0
   

Re-thinking over Bible translations

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 02:51 pm
@PanarinI,
The troublesome texts in the bible are the omissions, errors and contradictions.

How would a translator change those?
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 03:03 pm
@PanarinI,
panarinI wrote:
So belief is the core to any approaches; then any belief and non-belief is real? But the reality is itself something to be accepted as. Thanks for thoughts!


From what I can gather, you misunderstand what I said.
0 Replies
 
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 04:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From a translator's point of view no text has contradictions in itself, that's true. I believe contradictions can be found everywhere else, and we deal with it
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 04:26 pm
@PanarinI,
101 bible contradictions:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 05:10 pm
@PanarinI,
Quote:
Being a translator for living I can tell it is sure possible to (mostly unwillingly) change the meaning when it comes to troblesome texts (and many of them are troublesome)
So is your interest in critiquing the translation or the contents of the text?

Other points:

You seem to object to the translators remaining anonymous? Why?

So you don't like word for word translation when possible because it 'chops the meaning up'. Hard to discuss without examples.
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 06:13 pm
@Leadfoot,
'So is your interest in critiquing the translation or the contents of the text?'
The traslation and all what stands behind the choice of word-by-word approach

'You seem to object to the translators remaining anonymous? Why?'
I'm discussing the Aim#4. You know, all these 4 are the rules, and very odd set of rules (the grammar correctness (#2) and placing Lord in his proper place - these two form a weird mix together, or I fancy it?)
If I were one of the translator of these texts and given the task to 'give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place' - what should I have done? who knows the proper place? Well... really when I'm thinking of it now, I'm finding some benefits of literary translation (e.g. it deminishes personality). I would like to find something more on this subject from different sources.

'So you don't like word for word translation when possible because it 'chops the meaning up'. Hard to discuss without examples.'
I agree. I should find examples to prove something or prove not

Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 06:22 pm
@PanarinI,
Quote:
I'm discussing the Aim#4. You know, all these 4 are the rules, and very odd set of rules (the grammar correctness (#2) and placing Lord in his proper place - these two form a weird mix together, or I fancy it?)

Well, it is a given that the people behind the translation actually believed in the Lord Jesus. Do you think that disqualified them?

But yes, I see your point in a priory determining the Lord to have a certain place. But even in the original Hebrew and Greek texts, the Lord was pretty central to the whole thing.

They did put that last on the list though. Give them credit for that at least.
PanarinI
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 06:42 pm
@Leadfoot,
They did put that last on the list though. Give them credit for that at least.

Yours truth, this is the credit I really can give.

'But even in the original Hebrew and Greek texts, the Lord was pretty central to the whole thing.'
Are you aquainted? If so, would you mind me asking something?

'Well, it is a given that the people behind the translation actually believed in the Lord Jesus. Do you think that disqualified them?/
No, that doesn't. But I wonder why the exception in the limitations of literal translations is made for Bible translations.

My another point is that don't we need to come to the belief by ourselves? Not accepting any 'truth' that comes from different men and organizations, which even try to anonymize (excuse me) its doers.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2016 08:10 pm
@PanarinI,
Quote:
My another point is that don't we need to come to the belief by ourselves? Not accepting any 'truth' that comes from different men and organizations, which even try to anonymize (excuse me) its doers.

Totally agree with you here. Someone might get you interested but no one should accept anything but personal experience when it comes to God.
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 01:45 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

All Bible translations have a point of approach. There can be presuppositions when a Bible translation is approached from a point of believe. Many Bible translations attempt a literal translation with interpretive glosses for idioms.


I imagine a pure translation made without a preconceived belief by the translator would be truly valuable to some, although I fear such a translator may not exist.

Until that comes, we must do the best we can with what we have Smile
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 01:26 pm
@Smileyrius,
Thank God for Bible compendiums!
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 03:16 pm
@PanarinI,
Another piece to consider.

If the premise is true that all humans are sinful by nature.

How can you be certain the bible hasnt been manipulated both intentionally and errantly?

You can attempt to say god prevents tampering of the bible. But this is inconsistent. He will allow tampering in everything else?

Historians have pointed out that there are discrepencies within comparing texts from the thousands of copies where some omit parts and others have additions that none of the others possess.

Then there are theories that christian thought was a medieval invention. As a way to invoke a deity to centralilize power.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 03:20 pm
@Krumple,
Much of the bible replicates much of Greek and Egyptian mythology - even the virgin birth.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 04:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Much of the bible replicates much of Greek and Egyptian mythology - even the virgin birth.


Was it an intentional act to plagiarize greek and egyptian mythology or was the idea a commonly held idealistic characteristic of the time?

I have heard historians mention that there were thousands of people over a thousand year span who had claimed they were born of virgins and had special abilities.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2016 05:23 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Was it an intentional act to plagiarize greek and egyptian mythology or was the idea a commonly held idealistic characteristic of the time?


It doesn't matter. The facts are obvious. That thousands made a claim of a virgin birth has no relevance to the story of Jesus. They didn't claim deity.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

There is a word for that! - Discussion by wandeljw
Best Euphemism for death and dying.... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Question by lululucy
phrase/name of male seducer - Question by Zah03
Shameful sexist languge must be banned! - Question by neologist
Three Word Phrase I REALLY Hate to See - Discussion by hawkeye10
Is History an art or a science? - Question by Olivier5
"Rooms" in a cave - Question by shua
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 07:28:08