Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] lock without a key

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com>
  • To: Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT mac.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] lock without a key
  • Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:03:02 -0500

Hello Donald;

Thanks for your comments.

I agree. The meanings of "hayil" are related; but the english translation
consumer misses such relationships. That was and is the point of my post.
The english translations fail to capture the hebrew original text language.

I am impressed by your good eyesight and even better facility of your
fingers ... in respect of the iphone small key pad and screen. The iphone
sounds like a great idea in theory, but typing and reading in practice
cannot compete with "big iron."

regards,

fred burlingame

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT mac.com> wrote:

> Your premise is mistaken. The meanings ARE related. Hayil has the basic
> meaning of "power" in Classical Hebrew. It can be power that derives from
> having an army or the power that derives from having wealth, or the power
> that derives from strength of character.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Donald R. Vance
> Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
> Oral Roberts University
> donaldrvance AT mac.com
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:22 PM, fred burlingame <tensorpath AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Matt:
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
> >
> > I accept the mainstream translations (nkjv, niv, nasb) of numbers 31:9,14
> as
> > the best possible english translations. I probably would also accept as
> > excellent, any english translation that you or any other reasonable
> person
> > might propose. It doesn't matter which translation we choose. Why?
> >
> > Because the english translation must select one english word for usage in
> > one verse ("goods") and another unrelated and disconnected english word
> > ("army") in the other verse.
> >
> > The hebrew language original however, employs the identical hebrew word
> חיל
> > in both locations. And this hebrew noun obviously, closely resembles
> > and relates to its parent hebrew verb חיל , meaning to twist or dance.
> >
> > The consumer of the hebrew text twice experiences, three related meanings
> of
> > one hebrew word חיל . The consumer of the hebrew text further observes a
> > connexity between verses 9 and 14, due to repetitive usage of the word.
> >
> > The consumer of the english text however, sees only independence, where
> the
> > hebrew reader instead observes relationship and pregnancy of meaning.
> >
> > The chronic repetition of this circumstance across the masoretic text and
> > with other hebrew words, effectively locks the text to translation. Yes,
> > translation occurs frequently from the hebrew. But the hebrew original
> > resembles other language translation only as apples mirror oranges.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > fred burlingame
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:15 AM, pastormattfbcrankin <
> > pastormattfbcrankin AT gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Fred,
> >>
> >> What exactly is the "richness of these connections" that you are
> referring
> >> to here? How is it that the Hebrew reader has a completely different
> >> understanding that the English or Greek reader? I'm afraid I don't
> follow,
> >> please enlighten me. Futhermore, how would you translate these verses
> that
> >> would differ so greatly from how it is currently translated?
> >>
> >> My Hebrew prof in college once said, "Every translation is a betrayal of
> >> the text." This is true to a degree, but that being said it doesn't
> mean
> >> that the language is locked i.e. indecipherable into another language.
> We
> >> will lose certain nuances, but I suspect you are trying to say that we
> lose
> >> far more than that.
> >>
> >> Warmest Regards,
> >>
> >> -Matt Williams
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 1, 2010, at 9:28 PM, fred burlingame wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Paul:
> >>>
> >>> I agree with your comments.
> >>>
> >>> I would observe however, that in this particular case, we have:
> >>>
> >>> a. a parent hebrew verb with a meaning to bore or pierce;
> >>>
> >>> b. a child hebrew noun with two alternate meanings of wealth/goods and
> >> army;
> >>>
> >>> c. and such two noun definitions used in two verses of close physical
> and
> >>> subject matter proximity.
> >>>
> >>> The richness of these connections gives the hebrew reading consumer of
> >> the
> >>> verses an entirely different understanding, than the disconnected
> english
> >>> words reveal to the english reading consumer.
> >>>
> >>> Much of the hebrew meaning survives translation, not. Hence, the hebrew
> >>> language appears locked to english or greek or any other language
> >>> translation.
> >>>
> >>> regards,
> >>>
> >>> fred burlingame
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Paul Zellmer <pzellmer AT sc.rr.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Fred,
> >>>>
> >>>> The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) has a good
> article
> >>>> explaining the relationships of the various usages of the word.
> >> Basically,
> >>>> both of the cases here would be considered idiomatic in the field of
> >>>> translation. When translating idioms, one needs to almost always find
> >> the
> >>>> underlying meaning behind the idiom as opposed to the actual words
> used
> >> and
> >>>> translate that concept. This is because a direct, literal translation
> >> of
> >>>> the idiom from one language to another yields either zero meaning or
> >>>> incorrect meaning.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not just true in translating Hebrew to English--it is the case
> >> when
> >>>> you go from any language to another. It is especially true if the
> >> languages
> >>>> are not closely related.
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul Zellmer
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:
> >>>> b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of fred burlingame
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 5:06 PM
> >>>> To: B-Hebrew
> >>>> Subject: [b-hebrew] lock without a key
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello all:
> >>>>
> >>>> a little arithmetic.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1 = 2; or 2 = 2
> >>>>
> >>>> Biblical hebrew ("BH") language enjoys a unique characteristic. The
> >>>> language
> >>>> frequently employs a single word, twice or more, in physical
> proximity.
> >>>> The single word however, denotes a different meaning in each location.
> >>>>
> >>>> Translations capture the different meanings of the single word, but
> lose
> >>>> the
> >>>> connexity of the verses, and the depth of the single hebrew word in
> the
> >>>> process. Witness: חיל :
> >>>>
> >>>> וישבו בני ישראל נשי מדין ואת טפם ואת כל בהמתם ואת כל מקנהם ואת כל חילם
> >> בזזו
> >>>>
> >>>> numbers 31:9
> >>>>
> >>>> ויקצף משה על פקודי החיל שרי האלפים ושרי המאות הבאים מצבא המלחמה
> >>>>
> >>>> numbers 31:14
> >>>>
> >>>> And so, the question arises. Does BH contained a lock that prevents
> >>>> translation?
> >>>>
> >>>> regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> fred burlingame
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> b-hebrew mailing list
> >>>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> b-hebrew mailing list
> >>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page