Jeff A. Benner?

Hello, Do any of the Hebrew Scholars reading have any opinions on the works of Author : Jeff A. Benner? Thank You.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Hello, Do any of the Hebrew Scholars reading have any opinions on the works of Author : Jeff A. Benner? Thank You.

I had never heard of him before so I googled him and took a look at his web site. I would not recommend him. He is something of a kook. He doesn't seem to understand that words in any language vary in meaning depending upon their context and cannot therefore be translated the same in every instance. He really doesn't understand the language -- he only thinks he understands it better than those who have been involved in various translations or commentaries. (Never trust anyone's knowledge of biblical languages when they must rely on Strong's.

'Preserves and translates each Hebrew prefix, suffix and conjugation with exact English translations." from Benner's site

This statement would make me very suspicious. Even languages that are closely related rarely have exact translations. It becomes even more difficult across differing cultures and times. I do know others who hold to something similar to this but have never seen them produce an accurate translation or even one I could gain much benefit from. Then again, there are only a handful of individuals who succeed in producing a translation that is as good as one by a group of scholars. The act of being required to defend your translation does a great deal to force one to work very carefully.

Here's a sample page from his A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis:

Do you find that helps you understand the text?

(Never trust anyone's knowledge of biblical languages when they must rely on Strong's.

I'm getting a T-Shirt made with this on it! [:D]

Hello Mr. Somsel,
this is the kook :-)

I'm sure you've
heard the saying "don't judge a book by it's cover?" It appears that
your judgement of me and my book "A Mechanical Translation of the Book of
Genesis," was based solely on the cover of the book, which states,
"The Hebrew text literally translated word for word."

It is true that the
"Mechanical Translation" method does translate every Hebrew word,
prefix and suffix the same way every time it appears, but this translation
serves a unique purpose as the introduction points out.

Page 8 - It is not
the intention of this book to replace all existing translations and
dictionaries but instead to be a study guide to assist the reader to see the
text from its raw Hebraic perspective. This translation may also be used by
those learning Hebrew as a tool for identifying words, prefixes and suffixes
and verb conjugations as well as Hebrew sentence structures and how to properly
translate and interpret the text.

The Mechanical
Translation is meant to allow people to "see" the Hebrew text of the
Bible, without having to know Hebrew. It is also an aid for those who are
learning Hebrew to be able to learn how to identify Hebrew words, prefixes and
suffixes.

I have never claimed
that one English word can always translate one Hebrew word, but the opposite is
true as a few excerpts from the introduction will demonstrate.

Page 12-Some words
have various nuances of meaning. In most cases the context will help define the
nuance, but in some cases the nuance cannot be determined. For instance, in
4:26 the word “pierced” can be interpreted as “begin” or “profane;” but, the context
does not make clear which nuance is intended.

Page 13 - Most
Hebrew words can be used in a literal or figurative application which will
usually be defined by the context it is used. For instance, the word hand can
literally refer to the hand as in 22:6. But, this same word is used in 9:2
figuratively to mean “at hand” or “in possession.”

Page 13 - While the
RMT strives to translate each Hebrew word exactly the same way each time it
appears, there will be times where the context of the passage or English
sentence structure will require the word to be translated differently. For
instance, in 4:25 the MT has the phrase “Seed Other Under.” The word “Other”
can also be translated as “another” and the word “Under” can also be translated
as “in place of.” Therefore this phrase is translated in the RMT as “another
seed in place of.”

Page 14 - The active
voice of the verb ראה ra’ah means to
“see” but, the passive voice, identified by the prefix “be~”, means “be seen”
but is translated as “appeared” in the RMT. As another example, the simple mood
of the verb בוא bo means to “come” but,
the causative mood, identified by the prefix “make~”, means “make come” but, is
translated as “bring” in the RMT. A complete list of these verb translational
variations are listed in appendix A.

The Mechanical
Translation is accompanied with a "Revised" translation, which takes
the Mechanical Translations and rewords and rearranges the words so that it can
be understood in English syntax. It is also accompanied with footnotes, a
dictionary and appendices for help in clarifying Hebrew words.

I am of the opinion
that in most, but certainly not all cases, one Hebrew word can be translated
with one Hebrew word. In my opinion this is a much better translation than one
that translates one Hebrew word a hundred different ways. I have written the article
"Redefining Biblical Words," which details how translations often unnecessarily translate Hebrew words with
a variety of English words.

Approximately 90% of
the time, one Hebrew word can be translated the same way, however the
translators find it necessary to translate that one word the same way only
about 10% of the time. Wouldn't a translation that stays as close to the
original language be a better translation? Today's translations "fix"
the text for the average reader so that it can be understood easily. I believe
we are lacking a more literal translation, that is accompanied with
translational notes for the serious reader who wants to dig deeper into the
text. My article "Is a Mechanical Translation Possible?" may be of
interest and will help to clarify my perspectives of Bible translations.

By the way, I strongly agree with your statement "Never trust
anyone's knowledge of biblical languages when they must rely on Strong's,"
as I believe Strong's to be a great beginners tool, but is very lacking in
detail. Here is my article on my opinion of Strong's in my article "Is
Strong's Dictionary enough for studying the Hebrew text of the Bible? if you are interested. BTW, אני יכול
לקרוא ולתרגם עברית מקראית.

Sincerely;

Jeff A. Benner

Ancient Hebrew
Research Center

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org

http://www.mechanical-translation.org

Hello Mr. Somsel, this is the kook :-)

I'm pleased to see that you admit the facts. Now you can begin your recovery.

Jeff A. Benner

Ancient Hebrew Research Center

Hi Jeff and welcome to the Logos forums!

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your resources and for generously making them readily available--I have benefitted from them as I have used them in e-sword. God bless!

Hi Jeff,

I'm currently studying hebrew at uni.

Just out of curiosity, why only use Hebrew lexicons/bibles etc that are hundreds of years old? Surely you considered using some of the corrected updated versions which are readily available?

You have made a lot of new claims without any evidence or reference, so how can students know that you're not confusing Hebrew languages and characters with the many other languages around at the time? If the Hebrews came out of Egypt before their writings, wouldn't their concepts of heaven and hell conveyed in their writings be a lot closer to the Egyptians than those in the lands they invaded? (which you seem to assume they were more similar to).

your pottery 4000 years old (1_introduction.html) found in present day Israel would be more likely belonging to one of the people groups the Hebrews slaughtered as they entered Israel approx. 3500 years ago as they came out of Egypt. Only a few hundred Hebrews at most, including kids, would have gone down to Egypt, and I doubt anyone could pick out their writings from those around them at that time. But after 400+ years in Egypt, if Moses was brought up with a royal household, his education / thoughts would have been far different than that of the groups remaining in the land.

the mechanical way also means you are very open to translating every word incorrectly most of the time, based on your own personal opinions. the Hebrew bible was reportedly compiled over many hundreds of years, and i would have thought words and meanings would have changed in that time, as it they have done in every other language known in history, with words changing meanings within the 1000 year period it was written.

it seems you're trying to change a whole lot of whats considered the historical christian norm, do you mind me asking what denomination/faith/belief that you adhere to from? Are any organizations or groups funding your project?

I'm just asking so we can all get the clear perspective from which you are writing / publishing/ teaching, the lens through which you view the information before you.

Thanks and regards,

Warren Knott

Jimmy Sant'Angelo

Yes And I think Jeff A Benner Is Awesome! I Posted His Link in my Ministry Page "Ambassadors Of Heaven On Earth Ministries" on Facebook (The Ministry is both Facebook & YouTube) quite some time ago. I'm glad I did because just Yesterday I was finally able to delve into it and I Visited His website, I read a number of His Writings and then I researched more about Him and Found His Youtube Channel and I viewed and listened to One of His Series, 4 of those 8 Videos all last night on that particular Series. Seeing and listening to Him was and Is truly a Blessing. He's a Blessing. ThankYou Jeff Benner Sir for being Diligent and Obedient to The Lord and for being such a Great Teacher and Blessing to Us, In JESUS Name

Quick Links