Biblical Translation--Eden

Hi autumnman,Where you getting your Hebrew text from?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."

ICANT: Regarding "a literal transltion of Gen. 2:16 & 17" you ask I did not know that you desired an "interpres" translation of those two verses.I will transliterate & translate into English the Hebrew Text of Gen. 2:16 & 17. The transliteration convention is ">"=aleph & "0"=ayin; both are silent in English.

quote:

---

2:16 vayetzav=So He lays charge yhwh >elohiym=God 0al=upon ha>adam=the human archetype le>mor=in regard to saying mikol=from the whole 0etz=tree hagan=the garden >akol=eat/partake tho>kel=you must eat/partake.
2:17 ume0etz=but from tree/wood/gallows hada0ath=the knowledge tob=good/benefit/moral-good vara0=and bad/distress/moral-evil lo>=not tho>kal=you partake/eat mimenu=from protion of it kiy=for beyom=in day/at time >akalka=you eat/partake mimenu=from portion of it moth=die thamuth=you will die by capital punishment.

---

The repetitive verbal clause ">akol tho>kel" signifies the force of a "command", thus "you must eat/partake."
The repetitive verbal clause "moth thamuth" signifies "a violent death by human capital punishment. This verbal clause does not denote "a natural death" i.e. "mortality."We can discuss the translation of 0etz=tree/wood/gallows whenever you are ready. I feel this is enough for one reply.I am very happy regarding your interest in the Heb. Text.
GerEdited by autumnman, : no reason, no edit; copying text.

ICANT: You ask I have explained in some detail above in previous posts. You would probably find a number of those posts rather informative and interesting.I am using the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) as my source text. This is the same Heb. source text employed by the New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV), Gesenius' Heb. Grammar, etc. Most Heb. scholars employ the BHS.Regards;
Ger

Hi autumnman, We have nothing further to discuss then.As you are comparing your lemons to my apples.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."

So then how do we determine which Bible is the correct one?

ICANT:Which Hebrew Source Text are you using?Regards;
Ger

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.

He only uses the King James Version of the Bible.So I guess the answer to your question is: none.

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.

Catholic Scientist: You ask In my opinion "all English Bibles" are "expositor" renditions of the Hebrew Tanakh. Therefore, I found that "all English Bibles" are oriented toward a particular Christian theological agenda which does not correspond with the actual Hebrew Text. At least the New Revised Standard Version states

quote:

---

"the committee has followed the maxim, 'As literal as possible, as free as necessary'."

---

It is the "as free as necessary" part of their translations that tend to distort the Heb. Source Text; the BHS.I'm not sure if that was the answer you were looking for, but its all I can offer at the moment.Regards;
Ger

Hi autumnman,I use the Masoretic Text for Hebrew But I compare with the Septuagent
If it does not match the Septuagent I follow the Septuagent.Jesus quoted the Septuagent and the apostles did as well.AS far as English I use the KJV as it is the best in English.
I prefer to study from Youngs Litteral Translation.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."

ICANT: You state: The BHS is the Masoretic Hebrew Text.Insofar as the Septuagint is concerned it is an extremely poor "expositor" rendition of the Heb. O.T. I will quote again from the Brenton Septuagint, Introduction:

quote:

---

"One of the earliest of those writers who mention the Greek translation of the Scriptures, speaks also of the version as not fully adequate. The Prologue of Jesus the son of Sirach (written as many suppose B.C. 130) to his Greek version of his grandfather's work, states: 'For the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language. Not only so, but even the Law, the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the things said in them'." (pg. iii)

---

That same "Introduction" also states:

quote:

---

"The Septuagint version having been current for about three centuries before the time when the books of the New Testament were written, it is not surprising that the Apostles should have used it more often than not in making citations from the Old Testament" (pg. iv).
"There was, however, also another reason;-the general ignorance of the original Hebrew amongst the early Christians prevented their forming their translations from the fountain [i.e. Heb. Text]itself." (pg.vi)

---

The BHS Masoretic Hebrew O.T. is indeed quite different from the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint O.T.Regards;
Ger

Hi autumnman, Your BHS Masoretic Hebrew Text reads a lot different than my Masoretic Text.72 Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew into Greek for the Septuagint as all Jews at that time spoke Greek. The Septuagint was completed at least 1200 years before the Masoretic Text.It was quoted by Jesus, and the Apostles.
Paul had vast knowledge spoke many languages and quoted the Septuagint.Anyway you use whatever you choose I have used these for 43 years and will continue to do so.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."

quote:

---

Jesus quoted the Septuagent and the apostles did as well.

---

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