Comparing Greek or Hebrew Concordances

[Dan Wagner]

Today something happened that I encounter frequently when looking up Greek or Hebrew words in the Strongs, NIV, or NASB dictionaries (comparing them). That is, nothing matches up.

Today, it was Numbers 15:30. I understand that different translations may put the order of the words differently, but often, as in this case, whole words seem to be missing altogether.

I don't know Greek or Hebrew, so maybe I'm missing something here, but it would seem that either a word was there in the Greek/Hebrew or it wasn't.

In the NIV, Numbers 15:30, where is the Hebrew word for "defiantly?" Strongs and NASB have two Hebrew words for "Presumptuously," but NIV has nothing.

[Helen Brown]

This might be a case where it's worth looking up the verse in the NIV Concordance. It lists all the English and Hebrew words, but it does not match defiantly with the Hebrew phrase beyad rama which literally means "with a high hand." It calls them all "helper words." KJVS and NAS95S link presumptuously or defiantly to both words (though you only see that when you open the text in the Parsing window). It all goes to show that translation is not an exact science, and the assigning of the key numbers to the words even less so.

 

In case anyone wants to look at the verse in the NRSVS, I must apologize that just yesterday we discovered a major problem in the key numbers in Numbers, and are working to remedy it and post an update. The NKJVS is not yet complete in the OT, though we expect to finish it soon.

[Timothy Jenney]

I thought I'd take a moment and address this issue from a wider perspective.

 

The more literal the Bible translation, the more one will get a one-for-one correspondence between the original language text and the translation itself. The most literal translation is an interlinear Bible, followed [in rough order] by the modified literals (KJV/NKJV, ASV/NASB, RSV/NRSV/ESV). Idiomatic [or dynamic equivalents] (NIV, Phillips) provide a more natural sounding translation, but the word order is often very different from the original and colloquial expressions are rendered very differently. Paraphrases (Living Bible, the Message, etc.) are so different from the original text that they are not suited for serious Bible study.

 

With that mind, the greatest differences are usually in the Old Testament. That's because translators have to go from a Semitic language (Hebrew, Aramaic) to an Indo-European language (English). The two language groups have very different grammar, syntax, etc. [unlike Greek and English, which are relatively close (both are in the Indo-European group)].

 

Hebrew verbs regularly take a subject prefix and an object suffix, which means that a single Hebrew word may be rendered into English by different 3-5 words [e.g. "she said to them"]. Verb tenses in Hebrew are often indicated by simple vowel changes, while in English we use helping words [e.g. he may have had to pray]. Likewise, intensives in Hebrew are indicated by repeating the word, while English uses emphatic helper words, like "truly," "surely" and "certainly." Finally, lengthy and complicated sentences with lots of relative pronouns are regularly broken up when translating into English, with the object of the pronoun specifically named.

 

I've just scratched the surface here, but I hope you get the idea. For more information, you may want to read something like Translating the Word of God by John Beekman and John Callow or even Gordon Fee's How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.

 

Yes, our text developers do make mistakes from time to time—and we are always pleased to have users contact us with corrections. However, the vast majority of issues you describe are the result of problems inherent in reading an English translation. That's why scholars recommend really motivated students of the Bible consider learning to read Hebrew and Greek.

 

Hope this helps!

[Dan Wagner]

Thank you for the responses, that is very helpful. I am acquainted with the different translations and their philosophies, but I thought the imbedded Greek/Hebrew represented the original text.

However, from what is being said, am I to understand that the imbedded Greek in the NIV does not represent an actual Greek or Hebrew manuscript? I know the NIV mixes dynamic equivalence and paraphrasing into their translating, but do they leave out the words from the Greek/Hebrew manuscript that don't fit the way they've chosen to phrase something?

 

It's easy to run your curser through a line of text and see the Greek/Hebrew words in the instant details box. It's easy to see where different translations include English helper words for clarity, etc. I can also see where sentences are re-arranged to better convey a thought into English. I'm just baffled when the KJV/Strongs says there is a certain word there in the original that doesn't show up anywhere in the NIV.

 

Thanks again for your responses!

[Helen Brown]

The NIV Concordance shows that these words are in the text, but regarded as helper words. presumably Goodrick, Kohlenberger, and Swanson did not think there was a direct enough correspondence to link them up with the English word.

[Timothy Jenney]

The Accordance "parsing" for this passage lists the following: "defiantly whether native-born" H00275 ‏אֶזְרָח‎