Joan of Bark

The NIV renders this passage thusly:

NI Reader's Version is similar:

The New Living Translation:

God's Word Translation:

All other Bibles I've checked out exclude any absolute words like everything, every, all, nothing but ...

My question is, what are we to make of the authors (if the world is accurately rendered from the Hebrew) or the translators (if they've botched it) of this passage? Were they really so self-hating as to believe that all every thought is evil? Doesn't that mean that even worshipping YHWH / God is evil?

Please comment on the accuracy of the translation and go from there.

andrewcriddle

Various other translations can be found at genesis 8-21 it looks as if the more paraphrase-like translations have everything, every, all, nothing but ... while the word-for-word translations omit such terms.

However the paraphrase may be justified. The point of the passage seems to be that no matter how utterly rotten humans are, God will still not send another flood.

Andrew Criddle

John Kesler

But why wouldn't he, since the stated reason for not sending one is given as the very reason he sent the flood to begin with!

Yahweh was dismayed that man's thoughts were evil, then sent a flood to kill everyone. But he promised never to do it again because...man's heart is evil!

aa5874

But, the Devil is not recorded to have drowned ALL the babies of the world, not even in the Bible.

And, why send another flood when he has prepared a LAKE of FIRE?

I think the GOD of the Bible is a DECEIVER.

Joan of Bark

I agree on the point of the passage, but I'm interested in the details. Why use words of absolutism when it results in the conclusion that even worshipping God is evil? I know the Bible often uses hyperbole to make a point, but in this case it seems extreme.

andrewcriddle

As I said above, the absolutism comes IIUC from the tramslators paraphrasing the passage. Personally I prefer the more literal word-for-word translations.

Andrew Criddle

HaRaAYaH

According to Targum Onkelos the correct translation is;

Onkelos on the Torah: Understanding the Bible Text the Book of Genesis pg 44-46

Onkelos is known for the most succinct and direct translation using the plain meaning of the text. Onkelos rejects the idea this is from birth. This conforms with the Jewish idea of the Yetzer Hara and Yetzer Ha Tov.. This is certainly not a universal Jewish view as Rashi holds it means from birth. Put a plain reading of the text indicates from youth or childhood.

Also note the reference to pleasing odor is removed as Onkelos removed all corporeal references to God.

HaRaAYaH

Not necessarily as there are idioms or conventions of the time that defy word for word translation such as the statement in Daniel that a Jew should worship God, erev va-voker ve-tzahorayim. Literally word for word it means:

a Jew should worship God evening morning and afternoon. This might be an idiom that expresses a joyful carrying out of the obligation to worship at all times it would be better rendered into English as morning, noon and night, for that is an English idiom that means the same thing.
Heavenly Torah as Refracted through the Generations. Preface Pages XXXI-XXXII.

Joan of Bark

No one seems to have an answer to my main question; I'll try once again ...

Why would the translators (whether their translations are correct or not) use words of absolutism when it clearly generates such a ridiculous conclusion.

Andrew, you say they are paraphrasing, but in the four versions I cited in the OP, the words of absolutism could be replaced by just one other word. The NIV version could replace every with the. In the Reader's version, always could be replaced with generally. There's no paraphrasing evident in these versions.

ApostateAbe

Joan of Bark, I was told, raised in church, that humans are inherently evil and infinitely inferior to God. This may not be so far off from what the ancient Jews may have believed. They were especially authoritarian in their religion. An infinitely supreme leader such as God looks down on his lowliest of low subjects with seething contempt, and it is only with the sort of mercy that emerges from perfection that he humbles himself enough to be their God, to protect them and represent them, instead of wipe them off the Earth because of their sin. I wouldn't necessarily interpret those words with the same absolutism that they denote--it is hyperbole designed to emphasize the magnitude of human sin in comparison to God.