Biblical Translation--Eden

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.Case in point is the translation of Gen. 2:16. In the Heb. Tanakh Gen. 2:16 states, “So he lays charge, yhwh >elohiym, upon the human archetype in regard to saying,'From the whole tree of the garden eat you must eat'.”Gen. 2:16 conveys the beginning of God’s “command.” However, every English translation of this verse employs the English auxiliary verb “may” when rendering the final clause, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden." The auxiliary verb “may” is not only completely incongruent with the Heb. verb tzavah=lay charge/command, but it is also completely incongruent with the repetitive verbal clause at the conclusion of the verse, >akol tho>kel=eat you must eat.The English auxiliary verb “must” is the only accurate translation; "From the whole tree of the garden you must eat." When translated accurately, however, the Deity’s “command” to the human archetype becomes considerably more complex and more difficult to interpret.Not many know that there are in fact two very different methods of biblical translation.The most common method is referred to as “expositor”; where the translator renders the source text already knowing what the text “must” convey. The “expositor” is reader oriented, shuns theological difficulties, glosses over renderings that appear to make no sense, translates large units of the text, and expounds upon the text to make it say what the reader expects it to say.The rarely used and more precise method of translation is referred to as “interpres”; where the translator renders the source text as it is written. The “interpres” translator passes along any difficulties in the source text, translates small unites of the text (words & bound morphemes), includes the exact representation of grammatical categories, and regularly employs lexical sources.The common English translation of Gen. 2:16, using the auxiliary verb “may” to denote a “command,” is a clear example of “expositor” translation techniques. This "expositor" translation of Gen. 2:16 completely distorts what the author is conveying as the Deity's command. By rendering Gen. 2:16 as "you may freely eat" the Command being issued appears to only pertain to the prohibition of partaking from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the warning of death described in Gen. 2:17. That is not what the Heb. Text is conveying.Christian dogma is founded on the idea that the Deity's command was intentionally disobeyed by the human archetypes in the Garden of Eden. St. Paul states in Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned ... 5:14, "Yet death exercixed dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam ...". As I have shown above, however, for literally thousands of years the Deity's "commands" of Gen. 2:16 & 17 have not been translated accurately or fully understood.The accurate translation of 2:16 & 17 would enable a more accurate interpretation of not only the Deity's commands, but would bring closer scrutiny to other aspects of the Heb. Eden Text associated with the "commands." The veracity of biblical translations and interpretations would also be called into question, and these questions could in fact alter the creation/evolution debate.I hope I have clearly conveyed the inaccurate translation of Gen. 2:16 so that a discussion and debate on this and related subjects can be started.Transliteration convention employed above: > denotes the first Heb. letter “aleph.”GerEdited by autumnman, : Was asked to separate paragraphs by an open line.Edited by autumnman, : Make more clear the purpose and intent of topic.

Please edit your thread proposal into paragraphs separated by blank lines, like this:When you're done to post a note to this thread and I'll take another look.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Admin Director, Percy:I have done what you requested. Thanks for giving the topic another look.Ger

Thanks for reformatting.First, most people aren't going to recall how Gen 2:16 concludes, so you need to quote the rest of the passage. Here's what my RSV Bible has: Second, you need to make clear why the fact that "must" has been translated as "may" is a significant issue. Does it bear upon the creation/evolution debate? Upon the veracity of some Biblical interpretations? Upon some specific religious group or theology? It's clear that you're concerned about this, but it isn't clear why.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If I understand you correctly, you would like me to address your points in an edited version of the Topic. Am I correct?Your points are well taken, and I would be happy to address them in the Topic if that is what you are asking me to do.Thanks for your insights.
Ger

Yes, you have the right idea. Just edit your Message 1, then post a note here when you're done. Thanks!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I have edited and added to the original text. With any luck I have made the topic a little clearer.Thanks for putting up with me. I feel the subject is important, but I may not have the skills to present it properly.Regards;
Ger

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

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.

IamJoseph:I do not perceive these two creation accounts as being "prose." In fact the biblical Hebrew script is not structured to accommmodate prosaic writing. Paleo-Hebrew was more alligned to story-telling, proverbs, and metaphors. The same is true for Aramaic-Hebrew although the influence of Akkadian, Babylonian, and West Persian languages gave it a little more flexability.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. Then God rests.I would really like to remain a little more on topic, however. Feel free to reply to this post, but, if you can, attempt to bring us back on topic. I would like very much to hear your insights and opinions.Regards;
Ger

Wow. Thank you. I can't hope to comment on the specifics of Ancient Hebrew vs. English, or any details of other languages that may have had a role to play in arriving at the current situation. But here's what I can do... Too few people (only a seeming handful of native English speakers) are aware of the complexity and variability of translation in general, let alone Biblical translation in particular. I suspect that breaking it down into just two "methods" is an over-simplification -- but it is a useful and informative way to simplify the issue, because of the linguistic dilemma that it reveals. I'd like to know if the following paraphrase of the above-quoted portion is consistent with what you meant to say.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, meaning that not only do you understand what is written/said, but you are also able to express yourself well enough that speakers of the language would understand you. To get this ability, you need lots of practice.It's a good bit harder when there are no living speakers of the language that you can converse with, but in this case, you just need to read a lot more, and read things over and over, and work out different paraphrases of a given passage, and consult with others who are trying to do the same thing. Ultimately, you develop a sense of knowing what the author was probably thinking, how he would have uttered each passage when reading it aloud, and so on. In effect, you learn to become an "active listener/reader", to be able to build up an understanding of each phrase as it is presented to you.If you then try to render that understanding into a different language, you need the same productive fluency there as well, knowing how readers/listeners use that other language, so that you can convey to them a set of meanings that is equivalent to the original text. That is what "expositor" style translation does. (That is, when you say "expounds upon the text to make it say what the reader expects it to say", you mean: "presents it to the reader of some other language so that it 'feels' the same way as it would to a reader of the original language."The big problem with this approach is the unavoidable likelihood that your interpretation will reflect, in possibly significant ways, your own personal background, mindset, feelings, and so on. And there's a much more serious sense in which the biases are not just your own personal "issues", but are the general word world-views of the community within which you were raised, and for whom you are translating.Indeed, a superficial interpretation of what you said could be the starting point for a holy war -- or, more rationally, for abandoning any notion that a "holy" text should provide a basis for any kind of authority: your wording seems to say that the translator tries to tell the target audience what he thinks they want to hear. (If that's actually what you meant, well, bravo! I won't argue with that. )Of course, gaining productive fluency is a long and difficult process, especially for adults working on dead languages, and it usually helps to have a systematic approach that involves an analytical breakdown of the source language into its components and structure. You figure out how to take things apart, you identify the meanings of the pieces, and you assemble the translation, much like you would build a cabinet or a model ship.But there are a few problems with this approach, too. First many of the pieces, taken by themselves, are ambiguous -- they mean different things in different contexts, so you can't get away with just putting pieces together; you still need to have some amount of "fluency". Second, while a broad analysis of the language and its major attributes (nouns, verbs, word order, etc) is pretty consistent and rational (and fairly comparable to the major attributes of other languages), there are many niggling details -- irregularities, idioms, rare forms -- that defy systematic analysis, and could actually be analyzed in a variety of different ways, and defy direct translation into another language.Try to pick an analysis for (e.g.) an English phrase like "suffice it to say...", which is still used a fair bit -- you'll get into trouble no matter what you choose. The "unschooled" reader might view "suffice" as an imperative verb here, but that won't work -- you can't say "Suffice this thing to do that thing"; the well-informed grammar analyst will recognize it as a relic of an earlier stage of English, when there was relatively free word order (subject could follow verb), and there was an actively used subjunctive verb form, with no "s" ending on the third-person singular (i.e. as opposed to "it suffices to say..."), but this sort of structure occurs almost nowhere else in the language today. To translate it effectively, you might have to rephrase it like "let it suffice to say..." or "It's sufficient to say...", but in any case, picking a good translation into Hebrew based solely on the English grammar would be a mistake, I think.Obviously, I don't intend to assert that all translation is doomed to failure. But in the context of this thread, I think the important point to make is that many different translations are always possible, with varying degrees of suitability. Just as there are many ways to say the same thing -- and many ways to understand something that has been said -- using only a single language, so there are even more variations possible when trying to convey a meaning across languages.Also, there is always the presence of errors: mistakes in speech or writing (as well as in hearing or reading) are known to affect communication between speakers of the same language, and these problems are amplified in communication across languages.To establish a doctrine, to enforce a behavior, even to hold stubbornly to a personal belief, on the basis of an assertion that "it must be so because the Bible says exactly this..." is ultimately absurd. Translation can work and can be useful, but it is hard, and the results can never be more than approximately "accurate." Take such results with numerous grains of salt, and an open mind.(In the domain of scientific research, in contrast, you have the unambiguous and universally understood language of numeric measurement and mathematics. Doctrine, behavior and beliefs that are based on empirical evidence would also be founded on approximate accuracy, but here the limits of accuracy are acknowledged and understood, and it's okay to change things when the evidence calls for a change.)Edited by Otto Tellick, : a rather important spelling correction in 6th paragraph (as indicated by strike-out)

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

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.

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.)And what would someone do upon coming up with an incorrect total? What would be the potential for confusions, whereby two strings of letters, with just a couple subtle differences between them, happen to produce the same sum? (This can happen with computer checksums as well, though it is relatively quite rare.) Virtually? Not exactly? I could imagine the error rate being lower than what you would get without this process, but it's hard to imagine real perfection. Also, the notion of checksums applies only to direct copying, character by character. There's no way to apply it to translation. And even when you can copy a Hebrew text exactly, you cannot assure a uniformly consistent interpretation of it (in Hebrew) over the life of the copy. People's usage of the language changes inexorably over time, and that affects the meanings of words. Sure, having it written consistently helps a great deal to slow the rate of change, and rituals do a great deal as well to "fossilize" the "intended" meanings (except when the community as a whole ends up changing its intent).Muslims are similarly focused on preserving the "accuracy" of Koranic text, but seeing how that religion has fractured within a relatively short time, I'd have to conclude that preserving the exact text is, by itself, no guarantee of preserving actual consistency. And in the case of Arabic, it has raised all sorts of other problems for Arabic speakers, who must become familiar with an ancestral version of their spoken language in order to learn how to read and right. It would be like Americans having to learn Chaucerian English just to read a newspaper. It's doable, but it's just not as easy as it ought to be.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.