Though I am not in
a position to judge gods commandments, I was not convinced by your
analysis. You say that the Amalekites were nomads and as such it was
merciful to kill the women and children. I checked the Old Testament in
the original Greek language and it makes reference that in addition to
cows and sheep, also food-stuff and vine yards were also spared. As
vineyards cannot be transported on camels your argument fails and it
looks that you are trying to mislead people.
The question puzzled me for a few minutes,
because I have never heard of the Amalekites having vineyards at all,
in all my research. I had to go looking to find the passage you alluded
to.
But as it turns out, the mention of
vineyards is NOT in the original language. The original language of the
Old Testament is Hebrew (and a few chapters in Aramaic)--NOT in Greek.
In the Hebrew original, there is absolutely no mention of , word for,
'vineyards'.
Here is a picture of the Hebrew original (with English translations below the Hebrew words--Hebrew reads from right to left):
The Greek you refer to is a LATER translation-paraphrase, of varying quality. In this case, it mis-translates TWO words from the original Hebrew (referring to the above text):
"ἔδεσμα, ατος, τό, (ἔδω) meat, food, Pl.Ti.73a, Antiph.26.10: pl., eatables, meats,
Batr.31, X.Hier.1.23,
Pl.R.559b, Antiph.82.1,
Porph.Abst.1.55:
metaph., οὐ γὰρ ἡδύσματι
χρῆταιἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐδέσματι τοῖς ἐπιθέτοις Arist.Rh.1406a19:—Dim. ἐδεσμάτιον, τό, Procl.ad Hes.Op.41." [ Liddell,
H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (Rev.
and augm. throughout /). Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford
University Press.]
So, the most modern/strict translation I can find (WBC) gives this for verse nine:
"Yet Saul and the troops had pity on Agag and on the best of the sheep and cattle, the fatlings and the lambs, and on everything that was good." [Klein, R. W. (2002). Vol. 10: Word Biblical Commentary : 1 Samuel (Page 144).]
............................................................
Now, there IS a small problem
with the word for 'second/double' (translated as 'foodstuffs" or
"fruits" in English translations of the Greek Translation, the
Septuagint), as professional translators note, but in NO CASES is it
ever taken to mean anything other than ANIMALS:
The fatlings. The Hebrew word is literally "second" or "double portion" and the meaning is uncertain. (...) Fox takes this to mean "second best" that is, "But Sha'ul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and the cattle, and the second-best, the lambs and all that was goodly." NJPS and TOB attempt to translate the MT, saying "the second-born," and some have suggested that the second calf born to a cow was of greater value than the firstborn. But the MT is obscure, and different small changes in the Hebrew text have therefore been suggested so that the text will read "food with much fat" or "fat animals.".. The words utterly destroy and utterly destroyed are technical terms... NJB maintains the technical aspect, as in verse 8: "They did not want to consign these to the curse of destruction; they consigned only what was poor and worthless."... CTAT gives a {C} rating to the MT and suggests that the meaning is that some animals, called "the seconds," were kept and fattened after the firstborn had been given to God. A translation such as "best calves" or "fattest calves" is recommended." [Omanson, R. L., & Ellington, J. (2001). A handbook on the first book of Samuel. UBS handbook series (Page 314). New York: United Bible Societies.]So, I have to conclude that there is no actual mention of 'vineyards' or 'fruits' (although the Amalekites would have had fruits from their raiding of other peoples, probably) in the original Hebrew texts. The word 'vineyard' in the later Greek translation of the Hebrew original is simply a mistranslation of the Hebrew, and modern translators (Christian or Jewish) never make the same mistake.
I confused him
somewhat, so we had one more round--
Thanks for the quick
reply. I know that the original texts of the Old Testament were not in
Greek. I always thought that the translation of seventy wise people
tasked to provide an accurate translation, at the risk of death if not
so, must be accurate.
The text I mentioned
in my email is according to the Septuagint. I did check in another
version of the Greek Bible that also claims translation from the
originals and I noticed that this translation, though same word for
word everywhere else that I could see, has the text closer to the one
you are showing below.
I have a second
question for you:
I do not understand
Hebrew but it looks to me that there are two versions you are showing
below. Which one is the correct one? Why are there variations?
ABC
I sent an explanation back...
(where
the TOP LINE contraction "didn't" was broken into its parts "did" and
"not" in the LINE BELOW for the student.)
English
doesn't have many forms like this, but French, Spanish, and OLD
English does -- although some of the forms 'merged' over time.
So,
if you look down at the word translated "and all the possession", you
will see it divided into FOUR parts.
Reading from right to left:
DIDN'T
DID NOT
[You can also
see a 'hyphen' in the combined form, separating the first two parts
from the second two parts.]
Does
that help clear it up, friend?
-------------------------------------------------------
[ .... notnomads.html ........ ]
The Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christianthinktank.com]
(Reference Abbreviations)