re: #384 Throbert McGee

Er, I assume you meant “Torah Hebrew had no vowels”? It’s my understanding that including the vowel points in every copy of the Torah has been mandatory for many centuries; so there would really be potential ambiguity only if you dug up a very ancient Torah fragment that pre-dated the custom of putting in the vowels.

Nope, to this day, if you look in a Torah scroll, there are no vowels.

I also want to continue the thought about translations and interpretations.

It seems to me that there are sufficiently different choices in translation and interpretation that King James OT should be regarded as a different book all together from Tanach. I am not making a value statement here. That is the holy book of one faith whereas the Tanach in Hebrew is mine.

Consider the following example:

Lets start with Genesis:

In the beginning God Created

as opposed to

Bereshit bara Elokim

There is a small point and a major point to be made.

Small point: Elokim is plural G-d is singular. There is a river of ink written about what this means in the Jewish tradition. Rambam holds that it means that G-d used the natural laws that he ordained to create the universe. Others hold it is a royal “we.” Kabbalah has deep mystical layers to add to that choice of phrase.

G-d, as per King James means G-d the Father.

Big Point: “G-d created” is past tense. The creation is a done deal. Man has no role in shaping it.

The Hebrew on the other hand is either “In the beginning of G-d’s creation” or “When G-d began to create.” Creation is a work in progress and man’s works contribute to it and have a role. Man was created as a partner in the completion of the universe not just an inhabitant.

My point is that from the first sentence, the choice of translation has produced a completely different theology.

I am not trying to argue who’s theology is better or that anyone should necessarily accept mine. I am arguing though that going to “the Hebrew” really does mean looking at an essentially different text in many ways.