- Oct 2, 2011
- 6,061
- 2,237
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
English Standard Version, Ec 4:
עֲדֶ֖ן (‘ă·ḏen)
Adverb
Strong's 5728: Hitherto, still
existed,
הָיָ֑ה (hā·yāh)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1961: To fall out, come to pass, become, be
ESV faithfully translated the original Hebrew word for word.
Let P1 = a person who has not yet been.
Will P1 exist some time in the future?
I think so. There is a strong suggestion of that because of the word 'yet'.
On the other hand, NIV:
Let P2 = a person who has never been born.
Will P2 be born some time in the future?
According to NIV, it is ambiguous. P2 may or may not be born in the future because the word 'yet' is missing.
If P2 is never born, then P2 does not exist. NIV could mean that the dead and the living are better than those who never exist. The phrase 'the ones never exist' is self-contradictory. If P2 never exists then P2 is not a person. If P2 is a person, then P2 exists somewhere.
ESV's translation makes better logical sense than NIV's.
Five chapters later, the Qohelet was more optimistic, Ec 9:
1 Again I saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun. And behold, the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them! On the side of their oppressors there was power, and there was no one to comfort them. 2 And I thought the dead who are already dead more fortunate than the living who are still alive.
- the dead in the past
- the living in the present
- the ones coming in the future
yet4 But better than both is he who has not yet been and has not seen the evil deeds that are done under the sun.
עֲדֶ֖ן (‘ă·ḏen)
Adverb
Strong's 5728: Hitherto, still
existed,
הָיָ֑ה (hā·yāh)
Verb - Qal - Perfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1961: To fall out, come to pass, become, be
ESV faithfully translated the original Hebrew word for word.
Let P1 = a person who has not yet been.
Will P1 exist some time in the future?
I think so. There is a strong suggestion of that because of the word 'yet'.
On the other hand, NIV:
NIV used the dynamic equivalent approach as translation philosophy. The difference between the two translations hinges on the word 'yet'.3 But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.
Let P2 = a person who has never been born.
Will P2 be born some time in the future?
According to NIV, it is ambiguous. P2 may or may not be born in the future because the word 'yet' is missing.
If P2 is never born, then P2 does not exist. NIV could mean that the dead and the living are better than those who never exist. The phrase 'the ones never exist' is self-contradictory. If P2 never exists then P2 is not a person. If P2 is a person, then P2 exists somewhere.
ESV's translation makes better logical sense than NIV's.
Five chapters later, the Qohelet was more optimistic, Ec 9:
e.g., P14 But he who is joined with all the living has hope,
Existence is better than non-existence. P1 is better than P2. In any case, Ecclesiastes is open to philosophical interpretations and speculations.for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.