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.
I've always had an interest in studying belief systems extensively without taking any sort of prejudice perspective towards any religious text.
I've curently been intrigued by the words used in the English translations of belief systems, but one thing that I still can't comprehend is how does a word from the original text of a religious piece get translated into a word in modern day English that hasn't existed back when the work was composed?
There are many words that didn't exist back then, that somehow got translated into what they are now presumably based off of "context". The problem with the "context" used to decipher the meaning of a word is that it typically is taken for something that isn't there.
I understand that many belief systems state that their religious dogma is 100% accurate and people such as I are solemnly attempting to twist things, but how are you reassured that the translated langauge is as precise as the original work? (I'm not questioning the meaning of the work, instead I am questioning the different langauge in which the original work was turned into)
Do any people who do such as the above not give a hoot about the original language in which a religious text was composed?
Note: I understand that some individuals on here will respond to me with things such as "(blank) says it's correct, so that's how I know" (I'm not debating the meaning rather the translation and the different langauge)
Does anyone ever get bothered that many individuals who translated any religious text have gotten into debates about the accuracy of a translation? Would you be open to a more precise translation?
As, for instance, when "ekklesia" is translated as "church" when it should be "assembly" and the literal meaning is "those called out?" All that is needed is for an awareness of the changed meaning to be general knowledge and errors based on current understandings of "church" can be corrected. Of course, when there is an agenda to change the meaning it becomes harder within the organization promoting the new meanings, but those outside that organization can make sure that it is more generally known.
I've always had an interest in studying belief systems extensively without taking any sort of prejudice perspective towards any religious text.
I've curently been intrigued by the words used in the English translations of belief systems, but one thing that I still can't comprehend is how does a word from the original text of a religious piece get translated into a word in modern day English that hasn't existed back when the work was composed?
There are many words that didn't exist back then, that somehow got translated into what they are now presumably based off of "context". The problem with the "context" used to decipher the meaning of a word is that it typically is taken for something that isn't there.
I understand that many belief systems state that their religious dogma is 100% accurate and people such as I are solemnly attempting to twist things, but how are you reassured that the translated langauge is as precise as the original work? (I'm not questioning the meaning of the work, instead I am questioning the different langauge in which the original work was turned into)
Do any people who do such as the above not give a hoot about the original language in which a religious text was composed?
Note: I understand that some individuals on here will respond to me with things such as "(blank) says it's correct, so that's how I know" (I'm not debating the meaning rather the translation and the different langauge)
Does anyone ever get bothered that many individuals who translated any religious text have gotten into debates about the accuracy of a translation? Would you be open to a more precise translation?
It's for this reason that we have varying types of translations. The NASB is pretty much a word-for-word equivalent of the Bible. The ESV is similar, I've been told. It's as close to the original as you can get. Some of the words will not quite translate over, so they'll pick something very close, and what the translators thought it was.
Other ones, such as the NIV, or NLT are more of a thought-for-thought. That means they'll take small passage and they'll communicate it in English. It may not use the actual word, but they can get the gist of the original from the context, and they'll express it in English.
Still other ones, such as The Message, is not even a translation, really...but is a paraphrase. Meaning the author basically just rehashed a paragraph or so at a time and tried to express it in today's language.
Unless languages are very closely related, word for word translations are impossible for all practicle purposes.. What is required becomes interpretations and not translations.
Unfortunately. interpretations are opinions and subject to the interpreters personal bias.
In addition the farther apart the original and the interpretation are in time the greater the probability for error.
All interpretations need to be considered to be approximations and not 100% correct.
It's for this reason that we have varying types of translations. The NASB is pretty much a word-for-word equivalent of the Bible. The ESV is similar, I've been told. It's as close to the original as you can get. Some of the words will not quite translate over, so they'll pick something very close, and what the translators thought it was.
Other ones, such as the NIV, or NLT are more of a thought-for-thought. That means they'll take small passage and they'll communicate it in English. It may not use the actual word, but they can get the gist of the original from the context, and they'll express it in English.
Still other ones, such as The Message, is not even a translation, really...but is a paraphrase. Meaning the author basically just rehashed a paragraph or so at a time and tried to express it in today's language.
Exactly ... any ancient text is a bit of a slog when read in word for word, non-idiomatic-as-possible translations. I used to favor the NASB for accuracy and the NIV for flow. Then I would use a couple of reference books whose names I've forgotten if I wanted to drill down into the original Hebrew or Greek ... to the extent you could do so without learning those languages for yourself. And of course there were plenty of commentaries that would give you access to what others had parsed out of it in the past.
It's a fallacy to imagine that there is a correct or best translation of anything, regardless of the material or source and destination languages. Everything is a tradeoff between accuracy and readability for the target audience.
Unless languages are very closely related, word for word translations are impossible for all practicle purposes.. What is required becomes interpretations and not translations.
Unfortunately. interpretations are opinions and subject to the interpreters personal bias.
In addition the farther apart the original and the interpretation are in time the greater the probability for error.
All interpretations need to be considered to be approximations and not 100% correct.
I agree with this.
The thing that got my attention was the Christian Bible's interpretation of "homosexuality" the problem is that the idea of "homosexuality" did not exist until the 19th century.
The Bible, since it did not have a word for homosexuality in Greek does have a scripture that specifically states same-sex sexual intercourse is a sin. It never comes up with a specific word for "homosexuality".
That being said, scholars have debated the meaning of the original greek word (arsenokoitai).Supposedly a man of the name "White" inserted the word homosexuality into the English bible around 1959(?) (Cannot exactly remember the year), which was then adopted by newer scholars that would later on interpret the bible the same way.
The problem is that like I previously mentioned "homosexuality" didn't exist in Hebrew or Greek, and there is a specific verse that defines homosexual intercourse as being a sin, and that's that. (Since there wasn't a word for homosexuality, the bible only stated what action was condoned, and it specified what it was, of homosexuality such as liking the same gender, living with the same gender, etc. while not involving sex, wouldn't be a "sin" in the bible)
The person who translated this as "homosexuality" in the chapter that it occurs, seems to have dismissed the chapter in which it repeatedly refers to men wanting to have sex with other men (prostitutes), many biblical scholars have debated that arsenokoitai wouldn't be homosexuality, instead it would more than likely refer to homosexual sexual intercourse if it was used to tie into the the scripture in which Paul specifically writes out a man having sex with a man would be a sin. This is a more probable definition.
Note: the translation that I am stating may place me in a position where I may seem to have a bias, but the problem is that the word has been repeadelty brought up as being sensitive in the terms that it is extremely hard to define it. Making a leap into connecting an unknown word with a modern day term wouldn't make any sense, or to me it would not. (I was going to bring up the word Yom, as another example, but I'll leave this for later).
An article I read also stated that there may be a similar event going on, to which a person interprets a word to benefit their own actions. The person stated that many Christians used to utilize the old testament to prevent women from being the same status as men. The new testament changes/ overrides many if the topics in the old testament, the the thing is that the new testament doesn't mention "homosexuality". Many people just imply that the English translation is the most accurate and they go with it.
Again the only scripture that mentions anything about homosexuality is specifically the verse where Paul states same-sex intercourse is forbidden. Any other text is usually inferred.
Note: Since many people tend to believe the English interpretation is 100% correct, and they were raised being taught that the English version is 100% correct, they tend to disregard information pertaining to the interpretation of various words in the bible. Many people aren't even aware of the huge debates in translating biblical scriptures.
I guess at the end it narrows down to what a person thinks the definition of a word is, even if it includes a bias.
I know I seem to have a bias, but my mentality is that people twist things around to benefit their POV on issues. Hence, people supporring the English bible'S mentioning of homosexuality without even being aware of its vague meaning when analyzed.
Note: Sorry if I am being repetitive it's 4:58am and I an tired
Again the only scripture that mentions anything about homosexuality is specifically the verse where Paul states same-sex intercourse is forbidden. Any other text is usually inferred.
The problem with your analysis is that you, like so many others, are looking for a rule to apply rather than analyzing the situation from the principle Jesus gave us as basis for our conduct.
The thing that got my attention was the Christian Bible's interpretation of "homosexuality" the problem is that the idea of "homosexuality" did not exist until the 19th century.
The Bible, since it did not have a word for homosexuality in Greek does have a scripture that specifically states same-sex sexual intercourse is a sin. It never comes up with a specific word for "homosexuality".
You're correct. The idea that a person might be born with a deviant desire for sexual relations with the same gender simply is not a Biblical concept. The behavior is clearly condemned in Leviticus, as well as in Romans. In Romans 1 though, it goes a step further, and it talks about those that had unnatural lusts for the same gender.
Quote:
That being said, scholars have debated the meaning of the original greek word (arsenokoitai).Supposedly a man of the name "White" inserted the word homosexuality into the English bible around 1959(?) (Cannot exactly remember the year), which was then adopted by newer scholars that would later on interpret the bible the same way.
The problem is that like I previously mentioned "homosexuality" didn't exist in Hebrew or Greek, and there is a specific verse that defines homosexual intercourse as being a sin, and that's that. (Since there wasn't a word for homosexuality, the bible only stated what action was condoned, and it specified what it was, of homosexuality such as liking the same gender, living with the same gender, etc. while not involving sex, wouldn't be a "sin" in the bible)
The Bible also doesn't mention kleptomania. Yet, we are told not to steal. It doesn't mention a sickness called "alcoholism". Yet, addiction to drink is treated as such. Nowhere does it suggest that a condition -- psychological, physical, or imagined -- justify immoral behavior.
Go a step further. Starting with Genesis, we see God clearly defining marriage as a man and a woman. No allowance is ever given in scripture for a same-gender marriage. Jesus affirmed that, as well. Rather than correcting what you may consider an injustice....he did the opposite--he reaffirmed male/female marriage.
What it comes down to is really, are you willing to accept what the Bible says or are you going to try to make up your own definition? The question of homosexuality being acceptable really isn't even a question. It's crystal clear that God doesn't smile on it.
I think another angle to it is the fact all languages of the world have been continously evolving.
New words come in, old words go out. And hence many ancient words, expressions and even meanings of words keep on changing.
I've always had an interest in studying belief systems extensively without taking any sort of prejudice perspective towards any religious text.
I've curently been intrigued by the words used in the English translations of belief systems, but one thing that I still can't comprehend is how does a word from the original text of a religious piece get translated into a word in modern day English that hasn't existed back when the work was composed?
There are many words that didn't exist back then, that somehow got translated into what they are now presumably based off of "context". The problem with the "context" used to decipher the meaning of a word is that it typically is taken for something that isn't there.
I understand that many belief systems state that their religious dogma is 100% accurate and people such as I are solemnly attempting to twist things, but how are you reassured that the translated langauge is as precise as the original work? (I'm not questioning the meaning of the work, instead I am questioning the different langauge in which the original work was turned into)
Do any people who do such as the above not give a hoot about the original language in which a religious text was composed?
Note: I understand that some individuals on here will respond to me with things such as "(blank) says it's correct, so that's how I know" (I'm not debating the meaning rather the translation and the different langauge)
Does anyone ever get bothered that many individuals who translated any religious text have gotten into debates about the accuracy of a translation? Would you be open to a more precise translation?
Two separate issues.
1. If you want to study it get a variety of translations and see what words are used to give the thought, not just look at one word. Then get a Greek and Hebrew Interlinear so you can see the original language text. If you can afford it get BibleWorks for your computer as it has a tremendous amount of such for use.
2. Read the works of Scholars, and not just one as all are human and all have a bias. Look for their reasoning on language NOT theology, why a word has such and such and meaning, how the case or tense impacts it. Avoid theologians like the plague.
The main problem is not that any language is hard to understand or translate, rather it is the theological bias that exists when a persons theology is involved. Translating is easy, avoiding a favored translation is hard.
To see which is generally right check other verses speaking clearly about a subject, not an indirect or out of context application. In most cases there is little difference in meaning in the translations. It is only when it comes to doctrine that we see variations. As an example if you want to know if the Trinity is true speak with both Trinitarians and non Trinitarians. Examine and test their claims against what you find in the grammars produced by scholars who give other verses in support, not theology. It becomes clear when you do that, but it isn't easy.
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.
