mc2499 at mclink.it
Mon Mar 18 16:53:46 EST 2002
>No, I am not saying that the others are making mistakes. I am saying
>that both are valid translations because no one can be sure which
>meaning was the Hebrew author's intention. Are you prepared to agree
>with me on that? If so, we can agree that this evidence for your
>interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 is debatable and so unreliable.
Do you at least agree that there is the tendency to
translate long sentences from a source language into
more, shorter sentences in English?
Do you also agree that languages that generally allow
longer sentences than modern English, tend to
translate the verse under consideration as one long
sentence with clauses governed by the time phrase?
Do you also agree that older versions in English
generally used longer sentences? and translated
our verse as one long sentence with clauses governed
by the time phrase?
Do you agree that the earliest translations did the
This is not a big deal about large meaning changes,
for the modern English versions you cite do what I
do when translating Italian, ie chop up the sentences.
There is nothing particularly strange about the act.
What we are dealing with is your resilliance to the
notion that the original text had a time phrase which
could govern more than one clause.
More information about the b-hebrew