Isaiah 40:26

Numberup at worldnet.att.net Numberup at worldnet.att.net
Tue Jun 19 13:25:13 EDT 2001


I think the first-hand account in the post from Norman E. Swift of June 14 has
answered this question:  there was no deliberate attempt by the NWT to link Isaiah
40:26 to the theory of relativity.  Essentially, "dynamic" energy is merely "active"
or "productive" power.  I can't speak for the ancient Hebrews, but according to some
sources their worldview  was pragmatic and essential .   In my reading of Isaiah 40:26
in context, "dynamic" [i.e., "active/productive"]  energy makes sense.  I don't think
anyone is arguing that this is the only way to render the verse, or even the best way
to render it.  But as I recall, the original question that started the discussion was
whether or not it was grammatically or contextually possible/acceptable.

Solomon Landers

Bill Rea wrote:

> 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.
>




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list