I agree wholeheartedly.  Very delicate subject matter.  I feel the longer we talk with one another and explore each other's thought, points of view, facts, opinions, welll you get it, the better.  It cannot help but bring us closer tyo God.

Thank you very much, KFC, for your compliment. I value your presence here very much.

A bow to you.

 

 

Lula posts: 665

Leauki posts:

Yes, I should have...I was in a rush to do errands and quickly posted that just to get it on the board and under consideration.



Evidently you aren't too impressed!



What interested me most is that the words, cari and caru are described throughout.....and must somehow figure into the meaning....I note they end with the vowels "i" and "u" was wondering what you make of them?

Leauki posts:



For me it's simple..I don't worry about it....I own 6 different Bibles and compare all to the Douay Rheims Version which I believe is the most accurate translation of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate (405AD) which in turn is an accurate word-for-word translation of the original languages. St.Jerome was a linguistic genius...He spoke Greek from birth, was fluent in Latin and Hebrew and had many manuscripts to work from being 1600 years closer to the writings of the NT than today's scholars.

Leauki posts #642

I just went back and read this Leauki...do you see where you say it reads like "k'ari"? That sounds alot to me like the word "cari" used in the notes I found on the net. What do you think?

Lula posts: 650

NIGHTSHADES POSTS:

Bingo....

Let's start by going to the beginning when Saul of Tarsus was out and about persecuting Christians...and take it from there.


Acts 6:5-6 is about the Apostles establishing the 7 deacons in their office or ministry through prayer and the "laying on of hands", of which Stephen described as "a man full of faith of the Holy Spirit" was one.

It's very important to understand what happens spiritually during the rite of the laying on of hands. We know it's from the Old Testament rite of ordination of Levites Numbers 8:10 and it was the way holy power and wisdom was conferred on Joshua, Moses' successor as leader of Israel. 27:20; Deut. 13:9.

Catholics have retained this rite of ordination of laying on the hands (although now called the Sacrament of Holy Orders). It's seen throughout Acts. And just like holy power and wisdom was conferred in the OLd Covenant, the same is conferred by the Apostles through Christ directly at first and after He ascended into Heaven, through the Holy Spirit whom Christ promised He would send and did send on the First Pentecost, when the Chruch was officially begun in 33AD. Sometimes the holy power is manifested in curing Acts. 9:12; 17, 28:8 in line with the example Our Lord Jesus in St.Luke 4:40. It's also a simple rite of blessing as when St.Paul and Barnabas are sent out on their first apostolic journey 13:3 and it's most often used as a Baptismal rite for bringing down the Holy Spirit 8:17; 19:5.

Here's the passage: 5 "And what they said pleased the whole multitude and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith of the Holy Spirit, ....6 These they set before the Apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them."


This is the 1st instance of sacred ordination of ministers of the Church reported by Acts. also 1Tim.4:14; 5:22; 2Tim 5:22. The hand of the man is laid upon the person, but the whole work is of God and it is His hand which touches the head of the one ordained. The prayers are said to God asking Him to send the Holy Spirit to the one being ordained.

V.7 interestingly enough mentions as the word of God increased so did the spread of the Infant Church and a great many priests were obedient to the faith. These priests would have come from the lower ranks of the Jewish priesthood like Zacharais. Some say they came from the Qumran sect. Don't know on that!

The next section of Acts describes Stephen after he has been ordained a deacon in Christ's Infant Church. V. 8, "And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people."

Stephen preached mainly among Hellenistic Jews and while they were amazed at his wisdom and countenance, they accused him of blasphemy and brought him before the council. Chapter 7 is Stephen's address to the Sanhedrin. Stephen answers his accusers with a Christian vision of salvation history in which the Temple and the Law are already fulfilled in their purpose. It amounts to a summary of the history of Israel, divided into 3 periods...1-16 of the Patriarchs...17-43 of Moses and 44-50 of the building of the Temple.

Verses 54-60 explain how the Sanhedrin became enraged and even though they were unable to formally sentence him becasue that was the job of the civil arm of the Romans, they nonetheless saw the mob get unruly and tacitly approved their stoning Stephen to death.

Christians, certainly Catholics regard Stephen as the first martyr an example of fortitude and suffering for love of Christ. As they were stoning him he called out and forgave them.

v. 56-59, "And they (the mob) crying out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and with one accord ran violently upon him. And casting him forth out of the city, they stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit." And he knelt down and cried with a loud voice, Lord do not hold this sin against them. And when he said this he fell asleep in the Lord. The Douay Rheims version has this last line: And Saul was consenting to his death."

Even without it, it doesn't change the next events.....


Just like Christ, Stephen dies commending his soul to God and praying for his persecutors. And v. 58 tells that Saul is a part of his persecutors who cooperates by watching the executioner's clothes.

Saul will soon experience the benefit of Stephen's intercession. Saint Augustine in one of his sermons on this passage wrote, "If Stephen had not prayed to God, the Chruch would not have had Paul."

I'm not sure if you can get it or not...probably somewhere but it's called "Joseph" and for us it was 2 VHS tapes. We came away right after the first video saying..."this is pretty good." Then we watched the second half and was sorry to see it end. It kept our attention and stayed very true to the original story. I was excited to find out that bit about Joseph's name. Probably read it a million times but just overlooked it.

Anyhow it had Ben Kingsley, Martin Landau, and Lesly Ann Warren as stars in it and was some sort of award winner movie.



Thanks for the info Leauki. Pretty interesting. I know that among Christian circles we like to say that the OT is revealed in the New and that the NT is concealed in the Old. The whole thing fits like a glove but it's like putting pieces of a puzzle together and every piece found brings much excitement to the seeker.

That's why I keep trying to show you and the others the parallels between the old and new and how it fits together. It's taken me many many years to get it put together and I'm still finding more pieces as I go and have a feeling it's a lifetime of work for me.

Didn't know that AD. So you're saying Christian Jewish circles perhaps? Or would it be just Jewish circles?

NIGHTSHADES POSTS #670

RIGHT!

Let's discuss....

So, Stephen has been martyred and his death signals a start of a violent persecution of the Christian community and the Hellenist members in particular.

Acts 8:1 says, "And Saul was consenting to his death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the Chruch in Jerusalem. And Saul was in the midst of it. And even so, Chapter 8 describes how the Infant Church keeps preaching and spreading all over Judea and Samaria. Another deacon who was ordained is Philip and he also goes about baptizing converts in the Christian faith.

Chapter 9 as you know is about the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. Saul is journeying to Damascus with letters from the officials so that if he found any Christians he could bring them back to Jerusalem for imprisonment or worse. I understand that "the Way", corresponds to both the Christian lifestyle and the Gospel itself. It means all the early followers of Christ and all those who come after and are on their way to Heaven. "Jesus said, "The gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." St.Matt. 7:14.

Verses 3-19 tells specifically of Saul's encounter with God. V. 3 describes a light from heaven flashed around him. So, the Light shines in the darkness of and it does here with Saul in a spectacular way for in every conversion it makes the convert see God, himself, and others in a completely new way.

Here, for Saul, the conversion of heart and soul isn't the only change, he will take on a completely new vocation....a new line of work....

Here was Saul, this Pharisee, who clearly must have thought Jesus' death on the Cross was proof He was a false messias and the whole notion of a brotherhood of Jews and Gentiles unconceivable.

So, yes, here Saul was, in his eagerness to destroy the seed of Christianity by killing the fledgling Chruch that was developing in Damascus, was thrown off his horse and blinded by the Light.




"And falling on the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?" And he answered, "Who art thou Lord? And he said to me, "I am Jesus whom thou art persecuting".



Yes, you are very perceptive...what's it all mean?

To me as a Catholic, the oneness of Christ and His Chruch is so beautifully graphically set forth here.

Think about it....Here is Saul of Tarsus with "letter" with the authority of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin "going out to bring the Christians "bound back to Jerusalem". He's in the midst of persecuting Christians, the flegling Church, and the voice of Christ halts him, saying why are you persecuting Me? Saul asks, who are you? and Jesus replies I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. So, Jesus lets the whole world know through Saul, that an assault upon Christians, upon His Church, is an assault upon Him. So, ponder it when you want to attack the Church, for Christ and His Church are one. Christ says so right here.

Christ tells Saul, now blind, to get up and go to the city of Damascus and he'll be told what to do. Saul does as he is told and for 3 days, he goes on a fast of neither eating or drinking. V. 10 tells us that he's praying.   

We'll pick up with the rest of Saul conversion and how he relates to Ananais and his own baptism and what all that means soon.

KFC POSTS:

Yes, thank you KFC for mentioning this...everyone is really quite amazing.

Does anyone know what happened to the religion category on the forums page?

 

Saul is not one of the those that stoned Stephen. Although he may have condoned it and was witness to it, he did not commit the act. Stephen forgave those that committed the act. It is not known whether or not Stephen even knew who Saul was. In spite of that it is not said that Saul was forgiven by the others that he persecuted in addition to Stephen. Acts chapter 8 verse 58 - 60 states about his death "But they cried out with a loud voice ansd stopped their ears, and rushed upon him all together. And they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And while they were stoning Stephen he prayed and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Lord, do not lay this sin against them." And with these words he fell asleep. And Saul approved of his death."

Stephen did ask that this sin not be layed against them, but he wasn't refering to Saul who was simply holding the witnesses clothes. Saul himself did not do the stoning, although he approved of it. Nor was he (Saul) forgiven by, nor did he ask, of the many others that he persecuted and gave over to torture and death, of them their forgiveness.

St John chapter 16 verses5 -15

The Role of the Advocate

"And now I am going to him who sent me, and no one of you asks me, "Where art thou going?" But because I have spoken to you these things, sorrow has filled your heart. But I speak the truth to you; it is expedient for you that I depart. For if I do not go, the advocate will not come to you. And when he has come he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgement: of sin, because they do not believe in me; of justice, because I go to the Father, and judgement, because the prince of this world has already been judged. Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come he will teach you all the truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he will hear he will speak, and the things that are to come he will declare to you. He will glorify me, because he will receive of what is mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are mine. That is why I have said that he will receive of what is mine, and will declare it to you. a little while and you shall see me no longer; and again in a little while and you shall see me, because I go to the Father."

No where in Jesus' explanation of the Advocate does he state that that this is the Holy Spirit, but that "he is the Spirit of Truth". Nor does he tell the apostles that the advocate could be transfered to another by the laying on of the hands, even though the Holy Spirit can be transfered so. Even when he opens their minds to understand the Scriptures, which is the Old Testament, it doesn't say that he laid hands on them either. The Advocate is one that will explain to the apostles the truth behind the inner teachings, and the truth behind the parables that Jesus taught to them.

As you said in Acts chapter 6 verse 2 - 5 The Deacons

"So the twelve called together the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should forsake the word of God and serve at tables. Therefore, brethern, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, that we may put them in charge of this work. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And the plan met the approval of the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit." Further you state, "Now Stephen, full of grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people."

Being able to work natural law in order to do these works of great wonders and signs, is not the role of the advocate, it is the role of the Holy Spirit. Anyone can call on this power that the Holy Spirit bestows. As I said before Apolonius a Roman could do the same works, as did Bruno Giordano. And even the disciples complained to Jesus that there was a man "not of them" that was working miracles in Jesus' name. Nor did the Advocate come to Stephen, he could recite Jesus words and work great wonders and signs, he could even "see", and he could also recite Old Testament history, but he was not able to do what the Advocate does, explain the truth behind Jesus' inner teachings and words to the apostles.



He is ordained a deacon, but nothing is mentioned about a church, infant church or otherwise. Only that the number of the disciples was growing larger. That is not an indication of the church. The twelve stated that "It is not desirable that we should forsake the word of God and serve at tables." In other words the daily ministrations (spreading to them of the word) to the widows of the Hellenists. Nothing of a church or starting a church there either, as spreading the word is not forming a new religion or church. It is simply a telling of what they had witnessed concerning Jesus, his life, and death, and resurrection.




This is not an indication of anything at all. St. Augustine did not know in fact that Stephens prayers had caused the church to have Paul. It is perhaps St. Augustines thoughts on the subject, but thoughts are not necessarily fact.

That is perhaps your understanding, but why do you understand that to be so? The "Way" is simply what is necessary that one must do so that "death" passes one by. The Gospel is simply a testimony (a recounting) by witnesses, (in this case the apostles) to the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus. They are in truth no different than the testimony or the recounting of events that took place that is given by witnesses to them in todays modern courts of law.



There is no statement of Saul hearing the voice of God. It simply states that Saul "heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?" And he said "Who art thou Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus,whom thou art persecuting."

Jesus would not have refered to himself that way. He was no longer "Jesus" after the resurrection, he was in fact the "Christ". Nor was he (Saul) persecuting Jesus, but his apostles and disciples. The fact that there was a "light" if of no importance other than to catch Sauls attention. It's presence doesn't necessarily mean that all of a sudden Saul had a change of heart, or saw God in a completely new way. It is an assumption.

Saul does indeed pray to God, but then again all jews pray to God, and I would guess that if one were blind they would naturally pray to God over it. Yes the voice did say that it was Jesus, but as I said before Jesus would not have refered to himself in that way, since he was no longer Jesus the man, but the Christ, which is something altogether different. The "Christ" doesn't tell Saul to go to Damascus, according to the text it was the "Lord". "And the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city." It is quite possible that it was the "self" form of Jesus, which would explain the use of the word "Lord", but the man called Jesus no longer existed, he had become the "Christ" and in becoming the Christ he would have left the "self" called Jesus behind.



I'll be looking forward to it.

Read comment 674. I tried to explain it in detail, perhaps not good enough.

To summarise, the words do not look similar. One has three letters, one has four letters. The apostrophe in the English transliteration represents a Hebrew letter (Aleph).

The two words are more different from each other than English "bat" and "boot" and about as similar as English "bad" and "beard".

The Latin Vulgate I saw translates K'RY with "encircle". Perhaps my Latin isn't good enough.

The Douay Rheims translation you pointed to uses "they dug", which is the CORRECT translation of "KRV".

I don't know how accurate that still is given that the word KRV doesn't appear in the Hebrew text.

Masoretic text (whatever that is based on): K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing, made into KRV for the translation you have)

However, no Hebrew version known says "pierced" and Luther's German translation also uses a form of "dig".

Aramaic (like Arabic) uses Aleph to denote a long /a/ (like Hebrew uses Vav and Yud for /u/ and /i/). Perhaps the Roman translators, being more familiar with the Aramaic spoken in Israel rather than the Hebrew used in the Bible, translated K'RV as if it was written in Aramaic? The Aleph would become an /a/ and K'RV would be the same as KRV ("they dug").

(Hebrew does not use Aleph as a vowel except in foreign and Arabic words.)

Hebrew written vowels:

Long /u/ or /o/: Vav

Long /i/ or /e/: Yud

/a/ or /e/ or (sometimes) /o/ at end of word: He

/a/ (rarely): Yud (I know two words that work like that)


Aramaic and Arabic written vowels:

Long /u/: Vav

Long /i/: Yud

Long /a/: Aleph or (rarely) Yud

/a/ at end of word: He


It's easy to confuse the two systems, I suppose.

What circles are those?

"Joseph" means "G-d add".

"ben" means "son".

"haMashiach" means "the annointed (one)".

Where did the circle get their translation?

An interesting article in Haaretz about the son of a Hamas MP converting to Christianity:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1007097.html

From the article:

"A moment before beginning his supper, Masab, son of West Bank Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef, glances at the friend who has accompanied him to the restaurant where we met. They whisper a few words and then say grace, thanking God and Jesus for putting food on their plates."

The man, who calls himself "Joseph" now has this message for Israel:

"You Jews should be aware: You will never, but never have peace with Hamas. Islam, as the ideology that guides them, will not allow them to achieve a peace agreement with the Jews. They believe that tradition says that the Prophet Mohammed fought against the Jews and that therefore they must continue to fight them to the death."

He knows that he put his family in danger but misses his mother and sisters (who are, presumably, not as insane and hateful as his father). And he misses the tolerant people of Ramallah (which is in the West-Bank, not Gaza).

He likes Israel now.

Just thought I'd add some positive news to the thread.

Wow Leauki. That's the power of God you're quoting here. It just shows that it doesn't matter your birth, you can come to him no matter your beginnings. It's not about how you start your life (the race) it's all in the finish. Son of Hamas!!!

But he's right about the peace. Never never will there be true peace. As a Christian who has studied end times theology quite deeply I do see a short window of false peace on the horizon but it's a trick and will be led by the coming AC. My gut tells me we're not far from this peace treaty. Don't be fooled when it happens.

Basically what he's saying here in the above quote is supported by scripture and goes all the way back to Ishmael when, as I quoted before, that Ishmael was a man of war. His hand would be against every man and everyone's hand would be against him and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers....Gen 16:12. Mohummed came and organized what Ishmael already started.

Leauki,

I went back to my oldest commentaries and found this written in the 1500's by John Calvin on that Psalm 22:16 passage about the "piercd hands and feet." Seems like this argument goes way back. Now he uses the Hebrew markings and I can't do that here so I'll put dashes where he puts the lettering. This is what he said way back then:

"The original word which we have translated "they have pierced is ----- "caari" which literally rendered is "like a lion." As all the Hebrew Bibles at this day, without exception, have this reading, I would have had great hesitation in departing from a reading which they all support, were it not that the scope of the discourse compels me to do so, and were there not strong grounds for conjecturing that this passage has been fraudulently corrupted by the Jews. With respect to the Septuagint version there is no doubt that the translators had read in the Hebrew text ----"caaru" that is the letter -- "vau" where there is now the letter --"yod."

The Jews prate much about the literal sense being purposely and deliberately overthrown by our rendering the original word by "they have pireced" but for this allegation there is no color of truth whatever. What need was there to trifle so presumptously in a matter where it was altogether unnecessary? Very great suspicion of falsehood, however, attaches to them, seeing it is the uppermost desire of their hearts to despoil the crucified Jesus of his escutcheons, and to divest him of his character as the Messiah and Redeemer. If we receive this reading as they would have us to do, the sense will be enveloped in marvellous obscurity. In the first place, it will be a defective form of expression; and to complete it, they say it is necessary to supply the verb to "surround or to beset". But what do they mean by besetting the hands and the feet? Besetting belongs no more to thse parts of the human body than to the whole man. The absurdity of this argument being discovered, they have recourse to the most ridicoulous old wives' fables, according to their usual way, saying, that the lion, when he meets any man in his road, makes a circle with his tail before rushing upon his prey: from which it is abundantly evident that they are at a loss for arguments to support thier view.

Again, since David in the precceding verse has used the similude of a lion, the repetition of it in this verse would be superflous. I forbear insisting upon what some of our expositors have observed, namely, that this noun, when it has prefixed it to the letter ---"caph" which signifies, as, the word denoting similitude, has commonly other points than those which are employed in this passage. My object, however, is not here to labour to convince the Jews who in controversy are in the highest degree obstinate and opinionative. I only intend briefly to show how wickedly they endeavour to perplex Christians on account of the different reading which occurs in this place. When they object that by the appointment of the law no man was fastened with nails to a cross, they betray in their gross ignorance of history, since it is certain that the Romans introduced many of their own customs and manners into the provinces which they had conquered. If they object that David was never nailed to a cross, the answer is easy, namely, that in bewailing his condition, he has made use of a similutde, declaring that he was not less afflicted by his enemies than the man who is suspended on a cross having his hands and feet pierced through with nails."

Indeed.




The Muslim Brotherhood is a very recent phenomenon. They have only been on the radar as the bad guys for less than 20 years.

Here's what the Quran says about Israel:





And this is what the constitution of Medina, Muhammed's own Islamic state had to say about the Jews (of Medina):





The Muslim Brotherhood (and Hamas) obviously don't believe in those things; but Muhammed obviously did (otherwise he wouldn't have told everyone all the time).

The emnity between Arabs and Jews is a new phenomenon and it was born as secular Arab nationalism, not as a product of Islam. The traditional Islamic rulers of the region had no problems with a Jewish state (or Jews living in the middle east), but the nationalists did. (Yasser Arafat was a Muslim but Michel Aflaq, who founded the Baath party, was a Christian.)

Lula posts:

OK, thanks. At first glance and knowing nothing about Hebrew, I thought there might be a connection.

Lula posts:

LEAUKI POSTS:

Psalm 22:17-18 according to the New American Bible translation reads:

"Many dogs surround me, a pack of evil doers closes in on me. So wasted are my hands and feet 18 that I can count all my bones. They stare at me and gloat."



You seem to be figuring it out.

And again, whether it's translated as "pierced" or "dug" or something else, this one verse doesn't change the meaning or general tone or message of the David's sorrowful Psalm one iota.

Using anyone of those words, it still remains remarkably prophetic to Christ's Passion (suffering) leading to His death by crucifixion.

Yes, KFC, and that is all well and good, except, as I explained before, there are two problems with it.

The first is that K'RY (they have it as "caari") is a word and means "like a lion". But K'RV (which they render "caaru") is not a word and doesn't mean anything.

I also have no doubt that the translators read the Hebrew text K'RV ("caaru" in their rendition). What I am wondering is how they translated it, as it is not a word.

KRV (perhaps they would render it as "caru") is a word, but it doesn't mean "they pierced", but "they dug", which is how Luther and one of KFC's sources translated it. (The Latin Vulgate adds a third translation: "they encircled".)

Why did the translators, confronted with K'RV, remove the Aleph from the word? I don't see a rational reason for that (unless they thought that that particular word was Aramaic, where perhaps the Aleph would have been there as a vowel).

So they decided to remove the Aleph even though changing the Vav to a Yud would also have rendered the word real and grammatically sound.

And hundreds of years later we learn that the Jews think they have preserved an original spelling K'RY with Aleph and Yud.

Again, try it out on paper and see what error is more easily made. You will find it a lot more difficult to overlook an Aleph than to confuse a Yud and a Vav. I know I do.

But where the English gets the word "pierced" when the German and Latin (and some English) translations of the same text have "dug", I cannot tell.

Leauki...this is the note that was attached to the above quote: Thought you might like to read this.

This word has created much discussion. In the Hebrew Bible, the "kethib" or "textual" reading is ---"caari, like a lion;" the "keri" or marginal reading is ---"caaru", "they "pierced" from ---"carah" "to cut, dig, or pierce." Both readings are supported by MSS. There is, however, no ground to doubt that the genuine reading is ,---"caaru." As the Septuagint here reads ----, "they pierced," the translators, doubtless, considered that the correct reading of the Hebrew text was --- "caaru."

The Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, give a similar rendering. All the Evangelists also quote and apply the passage to the crucifixion of Christ. Besides, the other reading ---, "caari, as a lion," renders the passage unintelligible. The Chaldee version has combined both the ideas of "pierced" and "as a lion," reading, "Biting, as a lion, my hands and my feet." Our author (Calvin) supposes that the text has been fraudelently corrupted by the Jews, who have intentionally changed ---, "caaru," into ---- "caari." But there is no necessity for supposing that there has been any fraud in this case. In the process of transcription, the change might have been made unintentionally, by the substitution of the letter -- "yod," for the letter --"vau" which i so nearly resembles. Walford observes "that the present reading ---"caari" is quite satisfactory, if it be taken as a participle plural in regim., and be translated, "wounders of my hands and my feet."

Geeeze, no wonder. Looking at the two letters yod and vau the dashes of the Hebrew lettering is so close. It's hardly distinguishable. No wonder there is so much controversy. I never knew the background of this controversy before all this.

You know, the whole sentence is actually more problematic than I explained so far.

Without vowel dots I cannot tell if it is "my hands and my feet" or "my hand and my foot". This is due the plural form of "my [whatever]" being written the same as the singular. (Singular ends on -i, spelt Yud; plural ends on -ai, spelt Yud.)

We can probably assume plural (or rather dual, since "feet" have no plural, only a dual).

But are "my hands and my feet" a subject or an object or something else? From the phrase alone it's hard to tell. If they are an object they would be part of the praedicat (verb) of the sentence, as their is no direct object preposition. Hebrew has no accusative case.

Object: The subject of the sentence (dogs) "dig" hands and feet. But I don't know if "lekarot" ("to dig") commands an object or not. (In English "dig" has a direct object, for example "a hole".)

Subject: The hands and feet are actually doing the digging. Hebrew uses (classically) a VSO word order ("In the beginning created G-d...") so this could work. I don't think anybody has ever translated it like that. This would mean that the speaker is trying to escape by digging a tunnel or something.

Neither: The hands and feet are neither digging nor being dug. This is where K'RY/K'RV fits as "like a lion", with hands and feet as the target of the lion (who can "be at", since "to be" would be automatic in Hebrew).

Either way, these are the hard facts:

1. The word is either K'ARY ("like a lion", Masoretic text) or K'RV (not a word, found in Dead Sea Scrolls).

2. KRV means "they dug".

3. None of the three words (two words and one non-word) mean "they pierced" and Luther's German translation translated the word as a form of "dig".

4. It is easier to write a Vav instead of a Yud accidentally than it is to remove a letter from the word. Try it out!

KFC,



They make several mistakes I already pointed out.

1. K'RV does not mean "they dug", KRV does. Those are two different words. K'RV means nothing. That's what the text you quote calls "caaru". The word doesn't exist.

2. The word KRV does not mean "they pierced", it means "they dug". And Luther translated it as "dig".

3. Reading the word as "like a lion" does not render the passage unintelligible. (Did the author not even notice that he put that claim right next to a perfectly intelligible "Biting, as a lion, my hands and my feet."?)

And yes, Yud and Vav look similar. But it is really simpler to make a Yud into a Vav accidentally than a Vav into a Yud. Try it out! If you accidentally write a Yud instead of a Vav, you can correct it immediately.

But this part is what confuses me:



Why exactly is there no ground to doubt that the genuine reading is as a word that doesn't exist?

Good question...

For some unknown reason, the "Religion" category was not continued when management re-configurated the JU format a few months ago.

However, it seems to still be an operating function because we can still submit an article in the religion section. So we still have the section it's just not listed on the openinig page of JU.

I would like to see it listed as it was originally. Without it there, newcomers have no way of knowing about it unless they stumble on an article.