Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

@Dr.Furuli:

Dr.Furuli:> Dear Kelton, 

> I do not have time to continue this discussion, but I will make some final 
> comments. 

Response: No problem, I understand how busy things can get. I just want to 
let you know that I appreciate your comments thus far. 
---------------------------------------------

Dr:Furuli:The question that started it was wether the NWT can be taken 
> seriously. In connection with the writing of my mentioned book I compared 
> every English clause in the NWT with the corresponding Hebrew one. My 
> conclusion is that the translation is a scholarly work made by persons with 
> an excellent grasp of Hebrew, and who have been very careful in following 
> their own translation principles. 


Response: That is interesting, I've never walked through the entire NWT and 
compared it with the Hebrew.  I might just have to do that.

-------------------------------------------
 
Dr.Furuli:> Criticisms of the NWT are often theologically conditioned. In 
other cases - and this relates to other literal translations as well - are 
its renderings 
> judged on the basis of idiomatic principles. And sometimes you fall in this 
> trap as well. See below: 

Response: That is true, for the most part the criticism of the NWT is 
theological. I think also that alot of folks just don't trust the 
watchtower's history.  I've never spent to much time dealing with the 
organization itself, but I always see arguments against false prophecies and 
the credibility of not only the watchtower but the translators of the NWT.  
So when they offer a translation, I can see why a few eyebrows are raised.

----------------------------------------------------------

Dr.Furuli:We must never forget that a literal translation is a special type 
of animal 
that must be judged in its own right. The aim of such a translation is not 
 to make it appear that Luke and Paul spoke English, or to render the text in 
> good idiomatic English. So when you say that something does not make much 
> sense in English, this is beyond the point. Then you are judging the 
> literal 
> translation in light of idiomatic principles, because the aim of the 
> translators of the literal translation is not that the renderings always 
> should "make sense" from an idiomatic point of view. A literal translation 
> is a study translation which challenges the readers to do research, to read 
> texts where the same word occurs and by this learn something about the 
> Hebrew concept behind the original word. 

Response:  I see what you are saying, so I guess it comes down to the *goal* 
of the translator.  Whether or not one is trying to get the reader to do some 
research or if one is trying to make the text understandable for today's 
modern reader. The problem with that from my perspective is that most readers 
are untrained laymen, who have no type of concept of how to do a word study 
or look for context etc.

I think what you are proposing takes a certain amount of skill on behalf of 
the reader, otherwise, they'll come up with all types of ideas and theology.

Now on the other hand, if the translator has a certain theological bias and 
does the translating for the reader, that can lead to problems as well.

----------------------------------------------------

Dr.Furuli:> An illustrative example is the NWT´s use of "Sheol" (and Hades 
and Gehenna 
> in the NT). This word makes absolutely no sense in English, so the readers 
> have to find where it occurs and make up their mind as to the concept 
> behind 
> it. I guess that the reasons why the NWT translators in the case of the 
> three mentioned words chose transcription instead of using one particular 
> English word in each case, is that the words are so theologically loaded. 
> So the readers must find their meaning themselves by studying the text 
> (here 
> we definitely can speak of semi-translation). 

Response: That is very interesting indeed.  And I have no problem with that 
if that is the actual intent of the NWT, and I don't know if we'd ever know 
that answer.  But even if they left it as a transliteration you still run the 
risk of an untrained laymen taking it and coming up with something that is 
not meant to be communicated by the original Hebrew author. 
--------------------------------------
> Interestingly, the principle of the literal approach mentioned above is 
> sometimes used even in idiomatic translations. In order to illustrate that 
> I 
> use an example from the NT. The NWT translates KOSMOS 186 times as "world" 
> and one time ( 1 Pet 3:3) as "adornment". TEV is a very free translation, 
> even a paraphrase, but as for KOSMOS it uses "world" in 175 instances. Why 
> this literalism ? I guess that the translators realized that the amount of 
> interpretative material they had to force upon the readers by choosing 
> different renderings would be so great that they wanted to let the readers 
> do the interpretation themselves. A literal translation follows this 
> principle to a much greater extent. Therefore, to render KATA SARKA as 
> "according to the flesh" is perfectly legitimate in a literal translation. 
> True, this expression is not a part of a modern English vocabulary, but 
> again, that is beyond the point, because of the nature of the literal 
> translation. And such phrases make sense for the student who wants to work 
> with the text. 

Response:  Well, I'm not much of a fan of *Free* translations, but if I were 
to guess why they translated KOSMOS as literal I would have to say that there 
are'nt many other ways to translate it. (now this is total speculation, I 
really have no idea).  And I am not arguing that a literal translation is 
bad, but I do think there is a middle road so to speak, where in order for it 
to make sense (I know this is beyond the point) one has to try to explain 
Hebrew words and phrases to the untrained laymen as best as possible.

Dr.Furuli:> So do not judge the literal translation from the point of view of 
idiomatic 
> principles. That is the same as to compare apples and oranges. 

Response: Sure no problem.  And thanks for your time, I at least understand 
where you are coming from and for that I am grateful.  

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Mon Nov 14 10:05:41 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 sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70A94C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:05:41 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from smailcenter61.comcast.net ([204.127.205.161])
        by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP
        id <20051114150525012002ba9ee>; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:05:35 +0000
Received: from [69.136.149.33] by smailcenter61.comcast.net;
        Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:05:25 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:05:25 +0000
Message-Id: 
<111420051505.12367.4378A7B4000F398C0000304F2205884484C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 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 (time indefinite) II
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:05:41 -0000


@solomon:
Solomon:Really, what is "eternity" but an indefinite time?  Can anyone count 
the years in an eternity, to make it a definite time?  I really see no 
problem with "time indefinite" or an "indefinitely-lasting" time, which the 
NWT also uses occasionally.  The Tanach speaks in the language of men, and no 
man knows how long an eternity is.  From our standpoint it is "time 
indefinite."

Response: Because the idea here is not just focusing on something not known, 
but also duration.(since time is involved)  

Time indefinite, could include eternalty or it might not.  That is the point, 
it could be 15 minutes or it could be forever.  But if let up to an untrained 
reader to figure it out, they could argue that any of those phrases with 
"time indefinite" in them does not have to refer to eternaly or even a long 
time and they'd be justified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Solomon:If "olam" is related to "alam," there is the concept of hiddenness.  
Again, hidden from the human standpoint.

What I had a real problem with was the once-popular translation 
"age-abiding." (Rotherham and others.)  That called for quite a bit of 
interpretation.

Response:  Now I understand your point, but the problem is that the term 
indefinite does mean unclear or vague.  So as long as that is a factor, it 
does not have to point to something long  or eternal at all.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Mon Nov 14 10:06:25 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 D2FDF4C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:06:25 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from smailcenter61.comcast.net ([204.127.205.161])
        by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP
        id <200511141506250110026hf8e>; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:06:25 +0000
Received: from [69.136.149.33] by smailcenter61.comcast.net;
        Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:06:25 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:06:25 +0000
Message-Id: 
<111420051506.13803.4378A7F0000D0527000035EB2205884484C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 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 (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: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:06:26 -0000

@Peter and B-Hebrew

Sorry about that.  It totally slipped my mind.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

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

> On 14/11/2005 01:48, kgraham0938 AT comcast.net wrote: 
> 
> >Hey Dr.Furuli, this post was too big so I am sending it in parts. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> You wouldn't have this problem if you deleted the large parts of old 
> conversations at the end of the message which you are not commenting on. 
> Please, Kelton and everyone, do this. 
> 
> -- 
> Peter Kirk 
> peter AT qaya.org (personal) 
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work) 
> http://www.qaya.org/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From hholmyard AT ont.com  Mon Nov 14 10:36:35 2005
Return-Path: <hholmyard AT ont.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from online.OnlineToday.Com (online.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.200.2])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9F44C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:36:35 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [204.181.201.184] (n191.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.201.191])
        by online.OnlineToday.Com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id 
jAEFaV6v027148
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:36:32 -0600 
(CST)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: hholmyard AT mail.ont.com
Message-Id: <a06020401bf9e5d4e089f@[204.181.201.184]>
In-Reply-To: <ff.20db0098.30a9de27 AT aol.com>
References: <ff.20db0098.30a9de27 AT aol.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:33:07 -0600
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:36:35 -0000

Dear Solomon,

>Really, what is "eternity" but an indefinite time?  Can anyone count  the
>years in an eternity, to make it a definite time?  I really see no 
>problem with
>"time indefinite" or an "indefinitely-lasting" time, which the NWT  also uses
>occasionally.  The Tanach speaks in the language of men, and no  man knows 
>how
>long an eternity is.  From our standpoint it is "time  indefinite."
>
>If "olam" is related to "alam," there is the concept of hiddenness.   Again,
>hidden from the human standpoint.
>
>What I had a real problem with was the once-popular translation 
>"age-abiding." (Rotherham and others.)  That called for quite a bit 
>of  interpretation.

HH: I don't want to get into a long debate over this, but you seem to 
be looking at the matter from the following perspective: "If I begin 
with the concept of 'eternity,' then 'indefinite time' can be a way 
to describe it." That may be so, but when a reader comes to a text, 
he does not come to the concept of "eternity." He only comes to the 
text. If he reads that such-and-such will last for "an indefinite 
time," that does not spark in the mind the concept of "eternity." The 
phrase is too vague and could mean five minutes. This is why 
translation cannot use a single term for many words, since words have 
more than one signification.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard