[Axo1ot1]

The Torah is in Hebrew and is read in hebrew. The Koran is in Arabic and is read in Arabic. The Bible can be found in basically any language you want, and was originally written in Aramaic, Hebrew and maybe a couple other languages that I am forgetting at the moment. The Bible is known to have been edited down, the books in it, as I understand it, were decided upon by the Nicene Council. I was taught by the priests at my church when I was confirmed that the Bible was first widely translated into languages other than Latin when swaths of Christendom began to break away from the Catholic church and wanted to make christianity more accessible to lay people as a personal faith.

I'm curious to see if people think that anything is lost in editing and translation. I know that some folks of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's ilk believe that the Bible is the word of God, but I never understood that, considering certain liberties that have to be taken when translating from one language to another. Can we really trust King James with God's word? Did the original Romans who translated it into Latin for the first time get everything right?

[Superchicken]

Actually most of the OT was written in Hebrew, most of the NT was written in Greek. The Torah is part of the OT. The Torah is actually the first five books of the OT.

I don't think translations have compromised the Bible so much as selfishness has compromised the Bible. The Bible was always intended to be read in the language of the people, the early church used a translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint or the LLX. The NT actually says the Children of Israel crossed the red sea, while the Masoritic text of the Torah actually says they crossed the Sea of Reeds.

Ultimately what has compromised Christianity is not the NIV, the NLT and the ASB, what has compromised Christianity is selfish people trying to make a buck, trying to get fame, trying to get respect, trying to get laid. And so on and so forth.

That said every translation has it's faults, I personally read the NIV but where it deals with homosexuality is translated poorly, most people blame the fact that one of the scholars was a lesbian.

I personally enjoy the NET distributed by bible.org

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
The Torah is in Hebrew and is read in hebrew. The Koran is in Arabic and is read in Arabic. The Bible can be found in basically any language you want, and was originally written in Aramaic, Hebrew and maybe a couple other languages that I am forgetting at the moment. The Bible is known to have been edited down, the books in it, as I understand it, were decided upon by the Nicene Council. I was taught by the priests at my church when I was confirmed that the Bible was first widely translated into languages other than Latin when swaths of Christendom began to break away from the Catholic church and wanted to make christianity more accessible to lay people as a personal faith.

I'm curious to see if people think that anything is lost in editing and translation. I know that some folks of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's ilk believe that the Bible is the word of God, but I never understood that, considering certain liberties that have to be taken when translating from one language to another. Can we really trust King James with God's word? Did the original Romans who translated it into Latin for the first time get everything right?

St Jerome, Doctor of the Church, who translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew, was not Roman. He was born in the north of Italy and spent most of his time outside of Rome.

The reason why the Catholic Church was reluctant to translate the Bible into the vernacular languages, is because the Church feared the corruption of the text.

[starman]

Ever play "telephone"? Now try that with several languages involved and people's personal interpretations. Messy.

Mike

[talisker]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
I personally read the NIV but where it deals with homosexuality is translated poorly, most people blame the fact that one of the scholars was a lesbian.

[Kilbey]

I prefer the NASB version of the Bible as it is often recognized as the most accurate translation word for word of the most reliable ancient texts.

It may seem a bit confusing at times because people don't take into account the differences of sentence structure of the original text. The NASB keeps that intact.

My friend, who is also the pastor of our Church, studies the original Greek and Hebrew and helps to put every thing into perspective concerning the various translations. He is a very good linguist and that really helps for his ministry.

I don't trust the King James Version as the history surrounding it's translation is sketchy.

[Face Ache]

Oh yeah the Bible has changed a lot since God wrote it.

[zigzag]

I was just reading the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves, and the author points out that the original Hebrew did not use punctuation and therefore any number of interpretations can result, even from seemingly simple passages. For example, Protestants say "Verily, I say unto thee, this day thou shalt be with me in Paradise," reflecting the Protestant view that one goes straight to Heaven. Catholics, on the other hand, say "Verily, I say unto thee this day, thou shalt be with me in Heaven," reflecting the Catholic idea that you'll get there eventually but have to pass through Purgatory first. Magnify such differences a thousand-fold and it would seem difficult for anyone to claim an authoritative version of the Bible.

[Kilbey]

Oh yeah, I forgot. RBITBNRP.

[Link]

Look how badly the macnn lounge looks after translation from english to japanese and back to english:

http://tinyurl.com/2x2fo

I rest my case

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
RBITBNRP.

RICSAS.

Yes, the bible is compromised.
We can all go ahead and eat pork. Really.

[SSharon]

I read it in the original Hebrew. All Hebrew version and of course the Torah manuscripts are checked very carefully even when just copied not translated to make sure each letter is correct.

Zigzag: Correct, in the Torah's found in all temples there is no punctuation, but that doesn't mean its not there. Believe it or not, the punctuation was passed with the Oral law and not the Written law. When the Torah is read (Mon./ Thurs. AM and Sat.) it is read with a specific melody (can't find the right word in english) which if messed up by the reader must be corrected be rereading any words that were involved. In addition, many of the most famous commentators on the Torah discuss punctuation and how it affects the meaning of the text. (kind of related is that there are even a few oversized letters in the Torah.)

If anyone wants a bit of reading on the subject take a look at this article.

So to answer the original posters question, yes I do think that translations have compromised the Bible, and that is why I avoid them as much as I can.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by starman:
Ever play "telephone"? Now try that with several languages involved and people's personal interpretations. Messy.

Mike

excellent point mike!

not only that, but the different connotations words have in different languages is somehting all too often very understimated. add too that cultural biases in terms of use of language and the tendency of human beings to reinterpert words to fit their own "ideals" and world views and you've got yourself a real live 2000 year old remix, which would make slayers "angel of death" sound like n'sync.

literalists thus do not only do their own faith a great disservice, but expose themselves as the true idiots of the 21st century. the world would do good to simply ignore them.

[willed]

It wasn't the translation into other languages that is so problematic, as that is a relatively modern phenomenon (ie from the reformation, C16th); the problem is the copying of manuscripts before that. The earliest near-complete versions of the four gospels are Codex Vaticanus, which dates from c.400AD and codex Sinacticus, which is about the same age. The actual books were written around the end of the C1st, which gives quite a large gap. In those days there were no printing presses, copying was done by hand, which inevitably led to more mistakes. Add to this the whims of various copyists, who decided what the evangelists should have written, and there are MANY small variations, and some larger ones.

However many translations are made, we can always go back to these ancient codeces and the many papyri, uncials etc, so it's not really like a game of Chinese whispers or "telephone", but these documents only take us back so far, and disagree on many points (for example, if you're Bible includes anything past Mark 16:8 it should be parenthesised, as both the 'short' and 'long' endings are from later copyists who were alarmed at the abruptness of Mark's original ending).

Translations can be detrimental - there are quite a few translations (usually by Americans) which claim to be in modern language that we today can understand, which are little more than paraphrases. Even one of the best translations, the NRSV, has, as Superchicken rightly said, been 'politically corrected'. Usually this just means putting 'believers' instead of 'brothers' and suchlike, but when it replaces the phrase 'Son of Man' with 'human' that can lead to significant differences in theological interpretation.

P.S. Much of this discussion assumes that if we had the original works of Matthew -> John we would have some sort of perfect record of what Jesus said and did. This is obviously not the case, as they disagree on so much, but that's a discussion for another day

[Millennium]

It's impossible to not lose at least a little bit in translation. Different languages come from different cultures with different values, which therefore place different meanings and connotations to words which would otherwise express the same concepts.

This is where multiple translations (and good translation notes) can be your friend.

[zen jihad]

It's not so much the translations that cause problems, but the transmission of oral stories throughout the generations. Just the simple task of passing on one story through countless tribes, places, and generations is enough to tell you that there are going ot be roblems with scriptrual integrity. It's pretty much there to see in the texts themselves. Biblical redaction prett much covers this to some degree.

Case in point. We have an orginal story, passed down orally for geneations, the nthe people writing this down at a set time to preserve the living memory of these events. The copyists who, in the case of the NT, would insert new meanings into the texts for numerous reasons. The copyists who had the tast of translating hebrew, or Aramaic scripts into Greek, etc. The list goes on, and the problems from just the simple task of recording something is apparent.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
RICSAS.

Yes, the bible is compromised.
We can all go ahead and eat pork. Really.

It's comments like this that really show a person's ignorance. It shows how those critical of the Bible don't know what it really says.

Read 1 Peter and get back to us please.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
It's comments like this that really show a person's ignorance. It shows how those critical of the Bible don't know what it really says.

Read 1 Peter and get back to us please.

It's that kind of waivering God that has people wondering. "Hey people, don't eat pig; nah, go ahead, it's cool now, was just yanking your chains before".

[Eriamjh]

The Bible is not the "telephone" game. It is one translation from a single different language. It is not Hebrew to English to Hebrew. It is not Greek to English to Japanese. It is not English to English to English (like in the telephone game).

Some "versions" are English to English rewrites (or are they?). But most are based on the one-time work of a group of translators. Much like the language of the day affecting the way it is translated, the translator himself (herself) puts in their own beliefs whether consciously or unconsciously.

Perhaps, we need a new translation, done with a huge non-secular committee, using the most objective of translation rules? Perhaps historians of language should be involved? Even this won't really work... Why? Because even the words themselves can be interpreted differently by different people. Just like words and statements that can be taken out of context, the Bible is subject to the limitations of language.

Rant over.

Arbitrary questions: Is there any sarcasm in the Bible? Are there any jokes? Any double-entendre?

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
Arbitrary questions: Is there any sarcasm in the Bible? Are there any jokes?

"...god created teh heavens and teh earth in a week, 6000 years ago..."

there's a joke for you if i've ever heared one.

[zen jihad]

Even if we were to accept that the Nt was written entirely by eye-witnesses, and people who saw things first hand. It still opens up the problem of how someone views a situation, adn how they interpret it, without bias. Not very easy.

Here's a quick list of some contradictions in the Bible. This is more of a fun list, rather than an attempt to expand on the inconsistencies. make of it what you will.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...stencies.shtml

[Kilbey]

Why are the non-religious so obsessed with religious things?

About 1 out of 20 religion threads are started by a religious person. I think this really says something.

Are the non-religious searching for something? Truth?

Back on topic: Has any one here every deeply studied the Dead Sea scrolls? Really fascinating artifact. It corroborates most of the preexisting texts very well.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Why are the non-religious so obsessed with religious things?

About 1 out of 20 religion threads are started by a religious person. I think this really says something.

Are the non-religious searching for something? Truth?

Why not? Some of us might believe in Jesus, but think the NT is a pile of crud. Or maybe it's because religion plays a large part in society, and influences many a powerful person. We shoud be clued up on such thngs if we are to remain informed, if religion is being used to infleunce many a political topic. If you want to keep religion awawy from discussion between all members of society, then start with the Church from interfering in matters like abortion, civil liberties, etc. It takes on person to use the religion card, and they lose all rights to not having their religion scritinized. Same goes for all sides.

Anyway, why shouldn't we be interested? if Dubya, the Prez. is saying he has been commanded by God to invade various nations. Don't you think that we should maybe check out this God to see how the Prez is using his name for such things?
I sure as heck want to know who this 'God' is if my family are being sent to Iraq to fight on the back of God's name.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
Or maybe it's because religion plays a large part in society, and influences many a powerful person. We shoud be clued up on such thngs if we are to remain informed, if religion is being used to infleunce many a political topic. If you want to keep religion awawy from discussion between all members of society, then start with the Church from interfering in matters like abortion, civil liberties, etc.

couldn't have said it better myself (probably not even as good ). this should put that, and other dumba$$ commments that some members here have made to rest. once and for all.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
couldn't have said it better myself (probably not even as good ). this should put that, and other dumba$$ commments that some members here have made to rest. once and for all.

lol, thanks, but I know you could of written it better. My typos are awful the last few days, must get some sleep.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
couldn't have said it better myself (probably not even as good ). this should put that, and other dumba$$ commments that some members here have made to rest. once and for all.

Really, because I saw a lot of flaws in what he said. He states things about the president as fact that are truly lies. Completely made up.

If you want to keep religion awawy from discussion between all members of society, then start with the Church from interfering in matters like abortion, civil liberties, etc.

And Churches don't preach from the pulpit about anything political. They would lose their tax-free status for their members if they were to do so. This is one of those things that people who haven't been to church in a loooong time say about the current Churches today.

I don't want to "keep religion awawy from discussion". I would love to have religion in any discussion. I just don't want religious bashing in nearly all religious discussions at MacNN. Do you understand this simple desire?

[RAILhead]

I know how to read, write, and understand Greek and Hebrew, so no, the different translations don't bother me. Though, if I'm being lazy, I like the NAS version.

Maury

[sixz]

I think it is always better to hear a benevolent gods words
as he originally spouted them rather than second hand. The muslims
knowing the possible problems of contextual misdemeanors -
made it's societies highest achievement to remember the whole
of their prophets revelations in his original tongue by heart. And it
must be learnt to be a 'good' believer and in gods 'true' language
ancient arabic even if it's not your mother tongue - only the arabic
can be correct.

There is a lot to be said for being the last group to make up
a major religion. - you learn so much from the others mistakes.
Less stories more commandments and maybe only 14 interpretations,
make it a much more koranic read.

And the 'hard copy' is still hanging around in paradise so when you
are dead you can check it to see if you've been doing it right for so
long or not.

[Zimphire]

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
It's comments like this that really show a person's ignorance. It shows how those critical of the Bible don't know what it really says.

Read 1 Peter and get back to us please.

There's also some stuff thats just gold in romans.. somewhere around 10 I think.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
It's that kind of waivering God that has people wondering. "Hey people, don't eat pig; nah, go ahead, it's cool now, was just yanking your chains before".

Good old ignorance. You don't understand it, so why not spout off about how it must be wrong!


I don't eat pork because I hate the taste. Retched stuff.. cept bacon.

Mmmmm bacon.

[Zimphire]

zen doesn't buy into the Jesus factor, so the not eating pig/ then being allowed doesn't make sense.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Why are the non-religious so obsessed with religious things?

About 1 out of 20 religion threads are started by a religious person. I think this really says something.

Are the non-religious searching for something? Truth?

What I find funny is, I don't follow or believe in the atheist religion, but you don't see me posting thread after thread bashing it.

Why? I am secure with my beliefs.

Back on topic: Has any one here every deeply studied the Dead Sea scrolls? Really fascinating artifact. It corroborates most of the preexisting texts very well.

Yup, they match up pretty much word for word. But hey, lets not bust anyones bubble.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Really, because I saw a lot of flaws in what he said. He states things about the president as fact that are truly lies. Completely made up.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

What I find funny is, I don't follow or believe in the atheist religion, but you don't see me posting thread after thread bashing it.

Why? I am secure with my beliefs.

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
...this should put that, and other dumba$$ commments that some members here have made to rest. once and for all.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Good old ignorance. You don't understand it, so why not spout off about how it must be wrong!


I don't eat pork because I hate the taste. Retched stuff.. cept bacon.

Mmmmm bacon.

Pork fat rules, that's for sure. I'll be having my weekly helping tomorrow morning during my Dad and my weekend breakfast, right before we hit the links (and not the water, or sand, or trees, etc.).



Maury

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
"...god created teh heavens and teh earth in a week, 6000 years ago..."

there's a joke for you if i've ever heared one.

...do you often *hear* things that are not spoken? You would have *read* that...

there's a joke for you, if ever I *read* one.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
__________________
This could be my last post.

i really hope it was.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
i really hope it was.

I know you do. That's why it wasn't.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
The Bible is not the "telephone" game. It is one translation from a single different language.

Wrong.

All your versions are derived from the Lutherbibel, so that's *at least* two translations right there.

And there are KNOWN translation errors in the Luther Bible.

ex.: "Camel through the eye of a needle" was a mistake made by Luther has been proven to be a misread of the original source, due to the words for "camel" and "thick rope" being very similar.

This is known. This is in your KJV. It is an error that has been traced.

How likely is it that errors are made in MILLENNIA of copywriting and translation?

Seeing as it's already been proven: 100%.

How likely is it that this is the only inadvertent (or intentional) change to the Word of God ever to have been made by men?


And just in case anybody tries to twist this post into "anti-Christianity", allow me to utter a pre-emptive "**** You", for knowing absolutely nothing about me, my roots, or my beliefs.

-s*

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I know you do. That's why it wasn't.

i knew it wouldn't be. 'would have been too good to be true.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Wrong.

\And just in case anybody tries to twist this post into "anti-Christianity", allow me to utter a pre-emptive "**** You", for knowing absolutely nothing about me, my roots, or my beliefs.

-s*

All I know are your past posts, which is quite telling.

Roots? Beliefs? < > Share.

[ghost_flash]

The article Zim linked to is worthy of copy-paste:

"When Bush-Bashers Collide? Moore's Film at Odds with Clarke Remarks
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 01, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - One of the central charges made by left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore in his upcoming, Bush-bashing film is being undermined by another critic of the president -- former White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Moore's upcoming film, Fahrenheit 911, points to President Bush's rumored relationship with Saudi officials as the motivating factor in the president allegedly allowing relatives of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden to fly out of the country following the Sept.11, 2001 terror attacks.

But Clarke recently admitted that he alone approved the exit of the bin Laden kin -- damaging the key premise of Moore's film.

Chris Horner, a GOP strategist, finds irony in the fact that the credibility of Moore's film is being undermined by one of Bush's biggest critics even before the film is released in the United States.

"When self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorists collide," Horner said of Moore and Clarke.

"One self-promoting, Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Clarke) proves the undoing of another Bush-hating conspiracy theorist (Moore)," Horner told CNSNews.com.

Moore has alleged in interviews promoting the film that Bush and his father, former president George H.W. Bush, had close ties to the Saudis, which led to the decision to help bin Laden's family leave the country following the terrorist attacks.

Clarke's sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission in March, describing how the FBI approved the flights for the bin Ladens and other Saudis to leave the U.S., may have strengthened that premise. But Clarke's interview with The Hill newspaper, published on May 26, contradicted that previous testimony.

The decision to approve the flights, Clarke admitted last week, had been his own. The request "didn't get any higher than me," he told The Hill .

"On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI," Clarke said of the plane flight carrying bin Laden's relatives.

"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again," he added. The Saudis and bin Laden's relatives were flown from the U.S. out of fear for their safety following the terror attacks.

Clarke turned against the Bush administration and became a darling of the left earlier this year when he criticized the government's anti-terror policies. His book Against All Enemies : Inside America's War on Terror , detailed his frustrations working in the administration, and news clips of Clarke appear in Moore's documentary, according to film critics who have screened the movie.

But Moore's film relies in part on Clarke's original comments, the ones he has now contradicted.

According to a movie review by the BBC, one of the film's "chief accusations is Bush allowed planes to pick up 24 members of the bin Laden family and fly them out of the U.S. in the days following the attacks - when all other aircraft were grounded."

The BBC review states that the movie explores "the relationships between the Bush and bin Laden dynasties."

Fahrenheit 911 received a 10-minute standing ovation and the top award at the Cannes Film Festival in France in May. It is expected that the film will be released in the U.S. in July.

While promoting the documentary, Moore has not been shy in linking Bush's alleged "relationship" with the bin Laden family to the flight that took the bin Ladens and other Saudis from the U.S. following Sept. 11, 2001.

"So here is Bush trying to deal with everything on Sept. 11, 12 13th, you know. You remember, everybody remembers the total state of chaos and people, just everyone, all of us, discombobulated by the whole thing, and he had the time to be thinking -- what can I do to help the bin Ladens right now," Moore told Pacifica radio last October.

"And all of these elaborate plans were made, because [the Saudis] were spread out throughout the country, to be able to pick them up, get them to Boston and then get them to Paris," Moore said.

"While we are being told that the hunt is on for Osama bin Laden, what is really going on is when you got 24 bin Ladens here, (a disputed number) you know, none of them are asked for any kind of help. None of them are interrogated, and they are given the royal red carpet treatment in the days after September 11th. My question is why? What is really going on here?" Moore asked.

But Horner believes Moore's film will eventually be discredited.

"In his rush to ensure that no credit goes un-annexed, Clarke exposes Moore's rant as based on paranoia and the presumptions common among fever-swamp liberals that never survive the slightest encounter with facts," he said.

Horner sees Clarke's admission and its impact on the credibility of Fahrenheit 9/11 as just the latest setback for what he calls the "conspiratorial left" in the past year.

"First [former Democratic presidential candidate] Howard Dean implodes in a fury. Then Clarke bombs, and then the [Al] Franken/[Al] Gore political MoveOn-ment (MoveOn.org) lashes itself to the hilariously hapless [global warming disaster film] The Day After Tomorrow . And then there is the collective failure of [the liberal] Air America radio," Horner explained.

"Now Moore's movie's premises are revealed to be nothing more than huffing liberal anger. Every weapon in the pacifist arsenal has proven, fittingly, a dud," Horner charged.

See Related Story:
Clarke's Contradiction May Dampen Dem Attack on Bush
"

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Wrong.

All your versions are derived from the Lutherbibel, so that's *at least* two translations right there.

And there are KNOWN translation errors in the Luther Bible.

ex.: "Camel through the eye of a needle" was a mistake made by Luther has been proven to be a misread of the original source, due to the words for "camel" and "thick rope" being very similar.

This is known. This is in your KJV. It is an error that has been traced.

So tell me Spheric, with something so petty as this. Do you think someone reading the Bible wont "get the meaning" behind it?

Do you think in the BIG PICTURE, that this ruins everything?

This is petty. This is a smokescreen.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So tell me Spheric, with something so petty as this. Do you think someone reading the Bible wont "get the meaning" behind it?

Do you think in the BIG PICTURE, that this ruins everything?

This is petty. This is a smokescreen.

Actually, it's not petty at all.

It is a petty example, for sure.

But its implications are tremendous:

You CANNOT claim to have the pure, unadulterated word of God in your hands. There is simply no way this can be the case - all due to the tiny little petty translation error I mentioned above.

Due to this little petty mistake, ALL bets are off.

What if, for example, Luther had mistranslated the phrase for "young woman" ("junge Frau" in German) as "Jungfrau" (which means "virgin")?

Don't you think that this petty little error would have rather drastic implications if it were to happen, say, when referring to Mary?

Wouldn't it change one of the largest portions of doctrine for many of the Christian denominations?

And yet, that is EXACTLY what happened:
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/net/innovations.htm

Second, undoubtedly the most divisive verse in twentieth-century American translation debates was Isa 7.14. This text was a watershed for orthodoxy, and became the battle cry of many fundamentalists and evangelicals in their attacks on the RSV. The translation of hmlu as �young woman� was deemed inappropriate by many conservatives, for it seemed to simultaneously impugn the virgin birth of Christ and destroy the unity of the canon. Both the NIV and the NASB were products of evangelical reactions to the RSV, and this verse provided much of the catalyst. In both of them, hmlu is translated �virgin,� in spite of the lexical stretch (some might say linguistic dishonesty) that such a translation required. The NET Bible here has �young woman� because, quite simply, that is what the Hebrew means.

Not quite so petty, Kevin.

You focused on the supposed pettiness of my example and lost sight of the BIG PICTURE you asked me for.

And as for BIG PICTURE, note that these guys are scientists enough to make no claims to absolute accuracy:

Although largely positioned between formal and dynamic equivalence, the translation philosophy strives to represent the best of current biblical scholarship. Thus, interpretive renderings are offered where there is either a general consensus or where a neutral translation would be meaningless

They go on to explain in great length what this means, but the implications are quite simple:

Even the best, most comprehensive translations CANNOT overcome the limitations of the source, whose copiers/writers/translators were of course subject to the exact same problems (such as the desire to harmonize obviously conflicting passages) as the later translators whose work the good people writing the NET Bible are re-doing.


And I won't go into my personal beliefs because a) they're personal, and b) I believe it should be possible to have a rational discussion of important matters without the immediate assumption of some agenda.

Whom or what I believe or don't believe in bears absolutely no relevance to the historical integrity of the Bible text.

-s*

[ghost_flash]

riiiight.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
riiiight.

Wow.

"riiiight" what?