Comments on: Abish

By: Jessi

Jessi — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:11:25 +0000

Great point,Sharon. All very informative. Thanks all!!

By: Sharon

Sharon — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:04:41 +0000

It doesn’t really matter who had the vision. Jesus said, “Blessed is he who has not seen and yet believes.”
Either way she must have had remarkable faith to have played such a major part in this remarkable story.

By: Dustin Davis

Dustin Davis — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:54:14 +0000

I was just going to ask how it was interpreted in translation to other languages. Thanks for the post dai.

By: dai

dai — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:39:47 +0000

There’s some interesting insight in looking into how verse 16 has been translated into other languages.

The German BoM makes it very clearly to be a vision had by her father (ihres Vaters)

The Spanish translation is a bit more revealing. The 1980 version make it clear the father had the vision (que su padre tuvo). However, the revision in 1992 (the currently used) put it back into more neutral ground (vision de su padre). I’m not sure if this suggests that she had the vision more than it reflects a desire to be as close to the original as possible. At the very least though, it throws it back into ambiguous.

French has the same as the later Spanish (vision remarquable de son père).

These are the translations I had at hand. It doesn’t prove anything, of course, but it does shed some more light.

By: Mary Siever

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:44:04 +0000

“I know Kim’s a guy. I was trying to have a little fun but perhaps came across a little too cheeky.”

Ok, I was just checking. :) Some people don’t know it. Nothing is too cheeky, we are Canadian. :)

By: Kim Siever

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:30:26 +0000

“it’s more common to associate that which follows the article “of” with the content of the vision rather than with the individual who had the vision”

In our current usage of the possessive, maybe. But we also use the apostrophe-s combination.

“That said, what about the best part of my previous comment?”

It’s quite possible.

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:24:06 +0000

I know Kim’s a guy. I was trying to have a little fun but perhaps came across a little too cheeky.

Kim, you could be correct in your assumption, but I think most would agree that it’s more common to associate that which follows the article “of” with the content of the vision rather than with the indiviual who had the vision.

That said, what about the best part of my previous comment? That most profound and stunning insight? The Rosetta Stone that will unlock mysteries that even Solomon the Wise could not have divined?

By: Kim Siever

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 05:10:36 +0000

“Kim isn’t a feminist if you go by this definition “belief in the necessity of large-scale social change in order to increase the power of of women.””

How are you defining power?

By: Kim Siever

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 05:09:21 +0000

Why wouldn’t I assume it, Jack? The language does not indicate the vision was Abish’s. If anything, posession is more strongly indicated toward her father.

By: Mary Siever

Sat, 15 Jul 2006 05:03:20 +0000

Um.. Kim isn't a feminist if you go by this definition "belief in the necessity of large-scale social change in order to increase the power of women." For other definitions, perhaps so, and myself as well. And I hope you realise Kim is also not a woman. But then I suppose men can't be feminists. I just have never described him as such.

However I don't see how being a feminist would assume that Abish or her father had the vision. It's interpretation of scripture is all.