Timeline for Does the original Hebrew support the NLT of Genesis 6:3?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2015 at 21:51 | comment | added | Cynthia | The KJV / NIV are ridiculously imprecise translations. They pretend to use the masoret as the basis, but actually rely on the septuagint's authority. The septuagint is infused with hellenistic and pagan myths to speak to the level of the people who understood Greek, and had no idea what is written in the Hebrew. The NASB at least try to be closer to the Hebrew, but had to acquiesce to doctrinal biases when required. | |
| Dec 27, 2015 at 21:40 | comment | added | Cynthia | chosenrace.avishegnath.com/2015/11/… | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 7:55 | comment | added | enegue | @BlessedGeek The NIV has "remain in" as an alternative translation, and רוּחִ֤י certainly does mean "breath", being translated as such many times by various translators, KJV and NASB to name but two. The same goes for בְּשַׁגַּ֖ם , which is translated many times as "indeed" in the NASB. You might not prefer my rendering of the verse, but your objections are unfounded. | |
| Dec 26, 2015 at 0:53 | comment | added | Cynthia | [לדון] does not mean to-remain. It means - to deliberate with. It is [נפש] that is breath. [רוח] is wind. And I don't see any occurrence of [כן] that would allow you to use the word "indeed". | |
| Nov 7, 2015 at 9:18 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Stating the answer more clearly
|
| Nov 6, 2015 at 2:05 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar
|
| Nov 6, 2015 at 1:50 | comment | added | enegue | @Susan. If you can't see now that my answer addresses, "Why did the NLT translators choose to translate the Hebrew this way", then I don't think further discussion is going to help you. | |
| Nov 6, 2015 at 1:36 | comment | added | Susan |
I wasn’t questioning your conclusion that וְהָי֣וּ can mean “(and) they will become”. That really doesn’t require defense. The problem is that this whole post is about that, which was never in question. You’ve only addressed the actual question in one sentence where you simply state your conclusion. (If the lifespan of the people before the flood was typically in excess of 120 years, and God says, "his days shall become one hundred and twenty years", then 120 becomes the UPPER BOUND for the lifespan of man...)
|
|
| Nov 6, 2015 at 1:28 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
cosmetic
|
| Nov 5, 2015 at 21:36 | comment | added | enegue | @susan. Sorry, I forgot to add the mathematics of it all. If the lifespan of the people at the time was greater than 120, then saying it "shall become 120", is placing an UPPER BOUND on it, into the future. | |
| Nov 5, 2015 at 21:09 | comment | added | enegue | @susan Please use the link to Bible Hub, and click on the Strong's number 1961. You will discover that וְהָי֣וּ is rendered as "become" in the NASB 221 times. So, that leaves you with a personal preference for not wanting it to say what the NLT has given, which, of course, you are perfectly free to exercise. | |
| Nov 5, 2015 at 15:46 | comment | added | ThaddeusB | Thanks for the edit. I removed my DV for now, but would like to see @Susan's concern addressed. The "not more than" part of the translation is really what is being questioned by the OP, which you haven't really touched on. | |
| Nov 5, 2015 at 11:45 | comment | added | Susan | Even if your interlinear were the definitive resource you claim, this argument doesn’t actually hold together to the point of answering the question. Looking at various uses of the word “to be” and concluding that they mean “they will become” in this inflection (valid as it may be) contributes nothing really toward an answer to the question about the discrepancy between NLT and others concerning the “no more than..” part. | |
| Nov 5, 2015 at 8:44 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
merging two answers
|
| Nov 5, 2015 at 8:07 | comment | added | Caleb | Please see the discussion on our meta site about this answer. I have undeleted it on the benefit of the doubt and to make discussion about it earlier. That being said I think it needs to be edited to at least touch on the specifics of this verse to really fit this site. | |
| Nov 5, 2015 at 8:04 | history | undeleted | Caleb | ||
| Nov 4, 2015 at 9:39 | history | deleted | Caleb | via Vote | |
| Nov 4, 2015 at 9:39 | comment | added | Caleb | This answer only presents an argument from authority: scholars were involved in the translation ergo their translation must be good. This does not answer the actual question asked or fit the motif on this site of actually examining the text in question. This is interesting tangential information but answering this question on this site will require diving into the actual Hebrew text. | |
| Nov 4, 2015 at 5:42 | comment | added | enegue | I thought it was important to give some background as to WHY the translations are different, since one of the comments on the question said "one could suspect that the NLT translators found the phrase 'and his days will be 120 years' confusing". I noticed that someone voted the comment up, so the commenter appears not to be alone in that opinion. | |
| Nov 4, 2015 at 1:20 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| S Nov 4, 2015 at 9:40 | |||||
| Nov 4, 2015 at 0:52 | comment | added | ThaddeusB | This answer basically says the NLT is a trustworthy translation based on scholarship, so it must have support for its translation. Well, that describes most modern translations - very few, if any, are not the work of committees of scholars... I really think an answer should explain how this translation could be arrived at. | |
| Nov 4, 2015 at 0:14 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clearly ninety scholars weren't involved in the production, review and refinement of the verse in question
|
| Nov 4, 2015 at 0:07 | review | Late answers | |||
| S Nov 4, 2015 at 9:40 | |||||
| Nov 3, 2015 at 23:55 | history | edited | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
omissions
|
| Nov 3, 2015 at 23:48 | history | answered | enegue | CC BY-SA 3.0 |