Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 4:38 PM
363 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,106 Year: 25,712/21,208 Month: 1,339/2,338 Week: 96/364 Day: 47/49 Hour: 4/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
26NextFF
Author Topic:   Creation
Faith
Member
Posts: 26455
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 211 of 389 (783859)
05-09-2016 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by arachnophilia
05-09-2016 2:26 AM


Re: exegesis and eisegesis
Faith writes:

doubt I'm going to agree with it in the end, or much of it, but it's an interesting read.

the problem is, you're approaching the text with a preconceived idea.

You mean not expecting to agree with them in the end? It's not set in concrete, I've already come to the point of considering there may be something to their arguments. I think I can read honestly enough to decide one way or the other in the end, right or wrong I'll have an independent opinion. Besides, when does anybody come to any study whatever without a preconceived idea?

you're not doing exegesis, you're doing eisegesis. your theologians are not biblical scholars, they are apologists, aiming to defend a certain ideology using the bible. not attempting to ascertain what the authors of the bible thought or believed.

But that is something I have in mind as I read. I know Gap Theory was developed in response to the challenges of science which is why I wasn't ever interested in it, and why I doubt they'll change my mind. But it's quite a list of the best of the best theologians who accept Gap Theory, which I know from other work they've done, so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are reading the Bible honestly.

The authors of these books I'm reading go into quite a bit of detail about how they arrived at their view of gap theory from the Bible. There's quite enough there for me to form my own opinion of it. I've also read the discussion at Blue Letter Bible, also Biblically argued, that the gap theory is wrong. I don't feel I'm in any danger from reading apologists, I want to know what they think and how they came to their conclusions.

I wasn't interested in Gap Theory until I saw that the first verses of Genesis do seem oddly disconnected from the rest, which I hadn't noticed before. That is an interesting fact that makes me interested in the arguments that underlie Gap Theory, (or theories, since there seem to be different versions of it.) The procedure is always to pray as you read, figuring that if you sincerely want to know the truth God will lead you to the truth.

One thing I know, I'd be in a much worse position if I tried to learn some Hebrew because it takes years in a language to know enough to judge its idioms and idiosyncrasies and exceptions to rules. A beginner is only risking making very crude mistakes in understanding. The writers who discuss Gap Theory ALL discuss the Hebrew. No need for me to add my errors to the mix.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:26 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 10:49 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 212 of 389 (783870)
05-09-2016 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by arachnophilia
05-09-2016 2:12 AM


Re: collected replies for ICANT
Arach writes:


it's a non-standard suffix. as i believe i covered above (as did rashi), the absolute form is ראשונה.
this one is slightly unusual in that it also adds a yud. however, the tav if the important part -- it's the construct suffix.


But take a look at Is 46:10 (referenced in my quote of Word Biblical Commentary in message #200):
quote:

the absence of the article in ‏בראשׁית‎ does not imply that it is in the construct state. Temporal phrases often lack the article (e.g., Isa 46:10; 40:21; 41:4, 26; Gen 3:22; 6:3, 4; Mic 5:1; Hab 1:12).

The form in Is 46:10 is identical to the first word of Gen 1:1 (except that the preposition is a mem instead of a bet: "from" instead of "in"). The word in Is 46:10 DOES have the tav, but it is NOT in construct, is it? How do you explain this? Isn't it possible that the first word of Gen 1:1 is also NOT in construct?


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:12 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 2:32 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 217 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 11:00 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 213 of 389 (783924)
05-10-2016 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by arachnophilia
05-09-2016 2:12 AM


Re: collected replies for ICANT
Hi arach,

arach writes:

it's a non-standard suffix. as i believe i covered above (as did rashi), the absolute form is .ראשונה.

Yes it is really non-standard as I can not find it.
Neither can any of my translation programs find ראשונה..

arach writes:

the tav if the important part -- it's the construct suffix.

The tav is a feminine noun suffix showing gender.

arach writes:

the fact that it follows a construct noun.

There is no such varmint, unless two nouns are connected with a maqqef or one noun is following another noun placing the first noun in construct.

arach writes:

not also the lack of a suffix. this is an infinitive construct, and those sometimes have all the same consonants.

Why does ברא need to be in construct?

תרלדות השמיס והארץ is a construct chain.

arach writes:

he does not; rather he points out that always appears in the construct state.

Does it?

arach writes:

the fact that it follows a construct noun.

There is no construct chain in Genesis 1:1.

arach writes:


quote:
Stem: Qal
Aspect: Infinitive

not also the lack of a suffix. this is an infinitive construct, and those sometimes have all the same consonants.



not also the lack of a suffix. this is an infinitive construct, and those sometimes have all the same consonants.

I thought that aspect was the type of action the subject of the verb was doing. Simple, intensive, and causal. The verb in Genesis 1:1 is causal action.

arach writes:

he does not; rather he points out that בראשית always appears in the construct state.

בראשית is in the Bible 51 times in 49 verses. 46 are followed by a noun, 1 time it is followed by a adjective noun, making them construct. 3 times it is followed by verbs, 1 time it is followed by a adjective.

arach writes:

the maqef is irrelevant; those are also added later.

Thanks, I wasn't sure it was added but it was not in my studies of Paleo-Hebrew that I studied in the 60's.

But all it does is connect two nouns.

arach writes:

for the same reason you'd read it as an infinitive in gen 5:1; the other reading doesn't make sense, given that word that precedes it acts as a complex preposition. sure, we could read, "in the day, comma, god created man." but in what day?

Why would you need a comma?
God only created mankind 1 time and that was in Genesis 1:27 on the sixth day.

arach writes:

no, not really. i don't happen to think any of this particularly represents the real world, so believe me when i say, it wouldn't really matter to me if it did fit your view.

If I understand what you have said over the years you believe the Bible is just a bunch of junk put together by a bunch of religious people.

arach writes:

yes; that is precisely what i'm arguing we should do in this case.

Why not in any case? They did not exist until a little over a thousand years ago. Hebrew is much simpler without them. Just like all the other stuff that has been forced upon Biblical Hebrew.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:12 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 11:29 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 214 of 389 (783925)
05-10-2016 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by arachnophilia
05-09-2016 2:27 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

the translation i gave you is the official translation of the jewish publication society. it's about as authoritative as you can get, as far as jewish translations.

quote:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0101.htm

This is a direct quote from the The Hebrew Bible in English

according to the JPS 1917 Edition

God Bless,.


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by arachnophilia, posted 05-09-2016 2:27 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 11:42 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 215 of 389 (783926)
05-10-2016 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kbertsche
05-09-2016 1:22 PM


Re: collected replies for ICANT
Hi kbertsche

kbertsche writes:

The word in Is 46:10 DOES have the tav, but it is NOT in construct, is it?

The word טראשית is followed by a adverb noun. So yes it it in the construct.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kbertsche, posted 05-09-2016 1:22 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 216 of 389 (783950)
05-10-2016 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
05-09-2016 11:51 AM


Re: exegesis and eisegesis
Faith writes:

One thing I know, I'd be in a much worse position if I tried to learn some Hebrew because it takes years in a language to know enough to judge its idioms and idiosyncrasies and exceptions to rules. A beginner is only risking making very crude mistakes in understanding. The writers who discuss Gap Theory ALL discuss the Hebrew. No need for me to add my errors to the mix.

sure, but you can't be sure they know what they're talking about... i see plenty of crude misunderstandings of hebrew used to support points it clearly does not. remember eddy pengelly?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 11:51 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 217 of 389 (783952)
05-10-2016 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by kbertsche
05-09-2016 1:22 PM


kbertsche has a good point
kbertsche writes:

The form in Is 46:10 is identical to the first word of Gen 1:1 (except that the preposition is a mem instead of a bet: "from" instead of "in"). The word in Is 46:10 DOES have the tav, but it is NOT in construct, is it?

it doesn't appear to be, no.

How do you explain this?

well, as i see it, there are two main uses of ראשית in the bible. one is to say "the first of" something, or "the beginning of" something in a construct pair. the other is a more idiomatic usage, where the ראשית is actually the object that is the first, ie: "the firstfruits" of something (probably a derived usage from leaving off the other noun in the construct chain).

it doesn't normally seem to mean some absolute "beginning" in a temporal sense, although isaiah 46:10 does seem to use it this way. so, frankly, this is a really good point.

however, isaiah also has highly poetic style, and this could just be an example of that. i'm not sure we can read this example as representative of genesis 1:1, because the styles are so different, and the grammar that follows is different -- it's followed by another noun with a similar suffix, אַחֲרִית, which also normally exists in construct.

it could also be that absolute readings of genesis 1;1 actually influenced deutero-isaiah here. we know that, historically, this verse was read as an absolute extremely early, as various targums and the LXX all translate it as such.

Isn't it possible that the first word of Gen 1:1 is also NOT in construct?

i suppose it's possible, but i don't think it's likely. P has a much more rigid, formal style than deutero-isaiah, and by far most of the uses in the bible fall into one of those two categories i outlined above.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by kbertsche, posted 05-09-2016 1:22 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 218 of 389 (783958)
05-10-2016 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by ICANT
05-10-2016 2:05 AM


Re: collected replies for ICANT
ICANT writes:

Yes it is really non-standard as I can not find it.

quote:
Suffix

־י ‎(transliteration needed)

2. (-) -ic, -ish, -like, -al, -an, -ian (used to form adjectives from nouns, demonyms and language names from place names, and so on).
4. (-i) Construct form of plural suffix ־ים.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%BE%D7%99#Hebrew


quote:
Suffix

־ית ‎(-t) f ‎(plural ־יות)

1. For masculine singular adjectives in ־י ‎(-), replacing that ending to produce feminine singular forms.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%BE%D7%99%D7%AA


that explain it a little more?

Neither can any of my translation programs find ראשונה..

it's the feminine of רִאשׁוֹן

quote:
רִאשׁוֹן תואר
earliest ; first ; best
רִאשׁוֹן מספר סודר
first ; Sunday

http://www.morfix.co.il/%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94


it was also the name of the girl i sat next to in hebrew class. so. there's that i guess?

The tav is a feminine noun suffix showing gender.

hebrew is a gendered language. everything shows gender. you're thinking of:

quote:
Suffix

־ה ‎(-a, -)

1. used in feminine singular forms of most adjectives
פשוט ‎(pasht, simple) + ‎־ה → ‎פשוטה ‎(p'shut, simple)

2. used in singular indefinite and definite forms of many or most feminine nouns
טיסה ‎(tis, flight)
דוד ‎(dod, uncle) → דודה ‎(dod, aunt)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%BE%D7%94


which pretty much only shows gender. it's also what you'd add to ראשון to get ראשונה.

the fact that it follows a construct noun.

There is no such varmint, unless two nouns are connected with a maqqef or one noun is following another noun placing the first noun in construct.

there is, as i showed above, because there are such things as construct suffixes. the maqef is unnecessary.

Why does ברא need to be in construct?

because it follows a noun in a state usually reserved for constructs.

Does it?

it actually doesn't; rashi is mistaken. kbertsche provided a counterexample.

I thought that aspect was the type of action the subject of the verb was doing. Simple, intensive, and causal. The verb in Genesis 1:1 is causal action.

and here (gen 5:1) it's an infinitive.

for the same reason you'd read it as an infinitive in gen 5:1; the other reading doesn't make sense, given that word that precedes it acts as a complex preposition. sure, we could read, "in the day, comma, god created man." but in what day?

Why would you need a comma?
God only created mankind 1 time and that was in Genesis 1:27 on the sixth day.

i added the comma to emphasize that we are not reading "in the day" as its own absolute statement. we are reading "in the day that god created man" and not that "god created man in the day".

If I understand what you have said over the years you believe the Bible is just a bunch of junk put together by a bunch of religious people.

that's remarkably dismissive! do you think i would bother trying to learn and understand the grammar and intentions of the authors if i thought it was "just a bunch of junk"?

Why not in any case? They did not exist until a little over a thousand years ago. Hebrew is much simpler without them. Just like all the other stuff that has been forced upon Biblical Hebrew.

sure. you'll note that very little of my argument rests on niqudot. i do point out some places where the masoretes agree with my arguments, of course, but i don't think i've ever said, "this must be the case because of the vowels!"

Edited by arachnophilia, : i accidentally a word.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 2:05 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 219 of 389 (783960)
05-10-2016 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by ICANT
05-10-2016 2:14 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
ICANT writes:

arach writes:

the translation i gave you is the official translation of the jewish publication society. it's about as authoritative as you can get, as far as jewish translations.

quote:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0101.htm

This is a direct quote from the The Hebrew Bible in English

according to the JPS 1917 Edition

correct, but i'm referring to the 1985 translation which you can now read online here. it begins,

quote:
1 When God began to create heaven and earth 2 the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water 3 God said, Let there be light; and there was light.

http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/Index/english-Gen-1


i've read a fair portion of this translation, and it is by far the best i've ever read. i've also read the notes on it, by harry orlinsky, and it is exceptionally well researched.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 2:14 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 11:59 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 05-23-2016 8:15 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 220 of 389 (783963)
05-10-2016 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
05-05-2016 10:10 PM


the trinity
Faith writes:

There is no reason whatever why anyone would have believed in a Trinity if it weren't that they found it in the Bible. It's in fact awfully hard to persuade people of it so your idea that scriptures were picked to justify a preconceived idea is nonsense,.

there was a massive debate until about the end of the fourth century CE. your description above:

quote:
But this is how many doctrines are constructed, the most familiar one being the construction of the Trinity from dozens of different references to Father, Son and Holy Ghost throughout the Old and New Testaments. Once you see all the parts of the Trinity it should be clear that the complaint that it's not in the Bible is complete foolishness.

This demonstrates that the entire Bible works together to reveal God's plan, and that is in fact the opposite of what you are saying: it shows that God is overseeing the Bible since no single writer has any idea about how these verses are going to come together in the end; only God does.


kind of gets part of the idea, but isn't really following it through. the trinity was a solution to conflicting texts with conflicting theologies, or just plain confusing christologies (like the gospel of john). it was reactionary to various other theologies that caused the orthodoxy to react negatively, in quite a few different controversies -- some of which are still points of dispute between the orthodox churches (ie: does the spirit proceed from the father and the son, or just the father?). many of these disputes are remarkably subtle.

but this is not an idea present in the bible; it's an idea constructed from the bible, a compromise that allows somewhat contradictory theologies to both make sense.

And the passages that ARE in the Bible speak so clearly and unequivocally to the Trinity as it was subsequently defined in the Councils,

this just isn't the case. the doctrine was designed so that it could plausibly explain parts of the text, but it is anachronistic eisegesis to think that the later doctrine somehow represents the views of the earlier authors. in fact, many of the authors much more plausibly represent older christologies. (eg: why does mark not begin with a nativity? he might be adoptionist, with his biological parentage being irrelevant.) and there are seemingly verses that outright deny the trinity, representing "one god, the father, and one lord, jesus" or introduce a hierarchy, where the father is greater than the son.

so, it's a bit more complex than that. and "close enough" is a pretty sure path to heresy, when these christological disputes are as subtle as they are. in fact, i would wager that if i asked you to describe in detail the trinity of the bible, or your own belief, and i asked you enough questions about it, you would tell me one heresy or another.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 05-05-2016 10:10 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 05-10-2016 5:48 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26455
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 221 of 389 (783991)
05-10-2016 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by arachnophilia
05-10-2016 3:51 PM


Re: the trinity
The Trinity was the answer to the heresy of Arianism that denied the deity of Christ. Period.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 3:51 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by arachnophilia, posted 05-11-2016 8:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 222 of 389 (784001)
05-10-2016 7:55 PM


* Wrong thread *

Edited by Admin, : Remove content.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
ICANT
Member (Idle past 19 days)
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 223 of 389 (784018)
05-10-2016 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by arachnophilia
05-10-2016 11:42 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach

arach writes:

i've read a fair portion of this translation, and it is by far the best i've ever read. i've also read the notes on it, by harry orlinsky, and it is exceptionally well researched.

That's because it fits your worldview.

Does that mean that the scholars who did the 1917 edition were stupid and did not know what they were doing?

Or that the scholars who did the 1985 version had incorporated so much of modern Hebrew into their thinking that they missed the boat?

I have read enough to know it is not true to Biblical Hebrew. It is like several of the new English versions which have had too much added and too much taken out.

In fact so much has been changed the man who wrote the Torah would not be able to recognize them.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by arachnophilia, posted 05-10-2016 11:42 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by arachnophilia, posted 05-11-2016 8:31 AM ICANT has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 224 of 389 (784034)
05-11-2016 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
05-10-2016 5:48 PM


the arian view of creation
Faith writes:

The Trinity was the answer to the heresy of Arianism that denied the deity of Christ. Period.

this is not accurate, no.

quote:
Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence.
It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God.
Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Fathers will,
He [the Son] is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others."

Arius, Thalia


arianism denied that christ was eternal, and claimed that he was distinct from god/the father:

quote:
And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.
He alone has no equal, no one similar [homoios], and no one of the same glory.
We call Him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten.
We praise Him as without beginning, in contrast to him who has a beginning.
We worship Him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist.
He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for Himself, by begetting him.
He [the Son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God's own being [hypostasis]
For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being [homoousios] as Him."

Arius, Thalia


according to arianism, the son was the first creation, through which all other things were created.

the nicene fathers condemned arius not because he denied the divinity of christ, but because he supposed a hierarchy in his dyad/triad, and made christ too distinct from the father, such that the nicene fathers claimed he was a polytheist and an idolater for worshiping a created god.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 05-10-2016 5:48 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 295 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 225 of 389 (784036)
05-11-2016 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by ICANT
05-10-2016 11:59 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
ICANT writes:

That's because it fits your worldview.

no, because it reads very well, and represents the hebrew very well.

Does that mean that the scholars who did the 1917 edition were stupid and did not know what they were doing?

Or that the scholars who did the 1985 version had incorporated so much of modern Hebrew into their thinking that they missed the boat?

neither. in fact, as you'll note, the argument for the translation of the first verse is based on an argument from the middle ages. this is hardly modern hebrew.

I have read enough to know it is not true to Biblical Hebrew.

it sounds like you've made up your mind because this verse does not represent your worldview.

It is like several of the new English versions which have had too much added and too much taken out.

not even slightly, no. compare it to the NIV, for instance, which is a radically unscrupulous translation that attempts to smooth out contradictions with translations entirely unsupported by or contrary to the hebrew grammar. someone runs a list of such things here.

In fact so much has been changed the man who wrote the Torah would not be able to recognize them.

that's pretty hyperbolic, but considering that the torah is at least four separate documents and the contributions of several redactors... yeah. it's a pretty different text now than it was when its authors wrote their sources. but it's also been that way for at least 2,200 years.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by ICANT, posted 05-10-2016 11:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by ICANT, posted 05-11-2016 1:53 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
26NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017