Biblical Translation--Eden

quote:

---

Most of us who give the Bible any thought at all assume that the English translations of the Hebrew Tanakh {Old Testament) have been performed in an accurate manner. My research, however, has found that in a number of cases our assumptions have been wrong.

---

That is a commendable and insightful statement, and not generally considered or adequately acknowledged. Grammar itself was introduced in the OT, where writings reaches its highest epitomy. Most depictions and opinions on the OT are fundamentally caused by poor and/or wanton, agenda-based mis-comprehension.The OT writing structure is amazing, with its usage of the shortest distance between word selection, whereby a descriptive term cannot be re-written better. Consider this sentence, it is quite mathematical and scientific, as with an equation of Newton, and try to say it more eloquently:“LET THE EARTH PUT FORTH GRASS - HERB YIELDING SEED - AND FRUIT-TREE BEARING FRUIT AFTER ITS KIND - WHEREIN IS THE SEED THEREOF - UPON THE EARTH”The prose becomes more imperative when it is considered being 1000s of years old and directed at all generations of mankind. I see this writings excellence as a mark this document is of an advanced mind far ahead of its space-time, and marks the faculty which transcends the process of all knowledge: correct and perfect grammar. There is no good science, for example, where there is no correct writings comprehension.The other mysterious factors of the OT writings are its usage of numerals being contained in its alphabets, whereby scientifically based cencors in the millions are made, long before numerals were formalised [book of exodus]. The usage of the perfect tense, which does not exist in most languages, is seen in a verb being past/present/future simultainiously, as in the hebrew word CREATE, which incidently only appears in the first creation chapter of genesis - this is a technical term of creation which is varied from 'formed', and introduced the conceptof ex nehilo.

quote:

---

The Heb. verb "bara>" means, "to shape, to create; also with reference to birth." I see nowhere in any Heb. Text where this verb can be seen as introducing ex nihilo {out of nothing). Gen. 1:1 appears to be an introductory verse -- the author is describing what is about to be conveyed. Gen. 2:1 appears to be the concluding verse -- the author is describing what has been successfully conveyed.

---

There is no other meaning possible than ex nehilo, and this is the understanding in ancient depictions - which is in written form and backed by that belief, which culminated in ex nehilo. There is no ex nehilo premise predating Genesis, and this premise can only apply with the strictest form of creationism and monotheism.That this term 'bara' only appears in the first creation chapter, seperates it from 'form' - which is said for Eve, who was seperated from Adam, as opposed created seperately. There are no groups of dieties smashing each other to gain surpremity in Genesis, and we find also, no tools or products mentioned for the introduction of each created entity listed - which means only 'something from nothing'. The question of who or what else can account for the items listed as created is also catered to in the first 4 words, namely who was existent aside from the universe: 'In the beginning God'. There is clearly no alternative reading here, which is varied from believing what the narratives are positing.

quote:

---

Then God rests.

---

Ceased/rested from creation.

quote:

---

In order to fully understand literary works in a given language -- or in this case, the written record of an oral tradition -- you should ideally have productive fluency in that language

---

This may be ideal but not always realistic, unless it is contemporary as opposed ancient writings. With the Mosaic five books, its best basis of interpretation would relate to its later prophetic writings, such as Jeremia, Micah and the Psalms - here, if a later writing contradicts, one can check it against these near period writings.The first translation of the Hebrew bible is the Septuagint, 300 BCE, and this is a well recognised credible translation, as it was done with a fastidious and sacred intent, by Jewish sages, in honor of Alexander's request. But more than the translation, it appears the greater variances appear in interpretation, and this is because the oral law was not taken on board by cristianity - due to an incompaterbility of beliefs.

quote:

---

Also, there is always the presence of errors: mistakes in speech or writing

---

Correct, though this is least possible in the Hebrew, as the alphabets also represent numerical values. A wrong alphabet will give an incorrect sum total; the other factor is the OT has a mandated law, NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT ANYTHING, and this adds to the accuracy. The scrolls have been found to be virtually the same as both the Septuagint and the later latin translation, with any minor variances allocated to recent bible editions only.

quote:

---

So, you're talking about the concept of a "checksum" (just like what is used when transferring binary data between computers or other digital devices)... Were the number sums written down at the end of each line? each page? Were they on the same page with the text, or on a separate page? (I'm assuming they could not have been committed to memory.) Was it a "base-10" numeric system? (I don't think anyone had invented the zero yet.)

---

The alphabets are also numerals. First alphabet, alef = 1; beth = 2; the 10th alphabet = 10; the 11th alphabet = 100; etc. This is how the cencus totalling 3 million Hebrews was conducted, with sub-totals of tribes, gender and ages, then with verification sum totals - this it is a scientific cencus. So all the writings of the 5 books have a correct, established quotient. If there is a variance, it has to be corrected before getting a release pass, namely a clean [kosher] certificate.I believe the greeks seperated numerals and vowels from the alphabets when the Septuagint was made, and they also introduced intelligent verse and passage indexing systems seen today. the greeks themselves admit to adapting their alphabetical writings from the hebrew, and so does the Josephus documents. There are no greek alphabetic books prior to the Hebrew translation, but they can be credited with expanding and educating the world.

I am not intending being dogmatic or over confident, but my statements represent what I have learnt of the issue, and can be corrected. The issue of ex nehilo, which has become trendy in recent years, is not seen before the OT writings. Even the later kabalah writings is based on ex nehilo. Please feel free to show an earlier example of ex nehilo than that of the hebrew writings - this will impact.Further, I don't see why it is surprising this would be introduced via the OT, which contains a host of introductions and firsts, including the first alphabetical books, creationism, monotheism, evolution, democrasy, liberty and inalienable human rights. Its a most ancient of writings. It should not be surprising that ex nehilo could only come from genesis, which posits a creation with a creator, and uses the term, AND IT WAS SO - this means it was commanded, and it occured, with no tools and products at hand, when the universal elements were still not yet created. The word 'bara' = creation from nothing; form = creation from something else; thus the former is not repeated outside of ch. 1 - when all creation is said to have ceased or completed.We learn from this also, that all the contents of the universe, past and future, were created at one instant in potential form, and actualised later, in their due times. Humans cannot create - a song written/sung in 500 years from now aleready exists now; humans can form that song - by making something new from something else already existing. This is a form of creation, but varied from the 'bara' of chapter 1, which is a technical creation, and varied from the word create we use in everyday expressionism.Logically and scientifically, Genesis is correct: it posits the universe as finite, which means all the universe components are also finite. This means, there were no pre-universe tools or products - else the finite premise becomes violated. Thus there is no alternative to genesis. I say so via its reasoning, not as an absolute. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Elokin and Jeohova are attached names after the advent of humans - throughout the OT. This is to say the laws of nature have the same source as the laws to mankind. The reading these are not the same, contradicts almost everything in the OT narratives. It is not a sound proposition at all.It is wholly logical the source be the same. The names are descriptive and 'events' related, as opposed to Pronouns; all sectors of the OT are contextual, and not chronological - the correct grammatical method - the understanding of the texts are first and foremost fron its contextual quality - the function of chronology becomes relevent only from a retrospective, historical or scientific view - and these have to include interaction of the texts in all sectors.When humans emerged, and there is the first dialogue, the name becomes personal - because humans, unlike all other life forms and inorganic elements - are contructed to interact with a personal faculty. The chapter which initiates the two names as attached, also form as a continuation of all terms used in the previous chatpers, refering to them when any extensions are listed.

The correct translation/meaning of the verses you question [2.16/17] are translated best in the Septuagint [performed by Hebrews], and it is best evidenced by Hebrew speaking Jewish translators - whose mother tongue was the Hebrew for a 1000 years before the septuagint. The verses' meaning is best evidenced by the following verse, which explains, or confirms, the meaning of the verses in question:

quote:

---

Gen 3.
11 And He said: 'Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?'

---

While there are always some awkward instances in translations generally, the septuagint is always regarded a good translation, although there is one later edition also regarded very good: this had the advantage of time in its favour. If there is any bias, it cannot in any wise be allocated with the hebrews, but with later christian translations: only the latter can have a motive here, because it has a requirement to incline that both the OT & NT are aligned. But this is not the view of the Hebrews.

One with Hebrew and english translations, with ancient and modern Israeli/jewish commentary and historical footnotes. Eg: the Artscroll series. Why is this confusing - is there a choice factor here?

A secondary source would be a pre-christian greek/latin translation - if such exists.

quote:

---

Jesus quoted the Septuagent and the apostles did as well.

---

How's that: he would have used a Hebrew bible, not being greek?

quote:

---

There is clearly not much room for "Satan" in that statement. Furthermore, at the conclusion of Isaiah 45:6 yhwh states:

---

I concur. Ultimately, the belief in a satan or any other force is a total misunderstanding of Monotheism; many regard it as unintentional blasphemy.Better, one regards the mysterious phenomenon of evil as the negative force countering the positive force, and that both are equally derived from one source. After all, a good force w/o the bad, is a non event: good has no merit w/o the countering bad force.We are also told that everything was created in a duality, which refers to life forms and inorganic products. 'MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM' = POSIVE AND NEGATIVE CREATED HE THEM. There is no 'ONE' in the universe - and nothing can happen without the minimalist of a duality.Amazingly, we find genesis vindicated: humans have control of good and bad, from the fruit which refers to this faculty; but we have no control of mortality and immortality - the fruit tree we did not eat of! This clearly makes the Eden story an allegory, but one which is very realisticly attached to reality. Only a profound allegory can shed light to all generations of mankind, one which does not depend on our knowledge status of the day. Even if such a text was made retrospectively, via profound reasoning, it is still an amazing and mysterious feat.Its a loss that when christianity emerged, it did not inculcate its teachings in the Hebrew language - subsequently, there is widespread lost in translation errors of understanding. or maybe there were some irreconsiliable differences of belief which it did not wish to deal with - which makes all conflicts of the mind and the material emerging from this pivotal juncture.

quote:

---

Someone, as in Joshua, other than "God", telling or directing his troops to committ genocide; I do have a problem with such psychotic behavior. It is just dishonest.

---

There was no genocide or such intent from Joshua, except from the canaanites side. Joshua made a peace offer, as is mandated in the OT prior to any war. The israelites had every right to return to that land: they were 100% Canaanites, the nation of Israel born and incepted in that land. What really happened was, while the Hebrews were in Egypt for 210 years, owing to a regional famine, the original canaanites were massacred by invading groups, who took advantage of their weakened situation. That is why the text says:ALL THAT WAS EVIL IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD DID THEY DO; ALL THAT THEY DID TO THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS YOU SHALL DO UNTO THEM.Of the 8 canaanite kingdoms Joshua confronted, two sided with him and faught with the Israelites against the other six - because they were aware which side was in the right. It is selective reading which makes such genocide charges. The OT very clearly forbids the Israelites from taking even a single cubit of land from its neighbours, issueing exacting borders with areial view depictions not seen elsewhere. This was seen when Moab [now Jordan] refused to allow Israel to pass even from its outerskirts, even for payment - thus the israelites had to take a circuitous route which took several years, rather than violate any nation's borders.The fact is, the israelites and the jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history - despite being the world's most dispersed peoples, and despite their lands being ravaged and stolen by numerous groups. That such false charges are made - is also a history of this issue. It was the Canaanites which declared genocide and rejected all peace offers - that they failed in their declared goal, should not be a reason to accuse the survivor.

What is this 2-fold command? I have posted without following the full course of the thread, and the first post in the thread does not deal with a 2-fold term.