Why does Jesus expect more of me than he did of his own apostles?
Jesus's own apostles were told that he would rise again and they apparently didn't believe him. These are people who watched him perform numerous miracles and saw his predictions come true. Why should *I* believe this happened with *no* first hand evidence whatsoever?
Why didn't they know?
posted by evtujo @ 10:31 PM
[digg]
5 Comments:
<< Most versions of the Bible refer to the beings in this passage who took wives of the daughters of men as "the sons of God," but the expression (beni ha-elohim) in Hebrew literally meant "sons of the gods" and is so translated in The Revised English Bible >>
With such basic errors in Hebrew, I'm afraid I stopped reading at this point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
[I think your comment was intended for another posting] So the revised english bible is based on faulty translations? Why does god allow bad translations to circulate? Do you have evidence that this is an error?
'elohim' means either God (i.e. the one true God) or gods, depending on the context (and I believe it can mean 'mighty ones', sometimes referring to magistrates or rulers). The wikipedia article on this word seems pretty good.
To say that 'beni ha-elohim' literally means 'sons of the gods' is a mistake, as it can mean either 'sons of God' or 'sons of the gods'. The author goes on to say that translations that say 'sons of God' are and even deceptive. In reality, you can translate it either way, though I would imagine that in this context 'God' would make more sense (since no other gods have been mentioned at this point in Genesis, and no angels either). This is the way that most modern translations take it I believe (at least ESV, NIV and NKJV).
As for why God allows 'bad translations': First, this is a very minor point, hardly critical to the gospel. Hoever, there have been times when God's word has been very seriously repressed on a huge scale, and I have to say I just don't know why.
If you are interested, I did actually read more of the article, and I could give you some more answers to it if you wanted.
[And yep, sorry for posting on the wrong thing]
For me the main thing of interest in the original article was simply the quetion why the Bible would quote a book not in the Bible? But for more on the topic of sons of gods:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1992/1/1seth92.html
Post a Comment
<< Home