Quote:
| Originally Posted by STONY
Morganite, I Don't Know If I Know You. But, I Do Know The Teachers I Have Had In The Past And If My One Teachers Said He Received This Info From Old Manuscripts My Trust Is In Him.
Another One Is "spare The Rod And Spoil The Child."
What Was Actually Spoken In Paraphrased Form Is This. "the Man Who Refuses To Bring His Child Up On God's Precepts Hates That Child."
How Is That Derived From A Translation?
If A Man Doesn't Bring His Child Up On God's Word, He Cares So Little About That Child That He Doesn't Even Care If The Child Grows Up And Splits The Gates Of Hell Wide Open Apon [sic] Entry. Can You See The Concept Here?
|
[SIZE="4"]STONY.
First,
"Old Manuscripts" could be anything, not even biblical documents. Which old manuscript did he say it was? It is well to be suspicious of people who say they have read things in
"Old Manuscripts" unless they provide references for you to read it yourself. Will you ask him what and where it is?
Second,
“Spare the rod and spoil the child,” is not found anywhere in the Bible, neither is it in any of the ancient manuscripts that are copies and edited versions of the original monographs.
The Proverbs (13-24) reads,
“He that spareth his rod hateth his son.”
The phrase
“spare the rod, spoil the child” is actually from a burlesque poem from the 1600s by Samuel Butler, and is actually about sex. The whole phrase reads:
“Love is a boy by poets styled
Then spare the rod and spoil the child.”
It is a bawdy poem about sex between a fat man and a widow: hardly a decent source of parenting advice. So why is it so often claimed to be a biblical quote? The answer to that is that it is only so claimed to be Biblical by those who are not familiar with the Bible. No Bible scholar or student would fall into such a basic error. Your ‘teacher’ is sermonising on what he mistakenly believes is part of the original text of the Bible. He is wrong.
The phrase does not appear in the Bible, and though I can see the what you are driving at in the long quote it is not correct to say that those words appear in that form, or anything close to it, in the Hebrew Bible text of Proverbs 13.24, which in literal translation is:
"He who holds back his rod is hating his son he, but loving him seeks him with correction."
Bible Hebrew is always terse, never explanisve, and some words must be supplied to make it make sense in English and to make it read elegantly.
Translation must always be done without introducing ideas that are not present in the original. When a translator introduces extended or amplified ideas based on a simple text, he has overstepped the bounds of his science and is
'adding to the scriptures' in an unacceptable way. In those circumstances, he is
”Wresting the scripture” and brings condemnation onto himself.
Peter denounces them with:
“ … they that are unlearned and unstable wrest also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
When a sermoniser takes a simple text and amplifies it into something more extensive, then he has left hermeneutical exegesis far behind and is preaching his own ideas that he
'thinks' are based on what is written. In your example he is clearly shown to be wrong.
Paul gives some sound advice to those who hang onto the words of their teachers as if they are handed down on Sinai:
“Prove (test, examine, prove, scrutinise, to see whether a teaching is genuine or not)
all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
When a teacher quotes what he believes is a Bible verse, but it is not in the Bible but in a lewd song, the wise will ask themselves what other major mistakes he has made.
M
RGANITE[/SIZE]
Linear Mode
