Talk:Book of Jasher (biblical references)
|WikiProject Judaism||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Religious texts||(Rated Stub-class)|
There is no "Masonic religion". Freemasonry is not a religion; it makes no such claim, nor does it offer a plan of salvation. It encourages men to be active in their church and seek their salvation there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This book is not lost. (unsigned)
As this the English wikipedia it should refer to this work by its normal name in English. I propose to move in a few days unless anyone objects. PatGallacher 01:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I am silly, but wouldn't the presence of the reference to a book which contained a poem about Saul (II Samuel I) date the book to at least the time of Saul and date therefore either the book or the reference to about that time at least? 126.96.36.199 21:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not silly, but you're assuming that Samuel was written in the time of Saul, and has remained unchanged since then, which isn't a safe assumption. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Samuel#Authorship Elmo iscariot (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. There is a link on the CCEL web site to a book published in 1887 in SALT LAKE CITY: PUBLISHED BY J.H. PARRY & COMPANY
It claims to be " FAITHFULLY TRANSLATED (1840) FROM THE ORIGINAL HEBREW INTO ENGLISH" 
Am I right in assuming this is another Mormon "finding" of lost texts?
- Gordon James
No, the book is a translation of the Hebrew "the upright or correct record" (literal translation of the title). It was called the book of Jasher "by those who were ignorant of the Hebrew language" ie the translators of the King James bible assuming that Jasher was a prophet not just a record according to the translator. The 1887 Salt Lake publication seems to be a reprint as inside is certificates from Isaac Nordheimer, H.V. Nathan, Samuel Turner, and George Bush from April 1840, all of whom are from New York with exception of Mr. Nathan, who is from Jamaica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
My major malfunction with this genera is not that I don't believe them as much as that without a text in either proto-semitic, Hebrew, or even Aramaic, there is no possibility of checking the ancient to the modern. As much as I love The Book of The Righteous, and others, there have been gigantic strides in linguistics since 1840. Which is why I have to be extremely careful using the 1611 KJV, edited by a paedofile. Since there is no translation from the Ethiopic version into English, and the simple fact that I am illerterate in Ethiopic I must either rely on a Greek or Hebrew original.
If in fact, this book can be located in some form, fashion, or pieces that can be verified against the Talmudic and Midrashic points; I would be more than willing to examine the evidence. As things stand, all we have is a supposed printed 17th Century block letter non-masora text that was deciphered in the 19th Century by apparently one person who made no copy of the original. That really worries me!
Today's translator's usually carefully preserve the original text in both linear and columnar form. The Tri-Consonantal languages usage of the construct requires extreme caution as there are often multiple possibilities that may not become contextually apparent without careful examination of the syntax structure before and after the gloss in question. I personnally, have encountered some very difficult passages in Judges that may not be adequately rendered into our English, without a great deal of study. Without an original to work with; any cock-a-maimy rendering can and often does result.
There are numerous examples. The Angel of The LORD did not order Abraham to execute his only true heir. He asked "Please slay your only son"! In Exodus a salient error occurs in chapter three. The burning bush was not simply a landscaping bush, it was in fact a burning THORN bush. In fact, the same type of thorn bush that the ram was probably entangled in when Abraham was ordered to not kill Isaac. What also seems to be a rather curious anomally, is the heavily documented "Crown of Thorns."
- Yes, there is a book under the name "Book of Jasher". Actually, there are several. Many of them are "pious frauds" (nice term to put a smiley face on a basic lie) designed to fill in the gap. The article should probably discuss this. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)