24

No, it isn't an accurate translation. At a number of points it strains or simply falsifies the meaning of the Hebrew text. I'll take it phrase by phrase, but first, here's a key for the layout I'll use -- I hope it's clear. MT: The Masoretic text (Hebrew) Translit.: and its transliteration LXX: the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation) Translit.: and its ...


22

Interestingly, despite there being several good answers here, no one has yet raised the possibility that the word ראם (re'em) refers to an animal known as the aurochs or urus (Bos primigenius). (Edit: Bruce James' answer does say "the ראם is a type of cow", which would be consistent with the aurochs conclusion.) Around the turn of the twentieth century (i....


19

Neither "And a god was the Word" nor: "And God was the Word" are correct translations for θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. To understand the implications of the last clause, you need to understand something of Greek syntax. First, Greek distinguishes the role a noun plays in a sentence by changing the case. In general, if the noun is the subject, it is in the nominative ...


16

This is cross-posted and adapted from my answer here. Accuracy and 'literalness' are only two of several factors in a translation, and I would argue that they are subjective factors at that. I would propose the following criteria for selecting an English Bible translation: faithfulness to the original languages translation philosophy (thought-for-thought, ...


16

We must remember that two people with the same education and knowledge of original Biblical languages, will, and commonly do, conclude opposite conclusions while maintaining proclaimed objectivity in their exegesis. This is exactly what Protestant and Catholic scholars do concerning this verse. The reality is that everyone makes their exegetical conclusion ...


15

The passage can be made to mean what the author wants it to mean, although the meaning produced is absurd. "For whatever reason," the author shrugs, two men who lay down in a bed that belonged to a woman should be put to death. Whatever reason, indeed! As this person correctly notes at the bottom, men were forbidden from "lying in the bed" of a woman at ...


15

The OP questions the validity of the article "a" in English versions given the lack of a corresponding word in Greek. I will argue that "a law" is indeed an accurate translation. There is no indefinite article "a" in Greek; good translations include it with indefinite nouns where required in English. While there are many contexts where a noun without the ...


14

When considering the NET translation one should always consider the footnotes. 4 tn Here is another sound play (paronomasia) on a name. The sound of the verb קָנִיתִי (qaniti, “I have created”) reflects the sound of the name Cain in Hebrew (קַיִן, qayin) and gives meaning to it. The saying uses the Qal perfect of קָנָה (qanah). There are two homonymic ...


14

The OP questions why translators take the root ברא (brʾ) here in the sense "to be fat" rather than the homonym "to create", which is more common in the Hebrew Bible. I see several good reasons. The word in 1 Sam 2:29 -- habriʾăkem -- is in the hifil stem. The word brʾ meaning "to create" is only used in the qal and nifil. Therefore, taking it as hifil would ...


14

I think the thing which is causing you to see a contradiction is the use of the imperative. Rephrase using conditionals: If you answer a fool according to his folly, you risk becoming like him. If you refrain from answering a fool according to his folly, he may become wise in his own conceit. and the problem disappears. Instead you're left with a ...


13

Whether it's an accurate interpretation of the verse is something I'm not qualified to answer. But the article claims it to be a "literal" translation, and that appears quite obviously false. Translations No major Bible translation looks at it that way: Young's Literal Translation: "The habiliments of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on ...


13

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? Because ...


13

This is a good question -- or rather, set of questions. I begin by reiterating a comment from the Q&A linked by OP: to engage with this set of issues fully, one really needs to consult Catrin H. Williams, I Am He: The Interpretation of ʾAnî Hûʾ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT II/113; Mohr Siebeck, 2000). There is plenty of other relevant ...


12

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 #...


12

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 ...


12

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 ... ...


11

A translation coming from an already translated work is called a "daughter translation." For example, the Septuagint in English is a daughter translation as it is based on the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew. English Translations that use the Vulgate Using the Vulgate as the basis for an English Bible has been done several times. The first English Bible, ...


11

No, it is not true. However, the NIV (2011) and NLT do translate παράδοσις (paradosis) as something other than "tradition" in 2 out of 3 positive uses, indicating there may be some bias here against using "tradition" in a positive sense (but not entirely). Method First I identified every use of παράδοσις (paradosis) in the New Testament (regardless of ...


11

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 ...


11

For OP's question: Is the chi (χ) used to indicate the kind of a vowel in the original Hebrew (namley the aleph א), a transliteration as it is from Hebrew in already Hebraic Greek? The short answer is "No" -- (1) in the first instance, because chi is representing (possibly, more in a moment) a consonantal sound, not a "vowel". Aleph and Ayin are ...


10

The lexical meaning of the noun שָׂטָן śāṭān in biblical Hebrew is "adversary" or the like. It occurs 27x in 23 verses in the Hebrew Bible. In most instances, it is clear this it is best translated by the word "adversary": in Psalm 109:6 it clearly refers to a hostile person; in the Samuel/Kings references, it refers to human opponents of Israel or its ...


10

It would be difficult to give a 100% definitive answer unless there is some commentary by the translation committee on this (which I have not found, but may exist). The following is offered as reasonable conclusions from other evidence. Variation It is deemed by some that good writing avoids an abundance of repetition in word usage. For example, this page ...


10

This is a question about elementary Greek grammar. The verse has five parts: subject: ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, (masculine) in apposition to the subject: τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (neuter) relative clause: ὃ (neuter) πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, reiteration of the subject by a masculine pronoun: ἐκεῖνος predicate: ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ ...


9

I’ve finally dug out my copy of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures — with references (1984 edition, which as far as I know is still the latest). It has a simple footnote on this phrase, referring the reader to Appendix 6F: “Jesus — In Existence Before Abraham”. The appendix article begins with a series of quotes, which I here present: From the ...


9

I do not pretend to know the minds of the ESV revisers. But there is some justification for their rendering of Genesis 2:16, although exploring the (possible) reasoning cannot be done briefly. Here we go... Genesis 2:16-17 We need the text, and in this case it is imperative to work from the Hebrew, with the immediate context also in view (I'll stick with ...


9

Dan 12,12: לְיָמִ֕ים אֶ֕לֶף שְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵאֹ֖ות שְׁלֹשִׁ֥ים וַחֲמִשָּֽׁה׃ Literally: to days thousand three hundreds thirty and five The KJV has “five and thirty” instead of “thirty and five” because this was the more common way to express compound numbers in 17th-century English. None of this has anything to do with lunar or solar calendars.


9

When looking at slightly odd renderings in the KJV (and there are some fascinating ones), it is worth checking on its influences for any clues. And the case of Mark 11:24, along with its parallel in Matthew 21:22, is an odd one: while, as OP notes, Mk 11:24 has "desire" where "ask" is expected, Mt 21:22 does, indeed, have "ask": Mt 21 22 And all things, ...


9

You can think of the KJV OT as a helper text for people who are trying to read the MT in the Rabbinic tradition. The KJV is almost a linear translation, it's word choice reflects the Rabbinic understanding of the text, and it even "translates" the punctuation (cantillation marks) of the MT. Since the KJV approach is to mirror the MT in English, it adds ...


9

The Hebrew phrase in question is מִטּוֹב עַד־רָע (metov ad ra), literally “from good to bad.” According to Gesenius on מן...עד (min...ad),1 There are used in opposition to each other—(α) מִן אֶל … from … unto (see אֶל let. a, 1); often for tam, quam, whether, or. Psa. 144:13, מִזַּן אֶל־וַן “from kind to kind,” i.e. things of every kind.—(β) מִן … עִד and ...


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