Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

>This is not fair criticism - although I don't want to claim here that 
>NIV is better than any other translation. There is nothing random about 
>how NIV was translated, but its wording was carefully chosen by a large 
>and varied team of scholars, who also know the English language and how 
>phrases are used in it just as well as your computer is likely to be 
>able to learn it. These scholars did of course have their biases, and 
>the resulting translation is not entirely free of them. But I don't 
>believe that it is possible even in principle for translation to be free 
>from such biases.

Agreed! My use of the term 'random' was unwarranted and I should have chosen
my words better. But I think you get what I really meant.

>It certainly is not true of NWT, which, as an example, 
>biases the understanding of nephesh and `olam by its choice of the 
>particular consistent renderings "soul" and "to time indefinite".

Agreed! While I agree with the ideaology behind NWT translators decisions 
here I am adamantly against their conclusions and choice of words with 
which to translate them consistently. While it is true that their consistent 
use of these words has empowered me to read these words and contextually and 
see for myself what their biblical meaning was I do not believe that these 
rather plastic translations reflect the everyday simplicity with which the 
original authors communicated their ideas, thoughts and feelings. NWT has its 
merits but in this regard falls down.

If we are to truly reflect the style with which the original authors penned 
these words we also need to adopt the same style of natural speech that they 
also used but not at the price of consistency.

NWT has arrived at these 'plastic' translations not their use of consistency 
but throught their failure to understand that the basic unit of translation 
was not the individual word itself but the unique and repeating combinations 
of words which convey the same underlying concepts which we find in every 
single 
language either living or dead.

I am fully confident that had the NWT translation team taken this into 
account 
they would have produced a far more warming translation which fulfilled the 
goals of both consistency and of faithful natural speech. The term 'time 
indefinite' is the perfect case in point. As you have noted the more natural 
term is 'indefinitely' (if they are indeed correct about its meaning) but as 
this translation wouldn't have worked for them with past reference they opted 
for the plastic 'time indefinite' which kind of works both ways (in the funny 
language that JW's have invented for themselves). If they had taken context 
into 
account they could easily have maintained a policy of consistency by using 
'indefinitely' with future reference and another term e.g 'ages ago' for past 
reference. This would have made for an easy to read natural translation 
which would have stood up to the test of consistent renderings.

Also as the word soul in English means 'immortal immaterial part of a person 
which survives the death of the body' this was a very poor choice in a 
translation 
whose aim is to demonstrate that such was not the biblical meaning. Althoug, 
I 
have to admit that I struggle to find a single English word which captures 
the 
concept which the combination of all its uses conveys.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk [mailto:peter AT qaya.org]
Sent: Thu 11/17/2005 2:23 AM
To: Read, James C
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: NIV v' NWT translation policy
 
On 16/11/2005 23:28, Read, James C wrote:

> Putting all our pre-indoctrinated ideas aside and having considered
> the merits of both the NIV and the NWT translations, could it be
> that a 'good' translation would be a balance of the two?
>

I must say I doubt it. I think it would be a curate's egg, good in 
parts! But then I don't consider consistency to be a merit, in cases 
where words are used in various senses. Well, you seem aware of the 
danger when you criticise "exagerated faithfulness to any one particular 
word".

James and some others, you might be interested in the Better Bibles 
Blog, http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/, to which I am an occasional 
contributor.

> ...
> My programme will soon be sweeping the internet in a manner similar to
> Google's algorithm (crawling from link to link) and will parse and store
> the frequency of every word and combination of words (mistakes included)
> in every modern language that the visible web has to offer.
> This database of word/phrase frequencies will be the basis of a new 
> database
> of numbers. Each unique number will represent one 'concept', which I 
> believe
> to be common denominator of all languages. And through intelligent self
> correction mechanisms the programme will decide when a particular phrase
> can map to a particular concept. As the entire algorithm is guided by 
> concepts
> (with meanings) and phrases alone it will not be able to produce unnatural
> language yet will remain faithful and consistent in its mappings.
>

Sounds fascinating! Please keep us posted about your progress.

>
> ...
> Nor will it fall into the trap that the NIV has of denying the right 
> to interpret
> the text of the reader by forcing any particular random idiom which 
> supports
> any particular doctrine as idiomatic translations will only be 
> performed as a
> result of careful meaning establishing mechanisms which map contexts 
> to idiomatic
> expressions.
>

This is not fair criticism - although I don't want to claim here that 
NIV is better than any other translation. There is nothing random about 
how NIV was translated, but its wording was carefully chosen by a large 
and varied team of scholars, who also know the English language and how 
phrases are used in it just as well as your computer is likely to be 
able to learn it. These scholars did of course have their biases, and 
the resulting translation is not entirely free of them. But I don't 
believe that it is possible even in principle for translation to be free 
from such biases. It certainly is not true of NWT, which, as an example, 
biases the understanding of nephesh and `olam by its choice of the 
particular consistent renderings "soul" and "to time indefinite". (NWT 
has been accused of other kinds of bias, of course, but I don't want to 
get into such matters which chiefly concern the NT.)

>
> When my project is complete the entire source code will made available 
> under open
> source license so that the code can be subjected to rigourous 
> international
> peer review. This will be to ensure that I am not allowed to inject my 
> own personal
> beliefs into the mechanism (something which we are all guilty of from 
> time to time).
>
Good!

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk  Wed Nov 16 22:06:32 2005
Return-Path: <k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail70.messagelabs.com (mail70.messagelabs.com
        [193.109.255.115])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 050A34C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:06:31 -0500 
(EST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-70.messagelabs.com!1132196789!30358823!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.9.1; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.18]
Received: (qmail 30511 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2005 03:06:29 -0000
Received: from kuexim2.king.ac.uk (HELO kuexim2.king.ac.uk) (141.241.2.18)
        by server-10.tower-70.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        17 Nov 2005 03:06:29 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim2.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
        id 1Eca6X-0002eS-GW; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:06:29 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:58:08 -0000
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F874EF34 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
Thread-Index: AcXrD6zT4YhuqMF5RgS3O+r0ReOTfgAEk7oN
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Robert Newman" <rob AT designceramics.co.uk>,
        <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:06:32 -0000


As someone who has studied the bible with JW's and has spent a number of 
years 
frequenting their meetings but had not grown up in the religion I have to say 
that when I first read the NWT I really did not understand the use of the 
term 
'time indefinite' as I had never ever heard this combination of words before 
in 
my 21 years of life as a native English speaker previous. It took me quite 
some 
time to get used to this funny sounding phrase and only finally accepted its 
usage (against my instincts) because the reason for its use was explained to 
me.

Considering all the evidence we would really be fighting a losing battle to 
convince 
the world at large that this is good English because the well accepted fact 
for 
the rest of the English speaking world is that it isn't, plain and simple.

I think that we would only bring discredit on ourselves to insist that it was 
good English. 

However, good work at demonstrating that it does not always mean forever.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Robert Newman
Sent: Thu 11/17/2005 12:38 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
 
Dear Peter and Kelton,
Firstly, on the ability of olam to describe time that is less than endless.
Peter you requested evidence that it does not just mean forever,
Ge 6:4; De 32:7 and Job 22:15 (pos. Time of ones elders) Jos 24:2; 1 Sam 
27:8; Isa 51:9,11; 63:9; Ez 36:2; Pr 22:28; 32:10; Jer 6:16; 18:15; 28:8 Isa 
58:12; 61:4; Mic 7:5; Mal 3:4; Ezr 4:15,19.
I think these adequately demonstrate that olam does not always refer to time 
that is endless.
Seondly on the potential meaning of "time indefinite".
Kelton you nicely describe the thrust of meaning this phrase has when taken 
alone without context. I would say that the potential meaning is a little 
wider, my dictionary defines the word "indefinite" as "without exact limits" 
and one synonym listed is "unlimited" - that is not the thrust but it is part 
of the potental. Just a little caution on the technique of defining a word by 
means of its componants, whilst your analysis was just fine for the word 
"indefinite" the same would not be true of the word "indefinitely" which has 
a distincly different meaning(but you probably knew that ;-).
In view of what kelton described as to the meaning of "time indifinite" and 
what Peter has said about the expression not being common English, it is 
expected that idiomatic translator's would reject it. In many contexts the 
reader might ask as did Kelton 'what does that mean?' In other contexts the 
meaning is readily apparent e.g. Ps104:5 "It will not be made to totter to 
time indefinite, or forever"
If translator's are going to invent some new word or phrase, they surely 
should have a good reason to! Like, there not already being a word or phrase 
in the target language that conveys the original thought with the desired 
accuracy.
A techinque of study that I greatly value is a standard method used by 
lexicographers, whereby they carefully compare synonyms in an attempt to 
discern any small differences between the way the words are used (are there 
any works that make a project of this other than Girdlestone's, which I 
have?). In my opinion while the thrust of olam is "forever" it has the 
potential to describe a period of time that will end. Now the original writer 
may have just picked the word indiscriminately from a pool of words meaning 
'forever', or he may have chosen it specifically for its unique potential to 
convey a specific thought. Who should decide, the translator?, or the reader? 
With respect to the source language it was the reader, if that is to be the 
case with the target language the translator must distinguish the words as 
far as practically possible. In my opinion "time indefinite" serves this 
purpose and is properly understood by the English student (I say 'student' 
instead of 'reader'
  because the reader needs to learn through their reading what the expression 
properly conveys.). This is the approach of NWT, they also often distinguish 
for example between the Hebrew words for man, and if I remember rightly to 
some degree even the words for lion. This is all with the objective of 
conveying as far as possible the full force of the Hebrew. This is at the 
sacrafice of literary style and even in some cases smooth communication, the 
reader is made to work, but gets out more than they put in. You may dislike 
this approach and that is up to you, but please understand it, and see its 
advantages as well as disadvantages.
Robert Newman

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From tladatsi AT charter.net  Wed Nov 16 22:57:21 2005
Return-Path: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mxsf39.cluster1.charter.net (mxsf39.cluster1.charter.net
        [209.225.28.166])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE08E4C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:57:21 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net (mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net
        [209.225.28.140])
        by mxsf39.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
        jAH3vKHt016147
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:57:20 -0500
Received: from fep02.charter.net (HELO 209.225.8.224) ([209.225.8.82])
        by mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net with SMTP; 16 Nov 2005 22:57:21 -0500
Message-Id: <4e8oko$1m7mo52 AT mxip10a.cluster1.charter.net>
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,339,1125892800";
        d="scan'208"; a="1820024994:sNHT45710870"
X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.18 (webedge20-101-1108-20050216)
From: <tladatsi AT charter.net>
To: <kwrandolph AT email.com>, <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:57:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [b-hebrew] Joseph: Israel - Hyksos - Egypt
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:57:21 -0000

Whoever wrote Exodus and whenever it was written, it was
written with future generations in mind.  It was written
for you and I.  It was writen with a concern for our
knowledge of God, not Egyptian history.

Jack Tladatsi