Been studying alot of OT last week. What is meant when God says, first born is his? I understand the animals. I understand Numbers and the Levites and priests. But I seen it before in late Exodus. And not sure what God meant.
Also has anyone ever read these and heard several differeent interpretations for different hides for the tabernackel.
NIV calls it sea cows
NASV calles it poipous
KJV calls it badger
And another calles it seal skins.
From earliest times the firstborn son held an honored position in the family and was the one who succeeded to the headship of the household. He inherited a double portion of the father"s property. (De 21:17) Reuben was seated by Joseph at a meal according to his right as firstborn. (Ge 43:33) But the Bible does not always honor the firstborn by listing sons according to birth. The first place is often given to the most prominent or faithful of the sons rather than to the firstborn."Ge 6:10; 1Ch 1:28; compare Ge 11:26, 32; 12:4; see BIRTHRIGHT; INHERITANCE.
The firstborn came into considerable prominence at the time that Jehovah delivered his people from slavery in Egypt. Among the Egyptians, the firstborn were dedicated as sacred to the sun-god Amon-Ra, the supposed preserver of all the firstborn. The tenth plague that Jehovah brought upon the Egyptians served to discredit this god and showed up his inability to protect the firstborn. By obeying God"s instructions concerning the slaying of a lamb and the splashing of its blood on the doorposts and upper part of the doorway of their houses, the Israelites did not lose their firstborn in death, whereas all the firstborn of the Egyptians, of both man and beast, were slain. (Ex 12:21-23, 28, 29) Evidently the firstborn son of each household is meant in most cases and not the head of the household, even though he may have been a firstborn. Pharaoh himself was probably a firstborn and yet his life was not taken. However, it may be that not every Egyptian household had a literal firstborn son (the married couple being childless or the firstborn son having already died), and in view of the statement at Exodus 12:30, "there was not a house where there was not one dead," the destruction could have included the chief one in the house occupying the position of firstborn.
Since the firstborn sons among the Israelites were those in line to become the heads of the various households, they represented the entire nation. Jehovah, in fact, referred to the whole nation as his "firstborn," it being his firstborn nation because of the Abrahamic covenant. (Ex 4:22) In view of his having preserved their lives, Jehovah commanded that "every male firstborn that opens each womb among the sons of Israel, among men and beasts," be sanctified to him. (Ex 13:2) Thus, the firstborn sons were devoted to God.
Later Jehovah took the male Levites, evidently aside from the 300 Levite firstborn (compare Nu 3:21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 34 with 3:39), in place of the firstborn sons of Israel, from those one month old and upward. A ransom price of five shekels ($11) had to be paid to Aaron and his sons for each of the 273 in excess of the Levites. Also, Jehovah took the domestic animals of the Levites in place of the firstborn domestic animals of the other tribes. (Nu 3:40-48) From that time forward, a firstborn son was to be presented to Jehovah at the tabernacle or temple after the period of the mother"s uncleanness and be redeemed by the payment of the estimated value for those from a month up to five years old, "five silver shekels by the shekel of the holy place.""Le 12:1-3; 27:6; Nu 18:15, 16.
The firstborn males of clean animals, such as the bull, lamb, or goat, were not to be redeemed. Such a bull was not to be worked, nor was the lamb to be sheared. Instead, they were to be presented to Jehovah as a sacrifice at the tabernacle or temple on the eighth day after birth. (Ex 22:30; Nu 18:17; De 15:19, 20) If, however, the animal had a bad defect, it was not to be sacrificed to Jehovah but was to be eaten at one"s place of dwelling."De 15:21-23.
The firstborn of an ass, an unclean animal, could not be presented as a sacrifice and, therefore, was to be redeemed, or bought back, by substituting a sheep in its place. Otherwise, its neck was to be broken, since it belonged to Jehovah and was not to be used by man. (Ex 13:12, 13; 34:19, 20) However, Leviticus 27:27 reads: "If it is among the unclean beasts and he must redeem it according to the estimated value, he must then give a fifth of it in addition to it. But if it should not be bought back, it must then be sold according to the estimated value." Some commentators view this text as a modification of the regulation concerning the redeeming of an ass. Apparently, though, Leviticus 27:27 deals with a different matter. Instead of referring to an unclean animal, such as an ass, the words "if it is among the unclean beasts" may denote an animal that was unclean in the sense of being unfit for sacrifice because of being blemished.
SEALSKIN
There is uncertainty as to the particular kind of skin referred to as ta´chash; this Hebrew word is used in describing the outer cover of the tabernacle and a wrapping for the furnishings and utensils of the sanctuary for transport. Ta´chash or techa·shim´ (plural) usually appears alongside `ohr or `oh·rohth´ (skin, skins). (Ex 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; 39:34; Nu 4:6-14, 25; Eze 16:10) The translators of the Greek Septuagint seem to have understood the Hebrew word to denote, not an animal, but the color blue. (Compare Nu 4:14, ftn.) However, the almost unanimous opinion of Jewish commentators is that ta´chash refers to an animal. This view was also endorsed by the Hebrew lexicographer Gesenius, who considered the Septuagint reading to be simply conjecture, a rendering having the support neither of etymology nor of related languages. He understood ta´chash to mean either the seal or the badger, basing his conclusions on the context, the authority of the Talmudists, a comparison of the Hebrew word with similar words in other languages, and Hebrew etymology.
Bible translators have variously rendered `ohr (`oh·rohth´) ta´chash (techa·shim´) as "badgers" skin(s)" (KJ), "goatskin(s)" (RS), "porpoise skin(s)" (AT), "sealskin(s)" (AS), "leather" (Mo), "fine leather" (JB), "violet skins" (Dy), and "tahash leather" (NW, Ex 25:5, ftn, but "sealskins" in main text). The rendering "badgers" skin(s)" is not generally favored by scholars, since it is thought unlikely that the Israelites would have been able to procure enough badger skins, either in Egypt or in the wilderness, for covering the tabernacle. There are also scholars who consider neither "badgers" skin(s)" nor "sealskin(s)" nor "porpoise skin(s)" to be correct, in view of the fact that badgers, seals, porpoises or dolphins, dugongs, and similar creatures were evidently unclean for food. (Le 11:12, 27) They therefore find it hard to conceive that the skin of an "unclean" animal would have been used for something so sacred as the construction of the tabernacle and as a protective covering for the furnishings and utensils of the sanctuary. Those taking this view suggest that ta´chash may designate the skin of a clean animal, possibly of a kind of antelope, sheep, or goat.
Usable,ThoughSealClassedasUnclean. The fact that seals were evidently unclean for food would not necessarily rule out using their skins as a covering for the tabernacle. For instance, whereas the lion and the eagle were "unclean" (Le 11:13, 27), the heavenly cherubs seen by Ezekiel in vision were depicted with four faces, including that of a lion and of an eagle. (Eze 1:5, 10; 10:14) Also, the copper carriages that Solomon made for temple use were adorned with representations of lions, and this undoubtedly according to the plans given to David by divine inspiration. (1Ki 7:27-29; 1Ch 28:11-19) The Israelites used "unclean" animals, such as asses, for mounts, it even being foretold that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem upon an ass. (Zec 9:9; Mt 21:4, 5) Although John the Baptizer had a most sacred commission to "go in advance before Jehovah to make his ways ready," he wore clothing made from the hair of an "unclean" animal. (Lu 1:76; Mt 3:4; Le 11:4) All of this tends to indicate that the distinction between clean and unclean was simply dietary, though at times it was also used with reference to sacrifice, and did not require that the Israelites regard "unclean" animals with general abhorrence. (Le 11:46, 47) Also, these, like the "clean" animals, were created by God and were therefore good, not loathsome in themselves."Ge 1:21, 25.
NIV calls it sea cows
NASV calles it poipous
KJV calls it badger
And another calles it seal skins
I can't give you a good answer as to the different texts...
But I can tell you that, one of the main points we are supposed to get from these passages, is that the materials they used were extremely rare and valuable. They were making God's dwelling place. They were in the middle of a deseert wilderness, all of the materials in the translations would be rare and hard to get...
Amazing...
__________________
πνεύμα γ*μισα
"Error never shows itself in its naked reality in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself."
-Irenaeus of Lyon
The first born preference was a foreshadow of the messiah, "The first born of creation" and represents the "Only begotten of The Father"
Cataway, ta´chash (techa·shim´) are the skins of the of the many antelopes that roam in the holy Land during the exodus, most prominant was the ORYNX which even today we call Takash.
Shalom
__________________
"Blessed is He who Comes in The Name of The Lord"
You ever notice in the Old Testament God blessed the second son sometimes. Moses to lead people out of bondage with older brother Aarons help, Isaac over Ishmauel,Jacob over Esau, Joseph's second son over the first son.
__________________
For ever running, but losing the race. If it were not for grace.
The first born preference was a foreshadow of the messiah, "The first born of creation" and represents the "Only begotten of The Father"
Cataway, ta´chash (techa·shim´) are the skins of the of the many antelopes that roam in the holy Land during the exodus, most prominant was the ORYNX which even today we call Takash.
Shalom
Wonder why they messed up some of the translations?
Chamois is native toEurope , so they wouldn't use chamois, the hides were sun dried with the hair onas they were stretch, they resist weather better than tanned,
I think the mistranslation is due to the translators lacking the knowledge of the idiocyncracies of the hebrew people, and no one translator knew 100% of The Hebrew Language, well even I ,growing up in Hebrew schools don't know certain words.
The same happens in Spanish and in English for me, some words I have to look up. Multilingual doesn't mean 100% knowledgeable.
__________________
"Blessed is He who Comes in The Name of The Lord"
First Born in Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers
