Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

@Dr.Furuli:

Hello,  I am having a hard time understanding your view of OLAM and the NWT.  
That is fine you regard it as a good translation, however, in regards to OLAM 
being translated as "time indefinite."  I guess the question is how do you 
define "indefinite?"

Indefinite usually means "unclear, uncertain, vague etc."  I don't think this 
is what OLAM is communciating.  Because if the time is unclear that could be 
referring to something that happened 10 minutes ago or even an hour ago.  
It's simply not known.

Like if I took Duet 15:17. L:KA 'EVED 'OLAM and translated it is "and she 
will be your servant for an unclear amount of time"

 Halot has OLAM meaning, "long time duration, future time, a long time back, 
eternal."   I think the "long time" element is missing from time indefinite.
--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> Dear David, 
> 
> I have written a book (1999) dealing with the influence of theology and 
> bias 
> in Bible translation, where I compare the very literal NWT with the very 
> idiomatic (paraphrasal) TEV. I not only view the NWT as a serious work, but 
> also as a 
> work which has several advantages that are lacking in many other Bible 
> translations. 
> 
> The nature of a Bible translation depends of its target group. For most 
> groups of modern people idiomatic translations are fine. Translation is 
> interpretation, and the basic problem with idiomatic translations is that 
> the views of the translators (exegesis, theology, bias) are read into the 
> text *without the knowledge of the readers*. The views of the translators 
> are 
> read into literal translations as well. But because these translations are 
> more consistent in their renderings (one English word for each Hebrew word 
> whenever possible), and because some of them, such as the NWT, have 
> footnotes, it is easier for the readers to get a flavor of the original 
> text. In idiomatic translations much of the interpretation is made by the 
> translators, but in literal ones the readers to a much greater extent can 
> make the interpretation themselves. The target group of the NWT consists of 
> those who 
> want to come as close to the original text as possible by help of their 
> mother tongue, i.e., it consists of those who want to make a deep study of 
> the biblcal text. 
> 
> The price to pay for a literal translation is a style that sometimes (or 
> often) is wooden. The advantage for serious Bible students is accuracy. 
> Using Daniel 6:27 as a point of departure, I will illustrate the point 
> about 
> accuracy. Many Bible translations render the Hebrew noun (WLM and the 
> Aramaic noun (LM as "eternity; forever" etc.). This may create problems, 
> because things that clearly are not eternal are said to be so. The 
> basic idea of the words is not "unending time," but time whose length is 
> concealed (unknown). The NWT, therefore, translates the words as "time 
> indefinite," and the reader must make the interpretation as to when this 
> indefinite time is eternal and when it is not. This is a much better 
> solution than the one mentioned. The NWT accurately translates the clause 
> in 
> Dan 6:26 with the word (LM thus: "For he is the living God and One enduring 
> to times indefinite" (the plurality of (LM is also accounted for). 
> 
> Any Bible translation has its strengths and weaknesses, and that is true 
> with the NWT as well. But because it is so different from other modern 
> translations (e.g. its ability to convey the force of Greek, Hebrew and 
> Aramaic verbs is not matched by any other version I know of), it should not 
> be lacking in the libraries of Bible translators, Bible students, and 
> pastors. 
> 
> 
> Best regards 
> 
> 
> Rolf Furuli Ph.D 
> University of Oslo 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dave Humpal" 
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 5:38 AM 
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 
> 
> 
> > Solomon quotes from the NWT. Does anyone on this list really regard the 
> > New 
> > World "Translation" as a serious work? 
> > 
> > Rev. David Humpal 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Sat Nov 12 06:10:15 2005
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E79E4C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:10:15 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from smailcenter71.comcast.net ([204.127.205.171])
        by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP
        id <200511121109590110023095e>; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:10:09 +0000
Received: from [69.136.149.33] by smailcenter71.comcast.net;
        Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:09:59 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:09:59 +0000
Message-Id: 
<111220051109.19412.4375CD87000916A700004BD42200763692C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Dec 17 2004)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:10:15 -0000

I personally don't, but I am sure that there is somethings in there that are 
correct.  So if someone wants to bring up the idea that something in there is 
accurate I don't mind.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> Solomon quotes from the NWT. Does anyone on this list really regard the New 
> World "Translation" as a serious work? 
> 
> Rev. David Humpal 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From furuli AT online.no  Sat Nov 12 08:38:34 2005
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail42.e.nsc.no (mail42.e.nsc.no [193.213.115.42])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED874C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:38:33 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from ttttt (ti200710a080-11978.bb.online.no [85.164.174.202])
        by mail42.nsc.no (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id jACDcW0S029254
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 12 Nov 2005 14:38:32 +0100 
(CET)
Message-ID: <001501c5e78e$600db310$b872fea9@ttttt>
From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: 
<111220051108.19240.4375CD2B0008C81000004B282200763692C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 13:38:32 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 13:38:34 -0000

Dear Kelton,

We all have different "horizons of understanding," which consciously and
unconsciously influence our decisions and even our logic. We also have
different backgrounds in linguistics, translation theory, and theology. This
will influence each one of us as well.

When I teach my students how to translate words (I mean "words," because
that is all that is on the page) from one language to another, I often use
Ogden`s triangle of signification, with "sign," "concept," and "reference"
at the three corners. It is of utmost importance to differentiate between 
the
"concept" (=meaning in the minds of persons with the same presupposition
pool) and the "reference" (=the thing in the world denoted by the word).

When you say, "Halot has the meaning," this may be a confusion between
"concept" (=meaning) and "reference"(=what is denoted). Such a confusion is
common in lexicons and word books, and one reason is that Hebrew-English
lexicons do not give the "meaning" of Hebrew words, they only give English
glosses (i.e., the most common ways to translate particular Hebrew words
into English). Word meanings exist in the minds of living people and not in
lexicons!

 No one today has the same presupposition pool as the Hebrews in ancient
days, and concepts can seldom be defined, they must be known. So the lexical 
semantics of classical Hebrew
is based on induction, and includes all the weaknesses and uncertaintees of
this method. I think that the core of the cencept behind the root (LM is
something that is hidden (my thinking is also based upon induction). Applied
to the nominal sphere with the form (WLM, I think the core meaning is
"hidden time" with an indifference regarding the length or nature of the
hidden time. In other words, the concept "long" is not a part of the
*meaning* of (WLAM. Nonetheless, in most cases the reference of (WLM is a
"long time", even "eternity". But beware of confusing "meaning" with
"reference"!

One problem facing those who make a literal translation is that classical
Hebrew concepts do not exactly match  modern English ones. Therefore, when
one English word is sought for each Hebrew word (a consistent application of
this is possible in less than 10% of all cases), there may be connotations
connected with the English words that were absent in Hebrew, and the ranges
of meaning may be somewhat different as well. Translators of idiomatic
translations use many different words and expressions for each Hebrew word,
and the problem is that so much interpretative material is forced upon the
readers (and often the translators make wrong decisions). Translators of
literal translations try to use one English word per Hebrew word, and
therefore they force upon the readers English connotations and nuances that
are connected with the English words but were absent from Hebrew. However,
this target group is better off than those using idiomatic translations,
because they can look up the contexts of  one particular English word in the 
Bible and
learn something about its meaning and references. This is the very reason
for the existence of literal translations. So it is good to use both
idiomatic and literal translations in one´s study, since they may complement
each other.

As for (WLM, I see two possible choices in English that can convey the core
of the concept, namely "concealed time" and "time indefinite".  On the basis 
of my arguments above I would
prefer the latter. To disagree with this choice is your privilege, but it is
unfair to criticize literal translations on the basis of the methods and
goals of idiomatic translations (i.e., smooth renderings where the meaning
of the source language is rendered with good idiomatic expressions in the
target language).  And conversely, it is unfair to criticise idiomatic
translations on the basis of the methods and goals of literal translations
(i.e. to use one word in the target language for one word in the source
language as far as possible, and to be closer to the style of the SL than
the style on the TL).

 NWT has the following rendering in Deuteronomy 15:17, "and he must become
your slave to time indefinite". If you will construe this as, "and he will
be your servant for an unclear amount of time," I would suggest a synonym
for "unclear". Given the purpose behind the literal translation and its use
by  the target group, the words should be taken in the sense, "and he will
be your servant for an undisclosed amount of time".  The reference of (WLM
in the case of the freed slave could be one hour, one day, or forty years,




Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite)


> @Dr.Furuli:
>
> Hello,  I am having a hard time understanding your view of OLAM and the
> NWT.  That is fine you regard it as a good translation, however, in
> regards to OLAM being translated as "time indefinite."  I guess the
> question is how do you define "indefinite?"
>
> Indefinite usually means "unclear, uncertain, vague etc."  I don't think
> this is what OLAM is communciating.  Because if the time is unclear that
> could be referring to something that happened 10 minutes ago or even an
> hour ago.  It's simply not known.
>
> Like if I took Duet 15:17. L:KA 'EVED 'OLAM and translated it is "and she
> will be your servant for an unclear amount of time"
>
> Halot has OLAM meaning, "long time duration, future time, a long time
> back, eternal."   I think the "long time" element is missing from time
> indefinite.
> --
> Kelton Graham
> KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
>
>> Dear David,
>>
>> I have written a book (1999) dealing with the influence of theology and
>> bias
>> in Bible translation, where I compare the very literal NWT with the very
>> idiomatic (paraphrasal) TEV. I not only view the NWT as a serious work,
>> but
>> also as a
>> work which has several advantages that are lacking in many other Bible
>> translations.
>>
>> The nature of a Bible translation depends of its target group. For most
>> groups of modern people idiomatic translations are fine. Translation is
>> interpretation, and the basic problem with idiomatic translations is that
>> the views of the translators (exegesis, theology, bias) are read into the
>> text *without the knowledge of the readers*. The views of the translators
>> are
>> read into literal translations as well. But because these translations
>> are
>> more consistent in their renderings (one English word for each Hebrew
>> word
>> whenever possible), and because some of them, such as the NWT, have
>> footnotes, it is easier for the readers to get a flavor of the original
>> text. In idiomatic translations much of the interpretation is made by the
>> translators, but in literal ones the readers to a much greater extent can
>> make the interpretation themselves. The target group of the NWT consists
>> of
>> those who
>> want to come as close to the original text as possible by help of their
>> mother tongue, i.e., it consists of those who want to make a deep study
>> of
>> the biblcal text.
>>
>> The price to pay for a literal translation is a style that sometimes (or
>> often) is wooden. The advantage for serious Bible students is accuracy.
>> Using Daniel 6:27 as a point of departure, I will illustrate the point
>> about
>> accuracy. Many Bible translations render the Hebrew noun (WLM and the
>> Aramaic noun (LM as "eternity; forever" etc.). This may create problems,
>> because things that clearly are not eternal are said to be so. The
>> basic idea of the words is not "unending time," but time whose length is
>> concealed (unknown). The NWT, therefore, translates the words as "time
>> indefinite," and the reader must make the interpretation as to when this
>> indefinite time is eternal and when it is not. This is a much better
>> solution than the one mentioned. The NWT accurately translates the clause
>> in
>> Dan 6:26 with the word (LM thus: "For he is the living God and One
>> enduring
>> to times indefinite" (the plurality of (LM is also accounted for).
>>
>> Any Bible translation has its strengths and weaknesses, and that is true
>> with the NWT as well. But because it is so different from other modern
>> translations (e.g. its ability to convey the force of Greek, Hebrew and
>> Aramaic verbs is not matched by any other version I know of), it should
>> not
>> be lacking in the libraries of Bible translators, Bible students, and
>> pastors.
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>
>> Rolf Furuli Ph.D
>> University of Oslo
>>
>>
>>