Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2018 5:38 PM
215 online now:
Dr Adequate, frako, Percy (Admin), ringo, Son Goku (5 members, 210 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,476 Year: 15,299/29,783 Month: 1,243/1,502 Week: 241/492 Day: 36/25 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship
autumnman
Member (Idle past 2937 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 1 of 321 (473073)
06-26-2008 8:31 PM


Admin: bertot and myself have a lively discussion going in a thread that has just past the 300 post limit. It is our hope that you will enable us to continue our debate in the New Thread I have briefly described below.

Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship
The Scholarly & The Religious Debate

What constitutes a Reliable Source Hebrew Text? And what translation of a particular Hebrew Text might be regarded as “The Word of God”?

The Samaritan Pentateuch as compared to the Masoretic Hebrew Torah present variations in the Kethib {letter} consonantal Text. Which Kethib Hebrew Text is the most accurate and/or reliable? Is the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures equal in content and authority to either the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Torah, Prophesies & Scriptures?

These are the focal questions this thread would like to explore from as many points of view as might be afforded: Scholarly, Religious, Linguistic, Historical, etc.

The point of this thread in not to come up with an answer to the above questions, but rather to shine as bright a light as possible on this aspect of Biblical Research as well as Religious Doctrine.

If Admin allows; let the discussions begin.

All the best,
Ger


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-27-2008 2:11 AM autumnman has responded
 Message 172 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2008 6:30 PM autumnman has responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 321 (473074)
06-26-2008 8:47 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 3 of 321 (473114)
06-27-2008 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by autumnman
06-26-2008 8:31 PM


AM writes
“Translated” is the operative word here. “Translations” of ancient texts do not necessarily convey in an accurate fashion what the Source Text is conveying. Let’s use the word “Transmitted” meaning, “copied”, then I will be in agreement with you.

That is tenable, but I simple think if you figure in providence and intervention, in conjuntion with the unity of theme and teaching it becomes even more acceptable and believable.

Again, when it comes to doing an honest translation of these ancient document the Religious Doctrine adhered to by the translator should be put aside so that the Source Text can receive an unbiased attention to detail. Supernatural intervention and providence may well have been part of the original composition thousands of years ago? But so what, if translators are altering what the text actually conveys so to make the text say what is expected by their current Religious Doctrine? What you end up with is the word of the current Religious Doctrine conveyed by the current translator. But you are most certainly not getting an unbiased expression of “The Word of God.”
Think about it.

I have, and I have given all the evidence as to why I dont agree, for the reasons already indicated earlier. But I think a discussion may still be possible. As one writer puts it:

Quote:

EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE BIBLE TRANSMISSION
The Old Testament
The Dead Sea Scrolls make up one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all times. In 1947, a number of ancient documents were found by accident in a cave on the northwest side of the Dead Sea. This collection of documents, which has become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, was comprised of old leather and papyrus scrolls and fragments that had been rolled up in earthen jars for centuries. From 1949 to 1956, hundreds of Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and a few Greek fragments were found in surrounding caves, and are believed by scholars to have been written between 200 B.C. and the first half of the first century A.D. Some of the manuscripts were of Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings (e.g., 1 Enoch, Tobit, and Jubilees); others often are grouped together as “ascetic” writings (miscellaneous books of rules, poetry, commentary, etc.). The most notable and pertinent group of documents found in the caves of Qumran near the Dead Sea is the collection of Old Testament books. Every book from the Hebrew Bible was accounted for among the scrolls except the book of Esther.

One of the caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered
The Dead Sea Scrolls serve as strong evidence for the integrity of the Old Testament text. Prior to 1947, the earliest known Old Testament manuscripts went back only to about A.D. 1000. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Bible scholars have been able to compare the present day text with the text from more than 2,000 years ago. Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Massoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191). What’s more, if copies of the Old Testament in the first century were sufficiently accurate for Jesus and the apostles to quote them and teach from them, and we possess Old Testament manuscripts that date back to (or before) the time of Christ, then Christians should feel extremely confident about the condition of the Old Testament in the 21st century—at least as confident as was Jesus (cf. Matthew 22:31). Eric Lyons, 'Apologeticspress.org'., Inspired writings and compotent copyist.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3268

Contradictions analyzed:

When we look at the contradictions which Muslims point out we find that many of these errors are not errors at all but either a misunderstanding of the context or nothing more then copyist mistakes. The former can easily be explained, while the latter need a little more attention. It is quite clear that the books of the Old Testament were written between the 17th and the 5th century BC on the only parchments available at that time, pieces of Papyrus, which decayed rather quickly, and so needed continual copying. We now know that much of the Old Testament was copied by hand for 3,000 years, while the New Testament was copied for another 1,400 years, in isolated communities in different lands and on different continents, yet they still remain basically unchanged.

Today many older manuscripts have been found which we can use to corroborate those earlier manuscripts. In fact we have an enormous collection of manuscripts available to which we can go to corroborate the textual credibility of our current document. Concerning the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we have in our possession 5,300 Greek manuscripts or fragments thereof, 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and at least 9,300 other early translations. In all we now have more than 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament from which to use! Obviously this gives us much more material with which to delineate any variant verses which may exist. Where there is a variant reading, these have been identified and expunged and noted as footnotes on the relevant pages of the texts. In no way does this imply any defects with our Bible (as found in the original autographs).

Christians readily admit, however, that there have been 'scribal errors' in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist.

The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) were prone to making two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves. (Archer 1982:221-222)

What is important to remember, however, is that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine of the Bible. To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit has exercised a restraining influence in superintending the transmission of the text.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents were inspired. For that reason it is essential that we maintain an ongoing textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15)"., Jay Smith, '101 Clear contradictions inthe Bible, Cleared Up'

http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm

Of course the Biblical-New Hebrew Kethib Text is still in existence. Above I shared with you the Masoretic Kethib and the Samaritan Kethib.

Forgive me I thought the 9th century masoretic text was the oldest Hebrew manuscripts we possessed. Are the above complete or are they fragmnets?

If the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text is questioned, then all translations based on that vowel pointing is being questioned. That is not a bad thing. All translations of the Kethib need to be questioned, for they all cannot be “correct”. Do you see what I am saying? Deciding what “interpretive translation” is in fact “the Word of God” will depend upon the Religious Doctrine adhered to by the person doing the deciding.
There is not a world-wide consensus regarding what “interpretive translation” of the Kethib constitutes “the Word of God.” That is a fact!

I agree to some extent, but simply knowing the "vowel points" are inaccurate demonstrates alot about what we do know and posses. All of the translations only need to be interpreted in conjuction with what is known and demonstratable.

You are taking my words out of context, but I really do not care. The point is, the various Religious Doctrines conveyed in the Scriptures after the Eden Narrative do not alter the actual Kethib of the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I come at the Kethib Eden Narrative as if I do not know what it is “supposed” to say, but rather I study the Kethib Eden Narrative to learn what it actually may be conveying. If what it actually conveys confirms a particular Religious Doctrine, I will be happy with that. If what the Kethib Eden Narrative turns out not to support any existing Religious Doctrine, I will be happy with that too.

Do you see the difference?

I can only go by what you tell me, if I misrepresented you you are free to explain. Ironically your bias here is all to obvious. you start out with the preconcieved idea that "everyone" else has an agenda or doctrine to defend, this is simply not the case.

Is this the above quote you are referring to?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very difficult for any scholar who embraces a certain religious doctrine to translate a source text in a manner that does not conform to his or her religious doctrine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a quote from the “Adam Clark” article you shared:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is it that he is saying anything different that what I conveyed.

Because "difficulty is not impossibility. Your statements seem to indirectly imply that all start with some religious agenda, therefore cannot be trusted. Most of these scholars or translators would not agree with your usage of the Interpres application and the extreme way you employ it. Translation, word usage, context and even a little common sense, must be employed.

As an indication of this you imply or directly state at times the rest of the scriptures cannot be used to interpret that which is contained in the Hebrew Eden narrative, because this would imply doctrinal agenda. Question, how would we know that any part of the Eden narrative supports any other part, or that any particular word could support or corrborate another? If it is necessary to interpret every word, word for word literallyand the context can have no real bearing,or word usage can only be taken literally all the time, then the narrative itself would start to contradict itself.

Both are not mentioned in the same verse. Furthermore, there are a vast number of “unrealistic” or “riddle-like” passages woven throughout the Hebrew Eden Narrative, which point to the fact that the Hebrew Eden Narrative was composed in a manner that does not lend itself to being interpreted as a “prosaic historical account.” If the Hebrew Eden narrative is not a prosaic literary description of an actual historical event, and it is also not a folktale or myth, then the only other option, as far as I can see, it that the Hebrew Eden Narrative is a “poetic/proverbial wisdom text.
Getting back to the “wet” and “dry” ground passage:
Gen. 2:5 states that no plants or herbs are growing because God has not yet caused rain to fall upon the earth.
Gen. 2:6 then describes a mist ascending from the dry-ground and in turn irrigating the entire face of the ground.
Gen. 2:7 then describes God “forming?” the human archetype of dry-dust from the newly irrigated ground.
That is simply what the Kethib Hebrew Text conveys. If you wish to perceive the Kethib Hebrew Text as the “Word of God”, then that is what the “Word of God” conveys.

Since there were no verse designations in the original my point is the same.

My friend the words, "which would point to the fact that the Hebrew Eden narrative was.......", are a preconcieved idea and a religous agenda. you are starting with the agenda that there is simply no way that the "unrealistic" things that happened could not have happened. Just a point of interest here.

That is simply what the Kethib Hebrew Text conveys. If you wish to perceive the Kethib Hebrew Text as the “Word of God”, then that is what the “Word of God” conveys.

Yes of course but what I was indicating was that the verbage does not need to absolutly lend itself to unrealistic, figurative and untenable usage and application. My friend the whole Bible is repleat with the so-called unrealistic, atleast from a humanistic standpoint.

Maybe as we now get closer to the actual translation of the narrative in "simple english" initially, please, we can begin to see its content and what its conveying. I have a tendency to believe some of your interpretations are there, butthey are secondary to the primary meanings. Lets see however, if the "simple" translation will help u s initially. Perhaps others will jump in that can evaluate you usage of the Hebrew.

More in a minute.

D Bertot

Edited by bertot, 06-27-2008 12:47 AM: No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by autumnman, posted 06-26-2008 8:31 PM autumnman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 12:58 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
autumnman
Member (Idle past 2937 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 4 of 321 (473164)
06-27-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dawn Bertot
06-27-2008 2:11 AM


Transmit, Translate, Interpret
bertot:

This is a quote from the article you posted:
I am going to “bold” the terminology I would like you to pay close attention to.

quote:
Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Massoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191). What’s more, if copies of the Old Testament in the first century were sufficiently accurate for Jesus and the apostles to quote them and teach from them, and we possess Old Testament manuscripts that date back to (or before) the time of Christ, then Christians should feel extremely confident about the condition of the Old Testament in the 21st century—at least as confident as was Jesus (cf. Matthew 22:31). Eric Lyons, 'Apologeticspress.org'., Inspired writings and compotent copyist

Rene, states: we possess Old Testament manuscripts that date back to (or before) the time of Christ. Being in possession of Old Testament Kethib Hebrew manuscripts is one thing; translating these Kethib Hebrew manuscripts is quite another.

In the article above, regarding the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Text, the very specific term “transmitted” is employed three times in a row. Now here is a quote I made on the previous thread, post # 302:

quote:
“Translated” is the operative word here. “Translations” of ancient texts do not necessarily convey in an accurate fashion what the Source Text is conveying. Let’s use the word “Transmitted” meaning, “copied”, then I will be in agreement with you.

Forgive me I thought the 9th century masoretic text was the oldest Hebrew manuscripts we possessed. Are the above complete or are they fragmnets?

The Samaritan Pentateuch is a complete, Paleo Hebrew Kethib rendering of the Hebrew Torah.
Plus:
Read the article you just sent to me.

quote:
AM wrote: If the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text is questioned, then all translations based on that vowel pointing are being questioned. That is not a bad thing. All translations of the Kethib need to be questioned, for they all cannot be “correct”. Do you see what I am saying? Deciding what “interpretive translation” is in fact “the Word of God” will depend upon the Religious Doctrine adhered to by the person doing the deciding.There is not a worldwide consensus regarding what “interpretive translation” of the Kethib constitutes “the Word of God.” That is a fact!

I agree to some extent, but simply knowing the "vowel points" are inaccurate demonstrates alot about what we do know and posses. All of the translations only need to be interpreted in conjuction with what is known and demonstratable.

I do not even know what you are trying to say in the above statement???? Please explain.

I can only go by what you tell me, if I misrepresented you you are free to explain. Ironically your bias here is all to obvious. you start out with the preconcieved idea that "everyone" else has an agenda or doctrine to defend, this is simply not the case.

I have no “bias” because I do not “start out with the preconceived idea that ‘everyone’ else has an agenda or doctrine to defend’. I start out by interpres translating the Kethib Source Hebrew Text. Then I compare the various interpres translations that may or may not work in the Kethib Source Hebrew Text to the expositor translations performed by other scholars. That is how I perform my research. What the Kethib Source Hebrew Text conveys is what the Text conveys. It is as simple as that.

quote:
AM wrote: Is this the above quote you are referring to? quote:------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very difficult for any scholar who embraces a certain religious doctrine to translate a source text in a manner that does not conform to his or her religious doctrine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a quote from the “Adam Clark” article you shared:

quote:------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.-----------------------------------------------------------------
How is it that he is saying anything different that what I conveyed.


Because "difficulty is not impossibility. Your statements seem to indirectly imply that all start with some religious agenda, therefore cannot be trusted. Most of these scholars or translators would not agree with your usage of the Interpres application and the extreme way you employ it. Translation, word usage, context and even a little common sense, must be employed.

I do not apply the interpres method of translation in an “extreme way.” I first and foremost translate the Hebrew Kethib Source Text. Then, after the Hebrew Kethib Source Text is interpres translated, then and only then, do I begin the “interpretation” of the Hebrew Kethib Source Text. During this exegetical/interpretive process is where “narrative context” and “a little common sense” is employed. This exegetical/interpretive process is not employed during the interpres translation of the Hebrew Kethib Source Text.

That is as clear, concise, and honest as I can explain the method I employ when translating the Hebrew Kethib Source Text into English. I hope you might finally understand.

As an indication of this you imply or directly state at times the rest of the scriptures cannot be used to interpret that which is contained in the Hebrew Eden narrative, because this would imply doctrinal agenda.

The rest of the Scriptures can be used to interpret the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative when the common usage of a Hebrew term or terminology is trying to be established. But attempting to employ the context of the rest of the Old and New Testaments to force the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative to fit Rabbinic Judaism or Pauline Christianity does nothing but treat the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative in the same fashion as the Masoretic Hebrew Scholars who added the vowel points, vocalization marks and punctuation to the Kethib Hebrew Source Text in the 6th to the 9th centuries CE. Remember what Adam Clark said above:

quote:
However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.

Question, how would we know that any part of the Eden narrative supports any other part, or that any particular word could support or corrborate another? If it is necessary to interpret every word, word for word literally and the context can have no real bearing,or word usage can only be taken literally all the time, then the narrative itself would start to contradict itself.

I believe I have answered your question above: But, if you need me to address these particular question, then copy and past them to the beginning of your next post.

All the best,
Ger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-27-2008 2:11 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-27-2008 4:59 PM autumnman has responded
 Message 8 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-28-2008 1:40 AM autumnman has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 5 of 321 (473197)
06-27-2008 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by autumnman
06-27-2008 12:58 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
Whats up there Crab A.. and Grippy Gus, I will get to your latest nonsense in a while, ha ha. In the meantime maybe you could start on a english, exact translation wih no inserts of any kind, to get us started.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 12:58 PM autumnman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 5:44 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
autumnman
Member (Idle past 2937 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 6 of 321 (473201)
06-27-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dawn Bertot
06-27-2008 4:59 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
bertot wrote:

In the meantime maybe you could start on a english, exact translation wih no inserts of any kind, to get us started.

You want me to provide you with an “English, exact translation with no inserts of any kind” of Gen. 2:4 thru 7. Did I understand you correctly?

The following is “A” English translation of Gen. 2:4 thru 7 employing the most common usage of the bound morphemes, words, and verbal clauses according to the BDB, Gesenius, and Brill Lexicons of the Old Testament, and the Hebrew grammar as described in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar and Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew Lexicon.

quote:
2:4 these human generations the heavens and the earth as they are created at time he makes yhwh God earth and heavens.

2:5 then all plants the field before they be in earth and all herbage the field not yet they sprout for not he cause it to rain yhwh God upon the earth and humanity was not to work the ground.

2:6 but a mist it ascends from the earth and irrigates the whole surface the ground.

2:7 then he devises yhwh God the human species dust from the ground and he breathes in its noses breath of mortal life and it becomes the human species in regard to a breathing animal.


Now, perhaps we can discuss what the Kethib Eden Narrative Text might be conveying in these first four verses.

All the best,
Ger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-27-2008 4:59 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-27-2008 6:16 PM autumnman has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 7 of 321 (473209)
06-27-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by autumnman
06-27-2008 5:44 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
The following is “A” English translation of Gen. 2:4 thru 7 employing the most common usage of the bound morphemes, words, and verbal clauses according to the BDB, Gesenius, and Brill Lexicons of the Old Testament, and the Hebrew grammar as described in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar and Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew Lexicon.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2:4 these human generations the heavens and the earth as they are created at time he makes yhwh God earth and heavens.
2:5 then all plants the field before they be in earth and all herbage the field not yet they sprout for not he cause it to rain yhwh God upon the earth and humanity was not to work the ground.

2:6 but a mist it ascends from the earth and irrigates the whole surface the ground.

2:7 then he devises yhwh God the human species dust from the ground and he breathes in its noses breath of mortal life and it becomes the human species in regard to a breathing animal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, perhaps we can discuss what the Kethib Eden Narrative Text might be conveying in these first four verses.

I still need to respond to you previous post first but thanks for this at present, I am anxious to see what the rest of the narrative conveys and reveals. I have got to get some things done, going to a movie and other things, but as always you will get reponses from me to anything you have stated. It may be very late again, I do that thing where I stay up till 3 or 4 then get up about 7:30 or eight. I know it will take its toll someday, probably in the form of a stroke or aneurysm, but Ill sleep when I am dead.

So while you waiting go milk a cow, play with your sheep and certainly do not commit "equine desertion", do you know what that is?

D Bertot

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 5:44 PM autumnman has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 8 of 321 (473281)
06-28-2008 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by autumnman
06-27-2008 12:58 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
Rene, states: we possess Old Testament manuscripts that date back to (or before) the time of Christ. Being in possession of Old Testament Kethib Hebrew manuscripts is one thing; translating these Kethib Hebrew manuscripts is quite another.

In the article above, regarding the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Text, the very specific term “transmitted” is employed three times in a row. Now here is a quote I made on the previous thread, post # 302:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Translated” is the operative word here. “Translations” of ancient texts do not necessarily convey in an accurate fashion what the Source Text is conveying. Let’s use the word “Transmitted” meaning, “copied”, then I will be in agreement with you.

The expression "necessarily convey" is a very ambiguous expression in this context. As the arthors of these articles are pointiing out, this is not he case in relationship to the scriptures. The main point of these articles is that one CAN have "confidence that it was both translated and transmitted with the smallest of minute errors over the years. Making some kind of play on words like "transmitted" and "translation", is a weak attempt to avoid the force of the evidence and argumnet being made here. Again, all the ancient manuscripts including the DSS demonstrate this point, as you have indicated yourself. "necessarily convey" is a complaint not a valid argument.

I have no “bias” because I do not “start out with the preconceived idea that ‘everyone’ else has an agenda or doctrine to defend’. I start out by interpres translating the Kethib Source Hebrew Text. Then I compare the various interpres translations that may or may not work in the Kethib Source Hebrew Text to the expositor translations performed by other scholars. That is how I perform my research. What the Kethib Source Hebrew Text conveys is what the Text conveys. It is as simple as that.

Indicating as you have numerous times now that scholars and the average person brings to the text thier preconcieved ideas or doctrinal views is most certainly a bias from your perspective. You apply to yourself some sort of "complete objectivity", when approaching the texts, but for others this is not possible because thier interpretations do not agree wtih yours and this ofcourse must be due to thier doctrinal backgrounds, not thier objectivity in the matter. Is this not the issue you have set out in the previous posts, both directly and indirectly? here is a quote from you below:

AM writes

It is very difficult for any scholar who embraces a certain religious doctrine to translate a source text in a manner that does not conform to his or her religious doctrine.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AM wrote: Is this the above quote you are referring to? quote:------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very difficult for any scholar who embraces a certain religious doctrine to translate a source text in a manner that does not conform to his or her religious doctrine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a quote from the “Adam Clark” article you shared:
quote:------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.-----------------------------------------------------------------
How is it that he is saying anything different that what I conveyed.

Again, and I guess you paid no attention to what i said in this connection. Simply because "some" individuals cannot be objective does not mean alot were not. Further, objectivity can be obtained from the existing ancient manuscripts that we do possess

Thankfully, it was not "only" Jewish scholars that were involved in this process, which would lend to a greater possibility of objectivity in this connection. The quotes you are highlighting here were not meant to be understood to the extent that you are applying them.

Finally, you are dismissing the very real possibility of guidance and intervention in the overall process. It is not unreasonable or unrealistic to believe that, A God, you believe in would and could accomplish this task. I know you are tired of hearing this concept, but the iorny is that both reality (physical universe) and the evidence indicate the very real possibilty of this category.

I do not apply the interpres method of translation in an “extreme way.” I first and foremost translate the Hebrew Kethib Source Text. Then, after the Hebrew Kethib Source Text is interpres translated, then and only then, do I begin the “interpretation” of the Hebrew Kethib Source Text. During this exegetical/interpretive process is where “narrative context” and “a little common sense” is employed. This exegetical/interpretive process is not employed during the interpres translation of the Hebrew Kethib Source Text.

That is as clear, concise, and honest as I can explain the method I employ when translating the Hebrew Kethib Source Text into English. I hope you might finally understand.

I appreciate you attempts here to avoid an obvious flaw in what you say above and what you have indicated in ealier posts. But this simply will not work. The exigetical or interprative process is actually incorperated with and during any interpres method. In context and with the correct translation of words one could easily see and understand at the same time ,that damp or wet ground does not necessarily imply "at the same time" as the dry ground (dust)that was used to form man, in the same time frame. If however, one immediatley concludes that there must be a contradiction here, they simply have not left an extreme form of the interpres method and employed any other form of interpretation. See what I mean.

It is not necessary to see it as poetic to avoid a contradiction that does not exist in the first place.

The rest of the Scriptures can be used to interpret the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative when the common usage of a Hebrew term or terminology is trying to be established. But attempting to employ the context of the rest of the Old and New Testaments to force the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative to fit Rabbinic Judaism or Pauline Christianity does nothing but treat the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative in the same fashion as the Masoretic Hebrew Scholars who added the vowel points, vocalization marks and punctuation to the Kethib Hebrew Source Text in the 6th to the 9th centuries CE. Remember what Adam Clark said above:

Notice the obvious assumptions in the above statements. You indirectly imply that he Eden "narrative" must be older than any of the rest of the Pentatuch, which it is not. Rememberthe question I asked you at another point. Has the Eden narrative ever been discovered "apart" from the book of Genesis, answer NO. You assume that the rest of the scriptures must be interpreted by the Eden narrative and not vis versa.

The immediate problem you are faced with here is that the author of the Eden narrative is also the author of the rest of the Pentatuch. That same author would bethe best "interpreter" of what the Eden narrative was or was not. He however,indicates himself that it was a real story. In Exodus 20:8-11 and many other chapter and verses that could be brought to bare on this contention.

Your insurmountable task in this connection is to disconnect the Narrative from the its AUTHOR, the first five books of Moses, the rest of the OT scriptures, the NT scriptures, Jesus Christ, most if not all BC and AD Jews and Christians that believed it as it is set out in the rest of the OT, every OT Prophet, King, Priest and Judge. Knock yourself out.

2:7 then he devises yhwh God the human species dust from the ground and he breathes in its noses breath of mortal life and it becomes the human species in regard to a breathing animal.

Thank you for this easy to read translation and I really mean that.
Ok the name Adam is not mentioned, will however, the rest of the narrative translated this way indicate that these may have very well been actual people (first two people), as a result of the rest of the narrative and its story?

Now, perhaps we can discuss what the Kethib Eden Narrative Text might be conveying in these first four verses.

By all means proceed.

Off the topic however, I started to ask you this on memorial day but forgot. It has always perplexed me why D-day was conducted in broad daylight for the beach landings, which made the troops sitting ducks. Would it not have been better at night to avoid such a shooting gallery. I thought I remembered you saying you were a Veteran. Maybe you or someone else could provide a answer, thanks

D Bertot

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by autumnman, posted 06-27-2008 12:58 PM autumnman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by autumnman, posted 06-28-2008 10:59 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
autumnman
Member (Idle past 2937 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 9 of 321 (473335)
06-28-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dawn Bertot
06-28-2008 1:40 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
bertot wrote:

The expression "necessarily convey" is a very ambiguous expression in this context. As the arthors of these articles are pointiing out, this is not he case in relationship to the scriptures. The main point of these articles is that one CAN have "confidence that it was both translated and transmitted with the smallest of minute errors over the years.

That is not what I am reading in the article. Again I quote the article:

quote:
EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE BIBLE TRANSMISSION
The Old Testament: Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Masoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191).

I agree with the article. I disagree with you. And where in the article is the expression “necessarily convey” employed? I’m going to go back up to post #3 and read it again. If I find the clause “necessarily convey” I’ll let you know. Well, the clause “necessarily convey” is not in the article, so I guess it is a quote of mine. There is nothing ambiguous about the clause “necessarily convey”.

However, I must tell you, you are wearing me down and out. If you want to claim that the English terms “translated” and “transmitted” are synonymous, that is fine, but I can not continue a conversation with someone who does not even acknowledge the definitions of the English words I am employing.

You, my friend, can believe anything that makes you feel good, right or righteous. I really do not care.

Making some kind of play on words like "transmitted" and "translation", is a weak attempt to avoid the force of the evidence and argumnet being made here. Again, all the ancient manuscripts including the DSS demonstrate this point, as you have indicated yourself. "necessarily convey" is a complaint not a valid argument.

I have no response to this!

By all means proceed.

You already know what the text says, so I will not waste my time.
Off the topic however, I started to ask you this on memorial day but forgot. It has always perplexed me why D-day was conducted in broad daylight for the beach landings, which made the troops sitting ducks. Would it not have been better at night to avoid such a shooting gallery. I thought I remembered you saying you were a Veteran. Maybe you or someone else could provide a answer, thanks

Navigation was the difficulty back then that made a daylight assault on the beaches necessary. The landing craft had no navigation aboard. At least that is what my historical understanding of the situation of D-day was.

All the best,
Ger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-28-2008 1:40 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-28-2008 12:16 PM autumnman has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-29-2008 1:03 AM autumnman has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 10 of 321 (473342)
06-28-2008 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by autumnman
06-28-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
bertot wrote:

The expression "necessarily convey" is a very ambiguous expression in this context. As the arthors of these articles are pointiing out, this is not he case in relationship to the scriptures. The main point of these articles is that one CAN have "confidence that it was both translated and transmitted with the smallest of minute errors over the years.

That is not what I am reading in the article. Again I quote the article:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE BIBLE TRANSMISSION
The Old Testament: Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Masoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the article. I disagree with you. And where in the article is the expression “necessarily convey” employed? I’m going to go back up to post #3 and read it again. If I find the clause “necessarily convey” I’ll let you know. Well, the clause “necessarily convey” is not in the article, so I guess it is a quote of mine. There is nothing ambiguous about the clause “necessarily convey”.

However, I must tell you, you are wearing me down and out. If you want to claim that the English terms “translated” and “transmitted” are synonymous, that is fine, but I can not continue a conversation with someone who does not even acknowledge the definitions of the English words I am employing.

You, my friend, can believe anything that makes you feel good, right or righteous. I really do not care.

You my friend are a unbelievably arrogant person. I never said that the words translated and transmitted are synonymus. I was simply saying that they are not in contradiction with each other. that the authors of these articles are conveying that we can "have confidence in the fact that we have for all intents and purposes what was originally written". What do the words: "Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191).", mean to you.
Only a person wishing to distort the truth and reality, would try and ignore this point.

How in the world my friend can you agree with the article but not with me, I also agree with the import of his argument, thats why I posted it. Here are the definitions of Translated and transmitted, both if the words are incorrperated with eachother , and they over lap each other, so as to not be completly distinguished from eachother. In other words they are not in opposition to each other as you are indirectly indicating.

trans·la·tion Audio Help /trænsˈleɪʃən, trænz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trans-ley-shuhn, tranz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.
2. a version of such a rendering: a new translation of Plato.
3. change or conversion to another form, appearance, etc.; transformation: a swift translation of thought into action.
4. the act or process of translating.
5. the state of being translated.
6. Mechanics. motion in which all particles of a body move with the same velocity along parallel paths.
7. Telegraphy. the retransmitting or forwarding of a message, as by relay.
8. Mathematics. a. a function obtained from a given function by adding the same constant to each value of the variable of the given function and moving the graph of the function a constant distance to the right or left.
b. a transformation in which every point of a geometric figure is moved the same distance in the same direction.

9. Genetics. the process by which a messenger RNA molecule specifies the linear sequence of amino acids on a ribosome for protein synthesis.

Compare genetic code.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1300–50; < L trānslātiōn- (s. of trānslātiō) a transferring, equiv. to trānslāt(us) (see translate) + -iōn- -ion; r. ME translacioun < AF < L, as above]

—Related forms
trans·la·tion·al, adjective
trans·la·tion·al·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 2. Translation, paraphrase, version refer to a rewording of something. A translation is a rendering of the same ideas in a different language from the original: a translation from Greek into English. A paraphrase is a free rendering of the sense of a passage in other words, usually in the same language: a paraphrase of a poem. A version is a translation, esp. of the Bible, or else an account of something illustrating a particular point of view: the Douay Version.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

trans·mit Audio Help /trænsˈmɪt, trænz-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trans-mit, tranz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -mit·ted, -mit·ting.
–verb (used with object) 1. to send or forward, as to a recipient or destination; dispatch; convey.
2. to communicate, as information or news.
3. to pass or spread (disease, infection, etc.) to another.
4. to pass on (a genetic characteristic) from parent to offspring: The mother transmitted her red hair to her daughter.
5. Physics. a. to cause (light, heat, sound, etc.) to pass through a medium.
b. to convey or pass along (an impulse, force, motion, etc.).
c. to permit (light, heat, etc.) to pass through: Glass transmits light.

6. Radio and Television. to emit (electromagnetic waves).
–verb (used without object) 7. to send a signal by wire, radio, or television waves.
8. to pass on a right or obligation to heirs or descendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME transmitten < L trānsmittere to send across, equiv. to trāns- trans- + mittere to send]

—Related forms
trans·mit·ta·ble, trans·mit·ti·ble, adjective

—Synonyms 1. transfer, remit. 2. bear. See carry.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
transmit

To learn more about transmit visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This trans·mit Audio Help (trāns-mĭt', trānz-) Pronunciation Key
v. trans·mit·ted, trans·mit·ting, trans·mits

v. tr.

To send from one person, thing, or place to another; convey. See Synonyms at convey, send1.
To cause to spread; pass on: transmit an infection.
To impart or convey to others by heredity or inheritance; hand down.
To pass along (news or information); communicate.

Electronics To send (a signal), as by wire or radio.
Physics To cause (a disturbance) to propagate through a medium.
To convey (force or energy) from one part of a mechanism to another.

v. intr.
To send out a signal.

[Middle English transmitten, from Latin trānsmittere : trāns-, trans- + mittere, to send.]

trans·mit'ta·ble adj.

(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
transmit

c.1400, from L. transmittere "send across, transfer, pass on," from trans- "across" + mittere "to send." Transmitter "apparatus for receiving radio signals" is first attested 1934.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This transmit

verb
1. transfer to another; "communicate a disease" [syn: convey]
2. transmit or serve as the medium for transmission; "Sound carries well over water"; "The airwaves carry the sound"; "Many metals conduct heat" [syn: impart]
3. broadcast over the airwaves, as in radio or television; "We cannot air this X-rated song" [syn: air]
4. send from one person or place to another; "transmit a message"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
transmit1 [trӕnzˈmit] verb — past tense, past participle transˈmitted

to pass on
Example: He transmitted the message; Insects can transmit disease. Arabic: يَنْقُل
Chinese (Simplified): 传播,传送
Chinese (Traditional): 傳播,傳送
Czech: předat; přenést
Danish: overføre
Dutch: overbrengen
Estonian: edasi andma
Finnish: levittää
French: transmettre
German: übermitteln,-tragen
Greek: μεταδίδω, μεταβιβάζω, διαβιβάζω
Hungarian: átad
Icelandic: senda (áfram); breiða út
Italian: trasmettere
Japanese: 伝える
Korean: 전하다, (병을) 옮기다
Lithuanian: perduoti, pernešti
Polish: przekazywać, przenosić
Portuguese (Brazil): transmitir
Portuguese (Portugal): transmitir
Romanian: a transmite, a difuza
Russian: передавать; переносить
Spanish: transmitir
Swedish: vidarebefordra, överföra
Turkish: yaymak, geçirmek

transmit2 [trӕnzˈmit] verb

to send out (radio or television signals, programmes etc)
Example: The programme will be transmitted at 5.00 p.m. Arabic: يُرْسِل باللاسِلْكي
Chinese (Simplified): 发射,播送
Chinese (Traditional): 發射,播送
Czech: vysílat
Danish: transmittere
Dutch: uitzenden
Estonian: üle kandma
Finnish: lähettää
French: transmettre
German: senden
Greek: μεταδίδω
Hungarian: közvetít
Icelandic: senda út
Italian: trasmettere
Japanese: 送る
Korean: 송신하다
Lithuanian: perduoti, transliuoti
Polish: nadawać
Portuguese (Brazil): transmitir
Portuguese (Portugal): transmitir
Romanian: a transmite
Russian: транслировать
Spanish: transmitir
Swedish: sända
Turkish: yayınlamak

See also: transmission, transmitter

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version), © 2000-2006 K Dictionaries Ltd.
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
trans·mit (trns-mt, trnz-)
v. trans·mit·ted, trans·mit·ting, trans·mits

To send from one person, thing, or place to another; convey.
To cause to spread; pass on.
To impart or convey to others by heredity or inheritance; hand down.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trans·mitta·ble adj.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: trans·mit
Pronunciation: tran(t)s-'mit, tranz-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: trans·mit·ted; trans·mit·ting
: to pass, transfer, or convey from one person or place to another: as a : to pass or convey by heredity b : to convey (infection) abroad or to another c : to cause (energy) to be conveyed through space or a medium

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: trans·mit
Pronunciation: tranz-'mit, trans-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: trans·mit·ted; trans·mit·ting
1 : to send or convey from one person or place to another
2 : to transfer esp. by inheritance —trans·mit·ta·ble /-'mi-t&-b&l/ adjective —trans·mit·tal /-'mit-&l/ noun

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Transmit

Trans*mis"sion\, n. [L. transmissio; cf. F. transmission. See Transmit.]

1. The act of transmitting, or the state of being transmitted; as, the transmission of letters, writings, papers, news, and the like, from one country to another; the transmission of rights, titles, or privileges, from father to son, or from one generation to another.

2. (Law) The right possessed by an heir or legatee of transmitting to his successor or successors any inheritance, legacy, right, or privilege, to which he is entitled, even if he should die without enjoying or exercising it. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
Transmit

Trans*mit"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Transmitted; p. pr. & vb. n. Transmitting.] [L. transmittere, transmissum; trans across, over + mittere to send: cf. F. transmettre. See Missile.]

1. To cause to pass over or through; to communicate by sending; to send from one person or place to another; to pass on or down as by inheritance; as, to transmit a memorial; to transmit dispatches; to transmit money, or bills of exchange, from one country to another.

The ancientest fathers must be next removed, as Clement of Alexandria, and that Eusebian book of evangelic preparation, transmitting our ears through a hoard of heathenish obscenities to receive the gospel. --Milton.

The scepter of that kingdom continued to be transmitted in the dynasty of Castile. --Prescott.

2. To suffer to pass through; as, glass transmits light; metals transmit, or conduct, electricity. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web

Somehing translated can be something transmitted, something transmitted can be something Translated. The words compliment eachother they dont contradict eachother.

Again I never said the words Necessarily Convey were in the article, I said that they were not an argumentbut a complaint.

Bertotwrites: By all means proceed.

AM writes:You already know what the text says, so I will not waste my time.

The reason you will not waste your time is because you know the rest of the text will demonstrate the point that it could be understood as a literal story. This is why you only posted 4 verses initially. you did not come to debate, you came with an agenda, if that agenda is contradicted, you through a fit and say things like "like I dont really care what you believe" and "I dont want to talk to you anymore".

Have it your way my petty friend.

D Bertot

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by autumnman, posted 06-28-2008 10:59 AM autumnman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-28-2008 2:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 11 of 321 (473358)
06-28-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dawn Bertot
06-28-2008 12:16 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
Have it your way my petty friend.

Oh I was just kidding cry baby, go ahead and start your thesis
Going to work talk to you in a while
D Bertot

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-28-2008 12:16 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 12 of 321 (473407)
06-29-2008 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by autumnman
06-28-2008 10:59 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
AM writes
What constitutes a Reliable Source Hebrew Text? And what translation of a particular Hebrew Text might be regarded as “The Word of God”?

The Samaritan Pentateuch as compared to the Masoretic Hebrew Torah present variations in the Kethib {letter} consonantal Text. Which Kethib Hebrew Text is the most accurate and/or reliable? Is the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures equal in content and authority to either the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Torah, Prophesies & Scriptures?

These are the focal questions this thread would like to explore from as many points of view as might be afforded: Scholarly, Religious, Linguistic, Historical, etc.

These were some of the comments that constituted the primary paragraphs of this initial opening thread. If indeed, as stated in the first and third paragraphs, we might explore both what constitues "the Word of God" from a "scholarly and "religious" points of view, why then, is the aspect of both the divine and the possibility of intervention never seriously considered. It is difficult to discuss the "religious" implications and what might constitute "Gods Word", when the these concepts are suppressed and never really given a chance in the context of this discussion or the texts (scriptures) under consideration.

Lets approach this a little more logically and a little less emotionally. As we interpret the Hebrew Eden narrative, many theological and spiritual concepts will emerge. The question will arise, How and what will we do with these direct and indirect conclusions. Will they have applications in the real word? After we apply them to the real world, does the application stop there, or can they have any significance to the eternal world.

Is there anyway to determine that its author was inspired to these correct conclusions, other than his own obsrvations and experiences to the physical world.

Do the concepts that emerge, the existence of God, the creation of the physical universe, the creation of man and his endowment with creativity only have application to and limited to his physical existence?

Probably the greatest question to consider is, do the clearly spiritual concepts have application to an after life? Do they express an indication of the after life or spiritual existence in your view?

When all of the things are pondered and considered would not the indication of intervention of necessity be involved to some extent?

Fom a completly personal standpoint, what do you gain from the translation and application of the Hebrew Eden narrative?

This could get the conversation started in the right direction.

D Bertot

D Bertot

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by autumnman, posted 06-28-2008 10:59 AM autumnman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by autumnman, posted 06-29-2008 12:24 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
autumnman
Member (Idle past 2937 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 13 of 321 (473455)
06-29-2008 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Dawn Bertot
06-29-2008 1:03 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
bertot: Good to hear from you. I will attempt a coherent reply to you post.

These were some of the comments that constituted the primary paragraphs of this initial opening thread. If indeed, as stated in the first and third paragraphs, we might explore both what constitues "the Word of God" from a "scholarly and "religious" points of view, why then, is the aspect of both the divine and the possibility of intervention never seriously considered.

“The possibility of divine intervention” is impossible to qualify or quantify. “Divine intervention” belongs in the “personal belief” category. I personally do not rule it in or out when translating and interpreting ancient texts. With God all things are possible. That, my friend, is the difficulty with ruling “divine intervention” into the composition of an ancient Narrative. Too much can be read between the lines. If a difficulty is discovered in the text, that difficulty will not be examined from all rational, or reasonable perspectives, because “with God all things are possible,” so the difficulty is merely glossed over. Only after the Narrative has been thoroughly translated and a number of exegetical possibilities have been accepted as probable interpretations, then a discussion of “the possibility of divine intervention” should most certainly be examined in a thorough, rational, and reasonable manner.

It is difficult to discuss the "religious" implications and what might constitute "Gods Word", when the these concepts are suppressed and never really given a chance in the context of this discussion or the texts (scriptures) under consideration.

Again, First the Kethib Hebrew Text must be translated as it is composed. Translating any Kethib Hebrew Text is not an easy or completely accurate process. Once a couple of translations appear to be reasonably accurate, and a couple interpretation appear to be probable, then a discussion as to whether the Kethib Hebrew Text is either ‘God’s Word”, God inspired words, or the inspired word of men, or if they are words that convey nothing but utter nonsense. Prior to having a reasonably accurate translation and a probable interpretation, the discussion regarding the Kethib Hebrew Text as being ‘God’s Word’ is premature.

Lets approach this a little more logically and a little less emotionally. As we interpret the Hebrew Eden narrative, many theological and spiritual concepts will emerge. The question will arise, How and what will we do with these direct and indirect conclusions. Will they have applications in the real word? After we apply them to the real world, does the application stop there, or can they have any significance to the eternal world.

As these theological and spiritual concepts emerge we should indeed discuss them. Whatever direct and indirect conclusion we reach as we interpret the Kethib Hebrew Narrative should be based on what the translation of the Kethib Hebrew Narrative indicates the Kethib Hebrew is conveying. We should try not to inject a new passage into the Kethib Hebrew Text to try to make sense of what we are finding. Let’s first find what we find and be as clear as we possibly can that our translation of the Kethib Hebrew Text is as accurate as we can make it. Once this is accomplished, then let’s try to interpret what the author—God or man—is trying to communicate to us over the expanse of many thousands of years.

Is there anyway to determine that its author was inspired to these correct conclusions, other than his own obsrvations and experiences to the physical world.

The Kethib Hebrew Text should tell us the answer to these questions.

Do the concepts that emerge, the existence of God, the creation of the physical universe, the creation of man and his endowment with creativity only have application to and limited to his physical existence?

This physical existence is a very small and limited aspect of existence: Is this not an experiential, observable, and objective fact?

Probably the greatest question to consider is, do the clearly spiritual concepts have application to an after life? Do they express an indication of the after life or spiritual existence in your view?

Let’s find out together.

When all of the things are pondered and considered would not the indication of intervention of necessity be involved to some extent?

I do not know. Let’s find out together.

Fom a completly personal standpoint, what do you gain from the translation and application of the Hebrew Eden narrative?

How to continually humble myself before Deity; how to embrace and rejoice in my mortality—from birth to old age; how to embrace and rejoice in my death; how to consciously comprehend that life is forever, even though mortality is but a short while.

This could get the conversation started in the right direction.

I hope so, my friend.
Ger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-29-2008 1:03 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-30-2008 3:15 AM autumnman has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 14 of 321 (473486)
06-30-2008 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by autumnman
06-29-2008 12:24 PM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
It is very late and I will try and get to this post in the morning,thanks for the reply.

D Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by autumnman, posted 06-29-2008 12:24 PM autumnman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by autumnman, posted 06-30-2008 7:12 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
autumnman
Member (Idle past 2937 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 15 of 321 (473495)
06-30-2008 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dawn Bertot
06-30-2008 3:15 AM


Re: Transmit, Translate, Interpret
bertot: I have translated Gen. 2:4 thru 2:20. This should establish enough of a context up to this point for us to discuss this portion of the Hebrew Eden Text. We do not need to resolve any issues we discover, merely discuss the text and what we think the author is conveying up to this point. I think it important to point out that any contradictions or anomalies we find in the content of these verses were, in my opinion, deliberately composed, and should not be perceived as “errors in the text”, but rather as intentionally and strategically placed wisdom riddles—Pr. 1:6 “the words of the wise go together with their riddles. This may help us cipher the meaning of the text.

The following is “A” English translation of Gen. 2:4 thru 20 employing the most common usage of the bound morphemes, words, and verbal clauses according to the BDB, Gesenius, and Brill Lexicons of the Old Testament, and the Hebrew grammar as described in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar and Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew Lexicon.

quote:
2:4 these human generations the heavens and the earth as they are created at time he makes yhwh God earth and heavens.

2:5 then all plants the field before they be in earth and all herbage the field not yet they sprout for not he cause it to rain yhwh God upon the earth and humanity was not to work the ground.

2:6 but a mist it ascends from the earth and irrigates the whole surface the ground.

2:7 then he devises yhwh God the human species dust from the ground and he breathes in its noses breath of mortal life and it becomes the human species in regard to a breathing animal.

2:8 so he establishes yhwh God an enclosure in Eden from ancient time and he put there the human species that he devised.

2:9 and he caused to sprout yhwh God from the ground all trees desirable to sight and good for food and tree the life in midst the enclosure and wood the knowledge good and bad.

2:10 and a river it flowed from Eden to irrigate the enclosure and from there it divides and becomes regarding four beginnings

2:11 designation the first piyshon it surrounds the entire land this chaviylah which there the gold

2:12 and gold this land it is beneficial there the bedolach and stone the shoham.

2:13 and designation the river the second gichon it encompasses the entire land kush.

2:14 and designation the river the third Tigris it which goes eastward Assyria and the river the fourth it Euphrates.

2:15 so he leads yhwh God the human species and he guides it through enclosure Eden in regard to serving her and in regard to preserving her.

2:16 so he lays charge yhwh God upon the human species in regard to saying from all trees the enclosure partake you must partake.

2:17 but from wood the knowledge good and bad not you partake from a portion of it for at time you partake from a portion of it die you will die by human moral authority.

2:18 then he says yhwh God not good it is the human species in regard to its separation I will make for it a helper as opposite to it.

2:19 so he devises yhwh God all creatures the field and together with all flying creatures of the heavens and be brings near unto the human species to see how it encounter regarding them and all which it encounter regarding them the human species breathing animals it was their designation.

2:20 and it encounters the human species their designations regarding all the carnivores and regarding flying creatures the heavens and regarding all herbivores the field but for the human species not found a helper as opposite to it.


All the best,
Ger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-30-2008 3:15 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-30-2008 2:50 PM autumnman has not yet responded
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2008 10:36 PM autumnman has responded
 Message 18 by Dawn Bertot, posted 07-01-2008 2:02 AM autumnman has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018