Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Revdpickrel AT wmconnect.com
  • To: kwrandolph AT email.com, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void
  • Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:31:20 EDT

In a message dated 4/15/2006 3:30:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
kwrandolph AT email.com writes:


> I see you took this off list. OK.
>
> Why should I spend time learning about translations, derived works, when I
> have the original? I read the Hebrew text almost daily and have read it
> from
> cover to cover several times. I learned enough Hebrew to read the Old
> Testament. It is from reading the Old Testament through several times that
> I became a
> scholar of the language as well.

Excellent, Karl, that you are reading the text. You have the original Hebrew
text???? I have a POLYGLOT that pre-dates KJV by a couple hundred years and
I thought that was good. That's a good way to learn a language, I am doing
the same with LXX and so far I have completed through Genesis 27. It has
been
slower that I would have hoped but I am compiling a LXX Lexicon and Greek
English Interlinear as I go, these are hard to find.

>
> > I am studying from the Genesis (LXX) and the Hebrew to Greek translators
> > didn't use "lifeless and still". I personally believe the understood
> ancient
> > Hebrew and Greek better then modern translators understand it.
> > By-the-way, is the
> > modern Hebrew the same Hebrew used in Alexandria, Babylon, and Ur, or
> earlier?
> >
> > Doug
> > Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
> > Tejas Valley
> > San Antonio, Texas
> >
> No, modern Hebrew is a different language. Anyways, the inhabitants of Ur
> spoke Sumarian, an Indo-European language. We do not know the location of
> Ur of
> the Chaldeans where Abraham came from.

Yes, I have an archeological drawn map from the Univ. of Chicago that is also
a pre-flood map.

>
> While I have not studied the LXX, those who have indicated to me that it is
> an uneven translation: some of the translators were fairly good, others
> were
> struggling. Further, by that time, Hebrew had not been spoken as a native
> tongue for a few generations at least, if not a few centuries, and we have
> better tools than did the ancients to study the language. By better tools,
> we have
> lexica and concordances that the translators of the LXX did not have. And
> now we can look up electronic texts to see connections that even a
> generation
> ago was difficult to see.

Those seniors would marvel at our tools, but don't you think they were fluent
in t' Hebrew and Alexandrian Greek? I finish a verse and compare it to
Hebrew text to verify my accuracy. I found some problems in the longevity's
and
may be a sentence misplaced, but nothing major. The LXX seems to paraphrase
even with different grammer.

Doug
Rev. Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
Tejas Valley
San Antonio, Texas




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page