Additional LHI travesties

David Paul

I have two laptops with prior versions of Logos…one has L3 and the other has L5, 6, or 7…but neither are immediately available to me now for checking the earlier version of this passage in LHI. But this current version has some atrocious doozies in terms of choices made for inclusion.

Just came across this abomination:

This first pic is the NASB95 showing Psa. 40:

Notice the word in yellow highlight. The word is tsedeq and it means "righteousness".

You know what IT DOESN'T MEAN??

SALVATION. IT 100% DOESN'T MEAN SALVATION. This is a grotesque incursion of theological bias injected into Scripture. For someone, "good news" = "salvation", so they CHOSE TO IGNORE THE BIBLE (and the meaning of the word they supplanted) and prejudicially inserted their not-worth-2c opinion into what should be a facts-only resource.

THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IMMEDIATELY, and FL needs to begin an immediate fine-tooth-combing of this resource to weed out the nonsense that has crept into it.

MJ. Smith

Given the number of translations that uses "salvation", I think you need to produce a more detailed argument as to why Logos needs to make a change that goes against an apparent consensus.

David Paul

So "the word does not and NEVER EVER means salvation" isn't enough?? Also, that "list" of adherents is sketch as can be…I already SHOWED that NASB95 gives "righteousness" as it's translation…just scroll up. Oh, wait…lol…you are showing data for a completely different Hebrew word…the one that actually does mean "salvation". The word I'm addressing is tsedeq, not t'shuu`atth. Fwiw, that word does occur in the next verse…v. 10 (v. 11 in Hebrew).

Also, my ire is enhanced by the fact that this is a MAJOR reference resource in Logos (I think the only true H→E interlinear in Logos?); it is a "ruler" by which readers measure the text. If it is tainted, it's value drops significantly. It should be 100% accurate. My concern is that it seems to be moving from more to less accurate with changes over time. I never shared George's disdain for interlinears, but this is the kind of issue that motivated his perspective, no doubt.

MJ. Smith

So "the word does not and NEVER EVER means salvation" isn't enough??

Not as a simple assertion, especially when a significant number of scholars believe it can. You need to show why there is not sufficient overlap in meaning in this particular context to justify salvation as a translation. I shared George's disdain for interlinears outside specific contexts; I also shared his concerns regarding students mistaking glosses as definitions. Someone who is proficient in Hebrew should prefer a Hebrew dictionary to a Hebrew-English dictionary i.e. definitions over glosses.

NB.Mick

Given the number of translations that uses "salvation", I think you need to produce a more detailed argument as to why Logos needs to make a change that goes against an apparent consensus.

Is it possible you picked another lemma? I don't read Hebrew at all, but you show Strongs H8668 whereas David seem to talk about H6664 (I know that NIV translates "saving acts" here but it does seem that many translations go with "righteousness" or such, some with "justice", GNB, GNT and T4T go with "you save us").

Graham Criddle

HALOT seems to suggest that it can sometimes mean salvation - unless I am missing something (which is certainly possible as I don't know Hebrew)

DMB

I don't know what to say about 'travesties'. I could get going on Logos 'senses' (which are at least a tiny bit better than glosses).

• My impression is glosses never got much attention in the OL interlinears. Though apparently (per Rick?), the LXX was an exception (technically an RI!).
• Logos, as a whole, doesn't attempt to deal much in time/place for lemma usage (this passage vs HALOT's examples a good example). Sense, OTOH, gets a 'traditional' application.

And (another opinion), LHI is LHI … its long trip from the southern hemisphere did not wear well in Western Washington. It had royalties?

Francis

There are a number of factors that can play into this:

• I work in translation and often have opportunity to compare translation traditions. There are indeed traditions. Often, one will see nearly all English Bibles translate a terms as sense X and nearly all French Bibles translate it as sense Y. Let's not be naive about translations. They are generally reliable but do have biases, including theological ones. There is no point barking at Logos about that: it won't change especially if it means going against the mighty consensus. The consensus gives a sense of backing and credibility to those who go with. Case in point: nearly all French translations have "righteousness" in Ps 40:9. Only one translation (and I've noticed before that it tends to align with English translation traditions) had "salvation."
• Some translational decisions are not immediately apparent if one only relies on the lemma in the original language text. They can be influenced by textual debates and other considerations such as LXX translation and biblical intertexts. Not saying it's the case here, just mentioning it as a fairly frequent factor.
• In my view, lexica do not sufficiently distinguish between intrinsic senses and in-context meaning (a distinction somewhat akin to literal versus "dynamic" translation). Some translations attempt to say "in this context, it means something like Z" (while the sens normally is X). Z will find its way in lexical entries as if it were a sense. That can lead to confusion. I do not mean this last point to start a straying discussion about lexica and semantics. I am just pointing out that it is also a phenomenon to reckon with.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1364193#Comment_1364193

It is possible because I also don't read Hebrew - I went by the final screen shot and the transliteration and the translation - but the text is dense with related words so, yes, I could have made an error. I don't use Strong's for philosophical reasons (i.e. prejudices).