Comments on: Richard Dawkins on Biblical Languages http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/richard-dawkins-on-biblical-languages/ Your Thoughts, Everyone's Wisdom Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:31:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Epagonizesthai » Blog Archive » Richard Dawkins on Biblical Languages – Urban Philosophy http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/richard-dawkins-on-biblical-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-892 Epagonizesthai » Blog Archive » Richard Dawkins on Biblical Languages – Urban Philosophy Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:24:51 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=296#comment-892 [...] Richard Dawkins on Biblical Languages [...] [...] Richard Dawkins on Biblical Languages [...]

]]> By: hackenslash http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/richard-dawkins-on-biblical-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-74 hackenslash Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:11:14 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=296#comment-74 1. You are correct. However, until or unless a text is actually found in Aramaic, any attempt to pin down what was actually said in the mother tongue constitutes conjecture. This will be true even when you have learned Aramaic. Further, I can point you to many, many examples of words that don't cross-translate directly from one language to another. I will have to chat with a friend of mine who is fully conversant in ancient Greek in the context of the bible to see if he can elucidate this point further. 2. I mean that you are employing exactly the same kind of conjecture in your point that you accuse Dawkins of making regarding the translation of Joseph's profession. 1. You are correct. However, until or unless a text is actually found in Aramaic, any attempt to pin down what was actually said in the mother tongue constitutes conjecture. This will be true even when you have learned Aramaic. Further, I can point you to many, many examples of words that don’t cross-translate directly from one language to another.

I will have to chat with a friend of mine who is fully conversant in ancient Greek in the context of the bible to see if he can elucidate this point further.

2. I mean that you are employing exactly the same kind of conjecture in your point that you accuse Dawkins of making regarding the translation of Joseph’s profession.

]]> By: hackenslash http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/richard-dawkins-on-biblical-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-9835 hackenslash Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:11:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=296#comment-9835 1. You are correct. However, until or unless a text is actually found in Aramaic, any attempt to pin down what was actually said in the mother tongue constitutes conjecture. This will be true even when you have learned Aramaic. Further, I can point you to many, many examples of words that don't cross-translate directly from one language to another. I will have to chat with a friend of mine who is fully conversant in ancient Greek in the context of the bible to see if he can elucidate this point further. 2. I mean that you are employing exactly the same kind of conjecture in your point that you accuse Dawkins of making regarding the translation of Joseph's profession. 1. You are correct. However, until or unless a text is actually found in Aramaic, any attempt to pin down what was actually said in the mother tongue constitutes conjecture. This will be true even when you have learned Aramaic. Further, I can point you to many, many examples of words that don’t cross-translate directly from one language to another.

I will have to chat with a friend of mine who is fully conversant in ancient Greek in the context of the bible to see if he can elucidate this point further.

2. I mean that you are employing exactly the same kind of conjecture in your point that you accuse Dawkins of making regarding the translation of Joseph’s profession.

]]> By: Fisher http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/richard-dawkins-on-biblical-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-73 Fisher Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:42:43 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=296#comment-73 1. You'd first have to prove that "naggar" was the word used when the reports were being circulated orally before you can make that connection. I haven't begun taking Aramaic yet, so I can't really say any more on that particular topic. Plus, even then, that doesn't explain why the writers would choose τεκτον as their choice of wording. 2. Not exactly sure what you mean there. Care to elaborate? 1. You’d first have to prove that “naggar” was the word used when the reports were being circulated orally before you can make that connection. I haven’t begun taking Aramaic yet, so I can’t really say any more on that particular topic. Plus, even then, that doesn’t explain why the writers would choose τεκτον as their choice of wording.

2. Not exactly sure what you mean there. Care to elaborate?

]]> By: Fisher http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/richard-dawkins-on-biblical-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-9834 Fisher Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:42:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=296#comment-9834 1. You'd first have to prove that "naggar" was the word used when the reports were being circulated orally before you can make that connection. I haven't begun taking Aramaic yet, so I can't really say any more on that particular topic. Plus, even then, that doesn't explain why the writers would choose τεκτον as their choice of wording. 2. Not exactly sure what you mean there. Care to elaborate? 1. You’d first have to prove that “naggar” was the word used when the reports were being circulated orally before you can make that connection. I haven’t begun taking Aramaic yet, so I can’t really say any more on that particular topic. Plus, even then, that doesn’t explain why the writers would choose τεκτον as their choice of wording.

2. Not exactly sure what you mean there. Care to elaborate?

]]> By: hackenslash http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/richard-dawkins-on-biblical-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-72 hackenslash Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:15:02 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=296#comment-72 Hmmm, interesting. I have a couple of points of contention. The first is concerning your critique of Dawkins' assertion concerning the mistranslation of Joseph's profession. While you are correct that the earliest gospels we have are indeed in Greek, surely, as the mother tongue of the protagonists, these stories would have originally been handed down in Aramaic first, and then subject to later translation? I agree completely that this is conjecture, but it is conjecture based in logic. This brings me to my second point: You argue that the word Almah doesn't preclude virginity, and certainly I agree (the word was also applied to women in the first stage of betrothal, BTW), but are not any conclusions drawn from this subject to the same criticism as you levelled at Dawkins in the first instance? Hmmm, interesting.

I have a couple of points of contention. The first is concerning your critique of Dawkins’ assertion concerning the mistranslation of Joseph’s profession. While you are correct that the earliest gospels we have are indeed in Greek, surely, as the mother tongue of the protagonists, these stories would have originally been handed down in Aramaic first, and then subject to later translation? I agree completely that this is conjecture, but it is conjecture based in logic. This brings me to my second point:

You argue that the word Almah doesn’t preclude virginity, and certainly I agree (the word was also applied to women in the first stage of betrothal, BTW), but are not any conclusions drawn from this subject to the same criticism as you levelled at Dawkins in the first instance?

]]> By: hackenslash http://urbanphilosophy.net/religion/richard-dawkins-on-biblical-languages/comment-page-1/#comment-9833 hackenslash Wed, 29 Jul 2009 02:15:00 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/index.php/?p=296#comment-9833 Hmmm, interesting. I have a couple of points of contention. The first is concerning your critique of Dawkins' assertion concerning the mistranslation of Joseph's profession. While you are correct that the earliest gospels we have are indeed in Greek, surely, as the mother tongue of the protagonists, these stories would have originally been handed down in Aramaic first, and then subject to later translation? I agree completely that this is conjecture, but it is conjecture based in logic. This brings me to my second point: You argue that the word Almah doesn't preclude virginity, and certainly I agree (the word was also applied to women in the first stage of betrothal, BTW), but are not any conclusions drawn from this subject to the same criticism as you levelled at Dawkins in the first instance? Hmmm, interesting.

I have a couple of points of contention. The first is concerning your critique of Dawkins’ assertion concerning the mistranslation of Joseph’s profession. While you are correct that the earliest gospels we have are indeed in Greek, surely, as the mother tongue of the protagonists, these stories would have originally been handed down in Aramaic first, and then subject to later translation? I agree completely that this is conjecture, but it is conjecture based in logic. This brings me to my second point:

You argue that the word Almah doesn’t preclude virginity, and certainly I agree (the word was also applied to women in the first stage of betrothal, BTW), but are not any conclusions drawn from this subject to the same criticism as you levelled at Dawkins in the first instance?

]]>