It seems that bees aren't the only ones gathering pollen in the spring.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Friday Fotos - Spring is in the Air
It seems that bees aren't the only ones gathering pollen in the spring.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
I Wonder Why
UPDATE: Reader Doug Tygar has pointed out that the JPS translation that I provide below in my essay is from the 1917 edition [republished in 1955], and is different from the updated JPS (1985/1999), which reads, "For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler."
UPDATE #2: The Jerusalem Bible (Koren Publishers Jerusalem LTD., Jerusalem, Israel ©1992) [Hebrew/English version p. 487] maintains a transliteration policy similar to the JPS (©1917, 1945, 1955) at this particular passage.
UPDATE #3: In this essay, all references to the JPS Tanakh are specifically limited to the JPS Tanakh (©1917, 1945, 1955). I have not seen the JPS Tanakh (1985/1999) and, therefore, cannot comment on its contents.
"For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;" (Isaiah 9:5, Jewish Publication Society)*
I recently pointed out in the comments section of a friend’s blog that the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) failed to translate a portion of Isaiah 9:6 (verse 5 in the JPS and the Hebrew)* in their English version of The Holy Scriptures (Old Testament). Rather, they chose to transliterate it. Having offered a rather minimal comment about this topic there, I thought it might be worth a slightly more detailed offering here at Pardon the Interruption.
This particular editorial decision is strange enough that it warrants the question of why it was made. Why did the editors decide to transliterate this particular verse, rather than translate it?
The words in the verse above that look strange to most of my readers are easily translated into English. For example, “Pele” is commonly translated as wonderful, while “joez” is most commonly translated as counselor. In fact, every other time “Pele” or “joez” occur in the Old Testament, the JPS chose translation over transliteration and translated the words as “wonderful” or “marvelous” (for example, Is. 25:1 and 29:14) and “counselor.” Why not translate the same words in Isaiah 9:6 (vs. 5 in JPS and in Hebrew)* rather than leave them in an undiscernible format for most English speakers? The objective, I thought, of an English translation is to put the Hebrew into understandable English. In this case, the JPS failed their readers, unless they felt obligated to confuse their readers.
What I think is even more striking is the fact that in chapter 9 the JPS chose not to translate “el-gibbor” (usually translated as “mighty God”), but did translate it in chapter 10. If you read Isaiah 10:21 in the JPS edition, you will read the following: “A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto God the Mighty (emphasis added).” The exact same Hebrew words: transliterated in chapter 9; translated in chapter 10. Why?
Given the fact that the Hebrew of Isaiah 9:6 (vs. 5 JPS and in Hebrew)* is easily translated into English and the JPS chose to translate the same words booth in Isaiah and the rest of the Bible, I can only conclude that something deceptive is in the works? Some have asked me why I believe in such a conspiracy theory. “Surely, you don’t think the JPS would handle the Bible in a dishonest way,” they enquire. Well, actually, given the evidence cited here, I do think something dishonest is going on. And the reason is that Isaiah 9:6-7 is one of the most well-known Old Testament passages commonly suggested to reference Jesus:
If there is no intentional effort by the JPS to hide this wonderful messianic passage from their Jewish readers, the irony is dramatic. I’m open to be persuaded otherwise, but until a convincing argument for the editorial decision to transliterate Isaiah 9:6 (vs. 5 in JPS and in Hebrew)* is presented, I will contend that the JPS has been dishonest with their offering.
* In most English translations of the Old Testament, Isaiah 9:6 corresponds to Isaiah 9:5 in the Hebrew chapter/verse designation. However, the JPS edition of The Holy Scriptures (Old Testament) follows the Hebrew chapter/verse designation. Therefore, what is rendered as Isaiah 9:5 in the JPS is generally 9:6 in most other English versions of the Old Testament.
UPDATE #2: The Jerusalem Bible (Koren Publishers Jerusalem LTD., Jerusalem, Israel ©1992) [Hebrew/English version p. 487] maintains a transliteration policy similar to the JPS (©1917, 1945, 1955) at this particular passage.
UPDATE #3: In this essay, all references to the JPS Tanakh are specifically limited to the JPS Tanakh (©1917, 1945, 1955). I have not seen the JPS Tanakh (1985/1999) and, therefore, cannot comment on its contents.
"For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;" (Isaiah 9:5, Jewish Publication Society)*
I recently pointed out in the comments section of a friend’s blog that the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) failed to translate a portion of Isaiah 9:6 (verse 5 in the JPS and the Hebrew)* in their English version of The Holy Scriptures (Old Testament). Rather, they chose to transliterate it. Having offered a rather minimal comment about this topic there, I thought it might be worth a slightly more detailed offering here at Pardon the Interruption.
This particular editorial decision is strange enough that it warrants the question of why it was made. Why did the editors decide to transliterate this particular verse, rather than translate it?
The words in the verse above that look strange to most of my readers are easily translated into English. For example, “Pele” is commonly translated as wonderful, while “joez” is most commonly translated as counselor. In fact, every other time “Pele” or “joez” occur in the Old Testament, the JPS chose translation over transliteration and translated the words as “wonderful” or “marvelous” (for example, Is. 25:1 and 29:14) and “counselor.” Why not translate the same words in Isaiah 9:6 (vs. 5 in JPS and in Hebrew)* rather than leave them in an undiscernible format for most English speakers? The objective, I thought, of an English translation is to put the Hebrew into understandable English. In this case, the JPS failed their readers, unless they felt obligated to confuse their readers.
What I think is even more striking is the fact that in chapter 9 the JPS chose not to translate “el-gibbor” (usually translated as “mighty God”), but did translate it in chapter 10. If you read Isaiah 10:21 in the JPS edition, you will read the following: “A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto God the Mighty (emphasis added).” The exact same Hebrew words: transliterated in chapter 9; translated in chapter 10. Why?
Given the fact that the Hebrew of Isaiah 9:6 (vs. 5 JPS and in Hebrew)* is easily translated into English and the JPS chose to translate the same words booth in Isaiah and the rest of the Bible, I can only conclude that something deceptive is in the works? Some have asked me why I believe in such a conspiracy theory. “Surely, you don’t think the JPS would handle the Bible in a dishonest way,” they enquire. Well, actually, given the evidence cited here, I do think something dishonest is going on. And the reason is that Isaiah 9:6-7 is one of the most well-known Old Testament passages commonly suggested to reference Jesus:
And unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His Kingdom
To order it and establish it with judgment
and justice
From that time forward, even forever,
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
If there is no intentional effort by the JPS to hide this wonderful messianic passage from their Jewish readers, the irony is dramatic. I’m open to be persuaded otherwise, but until a convincing argument for the editorial decision to transliterate Isaiah 9:6 (vs. 5 in JPS and in Hebrew)* is presented, I will contend that the JPS has been dishonest with their offering.
* In most English translations of the Old Testament, Isaiah 9:6 corresponds to Isaiah 9:5 in the Hebrew chapter/verse designation. However, the JPS edition of The Holy Scriptures (Old Testament) follows the Hebrew chapter/verse designation. Therefore, what is rendered as Isaiah 9:5 in the JPS is generally 9:6 in most other English versions of the Old Testament.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Friday Fotos - You Weren't There
In an effort to jump on the bandwagon of posting a photo on Friday, I'll offer this picture of a bumpersticker that I saw on a truck in the Negev desert. It is also a bit of a followup to my last entry about the Chabad group.
The sticker says: I came and you (plural) weren't there. The Messiah...
The design is a spinoff of Chabad's "Prepare for the Messiah" campaign from the early-mid 1990's. The gold background with words above and below the rising sun was the graphic layout of their banners, posters, flags and stickers.
As one who believes Jesus to be the Messiah, this particular sticker communicated to me a bit of razzing the Chabad. In other words, "Jesus already came and you didn't receive Him." However, I'm not certain that was the intended message.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Everybody’s Talking About the Resurrection
Since Sunday, April 16, was Easter Sunday, you might not think my title is strange. Perhaps where you are, everybody is talking about the resurrection. However, here in Israel, even on Easter Sunday, everybody isn’t usually talking about the resurrection, unless, of course, you were one of 10,000 people packed into Tel Aviv’s Nokia Arena on Sunday night.
One of the organizers, Yoni Kahana, happily described the evening as “an amazing turnout.” He went on to say that that “Everyone came away with renewed faith in the imminent coming of [the messiah]. He may not have come on Sunday night. But he will truly be revealed any second.” Wow, ten thousand people gathered together in Tel Aviv, Israel excitedly anticipating the return of the messiah. Now that is something that will even get a Baptist to shout “amen,” maybe even clap.
The interesting twist on this, however, is that on this Easter Sunday they weren’t talking about Jesus’ resurrection and imminent return, they were talking about the (hoped for) resurrection of the late Rabbi "Messiah" Menahem Mendel Schneerson, who died in Brooklyn in June 1994.
This kind of resurrection talk isn’t new; it's just different in that it is open and public. In the years since Schneerson’s death, particularly in the days immediately following, many of his followers proclaimed their belief in
his identity as Messiah, but it was almost an “in house” discussion. A discussion that, at times, grew to more than a friendly discussion, which threatened to completely split the Chabad movement.
In recent years, though, I have noticed a growing number of posters along the highways proclaiming The Rebbe, as his followers know him, as Messiah. Some are more subtle than others, like the one on the right, for example: On this flag, the word Messiah (in Hebrew) is written under the royal crown. If you don’t have more background information on this campaign, it would be easy to dismiss this as a fervent, religious Jew simply flying his colors.
This poster (below), commonly seen all over Israel,
fits into the less subtle category as it says “King Messiah” under the photo of The Rebbe. I’m not certain that this particular poster was at the convention hall on Sunday night, but the sentiment certainly was. Rabbi Zalman Notik of the Torat Emet Yeshiva in Jerusalem spoke openly of Rabbi Schneerson as the messiah. Furthermore, he supported the missionary zeal for which Chabad has become known when he said, “…the most important mitzvah [commandment] is to publicize the idea that the Rebbe is messiah.” No wonder Chabad is often characterized as the Jewish evangelicals: They believe that Rabbi Schneerson is the messiah and that he is good for everyone, particularly Jews.
A religiously observant, Jewish friend once told me that he didn't agree with Chabad's or my desire to tell others about our faith. "I believe" he said "that what I believe is good for me, but not necessarily for everyone else." I pointed out that that is one major difference between us: I believe that Messiah is not only good for everyone, but necessary. Apparently followers of the Chabad sect of Judaism believe more like I do about messiah in that regard. Our disagreement comes in the identity and function of the messiah,
not the desire for others to know about him.
This poster (right) includes with The Rebbe's photo the words, "Messiah is good for everybody."
Rabbi Schneerson Quick Facts:
Date of Birth: April18, 1902
Place of Birth: Nikolaiev, Ukraine
Visits to Israel: None
Date of Death: June 12, 1994
Place of Death: New York, USA
One of the organizers, Yoni Kahana, happily described the evening as “an amazing turnout.” He went on to say that that “Everyone came away with renewed faith in the imminent coming of [the messiah]. He may not have come on Sunday night. But he will truly be revealed any second.” Wow, ten thousand people gathered together in Tel Aviv, Israel excitedly anticipating the return of the messiah. Now that is something that will even get a Baptist to shout “amen,” maybe even clap.
The interesting twist on this, however, is that on this Easter Sunday they weren’t talking about Jesus’ resurrection and imminent return, they were talking about the (hoped for) resurrection of the late Rabbi "Messiah" Menahem Mendel Schneerson, who died in Brooklyn in June 1994.
This kind of resurrection talk isn’t new; it's just different in that it is open and public. In the years since Schneerson’s death, particularly in the days immediately following, many of his followers proclaimed their belief in
his identity as Messiah, but it was almost an “in house” discussion. A discussion that, at times, grew to more than a friendly discussion, which threatened to completely split the Chabad movement.In recent years, though, I have noticed a growing number of posters along the highways proclaiming The Rebbe, as his followers know him, as Messiah. Some are more subtle than others, like the one on the right, for example: On this flag, the word Messiah (in Hebrew) is written under the royal crown. If you don’t have more background information on this campaign, it would be easy to dismiss this as a fervent, religious Jew simply flying his colors.
This poster (below), commonly seen all over Israel,
fits into the less subtle category as it says “King Messiah” under the photo of The Rebbe. I’m not certain that this particular poster was at the convention hall on Sunday night, but the sentiment certainly was. Rabbi Zalman Notik of the Torat Emet Yeshiva in Jerusalem spoke openly of Rabbi Schneerson as the messiah. Furthermore, he supported the missionary zeal for which Chabad has become known when he said, “…the most important mitzvah [commandment] is to publicize the idea that the Rebbe is messiah.” No wonder Chabad is often characterized as the Jewish evangelicals: They believe that Rabbi Schneerson is the messiah and that he is good for everyone, particularly Jews. A religiously observant, Jewish friend once told me that he didn't agree with Chabad's or my desire to tell others about our faith. "I believe" he said "that what I believe is good for me, but not necessarily for everyone else." I pointed out that that is one major difference between us: I believe that Messiah is not only good for everyone, but necessary. Apparently followers of the Chabad sect of Judaism believe more like I do about messiah in that regard. Our disagreement comes in the identity and function of the messiah,
not the desire for others to know about him. This poster (right) includes with The Rebbe's photo the words, "Messiah is good for everybody."
Rabbi Schneerson Quick Facts:
Date of Birth: April18, 1902
Place of Birth: Nikolaiev, Ukraine
Visits to Israel: None
Date of Death: June 12, 1994
Place of Death: New York, USA
Monday, April 03, 2006
Abortion on the Reservation
With the new additions to the Supreme Court of the United States, apparently some state legislatures are making overtures to outlaw abortion in their particular states. They are doing this based on the assumption that the newest members of the courts, if given the opportunity, will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, which opened the flood gates of murder on countless millions of unborn babies.
Today, I read an interesting twist in this story, one that I had not considered previously. According to an article at MSNB.com, Cecilia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe says that if the South Dakota legislature votes to ban abortions in their state, she will establish a women’s clinic that offers abortions and other women’s services on sovereign tribal land where state law doesn’t apply.
The article is unclear on how much federal law would apply on the reservation if/when Roe vs. Wade is overturned by the US Supreme Court, but that isn’t what caught my attention. What caught my eye was President Thunder’s justification for her potential actions:
Am I the only one that sees the fallacy of her statement?
“All we can do is provide that [abortion service] to them, no questions asked.”
WRONG! There are other options - not providing abortion services, being the most obvious other option.
”It’s between her [the mother] and God and that unborn baby. And I honor that.”
WRONG again! Once President Thunder provides abortion services to circumvent the law of the state, it is no longer only between the three parties she mentioned: mother, God, and baby. She and her clinic workers (some would call them murderers and accomplices to murder) have entered into the equation. Additionally, if it is only between the mother and the baby (and God) and she honors that, why is she helping the mother eliminate one of the parties in the equation? Who is listening to the baby’s voice in this discussion?
I’m sorry President Thunder, you haven’t taken the moral high ground as you try to persuade in your explanation of your intended actions. Your tribe should be embarrassed at your shameful leadership and threat to their future existence.
In the circles I move, it is common to bless a person we admire with the words, “May your tribe be increased.” I couldn’t say this to you because your threatened actions and attempt to justify such is so morally reprehensible. However, I’m sure some will think you are a “god-send” and want to bless you in such a way. Strangely, though, in your case it would be terribly ironic because Native Americans identify themselves by tribes and the clinic you are offering to open will be used to kill future generations of the Oglala Sioux Tribe as well as outsiders. In other words, the more tribal leadership like yours prospers, the less chance of survival for the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
Please, for the sake of the future of your tribe, for the sake of babies not of your tribe, and for the sake of what is right under heaven, rethink your position.
Today, I read an interesting twist in this story, one that I had not considered previously. According to an article at MSNB.com, Cecilia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe says that if the South Dakota legislature votes to ban abortions in their state, she will establish a women’s clinic that offers abortions and other women’s services on sovereign tribal land where state law doesn’t apply.
The article is unclear on how much federal law would apply on the reservation if/when Roe vs. Wade is overturned by the US Supreme Court, but that isn’t what caught my attention. What caught my eye was President Thunder’s justification for her potential actions:
"We just want to make sure that something is done for women who make that decision. All we can do is provide that to them, no questions asked. It's their choice. It's between her and God and that unborn baby. And I honor that."
Am I the only one that sees the fallacy of her statement?
“All we can do is provide that [abortion service] to them, no questions asked.”
WRONG! There are other options - not providing abortion services, being the most obvious other option.
”It’s between her [the mother] and God and that unborn baby. And I honor that.”
WRONG again! Once President Thunder provides abortion services to circumvent the law of the state, it is no longer only between the three parties she mentioned: mother, God, and baby. She and her clinic workers (some would call them murderers and accomplices to murder) have entered into the equation. Additionally, if it is only between the mother and the baby (and God) and she honors that, why is she helping the mother eliminate one of the parties in the equation? Who is listening to the baby’s voice in this discussion?
I’m sorry President Thunder, you haven’t taken the moral high ground as you try to persuade in your explanation of your intended actions. Your tribe should be embarrassed at your shameful leadership and threat to their future existence.
In the circles I move, it is common to bless a person we admire with the words, “May your tribe be increased.” I couldn’t say this to you because your threatened actions and attempt to justify such is so morally reprehensible. However, I’m sure some will think you are a “god-send” and want to bless you in such a way. Strangely, though, in your case it would be terribly ironic because Native Americans identify themselves by tribes and the clinic you are offering to open will be used to kill future generations of the Oglala Sioux Tribe as well as outsiders. In other words, the more tribal leadership like yours prospers, the less chance of survival for the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
Please, for the sake of the future of your tribe, for the sake of babies not of your tribe, and for the sake of what is right under heaven, rethink your position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
