|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jun 22, 2002 23:33:24 GMT -5
Eh, don't worry about it.  Anyway, the Bible really hasn't changed that much since it was translated directly from the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. Contrary to popular beleif, it wasn't translated into English, English being at the end of a long food chain of languages. It was translated right from the orginal texts. But that's another discussion somewhere around here. |
|
|
|
Post by Soleluna on Jul 20, 2002 17:34:18 GMT -5
"Never cut your bodies in mourning for the dead or mark your skin with tattoos, for I am the LORD."
At that time when people morned the dead they marked themselves. God says not to cut bodies or tatoo when mouring the dead because you must have faith in Him resurrecting them, and in you meeting again after this life journey is over.
|
|
|
|
Post by strangelilboi on May 20, 2003 12:39:00 GMT -5
the Bible really hasn't changed that much since it was translated directly from the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. A lot of people would disagree with that statement. But then all religious scriptures and religions have changed over the years to suit the social, cultural and moral tone of the nation it is in. I dont think that tattoos or piercings have anything much to do with religion unless of course they are blasphemous er i hope thats spelt right. But my grandad says that one should be happy with ones appearance and so satisfied that we should have to adorn it with too much stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on May 20, 2003 15:16:45 GMT -5
The Bible hasn't changed that much from language to language b/c it passed through a lot. It's not like a game of telephone. But because of the era when it was translated, some different moral values seem to have come across.
|
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on May 21, 2003 12:19:32 GMT -5
^^ I don't know about that. From what I've heard (various History Channel programs. LOL), the Bible was mistranslated from the getgo. For example, I believe there is reference to a camel fitting through the eye of a needle. In the original language, it really meant thread, yet the language it was translated to that word meant something different (camel). Same with Mary being a "virgin". In the original language, it simply meant "woman" and yet that was mistranslated into "virgin". Look at how that last one has had such an impact on the Christian religion! If the Bible is full of that many mistranslations, Christians today aren't following the word of God, but a facsimile of it.
Also, when translating, one can never get a perfect tranlation. Just for argument's sake, in French, Je mappelle Kasey (literally) in French means I call myself Kasey. But when you explain it to Americans, French teachers say that it is "My name is". If something that small could get explained differently than how it was originally said, then the Bible is just chock full of mistranslations.
|
|
|
|
Post by m on May 21, 2003 12:53:12 GMT -5
The alleged mis-translations of the Bible are minor. The message is there. Yes there was a minor issue with a “canal” which roughly translated is an eye of a needle. The “eyes” were small openings in the walls and fortresses surrounding a city. So whether it’s difficult to put a camel through the eye of a sewing needle, or trying to push an eight foot tall, stubborn, nasty, powerful animal through a three foot opening is a monumental task either way you look at it. In other words, the meaning is still there. As to the translations of the Bible, they are directly translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
A lot of people would disagree with that statement.
You quoted my other self. ;D Long story. Anyway, mostly because they take what they hear about the Bible as hearsay and don’t bother to investigate the texts for themselves. It easier that way, and easier to make an uninformed statement.
Same with Mary being a "virgin". In the original language, it simply meant "woman" and yet that was mistranslated into "virgin". Look at how that last one has had such an impact on the Christian religion! If the Bible is full of that many mistranslations, Christians today aren't following the word of God, but a facsimile of it.
If Mary was not a virgin then why was she looked down upon and Joseph being suspect as an adulterer? God would not have chosen Mary in the first place.
Also, when translating, one can never get a perfect tranlation. Just for argument's sake, in French, Je mappelle Kasey (literally) in French means I call myself Kasey. But when you explain it to Americans, French teachers say that it is "My name is". If something that small could get explained differently than how it was originally said, then the Bible is just chock full of mistranslations.
Splitting hairs:
I call myself Kasey
My name is Kasey.
I don’t see a big difference and I would hard pressed to find any contradictions in either statement.
1. My name is Kasey.
2. I call myself Kasey.
3. I am called Kasey.
4. Kasey is my given name.
Oh, wait, “Kasey is my given name,” now that’s different. Or maybe not. No, the name is Kasey, and Kasey is how the person is identified and is to be referred to as.
|
|
|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on May 21, 2003 16:45:57 GMT -5
The alleged mis-translations of the Bible are minor. The message is there. Yes there was a minor issue with a “canal” which roughly translated is an eye of a needle. The “eyes” were small openings in the walls and fortresses surrounding a city. So whether it’s difficult to put a camel through the eye of a sewing needle, or trying to push an eight foot tall, stubborn, nasty, powerful animal through a three foot opening is a monumental task either way you look at it. In other words, the meaning is still there. As to the translations of the Bible, they are directly translated from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.
If you know anything about languages (which you do, I assume) then it is correct that languages cannot be directly translated into another language. That can pose some problems, ones I don't think I need to go into. The issue isn't coming from me, Joe Schmoe college student. This is coming from Biblical scholars, some of whom are Christian, saying that these mistranslations matter. As for the message being there, the message can be skewed if there are mistranslations in there and you wouldn't be the wiser.
If Mary was not a virgin then why was she looked down upon and Joseph being suspect as an adulterer? God would not have chosen Mary in the first place.
Again, after listening to the scholars, I am more apt to believe that it was Mary who was the adulterer and lied to Joseph since she didn't want him to find out. Whoa, instant virgin and instant son of God.
Splitting hairs:
I call myself Kasey
My name is Kasey.
I don’t see a big difference and I would hard pressed to find any contradictions in either statement.
GEEZ! When it is supposedly the word of God, wouldn't you want to split hairs?! My example wasn't about splitting hairs, it was about showing you how mistranslations happen and how different words mean different things in different cultures and that these mistranslations happen and as a Christian, you should care. And by you saying that it doesn't matter, makes me wonder how seriously you do take hte word of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by m on May 22, 2003 8:32:56 GMT -5
If you know anything about languages (which you do, I assume) then it is correct that languages cannot be directly translated into another language. That can pose some problems, ones I don't think I need to go into. The issue isn't coming from me, Joe Schmoe college student. This is coming from Biblical scholars, some of whom are Christian, saying that these mistranslations matter. As for the message being there, the message can be skewed if there are mistranslations in there and you wouldn't be the wiser.
There are Christian scholars that are very liberal in their treatment of the Bible. Some have decided Christ never died, which negates even them calling themselves Christian. The Bible was written over a period of about 1,300 years, and is an additional 2,000 or so years old. People have been trying to find holes, contradictions, of which there are none, and any other problems.
Isn't it interesting that the Bible is so old, and it offends so many, just like it did when it was first written by the ancient Jewish scribes. Must be pretty important stuff.
Again, after listening to the scholars, I am more apt to believe that it was Mary who was the adulterer and lied to Joseph since she didn't want him to find out. Whoa, instant virgin and instant son of God.
If Mary was a liar and lied to Joseph, she would not have been chosen to be the mother of Jesus in the first place. The whole idea is Mary's purity so the sudden new fact that she is either a whore or a liar is false.
GEEZ! When it is supposedly the word of God, wouldn't you want to split hairs?!
Your example was either not very clear or didn't get to the heart of the matter. If a language says, "My name is so and so." and another language translates that as, "I am called so and so." There isn't any difference and the meanings are the same. If anything the words in the Bible in the original Hebrew packed alot more punch. Thus it it would be even more "offensive" to our pink American ears.
My example wasn't about splitting hairs, it was about showing you how mistranslations happen and how different words mean different things in different cultures and that these mistranslations happen
But the example given didn't have any errors.
and as a Christian, you should care. And by you saying that it doesn't matter, makes me wonder how seriously you do take hte word of God.
Have you read the Bible? Or did someone tell you there's all these mistakes and you were satisfied with that? A mistranslation of a word or two here and there just isn't an issue. The risen Christ, or even the findings of the very cities found by archeologists, that are mentioned in the Bible are being found, are what is significant. Ask yourself why we are not hearing about these finds, why is information being withheld?
|
|
|
|
Post by strangelilboi on May 22, 2003 16:33:10 GMT -5
The Bible is sketchy in that its not very literal. The mistake people, especially extremists, make is to take certain bits of religions too literally. You need to understand the gist of what its trying to say.
The problem is that the slightest change would make the meaning possibly completely different. Its not as simple as 'my name is kasey, kasey is my name.'
Especially because of the heavy imagery and the complexity and the fact that a lot of it sounds very outlandish.
|
|
|
|
Post by m on May 23, 2003 6:54:36 GMT -5
The Bible is sketchy in that its not very literal.
In what way? The part of how we're to relate to people, help the less fortunate, and worship God?
The mistake people, especially extremists, make is to take certain bits of religions too literally. You need to understand the gist of what its trying to say.
And what is it trying to say? Yes there are extremists in every religion.
The problem is that the slightest change would make the meaning possibly completely different. Its not as simple as 'my name is kasey, kasey is my name.'
The wisdom in the Bible has won many followers, so obviously the changes are insignificant as it changes lives, or confounds those who hate what is between the pages.
Especially because of the heavy imagery and the complexity and the fact that a lot of it sounds very outlandish.
Which would be true for a nonbeleiver, and an encouragement for the beleiver. But the imagery is meant for the reader to do some digging and figure out or find out what it means. The Sermon On The Mount is a good one. It teaches an ideal that is nearly impossible to reach -- for humans. It describes God's character perfectly, and that's the idea. It shows us God's grace and our need.
|
|
