Given the context and the time it was written, there is not a shred of evidence this should be translated any other way than it has been in every one of hundreds of languages by thousands of translators. Verse 16 starts out talking about how sweet his mouth is and then says that he is desirable as a whole. are all described in terms of appeal and desire. The verses leading up to this are in the voice of the woman describing the physical characteristics of her man. Even with two different religions claiming this as a holy text and vast differences in interpretation, the simple translation of these particular words has never really been in doubt because the face value translation of מחמד to mean lovely fits the context of both the sentence and the book. Whether or not the passage was intended as an allegory or a plain description, it is clear that the immediate context of the passage is a woman addressing her lover. However, those interpretation difficulties do not concern us here. Jews and Christians differ widely on what to do with the passage, and even among Christian traditions there is some debate as to what the imagery refers to. Even when you sort out the words, it is difficult to interpret what it is all supposed to mean. The Hebrew is difficult and sometimes obscure. Song of Solomon is a notoriously difficult book to translate. For this, we need the context and to understand the thing we're translating in the first place. The issue before us is when to translate a word as a name and when to give the meaning. If I had given the translation as "Trust bought a Gül from the florist", my competence with the language must be called into question. You will note that in the English translation I provided for the Turkish sentence above, I have done the work of interpreting it for you and retained the proper names but translated the words with ordinary meanings. The accusation is raised that "we have no right to translate names". The immediate context of the words makes it clear how they are being used.īack to your videos. You don't even need the capitalization or know my friends names. If I were to say "Güven çiçekçiden bir gül aldı," (Güven bought a rose from the florist) there is absolutely no question from the context that I am using Güven as a proper name and gül as a type of flower. In fact most of the people I know have names with similar ordinary meanings. In the previous sentences I capitalized them and from the context it is clear that those words refer to people, but these are the ordinary everyday words for trust, rose, river and spring respectively. I have Turkish friends with names like Güven, Gül, Nehir and Pınar. While it is relatively rare in English with our mish-mash of nationalities, in many languages even today (and even more so through history) it is common for proper names to be based words with straight forward meanings in their native tongues. To show why, I will give some translation examples from a language I know well.
The flaw in this argument is that it proves absolutely nothing.
The results they show have two machine translation sites returning "Mohamed" as the result. The video (and several other sites on the net) suggest taking the root Hebrew word מחמד into an online translator. The claim in the video is that the phrase translated here as altogether lovely is actually the proper name "Mohammed" with a respectful plural ending and is incorrectly translated to its meaning. I have highlighted the phrase in question here. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. The argument presented in your videos is based entirely on the following passage in the Old Testament book of Song of Solomon.ġ6 His mouth is most sweet Yea, he is altogether lovely.
Kullo muhammadim series#
The claim in the video series you linked is patently ridiculous.
0 kommentar(er)
