Biblical Translations

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by RabbiO

ירא has multiple meanings. One meaning is "fear" but it also means "awe" or "reverence."

Gee, I wonder how many other "original" text (assuming the example is from the original texts) have so many alternate meanings and how the ancient and current scholars came to the translations they made. It's absolutely amazing how so few folks can see the significance of correct and real translations and interpretations.
I briefly lived in Europe, Brazil and N. Africa and I noticed over and over how difficult it was to have clear, meaningful and FRIENDLY communications due to the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of words, phrases and GESTURES between our different cultures IN MODERN TIMES!
Now, imagine how difficult it might be to clearly understand words and phrases from ancient cultures and then offer them in current languages and words.
I sure wouldn't want that job but I'd be very happy to translate ancient writings for my self rather than trust what some other scholar (or the government) says it means.

[Macsen1961]

So, it is clear why you are afraid of the Christian forum.

People try to address your points in an intelligent manner and you promptly attack them.

For the record, I have a masters in history, it is one of my driving passions.

What you have failed to grasp is common among many. The first gospels of Jesus was not written until 75 years after his death.

As for the Romans use of torture, knowing how to read Latin is a bit of requirement for the field, so yes, I have translated existing records from the roman empire.

[jimrich]

Dear Everyone:
When I began this thread, i didn't want to load it down with a lot of copy/pasted items from various sources to support what I said at the beginning but, since it has turned into such a weird and convoluted argument about religion and philosophy, i am inspired to show a few of the articles and items that got me started on the issues surrounding reliable biblical translations so...........

re: http://translationjournal.net/journal/18bible.htm
This is offered by that article:
"The purpose of this paper is to consider some of the basic problems of Bible translation that have been encountered in the past and will certainly be encountered in the future."
"One basic problem inherent in Bible translation is that we do not have the original manuscript of the Bible, but copies of copies of copies... and this causes many problems because translators do not know which of all these copies is correct and which is not, since none of them are identical."

....Jim: There are many pages and articles at: google: problems with biblical translations so do your own research to see what is offered about this subject.

The above article goes on to say:
"Eugene Nida points out that "since no two languages are identical, there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence, there can be no fully exact translations."
"It is accepted that exact translation is 'impossible' since meanings of words and grammatical structures in any two languages do not generally correspond. We can illustrate that with the Greek word λόγος. No one English word is exactly equivalent to it. It can mean a word, a thought, a saying, a discourse, a narrative, a matter and many other things. The translator must choose the best equivalent in each situation."
"And as Nida says, "unfortunately, in some instances translators have actually tried to 'remake' a language; but this was unsuccessful" (ibid, 4). For example, one missionary in Latin America insisted on trying to introduce the passive voice of the verb into a language which had no such form. Of course, this was not successful."
"Finally, it should be added that in the future we should expect more translations, for languages continually change and Bible scholars are continually learning from archeological findings and newly discovered documents that help translators understand the ancient Greek and Hebrew better. It is certain that there will always be a need for new translations of the Bible because we still have a lot to learn about it."

...On this page... https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...blems03-**.pdf
....we see:
"In other cases scribes amplified and rounded off phrases by the addition of natural complements and similar adjuncts. A good example of a "growing" text is Galatians 6:17, where the earliest form of the text reads, "I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body." In later centuries scribes expanded the simple and unadorned mention of "Jesus" with various additions, producing "the Lord Jesus," or "the Lord Jesus Christ," or "our Lord Jesus Christ." "

From this page: https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/0...e-translation/
"10. Modern translations have removed words and verses from the Bible. Most biblical scholars—both conservative and liberal—would say instead that the KJV added words and verses, rather than that the modern ones have removed such. And this is in part because the oldest and most reliable manuscripts lack the extra verses that are found in the KJV."

"14. Red-letter editions of the Bible highlight the exact words of Jesus. Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort."

....jim: IMO, this article is perhaps the most significant at showing how and why the biblical writings were changed by current translators to say what the Church and other authorities wanted it to say:

B]Deliberate Mistranslation in the New International Version (NIV)[/b]

The New International Version of the Bible, or NIV, was first published in 1978. Since then, it has become one of the most popular English Bible translations, and almost certainly the most popular one among Evangelical Christians. It is also one of the worst translations for anyone who is seriously interested in what the Bible says. Its translators are conservative Evangelical Christians who are committed to certain theological doctrines as well as to the inerrancy of the Bible, as is implied in its prefaces:

From the beginning the translators have been united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form. (TNIV, 2005)
Our work as translators is motivated by our conviction that the Bible is God’s Word in written form. (NIV, 2011)

However, the text of the Bible itself defies attempts to harmonize its diverse traditions and viewpoints, and its apparent meaning is frequently at odds with sectarian doctrine. The solution of the NIV translators, in many of the passages that challenged their doctrines and belief in inerrancy, has been to change the Bible itself — altering the offending words and phrases to say what they think it ought to have said. In most cases of mistranslated NIV passages, there is a clear “problem” with the original text related either to doctrine or to biblical inerrancy.
I have collected a sample of such passages and presented them below. If you would like to suggest any additions, please contact me through my About page."

.... Jim: I will not bother to copy any of the many examples from this article as it could take up a few dozen pages. If interested, visit the link above.

So what it all comes down to, for me, is what you are willing to either believe or go examine for your self regarding scriptures and teachings in any culture or religion. As for me, I'm sticking with my own Conscience and Holy inspirations for living life the best that I can.

Now go do the right thing ~ Dr. Laura

[Baile]

Originally Posted by jimrich

since it has turned into such a weird and convoluted argument about religion and philosophy

Mascan pointed out how you've been attacking several posters instead of engaging in friendly discussion. You then replied with this comment above. What happened to "Do unto other as you'd have them do unto you" from your first post?

[jimrich]

To whom it may concern.
My current policy is to just ignore any member who is rude, offensive or aggressive with me since I've learned the hard way that talking back will only get me banned. It is very risky to engage a Forum Pet in an argument so, if I am not responding to some of you, it's because I do not know if you are a Forum Pet who can report me and get me banned. I will gladly address anyone who is respectful, intelligent and HONEST either on the open forum or in a PM. Some of you have sent me offensive, rude and abusive PMs which I have forwarded to the Administration. One thing i've learned about forums is that the Forum Pets/Cops make it their business to offensively attack and weed out so-called Trolls so your rude attacks are quite understandable yet not welcome in any way. Attack me all you want! But I won't be talking back to any of you Forum Cops/Pets!
:( jim

[muffin]

Playing in the background, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9nkzaOPP6g

In all fairness to know what your reading, is to have a foot in each camp.

[MARDAV70]

Personally, I rarely refer to the bible for contemplation. Sure, there are a few truths...but most of it (to me) is useless...full of controversy and poorly written by primitive, superstitious and ignorant nomads whose most important lot in life was simply surviving. Sure, it's important to translate the bible, but only as a means of understanding in anthropological capacity in learning about the evolution of humankind, and certainly not for spiritual enlightenment.

We hear the religious say "look, here is what God is telling us" about the 'good' parts, and with the 'bad' or controversial parts we hear "we can't understand God because of our imperfection". We have seminaries to teach how to study the bible. To me the biggest job of seminaries means teaching how to explain away or make the 'bad' or controversial parts fit.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by MARDAV70

Sure, it's important to translate the bible, but only as a means of understanding in anthropological capacity in learning about the evolution of humankind, and certainly not for spiritual enlightenment.

Ouch!

Originally Posted by MARDAV70

To me the biggest job of seminaries means teaching how to explain away or make the 'bad' or controversial parts fit.

Double Ouch!!

[jimrich]

This thread was always about translation problems and could have been about translating the Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching, ancient Egyptian, Aztec or any other ancient language.

Here are a few examples of DISHONEST translation issues:
Source: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.c...l-version-niv/

Jude 1:7 — The Greek states that Sodom, Gomorrah and the surrounding cities “serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” In other words, the fiery destruction of those cities serves as a warning for immoral behaviour. However, the NIV has subtly altered the verse to suggest it is individuals who suffer eternal fiery torment: “They serve an example to those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” This provides an explicit proof-text for a doctrine of eternal hellfire that is otherwise lacking in the epistles.


Jude 1:8 — The NIV has taken remarkable liberties with the text, changing “dreamers” (an allusion to Deut. 13) to “ungodly people” who act “on the strength of their dreams”. None of these words appear in the Greek.

There are many, many examples of this re-writing of the bible by dishonest and devious "scholars" at this site.

[StarChild]

Translation is a huge issue no matter how you slice it. I know of several words in several languages that do not have direct English equivalents. If you want to study a particular thing, whatever it is, be it a so-called religious book or not, you have to learn some of the language itself. (the language of origin of the work, whatever it is)

I didn't do that regarding the bible because a ton of people preceded me and did the work already of exposing all the issues etc. Plus I already stated that I think the religion is a blood thirsty cult spawn by evil... (Annunaki/Draco)

But I did actually learn some Tibetan in order to try to understand Buddhism better. And also some Cherokee. And having done that, what I can tell you is that it's a whole different world, the meanings are more deeply understood that way. Obviously I'm not really fluent in these and it's not really practical, but when it comes to our Spirit I think discernment is required. I don't want to be misled by the blind, the ignorant, the deviant, the malicious etc.

So anyway, pick something else that interests you, like the Bhagavad Gita, and go learn the Indian language. Or you could do what I do and just watch the plays and reenactments. Haha!