In Reply to Cheimon, the Stormfront Denizen

[wmfinck]

The following is a response to a post which a character who goes by cheimon (Greek for winter) made in the theology section at Stormfront. I already responded verbally to this first article in the opening minutes of the Christogenea Open Forum program on August 16th, which can be found at http://christogenea.org/content/christogenea-forum-call-08-16-10. I will respond to it again here, and then to a second posting he made at Stormfront later on.

I looked over the Christogenea translation and find it lacking.

There are multiple points that I want to point out.

I know some people like calling Jesus by the name of Yahshua, a transliteration of the Hebrew equivalent, but "translating" the Greek word ιησου is neither translating it nor transliterating it (as is done with a proper noun). However, I would certainly be able to tolerate it if it was done.

When the LXX translators saw the Old Testament Hebrew for “Joshua”, they wrote ιησου . When the A.V. Translators saw it, they wrote “Joshua”. Yet when the A.V. Translators saw ιησου, they wrote “Jesus”. So I am wrong for writing “Yahshua”? No, I have explained my reasoning in a paper on my site, Yahshua to Jesus: Evolution of a Name. You can have a difference of opinion, and that is fine, but you cannot honestly dispute the facts. There is nothing technically wrong with my choice, except that you simply don't like it. So I would advise you to wait for the Pete Peters translation of the New Testament.

Putting Yahweh in place of κύριος is by far the worst offense, by doing so it is as if the translator thinks he knows better than the original authors of the texts. In fact, the translator's justification for this is: "For if the King James and most other modern translators can render the Hebrew for Yahweh into Lord, and if the Septuagint translators can render the Hebrew Yahweh into κύριος, then it is only fair that κύριος can be rendered Yahweh in the reverse."

The King James rendering of יחוח as “Lord” is acceptable to you? How is that either a translation or a transliteration? Okay, so when the King James does it, it is okay, but when I do it, you find it lacking? You duplicitous manner of judging me is why I called you a clown on my forum. It is not a “personal insult”, as you later said. Rather, it is just a statement in fact. You do not judge righteously.

If the second-century Hebrews can write κύριος in place of יחוח then it is only fair that I can write יחוח in place of κύριος. And if I then choose to transliterate יחוח as Yahweh, you may dislike that, but you cannot say it is wrong, or if you do, then you prove yourself to be a hypocrite, judging me with a different yardstick than you do either the KJV or the LXX translators.I will address the reasons for why the apostles themselves used κύριος for יחוח in my response to your subsequent post below.

This translation also fails my Matthew 10:5 translation test. I use this passage because in most cases, they get it wrong. I once translated it myself and then searched for a translation that translated it properly and the only one to do so is the Young's Literal Translation.

Here you present yourself as a Greek translation expert. I am not criticizing that, yet, but only making a note of it, in case you forget when I do criticize it below.

The Christogenea reads:
These twelve Yahshua sent out, commanding to them saying: "You should not depart into the way of the heathens, and you should not enter into a city of Samaritans.”

Yes, that is how it reads, and it is a perfectly and literally correct reading.

First thing I raised my eyebrow at is the translation of ἔθνος into heathens. I don't know what inspired the translator to translate it as such, because it is obvious that ethnos means nations.

As I said in the forum, and even proved from the lexicons, heathen is a legitimate translation of ἔθνος in certain instances. The Liddell & Scott lexicon gives examples where ἔθνος is clearly used in Greek literature to describe a special class or caste of men. If you were really a Greek expert, you should have known that.

The second flaw, which is the test I put forth for a translation, is how they translate: εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν μὴ ἀπέλθητε which literally says,: to the way [road] of the nations, do not go away. The word ἀπέλθητε meaning to go away or depart, and μη is a negative particle. If one wanted to make it a bit easier to read, it is saying, [/i]don't go away from the nations [/i]

Young's Literal Translation of the passage is:
These twelve did Jesus send forth, having given command to them, saying, 'To the way of the nations go not away, and into a city of the Samaritans go not in,

Here you truly expose yourself, as I said in the forum, as either a fool or a liar. But since you have presented yourself as a Greek expert, I must judge you to be a liar. Why? Because you pulled a Canaanite bait-and-switch tactic. You underhandedly took a preposition which can mean only to or into in this context, and assigned it something that it can never have here: a meaning of from. Young's Literal Translation does not even mean what you claim it does, so it is also evident that you cannot even read English. In Matthew 10:5 Yahshua (there's that name again) clearly instructs His disciples not to go away to the nations (heathens in this sense, since they were all pagans at that time). The apostles were going away, and Christ told them to go away – but not TO the nations!For your translation to stand, the sentence would require a preposition such as ἀπό with a genitive noun, and not εἰς with an accusative noun for road (or way). A real Greek reader should know this.

When Christ spoke these words, the apostles could not have understood the words for “lost sheep” as we do, or even as they themselves did much later. The record in Acts proves that. If your interpretation of this were were correct, Peter would never have needed his famous vision, Acts Chapter 10. You neither know Greek, nor the Bible.

[wmfinck]

Some time following last week's Christogenea Open Forum, cheimon wrote this in the theology section on Stormfront, obviously in response to my remarks made last Monday:

I love being addressed by an online radio program instead of by a simple reply on the forum, which we could then discuss rationally any qualms he may have with my post. Instead, he goes and publicly calls me a liar and a fool to which I cannot defend myself to the audience he is addressing.

Well, Mr. Hypocrite, what are you saying here? That you can criticize me or my work in a private venue, where I cannot defend myself unless I want to grovel at the altar of Don Black's Disgusting Pagan Ass, but I may not answer you in my own public forum? Stormfront is not a public place. One must register to gain access to the forum, and then one must ask permission (from a pagan, no doubt) to be admitted to the Theology section. Yet the Christogenea.net chat server requires none of those things. You criticized me first, where I could not defend myself because I do not participate at Stormfront.

It is certainly unusual to call someone you view as wrong, a liar, instead of simply stating they are wrong and politely correcting them. I see a piece of his translation as wrong, but I wouldn't call him a liar or a fool because he got something incorrect. To each his own, I guess.

But you are a liar, and I proved it. I only stated a fact. You changed a preposition in Matthew 10:5, and therefore you created a lie. We can all make mistakes, but you have done this purposely.

KJV translators translating κύριος. to Lord isn't exactly the best justification for putting Yahweh in place of κύριος. One mistake would never justify another.

You are lying again, misrepresenting my reasoning. Some Greek-writing Judaeans put κύριος in place of Yahweh, and I merely reverse that same process. Not all Greek-writing Judaeans did so though. Some of them maintained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in their Greek copies of Scripture. We have those copies today. Have you not seen them?

For one, if the writers (including Matthew who was one of the twelve apostles), wanted to refer to Him as Yahweh, they would have. A tradition of keeping "Yahweh" out of the texts would not have stopped them.

As the historian Josephus and others attest, the religious authorities at Jerusalem forbade any use whatsoever of יחוח, the name which I transliterate as Yahweh. The apostles, and certainly the Septuagint transcribers, obeyed this command. In the New Testament we see Yahshua tell His disciples that “The scribes and the Pharisees sit upon the seat of Moses. Therefore all things whatever they should tell you, you do and you keep..” Therefore it is obvious to me that the apostles kept His commandment, and continued to write κύριος rather than יחוח in accordance with the demands of the scribes and the Pharisees. If you fault me for that understanding, well, it is my opinion that you are the one who is lacking.

Second, this [sic] all based on the assumption that God's proper name is Yahweh and not a title. The Septuagint was translated from the the paleo-Hebrew and they used the same Greek word κύριος.

Third, even if it is God's proper name, odds are you are pronouncing it completely wrong. The pronunciation used is based upon the artificial language modern Hebrew and the Masoretic Texts. Should one try speaking His name if it cannot be pronounced correctly? The inability to properly transliterate it into another language and keep the correct pronunciation could be a reason the Septuagint translators used κύριος.

You offer only two choices by which we should understand the meaning of Yahweh as a name. I understand it as neither of them. To me, it is rather a descriptive name. As for what I mean by that, as for the efficacy of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, and other related information, there is a paper on my site entitled Which Is It, Lord, or Yahweh? Which Clifton Emahiser put together with my own conclusion some years ago. I recommend that you read it. My pronunciation is not, as you so ignorantly claim, based upon the Masoretic texts.

Additionally, the Septuagint manuscripts which we have represent official texts of the time. Other Greek-writing Judaeans, such as the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, maintained the use of the Tetragrammaton in their own copies of the Greek Old testament scriptures.

Lastly, κύριος has significant meaning which is lost when one replaces it with Yahweh. κύριος is a word Greeks used for the lord of the house (father, husband, etc) that had dominion over the women. So God is the Lord over his bride, Israel.

My assessment of Scripture in this instance is quite different than yours, and I will insist that mine is correct. You are explicitly wrong. At Hosea 2:16 Yahweh states thus: “And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name. ”

Gesenius says of this passage: “my Baal, reference to the divine name used in the northern kingdom, here for the first time forbidden” (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius as translated by Edward Robinson, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1906, page 127).

There are instances in the Greek Scripture, when comparing it to the Masoretic text, where the Hebrew word for Baal was indeed rendered as κύριος. An examination of the Hatch & Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint at κύριος proves this. There are further examples in secular Greek writings where baal and κύριος are equated in meaning.

Additionally, it is the name Yahweh which has meaning, for He is the eternal I AM!

On his question about Luke 18:31-32, the nations referred here could still be Israel. Though, in this case, it is a quotation of an Old Testament prophecy.

Luke 18:31-32
And having taken the twelve aside, he said unto them, 'Lo, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things shall be completed--that have been written through the prophets—to the Son of Man, 32 for he shall be delivered up to the nations, and shall be mocked, and insulted, and spit upon,

However, the Judeans delivered Jesus to the Romans (divorced Israelites) to be executed. They didn't do their dirty deed themselves.

John 18:35
Pilate answered, 'Am I a Jew (Judean)? thy nation, and the chief priests did deliver thee up to me; what didst thou?'

You are grasping at straws, and your use of the conditional clause betrays it. I can come up with several other examples in Scripture where ἔθνος can clearly be translated heathen, and where it makes no sense to translate it as nation in those contexts. You also ignored Acts 21:10. Keep grasping at straws: you are bound to fall flat on your face.

As for the translation of Matthew 10:5,

Matthew 10:5 cannot contradict 10:6.

Mathew 10:6
and be going rather unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The house of Israel at this point are heathens and are among other heathens. So I am most assuredly saying that Jesus is telling his apostles to not avoid the nations.

You are lying about Matthew 10:5. It does not contradict 10:6 the way I understand it, considering the statement as it was made and the context of the knowledge which the apostles clearly had – and did not have – at the time in which it was made. The Greek of 10:5 is plain, and you are lying about the preposition. Your interpretation also assumes that the apostles had a knowledge at this time which Acts chapter 10 and other passages prove they did not have. Stop your lying.

I readily anticipate more personal insults.

The truth insults those who hate the truth.

[matthewott]

Bill, it really tickles me that you think you are boring us when you cross examine the finer details of Scripture. I wish I was at least familiar with Greek and Hebrew because I find these discussions fascinating. Being a former English major (I wanted to be an English teacher early on in high school), I can at least associate the understanding of genders and cases (as well as the other finer points of language) to your explanation of a proper Greek to English translation. It also does not take too much intelligence to open a dictionary, concordance, or lexicon to reveal that most words have MULTIPLE DEFINTIONS DEPENDING ON CONTEXT. That is fundamental knowledge in the development of any language skill. The debate on these finer points is not "splitting hairs" as my one friend refers, but is clarification of The Truth, otherwise one can completely alter the meaning of the Word of Yahweh and cause the text to be a witness against itself, like this schmuck cheimon is trying to do. What irritates me the most is that he assuredly knows he's no Greek scholar (though having some knowledge) and refuses to acknowledge not only the presence of a Greek scholar, but the obvious grammatical and contextual facts, as well as all the authentic references, used to refute his completely unsubstantiated and conjectural claims! He seems to have no sense of humility, or desire to further his education. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see his "logic" is flawed, and any CI adherent honest about their quest for the Truth would recognize when they're being corrected! I know that I sure re-examined what I thought to be "uncovered truths" when I discovered DSL CI. Many things I believed in, which I gleaned from various study sources, had to undergo the "trial by fire" that is the DSL CI scholarship; much did not withstand the test, and I thusly discarded. True Christianity is the search for The Truth, and can be viewed in the same logical process that science is: as a series of proposed hypotheses, constantly tested through research in order to prove or disprove. Cheimon must not have been a very good science student.

[JamesTheJust]

The way I view the entire debate of scripture is to first KNOW the truth of the underlying context. Having studied and listened to many CI men, like Bill, who have devoted their lives to uncovering the truth, we can be absolutely assured that the message of the gospel is meant for the Adamic race alone! We can also be assured that there are two races engaged in a flesh, blood and bone battle, just as surely as it is spiritual. (As in Heaven, so on earth) Based on these two fundamental truths, we can equally be assured that the scripture emphatically speaks to these truths and that these truths are themed throughout the message of what we call The Bible.

Therefore, ANY interpretation of scripture must be taken in this context and where more than one interpretation can be inferred (usually by beating the scripture until it confesses one's preferred definition) we must err on the side of these constant truths. YHWH does not change nor does He contradict Himself.

I view DSL as one eye and CII as the other and if one does not have eyes to see, they will run into the ditch of universalism.

Praise YHWH!

[wmfinck]

Cheimon's response to my latest post, as I received it from my original contact:

He doesn't seem to grasp the difference between criticism of work and personal insults. If he would have stuck to the facts and politely addressed me in a forum, I would happily read it and try to learn his reasoning and hopefully learn more. Since I am neither infallible nor all knowledgeable, I am always interested in learning from what others can teach me. Yet, he didn't do that. He came out with insults and derision and he continues doing just that.

It seems to me that cheimon is a girl. He cries foul because I called him a liar. But he is a liar: he presented himself as an authority, and therefore he has no excuse for lying about the Greek preposition εἰς and the accusative case. If he did not intend to lie, then he is still a fool, as I informed him, because he came off as an expert when clearly he is not. All I did was tell the truth. Pointing out a fool or a liar is not foul play, it is truth-telling. If cheimon does not like it, he can go cry to his mommy and see where that gets him. I do not do what I do to have friends. I am not a whore. I only call things exactly as I see them.

[Nayto]

I remember Cheimon. I don't know him in any way personally, but he was a stalwart fellow and I always appreciated his posts. His only "crime" was ignorance I think, but he is definitely well-meaning.