Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Sunday 05 February 2006 09:51, Awohili AT aol.com wrote:
> When translators who believe God is eternal, as the NWT translators did,
> translate a verse to say what could be interpreted as otherwise, I fail to
> see any evidence of bias, theological or otherwise.

Perhaps.  But as you mention below, they aren't on this list to tell us what 
was going through their minds, so how do you know they "believe God is 
eternal"?  Still, if Rolf's post is any indication, Genesis 21:33 appears to 
be a victim of a more or less slavish adherence to a less-than-adequate 
translation theory.

[snip]
> I often wonder why this list is asked questions about the NWT translators,
> since, as far as I know, none of the NWT translators inhabit this list to
> give a  response.

Does that mean that, if a translator isn't on this list or is no longer 
available, we can't discuss his or her translation methodology any more?  All 
the translators of the KJV have passed on, so we can no longer discuss issues 
or problems with that translation because they're not here to give a 
response?  Likewise for the English Revised Version or Luther's German 
version?  I'm afraid I don't follow the reasoning here.

> Solomon Landers
>
> In a message dated 02/04/2006 6:31:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> g_gardner1234 AT yahoo.com writes:
>
> Here is  their translation of Gen 21:
>
>
> 33 After that he planted a  tamarisk tree at Be´er-she´ba and called there
> upon the name of Jehovah the  indefinitely lasting God.
>
>
> Maybe it is a theological  bias.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Maybe I'll trade it for a new hat."