Counter

Pageviews last month

Friday, 28 July 2006

Celebrating the reversal of Babel

Counter It is sometimes enlightening to go back and read an old newspaper--in fact, it is probably far more profitable to read a newspaper 100 years after it was printed than 100 hours. This we shall do today in reflecting on the exuberance and apocalyptic fervor that accompanied the precursor to the Internet. I speak of the laying of the first transatlantic cable on August 16, 1858--which for the first time made possible the idea of instant communication throughout the world; an idea that finally came into fruition with the advent of the Internet nearly 150 years later.

The first trans-Atlantic cable was a fragile thing; it failed shortly after the following series of accounts ends. What isn't mentioned in them is the actual text of the first (test) message. Several hours in the process of transmission, it simply read, "Glory to God in the highest; on earth, peace and good will toward men." The first actual message was one of congratulations from Queen Victoria to President Buchanan. His reply read, "It is a triumph more glorious, because far more useful to mankind, than was ever won by conqueror on the field of battle. May the Atlantic telegraph, under the blessing of heaven, prove to be a bond of perpetual peace and friendship between the kindred nations, and an instrument destined by Divine Providence to diffuse religion, civilization, liberty, and law throughout the world."

Now I quote from a New-York-based reporter for the Guardian of London. Bear in mind that some of these dispatches may themselves have been amongst the first messages sent over the cable.

August 25: "At Washington the feel shown amounted to 'transport.' At Albany people were 'wild with excitement.' At Boston there was 'great rejoicing;' at Worcester 100 guns were fired; at Rochester a 'feeling of glorification' seized the citizens; Utica was illuminated; at Syracuse a band and a company of militia went about, 'spirited' speeches were made. . . "

September 1: "America has gone mad to a great degree on the subject of the Atlantic Telegraph. Besides the demonstrations we mentioned last week, there were others all over the continent. August 17th was the day agreed upon for a simultaneous demonstration. At New York the day broke with salvos of artillery, including one of 100 guns from the City-hall. At noon there was a further salute of 200 guns, the bells of all the churches were rung, youngsters kept up the fusillade throughout the streets with small arms [!], and by way of making as much noise as possible, the whistles of all the steam-engines in the city screeched continuously from twelve to one o'clock."

September 6: The prevailing topic which has almost absorbed everything else for the past month has been the successful laying of the Atlantic Cable. The people have been almost wild with the excitement, and scare a village throughout the land which has not had a celebration of the event."

Thus far the unprecedented exuberance. Now the apocalyptic fervor, as related to the Guardian by an American journalist:

"The earth has witnessed nothing half as auspicious--nothing so full of glad tidings to mankind--since the birth of the Redeemer. If the 'morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy at the creation of the world, surely the eye of faith, without impiety, may reverently recognise in this union of the two mighty physical divisions of that creation a providential dispensation that may inspire even the angels in heaven with delight. It is well, therefore, that in many of the churches yesterday, the 'telegraph' was in the pulpit, as elsewhere, the one idea--for the Church and Christianity are, in the end, to gather in a rich harvest of its fruits. The golden chain of human brotherhood has had a strong bright link added to it, which, with God's blessing, will in due time bring all nations, all kindreds, all tongues, within its friendly and loving embrace. The Orient and the Occident clasp hands! The East and the West are one, and with the universal diffusion of universal intelligence good men may hopefully look forward to the dawn of the blessed millennium."

So speaks the transcendentalist, who sees in information alone the hope for mankind's salvation, and the more of it the better. But further:

The Mayor of New York said: "The important and beneficial results to our race which this great event promises cannot be wholly anticipated, but that it will tend to the perpetual peace and increased happiness of the two leading nations who have joined in the labour and cost of the enterprise, cannot be doubted, while itself the offspring of science, and that civilisation which is founded on Christian principles, it announces to the whole world the reign of lasting peace and good-will to all men."

Note the universal feeling that the Cable was a work of God which could not help but spread the blessings of Christianity to the whole world, yeah, could not help but bring in the millennium itself. And this feeling was not limited to government officials; it was preached from the very pulpits, as this from the Bishop of New Jersey:

"Was ever utterance so fit? Was ever fittest utterance so startling, so solemn, so sublime--flashing out from the burning land of Christian hearts in Ireland; flashing along through the caverns of the sea; flashing along among the buried treasures of the deep, flashing along through the layers of old Leviathan, flashing along among the remains of them that perished in the Flood, flashing up among the primeval forests of Newfoundland, flashing out from there throughout the world."

The reporter continues: "It seems to me that in a sort the edict of Babel is reversed. The dispersion of the nations is to be undone in God's time, and in God's way, by bringing them together in Him. And I might almost venture to say that we have in prospect as it were a renewal and repetition of the Pentecostal wonder, when all the nations of the world shall hear in their own tongue the wonderful works of God, when man shall speak to man from one end of the world to the other, of the Gospel of Salvation, and of the glory of the Lamb."

Did the Cable bring in universal global harmony? Or did it make possible for the first time such undreamed of apocalyptic nightmares as World War and Thermonuclear Annihilation?
The century that followed gave the lie to both the exuberance and the optimism that greeted this Reversal of Babel.

God is not mocked; there is no shortcut, electronic or otherwise, to His Kingdom.

Tuesday, 18 July 2006

The Only Son: The TNIV in John 3:16

Counter John 3:16 is beyond doubt the best known verse of the entire New Testament. Therefore any Bible translator setting out to change it had better tread lightly. And this is exactly what the CBT did when producing the NIV.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, [or, his only begotten Son] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

What the CBT was reluctant to do in 1973, they did unreservedly in 2001 in producing the TNIV:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This, we are told, is now even more accurate a translation than before. But this assurance misses the main point--whether or not mongenes should be tranlated literally as 'only begotten' or idiomatically as 'only', the point is that the CBT didn't translate this verse as it stands in their chosen text. The NA27 Greek NT, following the favoured manuscripts of mainline textual critics of the past century and a quarter, reads as follows (literally translated):

"For thus God loved the world, that the Son--the only-begotten one--he gave, that everyone believing in him should not perish but should have life eternal."

There is only a single variant in this verse between the Traditional Text and the Critical Text, and it is the deletion of the word 'autou' ('his'). Thus the Traditional Text would read,

"For thus God loved the world, that his Son--the only-begotten one--he gave, that everyone believing in him should not perish but should have life eternal."

The CBT lacked the courage to accurately translate the reading of their own base text. Instead they translated the reading of the much-maligned Textus Receptus.

Why?

Update August 14, 2009: Thank you, "John," for answering this question (See comment). Looking at Hebrews 1:1, I see that the NIV translated their text "the fathers" as "our fathers" based on the principle you identify. So indeed my accusation was without basis. Rather than taking this post offline in embarrassment, I'll leave it up to show that I really do welcome feedback (even on 3-year-old posts), and strive to keep this blog true to the truth as much as is possible.

Monday, 10 July 2006

"Peddling" the word of God?

97629 ou gar esmen ws oi polloi kaphleuontes ton logon tou Qeou
"For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God" -NKJV

It's been said facetiously that a good definition of the KJV-only position is the belief that any Bible that doesn't have 'corrupt' in 2 Corinthians 2:17, is. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that, I would like to critically evaluate the ways that kapeyleuontes has been translated into English.

To begin with, kapeyleuontes is a hapax legomenon, that is, a word only used once in the New Testament.
Thus it is difficult to translate without having any other context to help determine meaning. This is some of what the B-A-G lexicon has under this word:
kapeleuo. trade in, peddle, huckster (of retail trade), Isaiah 1:22 also fig. adulterate (so Vulgate, Syriac, Gothic). . .

Let's look at Isaiah 1:22 as literally translated from the Septuagint and the Vulgate:

LXX: Your silver is worthless, thy wine merchants mix the wine with water.

Vulgate: Thy silver is turned into dross: thy wine is mingled with water.

OK, so the LXX is making a passive into an active and supplying the subject, which has been translated into English as 'merchants'. But what is being emphasized in this verse is not the act of selling the wine, but the act of illicitly diluting (i.e. corrupting) it before the sale. It's in parallel with the analogous act of debasing the currency (which also fails to come across in most translations, but that's another point). Thus from this use of kapeyloi in the Greek OT, we see the connotation of selling under false pretenses. Moving on now to 2 Corinthians 2:17, we look again at the Vulgate:

"For we are not as many, adulterating the word of God"

How was this translated in the earliest English Bible? Let's check Wycliffe (All spelling is updated):

"For we be not as many, that do adultery by the word of God."

OK, Wycliffe misunderstood the connotation of adulterantes here as adultery rather than adulteration.

Better move on to Tyndale, who had the advantage of being able to read both Erasmus' eclectic Greek text and his Latin translation & commentary--as well as Luther's translation into German based on Erasmus. He translated:

"For we are not as many are, which chop and change with the word of God"

See the return to the idea of 'adulterate'; Luther had:

"For we are not as the many, which falsify the word of God"

This meaning continued to be carried forward in subsequent revisions of the English New Testament.

Coverdale 1535 left Tyndale as he found it, apparently using an English idiom of the 16th century:

"For we are not as many are, which chop & change with the word of God"

Geneva 1560 changed the wording to reflect the 'merchant' connotation, but left the 'corrupt' connotation in a footnote:

"For we are not as many, which *make merchandise of the word of God" (*that is, preach for gain, & corrupt it to serve men's affections)

Bishops' 1568 removed the footnote, but--significantly--returned to the wording of Tyndale:
"For we are not as many are, which chop & change with the word of God "

The KJV 1611 left out the footnote, but incorporated its meaning into the text, giving a different shade of meaning in a new footnote:

"For we are not as many which *corrupt (*deal deceitfully with) the word of God"

In all of these English versions we see the difficulty of fully expressing the full connotation of kapeleuo. It consists of:

1) Taking a pure product (whether coins or wine) and mixing in a much cheaper product of little intrinsic value;
2) Passing the adulterated product off as the real thing;
3) In order to realize dishonest gain.

Thus Paul is referring to other preachers who
1) Take the word of God & mix into it corrupting elements;
2) Pass this 'new and improved' gospel off as genuine;
3) In order to realize some profit from their audience.

The charge the KJV-only people are making is that this exactly describes what the purveyors of the New Modern Versions are doing--and that they are covering their tracks by mistranslating the verse.

To their credit, I don't think the Modern Versions do any worse of a job at covering the full meaning of kapeyleuontes than earlier ones did:

RV 1881-1901: "For we are not as the many, *corrupting (*or making merchandise of) the word of God"
RSV 1946-1973: "For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word"
NASB 1960-1995: "For we are not like many, *peddling (*corrupting) the word of God"
NIV 1973-2006: "Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit"
NRSV 1989: "For we are not peddlers of God's word like so many"

So we see that regardless of the version, only element #1 or #3 comes across in translation. If we we include footnotes, RV has both, and only NASB has element #2--but at the expense of omitting #3.

Jay P. Green suggests 'hawking' which carries well the idea of #3 and lesser so #2, but gives no indication of #1. The Strong's Lexicon has:
--from kapelos (a huckster); to retail, i.e. (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): corrupt.

The most succinct way of combining the information found in all of the above versions is:

"For we are not like many--hawking a watered-down version of God's word purely for profit."

Ouch. That does strike a bit close to home, in view of the copyright protection carried by all the big modern versions, each of which, despite their copyrighted distinctions, claims the title 'The Holy Bible'.

Saturday, 24 June 2006

How The Hand of God in Iraq prevented WWIII

Counter It's incredible sometimes to be able to peek behind the scenes and see God at work. Who ever would have thought that the reason so few coalition forces died in the 1991 Iraq war was due to the the actions of a single highly placed Christian man? As I read his account, all I could think of was: Here is a modern day Daniel, facing down the modern day Nebechadnezzar and living to tell about it. Here's the story of Gewargis ('Georges') Sada (translated from the broken English at the linked site--just click on the title to hyperlink):
------------------------
I joined the Iraqi Air Academy in 1958. I was trained in Russia for four years and then, after that, I came back to Iraq. I flew the fighter aircraft, the MiGs. In 1964, our government sent seven of us to Turkey, because Americans had one slot open for pilot instrument instruction, for flying at night in bad weather and instrument flying. They wanted the qualified people from Iraq, but could only take only one man. So we seven took the exam and thank God I was number 1. So I came to Texas, Randolph Air Force Base, in Lackland, in 1964. I was trained as an instructor for bad weather, night and instrument flying. I came back home and then I did a lot of work in the fighter squadrons.

I served in the Air Force for about 40 years. I was retired in 1986 as two-star general. I was supposed to be promoted to three-star, but the Baath Party and the intelligence sent for me. They said, 'You are the only general in this country who is not a Baath Party member. So now at this time we will not invite you to come because we have been inviting you for 30 years and you didn't accept it. So now, tell us why you are not becoming a member of the Baath Party?' I said, 'You want the truth?' and they said, 'Yes.' I said, 'You see, because in your ideology of the Baath Party, you say the body of the nation is Arab and the spirit of the nation is Islam. Therefore, I don't fit in two ways. I don't fit in the body because you are Arab and I am Assyrian. I don't fit in the spirit because you are Islamic and I am a Christian. And I want to keep both of them, my nationality and my faith. And because of that, I don't want to block you. I don't want to block myself to get to this party because it doesn't fit me.' They were very surprised.

So they said, 'Okay, General Georges, it's like this: No third star for you, and no promotion to Air Force Commander.' Because at that time, I was number two and, of course, people knew it. I was the only man who was trained in Russia, America, England and France. And I had taught in three colleges: staff college, war college and national defense college for ten years. Really, I am very proud of my training in America. I will never forget this country because it was really a blessed country and they have taught me a lot and I can tell you, I am very faithful for that.

So I was forced to retire in 1986. But when Saddam invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, I was the first man who was recalled for active duty. They told him, 'Sir, this man is not a party member.' He said, 'Yes, I know, but I want him. Bring him.' So I came, I met with him. He said, 'You are going to be the senior advisor for me on the Air Force, on the Armed Forces.' I said, 'Okay, sir. Thank you.' So I was put there. I was given three tasks to do. He gave it to me because he knew I used to teach these things in three colleges. These three tasks were: What is the capability of the enemy air forces? This means the coalition air forces, including America. Then, what is the capability of five aircraft carriers that are in Red Sea and Gulf? And finally, what is the capability of destruction and accuracy of their cruise missiles?

So these three duties were given to me. I was very happy. I told him, 'Sir, this duty is my daily bread. I used to teach it everywhere and I will start working.' I made three beautiful files for it and I started to tell him and the Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff and all the others. But unfortunately, nobody was listening.

The last meeting was on January 12, 1991. There was a presentation because the deadline of United Nations was going to finish on January 15, 1991, as you know. There were only two or three days to prepare for war. So I was sitting in the war room and we started doing the presentation. Everybody was there, except Saddam. He was listening somewhere else to what was going on.

They spoke about the war and the advisors said that they were going to destroy the enemy air force. No enemy air craft would be allowed in the Iraqi air space. Then they said that we would never give up Kuwait, that we would stay in Kuwait. They spoke their nonsense. So I spoke to the air force commander, who had been my student. I gave him solo on MiG-21 when I was a squadron commander in 1970. I told him, 'General Hanzam, please can you stop this nonsense-- these lies by these generals?' He said, 'No, Georges, don't talk. For God's sake, forget it. It's okay, nothing will happen. Don't worry. Nobody is going to attack us.'

I said, 'Look. I know what's going to happen. I know America and these forces who are here starting from the Gulf and in Kuwait and in Saudi Arabia, surrounding Iraq and Kuwait and the forces which are in the seas starting from Saratoga and the Red Sea and the others in the Gulf.' I explained everything to them. I said, 'Look, they didn't come here to play. They are going to attack Iraq.' Again nobody listened. Then, at last, I raised my hand. I told the minister of defense and the chief of staff, 'Excuse me, I don't agree with this presentation.'

At last, the minister of defense and chief of staff asked the air force. They said, Please, you as air force, can you tell us that we can operate on the ground without thinking of any enemy threat coming from air?' The answer was, 'Yes you can operate, there will be no threat coming from the air, because the Iraqi Air Force and the Iraqi Air Defense will tackle with that and will handle with them and they will not let the American forces to appear in the Iraqi skies.'

Here I had to stop them. I said, 'Excuse me. The minister of defense said,
Yes, Georges, do you have anything?' I said, 'Yes, I have got many things. I don't agree with this presentation. It's not going to be like this.' They said, 'Do you have another idea?' I said, 'Yes, and my idea is 180 degrees different.' He was surprised. I told them, 'The supreme commander has given me these three tasks to do, so please I am the one who should do the presentation. Will you permit me to do the presentation?' Then, they could not say no.

So I went and I did my presentation. I told them, 'Remember that you have been told that no enemy aircraft will be flying in the Iraqi skies. But I can tell you that thousands of the enemy aircraft will be flying over this country. Most of the targets will be destroyed and your army, our army, will be in very bad shape.' I spoke everything and then the chief of staff said, 'Georges, did we bring you here to frighten us?' I said, 'No, sorry, I am not frightening anybody, but I am telling you the truth to the best of my knowledge.'

I continued speaking about what an aircraft carrier is because, ladies and gentlemen, I understood that they thought an aircraft carrier is a fishing boat. I explained to them what an aircraft carrier is, what it can do, how many aircraft are there on deck and what are the three classes of aircraft carriers. I explained everything. Again, the chief of staff said, 'Don't you think you are exaggerating very much about what America can do?' I said, 'No, sorry, I'm not exaggerating. But this is according to the paper given to me. But, remember, Americans can do even more than this.' Nobody listened.

Then at last there was a question. They said, 'Okay, if it's like this, what's the solution? What's your solution?' I said, 'My solution is very easy. We have sent our forces to Kuwait by a paper and by the same paper we can make them to withdraw from Kuwait and come back. Because President Bush and United Nation are asking the Iraqi forces to get out of Kuwait. This is the only solution left. Today is January 12, 1991. Please I beg you to listen to me.' I really meant I begged, because I knew what was going to happen to my nation. You know what their answer to me was? 'If you speak again of pulling the Iraqi forces from Kuwait, your head will be separated from your body.' I said, 'Okay, thank you very much. I am only an advisor and I must be faithful.' I told them all this, but nobody listened.

Then, on January 17, the war started. Let me tell you where I was. General Hanzam had an apartment in the operation room. It was the only apartment in the operation room, next to the nuclear weapon room. It has walls and ceilings made of reinforced concrete 3 meters thick. General Hanzam was my student, I had been his instructor and his commander. In the air force, we love our instructors and commanders. I had flown General Hanzam solo and many other times, which he remembers. So he insisted on giving me the use of his apartment out of respect. I tried to refuse, because the apartment is for the use of the air force commander, but he insisted from his heart that I was the man who deserved to be there.

I went to sleep at 1:00 in the morning. I don't know what woke me up, but I looked at my watch and saw it was 2:30. I thought, 'My God, I was supposed to sleep until 7:00 at least.' I wondered what made me wake up at this time' So I decided to go and see Colonel Banam, who's another Christian, and in command of the radars and radio in the operation room.

So I went into the corridor and this is when the ground started shaking. I knew then that the attack had started. The lights started going out and water running everywhere. I went back to my apartment and I had to force the door open. I looked at my bed. It had been flattened to the ground by huge concrete blocks. I had missed being flattened by only 17 seconds. I thought, 'My God, who woke me up in time to escape this?' When the first American rocket hit the operation room, it hit the apartment of the air force commander.

Then an officer was there saying, 'Where is General Georges? Where is General Georges? The commander wants you.' I talked to him and he said, 'Shall we scramble the aircraft?' I said, 'No. Don't scramble anything, Hanzam.' He said, 'How am I not going to scramble anything? We are under attack!' I said, 'Look, I told you the solution. Where you will scramble them? You see, at this moment, this room is already destroyed. But remember, all command posts have been attacked. I am sure by now all the targets have been attacked. Most of the radars are destroyed. So where you are going to send these boys to go and fight American aircraft coming from everywhere? Without radars, without control from the ground? Don't do that.' He said, 'No, I cannot listen to this. This is not good advice.' I said, 'Okay, it's not good advice. Do whatever you like.'

But I said, 'Look, if you are going to send these airplanes, remember, very, very few of them will be back.' He said, 'I will send them.' He sent 18 aircraft, the best aircraft we had, to intercept the American aircraft which were attacking. Most of them were destroyed, some on the runway, some just after take off, some as they were climbing. Then they realized their mistake.

You see, there are some people who live in the mishap and there are some people who live in the 'prehap,' before the things happen. So let us always live in the 'prehap,' before the thing happens. Because after it happens, I think then it will be too late.

After this, Saddam came to the operation room. When he came, he was asking, 'What has happened? Why it has happened like this?' We five generals were sitting. It's the picture they always show on TV. I was sitting on his right, the air force commander on his left and the other in front of him. He started asking questions. The guy who was the officer, the commanding officer for the air force, he was Saddam's cousin. He became a higher general than all of us just because he was a cousin. He looked at me, begging with his eyes. I know him and I understood him. I knew he was saying, 'Please, Georges, you answer to the president.'

So I took all the answers. Then he said, 'General Hanzaam, why is Georges answering everything?' Then after that, I had a telephone call. There was a telephone there on the table and it was ringing. I took the call, it was from Nasiriyah airbase in the south. They said, 'Sir, we have shot down one Tornado and two pilots are captured. One's name is John Peter and the other John Nichol.' I told Saddam, 'Sir, we have shot down a Tornado aircraft with two pilots captured.' He said, 'What's a Tornado?' I explained to him what a Tornado is. He said, 'Are you sure the pilots are prisoners of war?' I said, 'Yes.'

He said, 'Okay, I need one pilot to be responsible for the prisoner of war.' Then he came to me and said, 'I want a man knows their tactics, offensive and defensive, and who speaks English. Georges, you are the one who will be responsible for the pilots.' I said, 'Okay, Sir. My pleasure.' I told them to send me the pilots. I am sure the Americans are very good pilots, but remember, even a good swimmer may sink in the sea and even a very good pilot, he may be shot down in the war.

So many good American pilots were shot down: F18s, F15s, F16s, Thunderbolts. Many pilots were shot down. At the last, I had 44 of them: 31 or 32 were Americans. The others were Saudis, Kuwaitis, British and Italians. I was responsible for them. I received orders to execute them on January 24 from the president through his son Qusay, who came to me in the operation room.

I refused. I told Qusay, 'Look, these people are prisoners of war.' He said, 'No, they are not prisoners of war. They are war criminals.' At the time of this discussion, we were under bombing. He said, 'Don't you see how they are destroying the country?' I said, 'Mr. Qusay, look, I have told you on January 12, this is what's going to happen. But all of you said, 'nobody will be attacked.' So now it's war and wars have rules and you must go and fight according to the rules, and one of the most important rules concern how to treat the prisoner of war. These people should be treated according to this' (I was carrying the book of the United Nations, the Geneva Convention). He said, 'What is that?' I said, 'This is the Geneva Convention, which Iraq has signed. Therefore, we must respect our signature.' He said, 'No, that is for prisoners of war, but these are not prisoners of war. These are war criminals.' I said, 'No, they are prisoners of war and they should be treated according to this. Please remember my rank and my seniority. I was brought out of retirement. I am an international officer. I cannot deal with these people except according to this one book, according to the Geneva Convention.' He was very angry and he said, 'Okay, I will take them, I will put them in the targets. Let the Americans from up there kill the Americans on the ground.' I said, 'No, no, no. You would be using them as human shields. You cannot do that. That's also against the Geneva Convention.' It was a very big tough discussion between me and him, with the officers all surrounding us. One was saying, 'Now Qusay will shoot him.' Another was saying, 'Georges is finished.'

But believe me, I was doing this for two reasons. One was my faith in Jesus Christ and to make Him happy as His son. The second, because I am a high-ranking officer, I have experience, and I was not a Baath Party loyalist, to follow the party line. I wanted to behave as an Iraqi general, loyal to this country and this country's deep history, should behave.

I did this knowing that the price would be very heavy. I said to myself, 'I have been flying supersonic aircraft for 40 years. I could die at anytime. But this is a very good reason to die, to make this mission happen.' Qusay left and he was very angry. Before he left, I said, 'Excuse me, I want to tell you one last thing. You see now there is a war between Iraq and America. If you are going to kill these people, America will declare a new war. This time it will be war between America and your family.'

When I told him this, his eyes were opened. He just then realized what it meant to kill the prisoners of war. So before he left, I said, 'Mr. Qusay, please, I am sure you going to see the supreme commander, the president. Tell him he knows me very well. I am his adviser. Tell him that General Georges is saying that these people are not war criminals. They are prisoner of war and they should be treated according to the Geneva Convention.'

He left and the next day, people came from the Republican Guard, special guards who said 'Come with us.' I knew that the time had come but it was okay. I had done my duty in the best way and my thought was, 'let happen what happens.' They took me and they put me in prison. On February 5, I was released because Saddam himself said, 'I don't want to see his face. I don't want him to be in the Army anymore. But you can't kill him because he was right.' That is the only thing that saved me and the only reason I am alive now here. Because even though he was a dictator and evil, he realized the truth of what I had said about a new war between America and his family. Once again I was dismissed from the Army and I have stayed safe until now.

Before any of this had happened, Saddam had wanted us to attack Israel with chemical weapons, using different aircraft: Sequoyah 24's, Mirages, and MiGs. Again I stood in front of him and I told him, 'Excuse me, sir. You are saying that these aircraft will attack Israel in two waves: one through Jordan and one through Syria. I know the Israelis have a plan to destroy all incoming aircraft before entering Israeli borders. This means that these aircraft are going to be destroyed by two waves, over Jordan and over Syrian. Of course, Israelis have got good air defenses, but still the pilots know that many aircraft still can penetrate. You know what's going to happen, sir? There will be three attacks of chemical weapon on three countries: Jordan, Syria and Israel. By doing this, we will be giving the Israelis the right to retaliate by using their nuclear weapons. They have got very good delivery systems to carry the nuclear weapons. The delivery systems are rockets called Jericho 2. They are going to destroy Mosul, Baghdad, Basra and all our cities.'

I told him, 'Sir there will be disaster in the region. The four countries are going to be completely destroyed. Please, please, sir, let us not do that.' I begged him. He started asking me questions and the discussion lasted one hour, 41 minutes. At last, thank God, this attack didn't happen. This talk took place on December 17, 1990. He said, 'Look, if one American rocket hits the Iraqi homeland, I want these 98 aircraft to go and destroy Israel, and the 12 divisions to go in Saudi Arabia and destroy all the industrial area of Saudi Arabia from Kuwait to al-Dahran.' Another big, big job, given to the army and you can just imagine 12 divisions destroying all the industrial area of Saudi Arabia under an open sky without any air defense. I understood what was going to happen to these 12 divisions. But this man was not thinking at all what would happen to the forces.

I will tell you about Saddam. He is the man who killed the most clerics from Sunni and Shia in the history of Iraq. He is the man who killed the most Baath Party members, starting from central command, since the party was founded in 1947. Saddam is the man who killed the most of his own people. Saddam is the man who killed the most Tikritis, his own cousins from his city, than anyone since Iraq was founded in 1920.

Saddam is the one who killed the most Kurds. In the Amfal operations, he killed 203,000 Kurds. He used chemical weapons. In Halabja, he killed 5,375 people, all women, children and old men, in one attack--only one attack. Saddam killed the most officers from the Iraqi army since the army was founded in 1921. Saddam did this with the hatred that I know was in his heart. With his revenge, only God knows what he was going to do. Because he had love of power, of making more rockets, paying millions to make some development for rockets to go further and warheads to become more destructive and to have weapon of mass description.

At last Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They were used against our nation in the north and south, and even against the Iranians when they penetrated the last defense lines in our territory. They were used by helicopters, by fighters and even by the Ilyushin-76 transport, which it is not for bombing. But they were used in order to stop the invasion of Iran to the east of Basra, south of Iraq.

This is Saddam Hussein. I want all the Americans please to know who Saddam was and then to make the assessment: Was it worth it? Was it good that America took the decision to go and liberate that country by removing Saddam's regime or not? This is a very good question also.

From what I know about Iraq and about Saddam, I am now one of the people who believes very, very, very clearly that the decision taken by this blessed nation, America, to go and liberate Iraq from the evil regime of that dictator, it was the right decision and the proper time.

I don't want to interfere in your politics. You are a free nation. You are the nation of democracy. It's up to you, you have got many parties. I respect everybody in this country. I love America but this is the truth as an Iraqi I want to tell you that this was a great decision. I am very sorry for those who lost their beloved ones. I know it is difficult for them. But you should remember always you have done a great job. You have done a dramatic change in that country and you have liberated 27 million people from a dictatorship regime.


Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
Gen. Georges Sada was the number two man in the Iraqi Air Force. The author of Saddam's Secrets, he is an Iraqi Christian.
-------------------

One final comment, from the Blogger. You can see how advantageous it can be for an army to have a high-ranking godly man on the enemy side. This was the experience of Cyrus the Persian, who conquered Babylon in 516 BCE. And it will continue to be the experience of conquering generals as long as there are godly men who serve in the military. I greatly regret my own military service, and am raising my sons to be conscientious objectors, but I still believe that God uses individuals to change history, and if one of my descendants is drafted into a despotic military against his will, I pray that he will--like Daniel in ancient times and Georges in modern times--serve his God, his supreme commander, and the conqueror of his doomed country, with equal distinction.

Thursday, 22 June 2006

Dating Zerubbabel

Counter Genealogies in 1 Chronicles 3, Matthew 1, and Luke 3 can be synchronized to show that the three Zerubbabels did not have to be the same person, but they must have been near contemporaries.

Collating the genealogies of the Old and New Testaments is nothing new; The Western European Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis (D 05), dating to around the time the Western Empire disintegrated, exhibits a highly schematized genealogy in Luke 3 that incorporates elements from 1 Chronicles 3 and Matthew 1, and eliminates the seemingly extraneous 'Cainan' from between Sala and Arphaxad.

But something that Bezae fails to take into consideration when it replaces Heli's pedigree of the original Luke 3 with Jacob's of Matthew 1 is that Jacob's is several generations too short. Oh, it's obvious that Matthew failed to list four Kings of Judah--they are included from 1 Chronicles 3--but even with those obvious deficiencies taken care of, several generations still appear to be missing between Zerubbabel and Abiud. First Chronicles lists six generations after Zerubbabel, none of of which contain anybody named Abiud. Thus Abiud could very well be at least seven generations removed from the man that even Codex Bezae lists as his father.

Fitting in an extra six generations between Zerubbabel and Abiud raises several questions, not the least of which is: Are we sure we're talking about the same Zerubbabel? There's the Zerubbabel the Son of Pedaiah in 1 Chronicles, the Zerubbabel the Son of Shealtiel in Ezra, and the Zorobabel the son of Salathiel in Matthew. Let's consider this question on its merits.

Zerubbabel, first of all, is not the sort of name one would expect a typical Jewish mother to give her son. It's Hebrew meaning is something like "Captive of Babylon." Another possible meaning is "Born in Babylon." In either case, it's the sort of name that an exiled mother would giver her son during or shortly following the Babylonian Exile of 587 BCE (+-1 yr). A son born earlier would have already been named; a son born much later would probably be given a more optimistic appellative. Only a son born shortly after the distress of the evacuation of Judea to captivity, would be likely to be given such a depressing name. Certainly the name can be pinned down to a generation or two after this date. Thus regardless of the name of his father, or the name of his son, anyone named Zerubbabel can be pretty precisely dated in any chronology to having been born around the middle of the 6th century BCE. Thus for the purposes of Chronogenealogy, the precise identification of the Zorobabel the son of Salathiel in Matthew 1 and the Zorobabel the son of Salathiel in Luke 3 is unimportant. For dating purposes, we shall consider them to be one and the same person, as did the editor of Codex Bezae.

Having fixed the date for Zerubbabel's birth, we return to our genealogies to see if there are, indeed, several generations still missing between the Zerubbabel of Matthew 1 and his descendant Abiud. Twenty-five years is a reasonable average generation, and squares nicely with the 1025 years between David and Jesus, his descendant of the 41st generation in Luke 3--although the generations from David to Zerubbabel were compressed by primogeniture, leaving the later, post-exilic generations to be longer. But counting backwards in Matthew 1 from Jesus to Abiud, at twenty-five years per generation, we come to only about 310 BCE--wanting a full 277 years to get back to the Zerubbabel of Chronicles. And indeed, this squares with a comparison to Luke's genealogy, which lists 19 generations from Jesus back to Zerubbabel (at least to 475 BCE), versus only 10 in Matthew.

At least six generations are missing.