No word 'witch,' no word 'sin' anywhere in the Bible

[Desiremakesmeweak]

ANYWHERE. Certainly not in any of the original language/s texts.

So. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

Hehehehe.

And, God, I am so trance exclusionary radical feminist. Especially after a lot of alcohol and I want to sleep. But no-o-o: duff duff duff duff, da da, dud dud, dedededededededddd - lights lights lights lights waving waving flashflashflashflash strobing strobing strobing strobing. Dummy in mouth suck suck suck...

Yep. I am so fucking trance phobic.

Even look at this - 'live long and prosper' hand up; snip snip = trance bangs.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, so I can't speak to the pre-English versions of the Bible, but the King James version of the Bible, the first printed English version, has the word "sin" in it.

John 8:7: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Merry Christmas, all you sinners!

 

[Blind_Justice]

The Bible - the biggest fantasy novel of them all.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Is there a reason for this here, as opposed to the General Board?

 

[Polyacrylate]

It's a bit of word salad in the OP, but in recognized and generally accepted English translations, 'Sin' and 'Witch' both make appearances (above mentioned sin, and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus ??:??)).

 

[SimonDoom]

It's a bit of word salad in the OP, but in recognized and generally accepted English translations, 'Sin' and 'Witch' both make appearances (above mentioned sin, and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus ??:??)).

Exodus 22:18.

 

[SimonDoom]

And who can forget Leviticus 69:96: "Thou shalt not post sinful stories on the Internet, especially if they involve witches."

 

[jehoram]

Is there a reason for this here, as opposed to the General Board?

Well, it does bring up the question of nuances in translation. Consider that the Judeo-Christian Bible comes to us from multiple language sources, very few of which have survived. Genesis appears to come partially from Sumerian sources, as evidenced by a pun on Eve's name. That story is here:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/87/do-women-have-an-extra-rib-because-eve-got-one-of-adams/

Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and much of the New Testament is based on Aramaic sources which were first translated into Greek, then Latin, and finally English, and the translators often didn't have a good grasp on these languages. We have more surviving manuscripts in that language than King James's crew had, and we've learned that they got a few things wrong.

So I agree with Desiremakesmeweak that an English translation of the Bible isn't a reliable guide to what was in the originals, and the translators had axes of their own to grind. For example, what they translated as "witch" appears to have actually meant something like "priestess of any religion that we don't agree with." As for "sin," well, I have a hard time defining it in English, let alone what it might have meant to the people back then. For example, as George Carlin asked, "What is God going to do with all those Catholics who ate meat on Friday?"

 

[BelleCanzuto]

an English translation of the Bible isn't a reliable guide to what was in the originals, and the translators had axes of their own to grind.

The translators had their axes to grind, and what was included vs. excluded was decided by committees of people with other axes to grind.

Here's a summary from the History Channel, which was the most neutral appearing source upon quickly searching.

It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. The books that eventually were considered canon reflect the times they were embraced as much the times of the events they portray.

During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, books not originally written in Hebrew but Greek, such as Judith and Maccabees, were excluded from the Old Testament. These are known the Apocrypha and are still included in the Catholic Bible.

It's always been interesting to me how little any of that history (or the translations issue) matters to people who say they take the Christian Bible literally. But... that's probably a discussion for the politics board, so I will say nothing more.

 

[UsuallyPresent]

The Lord of the Rings pokes a little fun at translation issues with the whole password to the Gates of Moria - "Say friend and enter".


I recall it having been used in other stories, such as the short story that led to the huge Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Man".


I've done something like this in gaming scenarios, but not in a written story. Has anyone here done similar?

 

[oggbashan]

Witch

Occurs only in Exodus 22:18 , as the rendering of mekhashshepheh , the feminine form of the word, meaning "enchantress" (RSV, "sorceress"), and in Deuteronomy 18:10 , as the rendering of mekhashshepheth , the masculine form of the word, meaning "enchanter.

Sin

Bible
Dictionaries - Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Sin
Sin [N] [T] [E] [H]

Sin is a riddle, a mystery, a reality that eludes definition and comprehension. Perhaps we most often think of sin as wrongdoing or transgression of God's law. Sin includes a failure to do what is right. But sin also offends people; it is violence and lovelessness toward other people, and ultimately, rebellion against God. Further, the Bible teaches that sin involves a condition in which the heart is corrupted and inclined toward evil. The concept of sin is complex, and the terminology large and varied so that it may be best to look at the reality of sin in the Pentateuch first, then reflect theologically.

The History of Sin. In the biblical world sin is, from its first appearance, tragic and mysterious. It is tragic because it represents a fall from the high original status of humankind. Created in God's image, Adam and Eve are good but immature, fine but breakable, like glass dishes. They are without flaw, yet capable of marring themselves. Satan uses a serpent to tempt Eve and Adam, first to question God, then to rebel against him. First, Satan introduces doubts about God's authority and goodness. "Did God really say, You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" ( Gen 3:1 ). He invites Eve to consider how the fruit of the tree of knowledge is good for food and for knowledge. We see the tendency of sin to begin with a subtle appeal to something attractive and good in itself, to an act that is somehow plausible and directed toward some good end.

Throughout the Bible almost every sin reaches for things with some intrinsic value, such as security, knowledge, peace, pleasure, or a good name. But behind the appeal to something good, sin ultimately involves a raw confrontation between obedience and rebellion. Will Adam and Eve heed their impressions or God's instructions? Will they listen to a creature or the Creator? Will they serve God or themselves? Who will judge what is right, God or humans? Who will see to the results? Ultimately, by taking the position of arbiter between the conflicting counsel of God and the serpent, Eve and Adam have already elevated themselves over God and rebelled against him.

Here too the first sins disclose the essence of later sins. Sin involves the refusal of humankind to accept its God-given position between the Creator and lower creation. It flows from decisions to reject God's way, and to steal, curse, and lie simply because that seems more attractive or reasonable. Here we approach the mystery of sin. Why would the first couple, sinless and without inclination toward sin, choose to rebel? Why would any creature presume to know more or know better than its creator?

Adam and Eve become sinners by a historical act. The principal effects of sin are alienation from God, from others, from oneself, and from creation. They emerge almost at once. Alienation from God lead Adam and Eve to fear and flee from him. Alienation from each other and themselves shows in their shame (awareness of nakedness) and blame shifting. Adam Acts out all three alienations at once when, in response to God's questions, he excuses himself by blaming both Eve and God for his sin: "The woman you put here with me — she gave me some fruit" ( 3:12 ). The sentence God pronounces upon sin includes grace ( 3:15 ) and suggests that he retains sovereign control over his creation even in its rebellion, but it also establishes our alienation from nature in the curse upon childbearing, work, and creation itself ( 3:14-19 ). After the curse, God graciously clothes the first couple, but he also expels them from the garden ( 3:21-24 ). He graciously permits them to reproduce, but death enters human experience a short time later ( Genesis 4:1 Genesis 4:8 ; 5:5-31 ). These events prove the vanity and futility of sin. Adam and Eve seek new freedoms and dignity, but sin robs them of what they have; seeking advantage, they experience great losses.

Genesis and Romans teach that Adam and Eve did not sin for themselves alone, but, from their privileged position as the first, originally sinless couple, act as representatives for the human race. Since then sin, sinfulness, and the consequences of sin have marred all. Every child of Adam enters a race marked by sin, condemnation, and death ( Rom 5:12-21 ). These traits become theirs both by heritage and, as they grow into accountability, by personal choice, as Cain's slaughter of Abel quickly shows.

In Cain's sin we have an early hint of the virulence and intractability of sin. Whereas Satan prompted Adam and Eve to sin, God himself cannot talk Cain out of it ( Gen 3:1-5 ; 4:6 ). While sin was external to Adam and Eve, it appears to spring up spontaneously from within Cain; it is a wild force in him, which he ought to master lest it devour him ( 4:7 ). Sin is also becoming more aggravated: it is premeditated, it begins in the setting of worship, and it directly harms a brother, who deserves love. After his sin, far from manifesting guilt or remorse, Cain confesses nothing, refuses to repent, and chides God for the harshness of his punishments ( 4:5-14 ). Cain's sin and impenitence foreshadow much of the future course of sin both within and without the Bible.

Genesis 4-11 traces the development of sin. It becomes proud and deliberate ( 4:23-24 ), yet the line of Cain, the line of sinners, remains human and fulfills the mandate to fill and subdue the earth. Indeed, perhaps Cain's line does better in the cultural arena, although those who make bronze and iron tools also fashion weapons. Eventually, sin so pervades the world that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart is only evil all the time ( Gen 6:5 ; 8:21 ). Consequently, the Lord purges the earth of evil through the flood. When sin threatens to reassert itself in both direct disobedience and idolatry, God reveals his new intention to restrain sin by confusing human language at Babel: better that humanity be divided than that it stand together in rebellion against God.

Genesis 12-50 illustrates that sin plagues even the people of God, as members of the covenant family manipulate, betray, lie to, and deceive one another. The history Moses recounts also shows that punishment naturally follows, or is built into iniquity. Scheming Rebekah never sees her favorite son again; Jacob tastes the bitterness of deceit through Laban; Jacob's sons suffer for their sin against Joseph. As Proverbs 5:22 says, "The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him; the cords of his sin hold him fast."

Exodus reveals that sin not only brings suffering and punishment, but also violates the law of the Lord, Israel's holy redeemer and king. At Sinai Israel learned that sin is transgression of God's law; it is behavior that trespasses onto forbidden territory ( Rom 4:15 ). The law also labels sin and unmasks it. One can sin without knowing it, but the law makes such ignorance less common. The Mosaic law emphasizes the external character of sin, but the laws that command Israel to love God and forbid it to worship idols or covet show that sin is internal too. Paradoxically, the law sometimes prompts sin, Paul says ( Rom 7:7-13 ). Upon seeing that something is forbidden, desire to do it rises up. This perverse reaction reminds us that the root of sin is sinfulness and rebellion against God ( Rom 7:7-25 ).

The sacrifices and rituals for cleansing listed in the Pentateuch remind us of the gravity of sin. Transgressions are more than mistakes. The Bible never dismisses a sin simply because it was done by someone young or ignorant, or because it was done some time ago. Sin pollutes the sinner, and the law requires that the pollution be removed. One chief motive of the penal code is to remove evil from the land ( Deut 13:5 , quoted in 1 Cor 5:13 ). Sin also offends God, and the law requires atonement through sacrifices, in many of which a victim gives its life blood for an atonement.

The Biblical Terminology of Sin. The vast terminology, within its biblical contexts, suggests that sin has three aspects: disobedience to or breach of law, violation of relationships with people, and rebellion against God, which is the most basic concept. Risking oversimplification, among the most common Hebrew terms, hattat [a'f'j] means a missing of a standard, mark, or goal; pesa [q;f'P] means the breach of a relationship or rebellion; awon [!A'[] means perverseness; segagah [hgg.v] signifies error or mistake; resa [hgg.v] means godlessness, injustice, and wickedness; and amal [l'm' [], when it refers to sin, means mischief or oppression. The most common Greek term is hamartia [aJmartiva], a word often personified in the New Testament, and signifying offenses against laws, people, or God. Paraptoma [paravptwma] is another general term for offenses or lapses. Adikia [ajdikiva] is a more narrow and legal word, describing unrighteousness and unjust deeds. Parabasis [paravbasi"] signifies trespass or transgression of law; asebeia [ajsevbeia] means godlessness or impiety; and anomia [ajnomiva] means lawlessness. The Bible typically describes sin negatively. It is lawless ness, dis obedience, im piety, un belief, dis trust, darkness as opposed to light, a falling away as opposed to standing firm, weakness not strength. It is un righteousness, faithless ness.

The Biblical Theology of Sin. The historical and prophetic books of the Old Testament illustrate the character of sin under these terms. From Judges to Kings, we see that Israel forsook the Lord who had brought them out of Egypt and established a covenant with them. They followed and worshiped the gods of the nations around them ( Judges 2:10-13 ). Sometimes they served the Baals with singleness of purpose, filling Jerusalem with idols, and lawlessness reigned (Ahab, Ahaz, and Manasseh). The sin of human sacrifice followed in the reigns of such kings ( 2 Kings 21:6 ). The existence of human sacrifice underscores the depth and gravity of sin. People can become so perverted, so self-deceived, that they perform the most unnatural and heartless crimes, thinking them to be worship. Isaiah rightly says they "call evil good and good evil" ( 5:20 ). Later the Pharisees, utterly sincere, yet hypocritical because self-deceived, would revive this sin by killing not their children, but their maker, and calling it an act of service to God.

Many kings compounded their sin by rejecting and sometimes persecuting the prophets who pressed God's covenantal claims. Ahaz even spurned God's free offer of deliverance from invasion; he thought he had arranged his own deliverance through an alliance with Assyria and its gods. Not all kings were so crass; many tried to serve the Lord as they chose, in forbidden manners (Jeroboam I, Jehu, and other northern kings). Others attempted to serve God and the Baals at once (Solomon, the final kings of Judah, and many northern kings). The kings in question may have called it diplomacy; the prophets called it adultery.

Other prophets decried the social character of sin: "They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed" ( Amos 2:6-7 ). If sin is lack of love for God, it is also hate or indifference toward fellow humans.

The history of Israel illustrates how impenitence compounds sin. Saul magnified his sins by repenting superficially at best ( 1 Sam 13:11-12 ; 15:13-21 ; 24:16-21 ). David, by contrast, repented of his sin with Bathsheba, without excuses or reservations ( 2 Sam 12:13 ). Sadly, true repentance was the exception in Israel's history. God prompted Israel to repent by sending adversity empty stomachs, drought, plague, warfare, and other curses for disobedience but Israel would not turn back. Later, the Lord wooed Israel with food, clothing, oil, and new wine; he lavished silver and gold on her, but she gave "her lovers" the credit. Because she did not acknowledge that he was the giver, he swore he would remove his gifts ( Hosea 2:2-13 ).

Jesus continued the prophets' work of deepening the concept of sin in two ways. First, he said God requires more than obedience to external norms. People sin by hating, despising, and lusting even if they never act on their desires. People sin if they do the right things for the wrong reasons. Obedience that proceeds from fear of getting caught, or lack of opportunity to act on wicked desires lacks righteousness ( Matt 5:17-48 ). Second, Jesus' harsh denunciations of sin show that sin cannot be overlooked. It must be confronted, unpleasant as that may be ( Matt 18:15-20 ; Luke 17:3-4 ). Otherwise, the sinner dies in his sins ( John 8:24 ; cf. James 5:19-20 ).

Jesus also explained that sin arises from the heart. Bad trees bear bad fruit, blasphemous words spring from hearts filled with evil, and wicked men demand signs when they have already seen enough to warrant faith ( Matt 7:17-20 ; 12:33-39 ). Therefore, evildoing is not simply a matter of choice, rather, "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin" ( John 8:34 ).

But the Christ came not just to explain but to forgive or remove sin. His name is Jesus because he will deliver his people from their sins ( Matt 1:21 ; Luke 1:77 ). Thus he was a friend of sinners ( Matt 9:9-13 ; Luke 15:1-2 ), bestowed forgiveness of sins, and freed those suffering from its consequences ( Mark 2:1-12 ; Luke 7:36-50 ). Jesus earned the right to his name and the right to grant forgiveness by shedding his blood on the cross for the remission of sins. The crucifixion is at once the apex of sin and the cure of sin ( Acts 2:23-24 ). That the Son of God had to bear the cross to accomplish redemption shows the gravity of sin. That he rose from the dead demonstrates that sin is defeated. After his resurrection, Jesus sent out his disciples to proclaim the victory and forgiveness of sins through his name ( Luke 24:47 ; John 20:23 ).

Paul's theology of sin principally appears in Romans 1-8. God is angry because of sins humans commit against him and one another ( 1:18-32 ). Unbelief is the root of sin. The failure to glorify or thank God leads to idolatry, foolishness, and degradation ( 1:21-25 ). Sometimes he permits sins to develop unimpeded, until every kind of wickedness fills the human breast ( 1:26-32 ). Paul's imaginary reader objects to this indictment in several ways (2:1-3:8). Paul replies that while not everyone sins so crudely, everyone violates standards they consider just ( 2:1-3 ). If someone professes to belong to the covenant, have knowledge, and so enjoy special standing with God, Paul asks if they live up to the knowledge they have of God's law ( 2:17-29 ). Everyone is a sinner, he concludes, and stands silent, guilty, and accountable before God ( 3:10-21 ). Paul's sin lists cover the gamut of transgressions, from murder to gossip. Despite his use of the term "flesh" ("sinful nature" in some translations), relatively few sins on the lists are sensual; most concern the mind or the tongue ( Rom 1:28-32 ; Gal 5:19-21 ). Like Jesus, Paul affirms that sin is an internal power, not just an act. It enslaves any whom Christ has not liberated and leads to their death ( 6:5-23 ), so that the unbeliever is incapable of pleasing God ( 8:5-8 ). Sin continues to grip even the redeemed ( 7:14-25 ). But principal deliverance from sin comes through justification by faith in Jesus, so there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (3:21-4:25; 8:1-4 ). The Spirit renews believers and empowers them to work out that deliverance ( 8:9-27 ).

Much of the rest of the New Testament restates themes from the Gospels and Paul. James remarks that sin begins with evil desires ( 1:14 ; 4:1-4 ) and leads to death when fully grown ( 1:15 ). This and other biblical remarks suggest that iniquity gains some of its power through repetition. When an individual commits a sin, it can become, through repetition, a habit, a vice, and a character trait. When one person imitates the sins of another, wickedness can be institutionalized. Whole governments can become corrupt; whole industries can be based on deception or abuse of others. Societies can wrap themselves in a fabric of deceit. Thus one sinner encourages another and the wrong kind of friendship with the world makes one an enemy of God ( James 4:4-6 ).

The Book of Revelation also reminds us that sin involves more than individual people and Acts. In some places Satan reigns ( 2:13 ). The dragon, in his futile desire to devour the church, prompts the wicked to persecute it ( 12:1-17 ). Both government and religious leaders serve him in his wars against the saints (12:17-13:17). Revelation also depicts the end of sin. A day comes when God will condemn sin ( 20:11-15 ). Evildoers will be driven from his presence; the devil, his allies, death, and Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire ( 20:10-15 ). Then the new heavens and new earth, free of sin forever, will descend (chaps. 21-22).

What, then, is the essence of sin? Sin has three chief aspects: breach of law, violation of relationships with people and things protected by the law, and rebellion against God. The essence of sin, therefore, is not a substance but a relationship of opposition. Sin opposes God's law and his created beings. Sin hates rather than loves, it doubts or contradicts rather than trusts and affirms, it harms and abuses rather than helps and respects.

But sin is also a condition. The Bible teaches that there are lies and liars, sins and sinners. People can be "filled" (meaning "controlled") by hypocrisy and lawlessness ( Matt 23:28 ). God "gives some over to sin, " allowing them to wallow in every kind of wickedness ( Rom 1:18-32 ). Paul, speaking of the time before their conversion, told the Ephesians, "You were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live" ( 2:1-2 ).

This said, we have hardly defined sin, and with good reason. Sin is elusive. Sin has no substance, no independent existence. It does not even exist in the sense that love or justice do. It exists only as a parasite of the good or good things. Sin creates nothing; it abuses, perverts, spoils, and destroys the good things God has made. It has no program, no thesis; it only has an antithesis, an opposition. Sometimes wickedness is as senseless as a child who pulls the hair or punches the stomach of another, then honestly confesses, "I don't know why I did that." In some ways sin is an absence rather than a presence: it fails to listen, walks past the needy, and subsists in alienation rather than relation.

Negative as sin is, it hides itself under the appearance of what is good. At the first temptation, sin operated under the guise of claiming good things such as food and knowledge. Even the goal of being like God is good in some ways; after all, God made the first couple in his image. Similarly, when Satan tempted Jesus, the second Adam, he offered things good in themselves: food, knowledge, and rule over the kingdoms of the earth. Sin and temptation continue to appeal to things good and desirable in themselves. Fornication promises bodily pleasure, boasting seeks honor, by breaking promises or vows people hope for release from hardship. Someone can make a persuasive defense for almost every offense.

Yet ultimately, sin is most unreasonable. Why would Adam and Eve, well-cared-for and without propensity toward sin, rebel against God? Why would a creature want to rebel against the Creator? The prophets find Israel's rebellion absurd; even animals know better. "The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand" ( Isa 1:3 ).

Although negative and irrational, sin is also a power. It crouches at Cain's door, ready to devour him ( Gen 4:7 ). It compels Paul to do the evil he does not wish ( Rom 7:14-20 ). It moves and is moved by demonic and societal forces. It enters the heart, so that wickedness wells up spontaneously from within ( Matt 15:17-19 ). Its stronghold is the all but instinctive tendency to put one's own interests and desires first. From the selfish heart comes rebellion, godlessness, cursing, lies, slander, envy, greed, sensuality, and pride ( Matt 12:34-37 ; Rom 1:18-32 ).

Three factors compound the tragedy of sin. First, it pervades the whole person; no sphere escapes, for the very heart of the sinner is corrupt ( Psalm 51:5 ; Jer 17:9 ; Rom 8:7 ). Second, evil resides in the heart of the crown of God's creation, the bearer of God's image, the one appointed to rule the world for God. The remarkable capacities of humans to think, plan, persuade, and train others enables wickedness to become clever and strong. Third, sin is proud; hence it resists God and his salvation and offers a counterfeit salvation instead ( 2 Thess 2:2-4 ).

Despite all its dismal qualities, sin makes one contribution. Because God chose to redeem his people from it, sin has been the stimulus for God's demonstration of his amazing patience, grace, and love ( Rom 5:6-8 ; Gal 2:17-20 ; 1 Tim 1:15-17 ). So the study of sin need not merely grieve the Christian. From a postresurrection perspective, sin indirectly gives opportunity to praise the creating and redeeming Lord for his gracious deliverance ( Rom 11:33-36 ).

 

[Handley_Page]

The Bible - the biggest fantasy novel of them all.

Ogg,
That was brilliant !

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Ogg,
That was brilliant !

Ha!

Not it wasn't (my best Freddie Fisher voice); it was a huge long dissertation possessing the damn same problem I told y'all about and all it succeeds in doing is diverting attention from the basic fact: there IS no word 'sin' in the whole entire Bible.

Which my very learned friend jehoram (he must be learned, he agrees with me), has affirmed.

The beauty of the internet, is that at least NOW, whenever I say these HORRIBLE things that are completely contrary what the rest of the *s on the planet at large BELIEVE - is that each and every one, virtually, has the ability to go on-line and discover that I was right in the first place.

The shocking UGLINESS of the internet however, is that though people can and do (check on-line) yet do a whole bunch of them STILL come right back and carry on PROLIFERATING the same old BS nonetheless, willfully intent on clinging RELIGIOUSLY, to cherished items of nonsense.

All the same, as for that TERF JK Rowlings... BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!

(Chuckle).

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

No. Ogg. Just no. It does NOT mean 'enchantress' and especially not 'sorceress.' That was the appellation employed for the so-called 'Witch' (NOT 'witch') of Endor. Who was a 'seer.'

The 'mak' part is exactly the same root sourced word for our 'pharmacy.' And it means someone who surreptitiously poisons someone else. And was NOT used in the Witch of Endor passages.

There are NO - as in absolutely ZERO - actual WRITTEN texts in Hebrew ANYWHERE from ANY source whatsoever that date to ANYWHERE near the time of Moses or earlier than LONG AFTER the Septuagint was written in Koine Greek by scholars who were ethnically Hebrew. And that's because, the thin goat skins on which presumed ORIGINAL texts were written, decayed to dust EVEN BY THE TIME OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I posted it here, on behalf of all the authors...

Or maybe just on behalf of the one author in question, namely God. With whom I am on quite intimate terms.

Hick!

 

[oggbashan]

No. Ogg. Just no. It does NOT mean 'enchantress' and especially not 'sorceress.' That was the appellation employed for the so-called 'Witch' (NOT 'witch') of Endor. Who was a 'seer.'

The 'mak' part is exactly the same root sourced word for our 'pharmacy.' And it means someone who surreptitiously poisons someone else. And was NOT used in the Witch of Endor passages.

There are NO - as in absolutely ZERO - actual WRITTEN texts in Hebrew ANYWHERE from ANY source whatsoever that date to ANYWHERE near the time of Moses or earlier than LONG AFTER the Septuagint was written in Koine Greek by scholars who were ethnically Hebrew. And that's because, the thin goat skins on which presumed ORIGINAL texts were written, decayed to dust EVEN BY THE TIME OF THE SEPTUAGINT.

This thread is based on a misstatement or partial truth. Most people accept the KJV as 'the bible'


The word "witch" occurs in Exodus 22.18 of the King James Bible:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

The word "sin" occurs in 1 John 21 of the King James Bible:

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.


PS: Taking the extreme view of translations would mean many words familiar in today's Bibles do not exist in the original texts. All translations, particularly of very old texts, can only be approximations.

 

[SimonDoom]

Debates over definitions are not meaningful. In order to have a meaningful debate, or to advance a meaningful argument, there has to be agreement on the meaning of terms essential to the debate.

As Oggbashan notes, English-speaking people generally regard the King James Bible as an authoritative Bible. If that's so, then the OP's statement is literally false. Both words appear in the King James Bible.

If the OP defines "Bible" only as earlier non-English versions, then obviously the word "sin" does not appear because it's an English word. The OP's statement is true, but not meaningful or important.

If the OP means, on the other hand, that the word or words in the original versions of the Bible for which the word "sin" is the translation used in the KJV, actually mean something different from "sin", then a more substantial discussion is needed to make this point. It's not enough to state it as a bare fact. Questions have to be raised and discussed such as: If the word(s) originally used don't mean "sin", what do they mean? How do they mean something different? The OP doesn't discuss this.

The discussion quoted by Oggbashan does a pretty good job explaining how the context of the use of the word (whatever the translated word or words is) corresponds to what we typically understand as "sin" regardless of the specific word used.

For this to be a meaningful thread, the OP should discuss how he thinks the original term used differs from the word "sin" that we use in English. I cannot tell what the OP's view is on this.

 

[oggbashan]

A couple of interesting asides:

If it wasn't for Shakespeare, many of the words used in the KJV wouldn't have existed.

If it wasn't for the KJV, many of the words used in subsequent literature wouldn't have existed (including stories on Literotica).

 

[yukonnights]

Debates over definitions are not meaningful. In order to have a meaningful debate, or to advance a meaningful argument, there has to be agreement on the meaning of terms essential to the debate.

As Oggbashan notes, English-speaking people generally regard the King James Bible as an authoritative Bible. If that's so, then the OP's statement is literally false. Both words appear in the King James Bible.

If the OP defines "Bible" only as earlier non-English versions, then obviously the word "sin" does not appear because it's an English word. The OP's statement is true, but not meaningful or important.

If the OP means, on the other hand, that the word or words in the original versions of the Bible for which the word "sin" is the translation used in the KJV, actually mean something different from "sin", then a more substantial discussion is needed to make this point. It's not enough to state it as a bare fact. Questions have to be raised and discussed such as: If the word(s) originally used don't mean "sin", what do they mean? How do they mean something different? The OP doesn't discuss this.

The discussion quoted by Oggbashan does a pretty good job explaining how the context of the use of the word (whatever the translated word or words is) corresponds to what we typically understand as "sin" regardless of the specific word used.

For this to be a meaningful thread, the OP should discuss how he thinks the original term used differs from the word "sin" that we use in English. I cannot tell what the OP's view is on this.

My take is; It's impossible to have any meaningful debate on this limited platform here. Ogg's longer piece on the word origins is in itself trimmed down.

The bigger point to me is; Does 'evil' exists? If one answers yes, then there seems little foundation to deny the English words which describe 'evil'. Words are often blunt instruments to try our best to communicate more complex realities.

Sometimes a longer string of words is needed; I like, "Do no harm." Of course, it's impossible to achieve. But are we not made better in the trying?

"Do no sin.", carries the same meaning in the western cultures. Of course, it's impossible to achieve. But are we not made better in the trying?

Perhaps it's not so much the word 'sin' that is the problem — but the too often accompaniment of actual 'hypocrisy' along with it?

Love, and do no harm to another soul. It works for me ~

 

[Hypoxia]

The 'mak' part is exactly the same root sourced word for our 'pharmacy.' And it means someone who surreptitiously poisons someone else.

Thus an infamous passage should be rendered as, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live," which means, execute polluters, tobacco executives, and food adulterers.

"Sin" is Spanish for "without." Thus doing without is sinful. Give me more!

Xians sin because a talking snake tricked a naive woman (made from a man's rib), who had only conversed with divine agents before, into eating a fruit. This almost makes Scientology seem rational.

Why discuss this here and not the GB? I suppose stories could result.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

The translators had their axes to grind, and what was included vs. excluded was decided by committees of people with other axes to grind.

Here's a summary from the History Channel, which was the most neutral appearing source upon quickly searching.

It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. The books that eventually were considered canon reflect the times they were embraced as much the times of the events they portray.

During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, books not originally written in Hebrew but Greek, such as Judith and Maccabees, were excluded from the Old Testament. These are known the Apocrypha and are still included in the Catholic Bible.

It's always been interesting to me how little any of that history (or the translations issue) matters to people who say they take the Christian Bible literally. But... that's probably a discussion for the politics board, so I will say nothing more.

And thus what was it, six books removed?

 

[JaxRhapsody]

I posted it here, on behalf of all the authors...

Or maybe just on behalf of the one author in question, namely God. With whom I am on quite intimate terms.

Hick!

So that's your problem...

 

[UsuallyPresent]

-snip-
Sometimes a longer string of words is needed; I like, "Do no harm." Of course, it's impossible to achieve. But are we not made better in the trying?

In my opinion, "do no harm" is a laudable goal but horrible policy and impractical or impossible to implement. EVERYTHING you do causes harm, including doing nothing.

For every door we open, every choice we make, every option we accept, a large (infinite?) number of alternatives are prevented from occurring. Thus, while you may somehow be avoiding immediate harm in your chosen action, your inaction still causes harm.

And this avoids simple, unavoidable harms like eating. (Not eating of course is self-harm.)

Assuming you accept that we're limited beings, unable to fully understand all the implications of any of our actions, this leaves us in an untenable position to try and implement "do no harm" as anything other than a goal.

IMO. YMMV.

 

[oggbashan]

And thus what was it, six books removed?

Many more than that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

 

[ishtat]

A couple of interesting asides:

If it wasn't for Shakespeare, many of the words used in the KJV wouldn't have existed.

If it wasn't for the KJV, many of the words used in subsequent literature wouldn't have existed (including stories on Literotica).

I am not sure that Shakespeare had much influence on the KJV for several reasons. Firstly the KJV was published in 1611 whereas Shakespeares first folio was not published until 1623. Admittedly 18 of the 36 plays it contained had been published before but only in very scarce quarto or octavo form, as pirated and frequently very poorly remembered texts. The 'Bad Hamlet' of 1604 is particularly notorious.

His early poems in contrast were very well printed by a personal friend (Field?) in Stratford as early as the 1590's.

Secondly Shakespeare retired to Stratford in 1611 and died in 1616.

Thirdly, Shakespeare's works contain up to 20,000 different words whereas the KJV gets by with a mere 8000.

Shakespeare certainly influences Lit authors. He invented "green eyed " jealousy, perhaps with the feelings of the husbands of Loving Wives in mind; he also came up with the word "lonely" to describe those unhappy losers.

The KJV is a magnificent work of literature and very influential in that respect. Unfortunately, it is also a poor quality translation particularly from the original Greek and Hebrew sources. But this isn't the forum to pursue that point.