Post Reply 
Translational Inconsistencies
12-22-2008, 11:54 PM
Post: #11
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
Quote:I am fluent in reading and writing Biblical Hebrew and yes, I can read the Hebrew text from the ancient manuscripts and fragments such as from the DDS.

If you are fluent in biblical hebrew why did you claim in one of the examples above that christian translations added a word.
If you knew biblical hebrew you would have known that the christian translation there was perfectly in line with the possible meanings for the beth preposition. However, instead you chose to make it look like the christian translators were adding a word to the text,when they were not adding but translating a preposition already there.


Quote:I am the first person to admit that I am a westerner with westernized thought. But, am attempting to learn the Hebraic thought as best as I can with the resources available.

What resources may these be? Since you admit you have no formal schooling in the hebrew language and you seem to hold lexicons such as Strongs in poor esteem.What are these non westernised sources that you study from?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-23-2008, 12:37 AM (This post was last modified: 12-23-2008 12:42 AM by Vic.)
Post: #12
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
Vic
Quote::My question to you, Nomad Man, is what scholarship do you have the proves your NMV is anything but faulty scholarship, opinion or an attempt to pervert the Word of God for your own purposes? I noticed you avoided answering some of the questions put to you above, concerning your scholarship. Why is that?

Nomad man>
Quote: I have no formal education in Hebrew but have studied the language extensively. Though I have not received a degree, I am an adjunct professor in Biblical Hebrew for a University. I also have several published works on Biblical Hebrew.

Vic
Quote::Are you fluent in speaking, reading and writing, Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic Greek, and the other language requirements to translate the Word of God and can you read the original manuscript fragments, etc.? And who is on your translating team and what are their qualifications?

Nomad man
Quote:I am not fluent in modern Hebrew but I am able to converse in it. I am fluent in reading and writing Biblical Hebrew and yes, I can read the Hebrew text from the ancient manuscripts and fragments such as from the DDS.

Nomad man, most academics would suggest you would need to be able to translate and understand, such things as the original text of the Tanak by making use not only of the Masoretic Text, the Massorah, the Aramaic Peshitta Tanak, the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

IN one of my articles which I am sure you have read if you read my Hebrew Roots articles, I consulted with some academics proficient in Biblical Languages. After consulting with the professors regarding James Trimm's stated Sources for "translating" his HRV, it was stated to this writer, that it is obvious that in order to even read/utilize the listed source texts one would have to know, "at a minimum, Hebrew, Syriac, and Greek". Certainly the DSS include the need for knowledge of Paleo Hebrew.

Now according to your own statements, aside from not being fluent in modern Hebrew, you only claim some knowledge in Biblical Hebrew, but you know neither Greek or aramaic/syriac -which I am sure if I am recalling correctly - are also necessary languages for the DSS.

Here's the DSS that require knowledge of Greek:


All of the Cave 7 material LXX Exodus (7Q1)and the Jeremiah Epistle (7Q2) and 7Q3-19. Fragments of LXX Leviticus (4Q119 leather; 4Q120 Papyrus), Numbers (4Q121) and Deut (4Q122) from Cave 4. See Skehan, PW and Ulrich, E DJD IX (1992) pp161-197 and Baillet, M, etal DJD 111 (1962) pp142-146.

Quote:Though I have not received a degree, I am an adjunct professor in Biblical Hebrew for a University. I also have several published works on Biblical Hebrew.

Nomad man , I am sure you are aware of the many who claim inflated credentials within the Hebrew Roots movement, so I must ask you to be more specific.

If you are "adjunct professor in Biblical Hebrew for a University"--no need to be shy, please do tell, what that University is and where it is?
And how long have you been a professor there, because claiming a professorship implies having a Phd in Hebrew or Biblical languages.

Vic
SeekGod.ca

3John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-23-2008, 02:01 AM (This post was last modified: 12-23-2008 02:19 AM by Nomad Man.)
Post: #13
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
Shalom Rose of Shushan:

Quote:If you are fluent in biblical hebrew why did you claim in one of the examples above that christian translations added a word.
If you knew biblical hebrew you would have known that the christian translation there was perfectly in line with the possible meanings for the beth preposition. However, instead you chose to make it look like the christian translators were adding a word to the text,when they were not adding but translating a preposition already there.

The English word "against" can mean;

1. To be in opposition with.
2. To be in contact with.

I agree that the prefix ב can mean "against" in the context of #2, such as But it does not have the meaning of #1. You can't just arbitrarily replace the prefix ב with the word "against," especially if it changes the meaning of the text. If you could, then you could translate Genesis 15:6 as "and he believed against YHWH."

Quote:What resources may these be? Since you admit you have no formal schooling in the hebrew language and you seem to hold lexicons such as Strongs in poor esteem.What are these non westernised sources that you study from?

I did not say I held "Strong's in poor esteem," I said "Strong's is a great tool but it is very limited." I have used many lexicons such as BDB, Benjamin Davidson's, Gesinius, etc. One of the best books I have read on this subject is Thorleif Boman's Hebrew thought compared with Greek. Some other great books on the subject of Hebrew thought and culture are;

Mary Ellen Chase, Life and Language in the Old Testament
Edward Horowitz, How the Hebrew Language Grew
Giorgio Fano, The Origins and Nature of Language
Rabbi Matityahu Clark, Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew
Madeleine S. Miller, Harper's Encyclopedia of Bible Life
Ralph Gower, New Manners & Customs of Bible Times

Nomad Man







Shalom Vic:

Quote:Nomad man , I am sure you are aware of the many who claim inflated credentials within the Hebrew Roots movement, so I must ask you to be more specific.

If you are "adjunct professor in Biblical Hebrew for a University"--no need to be shy, please do tell, what that University is and where it is?
And how long have you been a professor there, because claiming a professorship implies having a Phd in Hebrew or Biblical languages.

Georgetown Wesleyan University of the Americas and is based in Florida. There website is http://www.gwua.net. I have been a professor with them for almost a year.

Nomad Man
Shalom Vic:

Quote:Nomad man , I am sure you are aware of the many who claim inflated credentials within the Hebrew Roots movement, so I must ask you to be more specific.

If you are "adjunct professor in Biblical Hebrew for a University"--no need to be shy, please do tell, what that University is and where it is?
And how long have you been a professor there, because claiming a professorship implies having a Phd in Hebrew or Biblical languages.

Georgetown Wesleyan University of the Americas and is based in Florida. There website is http://www.gwua.net. I have been a professor with them for almost a year.

Nomad Man
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-23-2008, 10:43 AM (This post was last modified: 12-23-2008 10:45 AM by Rose of Shushan.)
Post: #14
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
Nomad Man ,
In genesis 15:6

וְהֶאֱמִן, בַּיהוָה; וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ, צְדָקָה

It is translating the beth preposition as "in", the translators are choosing the form that makes most sense in the context.
The fact that you personally as a layman don’t like the translators' choice in the KJV and Christian translations is fine but that is due to it differing with your theology and not due to any fault of the translators.

First you say the Christian translators added a word.
When we establish that they didn’t add a word but that they translated the beth preposition in perfect accordance with the possible meanings, you then claim


Quote:You can't just arbitrarily replace the prefix ב with the word "against," especially if it changes the meaning of the text.

Well, as I explained before they did not "replace" the prefix with the word "against ", they translated it as "against" . They are not replacing anything, they are translating a preposition that requires translation. And you say they are changing the meaning of the text, well changing it from what? What they are doing is determining the meaning of the text. 17425
For the sake of those following the thread and who may not have knowledge of Hebrew, let's briefly look at some of the alternatives we have with that b'cha

It could be
Vehayah (it will be) sham(there) b'cha (against you) l' ed (for/as a witness)
Vehayah (it will be) sham(there) b'cha (with you) l' ed (for/as a witness)
Vehayah (it will be) sham(there) b'cha (in you) l' ed (for/as a witness)
Vehayah (it will be) sham(there) b'cha (in spite of you) l' ed (for/as a witness)
Vehayah (it will be) sham(there) b'cha (among you) l' ed (for/as a witness)
Vehayah (it will be) sham(there) b'cha (inside you) l' ed (for/as a witness)


We could find more but I think we get the idea.
I see that you say you are biblical in fluent Hebrew, but if this is so, why am I having to explain this to you?89
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-24-2008, 11:26 PM
Post: #15
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
They often are consistent in translation. Every word in every language has a spread of meanings. The one word one meaning idea is more akin to mathematics not language.

The thing is when a word as a spread of meanings in one language the equivalent word in another language also has a spread of meanings BUT IT IS DIFFERENT, they overlap, hence the translation, but they are not the same.

For example the Russian word kak means AS but it also means LIKE - so when russians regularly confuse the two in english it can be very funny (I have russian friends). Not only that but the word for like here only means resembling, (X is like Y) and has no meaning at all of enjoying or taking delight in (X likes Y)

And as the structures and style of each language is unique a word for word transposition is impossible.

look at any word in english and see how many meanings you can find for it. As one who is good at languages, I can find many.

Which meaning is to be taken? it depends on the context, and it depends on what will make a readable and stylish finished product. Word for word-ism will not work.

after all the phrase "English as she is spoke" which has appeared on some places offering to teach english in other countries, is a word for word transposition of something in spanish or the like.

It might be good spanish but it is BAD english.

So in general i find the translations acceptable, and the translators trustworthy. This confirms my idea that heresies arise not so much from mistranslation (not to deny that it happens, however) but word twisting, and the original greek can be twisted as much as the modern english
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2008, 12:19 AM
Post: #16
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
Hello all,

Just wanted some thought on something. It reads in Matthew 23 "The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do ye not after their works, for they say and do not". It continues on with what they do. It seems strange that Yahshua would tell his disciples to listen to them on what to do and observe even though they are doing things wrong. Is it possible that there is a wrong translation of a word here? Also the genealogy in Matthew 1 does not line up with the genealogy given in Luke 3:24 or vice versa. Also in Matthew it has the genealogy of Yahshua going through Joseph which we know isn't possible because he isn't the father. It seems to be that there has to be a translation error somewhere. On a side note I was reading some of the posts and they are fascinating, however when the questions come up where did you get your phd, I am reminded that Yahshua was constantly challenged and eventually given over for crucifixion by the so called Scholars or educated people of the day. That tells me that even someone with a phd can be wrong. Thanks for the opportunity to share.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2008, 02:31 PM (This post was last modified: 12-25-2008 03:14 PM by Rose of Shushan.)
Post: #17
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
Quote:Just wanted some thought on something. It reads in Matthew 23 "The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do ye not after their works, for they say and do not". It continues on with what they do. It seems strange that Yahshua would tell his disciples to listen to them on what to do and observe even though they are doing things wrong. Is it possible that there is a wrong translation of a word here?

I'll offer my thoughts on this briefly Carl. First here is the verse

Mat 23:1 Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not according to their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers



What I see in that verse is that Jesus was condemning the Scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy.They sat in "Moses Seat" and as such taught from Moses. So Jesus is telling the people when they teach from Moses observe and do , but don't follow their example when they stray out of that by their actions.
Their binding of heavy burdens referred to all the additions that they had placed upon Moses words, making the carrying out of those commands burdensome and weary.
The people were not to imitate the Pharisees actions,for although they appeared outwardly righteous, inwardly they were filled with various kinds of evils. Note that straight after that verse Jesus launches into a particularly lengthy condemnation of the Pharisees and the various types of uncleannness and hypocrisies they harboured.
Note the following in particular
.


Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you travel on sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.


Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy, and faith: these ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2008, 10:29 PM
Post: #18
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
What about the geneology issue. The inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2008, 10:34 PM
Post: #19
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
That would not be a translational inconsistency.

Some take this passage as proving that the Bible has errors in it.

I hold that one of the famliy trees is through Mary and the other Joseph, for though Joseph was not the father of Jesus yet he was the stepfather, in a manner of speaking
Quote this message in a reply
12-25-2008, 10:40 PM
Post: #20
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
I in now way am trying to prove that the scriptures have errors in it. I am just puzzled by the discrepancy. At the time of the writing of these books, I believe the Messiah had already been crucified and it was years later. So the disciples knew he was the Messiah. Why would Matthew make such an error recording the genealogy. There has to be 14 generations. Making the geneology of the Messiah go through Joseph whom isn't his father to get to 14 is a huge error.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)