"Helmut Richter" <hhr-m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2CA82125-D833-82A4-52A6-C7689848A239@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Fred A Stover wrote:
>
> > You're jumping to conclusions, for, as your examples show, that the
> > infinitive absolute translates as, seeing ... see, hearing ....hear,
> > blessing....blessed, just as it does dying....die. Nothing was said of
its
> > not being emphatic, what was addressed is what else it says.
>
> I am trying to separate translation from interpretation -- an endavour
> which is not always possible but which should be at least tried. The
> question "is this a viable translation?" is very different from the
> question "is this a correct rendering of the verse given our
> interpretation of it?". However, when there is more than one possible
> translation, the translator's interpretation of the passage, and even
more
> so his understanding of how the passage fits into the entire message of
> the Scripture, will influence his choice. But before that, there must be
> an attempt to get as much of the meaning of the text as is.
Okay, I'm following you. I see below that you realize I'm discussing
interpretation.
>
> We have discussed several possible translations (see also my
contribution
> of yesterday):
>
> a) you will surely/certainly/definitely die
> b) you will completely/totally/entirely die
> c) you will die of/by/because-of death
> d) you will die when/as you are dying
>
> I understood the proposal as (d), and I felt (and continue to feel as
long
> as there are no new arguments) that this translation is far-fetched. (a)
> and (b) square with typical usages of internal accusatives elsewhere in
> the Hebrew Bible. (c) looks somewhat odd but has been used by enough
> knowledgeable translators that were much nearer to Hebrew speakers than
us
> grammar-book readers.
That's the part I don't understand,."the far fetched." Why is more than
one
interpretation far fetched? Yes. there is the certainty of death. But
there
are also the two deaths, and there is the concurrency of the deaths. None
of
the above options, a, b., c, or d covers them all.
> > It also addresses the simple literal (nonemphatic) sense, since Adam
would
> > have died without "surely dying" if he had not eaten of either the
forbidden
> > tree or the tree of life. And it says the dying occured at death,
which
> > explains the dispiute (Jude 1:9) over Moses' body, for he had killed
the
> > Egyptian (Ex 2:12) before the law was given.: "For until the law sin
was
in
> > the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless
death
> > reigned from Adam to Moses (even over them that had not sinned after
the
> > similitude of Adam's transgression) who is the figure of him that was
to
> > come. (Rom 5:13-14, [Ezek 26:20]).
>
> This is no longer a translation issue but an interpretation issue. It
will
> take some time for me to understand and appreciate it.
>
> At first glance, it looks as if translation (b) above could at the same
> time render the idea and be consistent with the most usual meaning of
such
> constructs.
>
Agreed. I am speaking of interpretations, and not constraining the Author
to
one meaning.
> --
> Helmut Richter
His,
--
www.geocities.com/fredstover7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God
as
a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:15)
<)))))><
Preparing the way of the Lord.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post.
)))
|
