Ezekiel 20:25 mistranslated in the list of contradictions

leor613
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Ezekiel 20:25 mistranslated in the list of contradictions

Your translation of Ezekiel 20:25, in your list of contradictions, changes the meaning of the verse, especially when taken out of context with the surrounding verses. The previous two verses talks about the punishment of Israel for disobeying the Torah, namely not keeping Shabbos, and worshiping idols. So this verse continues that theme, that the "decrees" (not laws) that HaShem had decreed upon them were too much for them to bear. It does not mean that humans are incapable fo following the Torah.

 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
A question: Wouldn't an

A question: Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god make sure his "word" reached us properly with no translation mistakes?

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


leor613
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
You're dodging my point:

You're dodging my point: Rook mistranslated the text, or used a flawed translation. That leads him to conclude that the text is contradictory, when this verse is not in the least.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
leor613 wrote: You're

leor613 wrote:

You're dodging my point:

Actually, she's undermining the entire 'out of context/translation' defense entirely, by pointing out that even if you are right, it unseats the idea of Ezekial being a message from any god.

 

Quote:

Rook mistranslated the text, or used a flawed translation. That leads him to conclude that the text is contradictory, when this verse is not in the least.

 Let's have Rook respond to your claim then. If he's around. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


leor613
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: leor613

todangst wrote:
leor613 wrote:

You're dodging my point:

Actually, she's undermining the entire 'out of context/translation' defense entirely, by pointing out that even if you are right, it unseats the idea of Ezekial being a message from any god.

You know what? I really could care less. I raise a legitimate point and you answer with a non-sequitar. So much for the vaunted rationality of the atheists. Your pal mistranslated the verse and took it out of context. That's either sloppiness or intellectual dishonesty. When I call him on it (one of many examples I noticed in his long list by the by) you don't focus on the issues I raised, which any legitimate biblical scholar, whether they believe in biblical inerrency or not, would address. Instead you try to turn your pal's mistakes into proof that god doesn't exist.

I am reminded of a midrash which goes something like this: Moses is ready to start writing the Torah, and HaShem is dictating to him: "Berieshis Barah Elokim". Moses objects to writing this, saying that in the future some goy will err, and say that a deity named Bereishis created God. HaShem replies "Let them err!"

I realize that you are not capable of honest discussions, which makes me wonder why you put up this section of your forum. On the one hand you call far and wide for "theists" to come and debate you, but when they do on your own terms, and point out that you made a mistake you attack them.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Where did he attack you?

Where did he attack you?


leor613
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Last time I checked the

Last time I checked the purpose of Higher Biblical Criticism is to arrive at some sort of understanding about the text. This requires an understanding that all translations are not perfect, and some are far more imperfect than others. This is why legitimate Biblical Critics never rely solely on translations, they actually learn Biblical Hebrew. They also look at the context of the verses, which is where they find "contradictions". No serious Biblical Scholar at any decent university would have made the basic mistakes that Rook is making in his "list". I decided to choose a verse from his list at random look it up in Hebrew, and compare his translation to others. My conclusions were that his translations were inaccurate, which deflates his arguments.

Then along comes the previous posters, who proceed to ask me questions which have nothing at all to do with the stated purpose of the "Biblical Errancy" forum. You atheists want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to argue that the Bible is not the word of god because there are mistakes in it; then when I point out that the "mistakes" may be the result of mistranslation you use that against me. After all, if HaShem wanted to make sure mankind understood His message, He should magically translate the text into every language, mystically correcting scribal errors, typos, and poor translations. You set the bar higher each time, but if I were to do that you'd attack me. Guess what: this is a two-way street. I have been civil in all of my posts, even posting a few jokes. In return I have been subjected to foul play from your side, and I'm calling you people on it.

 


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
leor613 wrote:

leor613 wrote:
Your translation of Ezekiel 20:25, in your list of contradictions, changes the meaning of the verse, especially when taken out of context with the surrounding verses.
It's not Rook's translation. The translation Rook provided matches the NIV word-for-word, which is a translation done by several scholars.

From Rook's list: Ezek. 20:25 says, "I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by...."

From the NIV: Eze 20:25 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by;


Quote:
The previous two verses talks about the punishment of Israel for disobeying the Torah, namely not keeping Shabbos, and worshiping idols. So this verse continues that theme, that the "decrees" (not laws) that HaShem had decreed upon them were too much for them to bear.
Fallacy of naked assertion. You haven't provided evidence for your claim.


Quote:
You're dodging my point: Rook mistranslated the text, or used a flawed translation. That leads him to conclude that the text is contradictory, when this verse is not in the least.

You didn't back up your assertions, so there is "nothing" to dodge.


Quote:
You know what? I really could care less.
Are you being sarcastic?


Quote:
I raise a legitimate point and you answer with a non-sequitar.
Fallacy of naked assertion. Please stop committing one of the most basic errors in logic.

By the way, it's "non sequitur." I suggest you brush up on your English before offering your opinion on a language that would naturally be more difficult to grasp than your original language being that it isn't native to you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/non%20sequitur


Quote:
So much for the vaunted rationality of the atheists.
Hasty generalization fallacy. You're drawing a broad conclusion from a single case.


Quote:
Your pal mistranslated the verse and took it out of context.
Again, it's not Rook's translation. Secondly, you haven't established that Rook took it out of context.


Quote:
That's either sloppiness or intellectual dishonesty.
That is if Rook did indeed do what you accuse him of doing. You haven't backed up your claims though. Care to? That's what people with an understanding of the basics of logic tend to do.


Quote:
When I call him on it (one of many examples I noticed in his long list by the by) you don't focus on the issues I raised, which any legitimate biblical scholar, whether they believe in biblical inerrency or not, would address.
I doubt most biblical scholars would respond to naked assertions.


Quote:
I am reminded of a midrash which goes something like this: Moses is ready to start writing the Torah, and HaShem is dictating to him: "Berieshis Barah Elokim". Moses objects to writing this, saying that in the future some goy will err, and say that a deity named Bereishis created God. HaShem replies "Let them err!"
That must have been the same attitude Yahweh had towards the Bible authors.

Note: this is a joke.


Quote:
Last time I checked the purpose of Higher Biblical Criticism is to arrive at some sort of understanding about the text. This requires an understanding that all translations are not perfect, and some are far more imperfect than others. This is why legitimate Biblical Critics never rely solely on translations, they actually learn Biblical Hebrew.
The well-known English translations are done by those who learned Biblical Hebrew, so your point is hollow.


Quote:
They also look at the context of the verses, which is where they find "contradictions". No serious Biblical Scholar at any decent university would have made the basic mistakes that Rook is making in his "list". I decided to choose a verse from his list at random look it up in Hebrew, and compare his translation to others.
You're so ignorant that you still don't realize your mistranslation complaint is actually with the NIV translation.


Quote:
My conclusions were that his translations were inaccurate, which deflates his arguments.
Non sequitur. Simply drawing conclusions doesn't make them correct.

At this point, I don't see any need to respond to you further. All the errors you've made are basic, so you aren't posing much of a threat. I don't think I have the patience to continue trying to educate you on the basics of logic anyway.