The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Rev. Rye]

---

Notice that the definition includes a concordance of the way it's used in the Bible.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 16x

The KJV translates Strongs H5377 in the following manner: deceive (12x), greatly (1x), beguiled me (1x), seize (1x), utterly (1x).

In the Bible, it is usually translated as "decieve." The sole time in the Bible is translated into anything potentially resembling anything sexual is in that verse, and, given that it seems most of the translations using that word are based around the King James Bible, I'm inclined to consider it was the translators' committee's idea to use that word. Why? Well, let's look at this little object lesson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryAyTzGA-dk

This might seem a bit off topic at first, but, if you look closely, you'll see why. You see, in Into The Woods, especially in this film version, The Big Bad Wolf is played like a sexual predator. Some stage versions go so far as to give him a giant, dangling, penis (Disney, thankfully, had the sense to avoid this little costuming choice). However, it should be noted that there's no indication that he ever actually sexually assaults Red Riding Hood. He simply eats her.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jExGlGuYOM8

So, why did Sondheim choose to have the Big Bad Wolf portrayed in such a way that he comes across like a child rapist even though he doesn't actually do anything to her that hasn't been done in countless other versions?

When you can have an answer to that, you'll understand why the translators of the King James Bible translated "nasha" as "beguiled." Because it will be the same goddamn answer.

---

Oh, so you're going to dodge and refuse to answer the 2 questions I specifically asked you?

Question #1: Were you wrong on implying that governments were not corporations?

Question #2: Were you wrong on implying that 'seduce' was not included in the definition of the word 'nasha'?

1) Yes, that probably might not have been the better "Sovereign Citizen" points to bring up to compare their crazy beliefs to yours. It's certainly arguable. The point is, I've heard Sovereign Citizens look at words, take idiosyncratic definitions, and latch on to those definitons in contexts where they don't work, and they still make more sense than the arguments you have used in this thread.

2) It's one thing to say a word has a specific meaning. It's reasonable to say, in extrabiblical Hebrew texts, "Nasha" may be used to mean "seduce." It's another thing to say that it has that specific meaning in an instance where that context plainly isn't there, and, in fact, points to a different, more regularly used, meaning. Your constantly bringing up that "seduce" is one translation for that word is a red herring when the context for actual, sexual, seduction IS. NOT. THERE. In my new post that you just dismissed as dodging the question (and the Strong Concordance we both used in this thread), I pointed out that "Nasha" is used 16 times, and only one use is potentially sexual, and that one is only sexual because you argue it.