mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Mar 18 12:48:08 EST 2002
>Ian, your understanding may be possible, but it is clearly not that of
>(for example) the NRSV and JPS translators.
Look at how it was translated earlier, when English could
have longer sentence structures. This argument deals with
translation styles, not with the text.
>In both of these
>translations, "I swore to the offspring" or its equivalent is clearly a
On what grounds to you claim that it is "clearly" a main
clause? We are dealing with one long idea corresponding to
"let them know the abominations".
If "I swore to the offspring" were a main clause, what was
sworn? The answer is in the clause in v.6
>and "On the day when I chose Israel" is a subordinate clause
>dependent on that main clause. Neither of them take "I swore..." as
>dependent on "On the day", although there are many ways in which they
>could have done that in English without making the sentence too long.
Try it if the main clause is in v.6.
>You have here yet another highly doubtful example. You can prove nothing
>about Genesis 1:1 from such debatable parallels.
You are simply prepared to go to lengths to prop up
a fallacious translation of Gen 1:1.
More information about the b-hebrew