JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
well, you do have to consider that Hebrew is hardly our language.
All the more reason to hold literal inerrancy of scripture, when you're talking about translations, as suspect.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Absolutely. Translations are at best approximations.
That is why I read TNKH in Hebrew and Aramaic (the book of Daniel is in Aramaic).
Combine approximations with a theological agenda and one has a train wreck. How many haggish women died in New England because of the Puritan Agenda?
ruveyn
so Rebbe whats your translation?
Don't afford a hag/poisoner/spell-caster a living. Which is NOT the same as kill the hag. It means do not employ the hag.
King Saul fudged and employed the Hag of Ein Dor.
that was the gist that I took from it.
Ok...so why is that particular hag portrayed as being in fear for her life once she found out who it was employing her?
Also, sorcery is a forbidden practice, probably because it attempts to manipulate the spirit world, at worst presuming to make the practitioner equal to or greater than a deity, not to mention infidelity to YHWH. And YHWH commands that no form of idolatry is to be tolerated in the Holy Land. The command in conquering Canaan was to wipe out all those remaining in the land, killing them if they could not be at least forcibly deported. It isn't unreasonable to conclude that sorcery, being an act of treachery in this context, is punishable by death within the borders of a theocracy composed of God's covenant people.
The evidence suggests the crime of necromancy is punishable by death. "Do not allow a [witch/poisoner/hag/magician/sorcerer/necromancer] to live" seems plenty plausible to me.