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.
The passage doesn’t indicate that he’s acting in excess, or that Jonah disapproves of it.
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.
OK, just sackcloth. Same fucking difference.
Verse 8.
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 They were ordered to starve themselves and their animals indefinitely, and this order wasn’t rescinded until God stopped them.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.
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.”
Well, certainly. The hyperbole was quite understandable, and (point being) not confined to the Hebrew Scriptures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Jonah doesn’t object to it and nothing in the texts says or implies that the King was going too far.
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.
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.
I posted the exact text. Anyone who wants to can decide whether I misrepesented it.
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.
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.
I didn’t say it was the only possible transaltion, but it is the most literal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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. 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 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. As Greek scholar Dr. Arthur Farstad said, the NKJV and the NASB are in essentially the same camp 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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.