Bible - Alternative Translation

[Rhadamanthus]

I was speaking primarily about Genesis 1:1, but it also applies to the work ascribed to the priestly source. I do follow the documentary hypothesis (four sources); however, in this case, scholars place the verses with the priestly source. And we can be certain he meant God when he used the word Elohim.

In all the other contemporary creation it is always a bunch of gods rather then a single god in creation accounts, and they all resemble each other
Yahweh/Adonay do not appear in Genesis 1, so its an obvious assumption its
a typical creation story of the Canaanites or Phoenicians written before the rise of Monotheism in Judea

 

[Rhadamanthus]

I think that it's nice you're excited enough about the text to want to go through word by word and try to consider meanings.

But the thing is, Hebrew is a very difficult language to translate into English, and most translations of the Tanach don't do it well, even to the degree it could be done.

There's a reason why translations tend to be done by people who not only actually know the language, but know it intimately-- not only in a sense of technical comprehension of grammar and whatnot, but in a sense of intuitive artistic comprehension of the way the language works literarily.

The Tanach is mostly poetry. This very seldom comes through in translations. But it is a fact. And it is written in such a way as to deliberately generate multiple meanings. It is full of metaphors, puns, wordplay, idioms, allegories, hyperbole, alliteration, assonance, and other poetic literary devices.

Word for word translations not only obliterate the poetic structure of the text, they obscure multiple meanings, and they often introduce errors, in that they fail to recognize or effectively render idioms and wordplays, which can be key to understanding certain verses.

I really applaud your desire to translate the text on their own-- that's something I think everyone can benefit from doing. But to do it effectively-- not just in the sense of producing a somewhat accurate translation, but in the sense of truly coming to learn some of the nuance and complexity of the text-- you need to learn Hebrew. Working from a lexicon (and, I have to admit, one of which I have never even heard, which makes me skeptical of its accuracy) just won't do it.

To get an idea of what I mean, I recommend getting a copy of Everett Fox's translation of the Torah, published by Schocken Books under the title The Five Books of Moses. He translates into poetry, uses all the literary devices I mentioned, and includes copious notes on nuance and word choice. It is, as far as I have seen, the most consistent, most faithful, and most accurate translation of the Torah into English yet produced (although Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses probably isn't all that far behind it)-- though even it is not perfect. But take a look at that, and then think about the nature of the endeavor of a Torah translation.

I have read through Evert Fox' Translation very poetic and like mine uses better English translations e.g. "The Deep" as being "an Ocean" (likely referring to mediterranean sea)

Genesis 1:6 (Everett Fox)
God said: Let there be a dome amid the waters, and let it separate waters from waters!

I bet fox was confused with Gen 1:6

 

[fallingblood]

In all the other contemporary creation it is always a bunch of gods rather then a single god in creation accounts, and they all resemble each other
Yahweh/Adonay do not appear in Genesis 1, so its an obvious assumption its
a typical creation story of the Canaanites or Phoenicians written before the rise of Monotheism in Judea

That is not a good assumption though. When we look at the god of the Bible, we see a being that has multiple names. Some call him Yahweh, other Elohim, etc. However, through context and other work, we know that these are the names meant for a specific deity. It is just a matter of different people calling that god by different names. And in fact, we see this to be true with a number of deities in the ancient world. It is also true today.

When we look at this particular verse, we see it being ascribed to the priestly source, which is dated to the exilic or post-exilic time (around the 6th century BCE). By this time, the Jewish religion had evolved primarily into a monotheistic religion.

More so, in other creation stories (and not all others from that time presupposed the idea that multiple gods were the creators. Many times they will specify a certain creator god who is responsible) when we see multiple gods being the creator, we are given their names. We are told which gods are doing the actions. So it would be different from what we would see here if the term was translated to gods instead of God.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

That is not a good assumption though. When we look at the god of the Bible, we see a being that has multiple names. Some call him Yahweh, other Elohim, etc. However, through context and other work, we know that these are the names meant for a specific deity. It is just a matter of different people calling that god by different names. And in fact, we see this to be true with a number of deities in the ancient world. It is also true today.

When we look at this particular verse, we see it being ascribed to the priestly source, which is dated to the exilic or post-exilic time (around the 6th century BCE). By this time, the Jewish religion had evolved primarily into a monotheistic religion.

More so, in other creation stories (and not all others from that time presupposed the idea that multiple gods were the creators. Many times they will specify a certain creator god who is responsible) when we see multiple gods being the creator, we are given their names. We are told which gods are doing the actions. So it would be different from what we would see here if the term was translated to gods instead of God.

Gen 1:27
The Gods fashioned man in there own ressemblence, the ressemblence of the gods created males and females created them.

Gen 1:27 would make sense with multiple gods in play, the ancient understood that both male and Female is needed to procreate
although they where confused, e.g. ancients believes Sperm was created in the Chest/Rib Region hence the taking of a Rib to create a Woman.

To us its Poetic, but to the ancients its just a limited understanding of how nature works

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Elohim just a poetic term representing multi-expect of Nature as it seems to do, you could translate geneses 1 without God.


Gen 1:1
in Beginning Nature fashioned the Sky and Earth

Gen 1:2
Earth was Chaos and Empty, Darkness was over the faces of the Ocean and the wind of Nature blew over the faces of the waters.

Gen 1:3
Nature spoke, let there be Light, and there was daybreak

Gen 1:4
Nature saw the light, and it was pleasent, and Nature set apart the Light from the darkness

Gen 1:5
Nature called this Light, the Day, and the darkness was named the Night, and the Sun Setting and rising was the First Day,

Gen 1:6
Nature said, let there be a Vault in the midst of the waters, to seperate the Waters from Waters

e.c.t

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Even with advanced knowledge, it can still be difficult. I don't claim advanced knowledge at all, but I have been translating portions of the NT, with the help of my Greek teacher. Even then, it is slow work.

I didn't say that it would be easy to translate, but simply that advanced knowledge is required. Advanced knowledge to me is essentially fluency that enables one to navigate through all of the scholarly arguments related to the vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and historical contexts needed to produce a responsible reading of the text.

It would surprise me slightly if our friend could even recognize Hebrew when he saw it, and if he knew the alphabet I'd be shocked, I'd be amazed if he could write out the alphabet, and I'd eat my shorts if he could parse.

Moving on to knowledge of Hebrew required to resonsibly review "commercial" translations and be frustrated - absolutely not.

And producing a translation? Out of the question. This is a symphony if ignorance with just the right amount of arrogance to make it entertaining.

 

[idea]

- "To live in a language" as opposed to just know a language. ...

The scribes and Pharisees had original documents written in their language, and lived in the culture etc. etc. but they seem to have missed the point (and ended up killing Jesus) ... so I think it takes more than a complete understanding of the semantics/history/people etc. etc. although understanding the language can't hurt.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Gen 1:1
in Beginning Nature fashioned the Sky and Earth

May as well render "nature" as "dog poo."

You'd be closer to the original meaning of the word.:yes:

 

[idea]

That is not a good assumption though. When we look at the god of the Bible, we see a being that has multiple names. Some call him Yahweh, other Elohim, etc. However, through context and other work, we know that these are the names meant for a specific deity. It is just a matter of different people calling that god by different names. And in fact, we see this to be true with a number of deities in the ancient world. It is also true today.

When we look at this particular verse, we see it being ascribed to the priestly source, which is dated to the exilic or post-exilic time (around the 6th century BCE). By this time, the Jewish religion had evolved primarily into a monotheistic religion.

More so, in other creation stories (and not all others from that time presupposed the idea that multiple gods were the creators. Many times they will specify a certain creator god who is responsible) when we see multiple gods being the creator, we are given their names. We are told which gods are doing the actions. So it would be different from what we would see here if the term was translated to gods instead of God.

I agree that the same being can go by multiple names - however there are a few other interesting side notes that suggest multiple Gods.. such as:

(Old Testament | Psalms 82:6)
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

the above suggests that the word "god" can have an expanded meaning, in which case the existence of multiple gods is possible

or stuff like this:

(Old Testament | Exodus 20:3)
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

it does not say that other gods do not exist, it just says don't put them before me.

 

[Levite]

The scribes and Pharisees had original documents written in their language, and lived in the culture etc. etc. but they seem to have missed the point (and ended up killing Jesus) ... so I think it takes more than a complete understanding of the semantics/history/people etc. etc. although understanding the language can't hurt.

Or, you know, they got the point just fine, and Jesus has nothing to do with Jewish texts and their meanings....

Just saying....

 

[fallingblood]

I didn't say that it would be easy to translate, but simply that advanced knowledge is required. Advanced knowledge to me is essentially fluency that enables one to navigate through all of the scholarly arguments related to the vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and historical contexts needed to produce a responsible reading of the text.

I agree. I was just trying to expand on that. In that regard, I think it should be telling to most people that most Bible translations are done by a committee of people.

It would surprise me slightly if our friend could even recognize Hebrew when he saw it, and if he knew the alphabet I'd be shocked, I'd be amazed if he could write out the alphabet, and I'd eat my shorts if he could parse.

Moving on to knowledge of Hebrew required to resonsibly review "commercial" translations and be frustrated - absolutely not.

And producing a translation? Out of the question. This is a symphony if ignorance with just the right amount of arrogance to make it entertaining.

Just as a side note, what do you think is harder; Greek or Hebrew?

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Isaiah 45:1
“The LORD says to Cyrus Christ

Where did that Christ come from , why is Isaiah 45:1 not use the Greek, Christos?

 

[Rakhel]

Why would Isaiah use a Greek word? He wrote Hebrew.


Just to clarify... Isaiah didn't write Hebrews. He wrote in Hebrew, which is not Greek.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

Why would Isaiah use a Greek word? He wrote Hebrew.


Just to clarify... Isaiah didn't write Hebrews. He wrote in Hebrew, which is not Greek.

So its not ok to called "Jesus" a Messiah. and not ok to call "Cyrus" a Christ

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So its not ok to called "Jesus" a Messiah. and not ok to call "Cyrus" a Christ

Given that "Cyrus" is the name of a Persian ruler, and the name is different than "messiah" in hebrew or "christos" in Greek, then yes calling "Cyrus "christ" is more than a bit odd.

 

[Levite]

So its not ok to called "Jesus" a Messiah. and not ok to call "Cyrus" a Christ

The term mashiach ("messiah") means "one who is anointed," usually referring to a king, priest, or prophet. The Tanakh refers to Cyrus (who permitted the Jews to return to the Land of Israel from Babylonia, and to rebuild the Temple) as mashiach Hashem, which is to say "anointed of YHVH," meaning that God had essentially given His approval of Cyrus' reign, due to Cyrus' positive actions toward the Jewish People.

Jesus, on the other hand, was never anointed. He claimed to be the messiah (falsely, as it turned out, since he did nothing that the messiah was supposed to do), and, like many other pretenders to messiahdom in those days, was executed by the Romans. His followers, after his death, transformed his claim to messiahdom into a claim to something that was very different from the Jewish concept of meshichut ("messiahdom"), and as they did so, they attached to that the Greek word for "anointed," xristos. To be called the "Christ" became something very, very different than what being called mashiach had meant, or continues to mean.

Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the word mashiach be used in reference to Cyrus, but not Christ; and the name Christ be used in reference to Jesus, but not mashiach.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

The term mashiach ("messiah") means "one who is anointed," usually referring to a king, priest, or prophet. The Tanakh refers to Cyrus (who permitted the Jews to return to the Land of Israel from Babylonia, and to rebuild the Temple) as mashiach Hashem, which is to say "anointed of YHVH," meaning that God had essentially given His approval of Cyrus' reign, due to Cyrus' positive actions toward the Jewish People.

Jesus, on the other hand, was never anointed. He claimed to be the messiah (falsely, as it turned out, since he did nothing that the messiah was supposed to do), and, like many other pretenders to messiahdom in those days, was executed by the Romans. His followers, after his death, transformed his claim to messiahdom into a claim to something that was very different from the Jewish concept of meshichut ("messiahdom"), and as they did so, they attached to that the Greek word for "anointed," xristos. To be called the "Christ" became something very, very different than what being called mashiach had meant, or continues to mean.

Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the word mashiach be used in reference to Cyrus, but not Christ; and the name Christ be used in reference to Jesus, but not mashiach.

(Christians don't read below)
So all the Old Testament (pseudo)Prophecies of a Messiah was none other then King Cyrus and all the quote taken from Isaiah that tell of the coming Messiah was also, none other then King Cyrus.
The True Savior of the Judean People. The book of Mark has Isaiah quotes interpolated that where referring to Cyrus (Koresh). Mark Author was thus creating a Jewish Messiah based upon Cyrus and used Isaiah was a Prophecy Base, instead of Taking the Hebrew Messiah, he took the Hebrew "Koresh", or "Choresh" and Hellenize it as "Chres(t)/Christ" from Isiaiah 45:1 (mashiyachc Kowresh)

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I still say the best translation of the Bible was the Jerusalem Bible published in 1956. It's a modern translation that doesn't attempt interpretation. Plus, Tolkien contributed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

(Christians don't read below)
So all the Old Testament (pseudo)Prophecies of a Messiah was none other then King Cyrus and all the quote taken from Isaiah that tell of the coming Messiah was also, none other then King Cyrus.
The True Savior of the Judean People. The book of Mark has Isaiah quotes interpolated that where referring to Cyrus (Koresh). Mark Author was thus creating a Jewish Messiah based upon Cyrus and used Isaiah was a Prophecy Base, instead of Taking the Hebrew Messiah, he took the Hebrew "Koresh", or "Choresh" and Hellenize it as "Chres(t)/Christ" from Isiaiah 45:1 (mashiyachc Kowresh)

Have no fear. No Christian has ever heard about this stuff, and they are so gullible that they will just lap up whatever spam you put out there.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So its not ok to called "Jesus" a Messiah. and not ok to call "Cyrus" a Christ

A very rudimentary knowledge of language and history would get you a long, long way on this one.:yes: