[b-hebrew] XSD

Karl Randolph kwrandolph at email.com
Mon Aug 22 22:09:48 EDT 2005


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard at ont.com>

> 
> Dear Karl,
> 
> > You are right that my "translation" was not exactly word
> > for word, rather it was more free, trying to have a
> > smoother reading in English. Therefore it is more of a
> > paraphrase, attempting to be true to the meaning.
> >
> > Strictly speaking, the translation should have read,
> > "undeserved good favor of peoples is erroneous" in other
> > words missing the mark of justice which exults a nation
> > (see first clause context).
> 
> HHL The problem with this is that X+)T means sin
> or sin-offering. And your translation for Prov
> 14:34 makes no sense:
> 
Harold: I just went through a description of X+)T going 
back to its root meaning of missing the mark, or more 
properly erring. The New Testament hAMARTIA has almost 
the exact same meaning and was chosen for that reason. 
Didn't you listen? Just because it is usually given a 
theological meaning does not mean that the theological 
meaning is the correct one in all uses.

> > "Justice exults a nation,
> but undeserved good favor of peoples errs."
> 
> HH: XSD means favor or kindness, and the positive
> sense of the word is understood to be a good
> thing. It is one of the great things that we as
> sinners depend on, God's kindness. So to say that
> it is an error contradicts the sense of the words
> in the Bible.
> 
Not at all. Again you start with a theological use and 
apply it to all examples of its use. That's backwards. 
Start with the general use, then recognize the more 
narrow theological use when appropriate.

> ...
> 
> HH: In these verses you go against all translations I have every seen.
> 
There you go again, not the text, but the translation 
(works of "experts") is supreme.

> >  Give me a good argument based
> > on the language, and I may change how I understand the
> > text: merely quoting "experts" aint goin te cut th'
> > butter.
> 
> HH: The good argument is that there is a related
> verb at Prov. 25:10 that means to "shame."
> 
I listed that verse in my original question, as an example 
of how it could be understood as undeserved good favor, 
much like the recipient in Proverbs 25:21.

> Prov. 25:10 or he who hears it may shame you and
> you will never lose your bad reputation.
> 
> HH: The good argument is that every translation
> I've ever seen takes the noun negatively in
> Leviticus:
> 
There you go again, the translation is the authority, not 
the text.

> Lev. 20:17 ¶ "'If a man marries his sister, the
> daughter of either his father or his mother, and
> they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace.
> They must be cut off before the eyes of their
> people. He has dishonored his sister and will be
> held responsible.
> 
This is not even that accurate a translation.

> HH: The punishment is not the XSD here. It is the
> sexual relations that are the XSD, and they are
> not "undeserved good favor."
> 
> 				Yours,
> 				Harold Holmyard

Karl W. Randolph.


-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list