03-06-2024, 07:23 PM
"1 -- Yes. You should defer to experts who have been studying a text for thousands of years in the original language and context."
The Torah says that 2 or 3 witnesses establish the truth. They have to be independent. I look for independent witnesses to tell me what the text says, since I don't understand Hebrew. From that point, I will not defer to any interpretation that is not supported in the text's meaning.
"I never mentioned a robbery."
The commentary by the Radak included a phrase that translated thus: "the rich man is also killed for his tithe", which I expressed as: " being with the rich in his death means that a lot of rich men in Israel were also killed for their money." and I asked, "Did I get the right idea? to which you replied, "the general idea a a start"
"2 -- Actually, it has to do with the grammar, the words and the syntax of the text. Understanding that comes from study in the original and in context."
That is what I meant by content, and a translator can communicate that in the translation. If there are secret meanings that only a native reader can understand in the original, and those meanings are not communicated clearly in the translation, then it is a bad translation, either because of incompetence or deception. This is how international relations should be carried out. When translation is done, ideally, it should have two bilingual people involved: One, an experienced native speaker in the source language, who can pick up the nuances and explain them to the second, who is an experienced native speaker in the target language, who can digest the nuances and explain them in the target language. If there doesn't seem to be one word in the target language that communicates the range of possible meanings, a good tactic is to leave it untranslated and put in a glossary. But it is always possible to get the idea across.
So, I do not accept your characterization of me as doing frivolous imagination, and the Hebrew Bible as being only accessible to native speakers working in an approved framework of Judaism.
And, regarding the 3rd point, if the counter-missionaries say that Jesus does not fit a passage because such and such is THE meaning, but there are actually other meanings, they are being deceptive. If I take that meaning, and show that Jesus actually does fit with that meaning, it is inappropriate to tell me that "Jews aren't interested." What is this? Hit-and-run apologetics?
The Torah says that 2 or 3 witnesses establish the truth. They have to be independent. I look for independent witnesses to tell me what the text says, since I don't understand Hebrew. From that point, I will not defer to any interpretation that is not supported in the text's meaning.
"I never mentioned a robbery."
The commentary by the Radak included a phrase that translated thus: "the rich man is also killed for his tithe", which I expressed as: " being with the rich in his death means that a lot of rich men in Israel were also killed for their money." and I asked, "Did I get the right idea? to which you replied, "the general idea a a start"
"2 -- Actually, it has to do with the grammar, the words and the syntax of the text. Understanding that comes from study in the original and in context."
That is what I meant by content, and a translator can communicate that in the translation. If there are secret meanings that only a native reader can understand in the original, and those meanings are not communicated clearly in the translation, then it is a bad translation, either because of incompetence or deception. This is how international relations should be carried out. When translation is done, ideally, it should have two bilingual people involved: One, an experienced native speaker in the source language, who can pick up the nuances and explain them to the second, who is an experienced native speaker in the target language, who can digest the nuances and explain them in the target language. If there doesn't seem to be one word in the target language that communicates the range of possible meanings, a good tactic is to leave it untranslated and put in a glossary. But it is always possible to get the idea across.
So, I do not accept your characterization of me as doing frivolous imagination, and the Hebrew Bible as being only accessible to native speakers working in an approved framework of Judaism.
And, regarding the 3rd point, if the counter-missionaries say that Jesus does not fit a passage because such and such is THE meaning, but there are actually other meanings, they are being deceptive. If I take that meaning, and show that Jesus actually does fit with that meaning, it is inappropriate to tell me that "Jews aren't interested." What is this? Hit-and-run apologetics?