Bible Question:
"Did I do that?" -- S. Urkel To EdB, Hank, and others: Please note that neither the Question nor my Answer was primarily about Isaiah 7:14. My answer was about certain principles of translation. Isaiah 7:14 is merely an example. My original Answer is not about which translation of that verse is the right one. Frankly, my dears, I don't care which version of Isa 7:14 is the right one. That was never my point. I posted an Answer about principles of translation and got a debate over Isa 7:14. To balance things, I guess I should post a Note about Isa 7:14. Hopefully, I would then get a discussion about principles of translation. I admit that I made a mistake. My mistake was to make any reference to Isa 7:14, which was used as an EXAMPLE, not as the main point of my post. I should have known that my mention of Isa 7:14 would trigger controversy and that as soon as people saw the verse in Isaiah, they would forget what the post was really about, just as quickly as snow melts when it hits warm pavement. Silly me! Color me Sorrowful (kalos) |
Bible Answer: Kalos I think this paragraph is the heart of the question, "If I understand your question properly, what you are talking about is what the translators of the NET Bible have avoided doing. In this version the OT is translated to say and mean what it meant to the readers of the period in which each book was written. It is not translated in light of our knowledge of the NT. An example follows." What I said is, this example in fact shows problems with what may be a noble attempt, this translation in the NETBible shows it how it may cause problems. Aside of how the word “almah” is defined today, apparently to the Hebrew scholars that had nothing to gain in a NT sense understood “Almah” to mean “virgin” when they translated the Septuagint. Further when Matthew quoted the verse he too understood the verse to mean “virgin”. His peers also must have agreed with that interpretation since none of them registers a complaint that he took liberties with the word in his quote. Therefore knowing how the NT treated the word actually added to accuracy of translation rather than negatively effecting it. This verse aside Hebrew until fairly recent history was an unspoken language having been replaced with Greek and or Aramaic . The definitions we have of many Hebrew words are fairly modern definitions and may not be exact definitions of the word as defined in Isaiah’s time. Therefore rather than taint a translation by comparing it with what the NT it may be necessary to do just that to get an accurate translation. That is a point I’m trying to make and I think that does address the question. EdB |