How Scriptures get Mistranslated I

The very first of your post is wrong.
Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic. It was the very dominate language from 539 BCE to 70 CE.
The Aramaic language has been around for about 3,000 years and is the language of the Talmud.
This has been proved by archeology digs.
 
A more exacting uestion would be, "how did the Bible get translated at all"? considering the lack of literacy and the need a "certain translation"?

In a word: "badly". :lol: It's a very long story spanning several thousands of years but I will try to give you the short version.

The original Books of Moses (or the Torah) were written sometime between 500 and 900 BCE presumably in Ancient Hebrew. I say "presumably" because a) we don't have any of the originals so there's no way to prove it although it seems logical, and b) because there is some scholarly debate regarding the Books of Moses being simply Jewish versions of even older texts from other cultures. Other Old Testament books were written before or after...the dating is kind of scattered and can sometimes be hotly debated. Psalms for example was probably between 900-1000 BCE although some argue that it wan't written, at least in part, until around 500 BCE. Regardless, these were not all complied into one massive book as we have it today. That didn't come until the Third Council of Carthage in 397 AD. So what we had was a bunch of individual books floating around for a thousand years or so. The books were passed down from generation to generation using mostly oral but also written tradition.

Now a few things we have to keep in mind here. The Jews are very picky about keeping the original wording of those books, especially the Torah so we can be reasonably comfortable that there wasn't a great deal of changes made intentionally. But that doesn't mean that errors were not made when copies of books were created (indeed they were), nor does it mean that Jewish culture stayed the same. No culture remains the same for 1,000 years. So even by the time Jesus was born there was certainly a significant cultural departure from when the books were first written, even though they may have been using the same words in the books. This would make a lot of sense because Jesus frequently made the point that (paraphrasing): "Uh you guys have really got this fucked up. You may have heard this thing here, but you are missing the point." So we can logically and reasonably conclude that in that 1000 years culture and tradition, at the very least, had changed to the point where some things were getting messed up already.

The first big translation (that we know of or recognize) came with the Septuagint (or LXX) in around the 3rd century BCE. Now there's a great story that goes along with this about how King Ptolemy II sequestered 72 Jewish scholars into 72 different rooms and they all miraculously produced the exact same version in Greek. Well nice story, but bullshit. Who knows the exact way it happened but suffice it to say it was translated into Koine Greek at about that time. Now the problem was, as I mentioned in an earlier post, they didn't do a real good job of it. They were really focused on a literal word for word translation and as I said before there are simply words and concepts that don't translate from one language or culture to another.

The simple ritual of marriage in ancient Jewish culture is something that simply defies translation into Greek. The Jews had 18 stages of the marriage ritual starting with the marriage arrangement and ending with the girl being carried on a platform through the streets of the village and delivered to her new husband after which their bed linens would be paraded through the town so everyone could see the blood proving that the girl was a "b'tulah" (virgin). But this could change according to time and tribe. Sometimes the husband had sexual rights to the woman prior to the last stage so the linens ceremony would take place at an earlier stage, and sometimes he had to wait until stage 18. And through all of this the woman's title may change. At one stage she may be a "b'tulah" and at another stage she may be an "alma" (young woman) and at yet another she may be a "na'arah" (girl).

Well this was a concept that just doesn't translate to Greek. Unlike the ancient Hebrews where you can be "kind of married", and a week later be "still kind of married but a little more married than you were last week", to the Greeks it was a pretty black and white thing; you were either married or you weren't. It was a "yes or no" question, not a shade of "sort of". So when translating in the LXX they just used the word "parthenos" (virgin) for all of those little variations even though in actual practice the woman may or may not have been a virgin depending on what stage the linens ceremony took place (and indeed whether she was a virgin to begin with).

So what happened next was that the books of the New Testament were written (usually in Greek again presumably since we don't have any of the originals) and again they were individual books scattered here there and everywhere and there were a lot more of them than we currently have in the modern Bible.

Then a major thing happened. The Hebrew language died out. The Jews were expelled from the Holy Land and they became scattered and as such they were forced to convert to a language everyone else was speaking in order to communicate. Ancient Hebrew flat out ceased to be spoken. Later the books were translated into Latin in what are known as the Vetus Latina but this was done individually and it was subject to the same problems as the LXX and indeed the LXX was used in part as a basis for translation. That meant in some cases they were badly translating an already bad translation.

Later that problem was enhanced with the Vulgate which attempted to combine it all into Latin but by then no one had spoken Ancient Hebrew for almost 300 years. The culture had been scattered....there was nothing to refer to. So the Vulgate was translated using a mixture of Hebrew texts, Greek texts, the LXX, and the Vetus Latina, but primarily the LXX. So now we have a translation of a bad translation of a bad translation. Now this coincided with Christianity becoming the official religion of Rome and now is when we start to enter a phase where the bad translations are not just simple errors or translation issues related to culture, it starts to get intentional.

When Christianity was adopted by Rome there were two big things influencing it. One was the Roman Emperor (Constantine I) who wasn't really on board with this whole thing but saw it as a great way to control the people, and second was the Pope who correctly recognized that the Church suddenly had enormous power and influence. So they put together the first version of the Bible as we know it today, but in doing so they got rid of any book that could be interpreted as being "against Rome", "anti-establishment", etc. Where they could simply interpret a word to mean what they wanted they did that, but where they couldn't they just outlawed the book and made it a crime punishable by death to own it.

After the fall of Rome a power vacuum was created in Europe and the only power left to fill the gap was the Church and it just got worse from there. Bibles were only written in Latin but it was again a crime punishable by death for anyone but clergy and nobility to speak or read Latin or even own a Bible. So what the Popes and kings did was to essentially create a situation where they could tell the people whatever they wanted, claim it was written in the Bible, and anyone who dared to go see for themselves got burned at the stake or tortured to death. Corruption was widespread as were the atrocities, but certain traditions became established whether they were in the Bible or not.

Finally, in 1517 a German monk named Martin Luther got fed up with all this bullshit and nailed a letter containing 95 ways in which the Church had corrupted the word of God and abused the people to the door of the All Saints Church in Wittenberg. This would spark the Protestant Reformation that was seized on by Henry VIII of England. Now it's important to note that Henry's motivation was not exactly a search for "the truth". He didn't agree with Luther and saw him as a heretic, but by embracing Luther's message he had the legitimacy to divorce Catherine of Aragon (a Catholic) and marry Anne Boleyn (a Protestant). Basically, England turned Protestant because Henry had an itch in his pants for a woman that wasn't his wife. Now it flipped back and forth a bit. Queen Mary (Catherine's daughter and a Catholic) restored Catholicism, but Elizabeth I (Anne's daughter and a protestant) restored a Protestant England after Mary's death. After Elizabeth's death James I became king of England and the next big thing happened.

James I commissioned what would become the King James Version in 1604 AD. It wasn't the first English translation but it would become the most dominant and most influential through the rest of history. Now a few things happened with this translation. First was the same problems other translations had. Ancient Hebrew had been a dead language for 1,500 years and the culture was gone as well. Koine Greek had been dead for about 1,200 years. Biblical Aramaic had been gone even longer...1,800 years or so. So the members of the clergy that translated it were in even worse shape than the ones who translated the LXX and the Vulgate. The other thing that happened was that James instructed them to translate it according to traditional interpretations. James was no fool. He understood completely that if translated one way it could be a threat to government and power, so he wanted to ensure that the translation supported the traditions of the Church established after the fall of Rome instead of, for lack of a better way of putting it, "what the Bible really said", which they were having a bitch of a time figuring out in the first place. So the Bible was translated using Hebrew and Koine Greek and Aramaic, but the LXX, Vulgate, and Latin translations were the basis for interpretation and it was specifically crafted to preserve tradition. In other words what we have in the KJV is a traditional interpretation based on centuries of manipulation by the Vatican and kings, of a translation, of a bad translation, of a bad translation.

It gets worse.

The KJV was so dominant so for so many centuries that other versions are based, at least in part, and very heavily influenced by the KJV. So the New Living Translation for example, which is more concerned with the meaning rather than a literal interpretation and putting it into colloquial English, often cannot escape the traditional interpretations of the KJV. There are simply some concepts that are so central to the religion and so passionately insisted upon by Christians that they don't dare suggest the Bible says anything else; whether it actually does or not. The Church and religious leaders propagate this still though their tactics have changed. They don't burn people at the stake anymore or shove red hot pokers up their ass, but they threaten people with eternal damnation if they dare listen to anything other than what they insist a scripture means.

The good news in all of this is that, as I mentioned before, we are in a time now where we can crawl out from under all that darkness, manipulation, corruption, errors, etc. We have access to information in a manner never before seen on Earth. We have technology that allows us to solve some of the riddles that for thousands of years have gone unsolved. We have advanced in archaeology that allow us to get a far better understanding of ancient culture and language and as people go through all of this explosion of information the proverbial veil is being lifted. It's really a very exciting time.

Anyhow, that's a brief history of how the Bible was translated. I know it doesn't seem very brief, but in reality it's very brief and I skipped pretty much everything but the main points. There are lots of other nuances and smaller events that contributed here and there, but what I provided is a very basic history.
 
Last edited:
The very first of your post is wrong.
Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic. It was the very dominate language from 539 BCE to 70 CE.
The Aramaic language has been around for about 3,000 years and is the language of the Talmud.
This has been proved by archeology digs.

I was referring to ancient Hebrew culture in that part. I phrased it badly and apologize for the confusion. What I should have written was: "While in Ancient Hebrew (culture) those words (as well as “sister”, “son”, “daughter”, and “mother”, etc) had the same meanings as they do today they also had a different social meaning." In regard to the point I was making with Matthew, it's not the language that is important so much as the cultural significance of the word. As I mentioned to QW, it doesn't matter whether He spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Swahili...it's the concept of social status related to those words in any language according to culture that is critical.
 
It depends on which version you are using. Some versions try to stay as close to the wording as possible. That's awesome on one hand but unless people understand the cultural significance and history they can frequently miss the point of the lesson. Some versions write the point of the lesson, but the problem there of course is that it's the point of the lesson according to the interpreter, and frequently they are wrong. Let's take Song of Songs 1:16. The KJV writes it:

16 Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant: also our bed is green.
Well, yeah that's pretty much what it says. Close enough anyhow that it's probably not worth bitching about. But the NIV writes:



Hmmm.....ok. It IS closer to the point, but further away from the actual wording.

The American Standard Version writes:



Well that's not at all what it says and it completely misses the point.

The New Living Translation Writes:



:eek: We are getting worse and worse here. The whole thing focuses around the word "green". The KJV translates it correctly as "green", but to understand what that means you have to know something about the culture. To the ancient Jews, "green" was related to green growth on plants and NIV makes that point by using the word "verdant" in place of green. But while they make the right connection they still miss the point. The new green growth was used to create images of abundance, fertility, plenty, etc. "Luxuriant" in the ASV is missing it. "The soft grass is our bed" in the NLT completely misses it. The point being made is (to put it in modern terms) "you fuck me really good and often" possibly also indicating "...and we produce children".

So which version is "the right translation"? Well none of them. The KJV correctly translates "green" as "green"; but it translates the word and fails to convey the meaning. The rest of them neither translate the word nor accurately convey the meaning. Now if we were to write it as follows:


16 How handsome you are, my beloved! Oh, how pleasing! And our sex life is robust and fulfilling.
It would still be wrong because while I am capturing the meaning, I fail to literally translate the word and I lose the poetic imagery. Song of Songs is after all a love poem...and quite an erotic one at that. When we translate from one language to another we lose the meter, we lose the cleverness of the metaphors, we lose the beauty of the imagery, etc.

So here I have demonstrated a real catch 22. If we translate literally it places the responsibility on the reader to perform their due diligence and research the meaning. As it relates to the Bible that means essentially a lifetime of pretty involved academic study. If we translate the meaning we are subject to the interpretation of the translator, their biases and agenda (intentional and accidental), their errors, etc. Frequently, even versions like the NLT or NRSV who focus more on the message than the actual words get it wrong as well. There are reasons why that is, but I will save that for a later post.

Are you a cultural anthropologist, or do you just play one on the internet?

You are missing the fracking point, even though you pointed out the main part of the equation. Song of songs is poetry, it uses words to paint a picture, it isn't supposed to be taken literally, and it is impossible to translate.

Believe it or not, everyone that even casually studies the Bible knows that. The words are irrelevant, what matters is what people who read it take out of it. The same exact thing happens when you read Shakespeare. To properly understand Shakespeare you need to understand the culture and the politics of his era. He uses references and words that have completely different meaning today, but that does not make his work any less pertinent to those of us who don't fracking care about that. What matters is that he tells us about human events in a way that makes them alive to us. That is what the Bible is about, not about how you think it is impossible to accurately translate.

By the way, just to be nit picky and to prove I actually have skin in this game, there is no and in the sentence in Hebrew. The word 'eres is translated "also our bed" because of the context of the sentence.

I used Hebrew to make the initial point regarding how cultural metaphors or idioms can be misunderstood by other cultures. The passage in Matthew I quoted was, as you point out written in Hellenistic Greek, but the specific language is not important. The same concept will apply regardless of what language you are using. The passage is a "quote" from Jesus and as he was a Jew the concept of "brother", "father", "son" etc as indicators of status that I described would apply whether he was talking in Hebrew, Greek, Klingon, or pig latin. It was a cultural thing specific to the given time frame.

The same concept applies even in modern American English. I am from the south, I walk into a restaurant and order iced tea I expect to get tea with ice and sugar. It doesn't come without sugar down there, and it doesn't come with flavors. How, exactly, do you think people don't actually understand that?
 
People misinterpret everything, Politicians misintrepret the constgiion for their own end. Preachers to it in the bibile. We do it when we drive. It is a human things live with it.
 
Are you a cultural anthropologist, or do you just play one on the internet?

You are missing the fracking point, even though you pointed out the main part of the equation. Song of songs is poetry, it uses words to paint a picture, it isn't supposed to be taken literally, and it is impossible to translate.

I thought I pointed that out quite clearly when i said:

It would still be wrong because while I am capturing the meaning, I fail to literally translate the word and I lose the poetic imagery. Song of Songs is after all a love poem...and quite an erotic one at that. When we translate from one language to another we lose the meter, we lose the cleverness of the metaphors, we lose the beauty of the imagery, etc.

Believe it or not, everyone that even casually studies the Bible knows that.

Oh no they don't. :lol: Most people do yes, but there are lots of fundamentalists who take it very literally and people do overlook that many books in the Bible are poetry. Songs of Songs is one, Psalms is another, etc. I use them as example to make a point, but the same concept applies in all books. The problem comes when the language becomes antiquated. We tend to read that as solemn and serious because it sounds solemn and serious 500 years later when in reality it was sometimes anything but that.

When the Bible says that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt many people think she actually turned into a column made of sodium chloride, not metaphorically. When they hear "...forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us..." many people believe that is restricted to trespassing on property. I know several people who believe that...if you forgive people who come onto your property then they must forgive you for going on theirs. According to them beating someone over the head for talking shit about you is a totally different story and doesn't apply.

The words are irrelevant, what matters is what people who read it take out of it. The same exact thing happens when you read Shakespeare. To properly understand Shakespeare you need to understand the culture and the politics of his era. He uses references and words that have completely different meaning today, but that does not make his work any less pertinent to those of us who don't fracking care about that. What matters is that he tells us about human events in a way that makes them alive to us. That is what the Bible is about, not about how you think it is impossible to accurately translate.

Well that depends on what you think the Bible is doesn't it? If you think the Bible is the literal word of God and His rules for how we should go about our lives then yeah the words matter a lot. If you think it's something to be taken metaphorically as a general guide, then perhaps the words don't matter quite so much if the meaning is accurately represented. I agree that what matters is what people take from it and the overriding lessons of a given story, but the words create meaning and in many cases the translation in English creates specific meanings that are inflexible, where in Hebrew or Greek it might be open to a lot of interpretation. So yes, the words do matter because if you use the Bible to learn "...about human events in a way that makes them alive to us" it's important to be accurate about what those human events are, especially when some people base their very existence on it.


By the way, just to be nit picky and to prove I actually have skin in this game, there is no and in the sentence in Hebrew. The word 'eres is translated "also our bed" because of the context of the sentence.

Yeah that's pretty nit picky. :lol: You are correct of course, but I am not sure how vital it is to the overall point I was trying to make.


The same concept applies even in modern American English. I am from the south, I walk into a restaurant and order iced tea I expect to get tea with ice and sugar. It doesn't come without sugar down there, and it doesn't come with flavors. How, exactly, do you think people don't actually understand that?

For the same reason that when someone from Seattle goes to Georgia and orders iced-tea they are surprised when it comes sweetened, and when someone from Georgia goes to Seattle and orders iced-tea they take a drink and spit it out because it's so bitter. Some people know better and understand the culture differences even within the United States enough to be specific when ordering but most people actually don't.

You may be well versed in these things, as might I, as might lots of people. But the average person rarely travels far from home, usually lives their life pretty close to where they were born, studies just enough to get their high school diploma and no more, and has an appallingly low level of understanding when it comes to differences in culture. I think you give the average American citizen way too much credit, my brother.
 
Last edited:
Oh no they don't. :lol: Most people do yes, but there are lots of fundamentalists who take it very literally and people do overlook that many books in the Bible are poetry. Songs of Songs is one, Psalms is another, etc. I use them as example to make a point, but the same concept applies in all books. The problem comes when the language becomes antiquated. We tend to read that as solemn and serious because it sounds solemn and serious 500 years later when in reality it was sometimes anything but that.

I actually know fundamentalists and have studied the Bible with them, there is not a single person I have ever met who studies the Bible at all that doesn't know that. No one takes every word of the Bible literally, even the people that believe that Genesis is literal description of creation. The only ones who think people should that are the ones that think Christians should be mocked for not taking it literally.

When the Bible says that Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt many people think she actually turned into a column made of sodium chloride, not metaphorically.

So?

By the way, what is a metaphoric pillar of salt?

When they hear "...forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us..." many people believe that is restricted to trespassing on property. I know several people who believe that...if you forgive people who come onto your property then they must forgive you for going on theirs. According to them beating someone over the head for talking shit about you is a totally different story and doesn't apply.

I know several people who think you are blue.

Well that depends on what you think the Bible is doesn't it? If you think the Bible is the literal word of God and His rules for how we should go about our lives then yeah the words matter a lot. If you think it's something to be taken metaphorically as a general guide, then perhaps the words don't matter quite so much if the meaning is accurately represented. I agree that what matters is what people take from it and the overriding lessons of a given story, but the words create meaning and in many cases the translation in English creates specific meanings that are inflexible, where in Hebrew or Greek it might be open to a lot of interpretation. So yes, the words do matter because if you use the Bible to learn "...about human events in a way that makes them alive to us" it's important to be accurate about what those human events are, especially when some people base their very existence on it.

Actually, it doesn't, either way, all that matters is what you take out of it and how you use it, in the end it comes down to one of two possibilities, either God exists and He decides you go to heaven, or He doesn't and it doesn't matter.

Yeah that's pretty nit picky. :lol: You are correct of course, but I am not sure how vital it is to the overall point I was trying to make.

Not vital at all, other than to nit pick about there not being an and in the sentence, and to show you I actually studied Hebrew. I happen to be a lot better at Greek though.

For the same reason that when someone from Seattle goes to Georgia and orders iced-tea they are surprised when it comes sweetened, and when someone from Georgia goes to Seattle and orders iced-tea they take a drink and spit it out because it's so bitter. Some people know better and understand the culture differences even within the United States enough to be specific when ordering but most people actually don't.

You may be well versed in these things, as might I, as might lots of people. But the average person rarely travels far from home, usually lives their life pretty close to where they were born, studies just enough to get their high school diploma and no more, and has an appallingly low level of understanding when it comes to differences in culture. I think you give the average American citizen way too much credit, my brother.

Ever here of the internet? I got into an argument with someone once because I said hoi polloi and they got insulted. Everyone knows about cultural differences, even if most people ignore that fact because they find it easier to act like the universe revolves around them.
 
@ Windbag:

PRINCETON, NJ -- About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally. About one in five Americans believe the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True
 
I actually know fundamentalists and have studied the Bible with them, there is not a single person I have ever met who studies the Bible at all that doesn't know that. No one takes every word of the Bible literally, even the people that believe that Genesis is literal description of creation.

The key word there is "studied". Those who "study" the Bible generally do not take it so literally. Those who simply pick up any old copy and simply read it and go with it tend to more so than others. Additionally, are those who read it selectively. In other words those who have a particular agenda and don't read or study the Bible, but go through to find specific passages that support their position while ignoring the rest. They are probably the most literal interpreters of all.


By the way, what is a metaphoric pillar of salt?

Well put it this way. What do you think is more likely in regard to Lot's wife? That she turned into an Ionic column of sodium chloride, or that her inability to let go of her previous life led to an existence of depression, bitterness, and an inability to find joy in her life? i.e she had a "salty disposition". Those who think the former get a message of punishment for disobedience. Those who think the latter get a message of warning about the unhappiness that results from clinging to the past.



Actually, it doesn't, either way, all that matters is what you take out of it and how you use it, in the end it comes down to one of two possibilities, either God exists and He decides you go to heaven, or He doesn't and it doesn't matter.

Or that God exists but he really doesn't care what you do and everyone goes to heaven because there's nowhere else to go. Or that heaven is a state of unity with God that upon death we choose to embrace or choose to go do something else. Or that God exists but there is no heaven at all, we just simply rejoin God as an absolute. Or that......you get the point.



Ever here of the internet? I got into an argument with someone once because I said hoi polloi and they got insulted. Everyone knows about cultural differences, even if most people ignore that fact because they find it easier to act like the universe revolves around them.

Most people use the internet to listen to Youtube, play Mafia Wars, and surf porn, dude. People know that cultural differences exist, but they usually don't know what those cultural differences are or how they affect things.

Regardless, it seems to me that we generally agree on the major point that what is important is what you take from the Bible and so it seems to me you are asking me the wrong questions. What you should ask is: "If there's no good translations in existence and frankly it's impossible to create one, then what the hell are we supposed to use?" My answer would be: "the one each individual writes themselves." I would encourage people to take a book or a concept...let's say Matthew, just as an example. Read it in the KJV, then read it in the NIV, then read it in the NLT, then in the NRSV, in the ASV, etc. Note the differences. Think about what themes are the same, what themes are different. Where the wording is the same, where it's different. Then get a literal Greek version. Greek Interlinear Version is pretty easy to find online. Identify what words are being translated differently and do research on those words and how they were used culturally. Words can be deceiving. Sweetbreads, for example, sure as hell aren't sweet and they have nothing to do with bread. Research the history of the times and discover what was happening that may have influenced thought processes, translations, etc. Spend time in prayer and meditation and communication with the spirit. Then write your own version of Matthew that reflects what it means to you and what lessons you take away from it based on all you have learned through that research, study, and spiritual communication. In my opinion, that is the only accurate translation as it is the only one based upon an individual relationship with God and "what you and God can agree upon". Yes....that means my version of Matthew and your version will be different....perhaps dramatically so. But that's ok. What's important is that your version will be yours and perfect for your relationship with God, and mine will be mine and perfect for my relationship with God. The rest, I agree, is largely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
The key word there is "studied". Those who "study" the Bible generally do not take it so literally. Those who simply pick up any old copy and simply read it and go with it tend to more so than others. Additionally, are those who read it selectively. In other words those who have a particular agenda and don't read or study the Bible, but go through to find specific passages that support their position while ignoring the rest. They are probably the most literal interpreters of all.

Which is why I used that word when I made my point. There are people that read On the Origin of the Species and take it literally, even though modern evolutionary theory has pretty much moved on from most of what he wrote. There are others that read it selectively and use it to support their belief that mermaids actually existed. I don't waste my time with idiots, neither should you.

Well put it this way. What do you think is more likely in regard to Lot's wife? That she turned into an Ionic column of sodium chloride, or that her inability to let go of her previous life led to an existence of depression, bitterness, and an inability to find joy in her life? i.e she had a "salty disposition". Those who think the former get a message of punishment for disobedience. Those who think the latter get a message of warning about the unhappiness that results from clinging to the past.

Problem with that is she was never mentioned again, and apparently died. Occam's razor actually makes it easier to buy the salt thing than your interpretation.

Or that God exists but he really doesn't care what you do and everyone goes to heaven because there's nowhere else to go. Or that heaven is a state of unity with God that upon death we choose to embrace or choose to go do something else. Or that God exists but there is no heaven at all, we just simply rejoin God as an absolute. Or that......you get the point.

That is not distinct from Him being real and letting you into heaven. I never said you had to do something to get there because I don't believe that. As far as I can tell, it is going to be all about how He feels about it, nothing anyone can do. You just read your own interpretation into my words.

Most people use the internet to listen to Youtube, play Mafia Wars, and surf porn, dude. People know that cultural differences exist, but they usually don't know what those cultural differences are or how they affect things.

I think I said that. The difference is that I believe that simple awareness of them is all that is needed for people to understand that different people see things differently, you apparently think we need to know all about those differences, and understand the reasons behind them, in order to understand each other.

Regardless, it seems to me that we generally agree on the major point that what is important is what you take from the Bible and so it seems to me you are asking me the wrong questions. What you should ask is: "If there's no good translations in existence and frankly it's impossible to create one, then what the hell are we supposed to use?" My answer would be: "the one each individual writes themselves." I would encourage people to take a book or a concept...let's say Matthew, just as an example. Read it in the KJV, then read it in the NIV, then read it in the NLT, then in the NRSV, in the ASV, etc. Note the differences. Think about what themes are the same, what themes are different. Where the wording is the same, where it's different. Then get a literal Greek version. Greek Interlinear Version is pretty easy to find online. Identify what words are being translated differently and do research on those words and how they were used culturally. Words can be deceiving. Sweetbreads, for example, sure as hell aren't sweet and they have nothing to do with bread. Research the history of the times and discover what was happening that may have influenced thought processes, translations, etc. Spend time in prayer and meditation and communication with the spirit. Then write your own version of Matthew that reflects what it means to you and what lessons you take away from it based on all you have learned through that research, study, and spiritual communication. In my opinion, that is the only accurate translation as it is the only one based upon an individual relationship with God and "what you and God can agree upon". Yes....that means my version of Matthew and your version will be different....perhaps dramatically so. But that's ok. What's important is that your version will be yours and perfect for your relationship with God, and mine will be mine and perfect for my relationship with God. The rest, I agree, is largely irrelevant.

I have read it in every translation I am aware of, I actually think the Septuagint is the best translation of the Hebrew Bible. I prefer the Arabic version of John myself.
 
Last edited:
Which is why I used that word when I made my point. There are people that read On the Origin of the Species and take it literally, even though modern evolutionary theory has pretty much moved on from most of what he wrote. There are others that read it selectively and use it to support their belief that mermaids actually existed. I don't waste my time with idiots, neither should you.

I try not to, but there are occasions when you must. Generally I try to not to interfere with other people's beliefs, but there are times when I see those beliefs have a significant and negative impact upon society. At such times it becomes necessary to speak against the lunacy, especially when their beliefs are based on errors and misinterpretations. Religion is a powerful thing. It can bring great joy, comfort, and meaning to someone's life. It can also be a terrible weapon in the hands of someone with an agenda. When religion is used as a weapon I feel the need to speak out.

There are also those who have the capacity to understand but have never been told anything else. Consider Sky Dancer's point on Leviticus (that I am really loathe to bring up again). It's traditionally interpreted in English one specific way, but in Hebrew...well it could mean that....it might mean something totally different. The phrasing of the Hebrew is such that it really makes no sense at all and most scholars agree that we really don't know what the hell it means. But if all people get is one perspective how can they see it as anything else? How could they know that there are various ways of interpreting it unless someone points it out. Some people will listen and look into it themselves and reach their own conclusions. Other people will stick their fingers in their ears and hum. But if no one makes them aware of it to begin with, they have no choice about what to believe.


Problem with that is she was never mentioned again, and apparently died. Occam's razor actually makes it easier to buy the salt thing than your interpretation.

:eek: You think it's "simpler" to envision the human body transforming into salt, rather than the woman simply being pissed off and miserable the rest of her life? I suppose you could look at it like that....much the same way that it's simpler for one to believe what they are told to believe rather than going and finding out for themselves. There is also what is "simple" and what is "reasonable".


That is not distinct from Him being real and letting you into heaven. I never said you had to do something to get there because I don't believe that. As far as I can tell, it is going to be all about how He feels about it, nothing anyone can do. You just read your own interpretation into my words.

No I was just pointing out that there are different conclusions to be reached. You made the point that either A will happen or B will happen and I was making the point: or C, or D, or E.......according to your research you have concluded that God makes the determination. I have concluded that we do and God is fine with whatever we decide.


I think I said that. The difference is that I believe that simple awareness of them is all that is needed for people to understand that different people see things differently, you apparently think we need to know all about those differences, and understand the reasons behind them, in order to understand each other.

I think that's reasonably accurate yes.


I have read it in every translation I am aware of, I actually think the Septuagint is the best translation of the Hebrew Bible. I prefer the Arabic version of John myself.

I am not familiar with the Arabic version of John to tell you the truth. As far as the LXX...it does some things very well...it does others really bad. Like all translations it just depends on what you want to emphasize and I made this point previously. If you emphasize the meaning you are going to have to sacrifice what is literal. If you emphasize what is literal you have to trust people to do independent research to make sense of it. If you focus on the meter and imagery of a poetic book you are going to sacrifice literal accuracy and meaning. If you focus on meaning you will sacrifice imagery and the poetic flow.

There's just no translation that does it all. Some are better than others for certain things, and some are better than others for other things, but there is not one that is all encompassing. Surely you would agree with that.
 
I try not to, but there are occasions when you must. Generally I try to not to interfere with other people's beliefs, but there are times when I see those beliefs have a significant and negative impact upon society. At such times it becomes necessary to speak against the lunacy, especially when their beliefs are based on errors and misinterpretations. Religion is a powerful thing. It can bring great joy, comfort, and meaning to someone's life. It can also be a terrible weapon in the hands of someone with an agenda. When religion is used as a weapon I feel the need to speak out.

I know, and I actually enjoy arguing with idiots, I just don't waste my time using preemptive strikes on them, which is what I think you meant this thread to be. I prefer to concentrate on the victims of those with an agenda, they need me more than the people who know the truth and prefer to twist it.

There are also those who have the capacity to understand but have never been told anything else. Consider Sky Dancer's point on Leviticus (that I am really loathe to bring up again). It's traditionally interpreted in English one specific way, but in Hebrew...well it could mean that....it might mean something totally different. The phrasing of the Hebrew is such that it really makes no sense at all and most scholars agree that we really don't know what the hell it means. But if all people get is one perspective how can they see it as anything else? How could they know that there are various ways of interpreting it unless someone points it out. Some people will listen and look into it themselves and reach their own conclusions. Other people will stick their fingers in their ears and hum. But if no one makes them aware of it to begin with, they have no choice about what to believe.

The Septuagint says that it raises a stench before God.

καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

:eek: You think it's "simpler" to envision the human body transforming into salt, rather than the woman simply being pissed off and miserable the rest of her life? I suppose you could look at it like that....much the same way that it's simpler for one to believe what they are told to believe rather than going and finding out for themselves. There is also what is "simple" and what is "reasonable".

You forgot the rest of the story about how Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with him to carry on the human race. (Wonderful example of righteousness, isn't it?) Given all of that I think it is easier to believe she simply died and was covered in a salty ash from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

No I was just pointing out that there are different conclusions to be reached. You made the point that either A will happen or B will happen and I was making the point: or C, or D, or E.......according to your research you have concluded that God makes the determination. I have concluded that we do and God is fine with whatever we decide.

Still only tow possibilities, either Heaven is real and He lets you in, whatever the reason, or you don't get in. The rest is just semantics and quibbling about the reason you get in.

I think that's reasonably accurate yes.

Every once in a while I can be both reasonable and accurate, It amazes me every single time.

I am not familiar with the Arabic version of John to tell you the truth. As far as the LXX...it does some things very well...it does others really bad. Like all translations it just depends on what you want to emphasize and I made this point previously. If you emphasize the meaning you are going to have to sacrifice what is literal. If you emphasize what is literal you have to trust people to do independent research to make sense of it. If you focus on the meter and imagery of a poetic book you are going to sacrifice literal accuracy and meaning. If you focus on meaning you will sacrifice imagery and the poetic flow.

The Septuagint had the advantage that everyone who translated it was an expert in Hebrew culture and had the benefit of hundreds of years of scholarship to draw from. The more I learn, the more I realize that the stuff they got wrong is stuff I was wrong about.

There's just no translation that does it all. Some are better than others for certain things, and some are better than others for other things, but there is not one that is all encompassing. Surely you would agree with that.

I do, but I think that anyone who wants to understand the Bible, or even a particularly thorny part of it, can do so.

Eventually.
 
Last edited:
I know, and I actually enjoy arguing with idiots, I just don't waste my time using preemptive strikes on them, which is what I think you meant this thread to be. I prefer to concentrate on the victims of those with an agenda, they need me more than the people who know the truth and prefer to twist it.

Actually just the opposite. I started this thread because of another thread where things were getting twisted. The argument was made that "we" (meaning me and whoever else) only say the Bible is mistranslated when it comes to a certain topic. I started this thread to demonstrate that it's actually on a variety of topics and to focus on the "hows" and "whys" of the mistranslations as opposed to the "whats". Additionally, the conversation on the other thread devolved to nothing more than character attacks and "you are a liar" posts which doesn't particular interest or challenge me.


The Septuagint says that it raises a stench before God.

καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Ahhh...but it wasn't written in the LXX originally was it? I am more interested in what it says in Hebrew


You forgot the rest of the story about how Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with him to carry on the human race. (Wonderful example of righteousness, isn't it?) Given all of that I think it is easier to believe she simply died and was covered in a salty ash from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

No, I know the story of Lot. :lol: Jeez. I think your interpretation is perfectly reasonable, though it differs from mine...but even yours doesn't mean she was transformed into a column of sodium chloride.



I do, but I think that anyone who wants to understand the Bible, or even a particularly thorny part of it, can do so.

Eventually.

So do I. This is why I encourage the research that I do and in reality this is precisely why I started this thread. If people don't know something is broken they won't bother trying to fix it. So my motivation was not a "preemptive strike". It was to point out problems which many people overlook and suggest a method to address it. One thing I am accused of all the time is that I feel we should ignore the Bible because of it's inaccuracies. No way...not at all. But I do feel that if people want to get closer to the "word of God" that they would be best served to recognize that modern English versions are not accurate representations and focus more on the ancient Hebrew and Greek versions even though that requires a lifetime of work and study.

I agree with you that anyone can do this, especially with the resources and technology we currently have. 20 years ago I would have said that the average person would find it nearly impossible to do such research (unless it was their job). Back then I would say: "yeah get a few versions of the Bible and perhaps some related academic books on the topic and do the best you can". Now I don't see much of an excuse. If someone really wants to understand all this, they have the resources at their fingertips to do so. So my point is to say to whomever gives a shit: "don't be lazy...get off freeporn.com and start digging into some research." But first, they have to understand that the KJV (or NIV or whatever) is just one way of looking at it, and there is far more to the story than just that.
 
I know, and I actually enjoy arguing with idiots, I just don't waste my time using preemptive strikes on them, which is what I think you meant this thread to be. I prefer to concentrate on the victims of those with an agenda, they need me more than the people who know the truth and prefer to twist it.

Actually just the opposite. I started this thread because of another thread where things were getting twisted. The argument was made that "we" (meaning me and whoever else) only say the Bible is mistranslated when it comes to a certain topic. I started this thread to demonstrate that it's actually on a variety of topics and to focus on the "hows" and "whys" of the mistranslations as opposed to the "whats". Additionally, the conversation on the other thread devolved to nothing more than character attacks and "you are a liar" posts which doesn't particular interest or challenge me.


The Septuagint says that it raises a stench before God.

καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Ahhh...but it wasn't written in the LXX originally was it? I am more interested in what it says in Hebrew


You forgot the rest of the story about how Lot's daughters got him drunk and had sex with him to carry on the human race. (Wonderful example of righteousness, isn't it?) Given all of that I think it is easier to believe she simply died and was covered in a salty ash from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

No, I know the story of Lot. :lol: Jeez. I think your interpretation is perfectly reasonable, though it differs from mine...but even yours doesn't mean she was transformed into a column of sodium chloride.



I do, but I think that anyone who wants to understand the Bible, or even a particularly thorny part of it, can do so.

Eventually.

So do I. This is why I encourage the research that I do and in reality this is precisely why I started this thread. If people don't know something is broken they won't bother trying to fix it. So my motivation was not a "preemptive strike". It was to point out problems which many people overlook and suggest a method to address it. One thing I am accused of all the time is that I feel we should ignore the Bible because of it's inaccuracies. No way...not at all. But I do feel that if people want to get closer to the "word of God" that they would be best served to recognize that modern English versions are not accurate representations and focus more on the ancient Hebrew and Greek versions even though that requires a lifetime of work and study.

I agree with you that anyone can do this, especially with the resources and technology we currently have. 20 years ago I would have said that the average person would find it nearly impossible to do such research (unless it was their job). Back then I would say: "yeah get a few versions of the Bible and perhaps some related academic books on the topic and do the best you can". Now I don't see much of an excuse. If someone really wants to understand all this, they have the resources at their fingertips to do so. So my point is to say to whomever gives a shit: "don't be lazy...get off freeporn.com and start digging into some research." But first, they have to understand that the KJV (or NIV or whatever) is just one way of looking at it, and there is far more to the story than just that.

Funny that, I did my research 20 years ago, and taught myself Koine Greek along the way. Then my pastor got me into a seminary program that let me audit classes, and I got to argue with some real knuckleheads, like on professor that was telling a bunch of 20 something future pastors that there is no pleasure in sin. I had 30 years of experience with sin to know just how much pleasure there is in it.

:cuckoo:
 
Funny that, I did my research 20 years ago, and taught myself Koine Greek along the way. Then my pastor got me into a seminary program that let me audit classes, and I got to argue with some real knuckleheads, like on professor that was telling a bunch of 20 something future pastors that there is no pleasure in sin. I had 30 years of experience with sin to know just how much pleasure there is in it.

:cuckoo:

:lmao: Yeah I can attest to the fact that sin can be quite enjoyable. Of course I don't believe in the concept of sin to begin with...but we're doing good here. Why mess it up? :lol:
 
Funny that, I did my research 20 years ago, and taught myself Koine Greek along the way. Then my pastor got me into a seminary program that let me audit classes, and I got to argue with some real knuckleheads, like on professor that was telling a bunch of 20 something future pastors that there is no pleasure in sin. I had 30 years of experience with sin to know just how much pleasure there is in it.

:cuckoo:

:lmao: Yeah I can attest to the fact that sin can be quite enjoyable. Of course I don't believe in the concept of sin to begin with...but we're doing good here. Why mess it up? :lol:

Do you believe any of the miracles performed by the prophets in the OT?
 

Forum List

Back
Top