Thu Jan 16 04:13:21 1997

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jan 16 04:13:21 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id EAA25375; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 04:12:50 -0500
Message-ID: <32DDFE58.42B3@online.no>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:09:28 +0000
From: Rolf Furuli 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: RE `onlybegotten God/son` or `the onlybegotten who is         God` 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 941

Hallo!

I have a mester`s degree in Semitic languages and am at 
present working on a Ph.D. thesis presenting a new view of 
the verbal system of Classical Hebrew. I have taken a 6 
month break to write a book about a subject which have 
interested me for years, namely the role played by theology 
and bias in Bible translation. Is the reader completely 
dependent upon the translators` subjective views? Is it 
possible to make a translation where the reader who does not 
know the original languages may have a part in the 
translation process?

Texts about Jesus as God are important in the discussion, 
and I am not sure I am updated textually speaking. Therefore 
two questions to the experts:
(1) Regarding John 1:18, are there any new insights after 
Finegan `Encountering NT manuscripts?`
(2) Regarding Heb 1:8 and Rom 9:5, are there any new 
insights after Metzger `Textual commentary on the Greek NT`?  

Rolf Furuli
Oslo, Norway

Back