Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Joseph Roberts <josephroberts3 AT gmail.com>]

I think that the word would have to have a meaning understood by the
people of that day, Whether you are a secular student of the Tanakh or
a fervent believer in the text, I think both should reach the
conclusion that the text was written in the everyday language of time
period in which it was penned. So if the KJV translators translated it
as "dragon" from their understanding of the world at their time, at
best this would be a dynamic equivalent. I think the million dollar
question is "What did the Hebrew speaking person from that era
understand that word to mean when he picked up the text and read it."
Of course maybe we can not piece together the meaning of the word from
the available information, maybe it is just a general word for a group
of creatures rather than a specific creature or species. The LXX seems
to use a word for a half-donkey half-man called an "onocentaur."
Thanks,
-Joseph Roberts

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:10 PM, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Jan Pieter:
>
> The answer you’ll be given depends on the beliefs of the answerer.
>
> Those who believe modern secular religion’s answer to the religious question
> of origins, namely evolution (including those who accept theistic
> evolution), will look for an animal that is presently living or very
> recently gone extinct.
>
> Those who accept the Biblical answer as historic, that God created the earth
> in six days and all the animals, including many now extinct such as
> dinosaurs, at the same time. Hence he will cast his net more widely to
> include animals not commonly known today. Such was the KJV, at a time when
> “dragons” were still reported as living creatures, “dragon” being a class of
> animals that included carnivores, herbivores, some of which also flew.
> Because “dragons” included so many different types of animals, “tannim” is
> virtually undefined by use of “dragon” in translation.
>
> I’m not going to tell you which answer to believe, just lay out different
> options that are on the table.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, JP van de Giessen 
> <vdgiessen AT solcon.nl>wrote:
>
>> In modern translations of Isaiah 13:22 ṯannîm is translated as Jackals
>> while
>> in older translations as Dragons. Is there a specific reason for Jackal. Is
>> it
>> possible to translate instead of "dragon" ie. a "reptile", which could be a
>> crocodile.
>>
>> This verse is about Babel and in the 2 rivers Euphrates and Tigris there
>> are
>> crocodiles like the Crocodylus palustris which has the habit to live and
>> hunt
>> on land. Further I've seen several reports this crocodile lived in
>> desolated
>> cities. So is it possible to translate ṯannîm in this verse with crocodile?
>>
>> Jan Pieter van de Giessen
>> http://www.bijbelaantekeningen.nl/blog/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>



-- 
Joseph Roberts ( UCC 1-308)
THIS EMAIL TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND INTENDED, AND MAY
CONTAIN PRIVILEDGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS COVERED BY
THE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT (18 USC §§ 2510-2521). IF
YOU ARE NOT THE INTENED RECIPIENT OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER THE
MESSAGE TO THE INTENEDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR;
PLEASE NOTIFY JOSEPHROBERTS3 AT GMAIL.COM IMMEDIATELY BY EMAIL AND DELETE
THE ORIGINAL AND COPIES OF MESSAGE. ALL INFORMATION IN THIS EMAIL MAY
BE SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT AND TRADE MARK LAW DOMESTICALLY AND
INTERNATIONALLY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY, U.C.C 1-207/
U.C.C. 1-308