Rewriting the bible

[ybbor]

I'm not at all pleased that people can write a new word in between text to give the impression that they have interprited the bible in such a way seems a bit false to me but hey, that's religion, not the first time, no doubt won't be the last.

you're acting like they're rewriting the greek. You can probably go to your local christian bookstore and pick up a copy of the greek and Hebrew, and a Greek-to-English-to-Hebrew dictionary alongside it. And yes, translating can mean inserting an extra word for clarification. You'll note that the author did not change the meaning of the passage, only made it more specific according to the original language.

me llamo Roberto
My name is Rob
I call myself Rob

both are accurate trnslations of the original. Comparing the two you might think the author is trying to change the meaning with one of them. But when looking at the original (as TLC (IIRC) provided us ), you realize the sentances are saying the same thing, just that the second is more literal.

 

[MobBoss]

you're acting like they're rewriting the greek. You can probably go to your local christian bookstore and pick up a copy of the greek and Hebrew, and a Greek-to-English-to-Hebrew dictionary alongside it. And yes, translating can mean inserting an extra word for clarification. You'll note that the author did not change the meaning of the passage, only made it more specific according to the original language.

me llamo Roberto
My name is Rob
I call myself Rob

both are accurate trnslations of the original. Comparing the two you might think the author is trying to change the meaning with one of them. But when looking at the original (as TLC (IIRC) provided us ), you realize the sentances are saying the same thing, just that the second is more literal.

Very good point Ybbor. Suffice to say, that the person who focus' on a specific word in the bible is generally missing the point or meaning of the entire passage. In reading whole chapters and books, one gets a much larger view of the intent or meaning of a passage as opposed to the specific meaning of a single word.

 

[Sidhe]

Rob and Mob Boss: you both make Good points but I'm not sure your getting what I meant about inserting a word so I'll explain.

9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals,

What I'm questioning is not the actual biblical text it's this bit here where presumably the quote should appear directly from the bible, instead we have an intepritation by someone that is a stretch to say the least of the original text.

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

If you look at the North American Bible this too has changed the wording, so the question is are either of these texts being dishonest? Is the King James bible dishonest? Because I see no mention of homosexuality in this particular passage, to me it looks like someone has decided to re-interprit it, maybe to suit an agenda I don't know?

To be frank there are a deal of different interpritations on this thread, again I wonder how the jews translated it from Hebrew?

 

[ybbor]

If you look at the North American Bible this too has changed the wording, so the question is are either of these texts being dishonest? Is the King James bible dishonest? Because I see no mention of homosexuality in this particular passage, to me it looks like someone has decided to re-interprit it, maybe to suit an agenda I don't know?

no, it means that one is being more specific to the meaning of the word in the day. if I say "and my jihad was complete" into a language that had no exact corresponding term, one could either translate it as "and my personal struggle was complete" or "and my holy war was complete." Both would be correct, the latter would just be more specific to what today's connotation has.

 

[Sidhe]

no, it means that one is being more specific to the meaning of the word in the day. if I say "and my jihad was complete" into a language that had no exact corresponding term, one could either translate it as "and my personal struggle was complete" or "and my holy war was complete." Both would be correct, the latter would just be more specific to what today's connotation has.

To back up that statement you would have to have either the orginal greek or even better the Hebrew from which it came, otherwise you are just saying that is so without proving it. Which is why I'm asking for a translation, anyone Jewish no how it translates in the Torah?

being more specific about what? Where? What Hebrew word are we asking about?

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than this, both interpritations are different by some margin, essential all I'm asking is which one is correct if taken literal from the true text. Both can't be correct because in the KJ version homosexuality is not mentioned where as in the NAB version it is?

Now I am willing to go with the fact that sodemite(obviously not homosexuality no word for it in ancient Hebrew) is mentioned in the orginal Torah but only once I've seen it can I know for sure. Like when I asked for a translation of though shalt not "kill" from the torah and found out it was Murder and the KJ was wrong.

By any chance do you have a copy of the Torah around and do you speak Hebrew

To be anal Jihad has never meant holy war, and doesn't to this day, it's been somewhat corrupted, it can result in war but it's suposed to be an absolute last resort of the struggle. Completely beside the point though

 

[ybbor]

To back up that statement you would have to have either the orginal greek or even better the Hebrew from which it came, otherwise you are just saying that is so without proving it. Which is why I'm asking for a translation, anyone Jewish no how it translates in the Torah?

being more specific about what? Where? What Hebrew word are we asking about?

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than this, both interpritations are different by some margin, essential all I'm asking is which one is correct if taken literal from the true text. Both can't be correct because in the KJ version homosexuality is not mentioned where as in the NAB version it is?

Now I am willing to go with the fact that sodemite(obviously not homosexuality no word for it in ancient Hebrew) is mentioned in the orginal Torah but only once I've seen it can I know for sure. Like when I asked for a translation of though shalt not "kill" from the torah and found out it was Murder and the KJ was wrong.

By any chance do you have a copy of the Torah around and do you speak Hebrew

To be anal Jihad has never meant holy war, and doesn't to this day, it's been somewhat corrupted, it can result in war but it's suposed to be an absolute last resort of the struggle. Completely beside the point though

only the Old Testament was written in hebrew IIRC (and the unusually unclear wikipedia entry seems to agree)

TLC on post #24 provided us the word "arsenokoitai" CH on post #37 gave us a good background on the word

yes they can both be correct. is "my name is rob" incorrect because it doesn't use the word "call"?

I know Jihad doesn't tehinally mean holy war, that's why I also used the 'real' version and then the colliqual version

 

[Sidhe]

Ah I'm an idiot I mean the Orginal Aramaic sorry I was getting confused from the other thread which was OT based.

Can we find the translation of the original Aramaic, now I know for a fact that a certain church is moving to translate all the original texts, I'm not sure if this particular text is written in Aramaic or Greek though. oops sorry about that.

post a link to the wiki article I'll read it for myself.

 

[ybbor]

wikipedia would seem to suggest that there's a pretty general consensus that the bible was written in Greek, not Aramaic. But then, this is one of those things I probably shouldn't trust wikipedia on as far as I can throw it.

post a link to the wiki article I'll read it for myself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bible

EDIT: I guess it isn't that unclear. I was looking at "Bible versions and translations" when I should have looked at the Old and New Testament.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Most of the OT was written in Hebrew, with a few sections of Daniel and others written in Aramaic (whic had become the lingua franca of the region following the Babylonian captivity). The entire NT was written in Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire.

 

[Sidhe]

Most of the OT was written in Hebrew, with a few sections of Daniel and others written in Aramaic (whic had become the lingua franca of the region following the Babylonian captivity). The entire NT was written in Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire.

The gospels were written in Aramaic though, Jesus wasn't speaking greek in the sermon on the mount and people didn't memorise these gospels for 100+ years before they came to translate them, thus we have some pretty fine scrolls up for translation, these were translated into greek and latin and then into English. I have no idea why Wikipedia says that all the script of the New testament was written in greek, except that it was translated and compiled into greek in one whole book from older aramaic texts, I expect some were greek only being written much longer after the events portrayed. Certain texts though in the NT Including I think Epistles were written just after Christs death, Since the people that were meant to read them were mostly Jewish and spoke aramaic, what would be the point of translating them into greek, you could later, if you wanted to make the message more accessable but the fact remains that some texts from the New testament are translations of translations. I can prove it if you like.

In fact I gave an aramaic quote which is from the Aramaic scrolls of matthew earlier on but since people forget, here's the link

http://www.thenazareneway.com/

http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm

It has always been of great interest as to the many different interpretations of the various aspects of what is offered as foundational information about Jesus the Nazarene, what he said and taught, and how translations over the centuries have changed dramatically sometimes even altering the original meaning of a particular text.

Aramaic manuscripts have been uncovered over the years which provide us with original source documents that can be fairly well authenticated. Beginning with Constantine around 325 AD, dramatic changes began to be infused into interpretations as texts were translated from Aramaic into Greek and then into Latin. In later years there was then translations into old English, and later, more translations into modern English.

The Aramaic Language doesn't distinguish between means and purpose, inside quality or outside acting. Both are given simultaneously as in "what you've sown, so you'll harvest." When Jesus relates to the "Kingdom of Heaven" he means the Kingdom inside as well as the Kingdom in the middle or "amongst" us. Also "the next one" is inside and outside as in the whole or Self. The arbitrary borders between spirit, body and soul are nonexistent.

The Aramaic Language has (like the Hebrew and Arabic) different levels of meaning. The words are organized and defined by a poetical system where different meanings of every word are possible. So, every line of the Lords Prayer could be translated into English in many different versions. As an example of how the intent of a passage can be changed, here are some translations of the Lord's Prayer directly translated from the ancient Aramaic language into modern English.

Plenty of Aramaic texts in here. Of course most of them are apocryhpal or considered not important to include in the bible, but the reason for that are bizarely often a single phrase that is contreversial, like Jesus saying scripture is dead etc.

Look at the lords prayer, this is the closest to Jesus' spoken word as you will get, it's also very different to what we know although the message is still the same.

EDIT: Edited for accuracy

 

[Sidhe]

http://catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html

Here's another side to the argument that calls caution on the condemnation of homosexuality in modern society, it seems that the word arseknetoi is an invented word by Paul, now obviously if we want to look on creationist web sites as Classical Hero provided it's going to say homosexuals are what is meant, that has and no doubt always will be it's agenda, but since this word itself is a fabrication and cannot be found in other greek texts preceding this, which means it is completely open to interpritation. Read the link to find several other interpritations of what this word could mean.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'd never heard that before about the gospels being written in Aramaic. Aramaic woud have been Jesus' actual language (although he would have used Hebrew as a liturgical language) but I though it was generally accepted that the Gospels were written during the 1st Century, and in Greek. I am fairly certain that the Epistles were written in Greek.

 

[Sidhe]

Yeah but when Christ spoke I'm sure his deciples or others would have written the texts down, in fact I know they did, check out the lords prayer from matthew. Later these would have been copied into greek and other texts which were originally greek would of been added to make one single language text. The scrolls of the original texts have been found that confirm this and are still being translated in some cases. These scrolls are the closest humanity will ever come to hearing the words as Jesus spoke them nearly 2000 years ago. Some parts of the New testament are translations from this text, but you'll note even with the lords prayer the message is simillar if not the same although more rich in the Aramaic language.

To be honest I think the KJ version has mistranslated Pauls meaning but it's understandable I still am not sure exactly what form of sexual act he's referring too, especially after reading that link, it's open to intepritation, and the KJ version is even more open to intepritation.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'd never heard that before about the gospels being written in Aramaic. Aramaic woud have been Jesus' actual language (although he would have used Hebrew as a liturgical language) but I though it was generally accepted that the Gospels were written during the 1st Century, and in Greek. I am fairly certain that the Epistles were written in Greek.

While watching the history channel. I noticed that an Eastern Orthodox Church in Jerusalem which has thier texts as well as their liturgy in Aramaic.

 

[Sidhe]

Thanks Civ that's really interesting the Nazarene church is the only one that I was aware of that used Aramaic texts. But it seems these guys are more of an organisation than a religion, at least as far as I can tell.

Remember every time you go to church you speak a little aramaic, Amen is an Aramaic word

 

[ybbor]

we have many more copies of the Greek literature than aramaic. I think the Greek is a little more reliable, as well as having the majority of Christian Scholars behind it it seems.

 

[Sidhe]

we have many more copies of the Greek literature than aramaic. I think the Greek is a little more reliable, as well as having the majority of Christian Scholars behind it it seems.

I disagree, having first hand biblical text is way better than having second hand translations surely?

The reason they're behind is because it's been a slow process of finding the originals, and many faiths are if not aware of them, slow to act when it comes to reading the actual words of Christ in his own language, and adjusting translations accordingly, to be honest though from what I've seen they are in the main good translations, but there not as rich as the orginal language, which has intonal expansion on the exact meaning of a word. Take a look at Amen in the lords prayer for example.

Amên.
Sealed in trust, faith and truth.
(I confirm with my entire being)

It's in the inflection as well as the word itselfs meaning.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I learned when I was very young that "Amen" meant "Yes! Really!". Later I heard "This is how it truly [is/should be]". So that original meaning, at least, is common knowledge at my church, given some leeway for simple words.

 

[Sidhe]

I learned when I was very young that "Amen" meant "Yes! Really!". Later I heard "This is how it truly [is/should be]". So that original meaning, at least, is common knowledge at my church, given some leeway for simple words.

Yeah see what your saying, but when Jesus said it didn't it hold so much more value than yes! Really!

It's not what you say that denotes meaning, it's the inflection, or how you say it. All language can carry the simple meaning, not all languages can convey the absolute meaning in one word. Aramaic is one language that can in simple text, and for me it carries more meaning than Greek, which is totally about the words meaning and non intonal.