Can’t tell you how grieved I am for you. Responding used to be like responding to a friend. Now you’re so riddled with spite and derision, there is no reward. Notwithstanding, I will respond to your presumption and error, because you do not deliberately err. Your pride causes you too spew.
Hurts to be proven wrong, eh Pete? Backed up in a corner you get....angry.
Testament is an ecclesiastical term. Covenant and testament are practically synonymous.
This is not true. The Hebrew word for covenant is
berith. No direct translation into the Greek. They used the word
diathēkē, which unfortunately can mean either testament or covenant. But the nuance from the Hebrew does not allow for the two words to mean the same thing.
Only we’re talking Hebrew not Greek.
Ok, so this is what you do with my faux pas? So do you think these Greek gods of the NET bible translated the Old Testament?? Or perhaps, just maybe, oh heck, there COULD have been Hebrew scholars who were responsible for the Old Testament WHO KNEW MORE ABOUT HEBREW THAN YOU? No, not possible.
Genesis was written in Hebrew. The NET translation differs from that of the many other translations, and interprets the Hebrew to be speaking of imminent demise and not lifespan. Translators are often forced to interpret passages and make choices. Students are wise to read as many translations as they can to see how subtle differences arise. They are wise to delve into the original languages to learn why they arise.
I'm pretty sure I quoted the footnote for this somewhere, but I'm too lazy to go look. So I'll just reproduce it again. Here is what the NET translators thought of that verse (Gen 6:3) in regards to the 120 years --
- Genesis 6:3 tn Heb “his days will be 120 years.” Some interpret this to mean that the age expectancy of people from this point on would be 120, but neither the subsequent narrative nor reality favors this. It is more likely that this refers to the time remaining between this announcement of judgment and the coming of the flood.
They mention
lifespan. They refute that this is what it means and specify that it means the
length of time before the flood.
NOTHING about the NET translation speaks of imminent (as of sudden but not measured) demise. NOTHING.
Now, I'll give you that maybe you wrote your sentence wrong, commas and all, and you meant that the NET did the lifespan thing and OTHER translators did not follow that semantic.
Since I’ve only studied ten languages formally, with merely grad school level koine Greek, I don’t pretend to compete with translators.
Thank you for admitting that.
However, as a forty-year practicant of applied linguistics, fluent enough in French to be employed as translator and used often as interpreter, I know something of the intricacies of translation. Since I’ve only been studying koine since 1985, I still use tools to parse some verb forms. I rarely need to go back to my grammar books to define the meaning of those forms.
(That being said, for Semitic languages, I studied the modern Arabic of the Levant in Nazareth. Not Hebrew. I rely heavily on other OT scholars and their scholarship, and cite them in my opinions. I was friends with the late John Rae who was on the committee that translated the first issue of the NASB. My observation on the NET translators choices for Genesis 6 is based only on comparison with other translators’ choices.)
You misunderstood what I said. Living is zoon in Greek. That is progressive. The believing person, being alive…
The word “never” is translated from a Greek double negative, ou me. This is emphatic negative. …will not possibly ever…Not Bible Hub translation. Just Greek grammar. Bible hub is great for putting the Greek at your fingertips. You still need to know some.
Good to know.
Hope you don’t injure yourself. Your English isn’t really all that good. Is it?
No. I've only achieve a minor in English at University. I write often and well.
But when I get into discussions like this, I tend to do it with a mindset of dialogue. I write as if I'm sitting with you, perhaps across from a campfire. So I'm not concerned with structure as much as getting the point across, which is just as much upon the reader as it is me, the writer.
Why am I explaining the same thing to you twice? I know enough Greek to see through the egregious NIV translators’ errors. I’m confident enough to see many of the the choices and sometimes to make them, or comment on them. I’ve enjoyed watching Ted go after a friend whose native language is Greek, who has used the koine Bible in church since his youth, telling him the English speaking “scholars” knew more about Greek than the Greek speaker.
Was that Mikey?
I once agreed with you totally. I don't disagree with you now, but there is a nuance.
When I was in high school we had to take two years of foreign language. I took French, living in the northeastern part of this country and being so close to Quebec. Perhaps it would be better than Spanish. After graduating I moved to Arizona. But I digress... In this French class we had a new student, a kid who came to America from .... wait for it .... France. He spoke fluent French. He failed the class. You see, he didn't speak proper French. He spoke one dialect of French and didn't know others, nor was he a student of the proper language. Could it be that Mikey was similar? Personally, I remember that Mikey had a little more to offer than just living in Greece. But he was no scholar.
And backing up to the first sentence in this quote. The NIV translators made their translation. It isn't error; it is understanding. I'll give you an example. I once got in a tizzy here over Mark 11:22. "Jesus said to them, "Have faith in God."
Most translation (if not all) read "Have faith in God." A.T. Robertson wrote that the correct and literal translation is "Have the faith of God." It caused quite a stir here on CARM.
So I took it upon myself to email Dr. Daniel Wallace at Dallas Theological Seminary. His answer: (paraphrased) Yeah, well kinda. I mean yes, that is literal. That's what it means. But translators will often use "the ubiquitous meaning for translating certain passages." Do you know what ubiquitous means? Of course you do. It means, widely accepted; found everywhere. In other words: other people did it so we did too, even though the true meaning would be "of".
So when we talk about NIV translators, they have a goal in mind as to what their bible will be used for. Is it a paraphrased bible? Is it a word study bible? Is it an English for understanding bible? These, and many more questions, play into the choices made. You may not like those choices. Don't use their bible. But to call it error simply because you don't like it?
Arrogance on display…with ignorance.
Too many mirrors in the room, Pete. Don't open your eyes yet.
He’s writing about Copeland. I’m thinking he’ll be as intrigued as I with the NET’s interpretation. I think they got it right, personally. I’ll never read that passage again the same way.
"thinking he'll" ... he who? Ted or Cope. Do you know that in English you are talking about Ted? Nearest noun doesn't apply here, but I think you know language well enough that I don't have to go into the detailed meaning as to why. If this is correct, Ted's already said he doesn't like the NET. Cope is a dyed in the wool KJVer (although I have seen him use the NKJV a time or two). I doubt either of these two will pick up the NET for anything more than a paperweight.
That’s how translations work. I remember reading a very familiar passage in a one of my French versions, and I stopped. I was going for an hour from translation to translation, French and English, then back to the original. Changed my interpretation forever. Language is a playground to the linguist.
Sounds fun.
