From kwrandolph AT gmail.com Thu Dec 11 11:56:27 2008Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
From maryethomp2005 AT mac.com Thu Dec 11 12:30:58 2008Return-Path: <maryethomp2005 AT mac.com>
How many times do I have to emphasize that translations don=B4t =20
impress me?
You could bring 100 translations. What you need to do is to show me =20=
from the
language itself, not translations.
In your view, are all of these translations in error?
Possibly. I notice the LXX translated it as =A8hard=A8.
Translation is a tricky activity, and most translators are not Hebrew
scholars per se. So when they come across verses such as this where =20=
there
are no exact equivalents in English, they then go to BDB or some other
dictionary, without doing their own investigation to see if the =20
dictionary
is right.
Again I emphasize to be careful not to do the etymological fallacy. =20=
Just
because a word may have the same letters as a root does not =20
automatically
mean that the word comes from that root. It is possible that the =20
word in
question is a loan word, making its root in a different language =20
with a
different meaning than the root found in Hebrew.
Karl W. Randolph.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.