# Accuracy of Bible translations - couldn't the Bible you're reading be, well, wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 30, 2002, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610 "2002-11-30T07:07:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/21 "2002-12-01T13:55:58Z")
Yep, that’s right. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/22 "2002-12-01T14:47:04Z")
Some scholars claim that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and that the greek version is itself only a poor translation of the original documents. I remember only some arguments used to back this theory : numerous semitisms, verses very awkward in greek but which can very easily be reversed in a correct Aramaic, as if they were only a word-for-word translation, puns which make sense only when reversed in Aramaic… I even read a piece written by someone who thought they weren’t originally written in Aramaic, but in Hebrew. Or at least some of them (all except John???), can’t remember. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/23 "2002-12-01T15:49:51Z")
So, are you saying that the original New Testament scriptures (wherever they may be) were contemporary, Clairobscur? ---
**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/24 "2002-12-01T16:38:15Z")
Years ago, I read a “reconstructed” Aramaic version of the Pater Noster. The text had abundent coments on the semantics and syntax of Aramaic and it was enlightening to see just how much the original meaning of the prayer might have been obscured by successive translations. I say _might have_ because the Aramaic text I read was itself a translation, and my knowledge of Aramaic being what it is, there was no way for me to tell whether or not the author was pulling my leg. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/25 "2002-12-01T16:40:21Z")
Well… If you believe that the Biblical text is a law book, then the actual, literal, exact words are important. “Thou shalt not kill” is thus inaccurate, a better translation is “Thou shalt not murder” because the Hebrew verbs are different. And if the bible is a law code, then that distinction is important. Law is all about quibbling over details. In this case, you shoud learn the original language, because no translation can EVER be 100% accurate. If you believe that the Biblical text is a moral and ethical guide rather than a law book, then you don’t need to quibble over the details, you focus on the broader concepts of justice. In this case, any reasonable translation (authorized by your particular denomiation) will be good enough for practical purposes. If you believe that the Biblical text is fiction, of course, then you don’t care much about the translation except for the poetry. So, it depends where you are coming from. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/26 "2002-12-01T20:41:38Z")
[…tip o’ the hat to Dex…] Your wise observations apply as well to the New Testament, except that I would say “love” rather than “justice” for the moral guide. ---
**Author:** ![rexnervous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@rexnervous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rexnervous)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/27 "2002-12-02T04:03:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by C K Dexter Haven \* > \*\*Well… > > If you believe that the Biblical text is a law book, then the actual, literal, exact words are important. “Thou shalt not kill” is thus inaccurate, a better translation is “Thou shalt not murder” because the Hebrew verbs are different. And if the bible is a law code, then that distinction is important. Law is all about quibbling over details. In this case, you shoud learn the original language, because no translation can EVER be 100% accurate. > > \*\* Well, in a sense I guess that is my debate. For those people who feel compelled to base their actions/words directly from the Bible (non-original language), or more importantly, feel that it’s within their purview to press their beliefs upon others because of what’s said in their translated version of the Bible, what logical justification do they have?\* \*I am fully aware that logic may not enter into many of "those people’s’’ reasons, but let’s assume it can ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/28 "2002-12-02T11:44:32Z")
Ah. Then you meant to address your debate to “legalists”. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/29 "2002-12-02T12:13:42Z")
Most of those I have encountered who ‘feel compelled to base their actions/words directly from the Bible’ have tended to immerse themselves very deeply in its study; I seem to recall several of them insisting that no reliable doctrine should be based on a single verse (not that they were implying the Bible might be wrong, just that the more important the topic, the more one should expect to see it reiterated). I suppose it’s like triangulating on a map; the more bearings you take, the more reliable you can consider the plotted point. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2002, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/30 "2002-12-02T16:34:16Z")
**Mangetout** , you’ve said it better than I can: > [@](#): > > the more bearings you take, the more reliable you can consider the plotted point. Like I said, I’m not a literalist, and I don’t even know enough about existing original Biblical documents to know how much Aramaic is in them, but I do try to figure out what all this stuff means. I don’t expect to get the answers in my physical lifetime, but, if I’ve got any chance at heaven, that’s one more thing to look forward to when I die. CJ ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/31 "2002-12-03T00:01:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*So, are you saying that the original New Testament scriptures (wherever they may be) were contemporary, Clairobscur? \*\* I don’t remember what dates were proposed, or even if the issue was adressed at all. If only the synoptic gospels were concerned, this theory perhaps refered to the original “Q” having been written in Aramaic. But it’s a WAG, I read about this hypothesis long time ago and at this time I’ve never heard about it, so I just don’t know. I still have the book which refers to the “written in Hebrew” theory, though. I’m too lazy to read it again, especially since : -the author seems to be much more concerned with ranting against the exegetes who aren’t familiar with linguistics and the semitic languages than with exposing his theory -It’s the kind of book where you read things like (opening a page at random) : “Sunedrion, “the senate”, “the assembly” becomes SNHDRYN, the famous (and mysterious) Sanhedrim. Kategoros, “the prosecutor” is transfered in Hebrew, and so is “kategoria” , “the denounciation” under the form QTYGWR and QTYGWRY’, and opposed to PRQLYT, from the greek parakletos…” It’s certainly extremely interesting and enlightening for some people, but just not for me… However, perusing it quickly, the author seems to refer only to Mark, Luke and Matthew, so it seems that he’s basing his hypothesis only on the synoptic gospels. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2002, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610/32 "2002-12-03T09:10:12Z")
Clairobscur wrote: > [@](#): > > If only the synoptic gospels were concerned, this theory perhaps refered to the original “Q” having been written in Aramaic. You’ve got it backwards, dear. The Q is derived from the gospels, not the other way around. It is merely a hypothetical text. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/accuracy-of-bible-translations-couldnt-the-bible-youre-reading-be-well-wrong/139610.md?page=1)