Isaiah 40:26

[a***@home.com]

I would like the opinion of Hebrew scholars about the accuracy
of translation of a word in Isaiah 40:26. In "Tanakh - The Holy
Scriptures" (JPS 1985) this reads in part: "Because of His great
MIGHT and vast power=85" The word in question is "MIGHT".

According to "Analytical Key to the Old Testament" (Vol. 4,
p. 123) this is a correct translation. According to various
Hebrew lexicons I've checked, the original Hebrew root word
used here for "might" (" 'own "; Strong's Concordance entry
202) can mean "might, power, strength, vigor, ability, faculty,
force, virile and genital power, manhood, wealth".
In the more than thirty English translations I've checked, in Isaiah
40:26 the word is translated as "might, power, strength, vigor,
glory".

Only one translation I've come across varies from the above:
"The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" produced
by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In this translation
Isaiah 40:26 reads: "Due to the abundance of DYNAMIC
ENERGY, he also being vigorous in power=85" Here, " 'own " is
translated as "dynamic energy".

I don't necessarily think that "dynamic energy" is a poor
rendering here, as long as one keeps in mind certain limitations,
but if one neglects these limitations one can overinterpret what
the Bible writer actually meant. What I mean is this: since the
Watchtower Society first published its translation of Isaiah in
1958, it has gradually moved toward a position that claims that
Isaiah 40:26 actually confirms Einstein's equation for the
relationship between matter and energy, "E=3Dmc^2". This is all in
support of its position that the Bible contains solid scientific
statements that could only be there by inspiration.

For example, the WTS's magazine "Awake!" (June 22, 1999, p.
6) stated: "... This relationship between matter and energy was
expressed by Einstein=92s famous formula E=3Dmc2 =85

[N***@worldnet.att.net]

The only thing an objective scholar would be concerned about is whether
"dynamic
energy" is a translation of )WN or )WNYM -- the plural form that is
found at Isaiah
40:26, that is justifiable by grammar and/or context.

We know the Hebrew term can apply to vigor, might, generative power,
strength, and
such. What is "dynamic energy"? Is it encompassed by any of those
domains? One of
the definitions of energy is "vigoruos exertion of power." And dynamic
means
"relating to physical force or energy; marked by continuous and
productive activity."
It is possible that a translation such as "dynamic energy" was intended
to bring out
the nuances of the plural form used at Isaiah 40:26. For example,
according to
_Biblical Hebrew Syntax_ by Waltke and O'Connor (page 121), "a repeated
series of
actions or a habitual behavior can be designated by a plural, and that
term can have
an abstract sense." )WNYM is a plural abstract noun.

In context, what Isaiah 40:26 discusses is God's active might or power
as Creator
(Generator?) and indefatigable sustainer of heaven and earth. May
"dynamic energy"
correctly inform that context? In my opinion, it could.

Solomon Landers

Post by a***@home.com
I would like the opinion of Hebrew scholars about the accuracy
of translation of a word in Isaiah 40:26. In "Tanakh - The Holy
Scriptures" (JPS 1985) this reads in part: "Because of His great
MIGHT and vast power…" The word in question is "MIGHT".
According to "Analytical Key to the Old Testament" (Vol. 4,
p. 123) this is a correct translation. According to various
Hebrew lexicons I've checked, the original Hebrew root word
used here for "might" (" 'own "; Strong's Concordance entry
202) can mean "might, power, strength, vigor, ability, faculty,
force, virile and genital power, manhood, wealth".
In the more than thirty English translations I've checked, in Isaiah
40:26 the word is translated as "might, power, strength, vigor,
glory".
"The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" produced
by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In this translation
Isaiah 40:26 reads: "Due to the abundance of DYNAMIC
ENERGY, he also being vigorous in power…" Here, " 'own " is
translated as "dynamic energy".

<snip>

[G***@aol.com]

In a message dated 06/11/2001 12:00:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@home.com writes:

<< According to "Analytical Key to the Old Testament" (Vol. 4,
p. 123) this is a correct translation. According to various
Hebrew lexicons I've checked, the original Hebrew root word
used here for "might" (" 'own "; Strong's Concordance entry
202) can mean "might, power, strength, vigor, ability, faculty,
force, virile and genital power, manhood, wealth".
In the more than thirty English translations I've checked, in Isaiah
40:26 the word is translated as "might, power, strength, vigor,
glory".

Only one translation I've come across varies from the above:
"The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" produced
by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In this translation
Isaiah 40:26 reads: "Due to the abundance of DYNAMIC
ENERGY, he also being vigorous in power…" Here, " 'own " is
translated as "dynamic energy".
The word in question is a form of 'ON. It essentially means "strength" or
"power," either in relation to reproductive strength (as in Genesis 49:3) or
raw power (as in Job 18:7 [man]; 40:16 [behemoth]). In Job 40:16 NWT also
translates 'ON as "dynamic energy," where it seems to clearly relate to the
force produced by behemoth's "muscles" (We'ONO BiSHRyRey). This is in
contrast to (or possibly a way of restating) what is said just previously,
namely, the "strength [CHoKHO] in his loins."

Since NWT realizes that God is the one in view in Isa. 40:26, the "force" or
"power" the NWT translation committee perceives is that which belongs to a
nonphysical entity whose "power" is described in relation to the existence of
the planetary heavens. Because the exact nature of this force or power is not
articulated, the Watchtower Society interprets such "power" in relation to
Einstein's equation. Thus, it is not a matter of the Bible containing
explicit, articulated scientific statements but of scientific statements
being used to explain Bible statements that are not as articulate as the
scientific statement.

The only problem I see with respect to the use of this text by the Watchtower
Society is in relation to God's creation of the planetary heavens. This text
does not seem to be speaking about the creation of such heavens, but of their
preservation. The first part of the text asks who has created these things,
and responds by noting that the one who did create them is the one who calls
them forth by number and name. THEN it says that due to his 'ON and 'aMyTS
not one of them is "missing" or "lacking." I do not see where 'ON is used in
this text concerning God's creative act(s). Apparently the Watchtower Society
means to say that this same "power" was at God's disposal to create:
"Whatever means God used to create the universe, he clearly has the energy
and the power needed to do so" (per your quote of Awake! June 22, 1999, p. 6).

Greg Stafford

[Dave Humpal]

In context, owniym means "might" or "strength." To claim that it means
"dynamic energy" in order to match Einstein's theory is typical of some of
the liberties the NWT often takes. None of the seven translators of the NWT
had any training in Hebrew or Greek, and it seems many of the
interpretations are intended more for doctrinal purposes than accuracy.

Rev. Dave Humpal ***@elite.net
First Christian Church (DOC), Merced, California
Help for the Hurting Christian
http://www.elite.net/~ebedyah/PastorsHomePage.htm
First Christian Church Site
http://www.elite.net/~ebedyah/FirstChristianHomePage.htm

[G***@aol.com]

In a message dated 06/14/2001 2:20:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
***@elite.net writes:

<< In context, owniym means "might" or "strength." To claim that it means
"dynamic energy" in order to match Einstein's theory is typical of some of
the liberties the NWT often takes. None of the seven translators of the NWT
had any training in Hebrew or Greek, and it seems many of the
interpretations are intended more for doctrinal purposes than accuracy.

Rev. Dave Humpal ***@elite.net >>


Dear Dave:

You offer no analysis of the context to support your point. Please do so and
comment on what I previously offered. You also make an assertion about the
NWT translators that is unproven, inaccurate, and uncharitable. What you
should have said is that they had no FORMAL training in Hebrew. But that is
not the only training available, and I think if anyone with an objective mind
looks critically at the NWT OT, he/she will find a very high level of
scholarship.

Best regards,

Greg Stafford

[N***@worldnet.att.net]

Not much objectivity here, I'm afraid. It is disingenuous to insist that a phrase
like "dynamic energy" is only a term of physics or applies only to Einstein's
theorem. As stated in my earlier post, fundamentally speaking "dynamic energy" fits
the context of Isaiah 40:26 as well as the more ordinary "might" or "power." A
translation need not be limited by standard, ordinary phrasings, and -- shall I say
dynamism -- can be a welcomed feature in a translation. In many new translations it
is taken as an indication of vigor and skill that they have new or different ways of
expressing the same facts. "Dynamic," of course, comes into English from the Greek
term DUNAMIS, or POWER. Grammatically and contextually speaking, "dynamic energy" at
Isaiah 40:26 is as good as the common terms.

I would not venture to assume why the NWT uses the term, any more than I would know
specifically why any other translation uses the terms it uses, unless I happened to be
myself on that body of translators.

Solomon Landers

Post by G***@aol.com
In a message dated 06/14/2001 2:20:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
In context, owniym means "might" or "strength." To claim that it means
"dynamic energy" in order to match Einstein's theory is typical of some of
the liberties the NWT often takes. None of the seven translators of the NWT
had any training in Hebrew or Greek, and it seems many of the
interpretations are intended more for doctrinal purposes than accuracy.

[Monty M. Self]

It has been suggested that the discussion of Is. 40:26 has gone off track.
We have not discussed the term "'own" in great detail. Discussions about
the NWT are not relevant in determining wither "Dynamic Energy" is a
legitimate translation of the Hebrew word "'own". BHK and BHS do not give
helpful alternate reading. The LXX uses a word that is generally translated
glory, power, etc.. . I did not find a cognate in Akk. Possible there is a
cognate in Ug, but this is not conclusive. Sorry I did not have time to
look in the targums. The word in question appears in the Hebrew text at
lest 7 times at Gen 49:3, Deut 21:17, Job 40:16, Psalm 78:51 and 105:36,
Isaiah 40:26-27, Job 18:12. The first five appear to be related to a
procreative idea while the later two might have developed into a general
idea of "might". Of course this is just guessing. Another potential
translation problem arises in that our word occurs in the plural. One of us
referred the discussion to Waltke by writing "For example, according to
Biblical Hebrew Syntax_ by Waltke and O'Connor (page 121), "a repeated
series of actions or a habitual behavior can be designated by a plural, and
that term can have an abstract sense." (Sorry I forgot who posted this).
This provided a good answer for the pluralization, but we have other
options. "WNYM" might on the other hand be the plural of "'awen" meaning
trouble, toil, or labor." "'WNYM" could be translated as works. I am
uncomfortable with this translation, but I am presenting it as a
possibility. I am more inclined to permit the verse to speak for itself.
At the end of Verse 26 we read "greatness of his might, for that he is
strong in power, not one faileth." (Please excuse the use of the KJV, I
selected it as a neutral text) It is possible that the author of this poem
is constructing a form of the Hebrew superlative. "'adar" (KJV -- faileth)
occurs at I Samuel 30:19, 2 Samuel 17:22, Isaiah 40:26, and Zep. 3:5. It
would be better to translate "'adar" as "to be lacking". Thus, at the end
of verse 26 we have two words that could mean strength or might and a
negation of that type of concept. With this in mind it is my option that
"WNYM" should be translated as with a generic word for strength. "Dynamic
Energy" carries extra baggage that is not needed in this poem. In addition,
the word in question is used again in verse 29. In verse 29 we have a
chiasm with the use of "WNYM". In this context it is unlikely that the
author would use a word that carries so much extra baggage. In the context
of 29, the negation of "WNYM" is used as the opposite to having strength. I
am interested in reading an extented discussion of possible translation of
"WNYM". I have listed some more possiblities. Let us turn this discussion
from comments about the NWT and to the possible translation of this word.

In closing I feel the need to make a response to Greg Stafford. It is bad
form to accuse a person of inappropriate scholarship and then make
inappropriate scholarly remarks to that person. It is possible that Dave
Humpal is incorrect about his assessment of the NWT as a whole and it is
even more likely that his assessment of the NWT and its translator only has
indirect influence upon the determination of "Dynamic Energy" being a good
translation of "WYNM", but this is no grounds for implying that he is a poor
Reverend or that he is unobjective. Please note that Greg Stafford writes
in response to Dave, "Making inaccurate statements, off-base claims, and
misleading people about the translation skills of certain people, is not an
endearing quality. It is certainly not something one would expect from a
Reverend." Earlier Greg wrote, "But that is not the only training available,
and I think if anyone with an objective mind looks critically at the NWT OT,
he/she will find a very high level of scholarship." I am please that I can
tell the Philosophy professor at my institution that his students can see a
prime example of the classical Aristotelian logical fallacy of NAME CALLING
on my Hebrew list serve.

Unfortunately, this discussion is about Isaiah 40:26. Being that I am
interested in a discussion about the level of Hebrew scholarship in the NWT,
my next post will be about just that!

[Bill Rea]

Solomon wrote:-

Post by N***@worldnet.att.net
Not much objectivity here, I'm afraid. It is disingenuous to insist
that a phrase like "dynamic energy" is only a term of physics or
applies only to Einstein's theorem. As stated in my earlier post,
fundamentally speaking "dynamic energy" fits the context of Isaiah
40:26 as well as the more ordinary "might" or "power." A translation
need not be limited by standard, ordinary phrasings, and -- shall I say
dynamism -- can be a welcomed feature in a translation. In many new
translations it is taken as an indication of vigor and skill that they
have new or different ways of expressing the same facts. "Dynamic," of
course, comes into English from the Greek term DUNAMIS, or POWER.
Grammatically and contextually speaking, "dynamic energy" at Isaiah
40:26 is as good as the common terms.

Are you sure that new "translations" are, in fact, translations.
While some are calling themselves "translations" or are called
translations by others, e.g. The Message Translation, I think they
would be better called paraphrases. The questions we must ask is - does
"dynamic energy" convey to us what the Hebrews thought? I think
it doesn't. Paraphrases have the freedom to use "dynamic energy" because
they are deliberately aiming for freshness.

If the NWT deliberately chose these two words so they could link Is 40:26
to relativity, then they are out in paraphrase territory. I have no
objection to paraphrases, but I do think they should be labelled as
such so they buyer knows want they are getting.


Bill Rea, Information Technology Dept., Canterbury University \_
E-Mail b dot rea at it dot canterbury dot ac dot nz </ New
Phone [phone], Fax [phone] /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'

[N***@worldnet.att.net]

I think the first-hand account in the post from Norman E. Swift of June 14 has
answered this question: there was no deliberate attempt by the NWT to link Isaiah
40:26 to the theory of relativity. Essentially, "dynamic" energy is merely "active"
or "productive" power. I can't speak for the ancient Hebrews, but according to some
sources their worldview was pragmatic and essential . In my reading of Isaiah 40:26
in context, "dynamic" [i.e., "active/productive"] energy makes sense. I don't think
anyone is arguing that this is the only way to render the verse, or even the best way
to render it. But as I recall, the original question that started the discussion was
whether or not it was grammatically or contextually possible/acceptable.

Solomon Landers

Post by Bill Rea
If the NWT deliberately chose these two words so they could link Is 40:26
to relativity, then they are out in paraphrase territory. I have no
objection to paraphrases, but I do think they should be labelled as
such so they buyer knows want they are getting.