Genesis 4:3 - why not use the literal?

[nick]

There have been quite a few times that I have heard someone who knew either Hebrew or Greek say something along the lines of, "That literally means..." Sometimes it doesn't add anything, sometimes it is more impactful, and sometimes it makes the rest of Scripture clearer. When it makes Scripture clearer, or when it seems to have a different meaning with the literal - why not use the literal? Perhaps someone can explain why that is.

As an example I'll use Genesis 4:3

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. (KJV)
In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, (ESV)
In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. (NIV)
So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. (NASB) [I always heard this was the most literal]​

The bolded part literally means: at the end of days.

Why not use the literal? I understand there are a few options as to what that means (end of year, week, or some other amount of time), but process of time and end of days sound like two totally different things. Considering the only set time we have at this point in Scripture is the week, it makes the Sabbath as a creation ordinance a lot easier to understand.

This has not been the only time something like this has come up - I've heard things like this at every church I've been a member of - so I was just curious why this happens.

Side note: Praise God he has equipped some in the original languages to bring out clearer truths in the Scripture!

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The job of a translator is to get across the original meaning of the text as best possible. In most cases, this is best accomplished by rendering a passage literally, but in other cases, a strictly literal translation would likely cause confusion. This is simply because of differences in languages and how certain phrases are understood. For example, in English we understand the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" to mean that it is raining heavily. However, if I were to translate this literally into another language, the reader would likely be quite confused. In the above referenced verse, the bolded phrase in Hebrew is understood to mean something along the lines of "at the appointed time." However in English, "at the end of days" has a much more apocalyptic feel that would likely only confuse the reader.

 

[SRoper]

It's probably because the English idiom "at the end of days" means something different than the Hebrew. In English it is usually used to indicate the time before a great calamity. It might give the impression that all these things happened immediately before the Flood.

So you are right that "end of days" and "process of time" sound totally different, but to translate it literally would communicate the wrong idea.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Along with Bill, I think a more definite phrasing would make a surer point from the text. Perhaps there has always been enough dissent on that point from the committees of translation. The argument would be: does the phrasing refer to the long gap (years, probably decades, unquestionably) between the births of two boys and their subsequent sacrifices; or does it refer to the end of a set-series of days, a week of time? It is the one highly specified series of days already mentioned; however, other unspecified periods have also had their mention, 1:14, "seasons... days... and years."

It has to be admitted by those advocating for the latter that the opportunity to use the specific term "sabbath" (for the day or the period) is passed over by Moses in this context. It may still be the case that a recurring weekly period is intended, however that is not as definite a conclusion as we might find convenient.

I like the suggested gloss (modified): "at the fulness of time," implying a bit more definiteness than "passage". I am convinced that formal worship is the origin of all other worship exhibition--in other words, God initiates worship for man, establishing the framework for it; and man only works within the means provided. The idea of "appointment" is justly drawn from the fact that an approaching "end" naturally implies anticipation, and possibly preparation.

The Israelites who first possessed this revelation (in this exact form) from Moses, would have recognized a prototypical feast-day, which for them ran the gamut from weekly Sabbaths, to monthly and multiple-annual remembrances--usually designed to coincide with regular Sabbaths--and all of which formal occasions were by divine appointment, "ends" of set-series of days anticipated and prepared for until their arrival. It would have been reasonable for an Israelite to think of the first-family behaving in ways quite analogous to their own, since they worshiped the same God, Jehovah.

Cain and Abel could have been coming together for a weekly Sabbath, or perhaps more likely a seasonal feast or a "high" Sabbath. It would not have been in Moses' theological interest to fix a connection between that long-ago sacrifice, and any one of Israel's specified annual feasts of the spring or the fall (connected to firstfruits or harvest); but only provide a general relation.

In short, I believe it is reasonable to think of Cain's and Abel's offering in conjunction with the weekly appointment, but also conceived of within a larger but alien and unknowable framework to the one instituted at Sinai.

 

[nick]

Thanks all. As I said, I've had similar questions with passages outside of 4:3.

I think the literal translation would have worked better in this instance regardless of what baggage might come along with it.

It is the one highly specified series of days already mentioned; however, other unspecified periods have also had their mention, 1:14, "seasons... days... and years."

I understand we have other periods of time, but a normal reading of "end of days" coincides with the days God set forth a few chapters before. At least to me. I'll dig into some more commentaries on that verse, but I think my actual question about non-literal translations has been answered.

Appreciate the responses.