Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus never used the word "hell". That's a perfect example of the huge problems with translating ancient texts into languages like English that they were never meant to be translated into.
Ah! so the Bible is wrong and cannot be trusted! Then why even read it.
Ah! so the Bible is wrong and cannot be trusted! Then why even read it.
I fail to see how his comment stated that the Bible was unreliable. Perhaps you should reread it again. He pointed out the difficulties of translation. Pretty simple. Translation is difficult, and bad translations will give a false impression of what the Bible says - and by extension, if you follow such things, Jesus' words.
Speaking of "Hell" - perhaps a short review is in order.
The Hebrew Bible does not have a place of torment for sinners and never mentions a Hell. It does have a place called Sheol - the common grave of mankind in the Netherworld. Everyone went there - good and bad. The only individuals who avoided this fate were directly "translated" - if you will - to Heaven, if you want to see that interpretation. The reference to Enoch being taken is still enigmatic, but gained more details in the Book of Enoch. The main point is that Sheol was the fate of all mankind, no matter their standing in life in relationship to God.
In the 2nd Temple Period, Judaism began evolving with various ideas of a life after death, an after-wordly reward for a good life - despite the protestations of Biblical authors such as Qoheleth. A judgment was envisaged, and Gehenna became a popular spot of speculation for such a thing beginning in the Inter-Testamental Period. By the time of the New Testament, the ideas of an afterlife had become fairly popular among the Pharisees, but rejected by the Saduccees. Thrillobyte is correct: the word "Hell" NEVER occurs in the Greek New Testament. It's not a Greek word, and it's a much later word. It's a Germanic word stemming from an underworld goddess called Hel. References to the fate of sinners involved several different words, with Gehenna (a garbage dump with fires constantly burning) being a popular one. See Mark 9:43-48. Notice that because of the popular notion of Hell, the New Revised Standard Version (among many) translates Gehenna as "Hell":
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to [Gehenna], to the unquenchable fire.
(Mark 9:43 NRSV)
For those who actually read Biblical Greek or have good study notes in their Bibles, it will nicely point out that "hell" is actually "Gehenna".
Luke, however, refers to Hades - the Greek god and destination. Yes, as usual, the Greek New Testament has borrowed Greek ideas and philosophy and incorporated it into it's theology. See Luke 16:19-26. Matthew has the most detailed portrait of the abdode of the damned. Unlike the other Gospel writers, however, who never mentioned Satan in relationship to Hades or Gehenna, Matthew points out that Satan and his servants are destined for Hades. The Gospel of John - surprise - never mentions it at all. The most references to our uderstanding of how we view "Hell" today is from that most troubling of books - the Book of Revelations.
However, the true ideas that will shape Hell will come much later in Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy and John Milton's Paradise Lost. It is there that Satan becomes the Ruler of Hell, and many other ideas that have shaped the West's idea of Hell and our willingness to read these ideas BACK into the Bible.
This is great documentary on people's ideas about the Devil throughout history that really explains all your questions about where these ideas came from.
Ah! so the Bible is wrong and cannot be trusted! Then why even read it.
Good question, Mr5150. why indeed, since we can easily prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and in so many cases, absolutely, that it's technically wrong and could only have come, at least the first versions, from the overheated minds of dehydrated, magic hallucinatory 'shroom eating, heat and sunstroke-addled minstrels, intent on getting a free meal and a place, even if it's in a manger, to sleep for the night.
Then, one night, laying in such a manger, one of them saw Haley's comet or perhaps a five day long super-nova, and thought: hey! I've got a really neat idea for a story, but I'll need you other guys' help with some of the more imaginative details. Let's go for it!"
Ergo, the current bible, albeit revised a few hundred times at least, most obviously and visibly by a tweeked King of England, James, soz he could invent divorce. See: King James Version written inside your bible's publication sheet. See? right there, for your non-skeptical mind to observe!
I fail to see how his comment stated that the Bible was unreliable. Perhaps you should reread it again. He pointed out the difficulties of translation. Pretty simple. Translation is difficult, and bad translations will give a false impression of what the Bible says - and by extension, if you follow such things, Jesus' words.
The key word here being "translations".
Most translations are good. Verified by biblical scholars. Most who say the translations are bad are those who don't like what said translations have to say.
With that said, which translations are incorrect? The NASB, NKJV, NIV? which are the major ones used. They have passed all tests. Many others are good also. Which ones are wrong?
I see too often that some question "translations" yet never give any specifics. I guess were are just suppose to nod our heads blindly and say we can't trust the Bible.
Most translations are good. Verified by biblical scholars. Most who say the translations are bad are those who don't like what said translations have to say.
With that said, which translations are incorrect? The NASB, NKJV, NIV? which are the major ones used. They have passed all tests. Many others are good also. Which ones are wrong?
I see too often that some question "translations" yet never give any specifics. I guess were are just suppose to nod our heads blindly and say we can't trust the Bible.
YOU are the one constantly repeating the refrain that we do not trust the Bible. NONE of us has ever said any such thing. ALL the translations that have used the CONTEXT of the nature of God described in the OT as the overriding context for interpreting scripture . . . are WRONG. Christ revealed the True Nature of God and THAT is the CONTEXT that should be used to interpret the scriptures. You should know that the overriding context of the nature of God is the single most biasing feature of ANY translation or interpretation. If you believe God is a jealous, angry, vengeful (but Holy and Just) God with all the weaknesses we human beings are heir to . . . you will see motives and interpret events using that context. IF you see God as Jesus revealed Him . . . as Agape Love . . your interpretations of motive and events will be quite dramatically different using the exact same script.
Most translations are good. Verified by biblical scholars. Most who say the translations are bad are those who don't like what said translations have to say.
With that said, which translations are incorrect? The NASB, NKJV, NIV? which are the major ones used. They have passed all tests. Many others are good also. Which ones are wrong?
I see too often that some question "translations" yet never give any specifics. I guess were are just suppose to nod our heads blindly and say we can't trust the Bible.
MR, you are simplifying the issue. Nobody is claiming that an entire translation is wrong - again, that's a generalization. It's certainly not because "most who say the translations are bad are those who don't like what said translations have to say", either. I'm actively involved in translation, so I'm not speaking from ignorance about this issue. Translating a text from one language to another is extremely difficult, and can never, ever result in a perfect translation. It's just not possible, due to the very nature of language.
Now, you ask which translations are incorrect? That's a generalization, and such a question shouldn't be asked. There is no translation that is "incorrect"; there are translations that have errors, made certain theological choices in translation, or chosen to make the language less literal and more idiomatic. There is no such thing as an entirely "incorrect" translation. There is also no committee of people who have done "tests" to determine whether a translation is "correct" or not.
Let me give you some examples of what I'm trying to say. Let's look at Ecclesiastes and its most famous statement. I will first use the well-known King James translations, since it has had an enormous influence on many translations that have followed. I will highlight the words that we will examine:
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher,
Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
(Ecclesiastes 1:2 KJV)
Everybody knows this verse. It's the theme of the book and it's a wonderful verse. But what does "vanity" mean? Well, if you're a modern person you may think of some handsome fellow who likes looking in the mirror a lot. He is quit vain; he has a lot of vanity. Wikipedia gives this definition:
In conventional parlance, vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others (Stephen LaMarche).
So is "the Preacher" (Qoheleth) saying that all things are vanity in this sense? Well, no. Here is Wikipedia's addition to the previous definition:
Prior to the 14th century it did not have such narcissistic undertones, and merely meant futility.
This is a better definition for the word chosen to translate the Hebrew word hebel. We look at the King James translation and usually say "Golly, such a quaint old-fashioned translation!" Well, this was also the case at the time it was produced. It was already quaint and old-fashioned and the English style used was already out of date. Not a lot of people realize this. That is why it use the pre-14th century definition. While we're at it, also notice that "the Preacher" is a translation of Qoheleth - which is possibly a name or a title. Nobody knows for sure. The name of the book is Qoheleth in Hebrew, so take note of the translations that choose Qoheleth over "the Preacher".
So, a better translation that took into account modern idioms would be:
Futility of futilities, said the Preacher,
Futility of futilities; all is futility.
Now - can we say the King James version of the Bible is "incorrect" as a whole? No, we cannot. Can we say that its choice of "futility" as a translation of hebel was incorrect? Well, from the then-contemporary understanding of the word futility, yes, but not from the older pre-14th century understanding. This in no way allows anyone to claim that "the King James translation is incorrect" in a general sense.
The word hebel is also an example of a word that does not have a direct equivalent in the target language: English. It has several meanings and connotations that cannot be captured fully - in one single word - in English. Here are some examples of how various translators have approached the problem. Keep in mind, however, that because of the overwhelming popularity of the KJV the word vanity (and it's variants) has been mostly retained in many translations (it's hard to buck tradition):
Utterly vain, utterly vain,
everything is vain!
(J. Moffat)
Vanity of vanities, Qoheleth says.
Vanity of vanities. All is vanity!
(The Jerusalem Bible)
A textual note to the above says "The traditional 'vanity' is retained here; the Hebrew term means primarily 'mist', 'breath', one of the traditional groups of images (water, shadow, smoke, etc.) used in Hebrew poetry to describe the transitory nature of man. But in Qoheleth the word has lost this sense and signifies the illusory nature of things and hence the delusions to which they subject mankind."
This is an excellent description of the "problem" of finding the right word to represent the many meanings of certain Hebrew words.
Sheer futility, Qoheleth says.
Sheer futility: everything is futile!
(The New Jerusalem Bible - an update to the previous example)
Emptiness, emptiness, says the Speaker,
emptiness, all is empty.
(The New English Bible)
Futility, utter futility, says the Speaker,
everything is futile.
(The Revised English Bible)
Vanity of vanities, says the Teacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
(New Revised Standard Version)
Again, since it is using the traditional translation, a note is given for the reader: "This construction ["Vanity of vanities"] (like the similar "holy of holies" [or "song of songs": the BEST song) is Hebrew idiom for the superlative - thus, utter vanity. The Hebrew word used, hebel, means vapor, something unsubstantial, hence futile or vain, and it occurs 38 times in the Hebrew text of this book."
"Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless!"
(New International Version)
Vanity of vanities, says Qoheleth,
vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!
(New American Bible)
Again, since "vanity" can be misleading, the note says "a Hebrew superlative expressing the supreme degree of futility and emptiness." The following translation from the ESV gives this note: "Hebrew vapor (so throughout Ecclesiastes)."
Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
(English Standard Version)
Vanity of vanities, saith Koheleth;
Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
(The Holy Scriptures - Jewish Publication Society, 1917 vers.)
Utter futility! - said Koheleth -
Utter futility! All is futile!
(The New Jewish Study Bible - Jewish Publication Society, or NJPS)
I could easily go on and on. Now, are any of these translations "incorrect" as a whole? No, of course not. Have some of them chosen clarity over literalness? Yes. Have some chosen literalness over clarity? Yes. Have some chosen tradition over both? Yes. This is just one of the choices a translator has to make.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
