Biblical Translation.

for opinion to be fact it must be proved beyond any doubt and as i can not ask all chridtians i will not be able to speak for them .

the bible in its first form is very different from todays form true ?

is it the writings of prophets or of wealthy clergy and kings that give us the word of god through a book ?

why would wealthy clergy or kings rewrite the word of god ?

why would god allow such small minded (compared to god) entities decifer the book if a known truth exists ?

1+1=? is the answer a known truth with a single straight path or is it for all to decide on with thier own opinion?

fact even if a bible was written once apon a time the book today called the bible is not the one .it may help ppl find god but so may uncle toms cabin but that dont make it gods work or true scriptures .
the only book in mainstream religion as i know from my history lessons at skool was the koran as its newish and only written in its native tounge untill recently.the history of the bible is well documented and is known to have changed many many times .
 
Mike 8, that is the common belief among scholars that the book was "rewritten." I contend the book was considered an astrological record of time, hence the OT (at least) was never "rewritten" in the sense of taking material OUT. I contend the original text is in tact and was simply added to over time. I have an unpublished book (at the moment) where I identify the original OT text written circa 2141 BCE. give or take a few years and a couple of verses.

One of the techniques I have identified as a way to detect inserted material is to look for the "doublet", a repeated sentence, phrase, or idea within the text. The passages in between those lines represent insereted material, normally with a small trickle effect throughout the chapter. hence Solomon becomes King twice, Saul dies twice, Abraham travels with Lot twice, Moses occupies the cities the Amorites twice, etc. etc.

Once this material is deleted, the anachronisms and Biblical contradictions go away.
 
the bible has been translated many many times in its own day some books were wrote in different languages and then translated to others and back again ,scriptures rewrote some parts deletted and some books ignored altogether.all this is well documented.i have read the torah and there is more than one english version it all depends on who translates it on what the outcome of the scripture is .if there is one truth why is it not written down as a truth ?
the bible was illegal to be read except by priests even monks who rewrote the bible was only allowed one page to copy and someone else had to copy the next page .clergy cant have children to protect the churchs money from thier heirs .people confessed to the church the priest had the bishops ear and so on untill the pope ,so in effect the pope knew everything about everyone ,not a picture was painted of royalty without the church being in the picture someway .knowleage is power . he who contrals the knowleage controls all .the bible was not rewritten by accident it has cleverly been changed for a reason .
depends what you believe in but imo everyone believes something different
e.g. the holy ghost ?where oh where does it mention the holy ghost in the bible ? i have read four bibles and none mentioned the holy ghost but millions of ppl still think it must be in the book ,even ppl who have read it say it must be in there but they cant remember where ?
is that bad translation ?, misunderstanding ?, or just misleading ?
 
I haven't yet been able to find what I was looking for on the issue of translations.

I did, however, find the following article from an old back-up of my hard drive: (unfurtunately, it tends to be a very numbers based Atheist argument, but it does importantly illustrate some important translation issues) - - -



Here, more than anywhere else, is clear evidence of attempts by translators to resolve conflicts by simply rewriting the script.

GEN. 14:12 ("And they took Lot Abram's brother's son (i.e., Abram's nephew)...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, NIV, LV) versus Gen. 14:14 ("And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive"--KJ, ASV, NWT, MT) or ("When Abram heard that his kinsman was taken captive"--RS, ML, JB, NEB, NAS, NIV) or ("And Abram hearing that his brother's son had been...."--BBE, NAB, TEV). A contradiction exists in the KJ, ASV, NWT, and MT. All others wrote the text in such a way as to escape the obvious conflict.

2 SAM. 6:23 ("Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, NIV, MT) versus 2 Sam. 21:8 ("...and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul...."--KJ, ASV, NWT, MT) or ("And the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul...."--RS, ML, JB, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NAS, NIV) or ("And the five sons of Nadab the daughter of Saul...."--LV). Again, only the KJ, ASV, NWT, and MT reveal the contradiction. All others eliminated the problem created by 2 Sam. 21:8 through changing the name of Saul's daughter to Merab or Nadab.

1 CHRON. 18:4 ("And David took from him 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen...."--all versions) versus 2 Sam. 8:4 ("And David took...700 horsemen and 20,000 footmen"--KJ, RS, ML) or ("David captured 1,700 cavalry and 20,000 infantry"--LB, JB, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) or ("David captured...7,000 charioteers and 20,000 foot soldiers...."--NIV). Only the NIV resolved this contradiction to any meaningful degree.

2 SAM. 24:9 ("...there were in Israel 800,000 valiant men that drew the sword"--All versions) versus 1 Chron. 21:5 ("All they of Israel were a 1,100,000 that drew the sword"--all versions). In this instance, nobody rewrote the script to escape the dichotomy. Apparently they think one can defend the belief that women or unvaliant men compose the 300,000 difference, a proposition that's not really viable.

A classic example is found in 2 CHRON. 9:25 ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, ASV, BBE, NAB, NAS, MT, LV) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his horses and chariots and 12,000 horses"--JB, NIV, NEB, TEV, NWT) versus 1 Kings 4:26 ("Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen"--KJ, RS, ML, ASV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls and 12,000 horses"--JB) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for chariot horses and 12,000 horses"--NIV) or ("Solomon had 40,000 chariot horses in his stalls and 12,000 cavalry horses"--NEB) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his 12,000 chariot horses and 12,000 cavalry horses"--TEV) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his 12,000 chariot horses"--NAB) or ("Solomon had 4,000 boxed off spaces for horses for his carriages and 12,000 horsemen"--BBE). Close examination will show that contradictions exist within every version except the JB, NIV, BBE, and NAB.

Another exceptionally good example is 1 KINGS 7:26 ("...it contained 2,000 baths"--KJ, RS, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) or (...its capacity was 18,000 gallons"--ML) or ("...it had a 12,000 gallon capacity"--LB) or ("...its capacity was 2,000 measures"--NAB) or ("...the tank held about 10,000 gallons"--TEV) versus 2 Chron. 4:5 ("...it received and held 3,000 baths"--KJ, RS, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NWT, NAS, MT) or ("...it held 3,000 barrels"--ML, LB) or ("...it had a capacity of 3,000 measures"--NAB) or ("The tank held about 15,000 gallons"--TEV). In this case, any version except the LB or ML will cause a biblicist trouble.

2 KINGS 8:26 ("...22 years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign"--KJ, ML, TEV, LB, RS, JB, ASV, BBE, NIV, NAB, NWT, NEB, NAS, MT, LV) versus 2 Chron. 22:2 ("...42 years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign"--KJ, RS, ML, ASV, NEB, MT) or ("...20 years old was Ahaziah...."--JB) or ("...22 years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign"--BBE, NIV, NAB, NWT, NAS, TEV, LB, LV). Creators of the BBE, NIV, NAB, NWT, NAS, TEV, LB, and LV versions opted for a script alteration to avoid rationalizing.

2 KINGS 24:8 ("Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign and he reigned in Jerusalem 3 months"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) versus 2 Chron. 36:9 ("Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 3 months and 10 days in Jerusalem"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, NAS, MT) or ("Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem 3 months and 10 days"--NIV, TEV, NWT, LV).

Biblicists are trapped no matter what path they pursue. 2 KINGS 25:8 ("...and in the 5th month on the 7th day of the month...."--KJ, RS, ML, JB, NIV, ASV, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) versus Jer. 52:12 ("Now in the 5th month, in the 10th day of the month...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV).

1 CHRON. 19:18 ("...David slew of the Syrians 7,000 men which fought in chariots and 40,000 footmen...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT) versus 2 Sam. 10:18 ("David slew the men of 700 chariots...and 40,000 horsemen"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, ASV, NEB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT) or ("David killed 700 of their chariot teams and 40,000 men"--JB) or ("David killed 700 of their charioteers and 40,000 of their foot soldiers"--NIV, BBE, NAB) or ("David destroyed 1,700 chariots...and slew 4,000 horsemen"--LV).


 
nice post

it just illistrates how many interpretations there are has anyone studied this ?

can someone please look at the ten commandment one of the most important parts of the bible as they are direct laws given byt god .but in my research i found the commandment about adultery does not even exsist but if i misinterpreted this please correct me as my greek and latin are pretty bad :)
 
Yes Mike 8, a lot of this has been studied. I might suggest Harper's Bible Commentary as a starting point. Exodus 34:14-26 is the original 10 commandments.
 
34:14 for ye do not bow yourselves to another god -- for Jehovah, whose name `is' Zealous, is a zealous God.

34:15 `Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land, and they have gone a-whoring after their gods, and have sacrificed to their gods, and `one' hath called to thee, and thou hast eaten of his sacrifice,

34:16 and thou hast taken of their daughters to thy sons, and their daughters have gone a-whoring after their gods, and have caused thy sons to go a-whoring after their gods;

34:17 a molten god thou dost not make to thyself.

34:18 `The feast of unleavened things thou dost keep; seven days thou dost eat unleavened things, as I have commanded thee, at an appointed time, the month of Abib: for in the month of Abib thou didst come out from Egypt.

34:19 `All opening a womb `are' Mine, and every firstling of thy cattle born a male, ox or sheep;

34:20 and the firstling of an ass thou dost ransom with a lamb; and if thou dost not ransom, then thou hast beheaded it; every first-born of thy sons thou dost ransom, and they do not appear before Me empty.

34:21 `Six days thou dost work, and on the seventh day thou dost rest; in ploughing-time and in harvest thou dost rest.

34:22 `And a feast of weeks thou dost observe for thyself; first-fruits of wheat-harvest; and the feast of in-gathering, at the revolution of the year.

34:23 `Three times in a year do all thy males appear before the Lord Jehovah, God of Israel;

34:24 for I dispossess nations from before thee, and have enlarged thy border, and no man doth desire thy land in thy going up to appear before Jehovah thy God three times in a year.

34:25 `Thou dost not slaughter with a fermented thing the blood of My sacrifice; and the sacrifice of the feast of the passover doth not remain till morning:

34:26 the first of the first-fruits of the land thou dost bring into the house of Jehovah thy God; thou dost not boil a kid in its mother's milk.'

still not getting this adutry thing ?
 
hmmm. i dare say that many of these opinions are held sincerely and with integrity, but the way they are expressed is really calculated to put the back up of anyone who studies Torah using the traditional approach, because it assumes an unwarranted exclusivity of approach and, more problematically, appeals to a set of validation categories outside the system in which the text itself operates. the jewish sages have their own way of reconciling these apparent contradictions - the written Text is not even half the story without the Oral Law. do you think we haven't noticed these things? the "bible" you are attacking is a delusion of the "age of reason" - the so-called "vengeful G!D of the old testament" is an easy target, but bears as much relation to the Ineffable Reality of HaMaqom as something somebody told you in the pub does to the 'big bang'.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
@ bannanabrain

are you saying the text is no good unless someone tells you what it really means ?
and
it has no relevance ?
 
If bananabrain is referencing my own post as providing a somewhat pedantic argument, then I would quite agree. Arguing over numbers in translation does not equate to a critique of theology. However, it does illustrate how different Christian translations can approach the issues in different ways.
 
I said:
However, it does illustrate how different Christian translations can approach the issues in different ways.
Click to expand...

Or how the Spirit can assume many different forms without losing its identity.

Another note - from the Second Century on the writings of the Fathers etc. make great use of scriptural reference. If one was to 'edit' scripture to the degree that conspiracy thinkers would have us believe, one would be obliged to edit not only all these references but all the conclusions and commentaries thereof - we are now into conspiracy on a gargantuan scale - made more difficult in that in many cases documents only come to light centuries after they were written.

Thomas
 
Dear All,

Thank you kindly for all your responses.

By cross-referencing Genesis, parts of the Koran, and some of the Texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, i have found the answers that i sought.


I am sorry to have stirred up contention.
Once again thank you all, i am most grateful.


Warmest Regards,

malcolm
 
Thomas said:
Or how the Spirit can assume many different forms without losing its identity.

Another note - from the Second Century on the writings of the Fathers etc. make great use of scriptural reference. If one was to 'edit' scripture to the degree that conspiracy thinkers would have us believe, one would be obliged to edit not only all these references but all the conclusions and commentaries thereof - we are now into conspiracy on a gargantuan scale - made more difficult in that in many cases documents only come to light centuries after they were written.

Thomas
Click to expand...

you dont have to be a "conspiracy thinker" just to notice that there are many versions of the bible you just need to look in a book store .unless book stores are owned by "conspiracy thinkers".
"conspiracy on a gargantuan scale" are you refering to the christian church if so i would like you to clarify which one .
i think the word conspiracy is used far too much in regards to religion .
 
mikie8 said:
i think the word conspiracy is used far too much in regards to religion .
Click to expand...

I heartily agree - I was using the word light-heartedly.

Many argue that because there are different translations of scripture then true and original meaning is lost. A favourite variation is that the 'church' rewrote scripture to suit its own ends.

However, throughout history saints and sages have managed to distill great spiritual insight from scripture, which would suggest that the translation argument is not quite as sound as some insist. Furthermore critics of scripture usually posess only a superficial reading of the text, and are themselves devoid of any spiritual insight.

Add to this the fact that masters of other traditions regard the Bible as a sacred text (with all that the term implies) then there is an appreciable gulf between those who decry it, and those who acknowledge it.

The question then resolves itself to not what is missing from scripture, but what is missing from those who insist it has no spiritual value or meaning.

Thomas
 
aged hippy said:
Dear All,

Thank you kindly for all your responses.

By cross-referencing Genesis, parts of the Koran, and some of the Texts from the Nag Hammadi Library, i have found the answers that i sought.


I am sorry to have stirred up contention.
Once again thank you all, i am most grateful.


Warmest Regards,

malcolm
Click to expand...

You've done nothing wrong in the slightest - feel free to bring up any spcifics you would be happy to explore further through discussion. :)
 
are you saying the text is no good unless someone tells you what it really means and it has no relevance?
Click to expand...
no, i'm saying that if you don't understand the text then it is unlikely to appear relevant. the text may make perfect sense in a language you don't speak, or make perfect sense on a level you don't appreciate. in the case of Torah, both are true and at least 70 levels are available. either way, it is not the Text that is lacking.

Arguing over numbers in translation does not equate to a critique of theology.
Click to expand...
quite. these issues are resolved by the commentators. one famous contradiction is between the number of years that the jewish people were enslaved in egypt, which is stated twice and different figures given. the contradiction was resolved by the commentator who noted that one figure counts the years from the revelation of abraham and the other counts from the birth of isaac. the commentator then identifies the textual clue that alludes to this.

>Or how the Spirit can assume many different forms without losing its identity.

as the kabbalists say, the purpose of this is to "appease the ear" - our explanations bear as much relation to reality as a picture of someone does to the actual person.

If one was to 'edit' scripture to thedegree that conspiracy thinkers would have us believe, one would be obliged to edit not only all these references but all the conclusions and commentaries thereof
Click to expand...
and, besides, as it is said, from our PoV, "these and those are the words of the Living G!D" - in other words, the perceptual problem is ours, not G!D's.

Furthermore critics of scripture usually possess only a superficial reading of the text, and are themselves devoid of any spiritual insight.
Click to expand...
this is just as unfair as saying that the sages of a particular tradition are devoid of rational or scientific insight - and just as inaccurate. respect should prevail- and that means in all directions.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
this is just as unfair as saying that the sages of a particular tradition are devoid of rational or scientific insight - and just as inaccurate. respect should prevail- and that means in all directions.
Click to expand...

I don't think so - in the context of what I said, I meant one is not obliged to respect the voice of ignorance - and I am not accusing anyone on this board of such!

Thomas
 
@ bannanabrain

so your saying that if you read the torah and find it relevent your've understood it ?
I have raed a torah but didnt find it relevant so are you saying that i didnt ubderstand the text , i suppose you are . Sounds the same thing my islamic friend said about jews and christians . Its an old excuse used in religion "if we dont beleive in the scriptures were not worthy" or "if you understand the scriptures you are chosen in some way"

The fact is the torah is a form was about in jesus's time but the OT of the bible is not the torah why ? , because of translation and if you compare the two they are very different and if the OT can change so much in time does it not suggest the NT has changed as much also .
 
so your saying that if you read the torah and find it relevent your've understood it ?
Click to expand...
by no means. i'm saying that i've understood a *part* of it. i'm not sure that it's possible for a human to understand all of it from every possible perspective.

I have raed a torah but didnt find it relevant so are you saying that i didnt ubderstand the text , i suppose you are . Sounds the same thing my islamic friend said about jews and christians . Its an old excuse used in religion "if we dont beleive in the scriptures were not worthy" or "if you understand the scriptures you are chosen in some way"
Click to expand...
so then, by your logic, understanding is not dependent upon such things as language (or, dare i say, syntax, grammar and spelling) - that sacred texts should be "understandable" or "relevant". i consider this the theological equivalent of demanding that everything artistic should be censored in case it upsets a child. the Torah and NaKh (the rest of the "OT") were given to the jewish people and it is relevant to *us*. if you don't find it relevant to you it is hardly up to us to make it so! furthermore, 'chosenness' is not a function of understanding, nor is 'worthiness'. both are included in the supervening function of the 'covenant'.

The fact is the torah is a form was about in jesus's time but the OT of the bible is not the torah why ? , because of translation and if you compare the two they are very different and if the OT can change so much in time does it not suggest the NT has changed as much also .
Click to expand...
OK, first of all, i have no particular opinion on the NT, because it's not a sacred text for me. secondly, the Torah (at least in its original hebrew text) remains the Torah to this day, regardless of what has happened with its various translations and if you want to know my opinions on the documentary hypothesis, i have explained them elsewhere. other than this, i'm not exactly sure what point it is you're trying to make.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top