Shalom Narkissos Thank you for the reply. I'm not sure how to highlight things on these pages so I just use Quotation marks. I'm not sure also how to get things in format, so I apologize for the no paragraph format in my other post. Maybe this time will be better. "Well, there is ('ehyeh), but it is very rarely used and hence implies special emphasis." Since you have some Hebrew I won't go into large detail. ehyeh (will be), (which occurs upwards of 50 times) is not same as to 'am'. To imply the word 'am' requires this verb be absent. In translation Exodus 3:14 in most bibles (I am) is impossible as the sense of being itself already expressed in the verb fully as 'I will be'. Only in new Hebrew does a real present tense happen, In classical Hebrew only implied in participle. "I think here you are mixing up the (admittedly dubious) notion of literal translation with distinct problems, involving polysemy, synonymy and confusion of (possible) etymology with semantics. In sound Biblical Hebrew lexicography 'lhym doesn't mean "power," br' doesn't mean "fattening," shmym doesn't mean "place of the sky," 'rç doesn't mean "fragmentation". I don't know how you say the Elohim doesn't mean power, it is the basic root sense of el. For bara you need to consider the root 'br' it refers to grain which fills or fattens those that it eat. Bara and Its derivatives bria and briah all say fat or full. Similar saying can be said of the other two words mentioned. I am not sure what means by "sound Biblical Hebrew lexicography". does that refer to grammatical revisionist as James Strong, Gesenius, BDB, Keil & Dlitzsch and schools that make word smiths perverting the Hebrew language almost unrecognizable in support of their Christian interpretation of Hebrew? The writing of Genesis 1:1 as I did was showing what word by word literal looks like, as some like to say all translation be literal. I would not translate like this since it is not conveying Hebrew thought into good English. By translation, recognizing the construct structure of the words, I would write, 'When God began creating the heaven and the earth,'. After many years with mindlessness as jw I find this site and others that are helpful but not in discussion for me usually, as to discuss in English detail, this requires much thought as its flow is not naturally to me and then some one for prove reading. So I apologize if any offense is heard.
naphach
JoinedPosts by naphach
-
27
Another interesting NWT corruption of extant scripture.
by oompa inyes i think rev.
22:18,19 is a good idea.
god said leave it alone.
-
-
-
27
Another interesting NWT corruption of extant scripture.
by oompa inyes i think rev.
22:18,19 is a good idea.
god said leave it alone.
-
-
naphach
I view all English translations as paraphrase. I can't speak directly about translations from the Greek but from the Hebrew it is quite apparent. There are very few Hebrew words that have direct equivalents in English. Even simple words fail to cross over. For instance there is no Hebrew word that can be properly translated as 'am' it must be supplied by translators to make sense. If someone wants to say 'I am David' in Hebrew he says 'I David'. So technically anytime the word 'am' occurs in the English OT it should be bracketed, if we want to see all added words. This process is abused by translators to support their doctrines and occurs in all bibles. As for translations that claim to be literal, they are also paraphrased. Here is Genesis 1:1 translated as literally as it can be translated into English. 'When the supreme power began fattening up the place of the sky and the fragmentation'. This makes sense in Hebrew thought but not so much in English. If anybody published a truly literal translation they would be flamed off the planet. The NWT takes things a step further by changing verb tense to support their beliefs, even after they make a big deal about how accurate they convey Hebrew verb tense. One of the most blatant examples of this is at Genesis 2:3 "he has been resting from all his work" (NWT) where the Hebrew clearly shows this to be completed action 'he ceased from all His work'. What's amusing is that they acknowledge this in the footnote. This was done to support their calculations of the length of creative days as well as to allow for the myriad of end times calculations that have proved to be as false as their rendering of the verse.