence went together. My bad.

--Eric

 2005/1/10 16:20Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy