Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 249 of 316 (508486)
05-14-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Peg
05-14-2009 7:00 AM


Re: Peg
The minute we get into the whole ‘how the text was probably read by the author and what it meant in its original language’, we begin digging a hole for ourselves one that once we fall inside we will never be able to come out of.
The thing is in line with your reasoning we can't really rely on our English bibles so we should toss out all our English bibles and enroll in Hebrew Greek and Aramaic language courses simultaneously given that these are the three languages the English bible is translated from.
Since this is highly improbable we might as well just stick to our current bibles and agree on the interpretations they offer us. We have no other choices but to put our trust in the translators believing that they did their best in view of all their linguistic skills to faithfully translate a particular passage and therefore the entire bible as a whole.
Peg your view of what Moses probably meant with the phrase "Bere'shith Elo-him" which you said is translated in our bibles as "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" is just one of the views why do you think it is the right one for that matter? Do you think in keeping with the context and every other relevant point that your view fully appreciates what Moses wanted to convey with that phrase.
This was the best way to write it in English because the subject that followed was about the creation of the earth.
With this statement you show that you agree that the way the phrase "Bere'shith Elo-him" is currently being translated in our bibles is the best way, so if it is the best translation of that phrase don’t you think it logically follows that it is possibly how the author intended it to be read or understood. Why should you argue for an inferior translation of that phrase which is most likely the incorrect one owing to it inferiority?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Peg, posted 05-14-2009 7:00 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Peg, posted 05-14-2009 8:45 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 279 by kbertsche, posted 05-16-2009 11:53 AM Cedre has not replied

Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 257 of 316 (508618)
05-15-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Peg
05-14-2009 8:45 AM


Re: Peg
peg writes:
Ancient writers did not have a title for their writings...the opening words WERE the title. In the case of Genesis the title as Moses wrote it was simply
Modulous writes:
You were using the Anglicized/Latinized names from the Greek titles, not the original 'titles'. And other works follow the pattern, such as Enuma Elish. Ancient works rarely, if ever, carried titles in the way that we think of them. Most of the names were given to the works later, and the tendency is to refer to them by the first significant noun or action in the work.
Okay, however given that the original text of the old testament as it was penned by its various authors lacked any vowels and accents that separated words into sentences and clauses and phrases, (it was the Mesoretes that improved word divisions and added vowel points and signs, punctuation marks and verse divisions later), given this how can you claim to know how many of the first few words or opening word the writers intended to be read as part of the title? Is there a known method by which this is done
My view is based on the fact that ancient writers did not use 'titles' for their work.
So if this is the case why do you argue in your posts as follows:
in fact the title is always the first sentence or few lines of words and its the same for all the writings found from ancient times.
These two statement s conflict with each other. On the one hand your arguing that ancient writers did not use titles and on the other hand you argue again that they always used the first sentence or few lines of words as a the title. These statements cancel out each other.
But as I have already mentioned with the bible owing to its non punctuation style of writing we can really not determine which lines or first few words or sentences were distinguished as the title.
Concerning the opening statement of Genesis 1 here is a little bit about it:
This is the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1, the very beginning of the Bible. It is pronounced be-re-SHIYT ba-RA eh-lo-HIYM and is usually translated "In the beginning God created...."
The first word (reading right-to-left) is be-re-SHIYT. It is from the Hebrew root resh-aleph-shin, meaning "head, start, beginning," with the preposition bet on the front, meaning "in, on, at." So this word could be translated "in beginning" or "at start" or "at the head." The Hebrew name for the Jewish holiday Rosh HaShanah is from this same root, and means "head of the year" or "beginning of the year" -- Ha is the definite article "the" and Shanah is "year."
The second word is ba-RA, meaning create, shape or fashion. It is from the Hebrew word bet-resh-aleph.
The third word is eh-lo-HIYM, one of several names for God in the Hebrew Bible.
So a word-for-word translation might be "in-beginning created God."
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quoting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Peg, posted 05-14-2009 8:45 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 8:07 AM Cedre has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024