Biblical Translations

[callmeclemens]

I'm no langue expert, so this is only coming off my own personal research but relying on that of others.

I have read that the Biblical translation and it progression until today has vastly changed quiet a few things within it, I'm not sure if this is really the case or not, but I'd love to start an open discussion about it.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Biblical Translations

Well it depends on where you are starting from. The old testament or at least most of it, is the same as the Jewish holy book. Which has been a fairly meticulously traditioned recopying of the same thing over and over for a really long time. (At least this is how it was explained to me.) But I do know theat what we look at as the new testament has changed, and wasn't even really a thing until the books were picked and adopted by conclave about 600 years after the reported death of Jesus. They were subsequently latin at the time, though that is not the language that many of them were originally written in. There are reports that some of the dead sea scrolls contain parts of scripture that never made it into the bible, but I am personally not too sure how accurate that is. One of the first english translations was the King James Version of the bible and that is in fact one of the worst offenders for mistranslation around. It was translated to sound pretty when read and to promote the ruling monarch of the time. I think there are even a few websites around with different translations available. When you read a bible it is why they all have a "version" like NIV or new international version, and other various letter combinations. Try sitting down with a couple which are different and see what you see. I don't think it changes much of the message, but you get different feelings when reading different versions

[SPhoenix]

Re: Biblical Translations

Hi CMC,

In my younger years, I made a definitive study of this, and the truth is that it is *mostly* intact... but the *mostly* is a huge deal. If you change one thing about the OT, it becomes a vastly different book... and one important thing was changed.

In the OT, aside from 2 places, every time certain words referring to "Lord" or "Lords" was translated, it was translated SINGULAR. However, the problem is that in the original language, it is often not singular at all. Adon is singular, Adonai is plural... Adonai is translated in the bible as singular, even though it is a plural word. In other (secular) literature, this word is always interpreted plural, only singular in the bible.

But recently, there has been a discovery of a system within the Hebrew that has either been unknown, or deliberately ignored by scholars for probably 2k years now or better.

https://www.thechronicleproject.org

The Chronicle Project found that, embedded within the Hebrew language, is a system which validates each and every word. So let's say that you have the word bow. In Hewbrew, after the word bow would be a marker that tells you whether it means to bend an object; to bend yourself at the waist, or a weapon used for shooting arrows. Using this system, suddenly the singular translation becomes the very greatest height of hubris. In point of fact, where it says "god" in the OT, most instances actually say, "The Supreme Ones".

So that "God said" becomes "The Supreme Ones said". This puts a whole new spin on "Let US make man in OUR image." One of the 2 plural references to survive. (The other is at babel, "Let US go down and confuse their language")

Anyway, if you have genuine interest in this, the chronicle project is something to check out. It bears out my hundreds upon hundreds of hours of person research in libraries both public and private.

The OT "god" is plural, not singular. And, to my research, Jehovah is a title like Lord of the Commons or Lord of the Manor or Lord of the Slaves... not simply "various names all given to the same god" as claimed by most christian apologists.

[WinterTraditions]

Re: Biblical Translations

Hi CMC,

In my younger years, I made a definitive study of this, and the truth is that it is *mostly* intact... but the *mostly* is a huge deal. If you change one thing about the OT, it becomes a vastly different book... and one important thing was changed.

In the OT, aside from 2 places, every time certain words referring to "Lord" or "Lords" was translated, it was translated SINGULAR. However, the problem is that in the original language, it is often not singular at all. Adon is singular, Adonai is plural... Adonai is translated in the bible as singular, even though it is a plural word. In other (secular) literature, this word is always interpreted plural, only singular in the bible.

But recently, there has been a discovery of a system within the Hebrew that has either been unknown, or deliberately ignored by scholars for probably 2k years now or better.

www.thechronicleproject.org

The Chronicle Project found that, embedded within the Hebrew language, is a system which validates each and every word. So let's say that you have the word bow. In Hewbrew, after the word bow would be a marker that tells you whether it means to bend an object; to bend yourself at the waist, or a weapon used for shooting arrows. Using this system, suddenly the singular translation becomes the very greatest height of hubris. In point of fact, where it says "god" in the OT, most instances actually say, "The Supreme Ones".

So that "God said" becomes "The Supreme Ones said". This puts a whole new spin on "Let US make man in OUR image." One of the 2 plural references to survive. (The other is at babel, "Let US go down and confuse their language")

Anyway, if you have genuine interest in this, the chronicle project is something to check out. It bears out my hundreds upon hundreds of hours of person research in libraries both public and private.

The OT "god" is plural, not singular. And, to my research, Jehovah is a title like Lord of the Commons or Lord of the Manor or Lord of the Slaves... not simply "various names all given to the same god" as claimed by most christian apologists.

^I completely agree with everything said by SPhoenix. Not much else I could add to that!

[callmeclemens]

Re: Biblical Translations

This is awesome!

[Yazichestvo]

Re: Biblical Translations

Biblical translations can be frustrating. I have only a passing familiarity with the linguistic arguments, but I've heard people argue both sides of a biblical interpretation before, and at a certain point, you have to admit that no one really knows for sure what the book is saying. I feel this way partially because of my earlier Jewish backgrounds, because I have seen how wildly the Jewish and Christian interpretations of the same scripture can differ. I generally find more sense the Jewish interpretation, at least for the so-called "Old Testament".

As for interpretations changing recently, that's fairly evident. If you read the Talmud or the writings of Origen, they clearly thought Japheth sacrificed his daughter to God. If you ask a modern Christian however, few if any will interpret it that way.

[nbdy]

Re: Biblical Translations

This is how I lost my religion -- I was studying the bible too darned hard at age 16, going back to the Greek stuff and ultimately deciding that Jesus was only God inasmuch as we are all God. After the shunning it got a whole lot easier. hehe

[callmeclemens]

Re: Biblical Translations

It really caught my eye in John 14:2 it was something so simple:

Growing up Catholic with the Douay Rheims Translation the passage had been this:
"In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you."

But then I was browsing the New Internation Version and read this:
"My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?"

Then the New Living:
"There is more than enough room in my Father's home. If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?"

I've read the various explanations for why almost every bible Translated this line differently and according to their needs, and it just opened the door.

[Azvanna]

Re: Biblical Translations

It really caught my eye in John 14:2 it was something so simple:

Growing up Catholic with the Douay Rheims Translation the passage had been this:
"In my Father's house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you."

But then I was browsing the New Internation Version and read this:
"My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?"

Then the New Living:
"There is more than enough room in my Father's home. If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?"

I've read the various explanations for why almost every bible Translated this line differently and according to their needs, and it just opened the door.

Do you think the sentences change the meaning very much? I'm not so sure, maybe I'm missing something?

Also Clemens if you like this kind of thing, you might be interested in lectures given by Bart Ehrman called 'Misquoting Jesus.' I think he has been scrutinized for accuracy, but I don't think that's unusual for a scholar. He points out that with the way the Bible has been translated by scribes and how little we actually have of the original manuscripts, it's very hard to know what was originally in there and what wasn't. He proposes that one of the most famous stories - the story of the adulterous woman whom Jesus admonished to 'go and sin no more' instead of endorsing a stoning - was added by scribes into a margin and then later included into the official body of text. He has some very interesting things to say.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Biblical Translations

Although he focuses only on the New Testament, I highly suggest any of the works of Bart Ehrman... I especially recommend Misquoting Jesus and his series The Historical Jesus on The Great Courses (oh wow... its on sale, right now).

He is a highly respected New Testament scholar, and (especially in Misquoting Jesus) has some great insight on, and even proof of, the evolution of the Bible as it was transcribed and translated.

Currently, I'm in the middle of The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. It begins with an anthropological look at animistic religious practices of early hunter-gatherer cultures, and then how they evolved into the pan/polytheistic religious practices of the agricultural, and then city-state cultures that followed. Here he looks at how one can see, in the Bible, evidence of an earlier polytheistic religion. He goes on to look at the arise of monolatry and then monotheism, showing evidence of these shifts that can be seen in the Bible. He even goes on to look at the evolution from an early anthropomorphic monotheism to a more modern abstract vision of god... and on the the evolution of the savior archetype and more modern attempts to further evolve the concept of the divine. In the later chapters, he spends a fair amount of time pointing out how, when one reads the Bible in the order it was written, rather than the order it is presented, one can see this evolution take place.

Bart Ehrman and Robert Wright take different approaches to showing how the Bible has evolved (Textual Criticism for Ehrman, and history/anthropology for Wright), but ultimately, they both demonstrate quite convincingly, that it very much HAS.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Biblical Translations

You might also have fun with Brandon's 'Trial of Jesus of Nazareth.'

[WinterTraditions]

Re: Biblical Translations

I learned a bit about how the bible's writings survived during an excellent Christian Ethics course.

Back in the early days of Judaism, full Hebrew Scriptures were rare. They had to be hand-written, and then preserved... So, it's not like scholars could copy the Hebrew Scriptures often.

The Rabbis were the people to go to when you needed information on the Hebrew Scriptures. Being a Rabbi meant that you could recite every verse of the Hebrew Scriptures by heart, with no error. Students of rabbis would not be allowed to speak on a 'book' of the Hebrew Scripture until they could recite the entire thing. Only when they could recite all of the books, could they branch off and become a rabbi.

These Rabbis were essential to the living of the bible.

When Jesus Christ 'died', people assumed because of the words "The Kingdom of God is here but not now", that Judgement day was near. So, instead of writing the tales of Jesus down, they prepared themselves for supposed judgement. Rabbis were the ones to disregard the supposed coming of Judgement Day, as they were Jewish and did not believe Jesus to be the messiah. Instead, they took in the accounts of people who had been with Jesus, and committed them to memory. These tales of Jesus would be passed down through the Rabbis until the people realized; "Oh, maybe Judgement Day isn't coming soon..." and they found it to be of great importance to document Jesus for later reference. Rabbis were called in all across the land to scholars (As far as across the country!) to recite what they knew and have it written down. If you were to take a look at the surviving bibles from different points of the world, they are virtually indistinguishable. The Rabbis told the same information to different people on two ends of the land, where the scholars had no contact with each other.

As for the current translations? Yes, there are errors in there that cause quite an issue, but they are easily fixable.

[thalassa]

Re: Biblical Translations

Currently, I'm in the middle of The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. It begins with an anthropological look at animistic religious practices of early hunter-gatherer cultures, and then how they evolved into the pan/polytheistic religious practices of the agricultural, and then city-state cultures that followed. Here he looks at how one can see, in the Bible, evidence of an earlier polytheistic religion. He goes on to look at the arise of monolatry and then monotheism, showing evidence of these shifts that can be seen in the Bible. He even goes on to look at the evolution from an early anthropomorphic monotheism to a more modern abstract vision of god... and on the the evolution of the savior archetype and more modern attempts to further evolve the concept of the divine. In the later chapters, he spends a fair amount of time pointing out how, when one reads the Bible in the order it was written, rather than the order it is presented, one can see this evolution take place.

Bart Ehrman and Robert Wright take different approaches to showing how the Bible has evolved (Textual Criticism for Ehrman, and history/anthropology for Wright), but ultimately, they both demonstrate quite convincingly, that it very much HAS.

Other than the fact that you have great taste in books, if you haven't already, you might be interested in reading Karen Armstrong's A History of God