Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Thank you Peter. It's always a pleasure to hear someone speak from an 
objective point of view free from the dogma which is often forced down 
our throats.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Peter Kirk
Sent: Fri 11/18/2005 12:12 PM
To: Schmuel
Cc: b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation
 
Schmuel, thank you for your excellent comments. But I do want to take 
issue on one point, as below.

On 18/11/2005 01:19, Schmuel wrote:

> ...
>
>Schmuel
>There is no indication whatsoever, in any book or text in any language that 
>the Hebrew
>YHWH was ever used in the NT, which was most assuredly entirely or almost 
>entirely
>written in Greek.  
>  
>

There is a minority of scholars who hold that large parts or even all of 
the NT were originally composed in Hebrew or in Aramaic, and what we 
have is a translation. Almost all scholars recognise that Jesus and most 
other characters in the gospels and Acts spoke in either Hebrew or 
Aramaic, and their recorded words, at least as far as they are genuine, 
are a translation. So there is a real issue of what divine names were 
used by Jesus and the apostles, when speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic. I 
don't think the answer is easily recoverable, and I would be very 
surprised if anyone called Jesus YHWH. But the issue cannot be ruled out 
of court by saying that only the Greek KURIOS was used.

-- 
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

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  Fri Nov 18 12:39:34 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 mail58.messagelabs.com (mail58.messagelabs.com 
[193.109.255.35])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A2C474C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:39:34 -0500 
(EST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-58.messagelabs.com!1132335552!108573227!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.9.1; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.18]
Received: (qmail 2594 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2005 17:39:13 -0000
Received: from kuexim2.king.ac.uk (HELO kuexim2.king.ac.uk) (141.241.2.18)
        by server-9.tower-58.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        18 Nov 2005 17:39:13 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim2.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
        id 1EdACe-0003lz-Eo; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:39:12 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:39:11 -0000
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F874EF3F AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation
Thread-Index: AcXsP/T0dbwta0btQrmr9FWPvUgCiQAJkfkF
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Schmuel" <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>,
        "b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org" <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] NWT's approach of consistent translation
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:39:35 -0000


There is large evidence that Matthew was originally composed in hebrew. In 
fact 
we have the testimony of an witness who claims to have seen the original.

You have to ask yourself a number of questions:

Was the refusal to pronounce yhwh from god or from men?
Would Jesus have felt compelled to follow a tradition from men?
Would he have taught his apostles to show this same king of fear of men?
Would his apostles have thought the name too holy to be pronounced by 
gentiles?
Don't you find this attitude a little hypocritical?
Why were so many NT scrolls burned when constantine came to adopt 
Christianity?
Did these burned scrolls contain the divine name?

While the other places the NWT have translated yhwh are debatable it is clear 
that
those places which quote the OT *MUST* have it otherwise the quotations would 
be 
false and this would portray the authors of the gospels as liars. I don't 
know about 
you but I don't want to follow a bunch of liars who are willing to hide god's 
name 
from me just because I'm a gentile.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk  Fri Nov 18 12:42:19 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 mail59.messagelabs.com (mail59.messagelabs.com 
[195.245.230.83])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF8DC4C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:42:18 -0500 
(EST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-59.messagelabs.com!1132335737!89669048!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.9.1; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.22]
Received: (qmail 17169 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2005 17:42:17 -0000
Received: from kuexim3.king.ac.uk (HELO kuexim3.king.ac.uk) (141.241.2.22)
        by server-6.tower-59.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        18 Nov 2005 17:42:17 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim3.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
        id 1EdAFc-0000tc-TI; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:42:17 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:39:36 -0000
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F874EF40 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation
Thread-Index: AcXsQpQXqBleE7GBRvyE+LFMuvCw0gAJHdO3
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Schmuel" <schmuel AT nyc.rr.com>,
        "b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org" <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] NWT's approach of consistent translation
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:42:19 -0000


This happens to be the single most hypocritical piece of reasoning I have 
ever heard.
In the one breath you would insist tha nephesh be translated according to 
context where
it fits your dogma but in the other you would accuse the NWT for interpreting 
where kurios 
means yhwh and where it means lord.

If it hadn't been for the apostasy of your church in the first place the NWW 
would not have 
to have made such decisions.
I apologise in advance for going off scope but the below really hit the 
limits of my patience.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Schmuel
Sent: Fri 11/18/2005 1:17 PM
To: b-hebrew-lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] NWT's approach of consistent translation
 
Hi b-hebrew,

Rolf Furuli wrote:
>I think it is obvious for the list-members that when *the context*, i.e., 
>how the translators understand the setting in which words and clauses occur, 
>is used as a translation principle, it is no violation of this principle if 
>the translators use "Jehovah" where they believe the context suggests that 
>God is referred to. 

Schmuel
If a group inserts "Jehovah" simply to match their Christology, and omits 
it when it does not match their Christology, given an essentially identical 
Greek, it is a violation of sound translation, and it is inconsistent to the 
underlying Greek.  

However, you are right in a sense, it may not violate their principles,
if their principles are to translate to match their doctrine.

Rolf
>.. Whether "Jehovah" should be used in the New Testament at all is a 
>philological question 

No, it is a straightforward translation question.  There is no equivalent 
in the source text to match Jehovah, and one has to come up with
fanciful and even absurd textual transmission insertion and omission 
theories (see my PS.) in order to justify the insertion.  So the selective
insertion fails on common sense, it fails on sound translation, and Occam
loses his razor as well.

We may also note that the NWT translators had a real lack of original 
language expertise, making any claims made for the NWT that much 
more suspect.

I'll try to hold back and let you have the last word, so we don't get 
overly-repetitive-redundant :-) 

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic


_______________________________________________
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 k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk  Fri Nov 18 12:58:07 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 mail56.messagelabs.com (mail56.messagelabs.com 
[193.109.254.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C1314C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:58:07 -0500 
(EST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-56.messagelabs.com!1132336685!106973159!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.9.1; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.18]
Received: (qmail 22593 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2005 17:58:05 -0000
Received: from kuexim2.king.ac.uk (HELO kuexim2.king.ac.uk) (141.241.2.18)
        by server-11.tower-56.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        18 Nov 2005 17:58:05 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim2.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
        id 1EdAUv-0003pq-Aw; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:58:05 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:58:04 -0000
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F874EF42 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Limitations of etymology
Thread-Index: AcXsOjLdr4m2ZiV1TXKn0iWGyvpsngALjFEt
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>, "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Limitations of etymology
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:58:07 -0000

Recently we have extensively discussed concepts such as 'core' meaning 
and etymological evidences of that core meaning. We have gone through 
the various uses of olam and discussed it range of meanings and 
evidence has been brought in from its etymology. This made me thikn of 
a parallel example in English.

Infinite

'Infinite' comes from 'finite' which means a clearly defined amount. 
'Infinite' 
is the semantic opposite of 'finite' and etymologically should mean 'an 
undefined amount'. But is that its 'core' meaning???

Consider the following examples:

There is an infinite number of ways of doing it
To infinity and beyond 

It is clear from these examples that while the etymology points us in the 
direction of 'undefined amount' the 'core' meaning is quite different, 
although
related. The 'core' meaning of infinite means without limits. This is exactly 
what 
'forever' does when we speak with reference to time.
I like to use what I refer to as the 'two year old test'.

Take a two year old and aks him what 'infinite number of years' means:
a)an undefined number of years
b)forever

I'm willing to bet that if he understands the question he will go with answer 
b)


Could it be that 'olam' has the same behaviour. That its etymology is an 
undefined 
and hidden amount of time but that its core usage (in the future) is synonym 
of 
'forever'?

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Fri Nov 18 13:03:26 2005
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346FE4C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:03:26 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        AA7B318001B8
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:03:25 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.81)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 18 Nov 2005 18:03:25 -0000
Received: by ws1-2.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id A0E111F50C9; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:03:25 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:03:25 -0500
Received: from [69.227.59.54] by ws1-2.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:03:25 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 69.227.59.54
X-Originating-Server: ws1-2.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20051118180325.A0E111F50C9 AT ws1-2.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] KY interrogative? was Deuteronomy 20:19 )DM
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:03:26 -0000

Kelton:

----- Original Message -----
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
> 
> Karl:Kelton:
> 
> No, I don't have H.A.L.O.T.
> Response: Oh man, if you have the money you should get it, it is 
> the BDAG of Hebrew in my eyes.

What's a BDAG?

> ----------------------------------
> 
> Karl:I don't see how 1 Samuel 24:19 is an
> interrogative. Saul is making a statement to
> David after David once again did not take
> advantage of an opportunity to kill Saul for
> trying to murder him.
> Response: Oh, I think I gave you the English verses, it is verse 20 
> in the Hebrew text.
> V:KIY-YIM:C' 'IY$ ET-'OY:BW W:$LLXW B:DEDEK
> "and if a man finds his adversary, should he let him go away safely?"
> Well, let me give you what HALOT has. It says
> W:KIY introducing a rhetorical question: is it that? I Sam 24:20, 
> Isaiah 36:19; and that is all it list.  It list a negative but that 
> one has a H particle in it.

I got the right verse, I also read to make sure the 
contextual verses around it as well.

I read the KY here as introducing a subordinate clause 
that is a statement indicating why God will bless David. 
Saul is stating a principle, hence his use of the third 
person here, then returns to David in the second person.
If H.A.L.O.T. disagrees with me here, then I think that 
H.A.L.O.T. is wrong.

Thus I find the claim that KY can introduce an interrogative 
without the presence of an interrogative prefixed H- has 
no basis other than two disputed verses (that these are 
in fact questions), therefore the whole concept itself is 
questionable.

> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> I introduced to this discussion why Isaiah
> 36:19 should not be considered where KY
> introduces an interrogative.
> 
> What other examples does H.A.L.O.T. give?
> 
> This interchange has been really educational
> to me. Thanks all.
> 
> Response: I know, you gave a good answer, but it list Isaiah 36:19 
> as one of the examples of KIY introducing a rhetorical question and 
> that is all the examples it gives.
> --
> Kelton Graham
> KGRAHAM0938 at comcast.net
> 
> 
Yours, Karl W. Randolph.

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/