Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text

alex73

Interesting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/five-ways-your-bible-tran_b_1007058.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101411&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


Any comments?

antiskeptic

alex73 wrote: »

Interesting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/five-ways-your-bible-tran_b_1007058.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101411&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


Any comments?

If there was an essential aspect of the unfolding drama of redemption (aka the Bible) which rested on so little material such that mistranslation could radically alter things, then I'd be worried.

As it is, my core understanding rests of larger movements. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't welcome ever better translations.

If you were in the habit of resting gigantic doctrine on the likes of "on this rock" alone - then I could understand you feeling a little disturbed..

alex73

antiskeptic wrote: »

If there was an essential aspect of the unfolding drama of redemption (aka the Bible) which rested on so little material such that mistranslation could radically alter things, then I'd be worried.

As it is, my core understanding rests of larger movements. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't welcome ever better translations.

If you were in the habit of resting gigantic doctrine on the likes of "on this rock" alone - then I could understand you feeling a little disturbed..

WOW fastest detailed thread... Where did "on this Rock come" pop out of?


I took from the Blog more about the words Brother and Sister and their various meanings. He didn't mention rock at all.

Bare in mind the Guy is Jewish.. so he is just presenting his views.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

soterpisc

I have heard many people over the years quote from the King James not knowing that some of the words used 400 years ago had a total different meaning that what they have today, however they read it with today's meaning and therefore alter the original.

I think the best way to read the bible is if you have the time, to read it in Greek-Latin-your mother tongue. The JKV was a sincere effort in translation, but the reality is like Latin and Koine Greek.. We don't speak King James English anymore... Even a native Greek person has to learn ancient Greek to read original Greek texts.. So the same in English we need to context ourselves in the language of the day when the bible was translated.


Is this all central to our salvation?.. Well it is when certain texts in the bible are manipulated such that they loose their real meaning or are interpreted out of context.

PDN

It would be best if we were all fluent in Greek and Hebrew, but that's not really practical. There are plenty of good translations and commentaries out there, so by comparing one with another we can get a good idea of what the Bible is saying, especially as it relates to what is necessary for salvation.

Manach

Only knowing the Attic Greek, and that only to follow the law cases involving sacred olive trees, on can and does get a good jist of what the original text involves. There is a 2000 year gap, but the mental concepts and frameworks between then and now have not significantly altered.

wolfsbane

alex73 wrote: »

Interesting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/five-ways-your-bible-tran_b_1007058.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101411&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief


Any comments?

Very sweeping statement: no accurate Bible translations???

The examples he gives of inaccuracy may apply to primary school grade readers, but not to most readers.

Examples:

a misunderstanding of how to translate metaphors like "God's hand" (God doesn't literally have a hand) or "the Lord is my shepherd." Every one I know understands these as metaphors.

Proverbs 28:21 in the 400-year-old classic English translation known as the King James Version (KJV) cautions, oddly, that "to have respect of persons is not good." But 400 years ago, "respect" meant "to be partial," and the point was to avoid favoritism. Additionally, the KJV's "turtle" whose voice is heard in the beautiful imagery of Song of Solomon is a bird.
Every one I know understands it in the sense he says is correct.

He does raise one valid (mostly) example:
(One especially grievous case is the well known but widely misunderstood phrase "God so loved the world" in John 3:16. The meaning of "so" here has changed.)
Many do indeed take 'so' as meaning 'so much' rather than as 'like so'. But even here, most people do know 'so' can be used in either manner.

Has he a fuller list?

The other examples is secular literature also don't strike me as being widely misunderstood, eg:
Shakespeare writes that "Juliet is the sun." But even though melanoma comes from exposure to the sun, Shakespeare didn't mean that Juliet is that girl who causes skin cancer. Obviously, he meant that she has some very specific and culturally defined qualities of the sun, such as beauty. This represents perhaps the trickiest flaw in modern translations: missing the important parts of metaphor and other symbolic language.

If that is an example of the metaphors in Scripture that are misunderstood, I don't know where he meets these people. OK, I know he's an American, but...

*********************************************************************
John 3:16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον