Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 56

Thread: Literal translations of Biblical names?

  1. #11
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,433
    Amen (Given)
    16097
    Amen (Received)
    3087
    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    The only instances in the earliest Hebrew consonantal text of Genesis where 'adam is unambiguously used as a name is in Genesis 4,25 and 5,3-5. On the basis of those texts, you could make a case that it was originally understood to be the name of a single man. Personally, I would not assume that the first man was named Adam, 'though the author(s) of these verses did, and the tendency of later translators and Masoretes tended to variously understand the earlier text of Genesis in this way, at the risk of obscuring the deep significance of the collective and symbolic force of ’adam in these Hebrew narratives.

    The LXX first uses the transliteration Adam (rather than a translation) at Gen 2,16, when Adam is commanded not to eat from the tree of life, but note that while he is addressed with one singular 2nd person verb in 2,16, this is immediately followed by three 2nd person plural verbs in 2,17. The LXX uses the transliteration more than other translations, but not exclusively after 2,16 (see 2,18.24 4,1 and 5,1). Does the Greek translator sometimes translate and other times transliterate ‘Adam’ because is trying to evoke the polyvalent sense of the Hebrew original that was otherwise lost in Hebrew? The Vulgate first uses the transliteration at 2,19, the naming of the animals. The Masoretic text does not vocalize the Hebrew consonantal text as a name until 3,17 (cursing of the ground) and 3,21 (making of clothes). Luther did not use the name Adam until Gen 3,8, after the fall of man. The King James Version followed the Vulgate in starting to use Adam at 2,19. Is Adam to be understood strictly as a name? That very much depends on what translation you read:

    MT arthrous: 1,27; Chapter 2: 14x (2,7bis.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1 Chapter 6: 6x; Chapters 7-25: 10x
    MT anarthrous: 1,26 2,5 (w אַ֔יִן)] [2,20* 3,17.21 (w לְ)] 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5 16,12
    DSS arthrous: 1,27 2,15.16.19; cf 1,26 plural verb 1,27 them
    Sam anarthrous: 1,26 2,5.7.25 3,8 4,25 5,1bis.2.3.4.5
    Sam arthrous: 1,27 2,7.8.15.16.18.19bis.20.21.22bis.23 3,9.12.20.22.24 4,1
    - Cannot say if 2,20 3,17.21 are arthrous or anarthrous because of prepositions
    LXX Anthropos: 1,26.27[o] Chapter 2: 6x (2,7bis[o].8[o].15[o].18[o].24; 4,1 5,1 Chapter 6: 11x; …
    LXX Adam: Chapter 2: 10x (2,16[o].19bis[o1x].20bis[o1x].21[o].22bis[o].23.25[o]); Chapter 3: 9x (3,8[o].9bis[o1x].12[o].17[o].20.21[o].22.24[o]); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
    Vulg Adam: Chapter 2: 8x (2,19bis.20.21.22bis.23.25); Chapter 3: 6x (3,8.9.12.20.22.24); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
    Vulg Homo, homines: Gen. 1,26-27 2,5.7-8.15.18.24 4,1 5,1
    Luther 1545 Adam: Chapter 3: 8x (3,8.9.12.17.20.21.22.24); 4,1.25 5,3[1x!]
    KJV Adam: Chapter 2: 6x (2,19bis.20bis.21.23); Chapter 3: 5x (3,8.9.17.20.21); 4,1.25 5,1.2.3.4.5
    NRSV Adam: 4,25 5,1.3.4.5
    It's not just "those texts" in Genesis that lead to Adam being the name of the first man, it's the context of the whole Bible. The Adam in Genesis 5:1 is the same one who's wife was Eve, who was to be the "mother of all the living", meaning that all mankind would be descended from her from then on. Then you have 1 Chronicles writing up the history back to the beginning, and starts with Adam. Then Luke does his genealogy leading back to "Adam, who was the son of God". Romans 5:12-14 that teaches that death came into the world through Adam's sin. 1 Corinthians 15 comparing the first and last Adam, and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 comparing Adam and Eve, and mentioning that Adam was formed first. All of these together make it unmistakably clear that Adam was the very first human, but you are so obsessed with a "deep significance" that you are throwing out the crystal clear meaning that actually is there for all to see.
    Safka, you are NOT "unknown", you were loved by many, and you will not be forgotten. I will always remember you Puginator.


  2. Amen hansgeorg amen'd this post.
  3. #12
    tWebber robrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Kingdom of God
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,865
    Amen (Given)
    896
    Amen (Received)
    1566
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    It's not just "those texts" in Genesis that lead to Adam being the name of the first man, it's the context of the whole Bible. The Adam in Genesis 5:1 is the same one who's wife was Eve, who was to be the "mother of all the living", meaning that all mankind would be descended from her from then on. Then you have 1 Chronicles writing up the history back to the beginning, and starts with Adam. Then Luke does his genealogy leading back to "Adam, who was the son of God". Romans 5:12-14 that teaches that death came into the world through Adam's sin. 1 Corinthians 15 comparing the first and last Adam, and 1 Timothy 2:13-14 comparing Adam and Eve, and mentioning that Adam was formed first. All of these together make it unmistakably clear that Adam was the very first human, but you are so obsessed with a "deep significance" that you are throwing out the crystal clear meaning that actually is there for all to see.
    I think you may have misunderstood. I did not say something like 'only those texts in the Bible', but rather, "The only instances in the earliest Hebrew consonantal text of Genesis ..." My intent is merely to best understand the meaning intended in the earlier narratives of Genesis, not to refute later theological reflection or interpretations based on those narratives by other authors. For example, I think you will see some of this same deeper significance in the writings of St Paul, where he understands Adam not merely as an historical man but also as a type of the coming one (Rom 5,14). We are all dying insofar as we are all ‘in’ Adam, but we shall all be made alive ‘in’ Christ (1 Cor 15,22). While Paul reads Adam as a name as early as Gen 2,7 (perhaps following a Greek text akin to the Samaritan text tradition I mentioned above or perhaps just making an allusion), he nonetheless still provides a preceding gloss which retains part of the Hebrew significance (‘the first human’), and significantly this ‘name’ Adam is shared by ‘the last Adam’, Christ (15,45). Paul is here speaking of the first human, but Christ is also the 'second human' (15,47). If he were only understanding the first man in a purely historical sense then the second man would not be Christ but Cain or Abel or Seth. We are ‘in’ Adam and ‘in’ Christ, the second Adam because of this collective understanding of ’adam as mankind. Likewise, Paul retains the ’adamah dimension of ’adam and incorporates it with the collective sense: 'The first man was from the earth, a man of dust … As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust … Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven' (15,47-49).
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

  4. #13
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by robrecht View Post
    I would never disagree with God, unless he wanted me to, but I'm not sure which hagiographer you are referring to here?
    When it comes to Genesis : Moses.

    + His sources, whether written and oral, back to Adam.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  5. #14
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    really hans, you should not be contributing to threads in biblical languages. You have absolutely no knowledge in the area.
    For one thing, I did start learning Greek, though mostly pre-koiné (Attic broadening more to Ionic and Homeric than to koiné).*

    I also know Hebrew has two "tenses" if that is the right word, a normal future being expressed in present and a prophetic in perfect tense.

    But seriously, I don't think you are referring to linguistic proficiency which can be gleaned by careful reading of the texts. I think you are referring to linguistic theories, which are another thing.

    I'll take Church Fathers over modern linguists any day, and when a modern linguist pretends Tower of Babel can't have happened as described because PIE, I prefer doubting PIE over doubting Holy Writte.

    * I forgot most. Ask John Reese if I didn't even mistake the Ionic form aiei for the Attic and Koiné form, which really is aei.
    Last edited by hansgeorg; 01-24-2017 at 04:04 PM.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  6. #15
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    35,041
    Amen (Given)
    3113
    Amen (Received)
    17067
    I think "Adam" is like the word "Earth" - just like "Earth" means "dirt" - "Adam" means "man"

    But just like "Earth" is also a proper name of the planet. So "Adam" is the first man's proper name.

    Did we name the planet after dirt? Or did dirt come to be called "earth" because of the name? Doesn't really matter.

    Adam could have been his actual name, but since he was the first human, it also came to be the name for the species, Mankind. Basically in English his name would be Man. But it would not only be his proper name, but the name of the species he started.

  7. Amen Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  8. #16
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Adam could have been his actual name, but since he was the first human, it also came to be the name for the species, Mankind. Basically in English his name would be Man. But it would not only be his proper name, but the name of the species he started.
    Heber was both a name of one line of Shemites and the name of the man starting it. (Lud and Asshur are two others).
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  9. #17
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    35,041
    Amen (Given)
    3113
    Amen (Received)
    17067
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    Heber was both a name of one line of Shemites and the name of the man starting it. (Lud and Asshur are two others).
    Israel.

  10. #18
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Israel.
    Another example, ancestor of main line of Hebrews.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

  11. #19
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    35,041
    Amen (Given)
    3113
    Amen (Received)
    17067
    Quote Originally Posted by hansgeorg View Post
    Another example, ancestor of main line of Hebrews.
    And every tribe.

  12. #20
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,276
    Amen (Given)
    168
    Amen (Received)
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    And every tribe.
    True enough, too.
    http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html

    Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •