Changes

3,269 bytes added , 15:34, June 14, 2021

Line 162: Line 162:

What is the planned translation of the tetragrammaton? In English translations it's often been rendered as 'Lord', sometimes with all-caps, based on the Jewish custom of the pronunciation "Adonai", used to avoid saying the name; others use YHWH/YHVH/JHWH based on the unvowelled consonants; others go with "Jehovah" based on a Latin form, fairly discredited now, I understand. Still others try and capture the "to be" root of it, opting for "the one who is" or "the eternal". Thoughts? I personally prefer one of the latter forms, though I think there is room for innovation here! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 17:46, 26 December 2008 (EST)

+

:Keep using it. Please do not alter the holy name of God, which He Himself gave to Moses; He revealed Himself as "El Shaddai" first - "God Almighty". Then He revealed Himself as He truly was, is, and will be: "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" - "I am that I am." Thus it was rendered YHWH, off of an older, ancient verb form of "hayah." Eve, in Hebrew, is "chavvah" because she was the "mother of all living things". "Chayah" means "to live", but the verb form was originally "chavah". Thus it can be inferred that the original verb form of "hayah" was "havah." Thus YHWH is an imperfect form of the ancient verb form "havah". (It could even be possible that it was said in a Piel form. "Y'havveh.") Like I said, keep it. It's not gonna do us any good if people don't know the true name of God. Plus, the true name of God needs no innovation. It is timeless, remaining through all time periods, four simple letters that encompass the past, present, and future, one of the greatest mysteries of the Scripture.[[User:Cbauserman|Cbauserman]] 03:29, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

==Grace==

Line 222: Line 224:

::: Personally, I have no objection to either - but if we're going to have a retranslation as Aschlafly originally proposed I think it's intellectually sterile to re-translate a translation, taking all but one or two assumptions of the translators for granted. If we wanted to do that, I think that he would have suggested a commentary or gloss. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:55, 29 December 2008 (EST)

+

::::You know, after progressing a bit into Esther, I've actually found that it's a bit harder than it seems. This is the most devastating and deepest underlying problem of translating the book of Esther: it is going to require much knowledge of Persian custom and sometimes even Persian loanwords, as is the case with the stones early on in 1:6 (the names of the stones might be Persian loanwords, not necessarily Hebrew words by nature). Thus, I think Esther is not a good book to be translating because of all the back-knowledge that is required to construct the whole story. If you want to keep going, go on; I just think there are some easier books out there. Like Jonah, or Ruth. Despite the fact that Jonah is a prophetic book, it is (1) shorter than Esther and (2) easier to translate directly from the Hebrew. (Plus (3) it has a bunch of imagery that is really cool if you get into it.) Also, the book of Ruth is easier because, (1) again, it is shorter and (2) the backstory of Ruth requires knowledge of Hebrew custom, which we have much more of than Persian custom. Thus, my defense of the translation of Jonah or Ruth as a small Old Testament book. Even one of the other small prophets from the Book of the Twelve could be easier to translate than Esther. (Except Hosea. Hosea is a COMPLETELY different can of worms.)[[User:Cbauserman|Cbauserman]] 23:16, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== "Rich" Issue ==

Line 258: Line 262:

: Oh, interesting - thanks! I'm surprised that Artaxerxes and Xerxes should have similar versions in Hebrew, though - I wish there were more extrabiblical Hebrew historical/political texts. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 12:20, 29 December 2008 (EST)

−

~~::The name can be~~

==Great article==

Just read it all the way through. It's superb. Thank you Mr. Schlafly! --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 19:20, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Line 305: Line 308:

:::"casting lots" is the phrase used by NIV and Holman, the two most respected recent translations. "Lots" is different from "dice", and given the distinction why not resolve it by using "gambled"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

+

::::Keep in mind there are multiple other usages of this. Casting lots was all too common in the Old Testament; there are eighteen mentions of this in the Old Testament alone. The word used to describe "casting lots" at the cross (λαγχανω - lanchano - "to cast lots") is used four times in the New Testament. Luke 1:9 (one of those four usages) talks about priests being chosen BY LOT to go into the temple and burn incense. Some of the Old Testament passages talk about things being chosen BY LOT to be dedicated to the holiness of the Lord. The new twelfth disciple was chosen BY LOT after the disciples acknowledged that the Lord knew the result of the lot before it was cast. The "lot" used in most cases was a little less like rolling dice than one might think. They would write their name on a small piece of wood or stone and put it in a vase. Then they would shake it and cast out the bits of rubbish. The person whose name was on the first bit of rubbish to hit the ground was the "lot". Kind of like dice-throwing, but with names, not numbers. (I think the "name-throwing" method is the same with all LXX passages as well. Gk. κληρος kleros - "lot, part, inheritance, heritage") Actually, this word κληρος is used in all four gospel accounts at the crucifixion, including in John where the word λαγχανω is used. The soldiers are quoted as saying λαγχανω "Let us cast lots"; but when they actually cast the lot, the word κληρος is used. Thus most of the time, when the word "lot" is used, it is referring to this sort of name-throwing game. And because, in some instances, it is done by the disciples and the priests and even Aaron himself (in Leviticus 16:8), I suggest we refrain from calling it "gambling". Though, what we should call it I have no clue. [[User:Cbauserman|Cbauserman]] 02:59, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== Love ==

Line 325: Line 330:

Thoughts? I realise that it adds a potential layer of complexity, and detracts from the flow of the text, but I feel it's a nice compromise between ease of understanding and scriptural subtlety - it's a good way of drawing attention to what Paul calls 'the most special way'. [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 08:58, 22 November 2009 (EST)

−

~~== Kise Malkutho ==~~

−

~~"Is "his throne" OK for kise malkhuto?"~~

−

I apologize for saying so, but I think it's still a miss. It disregards "malkut"; it would say "kiso" if it were meant to be translated as strictly "his throne". I still think it would be better to maintain it as "his royal throne" or "the throne of his kingdom".

−

HALOT notes some of the instances of all construct chains where kise is the head noun and any word with the root Mem-Lamedh-Kaf is the tail. (I believe listing all the instances would be a bit exhausting, but...)

−

Every time the construct chain "kise" + "(root Mem-Lamedh-Kaf)" is used, it is translated (in most well-known translations) either "the/his royal throne" or "throne of the/his kingdom". ("the/his" depending on whether you have a third person masculine singular suffix). Thus I think the "royal" aspect of the word "malkut" should not be abandoned for an air of implied regality in the simple phrasing "his throne."

−

~~[[User:Cbauserman|Cbauserman]] 00:52, 12 May 2012 (EDT)~~

Conservative

Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators

351,636

edits

Changes

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project (view source)

Revision as of 15:34, June 14, 2021