Biblical Tall Tales

both the septuagint and the dead sea scrolls say "4 cubits and a span" instead of the masoretic's "6 cubits and a span."i think we're looking at a different kind of change here.

---

אָרַח

i'm sorry, i'm not following this thread too closely. what source are you looking at? i'm reasonably certain the lxx says "four cubits and a span." i see some stuff about some changes/omission to the story. is that what you mean? thanks.

---

אָרַח

oh ok, i see. i'm not sure i follow the rest about disagreements with the targums.

---

אָרַח

well, yes and no. the difference here is that a somewhat literal translation of the bible has been part of our cultural reading list for about 400 years. and so some hebrew euphemisms, translated literally, have worked their way into our language: seed (children/sperm), fat of the land, hardening one's heart, stiff-necked, scapegoat, to gird one's loins, skin of my teeth, double-edged sword, set teeth on edge, etc.there's a ton of other english idioms that derive from stories in the bible, too. adam's apple, fly in the ointment, reaping whirlwinds, feet of clay, writing on the wall. the problem is that there's a bunch of ones that don't quite work in english: stones (testicles), feet (penis), covering one's feet (urination or oral sex depending who's doing it and to whom), uncovering one's feet (getting naked), son of man (mortal)there's a bunch of questionable ones, and ones that are really only used in religious circles, too: lift up one's head, fruit of ____, milk and honey, slept (died), one's cup, numbered days, evil eyes, etc.it's really kind of subjective how literal a translation can or needs to be. and it changes from time to time what works in english and what doesn't. it might have been me. i find the newer jps version to be quite easily understandable in modern english, and retains the idea of the text quite well.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 01-04-2006 05:02 AM

---

אָרַח

i think he's putting us on, queenie.

they weren't misidentified. the paleontologists who first found, cataloged and studied them knew exactly what they were.they were misrepresented by creationists.