tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post112433467164505099..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: How many heavens are there?Wayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1124479013847302532005-08-19T12:16:00.000-07:002005-08-19T12:16:00.000-07:00Oops! Sorry, I allowed polemic intent to carry me ...Oops! Sorry, I allowed polemic intent to carry me away, of course the singular verb makes that reading equally impossible!<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid though that even if "heavens" is good semi-poetic English for the night sky (with stars) it won't really do here, in close proximity in 1:26 there is talk of the "birds of the night sky (with stars)" - and I can see no reason for claiming that v.1 needs a different meaning from v.26 "earth and sky" make a good standard word pair whether the sky is viewed as having stars or not, but birds are hardly "of the starry sky"...Tim Bulkeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289349880110581469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1124408713991690692005-08-18T16:45:00.000-07:002005-08-18T16:45:00.000-07:00Tim wrote: a polytheist who has not read the whole...Tim wrote: <I>a polytheist who has not read the whole [Hebrew] Bible might read "the gods", but if she had read the whole Bible that mistranslation is not possible</I>.<BR/><BR/>Actually, no, for the verb in Genesis 1:1 is singular and so the subject must be singular, just one God.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1124404715083197292005-08-18T15:38:00.000-07:002005-08-18T15:38:00.000-07:00Kenny said:I think that "the heavens" is a good En...Kenny said:<BR/><BR/><I>I think that "the heavens" is a good English phrase</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, it is, Kenny, and I was aware of that when I wrote my post. But I'm not sure if "the heavens" is indigenous to English or if it was imported from English Bibles which translated the grammatically plural Hebrew <I>shamayim</I>. Of course, if most English speakers now understand the terms "the heavens" that would settle the issue for me, since language change is a reality and it really doesn't matter if some changes come about by borrowing--huge numbers of terms have come into English through borrowing. And many, many terms have come into common usage in English from literal English Bibles. My ultimate concern is for those terms which church people understand but which are no longer understood by a majority of unchurched people. I don't know if "the heavens" is one of those.<BR/><BR/>FWIW, for me, "the heavens" refers to the universe, esp. the stars which are visible to us at night (and which have always thrilled me and make me think of the majesty of God). I don't think I have a meaning of "sky" for "the heavens."Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1124400886678958812005-08-18T14:34:00.000-07:002005-08-18T14:34:00.000-07:00Let me comment on English (I don't speak Hebrew): ...Let me comment on English (I don't speak Hebrew): I think that "the heavens" is a good English phrase, but it doesn't mean the same thing as "heaven," and "the heaven" is totally ungrammatical in most contexts (the exception being a different theological framework, in which someone might say "the heaven where group X goes, as opposed to the heaven where group Y goes"). "Heaven" is a term of pop-theology in English which means "the place where God, the angels, and the righteous dead are." By contrast, "the heavens" is a poetic (and perhaps slightly archaic, but well understood) term for the sky, particularly the night sky. Based on what I've read about the meaning of the Hebrew term, it seems that this poetic term is equivalent in denotation (at least on the understanding of the term that I have). However, there is some question about equivalent connotations, as the use of poetic language could serve to indicate that the passage was figurative, and I have read that the language of Genesis 1 is not significantly different from the language of the later (clearly historical) chapters. If this is true, then poetic language could be misleading and should be avoided. This could lead to a translation like "In the beginning God created the planet Earth,and also the rest of the universe." This has the feel of a factual account rather than a poetic metaphor (and I do not personally know if that is what we want, given the Hebrew text).<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the use of singular and plural "heaven" in English would be a good topic for a poll?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1124399808926473872005-08-18T14:16:00.000-07:002005-08-18T14:16:00.000-07:00Tim, doesn't shamayim semantically cover more than...Tim, doesn't <I>shamayim</I> semantically cover more than just English sky?Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1124395098138719342005-08-18T12:58:00.000-07:002005-08-18T12:58:00.000-07:00I don't actually see the problem with a (good) lit...I don't actually see the problem with a (good) literal translation of this phrase: "<I>God created the sky and the land</I>" is what the phrase בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ means (a polytheist who has not read the whole [Hebrew] Bible might read "the gods", but if she had read the whole Bible that mistranslation is not possible). <B><I>I</B></I> think Wayne is right to <B><I>interpret</B></I> this as "everything" but I don't really think that is a good translation - surely the hearer should have the decision (as the first hearers did) whether to read the phrase as a figure of speech or literally!?Tim Bulkeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289349880110581469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1124377262443796702005-08-18T08:01:00.000-07:002005-08-18T08:01:00.000-07:00Peter, I am trying to address hyper-literalism in ...Peter, I am trying to address hyper-literalism in translation in this post. BTW, the KJV uses the literal "heavens" in Gen. 2:1 and in many other passages throughout the KJV. And grammatically plural <I>shamayim</I> is sometimes maintained as Greek plural <I>ouranoi</I> 'heavens' in some passages in the N.T.<BR/><BR/>My point is that we cannot simply "literally" translate linguistic forms and hope to have as accurate translations as possible.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1124375525389980912005-08-18T07:32:00.000-07:002005-08-18T07:32:00.000-07:00Wayne, here I think you have misunderstood the Heb...Wayne, here I think you have misunderstood the Hebrew, or have been misled by translations. In Hebrew there are a number of words which are plural in form, but singular in meaning. Two of them appear in this verse: אֱלֹהִים <I>elohim</I> "God" and שָׁמַיִם <I>shamayim</I> "sky, heaven". The grammar here, with a singular verb, proves that <I>elohim</I> was understood as a true singular by the original author, and not only, as you seem to suggest, by later interpreters and translators imposing their own theology on to the text. Similarly <I>shamayim</I> is a true singular, with no intended reference to multiple heavens; there is no corresponding singular form. I note that the LXX Greek translation also has a singular here, τὸν οὐρανὸν <I>ton ouranon</I>, and KJV still has a singular, "the heaven". I am not sure when this was changed to a plural, perhaps by some misguided hyper-literalists (before RSV). But there is no justification for using a plural here in a translation, unless of course the target language uses a plural form for this concept.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.com