Historical facts and inaccuracies in the Bible

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

One doesn't require that you invoke a supernatural deity to explain what happened?

When a supernatural deity is as likely as not (to our neutral jury) I don't see how the swing occurs.

mdebets

I always find it funny when non-historians argue over historic texts and whether they contained real events or not, and thereby demonstrate that they don’t understand how to analyse ancient historic texts.

There are a few points to take into account when you analyse an ancient historic texts.

1) The people at that time didn’t have the understanding of history as we have it today. They were more likely more interested in the morals of the story, not an exact recount of the events.

2) All texts are written with a bias (however small it is). This plays in both ways. The Israelites might have exaggerated their positive actions as well as the negative actions of the Egyptians. The Egyptians on the other hand might have omitted this account in their records (or it might just not have been found)

3) It’s a known fact that the memory plays tricks on people and what you remember might not be what really happened. Therefore even a true account (according of the one who gives the account) might not really be true.

4) There was a long time between the time of the events, when the story was formed and when it was written down, so much time for changes (advertently or inadvertently).

So the question for the Exodus story is one the one hand was it originally intended as an historical account or just a story? And if it was a historical account, how true is it to the original events.
So I think there is no doubt that if it was intended as an historical account, that there are big differences to what actually happened.

One last point to take into account is the time when the final version (the one we know) was written down. This was shortly after the release from the Babylonian captivity, when the Israelites could return to their homeland, but where still under Persian rule. Spot any connections to the story of the Exodus?

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

How is it obvious ? The bible talks about 'false gods' all the time. Wouldn't it have made more sense to use this to refer to the babylonians ?

Godless to an Israelite was an obvious description. They knew the Babylonians worshiped other gods but they also knew that these gods were not real like the God of Israel, so calling these false God worshipers Godless is not a contradiction. Because to the Israelites they were God(of Israel)less. When reading a text you must put yourself into the frame of reference of the writer. Whether the Israelites were right or not, surely you can adjust your mind to their terminology in order to understand their descriptions? Godless to them meant that the Babylonians were without the God or Israel not wihtout gods per se.

monosharp wrote: »

According to my dictionary godless is anyone without a god. It doesn't have to be your god.

These stories were written down centuries before the English language existed let alone your version of the English dictionary, so come on, a little humility please. The world does not revolve around the language frame you just happened to be born into, you have to make adjustments in your frame of reference to get into the mindset of these people.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Godless to an Israelite was an obvious description.

Ok I can accept that to them thats what it means. But surely thats an inaccurate translation of the word to English then ?

wikipedia wrote:

Conceptions of God can vary widely, but the word God in English—and its counterparts in other languages, such as Latinate Deus, Greek Θεός, Slavic Bog, Sanskrit Ishvara, or Arabic Allah—are normally used for any and all conceptions. The same holds for Hebrew El, but in Judaism, God is also given a proper name, the tetragrammaton (usually reconstructed as Yahweh or YHWH), believed to be a mark of the religion's henotheistic origins.

Surely the original meaning should have been more similar to 'yahweh-less' ?

And this is the third time I've asked, but can someone point me to the relevant passage ? I want to look it up and see what the original greek/whatever said and how that word is translated.

In the English language god/gods can mean any number of deities. But as I just showed above, the Jews used an actual name for their deity and not an all encompassing term like 'god'.

They knew the Babylonians worshiped other gods but they also knew that these gods were not real like the God of Israel, so calling these false God worshipers Godless is not a contradiction.

Hey I'm not saying its a contradiction but it seems very odd considering the above. i.e > English 'god' vs Judaism 'Yahweh'.

I think the translation was poorly done if it says 'godless' in english because the meaning is not clear at all.

Because to the Israelites they were God(of Israel)less. When reading a text you must put yourself into the frame of reference of the writer.

Yes yes I understand all that but the writers had their own words for their 'god' against other 'gods'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Names_of_God

What I'm getting at is maybe the original writing was something like 'yahweh-less' and when it got translated they changed it to 'god-less'.

Whether the Israelites were right or not, surely you can adjust your mind to their terminology in order to understand their descriptions? Godless to them meant that the Babylonians were without the God or Israel not wihtout gods per se.

I understand that but their name for their god was not 'god'. They had a specific name for their god which meant no other god but their god. whereas the english word 'god' can mean anyone from Thor to the flying spaghetti monster.

These stories were written down centuries before the English language existed let alone your version of the English dictionary, so come on, a little humility please.

Thats my very point. My point is that the English translation of their writing must be wrong.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

When a supernatural deity is as likely as not (to our neutral jury) I don't see how the swing occurs.

Why is it as likely as not to a neutral jury?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Why is it as likely as not to a neutral jury?

Because that's the nature of neutrality.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Ok I can accept that to them thats what it means. But surely thats an inaccurate translation of the word to English then ?



Surely the original meaning should have been more similar to 'yahweh-less' ?

And this is the third time I've asked, but can someone point me to the relevant passage ? I want to look it up and see what the original greek/whatever said and how that word is translated.

In the English language god/gods can mean any number of deities. But as I just showed above, the Jews used an actual name for their deity and not an all encompassing term like 'god'.



Hey I'm not saying its a contradiction but it seems very odd considering the above. i.e > English 'god' vs Judaism 'Yahweh'.

I think the translation was poorly done if it says 'godless' in english because the meaning is not clear at all.



Yes yes I understand all that but the writers had their own words for their 'god' against other 'gods'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#Names_of_God

What I'm getting at is maybe the original writing was something like 'yahweh-less' and when it got translated they changed it to 'god-less'.



I understand that but their name for their god was not 'god'. They had a specific name for their god which meant no other god but their god. whereas the english word 'god' can mean anyone from Thor to the flying spaghetti monster.



Thats my very point. My point is that the English translation of their writing must be wrong.

The word God in English is a translation from the Hebrew word 'El' i.e. God. 'Elohim' is the plural form of 'El' i.e. Gods, That's the word used in the very first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning 'Elohim' (Gods) created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1v1.

El-shaddai is God Almighty, and God appeared unto Abraham et al by this name: "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty," Exodus 6:3

The name Yahweh also came from God Himself to Moses but it was not known to them until God Himself revealed it to them.

"...but by my name JEHOVAH (Yahweh) was I not known to them." Exodus 6:3

Yahweh, (YHVH - Jehovah) translated LORD (all upper case letters) in the English as apposed to Adoni (Lord - with lower case letters) has a pictorial meaning. Basically it is what God wants to be to His people. Picture squeezing a hose and letting the pressure build up behind it and then letting it loose. The Hebrews used this name with other adjectives to describe what God was like in their life's experience of Him. Even though over time they revered this name so much that they deduced that it was sinful to speak it. Silly really considering God Himself revealed it to them. Anyway this name could be used in conjunction with other phrases to outline specific names for God. E.G. He was their provider (Jehovah-jireh), He was their banner (Jehovah-nissi), He was their peace (Jehovah-shalom) and so on. God even revealed traits that He specifically wanted to be to His people by specifying it to them directly. "...I am the Lord that healeth you." Exodus 15:26 i.e. Jehovah-rapha for instance.


The word translated Godless in the English is usually Chaneph which means profane. And the word profane simply means not discerning the true nature of spiritual things. The writer to the Hebrews admonishes us not to be like that profane person Esau who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage (Hebrews 12:16). He did not discern the true value or nature of his birthright and sold it to his brother Jacob (later to be renamed Israel) for a measly bowl of stew.

So you see a lot gets lost in translation. If you take time to actually study these names in the original languages they reveal a wealth of descriptiveness which is simply not there in the English. So judging the Bible via the English translation will always lead to confusion. It is not a good translation for the most part, that's why the English Bible is always being re-translated into different English versions, due to the ambiguity of our English language. As a result of their reportive and emotive overtones English words tend to take on different meanings as times change. For instance, the word 'Let' used to mean to restrain, now it means to allow. I'm not sure how this happens but it does happen. In short English is not a very good set of spectacles to put on when setting out to judge the Bible.

Hope this helps clear up a few things.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you see a lot gets lost in translation. If you take time to actually study these names in the original languages they reveal a wealth of descriptiveness which is simply not there in the English. So judging the Bible via the English translation will always lead to confusion.

Thank you for that but your simply reiterating my point.

I want to know what version of 'god' was originally used to call the Babylonians 'godless' in English.

They obviously weren't 'godless' in the English language sense, so I want to know what the original word was.

As a result of their reportive and emotive overtones English words tend to take on different meanings as times change. For instance, the word 'Let' used to mean to restrain, now it means to allow. I'm not sure how this happens but it does happen. In short English is not a very good set of spectacles to put on when setting out to judge the Bible.

Yes I understand all that, which is why I'm asking for the original word in the original passage. Doesn't anyone know it ?

I'd also like to ask if the Bible, or more specifically the old testament actually denies the existence of other gods. This is not related to the current topic but I'm just curious because in the commandments god says, "You shall have no other gods before me" which is either the 1st or 2nd commandment depending on what version of the bible your reading.

"You shall have no other gods before me" does not mean (in english) that there are no other gods, rather it seems to indicate the opposite, that there are other gods but you must not worship them before me.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Thank you for that but your simply reiterating my point.

I want to know what version of 'god' was originally used to call the Babylonians 'godless' in English.

They obviously weren't 'godless' in the English language sense, so I want to know what the original word was.

Yes I understand all that, which is why I'm asking for the original word in the original passage. Doesn't anyone know it ?

I already explained the meaning of that word in my last post. The word translated Godless in the English is usually Chaneph which means profane, see above. What the English translates as godless is not specifically what it means in the original.

monosharp wrote: »

I'd also like to ask if the Bible, or more specifically the old testament actually denies the existence of other gods.

I explained this earlier too. The word Elohim translates to Gods. So right from the very first verse the Bible does not rule out the existence of other Gods, but the supreme God - The LORD of hosts if you will - is still top dog. LORD of hosts literally means LORD of the Gods of the hosts. The Bible has a very sophisticated Angelolgy. There are Archangels (Ruling Angels), Seraphs and Cherubim. The closest to the LORD of host are the Cherubim, who knows, maybe these are the Elohim of which the first verse of the Bible speaks. But there were also false Gods in the Old Testament. Baal for instance. There were priest of Baal who called on him during the time of Elijah to perform certain acts in order to show that he was more powerful than Elijah's God. He failed to show up.

monosharp wrote: »

This is not related to the current topic but I'm just curious because in the commandments god says, "You shall have no other gods before me" which is either the 1st or 2nd commandment depending on what version of the bible your reading.

"You shall have no other gods before me" does not mean (in english) that there are no other gods, rather it seems to indicate the opposite, that there are other gods but you must not worship them before me.

Either way they were to have no other gods besides Him. Compared to man Angels are pretty powerful beings and could easily be worshiped as Gods should they desire it but even they know that this is a no no because they are not to be worshiped, and if they're not to be worshiped as God then even more so pieces of wood.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

I already explained the meaning of that word in my last post. The word translated Godless in the English is usually Chaneph which means profane, see above. What the English translates as godless is not specifically what it means in the original.

So the English translation is inaccurate.

I explained this earlier too. The word Elohim translates to Gods. So right from the very first verse the Bible does not rule out the existence of other Gods, but the supreme God - The LORD of hosts if you will - is still top dog.

Ok so Christians believe in the existence of other gods but their god is still 'number 1'.

But there were also false Gods in the Old Testament. Baal for instance. There were priest of Baal who called on him during the time of Elijah to perform certain acts in order to show that he was more powerful than Elijah's God. He failed to show up.

Hardly proof (to theists) of Baals non-existence is it ?

Either way they were to have no other gods besides Him. Compared to man Angels are pretty powerful beings and could easily be worshiped as Gods should they desire it but even they know that this is a no no because they are not to be worshiped, and if they're not to be worshiped as God then even more so pieces of wood.

Yes but its rather interesting if Christianity accepts the existence of other gods regardless of how powerful it views them in comparison to yahweh.

Pompey Magnus

Another interesting Biblical inaccuracy is from the story of David and Goliath, 1 Samuel 17 describes the weaponry and armour of Goliath, the problem is that what it describes is nothing like what a Philistine soldier of 1000 BC would wear but exactly what a Hellenic Hoplite of the 7th-5th Century would wear.

The Philistine soldiers did not wear bronze helmets but instead feather topped headdresses, unlike Goliath and Greek hoplites. They only carried one spear, unlike Goliath and Greek hoplites who carried two. They were lightly armoured, unlike Goliath and Greek hoplites who wore heavy bronze armour. They did not use greaves as leg armour, unlike Goliath and Greek hoplites who did.

Every single item Goliath is described as wearing is about 300+ years ahead of his time, it would be like someone presenting a historian with a document claimed to be contemporary to the events which says that during the French revolution the peasants used Apache helicoptors to attack the Bastille. Alarm bells would be ringing in the historians head and he would conclude that the document could not actually be contemporary with the event and instead must be much more recent. So too with Goliath, his description should set off alarm bells and should make us question whether the author really was describing a Philistine soldier of around 1000 BC or whether instead it was written between the 7th - 5th Century BC by someone very familiar with Greek hoplites but not at all familiar with the then lost Philistine soldier.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

So the English translation is inaccurate.

No, if you look up most dictionaries you will find that one definition of 'godless' is evil or wicked.

Cambridge Online Dictionary wrote:

godless adjective
Click to hear the UK pronunciation of this wordClick to hear the US pronunciation of this word/ˈgɒd.ləs//ˈgɑːd-/ adj
•
not having or believing in God or gods
a godless society
•
bad or evil

Therefore, in order to convey the idea of a wicked and profane society, the word 'godless' makes very good sense in a translation. The translators, who tend to be reasonable people, probably never imagined that anyone would be bone-headed enough to argue on TV, given the Babylonians multitude of idols and deities, that the word 'godless' should be taken any other way in the context.

Ok so Christians believe in the existence of other gods but their god is still 'number 1'.

I can see this is probably headed into meaningless semantics, but the word 'god' can be used to refer to anything that is worshipped (even saying that people have money as a 'god') or to refer to the one supreme being.

dictionary.com wrote:

God
   /gɒd/ Show Spelled[god] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.
( lowercase ) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science . the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.
( lowercase ) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.
( lowercase ) any deified person or object.
8.
( often lowercase ) Gods, Theater .
a.
the upper balcony in a theater.
b.
the spectators in this part of the balcony.

If you take 'God' as being the Creator etc, then Christians are obviously monotheists who bellieve in only one God.

However, we also believe there are other spiritual forces (ie anglels and demons) that are limited in their attributes and powers and are worshipped by some people.

It is usual therefore, in Christian theology, to speak of the one true God with a capital letter, and to speak of these lesser beings that are erroneously worshipped by some people with lower case letters as 'gods'.

Eric Clapton, despite his fans protestations to the contrary, is only a 'god' with a small g.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No, if you look up most dictionaries you will find that one definition of 'godless' is evil or wicked.

Granted, but still you must admit that 'godless' infers 'no gods', not 'no yahweh' in English. I'm not saying the bible is wrong or inaccurate on this point, I'm suggesting that English versions of the bible should be more specific as it lends itself to misunderstanding.

Therefore, in order to convey the idea of a wicked and profane society, the word 'godless' makes very good sense in a translation.

No it does not. I understood before you said it that 'godless' can also mean wicked and profane but the first meaning to me (just as in the dictionary) is having no gods. I'm not saying its 'wrong' I'm saying its not clear.

The bible talks about 'false gods' in other places which only adds to the confusion here. Why were the babylonians 'godless' but others are 'false god' worshipers and others are 'pagans'.

The translators, who tend to be reasonable people, probably never imagined that anyone would be bone-headed enough to argue on TV, given the Babylonians multitude of idols and deities, that the word 'godless' should be taken any other way in the context.

So the average person reading the Bible who doesn't know about Babylonian culture/history automatically knows this ?

I can see this is probably headed into meaningless semantics, but the word 'god' can be used to refer to anything that is worshipped (even saying that people have money as a 'god') or to refer to the one supreme being.

Which only furthers my point that 'godless' is a poor choice of word for the translation.

I don't understand your argument here, it seems quite obvious that this is a poor choice of word given that a layman reading it would most likely consider 'godless' to be 'no gods'.

Its not proving your book wrong or in error, its simply saying that its not clear which it clearly isn't.

monosharp

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Another interesting Biblical inaccuracy is from the story of David and Goliath, 1 Samuel 17 describes the weaponry and armour of Goliath, the problem is that what it describes is nothing like what a Philistine soldier of 1000 BC would wear but exactly what a Hellenic Hoplite of the 7th-5th Century would wear.

Interesting, whats the Christian response to this ?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because that's the nature of neutrality.

The nature of neutrality doesn't say something is as equally likely to exist as not exist.

Say for augment sake a creator deity has to exist and there is a set of a million possible creator deities (give or take a few thousand :pac:), and God is one possible creator deity.

The odds of him existing if we start from a purely neutral position are a million to one. He is not as equally likely to exist as not exist, quite the opposite.

Then we get to the idea that there are probably a lot more than a million possible creator deities (an infinite amount perhaps if we start from a purely neutral position) and we haven't considered the idea that one may not exist at all.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Granted, but still you must admit that 'godless' infers 'no gods', not 'no yahweh' in English. I'm not saying the bible is wrong or inaccurate on this point, I'm suggesting that English versions of the bible should be more specific as it lends itself to misunderstanding.

No, I don't have to admit any such thing. We use language in similar ways all the time.

For example, in this forum we frequently talk of unbelievers as referring to those who don't believe the Gospel. Muslims do the same when they call others 'infidels'. Neither of these terms means that someone holds no beliefs whatsoever, or even no religious beliefs. They mean that someone does not believe what we see as the truth.

Similarly, a monotheist Jew would see pagans as being 'godless' because they lack knowledge of the one true God - even though they might worship a whole pantheon of deities.

No it does not. I understood before you said it that 'godless' can also mean wicked and profane but the first meaning to me (just as in the dictionary) is having no gods. I'm not saying its 'wrong' I'm saying its not clear.

Lots of words have multiple meanings. Its use in the Old Testament is very clear to any literate person reading it in context. Of course a sentence, or a single word, can be confusing if we lift it out of any book without reading the whole text.

So the average person reading the Bible who doesn't know about Babylonian culture/history automatically knows this ?

If the average person was actually reading the Bible (rather than arguing over a single word taken out of context) they would see it very clearly indeed.

However, let's remember that we're not talking about the average person. Before the thread disappeared into this semantical black hole we were talking about someone who was portrayed as an 'expert scholar' on a TV programme. And in that scenario their ignorance is breathtakingly inexcusable.

Which only furthers my point that 'godless' is a poor choice of word for the translation.

I don't understand your argument here, it seems quite obvious that this is a poor choice of word given that a layman reading it would most likely consider 'godless' to be 'no gods'.

Its not proving your book wrong or in error, its simply saying that its not clear which it clearly isn't.

No word is a good choice for translation if you take it out of context.

The translators render the text into English so that it can be read as a whole. When you do that the translation is very clear, and no literate person would see the word 'godless' as implying atheism or a lack of religion.

Ash.J.Williams

Another angle this could take is that exodus didn't happen, and all those great stories that the scribes recorded of mighty men leading them to the promised land were just stories to remind a scattered, nomadic, conqured people that they have an identity, they have a spiritual home, and they have a god.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Interesting, whats the Christian response to this ?

I don't think there's much to respond to tbh.

Our knowledge of what Philistine soldiers wore is pretty sketchy. The argument referred to above is based on one set of bas reliefs portraying Philistine soldiers in Medinet Habu in Egypt dating from the mid-12th Century.

However, any student of military history will tell you that very few armies throughout history wore standardised uniforms. It is quite likely that the Philistine army, like the Israelites, was a loose gathering of different tribes who each had their own traditions, weapons and metal workers.

(If you ever find yourself in Paris, try visiting the wonderful museum at Les Invalides. The incredible range of armour on display will demonstrate the varieties of weaponry and armour that can exist within one army one on one day - let alone among a race of people like the Philistines over several generations.)

Also remember that Goliath, with his distinctive size and as a 'champion' who was armed for one-to-one formalised combat, would probably dress differently from your average grunt in the ranks.

It would seem to me that there are no grounds whatsoever for arguing that Goliath could not have dressed as described in 1 Samuel 17 because we have a bas relief in Egypt from a different century depicting some captured Philistine soldiers with different details in their armour.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

For example, in this forum we frequently ...

This forum is not a religious text supposedly the word of the one true god and the most important literature in the world, now is it ?

Similarly, a monotheist Jew would see pagans as being 'godless' because they lack knowledge of the one true God - even though they might worship a whole pantheon of deities.

I'm not suggesting they didn't. I am saying that in the English language to a secular audience, its a poor choice of word.

Lots of words have multiple meanings. Its use in the Old Testament is very clear to any literate person reading it in context.

So (the 5th time i've asked here) can you please link me to the relevant passage ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

This forum is not a religious text supposedly the word of the one true god and the most important literature in the world, now is it ?

Which is hugely irrelevant given I was demonstrating how we use language.

This thread is rapidly slipping down a semantical toilet. The flush cannot be far away.

I'm not suggesting they didn't. I am saying that in the English language to a secular audience, its a poor choice of word.

And I'm pointing out that the suitability of a word in a translation can only be judged when you read a book in its entirety.

So (the 5th time i've asked here) can you please link me to the relevant passage ?

How can I, since we are discussing a comment by a silly woman on a TV programme that Jimi saw? Without looking into her head I have no idea what passage she was referring to.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Which is hugely irrelevant given I was demonstrating how we use language.

No its not. Everyday language is quite different from the supposed word of a supreme being.

Isn't what the bible says important ? therefore shouldn't it be clear ?

How can I, since we are discussing a comment by a silly woman on a TV programme that Jimi saw? Without looking into her head I have no idea what passage she was referring to.

So you just told me that the context of this word, godless, makes it obvious that it means 'non-believers in 'yahweh' yet you don't know the context ?

Your telling me that 100% yes, in the context its used its 100% correct/clear yet you don't know the context ?

What about it Jimi, any chance of a link to the video or the passage in the bible ? Do you happen to remember the tv show ?

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

No its not. Everyday language is quite different from the supposed word of a supreme being.

Oh for God's sake stop this nonsense.

We're talking about an English translation. A translation has to be expressed in the idioms and speech of the people who will be reading it. Therefore the way we use language is relevant.

Isn't what the bible says important ? therefore shouldn't it be clear ?

Yes, which is why the translators work hard to make it clear to those who actually read it, rather than those who just want to argue about it.

So you just told me that the context of this word, godless, makes it obvious that it means 'non-believers in 'yahweh' yet you don't know the context ?

Your telling me that 100% yes, in the context its used its 100% correct/clear yet you don't know the context ?

I know the context of the Old Testament passages that speak about Babylon. All of them make it abundandantly clear that idolatry was the defining feature of Babylonian life. Indeed, for Jews, 'Babylon' became a synonym for 'idolatry'. That is why the Book of Revelation refers to Rome as 'Babylon'.

Therefore, in the context of the entire Old Testament, or any book of it that refers to Babylon, the word 'godless' would not and could not carry the meaning of 'having no deities' when applied to a people whose name was synonymous with idolatry (worshipping false gods).

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

We're talking about an English translation. A translation has to be expressed in the idioms and speech of the people who will be reading it. Therefore the way we use language is relevant.

Yes it is. 'godless' to me immediately means 'no gods'.

My point is simple, this word is not clear enough in this respect. Theres no reason it can't be clear, you just refuse to admit that theres a problem with it.

If the sentence is "... Babylonians were godless.." then it should be changed.

Yes, which is why the translators work hard to make it clear to those who actually read it, rather than those who just want to argue about it.

I don't particularly care, this was brought up by another poster and I haven't said anything except the meaning isn't 'clear'.

I know the context of the Old Testament passages that speak about Babylon. All of them make it abundandantly clear that idolatry was the defining feature of Babylonian life. Indeed, for Jews, 'Babylon' became a synonym for 'idolatry'. That is why the Book of Revelation refers to Rome as 'Babylon'.

So what possible reason did the translators have to use 'godless' over 'pagans', 'worshipers of false gods', 'idolater' or any other number of words where the meaning is clear to the original writing/meaning.

Your argument holds no water because there are perfectly good words in the English language to clearly describe the meaning you want, 'godless' is not one of them.

Therefore, in the context of the entire Old Testament, or any book of it that refers to Babylon, the word 'godless' would not and could not carry the meaning of 'having no deities' when applied to a people whose name was synonymous with idolatry (worshipping false gods).

So you need to know the entire Old Testament to understand the meaning of this word in relation to the Babylonians ?

And you consider that to be 'clear' ?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Oh for God's sake stop this nonsense.

TBH, I don't know what more you can say here PDN. I anticipated this kind of mentalness a few pages back, and just thought, 'Don't bother, its only going to end in tears'.:)