<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: rabbis arguing</title>
	<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/</link>
	<description>musings from those on the journey</description>
	<pubDate>Wed,  3 Dec 2008 22:34:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Greg the explorer</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-152070</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg the explorer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-152070</guid>
		<description>you giggle like a girl bec</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you giggle like a girl bec</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bec</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-152046</link>
		<dc:creator>bec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:22:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-152046</guid>
		<description>*giggling*

I just saw your comment Lionfish.

What Dan said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*giggling*</p>
<p>I just saw your comment Lionfish.</p>
<p>What Dan said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akevin</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-152026</link>
		<dc:creator>akevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:50:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-152026</guid>
		<description>academai - isn't that an anagram of "macadamia"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>academai - isn&#8217;t that an anagram of &#8220;macadamia&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg the explorer</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-152012</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg the explorer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:09:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-152012</guid>
		<description>That was an exceptional interpretation and I defer to the higher academai demonstrated i such brilliant learning</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That was an exceptional interpretation and I defer to the higher academai demonstrated i such brilliant learning</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: emblazoned</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151999</link>
		<dc:creator>emblazoned</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 04:24:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151999</guid>
		<description>Can I just say Just_Nigel that that was hilarious!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can I just say Just_Nigel that that was hilarious!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akevin</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151934</link>
		<dc:creator>akevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 05:33:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151934</guid>
		<description>3) It is well known that “sphincter clause”  --Is that Santa's brother?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>3) It is well known that “sphincter clause”  &#8211;Is that Santa&#8217;s brother?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: just_nigel</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151929</link>
		<dc:creator>just_nigel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:51:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151929</guid>
		<description>I think you have all ready II Hezekia 4:13 incorrectly. It is actually in favor of Hillsong.

When you translate the original Hittite taking into account modern-liberal-historical-critical-literary-readerresponse-postmodern criticism it becomes obvious.

1) It is worth noting the parallelism in the ancient Hittite poetic form. See how the poet contrasts the tightness and security of the "sucked" with the looseness and instability of the "not held rigidly"; and the loftiness of the "hill" with the lowliness of the "shit" or "waste".


2) The opening words "For it was, see" is an emphatic sentence of its own. It refers to all that follows. It does not function as a qualifier of the immediate next phrase. It serves a similar rhetorical purpose as the "Amen Amen" of the Greek.
 
3) It is well known that "sphincter clause" has long been disputed and like the NRSV (New Rev's Special Version) I prefer to omit it. It could be explained as a gloss from early Hebrew translators who noted in the margin that the Hittite word for waste could also mean shit - an addition that may have been then traslated back into the original Hittite.

4) The use of "song" and "service" has a double meaning not easily represented in English. The same words were used of a worshiper in a temple setting as a witness in a legal court. A transaltion that suggests either is acceptable. One that can imply both is best.

Put this together and we have my preferred translation:

"See, it was:
The testimony of those in lofty places
     held tight.
While those who thoughtlessly wasted money
     were loose during the procedings."

It affirms that those who are rich and powerful can be trusted with more money, while those with low finances are to be mistrusted and should not even keep their own money lest they loose that too by dishonesty or waste. It would be far better for the high and mighty to take it from them, since the rich obviously know what to do with it better than the poor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you have all ready II Hezekia 4:13 incorrectly. It is actually in favor of Hillsong.</p>
<p>When you translate the original Hittite taking into account modern-liberal-historical-critical-literary-readerresponse-postmodern criticism it becomes obvious.</p>
<p>1) It is worth noting the parallelism in the ancient Hittite poetic form. See how the poet contrasts the tightness and security of the &#8220;sucked&#8221; with the looseness and instability of the &#8220;not held rigidly&#8221;; and the loftiness of the &#8220;hill&#8221; with the lowliness of the &#8220;shit&#8221; or &#8220;waste&#8221;.</p>
<p>2) The opening words &#8220;For it was, see&#8221; is an emphatic sentence of its own. It refers to all that follows. It does not function as a qualifier of the immediate next phrase. It serves a similar rhetorical purpose as the &#8220;Amen Amen&#8221; of the Greek.</p>
<p>3) It is well known that &#8220;sphincter clause&#8221; has long been disputed and like the NRSV (New Rev&#8217;s Special Version) I prefer to omit it. It could be explained as a gloss from early Hebrew translators who noted in the margin that the Hittite word for waste could also mean shit - an addition that may have been then traslated back into the original Hittite.</p>
<p>4) The use of &#8220;song&#8221; and &#8220;service&#8221; has a double meaning not easily represented in English. The same words were used of a worshiper in a temple setting as a witness in a legal court. A transaltion that suggests either is acceptable. One that can imply both is best.</p>
<p>Put this together and we have my preferred translation:</p>
<p>&#8220;See, it was:<br />
The testimony of those in lofty places<br />
     held tight.<br />
While those who thoughtlessly wasted money<br />
     were loose during the procedings.&#8221;</p>
<p>It affirms that those who are rich and powerful can be trusted with more money, while those with low finances are to be mistrusted and should not even keep their own money lest they loose that too by dishonesty or waste. It would be far better for the high and mighty to take it from them, since the rich obviously know what to do with it better than the poor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: halieus</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151906</link>
		<dc:creator>halieus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151906</guid>
		<description>Santa isn't real? Santa isn't real? Lionfish, you've gone too far with these unpardonable heresies, he's mentioned hundreds of times in my Italian New Testament! 

Now, I just phoned the pope and he's says you're getting fourteen million years in purgatory for this blasphemy but it's your lucky day, I just happen to have in my possession the left big toenail and three nasal hairs of Simeon Stylites who waited atop a pole in the fourth century for a glimpse of santa and I'll let you kiss them for a small fee... say... fifty bucks and a slab of cold ones, mates rates?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Santa isn&#8217;t real? Santa isn&#8217;t real? Lionfish, you&#8217;ve gone too far with these unpardonable heresies, he&#8217;s mentioned hundreds of times in my Italian New Testament! </p>
<p>Now, I just phoned the pope and he&#8217;s says you&#8217;re getting fourteen million years in purgatory for this blasphemy but it&#8217;s your lucky day, I just happen to have in my possession the left big toenail and three nasal hairs of Simeon Stylites who waited atop a pole in the fourth century for a glimpse of santa and I&#8217;ll let you kiss them for a small fee&#8230; say&#8230; fifty bucks and a slab of cold ones, mates rates?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: the rev</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151898</link>
		<dc:creator>the rev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2006 08:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151898</guid>
		<description>My point embalzoned is that it is a hyped up emotionalism at hillsong and that was the context of the discussion.

rev</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My point embalzoned is that it is a hyped up emotionalism at hillsong and that was the context of the discussion.</p>
<p>rev</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: emblazoned</title>
		<link>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151897</link>
		<dc:creator>emblazoned</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:41:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.signposts.org.au/2006/11/29/rabbis-arguing/#comment-151897</guid>
		<description>Lionfish, why would you need faith in Santa? He's quite real. He brings me pressies every Christmas...hard, tangible proof. Are you suggesting Santa isn't real?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lionfish, why would you need faith in Santa? He&#8217;s quite real. He brings me pressies every Christmas&#8230;hard, tangible proof. Are you suggesting Santa isn&#8217;t real?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
