cctr114 at it.canterbury.ac.nz
Sun Jun 17 17:22:28 EDT 2001
>Not much objectivity here, I'm afraid. It is disingenuous to insist
>that a phrase like "dynamic energy" is only a term of physics or
>applies only to Einstein's theorem. As stated in my earlier post,
>fundamentally speaking "dynamic energy" fits the context of Isaiah
>40:26 as well as the more ordinary "might" or "power." A translation
>need not be limited by standard, ordinary phrasings, and -- shall I say
>dynamism -- can be a welcomed feature in a translation. In many new
>translations it is taken as an indication of vigor and skill that they
>have new or different ways of expressing the same facts. "Dynamic," of
>course, comes into English from the Greek term DUNAMIS, or POWER.
>Grammatically and contextually speaking, "dynamic energy" at Isaiah
>40:26 is as good as the common terms.
Are you sure that new "translations" are, in fact, translations.
While some are calling themselves "translations" or are called
translations by others, e.g. The Message Translation, I think they
would be better called paraphrases. The questions we must ask is - does
"dynamic energy" convey to us what the Hebrews thought? I think
it doesn't. Paraphrases have the freedom to use "dynamic energy" because
they are deliberately aiming for freshness.
If the NWT deliberately chose these two words so they could link Is 40:26
to relativity, then they are out in paraphrase territory. I have no
objection to paraphrases, but I do think they should be labelled as
such so they buyer knows want they are getting.
Bill Rea, Information Technology Dept., Canterbury University \_
E-Mail b dot rea at it dot canterbury dot ac dot nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'
More information about the b-hebrew