Dr. Bock,
Concerning our discussion of Genesis 6:3 (both its translation and its interpretation), you say: “A few simple questions about your reading, if I may. Why then does the following explanation limit a man's life to 120 years? Does that not reinforce the point about transience? How does flesh equal earthly? Is that not the same kind of move you complain about in a dynamic equivalence?”

Please recall that I prefer the translation “flesh” for Hebrew bashar in Genesis 6:3. My interpretation is something that would belong in the margin or notes, if anywhere. So, yes, I have an interpretation of “flesh” (earthly aspect of man), but, unlike those of you who “go dynamic” (not a Bock remark), I do not put my interpretation into the translated text. So, I have made no “move” in regard to the translated text. I’m afraid those who move their interpretations into the translated text mostly gather in your camp!

As to the “120 years” (Gen. 6:3) in relation to the transience of flesh, my preferred interpretation is that taken by NET that 120 years is a reference to the time left before the flood ends the lives of all on earth except for those God allows on the ark. You evidently take the more traditional view.

Again, my point was that “flesh” as a translation for bashar allows the reader to consider context and come to an interpretation. Some, such as you, will head for “mortal” as an interpretation. Some others, such as I, will prefer “earthly aspect of man.” Both are interpretations of the original Hebrew term. They only become translations for bashar if I move them out of the margin, where they belong, into the biblical text. But once you move the interpretation into the translated text in the name of clarity, you have picked a winner in the interpretation competition, and the Bible reader without tools does not even know the door has been closed.

However, you say: “The translation I choose only forecloses options if (1) a person does not check for other options and (2) marginal options are not noted (And the NET, for example, does give the alternate gloss, thus no foreclosure of the option).” That is all true, but you are assuming our Bible reader owns a full version of the NET Bible or uses the download, because my Readers Edition of the NET Bible makes no marginal mention of “flesh” as an alternative gloss.

On this topic of selecting interpretations for promotion to translated text, I repeat my earlier post: “You offer reassurance from teams of translators. Teams of translators do not deliver us from the danger of questionable selections from the population of possible renderings. The translators are all following a certain translation philosophy, and that will yield different translation results for different philosophies. Further, your teams of scholars making knowledgeable judgments regularly come up with different translation choices for the same word (“flesh,” “mortal,” “corrupt” or no translation at all [CEV]!). So, in the final analysis, what did teams of experts buy me in terms of accuracy?” You seem not to acknowledge the variability in the translated text introduced by dynamic equivalence. Translations based on formal equivalence agree in wording on a far greater amount of the biblical text.

We do agree that using more than one type of translation is best, but the average Bible student does not understand how to resolve the inevitable differences.

-Barry