# Deuteronomy 5:10 am I right to be annoyed at the loose interp.



## Eoghan (Sep 4, 2011)

Having spent some time considering the inspiration of scripture I reckon the words themselves are chosen. I was therefore somewhat discomfited to find Deuteronomy 5:10 being read as "unto the thousandth generation".

It is probably what is intended but the word does *not* occur in the Hebrew.

Although most versions insert the word generations to explain "third and fourth" in the preceding verse they don't in the "thousands". I assume that there is a reason for the former insertion and just as valid a reason for the latter omission.

I can think of one reason for the latter - the pride of the Jews that having Abraham as their father they were more righteous than any other nation. This ego would have been fed enormously by the inclusion of "generations" therefore God omitted it.

If the word is omitted in the Hebrew why put it in? I checked NIV, AV, ESV, NASV and GNB (pew copy I assure you) nobody did it so why did the Pastor in his reading/gloss?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Sep 4, 2011)

[9] You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, [10] but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

(Deuteronomy 5:9-10 ESV)

There is a text note dropped that indicates a variant: "Or to the thousandanth generation."


----------



## Eoghan (Sep 4, 2011)

My question is do we preach on a "textual variant" - I think that the word "generation" is implied in verse 9 and possibly (?) in verse 10. My beef is with the sermon based on the "added" word.

As I learn more about the views on inspiration am I right to object to adding words to the text. As I indicated in the post I can forsee reasons for not explicitly stating/hinting that your children will be OK cos you are. I am just not happy with ADDING to scripture. The NASB makes it plain that generations is _*added*_ in verse 9. For that reason I have a lot of respect for the NASV! Yes it makes the text flow better, it might be implied but brother it ain't there in the Hebrew!!!!!!! (That goes for Exodus 20 too!)


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 4, 2011)

> to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.



Thousands of what? Generations, people, individuals, families?

The text has to be studied more closely, in any particular case, to see if the translators were justified in supplying a word or not.

The translators may know something about the Hebrew language, grammar and idioms that we don't.


----------



## MW (Sep 4, 2011)

Eoghan said:


> As I learn more about the views on inspiration am I right to object to adding words to the text.



There are sound and unsound examples of addition. A sound addition simply completes the sense for the reader. Please compare Deut. 8:3 with Matt. 4:4. "Word" completes the sense in Deut., and is verbally included in our Lord's quotation of it. An unsound addition does not merely complete the sense but adds an interpretation which unnecessarily restricts the sense the reader might legitimately take from it.


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 4, 2011)

The passage does not make good sense without "generations." Are we to believe that God punishes sins several generations down the line, but does not do the same and indeed much more when giving blessings?

Paul testifies that there is an advantage to being born a Jew, even in the New Covenant era: "Romans 3:1-2 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God."

Simply linguistically, in v. 9, it says "to the thirds and to the fourths." What could that mean other than to that-numbered generation? Likewise, in v. 10, it says, "to the thousands." There's no reason not to read it in line with the previous sentence. 

In Hebrew, it's common to omit the word for generations when children have already been mentioned in the context.


----------

