The late Martin Luther King Jr. was somewhat a hero of mine growing up, although I was never so thoroughly indoctrinated into his cult so as to confuse him with the original Martin Luther, whose name he shared for all of his public life (although it appears that he never legally changed his name from Michael L. King, and was known in his early ministry as "M. L. King").
I was so enthralled with his "I Have a Dream" speech that I memorized it for delivery at the annual MLK Holiday one year. Alas, being judged by the color of my skin, I was encouraged to find some other way of celebrating the holiday. Well, I didn't let that get me down, but as time went on I did find out more and more about MLK that dimmed my appreciation for him. But I still like the speech.
In the speech, Martin made reference to his sons and daughters:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Martin and Coretta's four children did grow up, and outlived them both. But one thing they did not do was provide the Kings with any grandchildren. Incredibly, when Coretta died in 2006 at the age of seventy-eight, none of her four children had produced any legal issue. In fact, none of them were even married. Her oldest son, MLK III, had yet to legitimize his relationship with his girlfriend, who later bore their child. Her oldest daughter Yolanda died the following year, and the remaining three are embroiled in a legal dispute over the administration of their father's legacy.
Martin got his wish---but not the way he wanted, I'm sure. His "four little children" are being judged by the content of their character--in fact, they're even calling each other's character into question as I write.
Well, I have a dream. It's perhaps not as grandiose as Martin Luther King's, but I'd say its chances of being fulfilled are at least as good. None of my children are yet married, so I have no grandchildren. But I dream of spending the last half of my life welcoming dozens of grandchildren into the world, one after another. I even dream of seeing my oldest grandchildren get married and have children of their own. I dream of setting up a society in memory of my father, membership in which being limited to his agnate descendants--and there being no inactive members.
I'm not out to leave a media legacy for my children to squabble over--or even to get my name on the history sites. I'm out to leave a legacy of descendants who can be glad to be judged by the content of their character--whether or not they are still being judged by the color of their skin--or the lack thereof.
Counter
Friday, 29 May 2009
Thursday, 28 May 2009
A politically incorrect cure for Sickle Cell Anemia
This should be really big news--a painful and often fatal genetic disease can now be rendered symptom-free through a process that has just recently fallen out of political favour. Sickle Cell Anemia, caused by a defective gene carried by millions of people whose ancestors lived in malarial areas areas of the world, is still being 'treated' by killing the patient. There isn't any drug or surgery that can wholly prevent the crippling anemic attacks brought on by a change in temperature or air pressure, but now there's a cure that totally eliminates symptoms of the disease. And it involves the use of adult stem cells.
Proponents of federal stem cell research, from President Obama on down, claim that unless unborn baby parts are harvested for use in treating people who have already been born, many diseases will go uncured. In fact, the opposite is true. Embryonic stem cells have never proved successful at treating any disease, despite the research dollars being thrown at the problem. But adult stem cells--not harvested from a murder victim, but from a living donor--have now succeeded in curing Sickle Cell Anemia.
Sickle Cell Anemia has a dark past. It emerged in mosquito-infested tropical Africa and spread throughout the Mediterranean basin as natural selection weeded out those who didn't carry the gene. It was brought to the United States from the malarial regions of West Africa by slaves who carried the gene for it, but showed no symptoms other than the bizarre resistance to malaria that is only present in those who have the gene but not the disease. The world's leading researcher on the sociological factors of Sickle Cell Anemia, Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, who himself carries the trait, has shown that the practice of polygamy served to further concentrate the gene in the West African population.
There is still no genetic cure for Sickle Cell. But bone-marrow transplant of adult stem cells does hold out the hope of a life lived without the crippling effects of having two defective copies of the hemoglobin gene. And fortunately for them, this technique was developed before President Obama banned the use of federal funds to research adult stem cell therapy.
Proponents of federal stem cell research, from President Obama on down, claim that unless unborn baby parts are harvested for use in treating people who have already been born, many diseases will go uncured. In fact, the opposite is true. Embryonic stem cells have never proved successful at treating any disease, despite the research dollars being thrown at the problem. But adult stem cells--not harvested from a murder victim, but from a living donor--have now succeeded in curing Sickle Cell Anemia.
Sickle Cell Anemia has a dark past. It emerged in mosquito-infested tropical Africa and spread throughout the Mediterranean basin as natural selection weeded out those who didn't carry the gene. It was brought to the United States from the malarial regions of West Africa by slaves who carried the gene for it, but showed no symptoms other than the bizarre resistance to malaria that is only present in those who have the gene but not the disease. The world's leading researcher on the sociological factors of Sickle Cell Anemia, Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, who himself carries the trait, has shown that the practice of polygamy served to further concentrate the gene in the West African population.
There is still no genetic cure for Sickle Cell. But bone-marrow transplant of adult stem cells does hold out the hope of a life lived without the crippling effects of having two defective copies of the hemoglobin gene. And fortunately for them, this technique was developed before President Obama banned the use of federal funds to research adult stem cell therapy.
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Between her WHAT?
What ought to be removed from between an adulterous woman's breasts?
Translators have struggled to answer this question (raised by Hosea 2:2), and most have decided to just leave it as it is. Those who have changed the wording, though, haven't done so well. They started with misdirected modesty and ended up with vulgarity. Along the way they totally lost the impact of the anthropomorphic language that is key to understanding the message of Hosea.
Most versions are pretty straightforward:
OKJV: let her therefore put away her whoredomes out of her sight, and her adulteries from betweene her breasts;
NASB: let her put away her harlotry from her face And her adultery from between her breasts,
YLT: she turneth her whoredoms from before her, And her adulteries from between her breasts,
DBY: let her put away her whoredoms from her face, and her adulteries from between her breasts;
WEB: let her put away her prostitution from her face, and her adulteries from between her breasts;
NKJV: Let her put away her harlotries from her sight, And her adulteries from between her breasts;
The obvious meaning, as expressed in Hebrew parallelism, is to stop seeking and participating in adultery.
It is possible to put this in entirely modern English and still get the point:
NCV: Tell her to stop acting like a prostitute, to stop behaving like an unfaithful wife.
But it hasn't been all that obvious to some who take the dynamic equivalent approach; they just can't seem to put that geographically vital area between the breasts out of their sight:
NIV: Let her remove the adulterous look from her face and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.
Adulterous "look?" This is heading us in the wrong direction--watch where it takes us!
NLT: Tell her to take off her garish makeup and suggestive clothing and to stop playing the prostitute.
Makeup?! Here we have a literal translation of the paraphrase "the 'adulterous' look."
And actually, I think taking off suggestive clothing is a big part of playing the prostitute!
MSG: Tell her to quit dressing like a whore, displaying her breasts for sale.
By the way, adulterous women don't sell their breasts; they buy them.
Alas, all this focus on breasts has completely missed the point of the passage. We would have been better off staying with the Living Bible, which avoids the word whenever possible:
LB: Beg her to stop her harlotry, to quit giving herself to others.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Daddy always told you not to point that gun unless you intended to shoot!
It's a crime in the State of Indiana to point a gun at someone.
Even if it's not loaded--unless you have a justifiable reason to do it.
Police officers are exempt, of course--even if they have no justifiable reason to do it.
Bet you didn't know that.
IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.
Even if it's not loaded--unless you have a justifiable reason to do it.
Police officers are exempt, of course--even if they have no justifiable reason to do it.
Bet you didn't know that.
IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.
IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.
Thursday, 21 May 2009
How to revive the flagging terror industry: a lesson from the FBI
"The defendants, in their efforts to acquire weapons, dealt with an informant acting under law enforcement supervision, authorities said. The FBI and other agencies monitored the men and provided an inactive missile and inert C-4 to the informant for the defendants.
"In June 2008, Cromitie complained to the informant that his parents had lived in Afghanistan and he was upset about the war there, that many Muslim people were being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces.
"Cromitie also expressed an interest in 'doing something to America.'"
The FBI has caught on to something here. Find someone with a grudge, nurse it, suggest that an appropriate way to deal with it is to break things and hurt people, then appear to provide the means to do so. As a final wrap-up, arrest the suspect for being a terrorist and an attempted murderer.
The keys to success in this operation were twofold:
First, they controlled the entire operation, using a confidential informer and dummy weapons.
Secondly, everything was carefully recorded on video.
Now what if, instead of a local synagogue, the wannabees had been directed to an imposing set of skyscrapers? And what if, instead of dummy explosives, they had been given a modicum of pilot's training? And what if, instead of recording everything, the powers that be had instead ensured that no witnesses survived, doctored the crash site, and kept the wreckage carefully guarded while all evidence was removed and taken out of the country?
"In June 2008, Cromitie complained to the informant that his parents had lived in Afghanistan and he was upset about the war there, that many Muslim people were being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces.
"Cromitie also expressed an interest in 'doing something to America.'"
The FBI has caught on to something here. Find someone with a grudge, nurse it, suggest that an appropriate way to deal with it is to break things and hurt people, then appear to provide the means to do so. As a final wrap-up, arrest the suspect for being a terrorist and an attempted murderer.
The keys to success in this operation were twofold:
First, they controlled the entire operation, using a confidential informer and dummy weapons.
Secondly, everything was carefully recorded on video.
Now what if, instead of a local synagogue, the wannabees had been directed to an imposing set of skyscrapers? And what if, instead of dummy explosives, they had been given a modicum of pilot's training? And what if, instead of recording everything, the powers that be had instead ensured that no witnesses survived, doctored the crash site, and kept the wreckage carefully guarded while all evidence was removed and taken out of the country?
Monday, 18 May 2009
The NIV is a poor translation--relatively speaking
When a Bible translator sets out to put God's Word into a new language, one of the things he has to get a good grasp on is how the target language uses kinship terms, because this can be a very crucial factor in making an accurate translation.
Alas, this factor appears to have been overlooked by the Committee on Bible Translation.
Genesis 12:5 KJV
"And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan;"
Now, even without this verse, we would have known Lot's relationship to Abram; they had common agnate descent from Terah, who was Abram's father and Lot's paternal grandfather. But if all we had to go on was this verse, would we be able to glean as much from the NIV?
Genesis 12:5 NIV
"He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan,"
The CBT apparently thought that "his brother's son" was not the best English translation of ben akhiyu, although that is almost as literal a translation as possible; only "the son of his brother" would have been more so. "Nephew," however, is a much less specific word; quite a lot of meaning was lost in translation.
In English, 'nephew' can mean:
- (archaic) son's son (in Judges 12:14, Job 18:19, Isaiah 14:22, and 1 Timothy 5:4 of the KJV)
- son of a brother
- son of a sister
- son of a wife's brother
- son of a wife's sister
- stepson of a brother
- stepson of a sister
- stepson of a stepbrother
- stepson of a stepsister
- stepson of a wife's brother
- stepson of a wife's sister
- son of a wife's stepbrother
- son of a wife's stepsister
- stepson of a wife's stepbrother
- stepson of a wife's stepsister
- son of a husband's brother
- son of a husband's sister
- stepson of a husband's brother
- stepson of a husband's sister
- son of a husband's stepbrother
- son of a husband's stepsister
- stepson of a husband's stepbrother
- stepson of a husband's stepsister
So the CBT has greatly diminished the specific meaning of this word, even in a context that excluded all sons of a husband and his relatives!
In English, we do not distinguish in our kinship terminology between those related by blood or by marriage, except when within the immediate context of a broken marriage relationship: thus we have half-brothers and step-sisters, but not half-cousins or step-nephews. Not even the children of one's stepchildren are customarily referred to as 'step-grandchildren'.
In Hebrew, on the other hand, agnate (male-line) relationships are all-important, and all others are secondary. Even generational gaps are of less importance; Abram could just as well speak of Lot as his brother as he would speak of him as his brother's son. But either way, the relationship is through their common male ancestor.
Here are all the Hebrew remote kinship terms found in the Old Testament:
yabam: husband's brother
yebemeth: brother's wife (of a man); husband's brother's wife (of a woman)
doed: father's brother; also in construct as uncle's son and uncle's daughter
dodah: father's sister
khathan: male related through the marriage of a daughter (or sister, maybe even an aunt)
khathanah: female related to a man through his wife
kham: (late) husband's father; used only of Judah to Tamar
khamah: (late) husband's mother; used only of Naomi to Ruth and Orpah
kalah: son's wife
neked: son's son
In none of the places where these kinship terms are used does the NIV translate them as specifically as the Hebrews understood them (but--see exception below)--even in the text of 2 Chronicles 36:10, where neither formal nor a dynamic equivalence was used in translating the Hebrew:
"In the spring, King Nebuchadnezzar sent for him and brought him to Babylon, together with articles of value from the temple of the LORD, and he made Jehoiachin's uncle, [Hebrew brother, that is, relative (see 2 Kings 24:17)] Zedekiah, king over Judah and Jerusalem."
Now, that Zedekiah was Jehoiachin's father's brother is clear from the cross-reference. But 'brother' carries only half of the semantic value that akh does. Specifically, the word refers to a male relative on the father's side. The NIV text is a little more specific than its footnote, but still not specific enough.
There is an entire incident in the Bible where the NIV's failure to accurately translate kinship terms causes a loss of understanding to the reader. It is when Jesus visits Nazareth, and the locals ask,
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?"
What is missing here is that the people saw Jesus as a natural son of Joseph, and his enate (female-line) siblings as sons and daughters of his father. But they weren't; the true answer to all but the second and fourth questions was "Not exactly." But Jesus didn't answer them directly; it was not yet the time to reveal his true identity.
The reader of the NIV, however, would naturally answer all four questions with "Yes," missing a big part of the message.
Relatively speaking, the NIV does a poor job of translating the Bible.
ADDED June 11, 2009
I discovered one verse where the NIV accurately translated the word khathan, and it is in a context where they really had no choice:
Genesis 19:14
"So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [or were married to] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking."
Remember the word simply means "in-laws," but the context here absolutely prevents the NIV from taking its usual route of translating it as "father-in-law." We saw the same thing with the Levite's concubine and the wife of Phineas: they give the word a more specific meaning that it normally carries, but one exactly matching the context that makes it as specific as the English term used to translate it.
Added January 19, 2010
I thought of another use of akh in Scripture, where agnate descent is assumed unless qualified. In Song 8:1, the Beloved wishes that her lover had been her akh, the nursling of her mother. I believe this to be such an unusually specific usage that it had to be thus qualified to be clear to the reader.
Added April 29, 2016
Looking more closely at 1 Timothy 5:4, I see that the NIV translation of "children or grandchildren" perfectly adequate. They mangle the rest of the verse, but by using neuter plural words, Paul does seem to be emphasizing descent with no emphasis on gender. It may not fit with what we know of the cultural expectations of the day, but Paul apparently expects a woman of means to use her wealth, as necessary, to support either of her widowed grandmothers as well as her mother or mother-in-law.
Alas, this factor appears to have been overlooked by the Committee on Bible Translation.
Genesis 12:5 KJV
"And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan;"
Now, even without this verse, we would have known Lot's relationship to Abram; they had common agnate descent from Terah, who was Abram's father and Lot's paternal grandfather. But if all we had to go on was this verse, would we be able to glean as much from the NIV?
Genesis 12:5 NIV
"He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan,"
The CBT apparently thought that "his brother's son" was not the best English translation of ben akhiyu, although that is almost as literal a translation as possible; only "the son of his brother" would have been more so. "Nephew," however, is a much less specific word; quite a lot of meaning was lost in translation.
In English, 'nephew' can mean:
- (archaic) son's son (in Judges 12:14, Job 18:19, Isaiah 14:22, and 1 Timothy 5:4 of the KJV)
- son of a brother
- son of a sister
- son of a wife's brother
- son of a wife's sister
- stepson of a brother
- stepson of a sister
- stepson of a stepbrother
- stepson of a stepsister
- stepson of a wife's brother
- stepson of a wife's sister
- son of a wife's stepbrother
- son of a wife's stepsister
- stepson of a wife's stepbrother
- stepson of a wife's stepsister
- son of a husband's brother
- son of a husband's sister
- stepson of a husband's brother
- stepson of a husband's sister
- son of a husband's stepbrother
- son of a husband's stepsister
- stepson of a husband's stepbrother
- stepson of a husband's stepsister
So the CBT has greatly diminished the specific meaning of this word, even in a context that excluded all sons of a husband and his relatives!
In English, we do not distinguish in our kinship terminology between those related by blood or by marriage, except when within the immediate context of a broken marriage relationship: thus we have half-brothers and step-sisters, but not half-cousins or step-nephews. Not even the children of one's stepchildren are customarily referred to as 'step-grandchildren'.
In Hebrew, on the other hand, agnate (male-line) relationships are all-important, and all others are secondary. Even generational gaps are of less importance; Abram could just as well speak of Lot as his brother as he would speak of him as his brother's son. But either way, the relationship is through their common male ancestor.
Here are all the Hebrew remote kinship terms found in the Old Testament:
yabam: husband's brother
yebemeth: brother's wife (of a man); husband's brother's wife (of a woman)
doed: father's brother; also in construct as uncle's son and uncle's daughter
dodah: father's sister
khathan: male related through the marriage of a daughter (or sister, maybe even an aunt)
khathanah: female related to a man through his wife
kham: (late) husband's father; used only of Judah to Tamar
khamah: (late) husband's mother; used only of Naomi to Ruth and Orpah
kalah: son's wife
neked: son's son
In none of the places where these kinship terms are used does the NIV translate them as specifically as the Hebrews understood them (but--see exception below)--even in the text of 2 Chronicles 36:10, where neither formal nor a dynamic equivalence was used in translating the Hebrew:
"In the spring, King Nebuchadnezzar sent for him and brought him to Babylon, together with articles of value from the temple of the LORD, and he made Jehoiachin's uncle, [Hebrew brother, that is, relative (see 2 Kings 24:17)] Zedekiah, king over Judah and Jerusalem."
Now, that Zedekiah was Jehoiachin's father's brother is clear from the cross-reference. But 'brother' carries only half of the semantic value that akh does. Specifically, the word refers to a male relative on the father's side. The NIV text is a little more specific than its footnote, but still not specific enough.
There is an entire incident in the Bible where the NIV's failure to accurately translate kinship terms causes a loss of understanding to the reader. It is when Jesus visits Nazareth, and the locals ask,
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?"
What is missing here is that the people saw Jesus as a natural son of Joseph, and his enate (female-line) siblings as sons and daughters of his father. But they weren't; the true answer to all but the second and fourth questions was "Not exactly." But Jesus didn't answer them directly; it was not yet the time to reveal his true identity.
The reader of the NIV, however, would naturally answer all four questions with "Yes," missing a big part of the message.
Relatively speaking, the NIV does a poor job of translating the Bible.
ADDED June 11, 2009
I discovered one verse where the NIV accurately translated the word khathan, and it is in a context where they really had no choice:
Genesis 19:14
"So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [or were married to] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking."
Remember the word simply means "in-laws," but the context here absolutely prevents the NIV from taking its usual route of translating it as "father-in-law." We saw the same thing with the Levite's concubine and the wife of Phineas: they give the word a more specific meaning that it normally carries, but one exactly matching the context that makes it as specific as the English term used to translate it.
Added January 19, 2010
I thought of another use of akh in Scripture, where agnate descent is assumed unless qualified. In Song 8:1, the Beloved wishes that her lover had been her akh, the nursling of her mother. I believe this to be such an unusually specific usage that it had to be thus qualified to be clear to the reader.
Added April 29, 2016
Looking more closely at 1 Timothy 5:4, I see that the NIV translation of "children or grandchildren" perfectly adequate. They mangle the rest of the verse, but by using neuter plural words, Paul does seem to be emphasizing descent with no emphasis on gender. It may not fit with what we know of the cultural expectations of the day, but Paul apparently expects a woman of means to use her wealth, as necessary, to support either of her widowed grandmothers as well as her mother or mother-in-law.
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Swine Flu and the Power of Public Policy
The White Man has been vaccinated for the flu--most recently in the fall of 1991. The White Man has suffered severely from the flu--most recently in late December of 1991. So you can see that the White Man doesn't put much stock in flu scare stories, other than the political angle. I have even checked closely into my family history, and found no relatives that died even in the 1918-19 Spanish Flu pandemic. So if there is any genetic immunity to getting sick from the flu, I already have it. And if there's anything that can suppress that immunity, getting a flu shot seems to be about it.
I really don't have much to say about the current Flu Scare. The government seems to be handling it in a fairly rational way; vaccinations are neither required nor even being offered; and so far my life hasn't been inconvenienced in any way by the fact that a few dozen people thousands of miles away have gotten sick and died.
If that changes, I'll be sure to have more to say. Meanwhile, read the thought-provoking link in the title of this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)