Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter,

You are both right and wrong. The very nature of translation, both 
literal and idiomatic, is to make choices on the part of the readers, 
i.e., to find the best words in the target language. My words did not 
refer to this but to the particular issue under discussion, whether the 
noun (WLM always refers to unending time.  Modern translations tend to 
use "eternal" when (WLM occurs. In some cases the context definitely 
shows that unending time is not referred to, and in other cases it is 
doubrful wheter this i the reference. By using the English word 
"eternal" i all these cases, the translators have made a choice on the 
part of the readers, and in some cases this is misleading.  The NWT on 
the other hand, have choosen the terms "indefinitely lasting" and "time 
indefinite," and these terms can refer to both unending time and to a 
limited time. So the readers must make the final choice.  I fail to 
understand how this "predisposes readers to understand the passages in 
one way rather than another, with significant consequences for their 
theology." To the contrary, giving the readers choices in my view is the 
very opposite of predisposing the readers to understand the passages in 
one particular way.

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Peter Kirk wrote:

> On 06/02/2006 07:35, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>
> > ... But the NWT translators have not made choices on the part of the 
> > readers in connection with (LM, but have made a consistent 
> > translation giving the readers the opportunity to do the 
> > interpretation and decide whether the time reference is unending or not.
> >   
>
>
> No, Rolf, they have made choices. Firstly, they have chosen to render 
> the term consistently in the same way. OK, this is the general 
> translation principle of NWT, but it is not one which is held to 
> without exception (e.g. KURIOS in the New Testament), and so it is a 
> choice of the translators not to make an exception here. Secondly, 
> they have chosen as a consistent rendering "indefinitely lasting" 
> rather than an alternative such as "eternal", or "long-lasting", or 
> "age-long". This is a translation choice, and, whether it is 
> theologically motivated or not, it is one which necessarily 
> predisposes readers to understand the passages in one way rather than 
> another, with significant consequences for their theology.