Sorry for the delay; I'm sick as a dog.
It would be just as easy to ask you,
@FollowingHim,
@Luke S, etc., "Why are you or anyone else assuming אַפָּ֑יִם (appayim) means nose or face? Because, if you do, you're entirely missing the connotation or nuance of the predominant instances when it's translated as nose or face, because (a) where 'face,' it is consistently an accurate translation of doubled-over, which can in modern times be translated as face to the ground; or (b) where 'nose,' it is always a matter of long-of-nose or more literally double-nosed. Both are because the root understanding is doubling, which is why so many -- especially the less tortured, non-polluted, non-mainstream-religious-biased-message-directing versions -- translated it straight as doubled. This isn't difficult to discover. One place to start is with Strong's 639.
I don't begrudge you repeated reliance on Benton's translation of LXX, but it just means I have to repeat that it's still a matter of translation of who knows what bias from translation of partially-known clear bias from original manuscripts (their claim), best extant manuscripts and what the LXX claimed as common understanding. Something like playing gossip on a long-distance line before the ATT break-up with everyone wearing three face diapers and a set of ear plugs.
And even that ignores the fact that the only possibility that exists that the only extant Hebrew texts are newer than the LXX would be that the LXX folks destroyed what they worked from; the best, most charitable conclusions would be that (a) the originals were subsequently and thoroughly very purposefully destroyed, or (b) they never had them to begin with and just worked from their own personal prejudices based on memories of stories they'd heard. This is no unreasonable suspicion on my part, either. Even in modern times we are inundated with much larger groups of supposed clerics or scientists claiming they represent consensus of religion or science.
Actually, I was a little surprised that you even went
there, Samuel, and I'm not talking about the thin-air aspersion. Is there ANY doubt that both the Latin Vulgate and the KVJ were purposeful mistranslations with multiple agenda items about what was required to be
left out and what that hadn't previously been part of Scripture be
inserted? If one doubts that, one could stand to do at least a little research beyond what Catholics or KJV-only adherents would recommend. Both had as their intention driving people into the pews or back into the pews. Both were intended to brainwash constituents into being more easily controlled by their secular and religious masters, and both very purposefully did so by demonizing normal sexuality, and neither were at all hesitant to bastardize original Scripture in service of doing so. Don't forget that the Vulgar Vulgate was subsequently used thus to demonize polygamy and demand that priests (who, previously, were more likely than the average lay person to be polygynists) not only not marry multiple wives but be entirely celibate.
And the Geneva was an improvement but didn't have the cojones to stray from much of the false-teaching Vulgate narratives.
Thus, without reference to something better where more effort has been made to research original idioms, seek out original manuscripts, and deep-six most everything known to have been
added to Scripture, I ALWAYS completely reject anything that relies either entirely or even substantially on the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version.
As things stand, the following versions indicate a double portion: NIV, ESB, Berean, NKJV(!), NASB (all), CSB, Holman CSB, CLNT, CSV, Aramaic translations, ISV, JPS, NAB, NET, Literal SV, New Heart English, NRSV, WEB, YLT, A Faithful Version, Darby, ERV.
Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims do not. And, other than being known for only the second of English translations of the LXX, it seems impossible to glean any reason other than seminary attendance and self-appointment to consider Sir Bretton authoritative, anyway.
I'll just add last in this section that I do consider the Textus Receptus to be better than others, such as the Codex Vaticanus, on which Bretton exclusively relied, but it has its own problems, so I don't automatically think I've gotten to the minds of those on whom Yah implanted His Word
any time I'm reading a translation that predominantly relies on any one set of partial manuscripts.
But we're not just talking about one feast. It says "days of days," indicating that each time a time of sacrifice came up he did this. You could be correct that Hannah's share that was doubled was only some piece of meat, but we are not told whether it was limited to food or even that the food was meat.
Whether she ate it or not is not just symbolic. Unless compensated for in some other way to treat his wives equally (because everything doesn't have to be the same -- or equitable -- just of equal value), and we're not told anything about that, so we can't assume just compensation was exhibited, but we damn sure can't assume that it
was. Just ask the men here who have or have had more than one wife whether watching that go on would just be symbolic even if the double portion wasn't eaten . . . gee, what if he only
tried to have sex with her twice as often but she turned him away half the time . . .
Our suspicions are interesting but not scriptural. It's
always hard to confidently glean full scripturalness, anyway, given how far removed we are from His Word.
Or perhaps it's just another example of men wishing the message didn't hit so close to home. Does Elkanah having fathered Samuel make him worthy of excusing away his potential lack of leadership? Does treating a wife as a child because she won't eat meat represent the highest potential pinnacle for wearing the pants in the family? And I'm not at all asserting that wives never need to be treated like children -- just that relying on that as a top strategy would indicate to me that a man has a tendency to avoid reaching beyond the top layer of his tool box.
