Textkit Logo

Septuagint a "bad translation" of the Hebrew text?

Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

Re: Would you usurp the thread?

Postby yadfothgildloc » Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:52 am

Ian_M_Graham wrote:And it demonstrates my point how the Greek is not a translation of the Hebrew. Look at Isa 7:14 for another example; Hebrew says alma will bear a son. People for two thousand years have tried to make Hebrew "alma" mean virgin, but it does not. But the Greek parthenos makes it clear. Because of the work of the recensionists, many scholars and theologians today argue that alma means virgin. It is relevant, and to the point.


The problem is, alma has a very clear meaning elsewhere as "young woman" and there's another perfectly good hebrew word for virgin, and the two meanings don't overlap (i.e. alma, no where else, means virgin; and this other word, which escapes me, nowhere else means "young woman")

Invoking the Holy Spirit is no excuse for scholarship and knowing what words mean.
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

I apologize. I did not know everyone had to agree before I

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:50 am

could post here. I do not remember reading that rule before I signed up. Please post a copy so I can interpret it for myself.

cweb255 wrote:
\"cweb255 wrote: And please, keep your theological comments either to yourself or in another thread. Not everyone here agrees with your Christian interpretation.


Ian's response: Thanks for the information. You got it from where? My comments are not theology, my friend, they are research regarding the Hebrew and Greek translation, and their use in the New Testament developement. If I write a treatise on the developement of the Egyption papyrus on King Tut is that theology? He was considered a God-king you know. Don't go silly on me now.

Previous post by cweb255 in which everyone seems to agree:
cweb255 wrote: (Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:43 pm)
I disagree Thomas, the best translation is as literal as possible. Imagine if the stone referred to a particular stone, an allusion to something even more classical, and by giving the meaning, you lose a layer, a valuable layer at that.

Except for that part about "I disagree Thomas" - hmmmm, now who do you suppose is the disagreeable one here?

cweb255 wrote:
cweb255 wrote:Ian, Why would God say that he is not beside himself? No, the rock in this passage (as the other passages) isn't merely a rock but a representation of their Rock, or God. It is the Pagan God in context.


Ian's response: Now THAT my friend, is a theological comment. Jehovah says "there is no saviour beside" him in [Isa 43:11] Do you really expect ME to be able to tell you why God says what he says?

Jehovah says "there is no Elohiym beside" him in [Isa 44:8] Do you really think it is the perview of men to determine why God says what he says?

Elowahh says "there is no tsuwr beside" him in [Isa 44:8] Don't ask me why?

Jehovah says "there is no Elohiym beside me" in [Isa 45:5] Now, if I were to begin to speculate on other religious reactions to these verses, you could correctly accuse me of theological argumentation, but I have not done that. YOU have. Perhaps it is YOU who should move to another board. You do not even want discussion on the developement of the Septuagint and Greek New Testament because it disagrees with YOUR theology.

"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that
there is none beside me. I am Jehovah and there is none else" pretty well tells us WHAT God thinks about it, I can think of no passage that tells us WHY he thinks that way. If I did,. or if I find one, I shall post it and not consider it theology, but examination of the developement of a culture of a people subservient to the God of Israel. That is not theology, that is developemental research.

And please, show me that everyone on the board agrees with each other. I have read this thread you know, and find several posts that are subject to a slightly variant interpretation than that which you have supplied.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Re: I apologize. I did not know everyone had to agree before

Postby yadfothgildloc » Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:27 pm

Ian_M_Graham wrote:Ian's response: Now THAT my friend, is a theological comment. Jehovah says "there is no saviour beside" him in [Isa 43:11] Do you really expect ME to be able to tell you why God says what he says?

Jehovah says "there is no Elohiym beside" him in [Isa 44:8] Do you really think it is the perview of men to determine why God says what he says?

Elowahh says "there is no tsuwr beside" him in [Isa 44:8] Don't ask me why?


Your statements here are indicitive of theology rather than linguistic work. At some point, you need to step back and say "what does this mean?" From a brief reading, it sounds like most of those are saying "I'm the only God around, so don't worship anyone else." That's pretty straightforward, I think.
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Re: I apologize. I did not know everyone had to agree before

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:56 pm

yadfothgildloc wrote: Your statements here are indicitive of theology rather than linguistic work. At some point, you need to step back and say "what does this mean?" From a brief reading, it sounds like most of those are saying "I'm the only God around, so don't worship anyone else." That's pretty straightforward, I think.


So let me see if I understand the standard here. If I read a verse of scripture, it is research, but if I quote it it becomes theology?

Some verses I do not need to ask "What does this mean?" I am satisfied I know the meaning. Some however, require a little more depth of research and study. Do you list the research as research and the study as theology?

Please help me understand here, because I do not want to disagre with anyone, as cweb255 has said disagreement is theology. (I know he did not exactly say that, but that seems to be the standard here; "get close" is good enough).
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Postby cweb255 » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:08 pm

Ian, I was referring to the part where you say that the LXX is a new revelation from god etc... You can interpret their theology all day long, no problem here, but once you add in your own theology to the equation I'm afraid I must resign.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Postby cweb255 » Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:11 pm

And regarding disagreements: You can disagree with me all day long, I have no problem. You say tuh-may-doe I say tuh-mah-tah. But let's try to keep our own personal theology from affecting this conversation.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:07 pm

Peace my friend. It is not my purpose to disagree nor to spout theology in this thread, as it is much more important, to my way of thinking at least, to demonstrate that the Septuagint is not a bad translation of the hebrew.

YOU WROTE:
cweb255 wrote: Ian, I was referring to the part where you say that the LXX is a new revelation from god etc... You can interpret their theology all day long, no problem here, but once you add in your own theology to the equation I'm afraid I must resign.


IAN'S RESPONSE: Please do not even consider such a radical solution. We are not at enmity with each other. I simply do not agree that my position is theology. It strictly declares the facts of the translations/non-translations of the Greek and Hebrew languages of the testaments.

You might have noticed, I take no issue with denominationalism as to "which truth is the right truth" that is so prevalent among Chistian organizations. I simply do not care. And you are correct at least in that I do have my own biases. I do at least try to keep my religious view under strict control. You would not believe how much trouble it can get me into with my own group of believers. I have been put out of two of the major denominations of Christiandom.

But to me the issue is and will continue to be, that the Septuagint old testament is not a translation of the Hebrew, but is a new revelation from God. And THAT my friend is NOT theology, that is the essence of scripture. If you were in a study of literature, and discussed ancient books, and ancient scriptures, would you consider your position on the ancient scriptures to be theology? Or Historical fact about literature? It is possible I am wrong, but I do not think so yet.

YOU WROTE:
cweb255 wrote: And regarding disagreements: You can disagree with me all day long, I have no problem. You say tuh-may-doe I say tuh-mah-tah. But let's try to keep our own personal theology from affecting this conversation.


IAN'S RESPONSE: Agreed. Again, I do not understand every reference to a verse of scripture to be theology. That may be the crux of our disagreement. What say you? Have I missed something in my understanding?
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Re: I apologize. I did not know everyone had to agree before

Postby yadfothgildloc » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:54 am

Ian_M_Graham wrote:
yadfothgildloc wrote: Your statements here are indicitive of theology rather than linguistic work. At some point, you need to step back and say "what does this mean?" From a brief reading, it sounds like most of those are saying "I'm the only God around, so don't worship anyone else." That's pretty straightforward, I think.


So let me see if I understand the standard here. If I read a verse of scripture, it is research, but if I quote it it becomes theology?


No, quoting verses is one thing. Saying that they're inspired or nor inspired is different.

This, in particular, is problematic:
But to me the issue is and will continue to be, that the Septuagint old testament is not a translation of the Hebrew, but is a new revelation from God.
You can believe what you want, religiously, but there I feel should be a level of scholarly dispassion between your religious beliefs and the texts - even if only out of respect for those of us who have differing beliefs.
yadfothgildloc
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:40 pm
Location: oupou

Postby ThomasGR » Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:50 am

Whereas in some sentences "tuwr" makes sense when rendered with "rock", in other cases its' completely nonsense. "Their tsuwr in not as our tsuwr" (which to me sounds like "my stone is beter than your stone") is stupid and a meaningless phrase. I understand now why those wise men hesitated with the translation and often skipped those verses that contain tsuwr. Compare the correlation God=rock (in which case one has to force all his imagination to its limits to get associations with fortress, refuge, defence and whatever), with the Hellenistic Apollo=Light. I vote for the second, that-s God=Light.
ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Re: I apologize. I did not know everyone had to agree before

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:46 am

TO IAN'S STATEMENT: "So let me see if I understand the standard here. If I read a verse of scripture, it is research, but if I quote it it becomes theology?"

YADFOTHGILDLOC RESPONDED: No, quoting verses is one thing. Saying that they're inspired or nor inspired is different.

This, in particular, is problematic:
But to me the issue is and will continue to be, that the Septuagint old testament is not a translation of the Hebrew, but is a new revelation from God.


yadfothgildloc wrote: You can believe what you want, religiously, but there I feel should be a level of scholarly dispassion between your religious beliefs and the texts - even if only out of respect for those of us who have differing beliefs.


IAN'S RESPONSE: So it would seem that if I agree with everyone, deal only with those things that have been agreed upon beforehand, and do not believe what I read, it is research, but if I disagree, or deal with something new to the populace, or believe what it says, it is theology.

Look my friend, I happen to believe the object of my research into scripture. Does that disqualify me to discuss it with those who believe otherwise? If others disagree with my scientific research, does that make the discussion thology?

What if there is scientific evidence that God is, and that he communicated with men, is that science or theology? How do you know the difference?

I believe I can make a good scientific argument for the existence of God. Is that science or theology?

Is a study about mammals, that finds that bugs communicate with men science? Or bugology?

What then of a discussion about the languages, the grammar, the tools of communication; to discuss the tools themselves, scientific? Or theology?

May I ask what do you consider the best evidence?
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Postby cweb255 » Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:49 pm

First, it's entomology, not bugology. And second, your "scientific research" wasn't stated as such but as theology which backed you up. You include an a priori bias stating God exists, and then Christianity is right, then make your conclusion. Start with nothing and we'll talk.

Good night.
phpbb
User avatar
cweb255
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:15 am

You've been arguing with too many Christians. I didn't say

Postby Ian_M_Graham » Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:19 am

all that good stuff. And most of it is just good stuff. Good stuff does not prove God it proves faith in God. In THAT, my friend, you are correct.

Now, back to the question; What, in YOUR opinion, constitutes the best evidence? This is a scientific question. Or, if you prefer, I will state my understanding as a premise and we'll take it from there.

cweb255 wrote: your "scientific research" wasn't stated as such but as theology which backed you up. You include an a priori bias stating God exists, and then Christianity is right, then make your conclusion. Start with nothing and we'll talk.


But you see my friend, That was concerning the Septuagint Greek and the Hebrew of which it was supposed to be a translation; nothing to do with proving God is, nor with proving anything other than its source, which is revelation, therefore inspired, whether by God or by insight.

Have you never seen a play or an opera about which you concluded "that author was inspired" or maybe "those actors were inspired?"

It remains for the theological presentation to develope that it was God who inspired the revelation, but revelation it was, BECAUSE it was not a translation.

You would be hard pressed to prove it IS a translation. Think about that in your rebuttal arguments, and again, it is not thology, but a scientific evaluation of the literature, and the meaning gleaned from the texts.

good morning.
Ian_M_Graham
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:16 pm

Re: Septuagint a "bad translation" of the Hebrew text?

Postby joja » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:23 am

Re: Peter, ...and the Rock

"He never built It upon Peter, neither did He build It upon Himself;
but it's upon Peter's revelation of Who He was. See? "Who does man say I,
the Son of man..."
"Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,"
"Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonas: flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you (some seminary. See?); but My Father which is in heaven has revealed to you.
Thou art Peter, upon this rock (of confession, upon this revelation)
I'll build My Church." And that's been...

Simon, son of Jonas, flesh and blood never revealed this to you.
Never learned it in a seminary, nobody taught it to you, but it's a revelation."

That's the reason He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom. He had the revelation of who He was. "Upon this rock I'll build My Church;

..How did--did Abel know that it was a lamb in the stead of fruit of the field? Spiritual revelation. See? It's always been spiritual revelation." - William M. Branham
joja
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: Septuagint a "bad translation" of the Hebrew text?

Postby jaihare » Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:30 am

joja wrote:Re: Peter, ...and the Rock

"He never built It upon Peter, neither did He build It upon Himself;
but it's upon Peter's revelation of Who He was. See? "Who does man say I,
the Son of man..."
"Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,"
"Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonas: flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you (some seminary. See?); but My Father which is in heaven has revealed to you.
Thou art Peter, upon this rock (of confession, upon this revelation)
I'll build My Church." And that's been...

Simon, son of Jonas, flesh and blood never revealed this to you.
Never learned it in a seminary, nobody taught it to you, but it's a revelation."

That's the reason He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom. He had the revelation of who He was. "Upon this rock I'll build My Church;

..How did--did Abel know that it was a lamb in the stead of fruit of the field? Spiritual revelation. See? It's always been spiritual revelation." - William M. Branham


Can you not see that this thread hasn't been addressed in over five years???? What are you doing?!
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

ὁ μὲν Παῦλος τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις μαθητὰς τὴν χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἐδίδασκεν, οἱ δ᾿ ἄλλοι ἀπόστολοι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐδίδασκον τηρεῖν τὸν θεῖον νόμον τὸν χειρὶ Μωϋσέως δοθέντα.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Previous

Return to Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests