# Did Noah go to Ninevah in the Belly of a Whale? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834 "2010-04-21T06:06:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/61 "2010-04-22T17:23:47Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > What is interesting to me is that absurd hyperbole concerning the size of cities in that part of the world (on the part of folks who didn’t live there) appears to have been rather common in the ancient world; it is by no means unique to the OT myths. > > I believe it was Herodotus who claimed that the walls of Babylon were 300 feet high; and it may have been him or someone else who claimed that when the Persians took the city, there were parts of the city in which the folks were completely unaware that the Persians had won the fight, days after the battle. > > My “take” is that the cities in that part of the world were of a size that awed and impressed outsiders, to the extent that the tale grew in the telling to an absurd degree - see also the Tower of Babel myth (Ziggurats are big, reach the very sky itself). Bear in mind also that if, as is likely, the story takes place during the height of the Assyrian Empire, Ninveh was the capital (or co-capital) of the largest empire in the known world. You can excuse a slight amount of hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/62 "2010-04-22T17:28:46Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > First of all, the fact that the king is responsible for that command, not Jonah, is itself pretty damning. It would be most unfair to blame Jonah – or any of God’s representatives, for that matter – for the actions of a pagan king who’s clearly acting in excess. The passage doesn’t indicate that he’s acting in excess, or that Jonah disapproves of it. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not. Let’s go down the list. > > First, the king did NOT command the people and animals to be starved. He commanded a fast, which is entirely different. It’s not different in anyway, especially for the animals. Animals cannot choose to fast, and the kind specofically says the animals are to be denied food and water. That’s starving. > [@](#): > > Second, as I already pointed out, he did NOT command them to be covered in ashes. He covered himself in ashes, but issued no command for others – whether man or beast – to do likewise. OK, just sackcloth. Same fucking difference. > [@](#): > > Third, as I pointed out, neither he nor Jonah commanded the beasts to repent. This statement simply does not exist in the text. Verse 8. > [@](#): > > Fourth, there is still no indication that they were to fast until God relented. They were simply commanded to fast, and the text gives no indication of when they were to stop. One might consider this to be a piddling difference, but if one is going to cast aspersions on the king’s actions, then a measure of accuracy is in order. This is really an opaque objection to me. They were ordered to starve themselves and their animals indefinitely, and this order wasn’t rescinded until God stopped them. That is clearly in the text. I don’t understand what you’re objecting to except for the trivial protestation that the King didn’t actually say the words “until God says.” That was still the effect of the order. The King didn’t say they could stop until God did. > [@](#): > > Finally, you make the claim that the beasts were commanded to “cry mightily under God” and “turn from their evil ways.” That claim is based on an idiosyncratic parsing of verse 8. Indeed, the New American Standard Bible (one of the most literal English versions) renders this verse as follows: > > “But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands” > It clearly says that men are to call on God, not the beasts. The New King James (another highly literal translation) says that “every one” is to repent. I suppose one COULD choose to interpret this as including the beasts, but it’s hardly a straightforward or inescapable interpretation. Indeed, the most common sensical reading is simply that the people were to turn away from evil, not the animals. Your translations are incorrect. Here is the literal translation from Young’s (I don’t kniw Hebrew, so I have to trust Young’s on this): and cover themselves [with] sackcloth let man and beast, and let them call unto God mightily, and let them turn back each from his evil way, and from the violence that [is] in their hands. The Greek Septaugint version (which I _can_ read) translates (as literally as I can manage) thusly: καὶ περιεβάλοντο σάκκους οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ τὰ κτήνη καὶ ἀνεβόησαν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐκτενῶς καὶ ἀπέστρεψαν ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀδικίας τῆς ἐν χερσὶν αὐτῶν λέγοντες And dressed in sacks [must be] the men and the beasts, and they must cry out to God fervently and each one must turn away from his evil way and from the violence which [in his] own hands he does. Even the NKJV says both man and beast are supposed to “cry mightily unto God.” ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/63 "2010-04-22T17:36:43Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Bear in mind also that if, as is likely, the story takes place during the height of the Assyrian Empire, Ninveh was the capital (or co-capital) of the largest empire in the known world. You can excuse a slight amount of hyperbole. Well, certainly. The hyperbole was quite understandable, and (point being) not confined to the Hebrew Scriptures. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/64 "2010-04-22T18:31:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The passage doesn’t indicate that he’s acting in excess, or that Jonah disapproves of it. Not everything needs to be spelled out. He’s going far beyond what Jonah actually commanded, and the fact that Jonah’s reaction was not recorded is simply irrelevant. Either way, it’s poor form to blame Jonah or Yahweh for this pagan king’s reaction. > [@](#): > > It’s not different in anyway, especially for the animals. Animals cannot choose to fast, and the kind specofically says the animals are to be denied food and water. That’s starving. No, it isn’t. Fasting is not the same thing as starving, and you know it. But even if it were, it’s not something that Yahweh or Jonah commanded. > [@](#): > > OK, just sackcloth. Same fucking difference. You just can’t candidly admit to being wrong, can you? Even when you sorta acknowledge an error, you have to act as though you said nothing wrong. > [@](#): > > This is really an opaque objection to me. They were ordered to starve themselves and their animals indefinitely, and this order wasn’t rescinded until God stopped them. That is clearly in the text. No, they weren’t. They were commanded to FAST, not starve, and at no point did he say that they were to fast indefinitely. The duration of the fast simply was not recorded. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand what you’re objecting to except for the trivial protestation that the King didn’t actually say the words “until God says.” That was still the effect of the order. The King didn’t say they could stop until God did. Again, a gross distortion of the text. It’s this kind of misrepresentation that I’m objecting to. But again, for the sake of argument, let’s grant this specific claim. The point remains that Jonah did NOT command these actions. They were the actions of a pagan king who went far beyond Jonah’s mere exhortation for them to repent from their ways. > [@](#): > > Your translations are incorrect. Here is the literal translation from Young’s (I don’t kniw Hebrew, so I have to trust Young’s on this): And I choose to trust the NASB and the NKJV, both of which are also literal translations. As you know full well, there are often multiple ways to translate a text, so it’s kinda petty to insist that Young’s is the ONLY possible translation… especially since, by your own admission, you don’t know Hebrew. > [@](#): > > The Greek Septaugint version (which I _can_ read) translates (as literally as I can manage) thusly: > > καὶ περιεβάλοντο σάκκους οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ τὰ κτήνη καὶ ἀνεβόησαν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐκτενῶς καὶ ἀπέστρεψαν ἕκαστος ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ τῆς πονηρᾶς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀδικίας τῆς ἐν χερσὶν αὐτῶν λέγοντες > > And dressed in sacks [must be] the men and the beasts, and they must cry out to God fervently and each one must turn away from his evil way and from the violence which [in his] own hands he does. It uses the terms “they” and “each one,” neither of which necessarily refers to the beasts. Nice try, but it still falls far short of saying that even the animals must repent. > [@](#): > > Even the NKJV says both man and beast are supposed to “cry mightily unto God.” No, it doesn’t. In fact, I specifically cited the NKJV on this matter. It says that “every one” is to repent, which is far short of saying that the animals are included in that command. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/65 "2010-04-22T18:44:37Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > No, it doesn’t. In fact, I specifically cited the NKJV on this matter. It says that “every one” is to repent, which is far short of saying that the animals are included in that command. Which was demonstrably a modification not based on the original texts. If I write in pink marker in a bible “and then Jonah said that the king was completely right in his proclamation and supported by Yahweh”, would that resolve the argument? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/66 "2010-04-22T18:50:02Z")
This argument is bizzare. There are plenty of reasons to find the Biblical myths absurd (for example, prophets being swallowed by whales and remaining alive) without, essentially, inventing new ones based on questionable sentence structure interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/67 "2010-04-22T18:52:34Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > This argument is bizzare. There are plenty of reasons to find the Biblical myths absurd (for example, prophets being swallowed by whales and remaining alive) without, essentially, inventing new ones based on questionable sentence structure interpretation. Nitpicking is fun. Until you start to take it seriously. Then it’s a sovereign duty to fight ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/68 "2010-04-22T18:55:39Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Not everything needs to be spelled out. He’s going far beyond what Jonah actually commanded, and the fact that Jonah’s reaction was not recorded is simply irrelevant. Either way, it’s poor form to blame Jonah or Yahweh for this pagan king’s reaction. Jonah doesn’t object to it and nothing in the texts says or implies that the King was going too far. > [@](#): > > No, it isn’t. Fasting is not the same thing as starving, and you know it. But even if it were, it’s not something that Yahweh or Jonah commanded. Yes it is. Anmals can’t fast. fasting is voluntary. Simply not letting them eat is starving them. This is a ridiculous point to try to argue. It’s also not relevant to me who commanded it. I wasn’t trying to make any point about WHO commanded it, only that it was ridiculous thayt _anybody_ did. I was pointing out how absurdly _implausible_ the story is as literal history, not commenting on the motovations of the characters. > [@](#): > > No, they weren’t. They were commanded to FAST, not starve, and at no point did he say that they were to fast indefinitely. The duration of the fast simply was not recorded. How can you command an animal to fast? That’s ridiculous and impossible. If you really believe that’s what the text means, then you’re just making my case that it’s ridiculous to take it seriously as history. > [@](#): > > Again, a gross distortion of the text. It’s this kind of misrepresentation that I’m objecting to. I posted the exact text. Anyone who wants to can decide whether I misrepesented it. > [@](#): > > But again, for the sake of argument, let’s grant this specific claim. The point remains that Jonah did NOT command these actions. They were the actions of a pagan king who went far beyond Jonah’s mere exhortation for them to repent from their ways. Completely irrelevant to my point, which was only that it was absurd to take the story literally. I wasn’t making any judgement on God or Johnah as characters. > [@](#): > > And I choose to trust the NASB and the NKJV, both of which are also literal translations. No, they really aren’t. I don’t know what gives you the idea that they are, but they’re not. Young’s Literal Translation is as literal as it gets. > [@](#): > > As you know full well, there are often multiple ways to translate a text, so it’s kinda petty to insist that Young’s is the ONLY possible translation… especially since, by your own admission, you don’t know Hebrew. I didn’t say it was the only possible transaltion, but it is the most _literal_. > [@](#): > > It uses the terms “they” and “each one,” neither of which necessarily refers to the beasts. Nice try, but it still falls far short of saying that even the animals must repent. I don’t know if you read Greek, but grammatically, the “they,” and the “each one” both refer back to the phrase οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ τὰ κτήνη (“the men and the beasts”). Trying to represent it as only referring to the people is not supported by the grammar of the Greek, and is tendentious even in the English. > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > > > Even the NKJV says both man and beast are supposed to “cry mightily unto God.” > > No, it doesn’t. [Yes it does](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jonah%203&version=NKJV): > [@](#): > > But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/69 "2010-04-22T18:58:11Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Which was demonstrably a modification not based on the original texts. Assertions are not evidence. You’ve asserted that it’s demonstrably a modification, but you haven’t actually demonstrated it to be so. In contrast, you have multiple literal translations, all of which render the passage with subtle differences, and NONE of which – not even Young’s – unambiguously assert that the animals were to repent or cry out vocally. (Young’s Literal Translation does use the pronoun “they,” but its antecedent is ambiguous. Since both the writers and the readers know full well that animals do not ordinarily cry out in distinct language, the only reasonable inference is that it refers to the subject of the previous phrase (the ones who are to do the covering) rather than the object (the coverees, i.e. man and beast). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/70 "2010-04-22T19:03:53Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Assertions are not evidence. You’ve asserted that it’s demonstrably a modification, but you haven’t actually demonstrated it to be so. In contrast, you have multiple literal translations, all of which render the passage with subtle differences, and NONE of which – not even Young’s – unambiguously assert that the animals were to repent or cry out vocally. (Young’s Literal Translation does use the pronoun “they,” but its antecedent is ambiguous. Since both the writers and the readers know full well that animals do not ordinarily cry out in distinct language, the only reasonable inference is that it refers to the subject of the previous phrase (the ones who are to do the covering) rather than the object (the coverees, i.e. man and beast). Actually I didn’t assert that, **Diogenes** did. _And he knows greek_, and asserts that in the greek grammar the "they"s refer back the to the entire conjoined phrase. Whereas you’re not the expert in anything and your conclusion is based on a clearly biased selection of texts and a dubious interpretation of how “they” is used in _english_. I know who _I’m_ going to trust here. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/71 "2010-04-22T19:53:40Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Actually I didn’t assert that, **Diogenes** did. _And he knows greek_, … The Book of Jonah was not written in Greek. He was referencing the Septuagint, which is not the original text. Hence, it cannot be used as evidence that the originals were modified. > [@](#): > > …and asserts that in the greek grammar the "they"s refer back the to the entire conjoined phrase. Given the numerous errors that have already been pointed out in his reading of this account (some of which he himself was forced to admit), I’m not exactly inclined to accept his scholarship on this matter – especially since multiple professional translators have chosen to render the passage in question differently. I’ve already addressed several of **Dio** ’s latest objections, but one of them deserves further emphasis. He asserts that the NKJV does declare that the animals should repent, based on the following rendition: “But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God.” Once again though, this requires an idiosyncratic parsing of that phrase. It requires the verb “cry” be held in parallel to the phrase “be covered,” i.e. that man and beast are to do both. The common sense interpretation, however, is that it is should be read as a parallel to the verb “let”; that is, the kind commanded his subjects to do two things: to let man and beast be clothed in sackcloth, and to cry out in repentance to the Lord. The more idiosyncratic, more embarrassing interpretation requires assuming that the Ninevite king AND the readers of Jonah were all too feeble-minded to understand that animals cannot repent or cry out in grief. It’s the sort of interpretation that people choose when they want to make a text sound as ludicrous as possible. The grammar does not require this specific parsing though, and it’s a rather poor way of inferring the writer’s intent. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/72 "2010-04-22T20:24:20Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > The Book of Jonah was not written in Greek. He was referencing the Septuagint, which is not the original text. Hence, it cannot be used as evidence that the originals were modified. > Given the numerous errors that have already been pointed out in his reading of this account (some of which he himself was forced to admit), I’m not exactly inclined to accept his scholarship on this matter – especially since multiple professional translators have chosen to render the passage in question differently. > > I’ve already addressed several of **Dio** ’s latest objections, but one of them deserves further emphasis. He asserts that the NKJV does declare that the animals should repent, based on the following rendition: > > “But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God.” > Once again though, this requires an idiosyncratic parsing of that phrase. It requires the verb “cry” be held in parallel to the phrase “be covered,” i.e. that man and beast are to do both. The common sense interpretation, however, is that it is should be read as a parallel to the verb “let”; that is, the kind commanded his subjects to do two things: to let man and beast be clothed in sackcloth, and to cry out in repentance to the Lord. > > The more idiosyncratic, more embarrassing interpretation requires assuming that the Ninevite king AND the readers of Jonah were all too feeble-minded to understand that animals cannot repent or cry out in grief. It’s the sort of interpretation that people choose when they want to make a text sound as ludicrous as possible. The grammar does not require this specific parsing though, and it’s a rather poor way of inferring the writer’s intent. You have not pointed out a single error in **Dio** ’s understanding of greek grammer - not one. And you have no idea what specific parsing the original grammar requires because you can’t read it either. You are arguing by assertion from imaginary authority while criticizing the assessments of people who _do_ have a clue: Young’s Literal Translation and **Dio**. And your “common sense interpretation” is unintitive as all get-out, and barely a correct read of the grammar. It’s absurd to think that translators would consistently and repeatedly mistranslate text into such an unintuitive and arguably incorrect structure. Not that absurdity will slow you down. I _do_ disagree with **Dio** on one point, though - his claim that people and/or gods doing unbelievably stupid things makes the story unbelievable. I think it’s been amply demonstrated that people are dumb, and will cheerfully do or believe dumb things for religion. And given the ‘logic’ of the whole crucifixion sacrifice thing, it’s quite plausible that the biblical god is stupid, insane, or at least critically incapable of thinking rationally, which makes any stupid command or series of commands (“Kill your son!” “Or not!”) entirely plausible. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/73 "2010-04-22T22:07:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: You have cited an instance – and by no means the only such in the Bible, either – where the act of a righteous heart would have been to **defy** God. Moreover, the point of the story is that blind obedience is **exactly** what God wants. No, that is only a interpretation, which I believe it wrong. Actually if you read my post before yours, I believe God corrected me, and now believe that Abraham knew exactly why Issac must die and did not have a choice in the matter. It was not blind faith following, nor was that the test of faith. The test of faith of Abraham believing that God will keep His promise and somehow deliver Issac. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/74 "2010-04-23T06:21:16Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > More seriously, I have a great deal of problems with any group who insists that (a) it was really God who wrote something that explicitly identifies itself as a collection of works written by a number of men over the course of several hundred years, (b) insists that any narrative must be literal objective historical narrative (invented in about 1830), and (c) considers one a nonbeliever for seeing the contnts as story (which dates back to, well, Biblical days). > > And who cannot even read the stories for the points they are obviously making, but takes some extraneous detail and founds a highly improbable doctrine, one which usually contravenes the findings of science, on it. > > It’s crap like that that’s given the term “Christian” a bad name. Well, that and the Spanish Inquisition. And the Elmer Gantryism. And the kid porking. And the Crusades. But other than that, teaching people to care for one another is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/75 "2010-04-24T04:17:06Z")
> [@](#): > > **The Second Stone** : Well, that and the Spanish Inquisition. And the Elmer Gantryism. And the kid porking. And the Crusades. But other than that, teaching people to care for one another is a good thing. Aren’t you lucky that the great majority of Christians never participated in the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades? They’ve never molested children or behaved like an Elmer Gantry. I’m glad that you believe that caring for one another is a good thing. Caring includes being fair. I am in agreement with you about many of the Biblical stories sounding pretty far-fetched to be completely true. A young minister told me that that was understandable when I was eighteen. That certainly put me at ease with my beliefs. If you are getting too much criticism in your church, you might want to consider finding a church that matches your own beliefs. You can read about different mainline or liberal churches and their beliefs on the internet and see what suits your own needs best. Good luck in your search. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/76 "2010-04-24T04:31:35Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Aren’t you lucky that the great majority of Christians never participated in the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades? They’ve never molested children or behaved like an Elmer Gantry. But they’ve done plenty of other things just as bad, or supported or made excuses for those who did the dirty work. Nazi Germany and the persecution, then Holocaust of the Jews comes to mind. Or more recently, the persecution of gays and the war against condoms and abortion. The list of “crap” as **Polycarp** put it that have given Christianity a bad name is a long one. > [@](#): > > I’m glad that you believe that caring for one another is a good thing. Caring includes being fair. “Fair”? If Christianity was a non-religious ideology it would be condemned, including by most of the people who call themselves Christians. Yes, the treatment of Christianity is unfair - in its favor. Far, far too much is let slide because it is a religion. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/77 "2010-04-27T16:32:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > And I choose to trust the NASB and the NKJV, both of which are also literal translations. > > No, they really aren’t. I don’t know what gives you the idea that they are, but they’re not. **Diogenes** , I want to say this as gently as possible without diluting my point. Your comment proves that you either failed to do basic research or that you’re just making stuff up. [The NASB, for example, is widely regarded to be one of the most literal translations available today.](http://www.lockman.org/nasb/) This is common knowledge among Bible students, whether they be believers or non-believers. I can almost understand how you might be unaware of this, despite your self-proclaimed credentials. The problem is that you flatly insisted that it was NOT a literal translation at all. Heck, you even went so far as to say that you didn’t know how someone could believe such a thing, as though this notion were unimaginable. Yet [a simple Google search](http://www.google.com/search?q=NASB+literal&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIE_en) yields OVER A HUNDRED citations that attest to the highly literal quality of the NASB. As for the NKJV, it is not as literal as the NASB, but it is still considered to be [one of the more literal translations on the market](http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html). As Greek scholar Dr. Arthur Farstad said, [the NKJV and the NASB are in essentially the same camp](http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/reviews/tony_garland/review_of_new_king_james_version.pdf) when it comes to their literal nature. This is what always happens when you’re caught in a blatant error, **Diogenes**. Instead of admitting ignorance or a weakness in your argument, you resort to bluster, sometimes pulling “facts” completely out of mid-air. You’ve been criticized for this numerous times over the past couple of years, **Diogenes**. Normally, I choose to address these issues more delicately, but frankly, a spade is a spade. You’d be wise to reconsider that tactic. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/78 "2010-04-27T18:29:49Z")
Sorry, but your information is incorrect. Close to literal, yes, for the most part, but calling it flat out “literal” is incorrect. It isn’t. YLT is literal. Your examples are not. Translating the Bible into coherent English takes a certain degree, however careful, of paraphrasing and interpretation. We may be using different definitions of “literal,” but to me it means getting as close to word for word as possible, and your examples don’t do that. Purely literal translations do not parse in English. Plus, I did the word for word translation from the LXX myself. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/79 "2010-04-27T19:36:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Sorry, but your information is incorrect. Close to literal, yes, for the most part, but calling it flat out “literal” is incorrect. It isn’t. YLT is literal. Your examples are not. Translating the Bible into coherent English takes a certain degree, however careful, of paraphrasing and interpretation. We may be using different definitions of “literal,” but to me it means getting as close to word for word as possible, and your examples don’t do that. Purely literal translations do not parse in English. This is yet another example of the bluster that I was talking about. It’s the tactic that you resort to whenever you paint yourself in to a corner and are forced to scramble for a way out. The NASB _is_ an extremely literal rendition of the Bible – certainly the most literal of all the 20th century English versions. It is meticulously close to the original grammar. Of course, when dealing with any lengthy texts, it is seldom possible to maintain a 100% word-for-word equivalency between two languages; after all, we have idioms and other figures of speech to deal with. Nevertheless, the NASB is legendary for its literal quality, as the numerous texts that I’ve cited demonstrate. Is the NASB 100% literal, in a word-for-word sense? Obviously not, but neither is Young’s Literal Translation. Besides, your original claim went far beyond merely stating that the NASB is not 100% literal. Quite the contrary, you flatly asserted, " I don’t know what gives you the idea that they [the NASB and the NKJV] are, but they’re not" – the clear implication being that this notion was ridiculous from the get go. If your objection was merely that the NASB comes close but isn’t quite there, then you would have said so. Instead, you acted as though the whole notion came completely out of left field, which is how one can tell that you were pulling that idea out of thin air. > [@](#): > > Plus, I did the word for word translation from the LXX myself. This type of bluster is exactly why I don’t trust your supposedly “word for word” translation. With all due respect, you couldn’t even render the ENGLISH text accurately – attributing words to Jonah when they clearly came from the Ninevite king, for example, or insisting that all of the Ninevite subjects (including the animals) were commanded to adorn themselves with ashes. **Dio** , I know that this will probably anger you, but think about it… if you’re going to be this careless when it comes the clear English text, then why should anybody expect that you’d be meticulously accurate when it comes to translating from ancient Greek? But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that you’re correct. Let’s pretend that the YLT is the ONLY translation that can possibly be considered literal. The fact remains that the most literal translation is not necessarily the most reasonable or the most accurate. How would one translate the statement “I feel like a milkshake” into German or Japanese, for example? Should one take this to mean that the speaker feels that he is a frothy, fattening beverage? Or should one take it to mean that the speaker simply craves a milkshake? The former approach would be more literal, but it is obviously not the more accurate one. So even if we grant your claim regarding the “literal” translation, it still does not address the issue of correctness. Your translation requires assuming that both the King of Nineveh and the writer of Jonah were so feeble-minded as to think that animals could both repent and cry out for mercy unto the Lord. A more common sensical approach would be to take a different interpretation, even if it is less strictly literal. (Indeed, this is what the NASB did, and I’d argue that even the grammar of Young’s rendition does not unambiguously support your claim.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834/80 "2010-04-27T23:14:54Z")
Now who’s blustering? I’m not guessing at the LXX translation. I did it myself. The characters in the story are fictional, so the description of animals being required to wear sackcloth and “cr out” only says anything about the author, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the author was stupid, only that the story was a folk tale and not meant to be taken literally. It wouldn’t be the only example of anthropomorphized animals in the Bible, after all. In the books of Genesis and Numbers, animals actually talk. It’s funny that you would think a plain reading of the text would defy “common sense” in that it describes animals as being required to “cry out” to God, but you also try to say that the animals were just “fasting,” and not being starved. Jonah is a folk tale in which animals are ordered to “fast,” wear sackcloth and “cry out to God” along with the humans. It doesn’t mean the author was stupid anymore than Uncle Remus was stupid. The author is just working in a certain genre and did not intend for the story to be taken literally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-noah-go-to-ninevah-in-the-belly-of-a-whale/536834.md?page=5)