Anyone else here reads from the American Standard Version?

[OzSpen]

childofdust,

Why is your translation superior to these committee translations of the Bible? Which other competent Hebrew scholars have you consulted to affirm the accuracy of your translation?

These are some other translations (along with ESV and NRSV)

The ESV of Psalm 92:6-7 reads:

The stupid man cannot know;
the fool cannot understand this:
7 that though the wicked sprout like grass
and all evildoers flourish,
they are doomed to destruction forever;
​

The NIV of Psalm 92:6-7:

Senseless people do not know,
fools do not understand,
7 that though the wicked spring up like grass
and all evildoers flourish,
they will be destroyed forever
​

The NLT of Psalm 92:6-7:

Only a simpleton would not know,
and only a fool would not understand this:
7 Though the wicked sprout like weeds
and evildoers flourish,
they will be destroyed forever.
​

The NRSV of Psalm 92:6-7:

The dullard cannot know,
the stupid cannot understand this:
7 though the wicked sprout like grass
and all evildoers flourish,
they are doomed to destruction for ever,
​

The New American Bible of Psalm 92:7-8:

A senseless person cannot know this; a fool cannot comprehend. 8 Though the wicked flourish like grass and all sinners thrive, They are destined for eternal destruction;​

The New Jerusalem Bible of Psalm 92:7-8:

A senseless person cannot know this; a fool cannot comprehend​

8Though the wicked flourish like grass and all sinners thrive, They are destined for eternal destruction;

The New Jerusalem Bible of Psalm 92:6-7:

Stupid people cannot realise this, fools do not grasp it. 7 The wicked may sprout like weeds, and every evil-doer flourish, but only to be eternally destroyed;
​

NET Bible of Psalm 92:6-7

The spiritually insensitive do not recognize this; the fool does not understand this.
92:7 When the wicked sprout up like grass,
and all the evildoers glisten,
it is so that they may be annihilated.
​

Sincerely, Oz

Oh dear. Oh my. I never really looked at it, but I just gave it a gander and it's basically KJV 1.2. Ack!

One example of its multitudinous infelicities:
The difference: Nil.
The result: Disgusting!

Interestingly, few translations seem to veer from this complete atrocity:

YUCK!

The nice thing about the translations other than KJV and ASV, though, is that they are actually written in English as we read it and understand it. The word "brutish," for example, in the KJV/ASV is simply grotesque. And words like "knoweth" or "do flourish" are abysmal. And what does it possibly mean to be destroyed "forever"? Are we talking cycles of destruction or continual destruction or what? It could mean that the destruction is so final that such people will never see the light of day again. The phrase is not only unclear, but almost comical since it seems to imply that what is "destroyed," is not quite destroyed yet. There must be a better way of understanding the temporal markers than "destroyed forever" (whatever that means). Rather, I think, the temporal markers are an answer to the problem at hand (see below for more).

It is only by the time we reach HCSB and NRSV that we leave behind the dependence upon male gender that has nothing at all to do with the meaning of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew is speaking of collective categories of all people, not speaking of an "X kind of male."

And then the reference to "grass" seems out of place. Really? Wicked people and those who work injustice and wrong are being referred to as natural green verbiage that gives life to flocks and has no negative association? I'd think, rather, that the idea is a little more nuanced than that.

So here is how I translate it:

The incompetent one does not know,
the fool does not comprehend this:
when the wicked sprout like weeds
and all troublemakers flourish,
[it is] only until their extermination.

 

[childofdust]

childofdust,

Why is your translation superior to these committee translations of the Bible?

Read my previous post.

Which other competent Hebrew scholars have you consulted to affirm the accuracy of your translation?

I consulted the Hebrew. My tools were the works of scholars who put together the greatest Hebrew grammars of the past two centuries.

The NIV of Psalm 92:6-7:

Senseless people do not know,
fools do not understand,
7 that though the wicked spring up like grass
and all evildoers flourish,
they will be destroyed forever​

In addition to the aforementioned problems, the NIV adds another: it turns singulars into plurals by translating “senseless people” and “fools” for the singular nouns in the Hebrew.

The NLT of Psalm 92:6-7:

Only a simpleton would not know,
and only a fool would not understand this:
7 Though the wicked sprout like weeds
and evildoers flourish,
they will be destroyed forever.​

Glad to see that the NLT gets the nuance of the “wicked sprouting” right (ie: weeds). Too bad it fails on other counts.

The New Jerusalem Bible of Psalm 92:7-8:

A senseless person cannot know this; a fool cannot comprehend
8Though the wicked flourish like grass and all sinners thrive, They are destined for eternal destruction;​

“Sinners” is quite a translational stretch here. Glad to see, however, that the NJB gets the Hebrew verse system down correctly instead of using the Vulgate's numbering system.

They all still miss the point of the temporal markers and the result is nonsensical English “destroyed forever/eternal destruction.”

NET Bible of Psalm 92:6-7

The spiritually insensitive do not recognize this; the fool does not understand this.
92:7 When the wicked sprout up like grass,
and all the evildoers glisten,
it is so that they may be annihilated.​

The NET bible is the only one that gets the nuance of complete destruction down: “so that they may be annihilated.” I'd consider that a job well done. However, its rendering “spiritually insensitive” is horrendous.

 

[OzSpen]

child of dust,

No matter how good your understanding of Hebrew, your translation does not have the checks and balances of a committee translation of the Bible.

You seem to have failed to understand that the NIV, NLT, NAB, NJB and NET are dynamic equivalence translations. They are providing a meaning-for-meaning translation and not a word-for-word of a formal equivalence. Therefore the NIV is still conveying the correct meaning. So your comment about singular vs plural in the NIV is an irrelevant understanding.

You don't like the language of 'eternal destruction' but prefer annihilation, but 'eternal destruction' is a legitimate translation. We don't gain a meaning of 'eternal destruction' from one verse. We have the whole Bible to help us come to an understanding.

However, it seems to me that thou protesteth too much.

Oz


Also

Read my previous post.



I consulted the Hebrew. My tools were the works of scholars who put together the greatest Hebrew grammars of the past two centuries.

In addition to the aforementioned problems, the NIV adds another: it turns singulars into plurals by translating “senseless people” and “fools” for the singular nouns in the Hebrew.

Glad to see that the NLT gets the nuance of the “wicked sprouting” right (ie: weeds). Too bad it fails on other counts.

“Sinners” is quite a translational stretch here. Glad to see, however, that the NJB gets the Hebrew verse system down correctly instead of using the Vulgate's numbering system.

They all still miss the point of the temporal markers and the result is nonsensical English “destroyed forever/eternal destruction.”

The NET bible is the only one that gets the nuance of complete destruction down: “so that they may be annihilated.” I'd consider that a job well done. However, its rendering “spiritually insensitive” is horrendous.

 

[ananda]

The nice thing about the translations other than KJV and ASV, though, is that they are actually written in English as we read it and understand it.

The ASV is eminently accurate as much as any translation can be, in my experience. I also like the fact that it actually translates the Divine Name, without substituting "LORD" in its place. With sufficient desire & education, one can understand the KJV's and ASV's older English well enough. Do you criticize YHWH for writing His Scriptures in ancient Hebrew instead of 3rd grade modern English? No translation perfectly captures every facet of the original; I encourage all to start with paraphrases and dynamic translations for a grand overview, then move on to use more literal translations, interlinears & lexicons, and finally to study the original languages themselves. Lift men up to heaven; heaven cannot be brought down to hell.

I am reminded of how Jacob struggled hard with YHWH for His blessing, and he received it as a result. I am also reminded of how Messiah spoke in parables; the simple multitudes cannot understand because they do not desire to struggle hard to understand. They do not struggle with His Word for His blessing, instead preferring things handed to them on a silver platter.

This attitude is also symptomatic of how one also approaches The Way. It is not a way of ease: e.g, "pray this prayer, and just believe and you'll be saved!" It is, instead, as Messiah stated, a narrow gate and a difficult road which requires obedience and sacrifice - few will find it, and fewer will accept it without looking back.

 

[OzSpen]

childofdust,

My son is a Hebrew exegete and I asked him whether the last word(s) of Psalm 92:7 should be translated as "eternal destruction" (or a parallel phrase) or "annihilation". This was his response:

The answer is probably both. Hebrew is an approximate language. If you have a look through your tools, the word is Strong's number 8045. Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon shows the range of meaning is quite wide, and possibly includes annihilation. Not only that, to be "destroyed for ever" might have the implication of "destroyed completely", as in "destroyed for good" or "destroyed for all time".

Sincerely, Oz

 

[childofdust]

No matter how good your understanding of Hebrew, your translation does not have the checks and balances of a committee translation of the Bible.

Truth by committee? No thanks.

You seem to have failed to understand that the NIV, NLT, NAB, NJB and NET are dynamic equivalence translations.

You seem to have failed to understand that my problems with their translations stem from inadequate English renderings of the meaning of the Hebrew.

Therefore the NIV is still conveying the correct meaning. So your comment about singular vs plural in the NIV is an irrelevant understanding.

I take it, therefore, that when you read that Yeshua told Judas to go and betray him, that you wouldn't at all have a problem with translating it Yeshua told everyone to go betray him. Because who cares if it's singular or plural? Who cares if Yeshua was speaking only to one individual and not all the others? Yeshua obviously did. And so do I. And so does Biblical Hebrew poetry, which uses specific words chosen in terms of terseness and parallelism in order to communicate meaning. Verse 7 in the Hebrew (6 in the Vulgate/English), specifically uses singular nouns and verbs in order to creates its content and meaning. To disregard it is to disregard the poetry of the Hebrew entirely and thus to disregard what it means to communicate. The words of this psalm were not chosen at random as you would like to think they are. They are high art that exists for a purpose.

You don't like the language of 'eternal destruction' but prefer annihilation, but 'eternal destruction' is a legitimate translation.

Why? It is nonsensical English. And it utterly fails to comprehend the time markers, which refer to a length of time leading up to destruction, not the “eternality” of it (whatever that is supposed to mean!).

We don't gain a meaning of 'eternal destruction' from one verse. We have the whole Bible to help us come to an understanding.

Where was it that I made a comment related to how the rest of the entire biblical canon understands a concept? Oh, that's right, I didn't. Straw man.

However, it seems to me that thou protesteth too much.

Then why on earth spend time to write a lengthy response about something that is pointless on my end? It seems to me that thou art fond of wasting time on matters of frivolity.

childofdust,

My son is a Hebrew exegete and I asked him whether the last word(s) of Psalm 92:7 should be translated as "eternal destruction" (or a parallel phrase) or "annihilation". This was his response:

The answer is probably both. Hebrew is an approximate language. If you have a look through your tools, the word is Strong's number 8045. Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon shows the range of meaning is quite wide, and possibly includes annihilation. Not only that, to be "destroyed for ever" might have the implication of "destroyed completely", as in "destroyed for good" or "destroyed for all time".​

Sincerely, Oz

Nobody in academia references Strong's. It is the tool of the ignorant masses for doing word-matching. For one, it is EXTREMELY outdated, based on scholarship that is now over a century and a half old. A LOT OF THINGS have happened in the disciplines of Hebrew morphology, syntax, lexicon, grammar, phonology, etc, in that time. To use it as a resource is about as useful as asking what Joseph Smith would have believed the Hebrew is saying. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it for an exegete.

If one is going to reference extremely old, outdated scholarship, one should at least use the best available works (not popular, non-scholastic tools like Strongs) such as Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, which is still referred to today even though we must now disagree with it in many places. If your son wants to comprehend Hebrew, he needs to use better tools. You can tell him I said so. And here are a couple to help get him started:

1. Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar (not entirely reliable, but FAR MORE SO than Strongs)
2. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Walkte and O'Connor
3. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) by Koehler and Baumgartner
4. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew by Juon and Muraoka

 

[childofdust]

The ASV is eminently accurate as much as any translation can be, in my experience.

You must not have much experience.

I also like the fact that it actually translates the Divine Name, without substituting "LORD" in its place.

I also like that it doesn't translate the divine name as LORD. But that's a matter of personal preference, not accuracy of translation.

With sufficient desire & education, one can understand the KJV's and ASV's older English well enough.

With sufficient desire & education, one can understand the actual Hebrew of the scriptures themselves well enough and bypass any translation entirely.

Do you criticize YHWH for writing His Scriptures in ancient Hebrew instead of 3rd grade modern English?

Not at all. Rather, I ask them (see above) if they're serious enough and with sufficient desire to learn the Hebrew so that they can work with the ancient Word itself instead of a 17th Century Elizabethan English version of it.

No translation perfectly captures every facet of the original;

I never said they did. You must not be talking to me.

 

[ananda]

You must not have much experience.

I don't answer ad hominem attacks.

 

[OzSpen]

childofdust,

Nobody in academia references Strong's. It is the tool of the ignorant masses for doing word-matching. For one, it is EXTREMELY outdated, based on scholarship that is now over a century and a half old. A LOT OF THINGS have happened in the disciplines of Hebrew morphology, syntax, lexicon, grammar, phonology, etc, in that time. To use it as a resource is about as useful as asking what Joseph Smith would have believed the Hebrew is saying. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it for an exegete. If one is going to reference extremely old, outdated scholarship, one should at least use the best available works (not popular, non-scholastic tools like Strongs) such as Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, which is still referred to today even though we must now disagree with it in many places. If your son wants to comprehend Hebrew, he needs to use better tools. You can tell him I said so. And here are a couple to help get him started: 1. Gesenius's Hebrew Grammar (https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=n3cKAAAAIAAJ&rdid=book-n3cKAAAAIAAJ&rdot=1) (not entirely reliable, but FAR MORE SO than Strongs) 2. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax: Bruce K. Waltke, M. O'Connor: 9780931464317: Amazon.com: Books) by Walkte and O'Connor 3. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 volume set: Ludwig Kohler, L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner: 9789004124455: Amazon.com: Books) (HALOT) by Koehler and Baumgartner 4. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica): Paul Jouon, T. Muraoka: 9788876536298: Amazon.com: Books) by Juon and Muraoka

My son used his Hebrew grammars and lexicons and gave the summary from the Strong's that you don't understand. It is NOT the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance from the late 19th century that I have in my library.

You are out of date with what has happened with Strong's referencing.

I take it, therefore, that when you read that Yeshua told Judas to go and betray him, that you wouldn't at all have a problem with translating it Yeshua told everyone to go betray him. Because who cares if it's singular or plural? Who cares if Yeshua was speaking only to one individual and not all the others? Yeshua obviously did. And so do I. And so does Biblical Hebrew poetry, which uses specific words chosen in terms of terseness and parallelism in order to communicate meaning. Verse 7 in the Hebrew (6 in the Vulgate/English), specifically uses singular nouns and verbs in order to creates its content and meaning. To disregard it is to disregard the poetry of the Hebrew entirely and thus to disregard what it means to communicate. The words of this psalm were not chosen at random as you would like to think they are. They are high art that exists for a purpose.

This is a red herring logical fallacy.

Bye, Oz