Originally Posted by: eh steve 
JB, since you have a good bit of practice in breaking down and translating Hebrew, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Swalchy's commentary. Thanks
I have not read all of Swalchy's commentary yet, finding it difficult to get through all of the insults and opinions. What I have noticed is that he uses a very mechanical process to translate it. And what I mean by this is that he looks to whatever definition logos points too and takes the definition as given there.
There is nothing wrong with this, but I think a lot can be gained from first looking to every word that contains the same root letters. What I mean by this is ignore the vowel pointing and look at the letters that comprise the word and the definiton of every word made with those letters. The orriginal Hebrew did not have vowel points and so context alone was used to determine the meaning of the word. When logos points to a definition it is the definition as the vowel pointing in the MT defines it. Often time I find that other definitions fit the context better. A good example is edon vs adon both are identical in the orriginal text Aleph Dalet Nun. Edon meand upright pillar or upright one, while adon means lord or master. Context dictates which is choosen, but the MT may point it as Adon when in context Edon is more correct.
The other thing I don't think he does is look to the root words to understand the derived word. If the root word means the opposite of a definition given for the derived word you have to consider the likelyhood that the derived word is accurate or intended to mean what a particular definition says. Yada has talked about this in terms of Towrah. If you look at the root of Towrah the LAW definition makes no sense. Beyond this the root word can color or add to the understanding of the derived word, something Yada often does is is translate a word in the context of it's root word.
So from what I have read so far I don't think Swalchy's translations are wrong, but I think much is left unconsidered in them.
I was thinking that rather then just give my thoughts, beyond what I have just shared, that I would do something more helpful. I don't want anyone to take my word for anything. And if I respond line by line to Swalchy's commentary I would likely be accused of just defending Yada's translations, or making excuses for him. Besides Yada has explained a number of times now why he translated it the way he did, and if anyone has questions regarding why he choose a certain way they can email him. If there is something in Swalchy's commentary that sticks out to you as completely changing the meaning of the text, or that seems like Yada is just way off on a translation, email him and ask him about it, point out any evidence Sawlchy may have presented and any arguments brought up. Do not just email him the whole document and say here answer this, but bring up any specifics that are troubling you.
So on to my idea. Rather then take my word for, or Yada's or Swalchy's I thought I would compile all of the pertenant resources going through each verse. Then anyone is free to use it to determine what they think the text is conveying.
This will take me a long time to complete, and will be a lot of information for anyone who engages to process. This will give everyone an appreciation of what it is like to go through and translate, and the difficulties envolved. Those that have Logos can do this on their own, but for those that don't I am going to include every resource I use during my translations.
So far working over the last two hours I have managed to compile the first word. The rest should go a little faster as part of the time was trying to determine the best format, hint there is no good one other than the Logos program. I thought since this would be such a large and time consuming undertaking I would post it here and see if there is any interest.
So please let me know if this is something that you would like me to continue.
