glockmail
VIP Member
- Banned
- #381
Of course the meaning of an active language has changed over time. That's why scholarly translations are important. Do you think that Bible scholars don't know the nuances that you have only a rudimentary understanding of?There are differences between contemporary Hebrew and biblical Hebrew. And, frankly, if you knew Hebrew, you'd know that there are mistakes in the translation of the Bible. Not earthshattering mistakes, but mistakes that absolutely change the meaning of the text.
One is the translation of the term "B'reishis"... which is generally translated as "In the beginning". Apparently, in the actual old Hebrew, the true translation is "In A beginning. A subtle difference, but one which given different constructions can explain the world seen by the literalists and new earthers and reconcile it with scientific concepts to correct their misconceptions.
Another is the translation of Ehyeh asher ehyeh ... אהיה אשר אהיה
or "I am that I am" as it it commonly translated. That implies a set form to the creator. However, in Hebrew, there is no first person present for the verb "to be", therefore, the correct translation is "I will be what I will be" which implies a far more expansive form.
Now, minor points? Maybe. Or maybe the difference between seeing a tiny universe with tiny beginnings and seeing an expansive universe that is more in keeping with a great G-d, rather than a pedestrian, manlike G-d... something more in keeping with Stephen Hawkings view of the universe, perhaps?
Just saying... cause my feeling is, if the Bible is inerrant, then G-d should have made sure it was translated properly.