Not one Jot or Tittle

[Rhea]

Bible literalists are a strange bunch. From what I understand, the jots and tittles are referencing the very letters and sounds of the text. So here you have all these bible "literalists" calling the main character "Jee-zuss" when it is perfectly obvious that his name was "Yesh-ew-ah." Which is, quite literally, changing jots and tittle.

And it doesn't bother them a bit because keeping the correct jots and tittles is "hard" for their poor gentile tongues.

Strange how little they'll do for their Lord.

 

[ideologyhunter]

His name was Yeshua; he wore the Jewish holy garments; he said he intended to uphold every particular of Jewish law; he told his 12 buds that they would be the reinstitution of the 12 tribes of Israel; on the last evening of his life he was celebrating a Jewish holy day; he'd reject your Christmas ham; he'd wonder at the big deal that half of Christendom makes of his mom. Other than that, he's their guy.

 

[steve_bank]

And there is speaking in Old English from the King James translation. It seems to give them an attune.

 

[Learner]

The OP is an interesting point. Some years ago, I use to wonder curiously , "How effective would an exorcism be, when a preist was using newer or different translations of the bible.


From the biblical viewpoint now, I refer back at the time when God confounded man with many languages and be of the opinion that God would know (hoping ). Just some of the highlighted below, taken from wiki.

Afrikaans - Jesus
Albanian - Jezusi
Arabic - `Isà عيسى‎ (Islamic or classical arabic) / Yasū` يسوع‎ (Christian or latter Arabic)
Amharic - ኢየሱስ
Aragonese Chesús
Aramaic/Syriac - ܝܫܘܥ (Isho)
Arberesh - Isuthi
Armenian - Հիսուս (Eastern Armenian) Յիսուս (Western Armenian) (Hisus)
Azerbaijani - İsa
Belarusian - Ісус (Isus) (Orthodox) / Езус (Yezus) (Catholic)
Bengali - যীশু (Jeeshu/Zeeshu) (Christian) 'ঈসা ('Eesa) (General)
Breton - Jezuz
Catalan - Jesús
Chinese - simplified Chinese: 耶稣; traditional Chinese: 耶穌; pinyin: Yēsū
Coptic - Ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ
Cornish - Yesu
Croatian - Isus
Czech - Ježíš
Dutch - Jezus
Estonian - Jeesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

 

[Lion IRC]

Hi Learner
Oh wait.
Is that your real name?

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses use more than one appellation.
And this is another one of those disingenuous straining at gnats threads.

 

[Underseer]

The OP is an interesting point. Some years ago, I use to wonder curiously , "How effective would an exorcism be, when a preist was using newer or different translations of the bible.


From the biblical viewpoint now, I refer back at the time when God confounded man with many languages and be of the opinion that God would know (hoping ). Just some of the highlighted below, taken from wiki.

Afrikaans - Jesus
Albanian - Jezusi
Arabic - `Isà عيسى‎ (Islamic or classical arabic) / Yasū` يسوع‎ (Christian or latter Arabic)
Amharic - ኢየሱስ
Aragonese Chesús
Aramaic/Syriac - ܝܫܘܥ (Isho)
Arberesh - Isuthi
Armenian - Հիսուս (Eastern Armenian) Յիսուս (Western Armenian) (Hisus)
Azerbaijani - İsa
Belarusian - Ісус (Isus) (Orthodox) / Езус (Yezus) (Catholic)
Bengali - যীশু (Jeeshu/Zeeshu) (Christian) 'ঈসা ('Eesa) (General)
Breton - Jezuz
Catalan - Jesús
Chinese - simplified Chinese: 耶稣; traditional Chinese: 耶穌; pinyin: Yēsū
Coptic - Ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ
Cornish - Yesu
Croatian - Isus
Czech - Ježíš
Dutch - Jezus
Estonian - Jeesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

OMG, you actually spent time wondering about what words need to be used in casting a magic spell in order to make a demon-banishment spell effective?

There is so much wrong with that that I hardly know where to begin.

 

[Politesse]

It's not so much sounds as strokes of a chisel; a "jot" is a ἰῶτα, a single straight line, or the Hebrew letter "yod"; a "tittle" is a κεραία, or the single dot in any letter that has one.

 

[Rhea]

Hi Learner
Oh wait.
Is that your real name?

Cute, but of course it ignores the point of the thread which is that the bibles expressly forbids changing anything in it, and none of us recall Learner making such a threat.

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses use more than one appellation.
And this is another one of those disingenuous straining at gnats threads.

Wait, does that make you the gnat?
Well, okay.
(Please note: this is not a personal attack by me, but a self-identification by Lion)

...

But seriously, for those who actually care about joining the discussion at hand instead of making their own straw-god argument and then batting ineffectually at it, the comparison is the bible's own admonition to be accurate and the abrahamists' complete disregard for the rules of their holy book. They are a strange bunch, calling for a detailed hewing to minutiae while broadly disregarding same. The strange part is that it clearly does not bother them a bit. They cheerfully dance to the beat of their own tambourine while angrily calling for others to adhere to a metronome. Strange bunch.

 

[Rhea]

It's not so much sounds as strokes of a chisel; a "jot" is a ἰῶτα, a single straight line, or the Hebrew letter "yod"; a "tittle" is a κεραία, or the single dot in any letter that has one.

Yes, exactly. And that chisel making the strokes to sound out "jee-zuss" and the strokes to sound out "yesh-uah" are different. One may note the κεραία on the top of the j and the extra ἰῶτα on the y. Hence, the κεραίαs and the ἰῶταs have been changed.

 

[Rhea]

The OP is an interesting point. Some years ago, I use to wonder curiously , "How effective would an exorcism be, when a preist was using newer or different translations of the bible.


From the biblical viewpoint now, I refer back at the time when God confounded man with many languages and be of the opinion that God would know (hoping ). Just some of the highlighted below, taken from wiki.

Afrikaans - Jesus
Albanian - Jezusi
Arabic - `Isà عيسى‎ (Islamic or classical arabic) / Yasū` يسوع‎ (Christian or latter Arabic)
Amharic - ኢየሱስ
Aragonese Chesús
Aramaic/Syriac - ܝܫܘܥ (Isho)
Arberesh - Isuthi
Armenian - Հիսուս (Eastern Armenian) Յիսուս (Western Armenian) (Hisus)
Azerbaijani - İsa
Belarusian - Ісус (Isus) (Orthodox) / Езус (Yezus) (Catholic)
Bengali - যীশু (Jeeshu/Zeeshu) (Christian) 'ঈসা ('Eesa) (General)
Breton - Jezuz
Catalan - Jesús
Chinese - simplified Chinese: 耶稣; traditional Chinese: 耶穌; pinyin: Yēsū
Coptic - Ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ
Cornish - Yesu
Croatian - Isus
Czech - Ježíš
Dutch - Jezus
Estonian - Jeesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

Interesting thought, how yahweh's own babel intervention creates changes in jots and tittles. A good question.
And I chuckle at the image of a priest trying to say them all while the demon laughs. Or maybe accent mitigation camps at the monastery.

 

[Politesse]

It's not so much sounds as strokes of a chisel; a "jot" is a ἰῶτα, a single straight line, or the Hebrew letter "yod"; a "tittle" is a κεραία, or the single dot in any letter that has one.

Yes, exactly. And that chisel making the strokes to sound out "jee-zuss" and the strokes to sound out "yesh-uah" are different. One may note the κεραία on the top of the j and the extra ἰῶτα on the y. Hence, the κεραίαs and the ἰῶταs have been changed.

That seems a tad irrelevant, as the Scriptures to which Jesus is referring (the Hebrew Scriptures, ie., the only Scriptures that existed in his lifetime) did not mention his name, one way or another. Indeed, they inaccurately predicted that the Messiah would be named Immanuel.

 

[Rhea]

It's not so much sounds as strokes of a chisel; a "jot" is a ἰῶτα, a single straight line, or the Hebrew letter "yod"; a "tittle" is a κεραία, or the single dot in any letter that has one.

Yes, exactly. And that chisel making the strokes to sound out "jee-zuss" and the strokes to sound out "yesh-uah" are different. One may note the κεραία on the top of the j and the extra ἰῶτα on the y. Hence, the κεραίαs and the ἰῶταs have been changed.

That seems a tad irrelevant, as the Scriptures to which Jesus is referring (the Hebrew Scriptures, ie., the only Scriptures that existed in his lifetime) did not mention his name, one way or another. Indeed, they inaccurately predicted that the Messiah would be named Immanuel.

Then why would yahweh say to not change anything if it's not a problem? And why would early religionists be so cavalier? It's strange. Extraneous non-active passages in the bible? Like junk DNA?

 

[Politesse]

The entirety of the New Testament is a violation of literalism, if seen from Jesus' point of view. He could have had no idea that a whole extra Bible would be written throughout the four centuries following his death, and this passage strongly suggests how he would have felt about it.

 

[Lion IRC]

Im pretty sure Jesus knows how that whole "Word of God" thingy works.

 

[Rhea]

Im pretty sure Jesus knows how that whole "Word of God" thingy works.

That’s not relevant to Politesse’s comment, though, since, as you know, the NT was conceived and written after the death of the alleged Jesus and he was completely uninvolved.

 

[Politesse]

Im pretty sure Jesus knows how that whole "Word of God" thingy works.

The question is not whether Jesus understood the divine Logos. The question is whether the whole crowd of people who have appointed themselves his scribes and viceroys also do.

Jesus seems to have been literate, yet he never wrote a word of "new testimony". Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Learner]

Then why would yahweh say to not change anything if it's not a problem? And why would early religionists be so cavalier? It's strange. Extraneous non-active passages in the bible? Like junk DNA?

If you had gone a little deeper you would see that it was all about not manipulating or changing the Laws e.g. as the Pharisees did. An example below which you are mistakenly highlighting, when it comes to alterations or changes:

(if you can imagine variations, languages or translations)

A. Don't go and take whats not yours.

B. Don't steal from others.

C. Stealing is no allowed.

D. From others , you shall not steal.

E. You are forbidden to steal, and so on.

They are all (A to E) understood exactly the same way.

 

[Rhea]

Then why would yahweh say to not change anything if it's not a problem? And why would early religionists be so cavalier? It's strange. Extraneous non-active passages in the bible? Like junk DNA?

If you had gone a little deeper you would see that it was all about not manipulating or changing the Laws e.g. as the Pharisees did. An example below which you are mistakenly highlighting, when it comes to alterations or changes:

(if you can imagine variations, languages or translations)

A. Don't go and take whats not yours.

B. Don't steal from others.

C. Stealing is no allowed.

D. From others , you shall not steal.

E. You are forbidden to steal, and so on.

They are all (A to E) understood exactly the same way.

Oh, right. right. The laws!
It's true, the quote does reference laws.

They are very wise and comprehensive. Like the one about forcing rape victims to marry their rapist.

And yet, my original comment still stands as an example of the strange beliefs. Don't change the laws even a little bit, but don't punish anyone for them, since daddy'll do that, but I'm not asking you to change anything about the laws, except the part where the law says what the punishment is, oh, and call me anything you want.

It's still strange and bizarre.

Remember that law that says, "Do not hold slaves!" and the one that says, "You shall not rape!" Well, at least we have the one that says don't pick up any sticks on Saturdays.

It's still strange and bizarre.

 

[Lion IRC]

Im pretty sure Jesus knows how that whole "Word of God" thingy works.

The question is not whether Jesus understood the divine Logos.

Oh good. Agreed. Phew.

For a minute there I thought you were saying "He could have had no idea" how God breathes scripture into existence.

The question is whether the whole crowd of people who have appointed themselves his scribes and viceroys also do.

Yes, now THAT is an important question. And one that applies as much to Moses as it does to John or Luke or Paul.

Jesus seems to have been literate, yet he never wrote a word of "new testimony". Why do you suppose that is?

Too busy? Didn't have a typewriter handy? Better things to do with His time? Trusted His disciples to do what He knew they were inevitably going to do?

I guess I never really thought about why Jesus didn't pick up a pen and write...
"Hi, I'm Jesus I was born a long time ago in Bethlehem and Here is my version of The New Testament"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I guess I never really thought about why Jesus didn't pick up a pen and write...
"Hi, I'm Jesus I was born a long time ago in Bethlehem and Here is my version of The New Testament"

Seriously. One would expect that an omniscient dude would have been able to see the need for that happening and taken care of it at least a couple of millenia before the question was first asked. Given that eternal damnation is the consequence of not accepting his message, the decision to leave the passing on of that message to second or third hand sources as opposed to penning it himself was a questionable one.

Also, he didn't need to physically write it out on paper. He could have built a computer, typed it out and then altered reality to allow everyone in that day to be able to receive an email blast. That's some trivially simple shit.