Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary

On 15 Dec 2007 19:34:01 GMT, Garamond Lethe <cartographical@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

snip>

[Zoe said]
What do higher critics say "deep" means, please?

[Garamond said]
Obviously, none of the above invalidates divine inspiration. However, I
do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. If the
original translators into English had rendered Tehom as Neptune (and
that's an awful translation for several reasons, but bear with me), then
I think you'd have no trouble in concluding the passage was not to be
taken literally. However, I think the translators tried to capture what
was closer to the poetry of the text -- and I think "deep" is a
wonderful choice -- with the understanding that it would *not* be taken
literally.

<snip>
Your thoughts?

[Zoe said]
I think there are at least two ways to approach the many accounts found
worldwide with regard to creation and/or the flood, not to mention the
pervasive use of the word "Sabbath" in cultures worldwide. One way is to
suggest that they all (Hebrews included) copied each other's legends.
Another way would be to suggest that there was an original true event
which got corrupted as time passed. And the fact that certain accounts
are so widespread would lend credence to the idea that something
worldwide had indeed occurred.

If the second option is chosen, how does one recognize which is the
original true account, of which the many variations are but a reflection
of the true? For me, it is by weighing any indicators of authenticity
that surround a particular account. The Bible has, imo, these
indicators of authenticity.

Back to you....

I was trying (and failed) to ask a much narrower question: Should this
one particular word (Tehom/Tiamat) be given a literal interpretation?

I don't know. Why is a Babylonian term being used to understand a
Hebrew term? I am not versed in philology so would you kindly explain
why?

Meanwhile, I will attempt to explain my perspective, fully expecting
correction if I err.

I would not look at how a word is used in another country (say,
France) in order to understand the meaning of a word in the English
language. And I'm not talking about the origin of a word now, but the
common usage of a word within the context of a particular community.
Neither am I talking about the varied meanings that can be given a
word, as applied by translators.

It makes more sense to me to understand a word by seeing how it is
used within the same language, rather than going to another language
to determine its meaning. I think I would get a more accurate meaning
of a word by studying how that word is used by the same writer or
within the same community of writers. They would best know what they
mean when they use a word.

Also, if "deep" is being understood nonliterally to refer to chaos,
then what does "earth" mean in a nonliteral sense? And what is the
nonliteral meaning of "void" or "form" or even "God"? Or are we
making only certain words nonliteral? I do think God established
order upon chaos, but I'm not sure this particular verse is the one
for that. Maybe it is, but if it is, then we'd need the nonliteral
interpretation of the surrounding words, too.

So, to sum up (or maybe that's reiterate) the way I've understood
scripture is by letting writers from the same community expand on each
other's writings. That's what I mean by the Bible interprets itself.
We've come to look at the Bible as a single book and therefore feel
the need for outside commentary. But the Bible is actually a
compilation of different writings -- commentaries, if you will -- so
that it should be possible to get the most accurate understanding of
terms used by cross-referencing within these commentaries.

As to waters, the writer of that first verse in Genesis appears to
explain himself, imo, when he parallels "face of the deep" and "face
of the waters" followed by "dividing the waters" and next "separating
the waters from dry land."

As I understand it (and corrections are always welcome), there's no
support for thinking the author of this passage thought that Tiamat was a
real god. On the other hand, I assume there was a perfectly good word in
Hebrew for "oceans" that could have been used, if indeed that was the
literal state of the world at creation.

an ocean is identified within the context of land. In the beginning,
if taken literally, there was only water, no land, so I don't think
that the Hebrew word for "oceans" whatever that term is, would have
been used. Actually, so far, I've not come across a translation that
uses the word "oceans". "Sea" is used, always in the context of land.
It makes sense to me that waters without the context of land would
aptly be called "waters" or deep waters, or merely "deep."


If the above is correct (and it might not be), then the only
interpretation remaining is a metaphorical one: the conditions at
creation were *like* those that are brought to mind by this Babylonian
word.

I hope, by now, you have answered my query as to why one would try to
view one community's perspective through the perspective of another
community. I know I would be very upset if someone were to take a
word from my writing and interpreted it via someone else's writing,
instead of reading further into my own writing to get my true meaning.

So let's look at what we've done: We've moved from an English
translation to the historical study needed to determine the original word
(as best we can tell), we've done further study to determine how that
word was used both in the Hebraic and surrounding cultures, and thus
we're closer to understanding the intent of the author of the text. This
is hard, inexact work. It's much easier to stay with one translation and
state certain parts are not open to anything other than a literal
interpretation. But the effort can be worth it, and I think it is here.

If you'd like to put forward a contrasting view supporting a literal
reading, I'd be happy to hear it.

I have no scholarly reviews to offer you. But if my reasoning above
makes sense, why reject it?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... Another way would be to suggest that there was an original true event ... one particular word be given a literal interpretation? ... translation to the historical study needed to determine the original word ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Call for Participation - IVME04
    ... translation vs. interpretation in Transmeta's Code Morphing software. ... Each of these speakers is a key design engineer in the respective project ... Catenation and Specialization for Tcl Virtual Machine Performance ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
  • Re: To Garamond: Genesis Commentary
    ... I do think it presents a few issues for a literal reading. ... "Tehom" is a cognate of the Babylonian Tiamat, ... Maybe it is, but if it is, then we'd need the nonliteral interpretation ... But my point is the translation you're reading is not faithful to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Meteoric and Cometary impacts in historical times - Observations in History
    ... >my bookshelf (the Athanassakis translation). ... hangs on details of translation so much as the interpretation of the ... >And as evidence for this remarkable claim you offer... ... I investigate fires among other things. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Summary of playing scenes in the late 1800s and early 1900s Chinese literature
    ... Translation involves interpretation which in turn ... My understanding is that translation is straight transform of meaning, ... This is the context of the word, ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)