|
Author
|
Topic: What Genesis Two Says
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2957 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
|
Message 31 of 51 (655746)
03-13-2012 10:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
03-13-2012 2:40 AM
|
|
Hi, Paul. I just read a few Wikipedia articles on things like the NIV, dynamic and formal equivalence and Bible version debate, I realize that you're right: there's some fishy, weaselly things going on in Bible translation that allow the translator's philosophy to dictate how the translation should appear in English. After reading those Wiki articles, I have a hard time imagining how I could ever trust what anybody thinks the Bible says.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by PaulK, posted 03-13-2012 2:40 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by jar, posted 03-13-2012 11:01 AM | | Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 40 by onifre, posted 05-31-2012 11:51 AM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 32 of 51 (655752)
03-13-2012 11:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Blue Jay
03-13-2012 10:05 AM
|
|
the Bible and politics
Bibles have always been tools of politics, particularly the KJV, but the most recent and blatant example is The Conservative Bible.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Blue Jay, posted 03-13-2012 10:05 AM | | Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by Son, posted 03-13-2012 12:34 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
Son
Member (Idle past 4090 days) Posts: 346 From: France,Paris Joined: 03-11-2009
|
|
|
Message 33 of 51 (655765)
03-13-2012 12:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
03-13-2012 11:01 AM
|
|
Re: the Bible and politics
conservapedia writes: the rules guiding this translation are to use and be informed by conservative insights and terminology So, now they want to translate the Bible according to their ideology instead having their ideology inspired by the Bible? And they want to call themselves Christian? I may have missed something but to me, it seems like the opposite of christianity. Instead of following Christ's message, they want HIM to follow their message.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by jar, posted 03-13-2012 11:01 AM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 34 of 51 (655783)
03-13-2012 2:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Son
03-13-2012 12:34 PM
|
|
Re: the Bible and politics
conservapedia writes: the rules guiding this translation are to use and be informed by conservative insights and terminology
So, now they want to translate the Bible according to their ideology instead having their ideology inspired by the Bible? And they want to call themselves Christian? I may have missed something but to me, it seems like the opposite of christianity. Instead of following Christ's message, they want HIM to follow their message.  Pfft. Protestants... 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Son, posted 03-13-2012 12:34 PM | | Son has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3966 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 35 of 51 (655800)
03-13-2012 4:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
03-12-2012 11:05 PM
|
|
Re: Jeer (ABE:s)
Buzsaw writes: I see my jeer stalker, Theodoric tabbed his usual jeer to my message. Hey Theodoric, pray tell, what, pertaining to my message, do you find problematic? Perhaps you can enlighten me, as to where I err. You've got some nerve, I'll give you that. Even after this whinge, instead of dealing with the substance of my post Message 28 all you've done is hit the jeer button. Please deal with the substance of the post, that's what this site is for - debating viewpoints - it's not "Jeerwars".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2012 11:05 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Topic
quote:
Gen 2 (NIV): 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Going figuring would yield that the man was formed after the streams came up. Further reinforced by the parallelism of Rain, Man; Rain, Man (A, B; A, B):
A B
God had not sent rain there was no one
on the earth to work the ground
streams came up from God formed a man
the earth and watered from the dust of the
the whole surface of ground
the ground Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2012 2:00 PM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2012 9:38 AM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
NoNukes
Inactive Member
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 37 of 51 (655865)
03-14-2012 9:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Son
03-13-2012 12:34 PM
|
|
Re: the Bible and politics
To be fair, this Bible re-write is the brainchild of a particular nutcase to whom Jesus appears to be too much of a lefty. Mr. Schafly apparently started Conservapedia because he wasn't able to find enough subjects to be wrong about. I'll admit that I treat myself to the guilty pleasure of reading Conservapedia's pages on General Relativity when I haven't gotten my fill of right wing silliness.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Son, posted 03-13-2012 12:34 PM | | Son has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2391 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 38 of 51 (655867)
03-14-2012 9:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by Jon
03-14-2012 7:15 AM
|
|
Re: Topic
quote:
Further reinforced by the parallelism of Rain, Man; Rain, Man (A, B; A, B):
Yes, and these two parallel solutions address the two parallel problems noted in the beginning of verse 5: there were no wild desert plants, and there were no cultivated plants. (See the excellent study on this passage by Mark Futato.)
"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 36 by Jon, posted 03-14-2012 7:15 AM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 1021 days) Posts: 153 Joined: 06-10-2010
|
|
|
Message 39 of 51 (663676)
05-26-2012 4:48 AM
|
|
|
Wiseman Hypothesis
This involves the Wiseman Hypothesis or Tablet Theory. Documentary hypothesis - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science Essentially the entire book of Genesis is divided through use of the word 'toledoth' meaning family genealogy, and often translated by the KJV as 'generation'. It separates the entire book of Genesis into the following accounts: God's account of Creation (Genesis 1:1-2:4) Adam's genealogy/personal history (2:4-5:1) Noah's genealogy/personal history (5:1-6:9) Shem/Ham/Japheth's (6:9-10:1) Shem's specifically (10:1-11:10) Terah's (11:10-11:27) Isaac's (11:27-25:19) Ishmael's (25:12-18) Jacob's (25:19-37:2) Esau's (36:1-36:43) Jacob's 12 sons (37:2-Exodus 1:6) The Tablet Theory hypothesizes that after the style of Mesopotamian Family Tablets, there were originally family tablets which were combined into a single account by Moses. Thus the word toledoth separates these accounts. Often each account consists of 2 sections, a narrative of major events in the family's history, and a genealogical section mention who descended from whom. Thus, Genesis 1 dealt with the entire Creation, perhaps God's account, whereas Genesis 2 involved Adam's genealogy specifically.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 45 by Calminian, posted 10-22-2012 12:35 AM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 3211 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 40 of 51 (664356)
05-31-2012 11:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by Blue Jay
03-13-2012 10:05 AM
|
|
After reading those Wiki articles, I have a hard time imagining how I could ever trust what anybody thinks the Bible says. Not any worse than anything else religious. Aren't you a Mormon who trusts what Joseph Smith said? - Oni
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by Blue Jay, posted 03-13-2012 10:05 AM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1604 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 41 of 51 (664569)
06-02-2012 1:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by Blue Jay
03-12-2012 5:00 PM
|
|
unscrupulous translators
Blue Jay writes: There is a little grammatical glitch involved in all of this, though. The King James Version of Gen 2:19 (which you cited) says this:
quote:
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
However, in the New International Version, it says this:
quote:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.
The KJV's past tense is changed into the past perfect tense in the NIV. The use of past perfect specifically means that this element is being introduced out of chronological sequence: it happened before this point in the narrative, but not at this point. I can't speak to the correctness of using one tense or the other, but there is at least a way to weasel out here. to clarify what PaulK was saying, this is an inappropriate translation motivated more by ideology than knowledge of hebrew. the verse says:
quote:
וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם "And the LORD God formed out of the earth all wild beasts and all birds of the sky,"
the verb in the sentence, יִּצֶר yetser, is technically qal-imperfect. biblical hebrew tenses don't really align perfectly to english, but perfect is something like past tense, and imperfect is something like present or future tense (they're used similarly in modern hebrew, but they've established the rules that way, where biblical hebrew did not). however, it's made perfect because it's part of a vav-consecutive, which indicates sequence. this makes it absolutely inappropriate to translate it as an english perfect verb implying that this happened out of sequence. vav-consecutives just don't work that way. now, an unscrupulous translator working on the NIV might look at, say, genesis 2:8:
quote:
וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר "The LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed there the man whom He had formed."
this verse translated the same verb, this time in perfect conjugation, yatsar, as a past perfect. now, this unscrupulous translator might look at this and come to conclusion that this must be translated as a past perfect because man was already created in the previous verse. and indeed, the two verses might even form a chiasm: that one begins with yetser (as above, in a vav-consecutive). but really that's translated as a perfect verb because of its place in the sentence. it's a verb, in the predicate, preceded directly by a relative pronoun asher ("that" or "whom") and the direct object, et-haadam ("the man", et signifies that it's the direct object). it has to do with the grammar, not the overall context. and certainly not the context from a completely distinct story (by a separate author, at a later date). in short, the NIV has chosen ideological consistency over following the grammar present in the text.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 03-12-2012 5:00 PM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1604 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 42 of 51 (664571)
06-02-2012 2:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
03-12-2012 9:41 AM
|
|
vav-consecutive
Buzsaw writes: That Genesis two preface is followed by a non-sequential account of pertinent points pertaining to God's work of Genesis one. hi buz. let's look at genesis 2, the relevant portion only. verses 1-3 should be part of genesis 1. here's verse 4 onwards.
quote:
.אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
.וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִצְמָח: כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאָדָם אַיִן, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה
. וְאֵד, יַעֲלֶה מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִשְׁקָה, אֶת-כָּל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
.וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה
. וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר
.וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה, וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל--וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים, בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן, וְעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע
.וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן, לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת-הַגָּן; וּמִשָּׁם, יִפָּרֵד, וְהָיָה, לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים
.שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, פִּישׁוֹן--הוּא הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם, הַזָּהָב
.וּזְהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא, טוֹב; שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח, וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם
.וְשֵׁם-הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי, גִּיחוֹן--הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ
.וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל, הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר; וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי, הוּא פְרָת
.וַיִּקַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן-עֵדֶן, לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ
. וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר: מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל
.וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת
.וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיָּבֵא אֶל-הָאָדָם, לִרְאוֹת מַה-יִּקְרָא-לוֹ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ
.וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה
.וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם
.וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת
.עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד
.וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ
notice that almost every verse (i've given you one per line) begins with the same letter? that letter is a vav. the story is told using a technique called the vav-consecutive. like the name implies, it means that each statement happens consecutively. another word for that might be "sequential". in fact, the only verses above that do not begin with a vav are verse 4 (the start of the story), verse 11 (which begins describing rivers meant in the author's present), and verse 24 (which describes "moral" of the story, meant to be presently applicable). the bits you're concerned about all happen sequentially. Edited by arachnophilia, : title
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2012 9:41 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1604 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Topic
Catholic Scientist writes: No, not exactly, but it does have adverbs like "then" that imply some sort of sequence: those are just translations of the vav-consecutive (scroll up one or two messages). it gets boring translating them all the same way, whether you prefer "and" or "then". both are correct.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2012 2:00 PM | | New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1604 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 44 of 51 (664573)
06-02-2012 2:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
03-12-2012 7:46 PM
|
|
Re: Translations, Etc
Buzsaw writes: For example, most other OT translators, including the KJV and the NIV people took it upon themselves to remove YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah, adoni/lord/master, removing the actual proper name of the Biblical god Jehovah over 6000 times in the OT. That name was not in the Biblical text in Genesis, however until a later time when men began calling on the name of God etc. quote:
אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם (Genesis 2:4)
looks like it's there to me. see also verses 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22. shall i go on to chapter 3?
Genesis, as I understand was not a Hebrew Text which is, perhaps God's proper name was not in the chapters at hand. don't be silly. of course it's a hebrew text. look. it's in hebrew. it's a hebrew text. would you rather we translate the words of the page, or make shit up about what we think the text might have been before it was written, based on nothing more than ideology that can't be substantiated with any kind of historical, archaeological, or even literary evidence?
Essentially what he was saying is "we will interpret for you what we think the text means. Thus, the NIV is not reliable so far as literacy. yet, you're more than happy to go on about your "make shit up" version?
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 03-12-2012 7:46 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Calminian
Junior Member (Idle past 4434 days) Posts: 2 Joined: 10-22-2012
|
Re: Wiseman Hypothesis
Actually wiseman proposed that the hebrew toledoth actually didn't mean genealogies. A better translation would be 'histories.' Wisemen i think was the first to suggest that the toledoth statements in Genesis were colophon statements rather than titles, that is they were summary statements placed at the end of the sections rather than the beginnings. And you are right, the tablet theory completely destroys the charge of 2 creation accounts. There's actually only one creation account. What follows is an account about Adam's history in the Garden of Eden, the Fall, and the Cain and Abel affair.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 4:48 AM | | Jzyehoshua has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2