Quahom1 said:
"...as you know..." That's right. As I know. And I don't depend on linguists to tell me what is or isn't, but theologians who have opinions, from which I draw my own conclusions, just as you apparently have drawn your own. My opinion, is based on thousands of years of acceptance of scripture as interpreted. Yours may be based on something else more modern. Which is fine.
That doesn't make the whole of Judeac/Christianity suspect...
my thoughts
v/r
Q
I happen to disagree with yours.
Mainstream theologians do not reject the simple fact that the underlying Hebrew (from which the English text is rendered) does not contain spaces or puctuation marks and is therefore liable to different translations.
To get an idea of what I am saying just look at all of the translator notes over at
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
For example:
Habakkuk 2:4 Look, the one whose desires are not upright will faint from exhaustion,
12
but the person of integrity
13 will live
14 because of his faithfulness.
15
12
tn The meaning of this line is unclear, primarily because of the uncertainty surrounding the second word,
עֲפְּלָה (’
apÿlah). Some read this as an otherwise unattested verb
עָפַל (’
afal, “swell”) from which are derived nouns meaning “mound” and “hemorrhoid.” This “swelling” is then understood in an abstract sense, “swell with pride.” This would yield a translation, “As for the proud, his desires are not right within him” (cf. NASB “as for the proud one”; NIV “he is puffed up”; NRSV “Look at the proud!”). A multitude of other interpretations of this line, many of which involve emendations of the problematic form, may be found in the commentaries and periodical literature. The present translation assumes an emendation to a Pual form of the verb
עָלַף (’
alaf, “be faint, exhausted”). (See its use in the Pual in Isa 51:20, and in the Hitpael in Amos 8:13 and Jonah 4:8.) In the antithetical parallelism of the verse, it corresponds to
חָיָה (
khayah, “live”). The phrase
לֹא יָשְׁרָה נַפְשׁוֹ בּוֹ (
lo’
yoshrah nafsho bo), literally, “not upright his desire within him,” is taken as a substantival clause that contrasts with
צַדִּיק (
tsadiq, “the righteous one”) and serves as the subject of the preceding verb. Here
נֶפֶשׁ (
nefesh) is understood in the sense of “desire” (see BDB 660-61 s.v.
נֶפֶשׁ for a list of passages where the word carries this sense).
<A name=213>13
tn Or “righteous.” The oppressed individuals mentioned in 1:4 are probably in view here.
<A name=214>14
tn Or “will be preserved.” In the immediate context this probably refers to physical preservation through both the present oppression and the coming judgment (see Hab 3:16-19).
<A name=215>15
tn Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word
אֱמוּנָה (’
emunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.” The antecedent of the suffix has been understood in different ways. It could refer to God’s faithfulness, but in this case one would expect a first person suffix (the original form of the LXX has “my faithfulness” here). Others understand the “vision” to be the antecedent. In this case the reliability of the prophecy is in view. For a statement of this view, see J. J. M. Roberts,
Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 111-12. The present translation assumes that the preceding word “[the person of] integrity” is the antecedent. In this case the Lord is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct. In contrast to these innocent people, those with impure desires (epitomized by the greedy Babylonians; see v. 5) will not be able to withstand God’s judgment (v. 4a).
_____________________________
Excaliburton ending comment:
And the fact that Scripture can be translated from the original Greek or Hebrew in more than one way does not erode the entire basis of Judeo-Christianity but just shows the English translations are not written in stone.
