Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lamb of God vs Pig of God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lamb of God vs Pig of God

    Hi Everyone
    This post is concerning the ongoing discussion between Old Shepherd and myself regarding a quote from Laurence Gardner, which I originally had posted at Eliyah's forum two years ago, and was carried over to this forum a couple months ago.

    Original post
    My reply after Old Shepherds remarks

    I have been searching, off and on, for almost two years now to know the truth of this matter. After the issue was again brought up here at this forum I contacted a person in New Guinea and I received this response to my query this morning.
    Dear Sandy,

    I'm sorry that I am so late in responding to your email of Sept. 2. Shirley and I have been out in the "bush" for two months where there are no phones - and so no email.

    Concerning using "pig" for "lamb" in Papua New Guinea, it is possible that this could have been used as many groups use "pig" as a generic term for "large four-footed-animal" much as English used to use the term "man" to refer to both an adult male and generically for humans. But since there are over 150 translations into languages in PNG, I can't give you the name of a specific language that would have used that.

    I would not encourage the use of that term now for two reasons. First, there has been more contact with the outside world and with many young people receiving some education, sheep are not as unknown as they used to be. Second, the pig is a detested animal for Jews and was considered unclean in the Old Testament. People who know this would consider using pig as inappropriate as they would see how it was contrary to Jewish culture. They might use something like "sheep-pig" where pig is understood as generic for large animal and not a pig. A camel would be called a "camel-pig".

    I hope this is helpful and not too late to help you with your research.

    Sincerely,

    Bob Litteral
    If certain people here feel the need to verify this response they can contact the person via their (Bob & Shirley Litteral) email address [email protected]

    Also I have been in contact with someone who lives in New Zealand and knows Laurence Gardner. She contacted him for me regarding this issue and here is his reply.
    Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this but Laurence has just got back from a couple of weeks in Canada. Here's his reply to your question:

    Quote:
    This particular question is rather difficult to answer fully. The 'pig' item is not mentioned in the Bloodline book, but I happened to hear about it before I gave that particular lecture, so I popped it into the talk. The information came from a BBC TV programme that I saw back in March 1997 concerning the world's various translations of the Bible subsequent to the original 17th-century King James translation. They read the item that I cited from the Papua edition on the show, but beyond that I really cannot help with anything more specific.
    Unquote:

    Karen
    I am not at liberty to give out Karens email address.

    I hope this will finally lay this issue to rest, but it probably will not.
    Sandy

  • #2
    Here is the initial post.

    We can cite an extreme version of how this works in practice. We can look at a Bible currently issued today in Pacific Papua New Guinea where there are tribes who experience familiarity on a daily basis with no other animal but the pig. In the current edition of their Bible, every animal mentioned in the text, whether originally an ox, lion, ass, sheep or whatever, is now a pig! Even Jesus, the traditional "Lamb of God", in this Bible is "the Pig of God"!
    Note, this is stated as fact! To which I responded with this quote from Encarta which proves the highlighted portion of the above statement to be false.
    "The wild animal life of Papua New Guinea is abundant and varied. Commonly found mammals include the tree kangaroo, wallaby, wild pig, and dingo, as well as varieties of squirrel, rat, bat, and mouse." Papua, New Guinea," Microsoft® Encarta® 96 Encyclopedia.© 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. ©
    http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/001465.html

    You quote from your missionary friend,
    Concerning using "pig" for "lamb" in Papua New Guinea, it is possible that this could have been used as many groups use "pig" as a generic term for "large four-footed-animal" much as English used to use the term "man" to refer to both an adult male and generically for humans. But since there are over 150 translations into languages in PNG, I can't give you the name of a specific language that would have used that.

    I would not encourage the use of that term now for two reasons. First, there has been more contact with the outside world and with many young people receiving some education, sheep are not as unknown as they used to be. Second, the pig is a detested animal for Jews and was considered unclean in the Old Testament. People who know this would consider using pig as inappropriate as they would see how it was contrary to Jewish culture. They might use something like "sheep-pig" where pig is understood as generic for large animal and not a pig. A camel would be called a "camel-pig".
    Parts of this reply are very similar to my response from 2 years ago.
    It just so happens, this scarecrow has a brain and knows something about New Guinea. I have an interest in WWII and have read quite a bit about the coast watchers. Not only does N.G. have the indigenous animals I listed, but cattle and sheep have been imported for over a hundred years.
    Also the statement about pigs is ridiculous on its face. How could Jesus be the "pig" of God, if pigs are unclean? How would a so-called Bible like this explain the "pig" of God killing a herd of pigs, in the NT? And since, according to Shaniyah, the only animal they have are pigs, if they become Torah observant then they would have to starve because they do have have any other meat.
    The quote purportedly from Gardner.
    This particular question is rather difficult to answer fully. The 'pig' item is not mentioned in the Bloodline book, but I happened to hear about it before I gave that particular lecture, so I popped it into the talk. The information came from a BBC TV programme that I saw back in March 1997 concerning the world's various translations of the Bible subsequent to the original 17th-century King James translation. They read the item that I cited from the Papua edition on the show, but beyond that I really cannot help with anything more specific.
    What was stated as fact 2 years ago, we now learn was something he supposedly "happened to hear" on an unidentified radio program, by an unknown, unidentified speaker.
    We can cite an extreme version of how this works in practice. We can look at a Bible currently issued today in Pacific Papua New Guinea where there are tribes who experience familiarity on a daily basis with no other animal but the pig. In the current edition of their Bible, every animal mentioned in the text, whether originally an ox, lion, ass, sheep or whatever, is now a pig! Even Jesus, the traditional "Lamb of God", in this Bible is "the Pig of God"!
    In Britain the BBC is the only game in town. Every conceivable type of program is aired. Here Gardner says he cannot give any specific information. We do not know if the alleged program, he supposedly heard, was given by Bible scholars, Muslims, of whom there are thousands now in Britain, Atheists, Crack Pots, Jesus Seminar, or whatever. Is this enough to challenge the validity of the Bible, as you did and seem to continue doing?

    And this says nothing about the other false statements Gardner made against the Bible. i.e. That Jesus did not live in Nazareth because it did not exist until 60 AD. Archaeological evidence proves Nazareth has been inhabited since a few hundred years BC. That Mary was not a virgin based on one Latin word, virgo, in the Vulgate, while ignoring the fact that Mary herself said she was a virgin. And there are several other falsehoods, which I refuted on that thread and others.
    Nullus Frigidus Auxilium Gratia
    Zaqunra'ahyahuw

    Comment


  • #3
    Dear Old Shepherd
    It must be so very comforting to be so perfect and so right in all that you say and do, and that you in your perfectness can always set those of us who are not so perfect straight.

    May all continue to bow to the greatness of your perfectness.
    Sandy

    Comment


    • #4
      Dear Sandy,

      I'm not sure this even merits a response. I guess, I'll just have to go back to my laundromat. I am not perfect, far from it but I live and function in the real world and I am as demanding in my faith, or more so, as I am required to be on my job. I cannot go to my supervisor with "I think", "I guess", or "I heard." I must check and recheck my facts, before I make any recommendation to my superiors. Should I or should I not check and recheck supposed facts, in the same manner, whenever someone challenges or attacks my faith? Or should I just accept everything that is posted on the internet, or in some $5 book available only from somebody's website, as the absolute truth without checking anything?

      To the best of my knowledge, I have never tried to prove a point by posting anything from a single source that I could not verify from several other reputable, authoritative sources. Just as in my work I check and double check. I'm not perfect, whenever I submit a proposal to my superiors, I want to be sure. Before I accept or defend a point of faith, I want to be sure. What I perceive you saying is, if you post anything anti-Christian/Bible everyone should just accept it, without question.

      I served in combat for two years. Before I ever fired a weapon, or called in artillery or air strikes I had to be absolutely sure and I was. I was never, ever penalized for not shooting or dropping bombs, because I did not have enough information. But, just as in the Afghanistan situation, some people I personally knew did some shooting or dropped bombs/artillery at the wrong time/place and were in greater or lesser degrees of trouble.

      I have used this analogy many times before but it always seems to fall on deaf ears and/or blind eyes. When I go to a doctor, I expect him/her to have been trained at a reputable college, to have been licensed by the appropriate boards, etc. When a surgeon puts me on the operating table and opens me up from sternum to groin and removes 1/3 of my large intestine, as one did, I want someone who knows what he is doing, who is thoroughly trained, has years of practice, and recognition in his field. Not someone who can't fully explain the procedure because it is something he "happened to hear" on some television programme 3-4 years ago. Why should I or any other reasonable, rational, person be any less cautious and careful about their faith?

      On the other hand it appears that there are a lot of people who want to tear down the Bible and the Christian faith and will believe, and disseminate, anything derogatory, anything negative, from any source, without verifying anything. From what I have seen you post concerning Gardner, and others, you are one of those people.

      As a Christian I feel it is an obligation, a moral duty, whenever I see anyone attacking my faith/scriptures to check, recheck, and triple check and if false information is being presented as fact, to verify it and expose it. That is exactly what I have done. It has absolutely nothing to do with perfection, just a dedication to truth, some time, a mouse, and a browser. The information is there for anyone to check.
      Nullus Frigidus Auxilium Gratia
      Zaqunra'ahyahuw

      Comment


      • #5
        well said Old shepard, very well said.
        and this goes to all people, with and without faith.

        shalom to you brother and to you too sandy.

        AntotiYah
        ONLY IN MESSIAH KRISTOS DO WE FIND OUR REAL LIFE, AND THIS REALITY AND TRUE, REAL LIFE IS AT THE PLACE WHERE YeHSooH SITS OF HONOR AND GLORY!

        Comment

        • Working...
          X