c. stirling bartholomew Posted December 13, 2022 Share Posted December 13, 2022 (edited) The [CONTENTS x] argument is inherently 'fuzzy' because it looks for verses. While running several test scenarios on Israel as a translation equivalent in the Old Testament I used NOT [CONTENTS HMT-T] to eliminate verses where it appeared that Israel was an equivalent of Hebrew/Aramaic ישׂראל, ישׂראל־0, ישׂראלה knowing full well that this wasn't a bomb proof method of identifying a translation equivalent with certainty. Rather than wading through 2500 examples, NOT [CONTENTS HMT-T] gave results that helped me focus on a subset of the 2,500 where I could take a close look at what was going on. I decided on Ezra as a test case. The numbers worked out. I used Bible Gateway to find Israel (several permutations) and found 40 examples in 36 versus. Interestingly that is precisely the same number I came up with in Accordance. I don't have the ESV in Accordance (don't need it). But I ran this test on several formal equivalence versions (RSV, NASB, NRSV). 40/36 was exact or close to exact. Armed with this preliminary stage of exploration I decided to confirm the ESV samples, to insure that in Ezra NOT [CONTENTS HMT-T] gave valid results. I did this just for laughs. I was dabbling in Ezra while working on my Daniel project. This is only tangentially related to the project Kristin is working on. Edited December 13, 2022 by c. stirling bartholomew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now