Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Robert Hiebert's rendering of Gen. 6:4

Expand Messages
  • Bob Burns
    Hopefully I will not be beating a dead horse with the following question, but I ve been reading the archives for a few hours and have not found what I m
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 18, 2008
      Hopefully I will not be beating a dead horse with the following
      question, but I've been reading the archives for a few hours and have
      not found what I'm looking for...

      I was wondering if it has been determined why in the NETS Translation,
      Robert Hiebert chose to render Genesis 6:4 using the term "sons of
      God". Perhaps I've been misinformed, but I thought the LXX used the
      word "angels" in this instance.

      Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
    • Revdougpickrel@aol.com
      ?Hello Bob, I checked my LXX and it reads, OI UIOI TOU QEOU ? translated reads the sons of the God .? And?this sometimes means angels that may account for
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 18, 2008
        ?Hello Bob,

        I checked my LXX and it reads, "OI UIOI TOU QEOU"? translated reads "the sons of the God".? And?this sometimes means "angels" that may account for NETS.

        Rev Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
        Tejas Valley
        San Antonio, Texas


        ?


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Bob Burns <summascriptura@...>
        To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 4:23 pm
        Subject: [lxx] Robert Hiebert's rendering of Gen. 6:4






        Hopefully I will not be beating a dead horse with the following
        question, but I've been reading the archives for a few hours and have
        not found what I'm looking for...

        I was wondering if it has been determined why in the NETS Translation,
        Robert Hiebert chose to render Genesis 6:4 using the term "sons of
        God". Perhaps I've been misinformed, but I thought the LXX used the
        word "angels" in this instance.

        Your feedback is greatly appreciated.





        ________________________________________________________________________
        More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bob Burns
        Thank you, Doug. It may not be pleasant but its nevertheless desirable to become disabused of any and all misinformation. ... reads the sons of the God .?
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 18, 2008
          Thank you, Doug.

          It may not be pleasant but its nevertheless desirable to become
          disabused of any and all misinformation.


          --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, Revdougpickrel@... wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > ?Hello Bob,
          >
          > I checked my LXX and it reads, "OI UIOI TOU QEOU"? translated
          reads "the sons of the God".? And?this sometimes means "angels" that
          may account for NETS.
          >
          > Rev Doug Pickrel, Litt.D.
          > Tejas Valley
          > San Antonio, Texas
          >
          >
          > ?
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Bob Burns <summascriptura@...>
          > To: lxx@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 4:23 pm
          > Subject: [lxx] Robert Hiebert's rendering of Gen. 6:4
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Hopefully I will not be beating a dead horse with the following
          > question, but I've been reading the archives for a few hours and
          have
          > not found what I'm looking for...
          >
          > I was wondering if it has been determined why in the NETS
          Translation,
          > Robert Hiebert chose to render Genesis 6:4 using the term "sons of
          > God". Perhaps I've been misinformed, but I thought the LXX used the
          > word "angels" in this instance.
          >
          > Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          ______________________________________________________________________
          __
          > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
          http://webmail.aol.com
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Bob Burns
          Just read this, In 6:1-8, perhaps the most imporatant difference between OGGen and MT is the translation of sons of God (6:2) by angels of God. Although
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 8, 2009
            Just read this, "In 6:1-8, perhaps the most imporatant difference
            between OGGen and MT is the translation of 'sons of God' (6:2) by
            'angels of God.' Although manuscript evidence is divided over whether to
            read 'angles of God' or 'sons of God,' I believe that the former is more
            likely to be the original reading here. The more literal 'sons of God'
            does occur, nonetheless, in Ihe Creek of 6:4."

            Although the manuscript evidence is divided, the translators of the NETS
            did not feel a footnote to that effect was merited. Too bad.


            --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Burns" <summascriptura@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hopefully I will not be beating a dead horse with the following
            > question, but I've been reading the archives for a few hours and have
            > not found what I'm looking for...
            >
            > I was wondering if it has been determined why in the NETS Translation,
            > Robert Hiebert chose to render Genesis 6:4 using the term "sons of
            > God". Perhaps I've been misinformed, but I thought the LXX used the
            > word "angels" in this instance.
            >
            > Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
            >
          • Bob Burns
            Sorry, should have mentioned, the quote is from, The LXX and Enoch an article in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection ... to ...
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 8, 2009
              Sorry, should have mentioned, the quote is from, "The LXX and Enoch" an
              article in "Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten
              Connection"


              --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Burns" <summascriptura@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Just read this, "In 6:1-8, perhaps the most imporatant difference
              > between OGGen and MT is the translation of 'sons of God' (6:2) by
              > 'angels of God.' Although manuscript evidence is divided over whether
              to
              > read 'angles of God' or 'sons of God,' I believe that the former is
              more
              > likely to be the original reading here. The more literal 'sons of God'
              > does occur, nonetheless, in Ihe Creek of 6:4."
              >
              > Although the manuscript evidence is divided, the translators of the
              NETS
              > did not feel a footnote to that effect was merited. Too bad.
              >
              >
              > --- In lxx@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Burns" summascriptura@ wrote:
              > >
              > > Hopefully I will not be beating a dead horse with the following
              > > question, but I've been reading the archives for a few hours and
              have
              > > not found what I'm looking for...
              > >
              > > I was wondering if it has been determined why in the NETS
              Translation,
              > > Robert Hiebert chose to render Genesis 6:4 using the term "sons of
              > > God". Perhaps I've been misinformed, but I thought the LXX used the
              > > word "angels" in this instance.
              > >
              > > Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.