The king's translators stumbled onto something which to them seemed confusing, apparently, in the chapter of the canon which describes the birth of religious practice: Genesis 4. They found it necessary to add words to a verse in order to make sense of what they were reading in the original manuscript.
The translators render Genesis 4:20 thus: "And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle [Genesis 4:20]." The italicized words "of such as have" don't exist in the original manuscript. They were added, presumably because men don't dwell in cattle.
Are not all things possible with God? Conversely: Why wasn't the additional verbiage limited to one word, "have;" as in, "he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and have cattle?" Is the translators' clumsiness militancy against censorship showing itself?
Genesis 4:20 translated directly would read: "And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents and cattle." Does this make Jabal the Father of the Lamb of God? Are not all the sacrifices of the altar made of 'clean' animals-- which is to say-- cattle? Are not all sacrifices of the altar men in beastly guise? Is not the goat of the sin offering a man's sin? As such, is it not, in application, that man who offers it? My finger may not be all of me, but it is me, and it bears a seal indicating it is so: my fingerprint.
Genesis 4 describes events at a time when cattle weren't kept and cultivated for men's nutrition. Men weren't allowed to eat animal protein until after the flood [Genesis 9]. Therefore, in the epoch described in Genesis 4, it's certainly possible that the largest portion of a rancher's consumer base would be the religious sector. Do not men's souls abide in their religious practices? If men dwell not in cattle: why did Lot need to escape to Zoar for his soul to live [Genesis 19:20]?
No comments:
Post a Comment