A Leauki's Writings
How words tell the truth and can yet deceive with age
Published on August 9, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

This article is meant to give a quick idea of the events of Noah's flood and what the story is really about. A more full-featured essay will follow, but not very soon, as I am still working on some details.

 

Genesis 7:6 The Beginning of the Flood

ונח בן־שש מאות
שנה והמבול היה
מים על־הארץ

VeNoach ben-shesh meot
shana vehaMavol haya
mayim 3al-haAretz

Two words in this are difficult, or at least go against the traditional English reading of the Bible.


The first is the word "shana", which in modern Hebrew (and in the last 3000 years or so) means "year". But that's not what the root of the word means.

Thinking about the word and the ridiculous age of Biblical characters it occured to me that it cannot mean "year".

So I researched a bit and read the dictionary and followed Hebrew grammar and its rules and found the following interesting details:

1. The word "shana" is the absolute form of the word "shanat", the root is Shin Nun Tav.

Both Hebrew and Arabic have a special form of the letter Hei to differentiate a Hei standing in for a Tav in the root of the word. In Hebrew a dot in the middle of the He shows that it stands for a consonant, not a vowel before a missing Tav. But that dot was only introduced in the middle ages. In Arabic the letter Hei with a certain punctuation stands for a missing Tav (and is even called a type of Tav).

So I looked up the word "year" in Arabic and found several words, including one written Sin Nun He. "Sin" is a variant of "Shin" used when the letter is pronounced /s/ rather than /sh/ (like in "Israel" or "Sarah"). And the Hei is indeed a missing Tav. So the root is likely Shin Nun Tav.

2. The verb based on the root Shin Nun Tav is "lishnot" and means "to change".

3. "shana" is hence, literally, a "change".

 

4. Genesis and Exodus use the Babylonian calendar.

This is important because the Hebrew calendar is lunisolar, based on years. The calendar Genesis and Exodus use is based on months. While a "change" in a calendar based on years is clearly a "year", an "alteration" in a calendar based on months is equally clearly a month.

And it turns out if the numbers given in Genesis are read as months rather than years, most ages mentioned seem very normal. And Noah was 600 months, that is 50 years old when he built the ark.


The second difficult word is "haAretz".

It's not actually difficult but a change in the English language (and most others) has made it so. The King James Bible translates "haAretz" variously as "the earth" or "the land". A Latin translation translated "haAretz" as "terra". "Terra" means in Latin exactly what "eretz" means in Hebrew. It also translates as "earth" another Hebrew word, which means something slightly different: "adama".

What is "haAretz" (and "eretz", the same word without the definite article)? This seems to be very difficult for some to understand.

During the age of exploration unknown land was marked as "terra incognita". "Terra incognita" means "unknown land". The Germanic word "earth" (or "Erde" in German) meant the same. It's the thing at our feet, the opposite of the heavens.

"Adama" is the sandy material that the surface is mostly made of. Man was made out of it, hence man was called "Adam". Man contains blood, and blood is "dam". The Bible loves a good word game.

About 500 years ago the word "earth" was more and more used to mean "earth, the planet" rather than "earth, the surface". And 100 years ago science fiction writers started using Latin "terra" to mean our planet (the actual Latin word for planet earth is "tellus").

In English the meaning of the word "earth" has changed almost completely. British English still uses "earth" to refer to the surface (which Americans call "ground"). But in German the cognate "Erde" still means "earth, the surface" in normal conversation, and the south-African animal "Aardvark" ("earth piglet") was named for digging in the surface rather than for being peculiar to planet earth.

Since the meaning of the English word "earth" has changed since the Bible was first translated into Germanic languages, and since the meaning of the Latin word "terra" has likewise changed since then, translating "haAretz" as "the earth" is now nearly a mistake. (It is not really a mistake because "earth" still has the meaning "land" or "earth, the surface", but it's widely used to mean "earth, the planet".)

But if one reads "the earth" as "the planet earth" rather than "the land", the meaning of the Hebrew text is no longer reflected in the translation.

In ancient times people also didn't know that the earth (the planet) was round. They thought of "the earth" as being something flat to live on, under the heavens, surrounded by waters or more land. The image of a ball completely covered with water is a relatively recent invention, it is not what the authors and readers of the Bible then had in mind. They saw a flooded land, surrounded by mountains that defined the limits of the land. (A land is usually defined by mountains and rivers at its borders.)


With this being cleared up, we can now have a look at the text again:

veNoach ben-shesh meot
shana vehaMavol haya
mayim 3al-haAretz

Translation (literal):

"And Noah (is) son-six hundreds change and the flood was water on the land."

Hebrew doesn't have forms of "to be" for the present tense (they are implied). "Son [some number] [some unit]" is the normal way to say an age of a person in Hebrew.

 

Genesis 8:4 The End of the Flood

ותנח התבה בחדש
השביעי בשבעה־עשר
יום לחדש על הרי
אררט

VaTnach haTiva baHodesh
haShevi3i baShev3a-eser
yom laHodesh 3al hari
urartu.

The first word is really difficult and I didn't figure it out for a while. It's spelt Vav Tav Nun Het. A Vav at the beginning of a word usually means "and". And the King James Bible indeed translates "And the ark rested in the seventh month [...]". However, that translation doesn't explain the Tav.

Tav Nun Het is no word. So what does the Tav mean?

I wondered for a while and then remembered that a Vav at the beginning of a verb can also, mostly in Biblical Hebrew, change past tense to future tense and future tense to past tense. (What really happens is that in Hebrew an "and" before a verb negates the tense of the word and it presumably makes sense in Hebrew that it does so.)

There should be a word for "rest" or "land" (as in "the ark rested" or "landed") in the sentence. There is no such word after haTiva ("the ark") and Hebrew is gerally Verb-Subject-Object (at least Biblical Hebrew is).

So I looked up possible verbs and found "lehanachit" ("to land", "to bring about"). I looked up the root in "501 Hebrew Verbs" and found that Nun Het Tav is the word I am looking for.

But Tav Nun Het is not Nun Het Tav. So what was I missing?

501 Hebrew Verbs also mentions that there is a colloqial form of Nun Het Tav which skips the Tav. Hence "nach" (Nun Het) alone is a usable verb for our sentence and means "to land".

In this case the Tav is simply a part of the conjugation and makes the word "nach" future tense (third person singular masculine). And the Vav makes it past tense.

VaTnach haTiva baHodesh
haShevi3i baShev3a-eser
yom laHodesh 3al hari
urartu.

Translation:

"Landed the ark in the month the seventh at the seven-ten day in the month on the hills of Urartu."

Biblical Hebrew is written without vowels. Later Biblical Hebrew is written with long vowels where the letters Vav and Yud (/v/ and /y/) are also used to represent long vowels (/u/ and /o/, /i/ and /e/ respectively). But Genesis doesn't use Vav and Yud that way. (Arabic and Aramaic also use Aleph (glottal stop) for a long vowel (/a/), but Hebrew doesn't.)

I put in the vowels according to an easy algorithm:

1. If I knew the word, I'd simply use the correct vowels.

2. If I didn't know the word, I'd guess the vowels.

The first method worked for "tiva" ("ark") and "hodesh" ("month"). It also worked for "urartu".

Urartu was a kingdom existing in today's north-eastern Iraq (in the Kurdistan autonomous region) just behind Arbil (as seen from the south-west). Today's Mount Ararat is at the northern tip of the region. In 1200 BCE the kingdom was possibly well-known, but at Noah's time it didn't exist.

Hebrew "har" is not a mountain, it's a hill. And Noah did not land on the top of the mountains or a mountain but simply "on the hills". Northeastern Iraq is a mountainous region, but the relative height of the hills of Urartu wouldn't be that impressive. "Urartu", written without vowels, can be read as "Ararat". The two are the same word. (The word begins with an Aleph, a silent glottal stop: 'RRT. Fill in /u/ /a/ /-/ /u/ and you get "Urartu", fill in /a/ /a/ /a/ /-/ and you get "Ararat".)


So here we go. The Bible tells the story of a man and his family and animals living in a valley region in northern Mesopotamia, where floods happen a lot, who when he was 50 years old built a boat to rescue his family and animals when the land was flooded. And he landed on the hills next to the flooded valley land.

That is, literally and word for word, what the Bible tells us.

And that is exactly what I believe to be totally true.


To read "change" as "year" or "earth, the surface" as "earth, the planet" is an assumption we cannot safely make, a non-literal interpretation of the original text. Both came into use a long time after the events and are based on the changed meanings of words. For the English word "earth" we can easily see how and when the meaning of the word changed, but with Hebrew "shana" it was a bit more difficult.

 

Updates:

There are two roots Shin Nun Tav. One was Tav Nun Tav originally. Their meanings are closely related: "to repeat" (Tav Nun Tav) and "to change" (Shin Nun Tav).

The Aramaic survivor of the Tav Nun Tav root, "tana" (Tav Nun Aleph, the Aleph standing for the vowel /a/) means "teach".

The Arabic version of "shana" (سنة) shows the original Hei-for-Tav spelling of the word. (A Hei with two dots refers to a missing Tav that reappears in construct forms.)

Both Aramaic and Arabic spell "two" ("Shnaim") with a Tav rather than a Shin suggesting that the word for "two" derives from the Tav Nun Tav root.

Planned next:

The long version of the reading of Noah's story with comparisons with Sumerian legend. (Was Noah a Sumerian king?)

The story of Abraham and how it fits into the history of Aram and Canaan and why Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew.

The story of Adam and Eve and whether to read it literally or not. (Is a snake a snake or is it symbolic for the devil? What else is symbolic?)

The story of Ishmael and his descendants after being sent into "midbar" (the "wilderness") as per Arab legend and Quran.

The relationship between Sumar and Semitic tribes and Iranians and Kurds and Semitic tribes and how it affected Judaism and Zoroastrianism. (Did G-d sent prophets to the Israelites and the Iranians?)


I can assure you that you will be surprised!

 


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Aug 09, 2008

Very interesting, Leauki.  And impressive.  I am passing this article on to a rabbinical

friend for his feedback.  I'll let you know.

BTW, we usually spell out "He" as "hey" in the US.

It does seem to me that we invest a lot more into the text than may actually be there.

Be well.

on Aug 09, 2008

Very interesting, Leauki. And impressive. I am passing this article on to a rabbinical friend for his feedback. I'll let you know.


Very good. I probably made lots of mistakes they can find.




BTW, we usually spell out "He" as "hey" in the US.


Yes, that's because you are specifically referring to the Hebrew letter. But I am referring to the letter "He" of all those scripts, since I am comparing words.

"He" appears in Hebrew as Hey and in Arabic as Ha. "He" is the neutral term. And I needed the comparison with the Arabic word to prove the identity of the root Shin Nun Tav.

Note that in Noah's time Aramaic and Hebrew were still the same language. Arabic was already different though. It was the language spoken by the people who lived south-weast of Mesopotamia/Aram. Hence the root for "Arab" and "evening" ("west") is the same: Ayin Resh Bet, as is the root of Arabic "Maghreb" = "the west" = Mem Ghayin Resh Bet, with Ghayin being the fricative of Ayin, pronounced like the Ayin in Ghomorra or Ghaza. Ghayin is to Ayin as Vet is to Bet. A Mem in front of a root gets you a noun derived from the root. Compare kotev = write and miktav = letter.



It does seem to me that we invest a lot more into the text than may actually be there.


It's a Jewish legend. When Christianity and Islam converted the world, the Jewish legend became world history. I think we have to look at the Bible as Jewish legend rather than world history.

I absolutely believe that the legends are basically true, and inspired or written by G-d. But it was a message to be read by the people of Israel and that is the context we have to take into account. Other Semitic peoples have similar legends that actually share some older stories and then follow different tribes (obviously). All of these might be true or share a core of truth.

on Aug 10, 2008

Leauki, FYI:

 

Hi Harvey
 
Thanks for sharing the interesting commentary.
 
I think the column you sent is a good one, assuming one is familiar with the way that the Hebrew language works
 
I knew immediately where the author was going -- namely, that in Hebrew "shin, nun, hey" the word "year" also are the three letters in the verb meaning "change"....  As one of my teachers said often "There are no accidents in the Torah." The rabbis played with these two words... and others and explained that many times over in their commentaries. 
 
IMHO, that is why you seem to prefer the study of midrash to that of talmud and halacha!  You are a story teller and a wordsmith, and if you were more fluent with Hebrew you could do that a lot. 
 
There are ways in which you can juxtapose letters and find uses of the same word with an entirely different meanings in one context than in another.
 
I love to play these kinds of "word games" too.  Sometimes you stumble on profound truths as you play with words and "roots."  That is why I like "playing with texts" which the rabbis did in the midrash all the time.
 
Enjoy.... soak it in... and as Ben Bag Bag said in the Pirkei Avot "turn it, turn it, for all is in it!"
 
Take care.
 
See you soon.  Best to you Jacob and Judy!
 
Jerry
 
Rabbi Gerald M. Kane
Rabbi Emeritus
Temple Beth-El
on Aug 10, 2008
Harvey, ey?

Good commentary by Rabbi Kane! But he did reduce my article to the "shana" question which wasn't even my major point. Although I realise that the "eretz" question is less controversial among Jewish interpreters of the Tora and hence didn't warrant addressing as much.

Well, I guess this means I have to study more. I don't have time for full-time study but I will return to Israel next year for more.

Do look forward to the rest of the Noah story in a few weeks!
on Aug 10, 2008
Hello Leauki,

Yes, Harvey Sodaiho Hilbert. Rabbi Kane is not a linguist, but he is quite perceptive I think. I have another rabbi friend, actually our Temple's new rabbi, coming into town in a few days. I'll share your piece with him, as well.

I am surprised that KFC or Lula have not dropped by here on this blog as yet.

Be well...and I am looking forward to reading your work.

on Aug 10, 2008

SoDaiho posts:

I am surprised that KFC or Lula have not dropped by here on this blog as yet.

Count me in.

 

 

on Aug 10, 2008

Modern Hebrew

ונח בן־שש מאות
שנה והמבול היה
מים על־הארץ׃

 

Hebrew Transliterated
7:6 VNCh BN-ShSh M'aVTh ShNH VHMBVL HYH MYM 'yL-H'aUrTSh.

 

Latin Vulgate
7:6 eratque sescentorum annorum quando diluvii aquae inundaverunt super terram

 

King James Version
7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

 

American Standard Version
7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

 

Bible in Basic English
7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the waters came flowing over all the earth.

 

Darby's English Translation
7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was on the earth.

 

Douay Rheims Bible
7:6 And he was six hundred years old, when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth.

 

Noah Webster Bible
7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was on the earth.

 

World English Bible
7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came on the earth.

 

Young's Literal Translation
7:6 and Noah is a son of six hundred years, and the deluge of waters hath been upon the earth.

 

Modern Hebrew

ותנח התבה בחדש
השביעי בשבעה־עשר
יום לחדש על הרי
אררט׃

 

Hebrew Transliterated
8:4 VThNCh HThBH BChDSh HShBY'yY BShB'yH-'yShUr YVM LChDSh 'yL HUrY 'aUrUrT.

 

Latin Vulgate
8:4 requievitque arca mense septimo vicesima septima die mensis super montes Armeniae

 

King James Version
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

 

American Standard Version
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

 

Bible in Basic English
8:4 And on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

 

Darby's English Translation
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat.

 

Douay Rheims Bible
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia.

 

Noah Webster Bible
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

 

World English Bible
8:4 The ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on Ararat`s mountains.

 

Young's Literal Translation
8:4 And the ark resteth, in the seventh month, in the seventeenth day of the month, on mountains of Ararat;

 

I hope you're not offended Leauki, but I'll take thousands of years of Hebrew and Biblical scholars who would disagree with your findings.  The months/years findings by you wouldn't mesh with the geneologies and you're going to run into some pretty significant problems.  There is a definite difference of ages before the flood and after the flood.  So after the flood when they only lived to say 70 or 80 are you going to say those are months as well? 

You can't do for one and not for the other can you? 

 Besides all that when it says the ark rested on the 7th month what is that.....a day or 7 seven days?  It says month.  Later we know what the 7th months stands for don't we?  Isn't it the most holy month of the Jewish Calendar?  So if you take that to mean literal month, why wouldn't you take Noah's age to be literal years? 

 So why doesn't it say Noah was 600 months instead of year?  If we see "month" used here in 8:4 why not use it for Noah's age? Why did it take Noah over a year to get out of the boat if it were only a little local flood?   Now is that a real year or a month?  When you look at all the numbers be it ages, or months or days, the scripture is very detailed. 

 

on Aug 10, 2008

Hebrew "har" is not a mountain, it's a hill. And Noah did not land on the top of the mountains or a mountain but simply "on the hills". Northeastern Iraq is a mountainous region, but the relative height of the hills of Urartu wouldn't be that impressive. "Urartu", written without vowels, can be read as "Ararat". The two are the same word. (The word begins with an Aleph, a silent glottal stop: 'RRT. Fill in /u/ /a/ /-/ /u/ and you get "Urartu", fill in /a/ /a/ /a/ /-/ and you get "Ararat".)

I suspect "hills" is better as well.  I'm not sure why both of my translations of the Torah use "mountains" when in their commentaries they refer to the area as "hill country".  The Urartu region, I understand, takes in parts of Armenia, Turkey, Iraq and Iran.   

Be well.

_______________

BTW, Good to see you, Lula.

Be well.

on Aug 11, 2008


I hope you're not offended Leauki, but I'll take thousands of years of Hebrew and Biblical scholars who would disagree with your findings.


Perhaps, but my findings are compatible with what I observe. Human beings do not grow to be 600 years old. But they do build boats with 50 if they want to.
th
If I compare two translations of a text, one based on the roots of the words and within the realm of possibility and the other based on modern (3000 year old and younger) meanings of words and outside the realm of possibility, I accept the first.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.



The months/years findings by you wouldn't mesh with the geneologies and you're going to run into some pretty significant problems.


No, I went through the lot. There are no problems at all. Once you switch the meaning of "shana" to adopt whatever is the basic unit of the calendar used at the time, everyone reaches a normal age.



There is a definite difference of ages before the flood and after the flood. So after the flood when they only lived to say 70 or 80 are you going to say those are months as well?


You see the difference. My claim is that that difference is due to the different interpretation of "shana" before and after introduction of a solar calendar.

I believe that an "alteration" (the literal meaning of "shana") depends on the calendar used. And using that assumption I find that the Bible reports credible and possible ages for almost every character, before and after the flood.


You can't do for one and not for the other can you?


I wasn't. I specifically referred to "shana" being relative to the calendar used.



Besides all that when it says the ark rested on the 7th month what is that.....a day or 7 seven days? It says month.


That's a point in time, not a period. The point in time month is defined by the new moon. In a lunar calendar, a month is equal to an alteration. But a period of time could still be given in alterations rather than months.



Later we know what the 7th months stands for don't we? Isn't it the most holy month of the Jewish Calendar? So if you take that to mean literal month, why wouldn't you take Noah's age to be literal years?


It's for the simple reason that while "hodesh" LITERALLY means "month" (actually it means "newism" based on "hadash" = "new", probably referring to the new moon), "shana" does NOT literally mean "year".

My translation is literal, hence I used the literal translation of each word.

But "year" is not the literal translation of "shana". "Year" is the meaning of "shana" in a solar or lunisolar calendar.


So why doesn't it say Noah was 600 months instead of year? If we see "month" used here in 8:4 why not use it for Noah's age? Why did it take Noah over a year to get out of the boat if it were only a little local flood? Now is that a real year or a month?


It doesn't say 600 months and it doesn't say 600 years. It says "600 alteration(s)".

Perhaps the word for "month" (based on "new moon") was not appropriate for time periods?

And note that using my translation it doesn't take Noah over a year to get out of the boat, but merely a few weeks. For a big boat like that six or so weeks make sense for unloading everything, don't you think?

Sorry, KFC, my translation is sound with no such simple internal contradictions.

As for the thousands of years of Biblical and Hebrew scholars, I think you are making a big mistake.

Their number or age does not make them right, only the validity of their translations and interpretation would. If they cannot explain why "shana" means "year" despite the fact that their translation gives us an impossible age for Noah and other people, they are not very good. My translation explains both where the word "shana" comes from and how it was possible for Noah to have an age of 600 of the things.

I also assume that they worked off each other. I cannot imagine that most of the translators thought about where the word "shana" came from when other scholars had already decided that it means "year".

It is entirely possible for all those scholars to have been wrong for 2000 years, just as you claim rabbinic Judaism was wrong in rejecting Jesus as the Messiah.

Besides, not all Biblical scholars in the past agreed that "shana" meant "year". As Sodaiho mentioned, the rabbis had already entertained different translations and interpretations including the "shana" = "alteration" method. I don't even think that my translation is a new idea.

It just turns out that if you translate Noah completely literally the story is suddenly devoid of any major inconsistencies.

on Aug 11, 2008
KFC,

WOW! WOW! WOW! on your post # 7!

I was preparing to post something similiar to this without the Hebrew though.

I'll take thousands of years of Hebrew and Biblical scholars who would disagree with your findings.


While Leauki obviously disagrees, this is a rock solid point. Over the years, hundreds of different scholars from all over the religious and perhaps non-religious spectrum have translated these passages pretty much identical. They couldn't all be wrong.

Leauki posts:
As for the thousands of years of Biblical and Hebrew scholars, I think you are making a big mistake.

Their number of age does not make them right, only the validity of their translations and interpretation does. If they cannot explain why "shana" means "year" despite the fact that their translation gives us an impossible age for Noah and other people, they are not very good. My translation explains both where the word "shana" comes from and how it was possible for Noah to have an age of 600 of the things.


As for the validity of their translations and interpretations, I maintain that St.Jerome's translation was the best, most accurate ever. Directly from the ancient Hebrew, he produced the Old Italia Version, later made into the Latin Vulgate from which the Douay Rheims English translation comes. This is going to drive you up the wall, but again, that's all I need to know. That all the other translations are basically the same supports that the translation is correct even more.

That takes care of the translation as far as I'm concerned. I'm confident it's correct.

Whenever I read or study Sacred Scripture, it's always in light of Catholic Church teaching on the interpretation. To my knowledge, while the Church has spoken definitively about Genesis 1-11, she hasn't spoken as to longevity of the Patriarchs, so it's open to discussion.

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, wrote that the literal and obvious
sense must be believed unless reason or necessity forces us to reject that in favor of an exclusively figurative inpterpretation.

In the case of the Genesis account of the Flood, the literal interpretation was the widely held belief amongst most everyone basically until surprise, surprise,----the 19th century when the word evolution became identified with the theory of Darwin, who by excluding God from creation, used it to explain the origin of animal species according to the supposed fact of the geological time scale.

When you look at all the numbers be it ages, or months or days, the scripture is very detailed.



Exactly. And this is another reason I think "year" is to be understood in the literal sense. It's because time itself, as we know it, began with the creation of the world, Genesis 1:1 , "In the beginning (of time) God created heaven and earth."

We know that God is not a God of confusion..and we know that He is definitely telling us something about time in the words of Genesis...it makes perfect sense that He would write terms of time as we know it and not have to go through hoops and loops understanding what seems is right in front of us as opposed to the numbers and language of the Book of the Apocalypse for example.

Also, we have the benefit of examining the Flood and the long years of life of the Patriarchs from the perspective of history and even science which in my view is quite consistent with the literal translation. I'll get to that in another post.



on Aug 11, 2008

While Leauki obviously disagrees, this is a rock solid point. Over the years, hundreds of different scholars from all over the religious and perhaps non-religious spectrum have translated these passages pretty much identical. They couldn't all be wrong.


It's not "rock-solid" because I had already addressed it in my article.

First of all, they COULD all be wrong. There is nothing holy about them and everyone reading Torah can be wrong. Only Torah is right (if we believe in a godly source).

Second, the "rock-solid point" misses the point.



As for the validity of their translations and interpretations, I maintain that St.Jerome's translation was the best, most accurate ever.


His translation was the best, I agree. I don't know if it really is, but from the Latin and Hebrew I know it seems very accurate. You have read my statements about Latin "terra" (= "land") and how it almost exactly matches the meaning of Hebrew "eretz". I have no problem with Jerome's translation.

You both misunderstood my point.

My point was not that "shana" did not mean "year" when Jerome and the others translated the texts. My point was that "shana" ultimately means "alteration" and that it didn't necessarily mean "year" at the time of Noah. I think the equation "alteration" = "year" became valid only when a solar calendar was introduced. Before that the equation "alteration" = "month" held true.

If you show me a single text where a translator or scholar actually addressed the fact that "shana "literally means "alteration" and concluded that the translation as "year" at a time when a lunar calendar was used was valid and explains why, we can talk about the validity of previous translations.

Until then I have to say that any translator who didn't address the literal meaning of "shana" CANNOT have arrived at the conclusion that it means "year" unless he took that translation from the meaning the word acquired at a later period.

So you are all missing the point. I am not doubting all those translations. I am convinced (and I know) that "shana" meant "year" when they translated the text. What I am NOT convinced of is that "shana" meant "year" during Noah's time.

And any translation that doesn't even address the fact that the noun for "to alter" is calendar-dependent when applied to periods of time CANNOT be correct. In other words, the translation "shana" = " year" can be correct but ONLY if the translator found a way to explain why it meant "year" before a solar calendar was used. If the translator doesn't address that question, his translation is hit-and-miss.

It's like translating the English word "girl" into German as "Maedchen". While "Maedchen" does mean a female child, the English word "girl" did not always mean that. Hence the word "girl" in a story written a thousand years ago would have to be translated differently, regardless how many great scholars didn't recognise the change of meaning the word underwent over the centuries.

If you want to invalidate my translation, you would have to find evidence for why "shana" means "year" long before the translations were made. The translations themselves do not provide such evidence.

I will be looking for more evidence. What I did find is that the normal Arabic word for year is not "shana" but "3am", while "shana" is a secondary word meaning "year". The Wikipedia article on it explains that it is defined by its length in days.

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85

Islam uses a lunar calendar. This suggests that the word "shana" changed its meaning in a culture where a lunar calendar was used and was replaced by a solar calendar of some type (and the "alteration" became longer). It later found its way into Arabic as "year", probably when Muhammed brought that new meaning from the Bible.



on Aug 11, 2008

This is going to drive you up the wall, but again, that's all I need to know.


We talked about the problem of stop-religionism before.

For ME, there is NEVER a point when something is all I need to know. That's not how I approach holy scripture that I believe contains the truth.

What's "driving me up the wall", btw, is not the fact that you don't feel a need to understand scripture, but that you are so arrogant as to claim that you know the truth even though you define for yourself when to stop looking.

on Aug 11, 2008

Very interesting, Leauki.


Even though I disagree with Leauki's conclusion , I must agree, SoDaiho, it is interesting.   



There are ways in which you can juxtapose letters and find uses of the same word with an entirely different meanings in one context than in another.


I suppose this is true of every langauge.

I love to play these kinds of "word games" too. Sometimes you stumble on profound truths as you play with words and "roots."


And sometimes it's best just to leave it as playing word games.
on Aug 11, 2008
My point was not that "shana" did not mean "year" when Jerome and the others translated the texts. My point was that "shana" ultimately means "alteration" and that it didn't necessarily mean "year" at the time of Noah. I think the equation "alteration" = "year" became valid only when a solar calendar was introduced. Before that the equation "alteration" = "month" held true.


St.Jerome was a linguistic genious...(IMO, it was by God's providence that he was the one given the job.) If it is as you say that "shana" ultimately means "alteration", then why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Could he have known something you don't?
on Aug 11, 2008
This is going to drive you up the wall, but again, that's all I need to know.



We talked about the problem of stop-religionism before.

For ME, there is NEVER a point when something is all I need to know. That's not how I approach holy scripture that I believe contains the truth.


We are in agreement that Holy Scripture contains the truth.

Once more,

As far as stop-religionism goes, I stop with the Catholic Church...and I fully understand this doesn't make sense to many people. Rather than rely upon myself or others in religious matters of faith and morals, I rely upon the Church and her teachings and contrast all others to that. That's why I say that as far as the Biblical translation goes, the Douay Rheims is all I need to know. I'm super confident that it's the true translation, in other words it's the truth..

So, that's where I start...but that doesn't mean that my search to know or understand the meaning of Scripture stops....far from it for that's an ongoing work and where the Church hasn't spoken definitively on the meaning of a particular Scriptural passage, and the very reason why I'm interested to read your article and discuss. There's always room to learn a thing or two from others.



4 Pages1 2 3  Last