Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

18

It does not appear to be a very good translation of this word. 1473 (εγώ) is the personal pronoun, "I", so it tells us that Jesus was talking about Himself. 1510.2.1 (ειμι) is the real core of the question. 1510 is the infinitive "to be, exist". The following numbers (".2.1") tell you more about the nuances of meaning - tense, voice, etc. Some ...


13

The Hebrew Bible is primarily in Biblical Hebrew (the term given to the Semitic language that the Bible was written in from which modern Hebrew descends) with some Aramaic in various places (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:46-7:28; and two words in Genesis 31:47). The New Testament is in Koine (common) 1st-century Greek. Koine Greek ...


10

Most of these changes happened in the Septuagint and stuck around as they became more familiar. I can only assume that the JPS uses these almost transliterations into English because they are so familiar to English speakers. Greek and Hebrew alphabets don't match up in a one-to-one correspondence. Some of the problems from that would be: Letters in one ...


9

Implicit in the question is the assumption that we are trying to produce an English translation that best captures the nuance of the original Greek without importing any doctrine. In other words, we want a "literal" translation that's useful for interpretation. There are two translation issues here and we can easily separate them and look at them ...


9

Method First I identified every use of παράδοσις (paradosis) in the New Testament (regardless of morphology). I found that it is used 13 times in 13 verses. Next I listed each verse in separate columns in the order in which they appear in a standard English Bible. I then determined whether each use was positive or negative. As this is subjective, I ...


9

You are probably best off looking at an interlinear Bible, rather than a translation. Then you can read the meanings of each word or phrase in context, in the order in which they were presented. If something seems odd or raises questions, you know precisely which (original-language) word to go look up. The trick here is that any translation involves ...


8

Most of the answers so far are getting all hung up over very specific examples of morphological analysis. It is by far better to start with the basic notion of "morphological analysis", then look at how each of these instances already mentioned meet the goals of morphological analysis. Morphological analysis means exactly what the etymology suggests: it is ...


8

Different ancient translators had different translation philosophies. Some were very rigid and always used Greek word X for Hebrew word Y. Others were more dynamic. We can actually use these philosophies to determine when different translators are responsible for different books. For example, the Greek of Numbers is very literal (except the name of the ...


8

The source texts for the NT include various Greek manuscripts and sometimes the Latin Vulgate. The source texts for the OT include the Masoretic text (Aleppo Codex, Leningrad Codex), as well as the Latin Vulgate, Greek Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls. Translators of new English translations often use some or all of those source texts when producing a new ...


8

The short answer is "No". Perhaps there is a little confusion at work here, because this verse is embedded in one of the Aramaic passages found in the (otherwise) Hebrew Bible: it is not in Hebrew.1 The "-ah" ending that makes this look like "prophetess" (if the word was in Hebrew), is in fact the Aramaic definite article, = "the". (See heading 2.2, bullet ...


8

The first part of the question, about "singular elohim" already has an excellent answer to a related question. I will pass over the flawed commentary (which also gets a response at the answer linked above) to get to the main question posed here: Why not let the readers decide what it really means and translate the bible as faithfully as possible? ...


8

As other parts have been addressed, I will not restate them. However, El -> God Elyon -> Most High (El Yon) so not to close possibility that Elyon may be a different God than Yahweh or Elohim. El Roi -> God who see (Roi God/El Roi) again, not to close possibility that El Roi may simply be a different God. Yahweh -> Yahweh (He is/He causes). The problem ...


7

One consideration for translations is to distinguish translated names from the in-text explanations of names that we sometimes get (e.g. the explanations for the names of many of Yaakov's sons). A translation should never give the impression that the text explicitly assigns a name when it does not. So, for example, since "ha-satan" can mean many things, ...


7

Can do either, obviously. If they edit an existing translation, this is called a "rescension" (The Living Bible was one, a paraphrase of the KJV). However, most of the time, they use Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic text. As an example, The New Living Translation does this. But they don't stop with just one manuscript. They compare different manuscripts of a ...


7

There's a lot of names to deal with in your original post. We would transliterate רִבְקָה into English as Rivka or Rivkah according to the rules of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. The LXX translators transliterated it into Koine Greek as Ρεβεκκα (cp. LXX Gen. 24:15). We notice the following: 1) The chirik nikkud under the Hebrew letter ר is ...


7

In Hebrew all nouns are either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter. Verbs, adjectives, and pronouns associated with a noun must match in grammatical gender. In the case of the divine name (YHVH) these words use the masculine gender. So grammatically, God is masculine. This does not mean, however, that God is actually male (white-haired and elderly ...


7

The Greek word in question, εντος, means 'inside' or 'within'. Surprisingly, despite being a typical word in Greek, is used only twice in the New Testament: here in Luke 17.21, and over in Matthew 23.26, where it refers to the 'inside' of a cup. Translating εντος as 'within' is more accurate, but also fits the context better; in this text, Jesus argues ...


6

It should be noted that several terms in the NT have broader and narrower meanings, such as diakonos, which can refer to Christ Himself (Rom 15:8), to an ordained role ("deacon"; see Phi 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8–12) or more generally to any servant of the church, even a "minister" (e.g. in Col 1:25, Paul refers to himself as a diakonos; cf also 1 Tim 4:6: Timothy was ...


6

I don't have a problem with a change like this. The concept behind "brother" in these contexts is "fellow member of the covenant community." Originally, it applied to Jews only. Then very early Christians began referring to themselves as "brethren" both amongst themselves and to Jews. Acts 1:16 is a great example of that, but there are others in Acts ...


6

There were two main qualifications, one is primarily cultural, and one is really universal. A host family (or person) would need to be hospitable. Abraham, Lot, and others throughout the Old Testament were "lovers of strangers" (to use an anachronistic expression derived from the Greek word for hospitality). In the ANE, hospitality and being a good ...


5

All translation is based on an understanding of the underlying text, and so is to a greater or lesser extent doctrinal in nature. Most of the time it doesn't matter. But these things are really a matter of opinion. The Hebrew is invariant, the transliteration is of the Hebrew that would be translated. I suspect that the Jewish translation is more motivated ...


5

Its seems that the Greek 'logos' is similar in concept to the "Tao" of the Lao Tzu and the Taoists, however this is just a coincidence. It seems various English websites have locked onto this similarity conjecturing things about it, but asking one of my many Chinese christian friends, I have been told the word just means original reason or truth.  For ...


5

In the Tanakh the concept of a "satan" exists, but it is not a personification of evil and there's no particular reason to believe there's even just one for all time. The word "satan" is a job description. The best way to render the Hebrew הַשָּׂטָן is probably literally: "the satan", lowercase 's', with definite article (the הַ). It would be misleading ...


5

Others have already responded as far as the grammar and God being masculine there. So I focus on your question as to whether there are other evidences of God's masculinity. Since you've asked about the Hebrew language, I'll limit my remarks to Hebrew texts. Before I begin to look at various themes, it's worth noting that nothing can be said about God's ...


5

In spite of the fact that I only know one spelling for the Hebrew word behind English "Sabbath", I'll provide some data for that one. (I'm getting these counts from Bible Works: the numbers you get depend on the adeptness of the queries, and I don't claim infallibility and would like to be corrected if I've gone astray!) Hebrew שַׁבָּת (šabbāt) occurs 112x ...


5

The Septuagint, a Greek translation of the most significant Hebrew scriptures, completed by 100 BC at the latest, chose to translate 'elohim as αγγελους (that is, 'angels') in Psalm 8.5 (actually verse number 8.6 in the LXX). In the second half of the first century, the author of Hebrews cites the Septuagint translation exactly, reiterating the opinion that ...


5

The phrase appears not only in Gen 31:42: MT ... אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם וּפַחַד יִצְחָק ... = ... ʾĕlōhê ʾābî ʾĕlōhê ʾābrāhām ûpaḥad yiṣḥāq ... LXX ... ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός μου Αβρααμ καὶ ὁ φόβος Ισαακ ... = ... ho theos tou patros mou Abraam kai ho phobos Isaak ... but also in a slightly variant form a few verses later, in v. 53: ESV ...


5

Is that because the original texts are indented too or something, so that it looks like a poem? No. The old manuscripts (at least as far as I am aware) do not indent poetry. However, since there are so many, I would advise looking up one of the projects that is digitizing the manuscripts so you can see them for yourself. Edit: you can view a number of ...


4

A simple way to explain the RMAC (Robinson's Morphological Analysis Codes) is that words in the Greek language changed ('morph'-ed) their form depending on how they were being used (and therefore to be understood) in a given context. We do this same thing with many of our own words: give, given, giver, gave; have, has, hasn't, had; go, going, gone, went, ...


4

I am drawing on some portions of notes that I had to present in a class. As such, there are sentence fragments and other oddities in it that I've yet to edit out. There's a lot more information than is required in order to answer your questions, but setting the context is always a default that I have. Ultimately, I don't really believe that there is any ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible