Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am making statements about which I DO have knowledge based on your claims and his biography. One does not study to be a rabbi at the U of Pitt. Since he converted at 21, one assumes he was not studying to be a rabbi for 21 years, or studying Hebrew intensively at a college which doesn't really offer any Judaic context or classes. He also never completed becoming a rabbi which makes me more qualified. I have studied longer. I have also cited experts who have studied longer. So attacking me when you cannot actively defend Feinberg (because you have no information to support your own contentions about him other than that same biography from which you draw conclusions) isn't a really solid approach.
I don't recall saying I was not qualified, only that there are those who know better than I. In post 258 I resisted the label of "fluency" (for myself and most anyone else). You claimed that Feinberg was more qualified than anyone in this forum (#263) without knowing my qualifications, or really, his. In 267, when asked, I did say that I am "better" (your word) at this than those who translated the JPS BECAUSE they simply coopted much of the KJV (which they admit to on the JPS website which I posted for you). In 271, I invited you to represent Feinberg's thinking to defend his assertions so that if I am wrong, I can learn from someone because many people know many things better than I. You have, as of yet, failed to give any representation of Feinberg's process so I have no reason to think he knows anything.
If that were true, then you would be open to accepting other experts. But since you only accept an expert who comports with whatever you have adopted, and you dismiss anything and everything which has been shown to you to be at odds with that theology, then I can only feel pity for you as you are lying to yourself.
I'm not worried about my reputation. I have supported my contentions with evidence, examples, logic and actual knowledge. If you want to keep curling up with Feinberg and his linguistic errors, then you might want to worry about your intellectual reputation.
Everyone should be concerned about their reputation. You have supported your contentions with what you consider, evidence, examples and logic and actual knowledge. I haves supported mine from Scripture and an expert in Hebrew. Spiritual concepts are no subject to logic, so you can throw that brag out.
I am not worried about my reputation from those who can't prove their evidence, examples, logic and actual knowledge. If you want to keep curling up with yourself, be my guest. I will stick with the one who is the most expert on the subject.
Let me post another error in your so-called logic---Feinberg was not studying to be a rabbi a the University of Pitt. When he converted to Christianity, he gave that up. He has a ThD, PhD and was dean of semitics. Do you Who the world, especial academia will consider the most expert in Hebrew.
You don' need to answer, we both know who will be the choice.
Or, they have done this because, as they admit, the 1917 translation was steeped in the KJV. You keep wanting to ignore their own admission. Weird.
So you want to double down on the error. OK. Harah means "is pregnant" -- vatahar is "has become pregnant" and zera is NEVER "conceive", only "tazria" is.
It is only "future" in the one case where you want it to be. The fact is, a consistent translation schema will never have it as future tense. This is your wishful thinking based on the convenient error of others. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." --John Heywood
The truth is "harah" can be either present or future tense. The context determines which.
It is fuTure in at least 5 verses" Num 5:28,Jud 13:3, 5 & 7 & Ruth 413
So please explain on what grammatical grounds the identical word with the identical spelling is in your one instance in the future tense.
Do you really not understand how English works. Then tense of all verbs can be past---I was thinking about this yesterday. Present---I am thinking about it again today. Future---I am going to think about it again tomorrow. I usually charge for lessons, but you need it so badly, I will give it to you free.
Do you really think posting verses that have a present tense, means that verb cannot be used in any other tense?
And someone went and wrote fiction on that blank page...
You have been infected by he secular fundy omniscient disorder. It makes the person think they have become omniscient. They keep thinking insulting those they disagree with indicates a high degree of intelligence. When one resorts to insults is because they have no intelligent answers. Are your shoes starting to get tight now?
To date there is no cure for this disorder, as you keep proving. Maybe there is for those who stay on their meds. Did you prescription run out?
What I see, to sum up is the assertion that one particular translation of a verse like Is 7:14 is correct simply because the people who translated it are experts, and they are experts as proven by the accuracy of their translation.
I, as a professional ethic, encourage the whole "show don't tell" approach. As such, the following has been shown:
Other translations by (named) individuals (and groups!) which have different words and translations for that verse
Examples of how the preferred "experts" used different translations for the same source words in different situations
Support from books on Hebrew grammar which support particular spellings and conjugations and rules of grammar
Examples of other textual uses of words and grammar which show that the preferred translators made unsupported changes in this one particular case
Examples of other Hebrew words which exist to present the desired meaning but which were NOT used in this verse
Supporting statements by non-Jews to explore how particular translations are in error
All I have seen in return is "all those experts are not experts because Feinberg is an expert. None one else knows as much as Feinberg because he is an expert."
I haven't seen any actual evidence to support the assertion that Feinberg makes, or that anyone makes in supporting Feinberg other than the earlier translations that are likewise unsupported by any external logic. I have seen this in other cases as well...7:14 is just one example of this approach to translation.
There is no shame in admitting that decisions about meaning were driven by a pre-existing belief when they fly in the face of all other evidence. I see the problem when the insistence is that all the other evidence must be wrong simply because one meaning was presented.
If there is supporting corroborating evidence for the claims made by Feinberg et al regarding this verse, please show, don't tell.
THd, PHd, Dean and professor Emeritus of semitics at Talbot Theological seminary. co-author of the "Theological Wordbook of he Old Testament.' which goes into great detail on every major Hebrew word. It is more than a dictionary. It is a commentary of each word and includes its major meaning, gives all of its derivatives and examples of how it is used in Hebrew tenses. Some words will have 2-3 pages of commentary, explaining each derivative.
Now list you qualifications so we can all evaluate who is the most expert.
Let me post another error in your so-called logic---Feinberg was not studying to be a rabbi a the University of Pitt. When he converted to Christianity, he gave that up.
So you are saying he stopped "studying to be a rabbi" before college (he converted at 21). Do you have any idea what it means to "study to be a rabbi"? Do you really think it is something that someone in high school does?
And he became a dean of semitics at a Christian school after studying in the Christian education system. What the world considers isn't the issue. People who actually speak semitic languages would look at what he wrote and laugh. A thought experiment... if I trot out an "expert" in the gospels who learned all about them through a yeshiva education and headed the "Department of Christianity" at a Jewish school and was accepted by the ultra-religious Jewish world as an expert, would you accept his credentials and his statements about Christianity.
If you would, you are a bigger fool than I thought.
Instead of the JPS why not just read the KJV?...Same thing...
The KJV has some serious translation problems. Better to use the NKJV
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
