cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This occurs because of
> the nature of Ancient Language to mirror reality
> itself. It can't really be "translated" at all
> because modern language can not be forced to obey
> natural law.

Any translation from one language to another will have its flaws due to differences in world view and such. This, however, does not mean that translations lack levels of validity and usefulness, nor that by looking at a number of translations one can't get even closer to the intent of the original. Your view strikes me as being similar to that of Calvin, of "Calvin and Hobbes", where no one else understands "natural law" in the way that he does, except, of course, for perhaps his stuffed tiger. (And even he often questions Calvin's reasoning.)


> I read all the modern sources though frankly I
> haven't bought Allen's book yet because I can't
> cross reference it.

All the modern sources? Really?? Hmmmm. Allen provides 40 pages (pp. 375ff) of concordance (cross references). Granted that he doesn't give the relevant page numbers (which I wish he had), the cross referencing is indeed there - and not that difficult to use. (I've simply pencilled in the page numbers next to each of his correlations over time as I've looked them up).


> Even where I can it just
> doesn't seem to agree with any earlier
> translators. If I'm right that the language can't
> be translated then any individual "translator" is
> irrelevant anyway.

More "Calvinism" here, though in spades. On occasion you do seem to be able to raise some interesting questions, but then you invariably go off into this sort of nonsense. It's a shame.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2019 10:21AM by L Cooper.