What's The Most Accurate Bible Translation?

[ch4rl3s]

@Contrapuntal

It shouldn’t matter, unless you contend that it is beyond God’s abilities to make every version of the Bible completely and unambiguously clear to every reader no matter what language he understands. Do you?

I don’t think that would be beyond Him. Wasn’t one of the miracles of the early church that the disciples spoke and everyone in the crowd heard the message in their own language?

But, are you and Shirley suggesting that a perfect God would have to either create humans with one unchanging language forever, or stick around and make decrees unambiguously for each new generation? Because it seems clear to me that neither of these scenarios fit with what the bible says He’s trying to accomplish.

The bible says that everyone had the same language and God purposely confused their language and scattered them.

And it also seems to me that He never intended to stick around and prove His existance objectively to all humanity. That he intended for humans to have misunderstandings, conflicts, to be unable to prove His existance to our neighbour. And that the scenario you propose as what a perfect God must do, is only going to be the situation after Christ returns, and when He finally shows us the difference between a human run world and His kingdom. That He intended us to see that our motives destroy things.

It seems to me that whenever I see someone say, “well, a perfect God would have to do this differently,” they start by ascribing human motives to God, as something He must be trying to accomplish. And when I lood at it closely, I usually conclude they’re wrong about what He’s trying to do.

Yes, if His intention was to have a set of unambiguous commands, He could have done it. Yes, if His intention was to prove His existance objectively, He could have done it. So, since these must be the motives of any good God, He can’t possibly exist.

I take issue with what you think a perfect God’s motives must be. It’s always been more instructive to me to think, “what could the motive be for letting the world be as it is,” than to think, “I would have done this differently, so God is wrong, (or doesn’t exist.)” The first thought is trying to discover His motives, the second thought is assuming my own motives are perfect.

[Contrapuntal]

ch4rl3s,

If you’ll rephrase your post in such a way as to not put words in my mouth, especially as to the assertion that I said anything at all about a perfect God, I’ll be happy to respond.

[monavis]

@ch4rl3s

I don’t think that would be beyond Him. Wasn’t one of the miracles of the early church that the disciples spoke and everyone in the crowd heard the message in their own language?

But, are you and Shirley suggesting that a perfect God would have to either create humans with one unchanging language forever, or stick around and make decrees unambiguously for each new generation? Because it seems clear to me that neither of these scenarios fit with what the bible says He’s trying to accomplish.

The bible says that everyone had the same language and God purposely confused their language and scattered them.

And it also seems to me that He never intended to stick around and prove His existance objectively to all humanity. That he intended for humans to have misunderstandings, conflicts, to be unable to prove His existance to our neighbour. And that the scenario you propose as what a perfect God must do, is only going to be the situation after Christ returns, and when He finally shows us the difference between a human run world and His kingdom. That He intended us to see that our motives destroy things.

It seems to me that whenever I see someone say, “well, a perfect God would have to do this differently,” they start by ascribing human motives to God, as something He must be trying to accomplish. And when I lood at it closely, I usually conclude they’re wrong about what He’s trying to do.

Yes, if His intention was to have a set of unambiguous commands, He could have done it. Yes, if His intention was to prove His existance objectively, He could have done it. So, since these must be the motives of any good God, He can’t possibly exist.

I take issue with what you think a perfect God’s motives must be. It’s always been more instructive to me to think, “what could the motive be for letting the world be as it is,” than to think, “I would have done this differently, so God is wrong, (or doesn’t exist.)” The first thought is trying to discover His motives, the second thought is assuming my own motives are perfect.

According to Matthew chapter 16 Jesus said He was going to return in glory with His angels before some of the ones standing there died. He didn’t return in the first century, so some think He didn’t mean what was said, (and it was also in Mark). either He didn’t say it, He was misunderstood, or He didn’t know. It is how one sees it, or what one believes.

[cmkeller]

Contrapuntal:

1)If man lacks the ability to understand God’s word, whose fault is that? Man did not create himself, did he?

Who says man lacks said ability? People learn Hebrew all the time. Visit a Yeshiva or Israeli KINDERGARTEN.

2)Who said anything about inventing a language?

Invented, evolved, developed, whatever.

3. Surely a more perfect language would be one that is understood equally well by all, and

Logical/Secular answer: If translations are imperfect at imparting meaning, then by definition, the proper meaning is being perfectly conveyed by the original. And not all languages are the same.

Religious viewpoint answer: Hebrew is “the pure, holy language” and is perfectly iin tune with the universe. The letters and words of Hebrew genuinely reflect, in metaphysical ways, the nature of the objects they name. Any translation is by nature less perfect.

4. Why does language even matter? If God wants us to understand him, he can make it happen, can’t he? Is it beyond his capabilities to make his words understood by all?

Of course it’s not beyond his capabilities. But 1) the Old Testament was meant specifically for the Israelites, not the whole world, and 2) he wants mortal beings to strive toward the ideal of the divine, not simply reduce the divine into human terms.

Der Trihs:

And by what logic do you call Hebrew perfect? What does a language being “perfect” even mean?

See the separate Secular and Religious answers to question # 3, above.

And what evidence do you have that Hebrew is anything other than just another human made language?

No evidence of it, but one way or another, it’s the language that reflects the intentions of the original author(s) of the Bible, human or divine.

What evidence do you have that humans can’t make another language as good or better ( whatever “better” may mean )?

There’s no better language for understanding a Hebrew document than Hebrew.

And which version of Hebrew is the perfect one; I’m sure it changed over time and region, just like every other language.

The Biblical version, which has remarkably little, if any, variation. (until the modern State of Israel…which still does not vary very much from Biblical Hebrew, just more modern colloquialisms added) Because that’s the language it was written in.

[Contrapuntal]

@cmkeller

Contrapuntal:
Who says man lacks said ability? People learn Hebrew all the time. Visit a Yeshiva or Israeli KINDERGARTEN.

That’s just begging the question. Not everyone has that opportunity.

Logical/Secular answer: If translations are imperfect at imparting meaning, then by definition, the proper meaning is being perfectly conveyed by the original. And not all languages are the same.

Religious viewpoint answer: Hebrew is “the pure, holy language” and is perfectly iin tune with the universe. The letters and words of Hebrew genuinely reflect, in metaphysical ways, the nature of the objects they name. Any translation is by nature less perfect.

All God has to do is give everyone at birth the ability to understand him. That’s all. Assuming he wants us to, that is.

Of course it’s not beyond his capabilities. But 1) the Old Testament was meant specifically for the Israelites, not the whole world,

Well fuck God then. Ya’ll can have him.

2. he wants mortal beings to strive toward the ideal of the divine, not simply reduce the divine into human terms.

Then again, he can simply let us all of us know that, instead of only telling his super special friends.

[BrainGlutton]

@Van_Cleaf

**What’s The Most Accurate Bible Translation?
**

OG SMASH!

All beside is commentary.

[DrDeth]

@cmkeller

On the contrary, man is not capable of inventing a language as perfect as Hebrew, which G-d wrote the Torah in. Either you learn it on G-d’s terms, or you translate it to the best of human ability into a less-perfect language.

Whether or not Hebrew is the perfect language, it is certainly the best language for the OT, no doubt. It requires no translation, and the written word is nigh identical to that which the OT was written in. Likely some idioms have changed, and the pronunciation. cmk, can you tell us more about how modern Hebrew differs from the original OT language?

[kitemaker_chuck]

I guess the Morse Code version’s pretty good!
(Especially in audio!!)

[Recliner]

@OldGuy

It’s probably difficult to translate accurately in some sense. For one example, the word “Samaritan” in English now means essentially one who does good deeds. We have hospitals named “Good Samaritan Hospital” and we have “Good Samaritan Laws” designed to protect those who aid others who are injured or in trouble.

We could call it “The Parable of the Good Bad Guy”

[Revenant_Threshold]

@cmkeller

Logical/Secular answer: If translations are imperfect at imparting meaning, then by definition, the proper meaning is being perfectly conveyed by the original.

I don’t believe that that is logical. Simply because a translation is flawed doesn’t mean that the original perfectly conveys its meaning; why can’t a word or sentence in the original language imperfectly convey a meaning, and yet also be misunderstood when translated?

For example, if we start with a pink object, a French person might inaccurately describe it as rouge. I with my limited knowledge of French might mistakenly translate that to mean “rogue”, and conclude that it’s a mischievous object of some sort. My translation is inaccurate, imperfect, but so is the source word.

[Polycarp]

@BrainGlutton

OG SMASH!

All beside is commentary.

Well:

“(Only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaites. His bed was made of iron and was more than thirteen feet long and six feet wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites.)” (Deuteronomy 3:11, NIV)

Og King of Bashan was noted for smiting his enemies, so I guess he qualifies.

[Mosier]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Actually, that is a censored version.

The oathtaker really put his hand on the genitals of the other person.

That’s why we have words like testify, testimony, and testicles – they all come from the same root word.

Nonsense. Testify/testimony have a Latin word meaning “to bear witness” as the root. Testicles comes from a Latin word meaning “testicles”.

[Kimstu]

@Mosier

Testify/testimony have a Latin word meaning “to bear witness” as the root. Testicles comes from a Latin word meaning “testicles”.

Which comes from the same word:

testis
(pl. testes), 1704, from L. testis “testicle,” usually regarded as a special application of testis “witness” (see testament), presumably because it “bears witness” to virility

testify
late 14c., “to serve as evidence of,” from L. testificari “bear witness,” from testis “witness” (see testament) + root of facere “to make”

Uncertain etymological relationship:

The resemblance between testimony, testify, testis, and testicle shows an etymological relationship, but linguists are not agreed on precisely how English testis came to have its current meaning. The Latin testis originally meant “witness,” and etymologically means “third (person) standing by”: the te- part comes from an older tri-, a combining form of the word for “three,” and -stis is a noun derived from the Indo-European root stā- meaning “stand.” How this also came to refer to the body part(s) is disputed. An old theory has it that the Romans placed their right hands on their testicles and swore by them before giving testimony in court. Another theory says that the sense of testicle in Latin testis is due to a calque, or loan translation, from Greek. The Greek noun parastatēs means “defender (in law), supporter” (para- “by, alongside,” as in paramilitary and -statēs from histanai, “to stand”). In the dual number, used in many languages for naturally occurring, contrasting, or complementary pairs such as hands, eyes, and ears, parastatēs had the technical medical sense “testicles,” that is “two glands side by side.” The Romans simply took this sense of parastatēs and added it to testis, the Latin word for legal supporter, witness.

[Malacandra]

You’d think, really, that instead of the witness grabbing the interrogator by the testicles, it would be the other way round. “Just let me catch you in a lie…” :eek:

[monavis]

This debate causes me to wonder why a GOD who was supposed to be the creator of all human kind would select one group of people who were a warring group at best, select murderers( like Moses and David are described )as leaders of his people then have them kill others of his own creation.

To me it is like a manufacturer of an automoble who made an imperfect automobile then used it as an example of his work. Then used the imperfect one to ram all the others who also had improfections.

THis same God wanted Abraham to show Him his devotion by killing his own son. Abraham was stopped but it(in my opinion) doesn’t say much for an all knowing perfect being to even suggest such a thing. How do we know for certain if any of the translations are true, or that the humans that told these stories were telling the truth, or didn’t make it all up? In truth we don’t. Why do humans let a religious belief cause so much desention. It seems they put land and places above fellow humans, I wonder why an all knowing being would want such things to go on?

[SecondJudith]

Robert Alter’s translation of the five books of Torah (1996) and the Psalms (2007) are gorgeous. The structure and grammar are very close to the Hebrew, which brings a lot of the poetry and fluency of the text back in. Here’s an example from today’s Torah portion (first part of Shemot/Exodus):

@Robert Alter

And the Egyptians put the Israelites to work at crushing labor, and they made their lives bitter with hard work and mortar and bricks and every work in the field – all their crushing work that they performed.

Which is annotated:

at crushing labor. The Hebrew is an adverbial form derived from a root that means “to break into pieces”, “to pulverize”.

work…work…work. Following a prevalent stylistic practice of Hebrew narrative, the writer underscores their main topic, the harshness of slavery, by repeating a central thematic keyword. Indeed, the Hebrew literally says, “their crushing work that they worked”, but in English that cognate accusative form sounds awkward except in a limited number of idioms (e.g. “sing a song”).

The translation itself is beautiful and accessible, and the notes do an excellent job of breaking down the Hebrew grammar, etmology and context without editorializing.

[FriarTed]

@SecondJudith

Robert Alter’s translation of the five books of Torah (1996) and the Psalms (2007) are gorgeous. The structure and grammar are very close to the Hebrew, which brings a lot of the poetry and fluency of the text back in. Here’s an example from today’s Torah portion (first part of Shemot/Exodus):

Which is annotated:

The translation itself is beautiful and accessible, and the notes do an excellent job of breaking down the Hebrew grammar, etmology and context without editorializing.

I haven’t gotten Alter’s yet. What do you think of Fox’s Torah?

I WANT FOX’S PROPHETS AND WRITINGS, DANG IT!

(I’d love to lug those three big HB volumes along with a big Greek-English NT to church someday… “FriarTed, why the armload of huge books?” “Oh, that’s my Bible.”)

[FriarTed]

Anyone who really sits down & compares all the main English translations and even some of the fringe translations (the JW’s NWT) will find there is little substantial difference as far as what the words essentially mean. We have 2000+ years of continuous Hebrew & Greek study so that scholars know what each word signifies in modern languages. The differences really arise in Interpretation.

For example, the NT clearly talks about Christians being initiated into the faith by a water-rite known as baptism, BUT does that baptism have to be by immersion (the most natural use of the word) or can it be by pouring or sprinkling, in the Name of the Trinity or the Name of Jesus, as a confessing believer or as an infant? The former part is told to us by translation; the questions arise as we debate interpretation.

[FriarTed]

Btw, is there an available translation of the NT that was done, purely academically or maybe as a lark, by a Jewish scholar of Greek?

[Polycarp]

@FriarTed

Btw, is there an available translation of the NT that was done, purely academically or maybe as a lark, by a Jewish scholar of Greek?

Fascinating question. But, let me ask you, would you attempt to parse Paul for the heck of it?

Consider the one bit of Biblical criticism within the contents of the New Testament: “…just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (II Peter 3:15-17, NIV)