Biblical Translation--Eden, 2

To Admin:This New Topic - Biblical Translation”Eden, 2 - is a continuation of the discussions and debates regarding the words {Heb., Greek, Latin & Eng.} employed within the various Biblical Scriptures, as well as the English words employed to interpret, expound, explain, and understand what the Biblical Scriptures are conveying. Lexicographic, and dictionary meanings of certain words are contrasted with the vernacular {everyday, ordinary, and subculture} terminology often used by religious sects, churches, and denominations when referring to the Biblical Scriptures.The term “lexicon” comes from the Latin - lex = agreement & icon = image - and in the context of word usage and definition, the term “lexicon” denotes the agreement of literary and spoken ideas and the images they convey. Without an agreed upon meaning and definition of words, ideas, and images the art of human communication could not exist.It is the purpose of this New Topic to continue the discussions and debates that are focused on the definitions and various uses of the words central to the translations and interpretations of the Biblical Scriptures. Once an agreement can be reached regarding the definitions and uses of particular words that are employed in biblical discussions, perhaps the sense, meanings and intents of the Biblical Scriptures themselves will become clearer.Thanks so much,
Ger{Note: This topic is intended as a sequel to the currently 300+ message Biblical Translation--Eden topic. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note, above.

Admin.I posted this New Topic suggestion according to what I was told by the Admin Director. If more is needed please let me know so I can make the additions or changes so our discussions can continue.I hope to hear from you as soon as possible.Thanks so much,
Ger/Autumnman

bertot: Now that Admin has helped us get our “New Topic” going I will respond to post 297.You asked the following questions; Certainly Ezra and Nehemiah appear to have been “real people.” I have researched them to some degree, but what I have always been most interested in is Aramaic-Hebrew Texts attributed to the names, Ezra and Nehemiah. The Exile of 586 BCE when Judea fell to Babylon was a turning point in Jewish History. The Jewish people lost their land, their independence, their literary and spoken language, and much of their identity as a people along with much of their pre-Exilic history. The precise individuals who struggled to rebuild the Jewish sense of who they were and are as a people are less important than the historical fact that the Jewish people emerged from the Exile in Babylon and began rebuilding their lives as well as the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem {completed 516 BCE). Each of these Hebraic appellations have very specific meanings. That these particular Hebrew names actually refer to “real, historical personalities” must be answered in a number of different ways taking one “name” at a time.1) Adam is only found in the Greek Septuagint. In Hebrew a personal name cannot take the definite article prefix. The definite article prefixed form ha>adam is predominantly used throughout the Eden Narrative. Of the twenty-four applications of the masculine noun {twenty-three of which directly refer to the human archetype} twenty are the definite article prefixed form ha>adam. This then sets the context of the three preposition prefixed forms la>adam which would be understood as presenting with the definite article. Nowhere in the Hebrew OT is the definite article prefixed form ha>adam ever used to denote “one male (or androgynous) human (like) being. Therefore, the Greek appellation Adam does not refer to a real, historical personality.
2) Noah, Hebrew nocha is derived from the verb nucha means “to rest, to deposit, to leave, to abandon, to let alone.” In the context of The Flood, the Hebraic appellation nocha indicates the “abandoning” or the old world, and being deposited in the new world. Noah was not a historical personality, but rather a legendary character employed by a story teller to make a number of specific points.
3) Abram & Abraham: Abram Hebrew >abram lterally means “exalted father”, thus, >ab= father + ram to be exalted. It seems rather unlikely that his father therach, denoting a type of ibex, would name his son >abram=”exalted father”. But, in Jewish/Hebraic folklore it makes perfect sense that the first patriarch of Israel would be named >abram=exalted father. In Gen. 17 God tell Abram that he a “father of many nations” and so changes his name to Abraham which is a Hebrew clause: >a= I {God} bar=select/purify ham=them. Through God’s covenant with Abraham the nation of Israel and the nations of all the Arabian tribes in the East are said to be of Abraham’s seed. Abraham and his wife Sarah {noble lady} are legendary personalities of Jewish/Hebraic folklore.
4) Moses, in Hebrew mosheh was indeed a folk legend. Egyptian sources make not mention of the events described in the OT Exodus Narrative.
5) Jacob, in Hebrew ya0aqob means “he circumvents {artfully avoids defeat in battle}” Jacob sounds very much like a historical personality, in my opinion. Eden and the garden/paradise metaphorically represent The Sacred Central Mountain of God. The cult symbol of that Most High Place was probably Mt. Carmel.I look forward to your replyAll the best,Ger

bertot: We made it inspite of me. That is amazing.You wrote: It is my intention to discuss the words, the ideas, as well as the conclusions that can be drawn from the words and ideas conveyed in the Heb. & English biblical Scriptures. The conclusions that I share I do not claim to be the “only” or “right” conclusions. They are merely “my” conclusions. I am a “student” of the biblical Scriptures, NOT a “master” of the biblical Scriptures. I have not learned all there is to be learned, nor have I seen all that is to be seen. I am very open to discussing what others have learned, as well as the different perspectives that others may have regarding the biblical texts. I don’t expect anyone to “agree” with me. I want to talk, discuss, debate and learn. According to what I have learned, Proto-Canaanite, Canaanite/Phoenician, and Canaanite/Hebrew are the oldest “phonetic” writing systems on the planet. The English term “alphabet” is based on the Proto-Canaanite writing system’s first two consonant’s names, “>aleph beyth" that was adopted by the Greek’s “Alpha Beta". The Aramaic/Hebrew {biblical Heb.} “alphabet” is based on the Proto-Canaanite “alphabet.” The Heb. Tanakh {OT} is the focus of my study and research, and therefore I have focused my attention on the Hebrew writing system. Furthermore, Christianity establishes its very foundation on the Hebrew Tanakh {OT} that is why it is regarded as a Judeo-Christian belief system - Jesus being in the line of the Israelite/Jewish King David - and not regarded as a Greco-Roman belief system. My conclusions are neither “hard” nor “fast.” They are MY conclusions, not “the” conclusions. Let’s discuss them. You asked me questions, and I answered you. My conclusions are not just based on one terms “definition.” My conclusions (which can change as more information becomes available) are based on many terms, and many definitions that create a particular context of a particular biblical narrative. I do not expect anyone to merely “agree”. In fact, I learn more when they do not “agree.” So, please, “disagree.” Let’s talk, discuss, and debate the issues that my reply to your questions inspires in you (and others, I hope). We all have to have some conclusions as our personal foundations. So what? Let's discuss what is to be discussed and your "support" and my "support" for our different conclusions will be addressed. If I gave to you everything all at once you and I could not carry on a discussion. I would be merely talking to my self and probably agreeing with myself. I attempted to reply to your questions in a way that would inspire you to share in kind. So share. I want to hear from you. The idea that the Scriptures are “the word of GOD” can neither be validated nor invalidated. The oldest manuscripts we have regarding the Hebrew Tanakh {OT} are from the post-Exilic biblical literary age of the Jews. It is called the 2nd Biblical Period. Absolutely no pre-Exilic biblical manuscripts survive today. Whether we regard the Hebrew OT the word of God or not the fact remains that the Hebrew OT was scribed in New-Aramaic/Hebrew over two thousand years ago and did not include vowel points or vocalization marks. If we are to learn anything about the words used to compose the Hebrew OT we must study the literary language in which it was written. So, let’s study. Let’s study the Ancient Hebrew, Greek, and English Scriptures together; you from your background and perspective and me from my background and perspective.All the best,
Ger

bertot:I am open to any and all possibilities, but I may not necessarily agree with them.I am willing, however, to see "it" from another persepctive. However, I may disagree.I am not intending to "complain" or sound like I am "complaining." I am intending to disagree with that which I do not agree with, and I am trying to share with you the reasons for my disagreement.Let me show you a couple short examples,1) Gen. 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove {tararisk} in Beer-she-ba, and called there on the name of the LORD {yhwh} the everlasing God (KJV & {BHS).
Exodus 6:3 God says, "And I appeared unto Abraham ... by the name of God Almighty {>el shadiy}, but by my name JE-HO-VAH {yhwh} was I not known to them" (KJV & {BHS).
The Holy Bible and the Heb. OT clearly state that Abraham called upon the name of God, yhwh, and yet that text is contradicted when God tells Moses that Abraham did not know God by the name yhwh. Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake?2) Gen. 2:6 describes "and watered the whole surface of the ground."
Gen. 2:7 describes "formed of the dust of the ground."
If the whole surface of the ground is watered there would be no "dust." Furthermore, "dust of the ground" is not an earthly substance that lends itself to being "formed" as if by a potter. Potters use clay. Dust is not clay & clay is not dust.I conclude form example #1 that a mistake was made, and I conclude from example #2 that the Eden narrative excerpts denote a wisdom riddle and metaphors rather than an actual, historical, divine event.There are two conclusions that I hope we can discuss.All the best,
Ger

bertot: The King James Version has misled you. The Hebrew of the KJV clause-"called there on the name of the LORD"-reads:

quote:

---

vayiqera>=and he called sham=there beshem=with the name yhwh=JE-HO-VAH

---

b= the preposition prefix: with the shem=name yhwh (BHS Masoretic Text).Gen. 21:33 And Abraham ... called there with the name YHWH, God everlasting.There is no mistaking, the problem still exists between Gen. 21:33 & Exodus 6:3.All the best,
Ger

ICANT: No, I do not.But, at this point in the discussion, God is not the issue.Regards,
Ger

jawill: You write, I am not outlining "objections"; particularly not in Gen. 2 - 3. You are confusing me with someone who wants to undermine the Scriptures. On the contrary, I am studying them and learning from them. I hold all the ancinet biblical Scriptures in very high esteem.I do not hold all the translations and interpretations of those Sacred Scriptures in the same regard though. For example, You state: Have you ever looked up the word "dust" or Heb. 0apar? Human beings do not go out after a rain that has watered the entire surface of the ground and say, "Boy, is it dusty today." Ancient Hebrews, Israelites, and Jews have never talked that way any more than we do today. The Heb. term 'apar means "dry, loose ground, dust." The operative word here is dry. The English term "dust" when used in relation to the ground, means, dry, loose earth, dry dirt. Again, the operative word here is dry.In Heb. the word for "mud, or clay" is chomer, "as material of vessels, in simile, of God's fashioning man Isaiah 45:6, 64:7; Job 10:9; as material of human bodies Job 4:19."Notice that the word for dry loose dirt or ground is not used in the above examples.There is no such thing as "wet dust" or a handful of mud that dentoes a handful of "dust".With all due respect, your reply to this issue was rediculous. I know you know better, but perhaps you have to defend you belief so tenaciously that your common sense must be sacrificed in the process.I would prefer that we study the Scriptures together. That "dust" of the ground is dry is not my opinion, it is a natural fact.All the best,
Ger

bertot: You are assming that I have not "come to YHWH" because I do not align myself to your set of religious beliefs. You are assming that your set of religious beliefs are the absolutely correct set of beliefs. You are assming that the Holy Spirit guided the writing, copying, translating, and interpreting of the biblical Scriptures, because someone told you that was the case. You are assming a lot.We are back to this Hebrew term shem: name, designation, appelation, epethit, memorial, byword, proverb, metaphor. Remember the word "semantics"? Remember that its first syllable is shem?If we apply just a little common sense here, we may be able to discover something that has been purposely lost for thousands of years. Maybe.I did not say that "the human archetype" in the Heb. Eden Narrative was not "real". Those are your words. I said that Heb. ha>adam does not constitute the Greek personal name "Adam".All the best,
GerEdited by autumnman, : minor corrections

bertot:I've got to go do some chores, and they will probably take a few hours. But when I get back I'll address your post.Have a good one,
Ger

bertot: You wrote: I see your point. But it is not the point.
Your point is that you must defend your religious creed, dogma, and interpretation of “God’s Word” regardless of what I share with you. Unfortunately, that stance does not enable you to see the point.
Let’s agree, if we can, that the majority of English Holy Bible’s Old Testaments are supposed to be translated from the Hebrew Tanakh {OT} that is found in the Masoretic Hebrew Texts of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS).
The point is, the English Old Testaments are NOT “God’s Word”, but are in fact renditions, and expositions of the Hebrew Scriptures which are much more likely to be “God’s Word.” You are aware that the Hebrew Scriptures are much, much older than the English language. Of course you are.You made the point in an earlier post, #9, In the Masoretic BHS Hebrew text of Gen. 21:33 the Hebrew preposition ’al = upon, on is nowhere to be found. Yet, in the Alex-Greek Septuagint that clause has, “epe=on”, the New Revised Standard Version has, “on”, New American Standard - Open Bible has, “on”, and the King James Version has, “on”.
You state above that calling on the name, “is not the same as calling him by name.” I agree completely. And the Masoretic BHS Hebrew text specifically states beshem which is correctly translated: be=by the, with the + shem=name yhwh.
It appears as though we have a translation problem, and it is a translation problem that you yourself brought up. I certainly hope you will not back away from your assertion. I am not trying to “win” a discussion here. Who is right is far less important than What Is Correct.You are reading way to much into the text without looking at its context. So who what ever Bible we use your or mine the meaning is the same.I am indeed reading the text; the Masoretic BHS Hebrew Text. However, someone was not scribing the text in an accurate manner. At the time of Jesus the Sadducees had scribes and the Pharisees had scribes. And in Matthew 16:6 Jesus says, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” This would include their scribes. And then Jesus says, “How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?” (KJV, Mtt. 16:11).I would simply say, Beware of the Jewish, Greek, and English translations, for they come to you from the scribes of the Pharisees and Sadducees.This point I am making does not discredit anything or anyone that has come before us. Without that which came before us, we would not be. All this point does is enlighten us to what we should be mindful of and should look for.All the best,
Ger

bertot: You wrote: I am NOT making any "objections." I am NOT complaining. I really don't care what you do.I thought you wanted to discuss and debate. If you do not want to discuss and debate the biblical texts I don't know what else we have to say to each other.All the best,
Ger

bertot, my friend.I am perhaps too "thin-skinned." I really do enjoy discussing these and other issues with you. Thank you for the apology.Now then, let me respond to you previous post.All the best,
Ger

bertot:

quote:

---

You state above that calling on the name, “is not the same as calling him by name.” I agree completely. And the Masoretic BHS Hebrew text specifically states beshem which is correctly translated: be=by the, with the + shem=name yhwh.

---

When one says, “on” someone’s name, the name/the person is secondary to that which the name/the person represents; in the present case, “on God’s authority,” as you state above, as opposed to actually knowing God by The Name yhwh.
When one says, “by” someone’s name, as in Heb. Gen. 21:33 - And he [Abraham] proclaimed there by the/with the name, yhwh, God everlasting” - proclaims that Abraham personally knew the God everlasting by the name yhwh.

quote:

---

I am indeed reading the text; the Masoretic BHS Hebrew Text. However, someone was not scribing the text in an accurate manner. At the time of Jesus the Sadducees had scribes and the Pharisees had scribes. And in Matthew 16:6 Jesus says, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” This would include their scribes. And then Jesus says, “How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?” (KJV, Mtt. 16:11).

---

It has less to do about the “sources” I employ, than the translation method I employ. I will cut & paste from the first post of the 1st Biblical Translation-Eden thread:

quote:

---

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.

---

Please read the above two paragraphs carefully.
I employ the interpres method of biblical Hebrew translation describe briefly in the 2nd paragraph above.I use the Brown, Driver & Briggs Heb. & Eng. Lexicon of the OT, Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the OT, the Brill Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the OT, the Davidson Analytical Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, the Jewish Publication Society’s Torah Commentary, Genesis, by Sarna, and the Anchor Bible Commentary, Genesis, by Speiser, as well as the Ben-Yehuda Heb. & Eng. Dictionary.Objective reality is the final source I consult. No “circular reasoning” is going on. Please read the above carefully. I use the interpres = word for word, bound morpheme inclusive, method of translation, and I always consult Objective Reality. One brief example: If the Heb. preposition in the Masoretic Heb. text is not the preposition employed in the Greek or English translation then someone is not translating the Heb. “correctly.”It is not that “I” am correct, but rather that “they” are incorrect. I am quoting from the “theological” Jesus. If in fact Jesus of Nazareth made the statements in Matt. 16:6 & 11, he was a very wise and insightful human being, in my opinion. If someone else happened to make those particular statements, he too was a very wise and insightful human being, in my opinion.All the best,
Ger

bertot: The Hebrew texts we have can and are being compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, the Masoretic BHS Hebrew Scriptures remain essentially the only Hebrew texts that we can consult. At least we have the Dead Sea Scrolls to consult when a question arises. There is also the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Masoretic BHS Hebrew Text is compared to that Pentateuch. No "faith" is needed insofar as the consonants of the Masoretic BHS Hebrew Scriptures are concerned. However, as Bruce M. Metzger explains, "The vowel signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are less ancient and reliable than the consonants" (NRSV, pg iv).The diligent study of the Hebrew Tanakh does not require the Hebrew Old Testament to be divinely preserved. The Hebrew prefixes, suffixes, words, clauses, sentenses, verses, chapters and books say what they say. The trick is to properly translate and interpret these extant Hebrew Scriptures. I do not know or feel as though "my" translations & interpretations are actually what the author intended or not, but I word-for-word, bound morpheme by bound morpheme, attempt to put together a lexicographic context of a given text or narrative, and then attempt to come up with an acceptale understanding of the Hebrew Text. Then I attempt to put that understanding out in front of others and discuss it, and debate it. I do not simply or arrogantly assume that I am correct in my understanding, but to get a response to it I must present my case to the best of my ability. The extant Hebrew Scriptures are all we have. I do not absolutely know what was or was not lost or what was or was not acurately transcribed. I can only get a glimpse of that ancient history from what other scholars can find and describe in their book and papers.But that does not matter to me. I am studying the Hebrew Scriptures that are before me. I interpres translate the Biblical Hebrew consonants that are in front of me. I am not hoping for them to say one thing or another. I am driven to find out what they say. As I said before, the very fact that we even have any extant Hebrew Scriptures is amazing to me due to all that has happened to the Jewish people since 586 BCE. I do not know what the "true words of God would actually look like." The actual Old-Hebrew writing system did not take on its own national character until 850 BC. The Canaanite/Phoenician writing system was apparently confined to the land of Canaan at the time the Ten Commandments were written, around 1200 BC. What literary script were they originally written in? I have no idea. Moses supposedly stayed with the Midianites in the Sinai desert, and this is where the Sinaic Proto-Canaanite letter-signs were found. But there are a number of extreme differences between the Sinaic letter-signs and the Old-Hebrew consonants. More differences than a mere 40 years could absorb.A will say once more. The very Objective fact that we even have a Hebrew Old Testament is in itself a testament to either God, or extreme luck, and the luck idea does not play right with me. Having said that, however, that does not mean that the Hebrew consonants of the Hebrew Old Testament should be merely accepted without question or that the Hebrew consonants should be forced to fit a preconceived idology. My personal feeling is that the Hebrew consonants of the Hebrew Old Testament have been preserved in their present, Objectively real form so that we human beings of this age can perhaps learn what is actually contained within them. That is what I am trying to do. I would like to translate with you Proverbs 1:6. I remember you saying earlier that you are not a Hebraist. I will share with you what my grammatical and lexicographic sources convey in a quoted fashion. I think that the interpres lexicographic translation of Proverbs 1:6 may help answer the question you pose above.All the best,
Ger Let's translate Proverbs 1:6.Edited by autumnman, : forgot last statement by bertot