What's The Most Accurate Bible Translation?

Great Debates
61

Contrapuntal:

No, but everyone has the ability.

And they have the ability.

Those who want him do have him. You want to be spoon-fed, then perhaps a religion that takes dedication and work is not the thing for you.

His “super-special friends” are super-special for a reason. That reason is that in a world where most people worshipped images carved from rocks, one man went through the rigors of societal ostracism to follow his own path to enlightenment, which led him to belief in, and covenant with, the diety that his descendants now follow. This means special, and sometimes onerous, religious practices for them, but still considering others to be righteous individuals if they merely refrain from such universal evils as murder, theft, adultery and incest (amongst a few others). Anyone outside who sincerely wishes to dedicate his or her life to the Torah path will find learning the original language in which it was conveyed to be too much to ask, and anyone outside who does not wish to is not condemned for not doing so.

Is that really to be seen as a deficiency in said diety?

Revenant Threshold:

You’re right, of course. I misspoke slightly. What I mean is that the original language is the most perfect tool we have for divining the author’s intended meaning. It’s certainly possible that the author could not find the right word in his original language. However, any interpretation or translation that deviates from the original text can only speculate that the author’s meaning goes in their direction. If the author’s use of his original language was imperfect, it is still necessarily more perfect than our ability to guess what slightly different meaning might better match it.

62

I’d agree it’s very possible, even most likely, but I wouldn’t say that it is necessarily more perfect. Yes, and translation can only speculate, but depending upon the particular source that writer may in turn have speculated based on sources which are still avaliable to us - we’re not always limited in deciding translation based only on the specific words in one sentence. Too, if we have an understanding of the author and the culture of the time, it’s possible that we’re able to recognise why an author might have stated things as they did; and by understanding the translation’s audience, we may well be better able to get across the point to people who might not get a more literal translation. There’s plenty of things in there which simply might not make sense, or might elicit a common misunderstanding, which might be translated to allow a modern audience to more accurately get the idea.

And of course, considering the text we’re talking about in this case, there’s always the possibility of translations arriving from revelation and not interpretation.

63

How does one distinguish revelation from translation? There are so many that claim revelations, and many translations. Isn’t it just humans who decide what is revelation or translation?

64

Words on paper in a known language have an agreed meaning, or several potential meanings to be discussed/debated based on context (“Police Help Dog Bite Victim”). Revelation, whether real or claimed, is new material claimed to have been imparted to the prophet by divine inspiration. There can be no dispute about whether he said it right, only about whether he actually got a revelation at all.

(For example, one can have long discussions about what Paul meant by the term arsenokoites in I Corinthians 9, and whether it’s intended to condemn homosexual people as the term is understood today, but all parties are in agreement that: Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians, that letter contains the disputed term, and the meaning of the disputed passage depends on what the term actually is taken to mean.

If someone registers on this site with the username Prophet4OurTime and cliams God told him to demand America’s repentance for its manifold evils, the issue is whether or not God actually told him to register on the SDMB and post that, or whether he’s a deluded religious nut. (In this case, I’d probably defer to Der Trihs’s analysis! ;))

65

I would wonder if a person just decided he had a revelation, or if he decided in his(or her) mind that it was a revelation from a god. or just their own thinking. People tend to con others, so I guess that is why I am a skeptic of anyone who claims God told them anything, and the fact that this same God would give contrary revelations is something I have yet to have an answer. The many religions seem to back up my thinking.

I make no claim to know, just can’t see an all knowing divine being who would want a group of people to kill another group, or force others to follow a certain group. To me a good, all knowing being who created all human’s and loved them, would not pick out a group and turn them against another, which seems to be the case in all the religions I have studied, and noticed; telling them to go into a city and kill everyone so they can have a piece of land seems contray to such a being(as what seems to be the case centuries ago). And then picking out a man like Muhammad to then teach something else. The fact that so many divisions even in Christianity seem to point this out. I would think a human being is more Holy than a place or thing. To kill others over such things seem to me that the land or place was not sanctioned by any God but by the people who regard such things more important that the other fellow human being, who would also be the children of god,

66

Certainly identification is a problem. I’m just saying that it’s a possibility. One that may bring up whole new questions, sure, but something that may well be argued.

67

Demonstrably untrue. Many humans are born without the ability to learn any language at all.

Again demonstrably untrue. For starters, he has never said one word to me. And if knowing Hebrew is the requirement for understanding God, then everyone does not have that ability, your protestations notwithstanding. Some folks have to work for a living. Others have never even heard of Hebrew. All god has to do to fix this is show himself.

Spoon fed my ass. One word from him would do it. All he needs to do is speak to each person in whatever language he understands, no matter what tribe He belongs to. That shit might matter in high school, but belonging to a clique is no way to judge the mettle of a person.

So one man does something, and his descendants get to be the anointed ones? I have no use at all for such a God. In fact, such a God is ridiculous on the face of it.

A fatal one.

68

Here is my input, the Word is spiritual, and as we read it, it is God talking to our hearts, which we must learn how to hear Him, just as we learned to hear as children the words our parents spoke to us. By your statement you seem to be trying to use you head, what you need to do is hear you heart, what version speak to you the strongest? The most literal one may not be the best one for your heart to hear.

For me the Lord has given the NIV as the general reading scriptures, and when lead I will usually go to the NASB which is arguably one of the most literal translations, on occasion I have went to the original Hebrew, where all words are translated directly with all the multiple meanings.

To understand the Word of God you really have to let go and trust that God is guiding you, as God speaks to your heart that will be the most literal translation you can get.

69

Serious question: do you think things like the LOLcat bible are sacrilegious?

70

cmkeller? Bueller?

71

This is not true. See John A. L. Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography.

72

It would seem God is speaking or telling different people different things.

The Terrorists seem to think God is telling them to kill infedels, and they seem to be sinscere

73

Dr Deth:

Sorry I hadn’t noticed this earlier. But “Bueller” is here now…

There isn’t all that much difference between Biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew. An non-Israeli Yeshiva student can get by perfectly fine in Tel Aviv, and a secular Israeli would have no major trouble cracking open a Torah and undestanding its contents. The main differences, I’d say, are in verb tense usage.

For example: Hebrew verbs have a three-consonant root, and distinctions in tense and person involve the use of prefixes/suffixes/vowelization around that root. Biblical Hebrew makes a lot of use of something called a “Reversal Vav” - Vav is the sixth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, making a consonant “V” sound, and affixing it to the beginning of a vowel will often reverse the tense. The root Aleph-Mem-Resh means “say”, the form “Amar” means “he said” and the form “Yo-mer” means “he will say.” But adding “Va-” to “Yomer” reverses it to past tense, and adding “Vi-” to “Amar” reverses that to future tense. “Vayomer,” which means “he said” (or “and he said”) is probably one of the most common words in the entire Hebrew Old Testament. But a modern Israeli would never say “Vayomer” in conversation…he’d simply say “Amar.” Which is also used Biblically, just not exclusively. I’m sure there must be some distinction in Biblical grammar between using the straight past tense and using the future tense with the “reversal Vav”, but I’m not certain what that is.

Bottom line, modern Hebrew is completely derived from Biblical Hebrew, but conversationally, much of the grammar has been streamlined. And as Eliezer Ben-Yehuda’s formalizing of modern Hebrew has been in Zionist use for over a century now, idioms have evolved that someone knowing only Biblical Hebrew would never guess at. When an Israeli asks you, “Mah Nishma” (Whassup, my man?), you’re expected, if all is well, to reply “Hakol B’Seder” (Everything’s cool, dude.). These are words that are certainly grammatically correct in Biblical Hebrew, but not phrases that someone who’s only studied Torah would know to use.

74

Thanks!:cool:

75

First… should we start a new thread for the various questions that are coming up off topic, or do we just continue hijacking this one?

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal;11971539If 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.[/QUOTE]

Well, this was just a question…

I don’t want to misrepresent you. If I counter an argument you aren’t actually making I’m not going to convince you…

You said especially, indicating that there was more than one thing you think I misrepresented. So, what was it? Was it thinking that we were discussing what a god should do or must have done with his creation? Because if we aren’t discussing what he should do, then it’s just a philosophical question; like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or, can God create a boulder so big even He couldn’t lift it? Because that’s a simple one. As I described, He could make His word understood unambiguously; He’s done it before, but generally chooses not to. Case closed. But I can’t imagine that’s the discussion.

I imagine we were discussing what He “should” or “must” do. And that puts limits on the type of god we’re discussing. An evil god is free to mistreat or torture his creation; an indifferent god is free to leave it to it’s own devices without looking back, etc. So, we aren’t talking about those types. We must be talking about a god with at least good intentions. But, if it’s just good intentions and not perfection, then he’s going to make mistakes. And any mistake you think you might have found still doesn’t have much bearing on whether he exists or has a plan worth believing in.

It seemed to me that the discussion only really has meaning if I, (not you,) say “God is perfect,” and you say, “that god can’t exist, because this is an evil that no perfect god could allow.” I guess we could discuss it somewhat even if you only say, “this is an evil that no good intentioned god could allow,” but that seems a tougher argument, (for you.) To put the argument in terms that are most favorable to you, I assumed we were talking about those things a perfect God must do. So, I’m not really sure what your objection actually was. Are you so adverse to the idea of a perfect God that you can’t even try to argue against one?

And besides, you might not have mentioned the word perfect, but:

76

So, no one was willing to dispute that that was the discussion, but not willing to argue on that basis, either? hmmm. I really wanted to know what Contrapuntal thought the debate was.

77

Bear in mind that it was humans who declared it to be the word of God,so if humans are God then it is, if not the it just means believeing in a human not God! Since there is no proof that God wrote ,said, or did anything, it is up to a person’s personal beliefs and what it means to them.

78

According to Matthew(and Mark) Jesus said he was going to return in Glory with His angels while some of them standing there listening to him were still alive! Since He didn’t, after 2,000 years people are still waiting and those people are all dead!

79

cmkeller gave a good technical explanaiton in post #73.
But an easier way to describe it is to say that the differences between modern Hebrew and biblical Hebrew are about the same at the differences between modern English and Shakesperean English.
They are mutually understandable, but each has its own “feel”. And each one sounds right if used in its own cultural contexts, but sounds awkward if used elsewhere.

80

Not at all, and concepts like Ceiling Cat, Hover Cat and Basement Cat and his invisible kittens help people understand principals that are hard to grasp.