{"id":12285,"date":"2019-05-26T17:40:52","date_gmt":"2019-05-26T11:40:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/intelligent-torvalds.74-208-171-134.plesk.page\/?p=12285"},"modified":"2025-08-09T13:02:31","modified_gmt":"2025-08-09T18:02:31","slug":"who-am-i-part-10","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/?p=12285","title":{"rendered":"Who Am I? Part 10"},"content":{"rendered":"

(I toyed with the idea of calling this What Am I Doing? Part 1<\/em>, but I already have more threads than I can keep current.)<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t get a lot of eschatology in my own study, so I rely on the studies of others.\u00a0 I thought the prophecies of Isaiah 17<\/a> were fulfilled long ago.\u00a0 Now that they have become current again I found an article\u2014\u201cWHEN WILL DAMASCUS BE DESTROYED?<\/a>\u201d\u2014on Bible Prophecy \u2013 As Written<\/a> online.\u00a0 The author of the article was anonymous, so I\u2019ll call him\/her the Author<\/em>.\u00a0 But this essay will not be about eschatology.\u00a0 I intend to use some of the Author\u2019s <\/em>article to clarify my own thinking about comparing the Masoretic text to the Septuagint.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Septuagint is a 3rd century BC Jewish translation of the Old Testament Hebrew into Greek,\u201d the Author <\/em>wrote. \u00a0\u201cIt became the commonly used Old Testament Bible during the New Testament period.\u201d\u00a0 Then the Author<\/em> quoted another writer:<\/p>\n

…the Septuagint is an actual translation from the Hebrew [Masoretic Text] into the Greek. It is the first translation of the Old Testament known. It was the Bible of Jesus and the apostles, the version from which most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament come, and the Bible of the early church\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

The Origin Of The Bible, Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, IL, 1992, p. 294-95. 134\/294-95<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I\u2019m not convinced that the Masoretic text was the Hebrew the rabbis translated.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Septuagint is a wonderful witness to the original Hebrew (Masoretic) text of the Old Testament since it agrees in the vast majority of places,\u201d the Author <\/em>continued. \u00a0\u201cBut which is to be preferred when they are at variance?\u201d\u00a0 Again, the Author <\/em>quoted another writer:<\/p>\n

Although there are numerous textual variations between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text [Masoretic], the great majority of these are minor…Yet even when the Septuagint differs and offers a better reading, nonetheless it never replaces the Hebrew as the standard form of the text. Because it is a translation, the Septuagint always remains secondary…<\/em><\/p>\n

How We Got The Bible, Neil R. Lightfoot, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1963, p. 149 1609\/149<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cThe original Hebrew text, then, is preferred when it is at variance with the Greek text of the Septuagint.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/a>I agree that the original Hebrew should take precedence over a Greek translation, just as I agree that the original Hebrew or Greek takes precedence over an English translation.\u00a0 What I question is conflating the original Hebrew<\/em> and the Masoretic text<\/em>, as if the two are one and the same. \u00a0Admittedly, this puts me in unwitting conflict with Jim Searcy<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Brother Jim is a born-again, strict, uncompromising, unapologetic, relentless, and fierce, confirmer and defender of the Authorized Version, the KJV Holy Bible, as the true, inerrant, more sure, God promised PERFECT written word of God. The KJV Holy Bible is that God promised MORE SURE word of God, written outside of linear time, and preserved from all attacks. The KJV Holy Bible stands against all attacks by the power of the Holy Ghost\u2019s inspiration, and superintendence. The Holy Ghost was superintendent of the KJV Holy Bible. That One Same Spirit of TRUTH\u2019s superintendence is what is MISSING from ALL modern translations, since God fulfilled His promise to give THE Holy Bible in the international language of the last days, the KJV Holy Bible.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Jim will have no part of the play of vanity in having anything to do with the nonexistent \u201coriginal autographs.\u201d Brother Jim is bold to testify that we can and should KNOW by the Holy Ghost, that we do have the God Promised perfect bible in English. We should all be thankful to God that we can KNOW, that we have the word of God, that we have the word of God, in English. Knowing this is vital in order that our faith may be based upon God\u2019s integrity and not man\u2019s. English is now and will be the international language of the last days antichrist war on the saints. English will be the international language at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, Yeshua THE Messiah, IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The more I study the Greek underlying the English translation of the New Testament, the more I respect the translators of the KJV.\u00a0 They seem to have worked harder than many modern translators to convey the detail of the Greek into English.\u00a0 And I have Jim Searcy (and Strong\u2019s Concordance) to thank for keeping me aware of the KJV translation.\u00a0 The problem for me is that I often need a translation of the KJV English: Come and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men<\/em>.[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Though many might agree with the statement above, I don\u2019t think terrible <\/em>best represents the Holy Spirit\u2019s intent for the Hebrew word \u05e0\u05d5\u05e8\u05d0<\/a> (y\u00e2r\u00ea\u02bc<\/em>) or the Greek word \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2<\/a> (Table2<\/a> below) in contemporary English. \u00a0This is not to say that it was a poor word choice four centuries ago.\u00a0 Though awesome <\/em>in the NET (Table1<\/a> below) and NETS (Table2<\/a> below) may not be the greatest word choice, it does convey the sense that the Holy Spirit did not mean that God is <\/em>\u201cextremely bad<\/a>: such as, notably unattractive or objectionable, of very poor quality [or] strongly repulsive\u201d in his doing toward the children of men<\/em>.<\/p>\n

<\/a>As I wrote elsewhere<\/a> I chose a more modern translation of the Bible when I was surprised to learn that \u201cWherefore art thou Romeo\u201d didn\u2019t mean what Bugs Bunny<\/a> taught me.\u00a0 According to the KJV translation James wrote: But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing<\/em>.[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 I might have suspected that wanting nothing<\/em> meant lacking in nothing<\/a><\/em>, given its association with perfect and entire<\/em>, except that I had dulled my mind with hallucinogens, and I had a lot of artsy friends who dabbled in Zen Buddhism.\u00a0 So wanting nothing<\/em> seemed like the religious thing to do.<\/p>\n

Also, it had irritated my Dad whenever we kids wanted anything from him, so I assumed<\/a> God was like that, too.\u00a0 Of course, at that time I searched the Bible for works for me to do as opposed to searching for eternal life<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0 I may have blipped perfect and entire <\/em>and honed in on wanting nothing<\/em> as something I could do to pay back Jesus for giving me another \u201cchance to prove what I could do for God.\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The quantity of information removed from the Masoretic text or added to the Septuagint in Psalm 14:3 (13:3)<\/a> troubled me.\u00a0 It was not a simple copyist error, unless a drunk or stoned copyist used the copy-paste feature of a word processor.\u00a0 It was not an alteration of vowel points to derive a Hebrew homograph more congenial to rejection of Jesus as the Christ.\u00a0 It was a very deliberate act.\u00a0 It cast my conception of \u201cgood conscience<\/a>\u201d in a very harsh light, though I suppose one’s conscience may have been salved some by the fact that similar verses exist elsewhere<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The rabbis who translated the Septuagint seemed blameless to me, which left Masoretes or Christians as potential perpetrators.\u00a0 It gave me pause to revisit Jim Searcy\u2019s assertion<\/a>: \u201cOrigen rewrote both Old and New Testament to suit his antichrist and strange Gnostic leanings.\u201d\u00a0 Did he also add Paul\u2019s \u201cquotation\u201d from Romans 3:13-18<\/a> back into the Septuagint?<\/p>\n

<\/a>I began to wonder if I knew enough about Gnosticism to even recognize it in the Greek of the Septuagint.\u00a0 Boning up on Gnosticism I stumbled across an article\u2014\u201cAre There Traces of Greek Philosophy in the Septuagint?<\/a>\u201d\u2014by Jacob Freudenthal<\/a>, a German philosopher, educated at the rabbinical seminary of Breslau.<\/p>\n

He briefly discussed the pro side of the question from work by Humphrey Hody<\/a>, David Michaelis<\/a> and August Friedrich Gfr\u00f6rer<\/a>, then the con side as it stood as of 1890, Zacharias Frankel<\/a> and Eduard Zeller<\/a> notably.\u00a0 All used essentially the same procedure I was about to employ, using my new knowledge of Gnosticism to grok<\/a> if certain passages of the Septuagint seemed to align with that notion.\u00a0 Freudenthal took a different tack:<\/p>\n

As there is no philosophy in a technical sense to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures, if the translators of the Septuagint actually were in contact with philosophical ideas, the choice of certain expressions for psychological, ethical and metaphysical notions, must clearly show difference between the original and the translation.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

His proceeded to take twelve words\u2014\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae<\/a>, \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae<\/a>, \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2<\/a>, \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2<\/a>, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1<\/a>, \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2<\/a>, \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2<\/a>, \u1f00\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7<\/a>, \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1<\/a>, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03ae\u03c2<\/a>, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1<\/a> and \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2<\/a>\u2014full of technical meaning in Greek philosophy or psychology and compare them to the Hebrew words they translated, to see if they were used with an understanding of Greek philosophy or psychology in mind.\u00a0 I\u2019ll quote his conclusion to an examination of \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae as an example:<\/p>\n

We may therefore conclude, that if the Greek translators give to \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae the meaning of \u201cperson<\/a>,\u201d \u201cslave<\/a>,\u201d \u201cdead body<\/a>,\u201d \u201ccorpse<\/a>,\u201d they could not be familiar with the abstract meaning which the word obtained in later Greek, and they could not be conscious of the opposition between body and soul, which is sharply accentuated in Greek philosophy.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Freudenthal\u2019s ultimate conclusion after examining all twelve words was that \u201cthe translation of the so-called Septuagint bears no traces of the inroad of Greek philosophy into Jewish Hellenism.\u201d\u00a0 This procedure, more than its outcome, encourages me to continue studying, with all due caution, just in case the Lord preserved the Old Testament by having learned rabbis translate it into Greek before many in Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah.<\/p>\n

A series of quotations follow.\u00a0 Whether they prove to be \u201calternative facts,\u201d I keep them in mind as I study.\u00a0 What follows is from\u00a0<\/em>\u201cHenry VIII, Oxford\u2019s Hebraists and the Rabbis of Venice in the 16th Century<\/a>,\u201d Oxford Chabad Society \u2013 Serving Oxford Jewish Students<\/a> online:<\/p>\n

After enormous effort in trying to persuade Rome to support the annulment of his [Henry VIII<\/a>] marriage\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2026Richard Pace<\/a> recommended Henry VIII to approach Oxford Hebraist Robert Wakefield<\/a> (d. 1537\/8) to help find support for his divorce from Rabbinic sources.[8] Wakefield began Hebrew studies in Tudor England and was appointed Regius Praelector of Hebrew[9] at Oxford in 1529, later becoming canon of Henry VIII\u2019s college, now Christ Church College.[10]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2026Thomas Cranmer<\/a>, then a young tutor, also suggested that a body of evidence should be gathered from scholars from across Europe to support the Leviticus case for the annulment of the marriage. This included asking the Jews in Italy for their opinion of the laws of Leviticus.[13]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2026Richard Croke<\/a> who was in Bologna at the time travelled to Venice to consult the rabbis. It appears that this would have been also the time when Henry procured his 9-volume original set of Daniel Bomberg\u2019s Talmud, subsequently deposited at Westminster Abbey, to assist his scholars with the effort to find original Jewish legal sources to support the annulment of the marriage.[21]<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2026Finally, the overall seeking for support of Italian Jews for Henry\u2019s position came to an end when a Roman Jew was compelled to marry the widow of his brother, who died without children.[30] Without the support of the Jews of Italy, in June, 1530, the strategy changed to challenging the jurisdiction of the pope over England\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2026Henry summoned parliament and removed England\u2019s allegiance to Rome, abolishing the pope\u2019s ecclesiastical powers in England through a number of statues.[5] Henry appointed Protestant Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury and on 23 May 1533, Thomas Cranmer declared Henry and Catherine’s marriage annulled\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

\u2026Although Henry of course was not subject to Jewish law, he clearly desired to live a life consistent with Jewish law on this subject, as evident by following [sic] the Oxford Hebraists to consult the rabbis on this subject that changed the course of British history for almost five hundred years.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What follows is from\u00a0<\/em>\u201cThe Masoretic Text: The traditional\u2014sometimes imperfect\u2014Jewish version of the Torah text<\/a>,\u201d My Jewish Learning<\/a> online:<\/p>\n

The Masoretic text refers to the authoritative version of the Hebrew Bible used universally by Jews today. This version was codified around the ninth century by a group of Jewish scholars known as the Masoretes, whose name derives from the Hebrew word mesorah, meaning tradition…<\/em><\/p>\n

In traditional Jewish thought, every single letter of the Torah is believed to be the direct word of God, so great care was taken by early copyists to preserve the text perfectly. Nevertheless, certain errors in transmission crept in over time, as evidenced by variations among several early texts of the Bible.<\/em><\/p>\n

The establishment of the Masoretic text was therefore considered an enormous accomplishment by establishing an authoritative version of Jewish scripture. Today, making any changes to the text, regardless of how scholarly sound they might seem, would be considered sacrilegious.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What follows is from\u00a0<\/em>\u201cMasoretic text: JEWISH BIBLE<\/a>,\u201d Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/a> online:<\/p>\n

Masoretic text, (from Hebrew masoreth, \u201ctradition\u201d), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic academies in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible, the original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future generations the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and whatever oral traditions were available to them.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/a>What follows is from\u00a0<\/em>\u201cJewish Concepts: Masoretic Text<\/a>,\u201d Jewish Virtual Library: Anything you need to know from Anti-Semitism to Zionism<\/a> online:<\/p>\n

Over the years as tradition was orally passed on and eventually written down, many disparities of the Torah emerged as countless scribes wrote numerous scrolls.<\/em><\/p>\n

After being exiled from Israel, and as the Jewish Diaspora grew more widespread across the World, many Jews understood the importance of creating a single text of the Torah. This uniformity would enable the consistency of the Jewish faith outside the land of Israel. Specific scholars and scribes were chosen for this task, these men were called Masoretes. Masoretes derives its name from the word \u201cmasorah\u201d meaning \u201ctradition;\u201d their ultimate goal was to uphold the traditions of the Jewish people. The Masoretes had to decipher the authentic word of God and eliminate the dissimilarities\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

There were two schools of thought overt [sic] the rewriting of the Bible. There was the Eastern or Babylonian school and the other was a Western or Palestinian school. The Palestinian school had two branches of thought, the Ben Asher and the Ben Naphtali in Tiberias. In 930 C.E. Aaron ben Moses ben Asher produced the first complete Bible, called the Aleppo Codex, utilizing masoretic symbols and ordering. For several centuries, various Masoretes continued to influence the pronunciation and writing of the text. However, the first \u201cofficial\u201d Bible text that is still used today was the Great Rabbinic Bible, published in 1524-1525 by Daniel Bomberg (a Christian in Venice).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In 1611 the King James Bible was first published with the Masoretic text as the basis for the translation of the Old Testament into English.\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

What follows is from\u00a0<\/em>\u201cDoes the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the KJV have any errors?<\/a>,\u201d KJV Today<\/a> online.<\/p>\n

Many believe that the KJV is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Second Rabbinic Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525.\u00a0 However, the KJV appeared to follow the First Rabbinic Bible, edited by Felix Pratensis in 1517-1518, as this first edition includes Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68<\/a> whereas the second edition omits these verses.\u00a0 Except for these two passages, the KJV appeared to follow the Ben Chayyim text.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A table comparing Psalm 66:5<\/a> in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and a table comparing Psalm 66:5 (65:5)<\/a> in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor) follow.\u00a0 Again<\/a>, Jim Searcy\u2019s concerns will alter my procedure.\u00a0 I\u2019ve been using the Tanakh from the Jewish Virtual Library as a proxy for the KJV.\u00a0 From now on I\u2019ll Include the text of the KJV since differences might be very instructive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

<\/a>Psalm 66:5 (Tanakh)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

Psalm 66:5 (KJV)<\/a><\/td>\n\n

Psalm 66:5 (NET)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Come and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men.<\/td>\nCome and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of men.<\/td>\nCome and witness God\u2019s exploits! \u00a0His acts on behalf of people are awesome!<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

<\/a>Psalm 66:5 (Septuagint BLB)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Psalm 65:5 (Septuagint Elpenor)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd7\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd<\/td>\n\u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Psalm 65:5 (NETS)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Psalm 65:5 (English Elpenor)<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Come, and see the works of God; he is awesome in his plans beyond the sons of men,<\/td>\nCome and behold the works of God; [he is] terrible in [his] counsels beyond the children of men.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\n
Who Am I? Part 11<\/em><\/a><\/div>\n
Back to Hannah”s Prayer, Part 2<\/em><\/a><\/div>\n
Back to Hannah’s Prayer, Part 3<\/em><\/a><\/div>\n
Back to Psalm 22, Part 1<\/em><\/a><\/div>\n
Back to Isaiah 53:10-12, Part 4<\/em><\/a><\/div>\n
Back to Justice and Mercy Revisited, Part 2<\/em><\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

<\/a>[1]<\/sup> Psalm 66:5 (KJV)<\/p>\n

<\/a>[2]<\/sup> James 1:4 (KJV)<\/p>\n

<\/a>[3]<\/sup> Who Am I? Part 3 <\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(I toyed with the idea of calling this What Am I Doing? Part 1, but I already have more threads than I can keep current.) I don\u2019t get a lot of eschatology in my own study, so I rely on … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4534,5,15],"tags":[2587,4618],"class_list":["post-12285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-section-five","category-what-kind-of-carpenter-is-jesus","category-who-am-i","tag-james-14","tag-psalm-665"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12285"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12285\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27412,"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12285\/revisions\/27412"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/religiousmind.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}