Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > Religion / Philosophy
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 10-18-2011, 02:02 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Bible Translation

.............
Dr. Joel Hoffman: Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text

Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text
Dr. Joel HoffmanSpeaker, author


Quote:
From the Ten Commandments to the Psalms to the Gospels, English translations of the Bible distort the original meaning of the text: The Ten Commandments don't forbid coveting. Psalm 23 is not primarily about sheep or a shepherd. And God didn't give his only begotten son because he loved the world so much.

The problems stem from flawed translation techniques that haven't been updated in hundreds of years.

In particular, there are three common ways of determining what the ancient words of the Bible mean: etymology, internal structure, and cognates. But they don't work very well.

Two other factors further degrade modern translations: a general desire not to change historical translations and a misunderstanding of how to translate metaphors like "God's hand" (God doesn't literally have a hand) or "the Lord is my shepherd."

These five issues have conspired to create English translations that conceal what the Bible originally meant.

Familiar, modern languages like English or Spanish illustrate what goes wrong.

The English words "ballot" and "bullet" share an ancient source, but they mean completely different things. Likewise, "grammar" and "glamour" used to be the same word, but most students don't find grammar to be glamorous. These pairs are examples of how etymology is misleading.

Knowing what an office is does not shed light on what an officer does, even though "officer" has the word "office" in it, just as sweetbread is not sweet and it's not bread. These words demonstrate the danger of relying on internal structure -- roots, prefixes, suffixes and so forth -- to discern a word's meaning. (Also, a "strip mall" isn't what some people might suspect.)

There's a word "demand" in French and it confuses English speakers because it means "to ask," not "to demand." In Spanish, "embarazada," does not mean "embarrassed" but rather "pregnant." These kinds of related words (known as cognates) are common in various languages. It stands to reason that if the words are related they ought to mean the same thing, but it's not true. Cognates, like etymology and internal structure, are unreliable.

Proverbs 28:21 in the 400-year-old classic English translation known as the King James Version (KJV) cautions, oddly, that "to have respect of persons is not good." But 400 years ago, "respect" meant "to be partial," and the point was to avoid favoritism. Additionally, the KJV's "turtle" whose voice is heard in the beautiful imagery of Song of Solomon is a bird. These examples demonstrate a fourth problem plaguing modern translations: the power of history.

In part because of the generally conservative nature of religion -- "out with the old, in with the new" is not a particularly welcome sentiment at most seminaries -- these and other familiar but outdated translations often stick with us and continue to influence Bible translators. (One especially grievous case is the well known but widely misunderstood phrase "God so loved the world" in John 3:16. The meaning of "so" here has changed.)

Shakespeare writes that "Juliet is the sun." But even though melanoma comes from exposure to the sun, Shakespeare didn't mean that Juliet is that girl who causes skin cancer. Obviously, he meant that she has some very specific and culturally defined qualities of the sun, such as beauty. This represents perhaps the trickiest flaw in modern translations: missing the important parts of metaphor and other symbolic language.

Unfortunately, etymology, internal structure, and cognates are the three pillars of Bible translation. And with them, the power of history and a focus on the wrong parts of metaphor degrade all English Bibles even more.

So your Bible translation contains flaws as bad as: mixing up "ballot" and "bullet" (etymology), thinking that all officers work in offices (internal structure), mixing up requests and demands (cognates), thinking that turtles fly (history), and thinking that romance must involve cancer (metaphor).

Fortunately, more modern and reliable translation practices are available, though they haven't made their way into published Bible translations yet. Still, more than at any other time since the Bible was composed, we are better equipped now to understand the ancient words of Scripture.
Bible Translation-naughty-monks-50.jpg 

__________________

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 04:42 PM  
Senior Member
 
Hillman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 318 | Kudos: +31
There are a few other opinions of the esteemed Joel Hoffman. Actually, a lot more. I just can't/won't keep up with the "cut and poster"!

BIBLE THUMPERS | Midwest Conservative Journal

Like...
Robin Munn
October 15, 2011

The chronological snobbery of the anti-spiritualists never ceases to amaze me. Note how he says that ?no modern person? (emphasis mine) can still believe in miracles like the virgin birth or the feeding of the 5,000. Because clearly, those ancient people didn?t know that conception normally requires sex, and that loaves and fishes don?t normally multiply.

?

Spong, you idiot, the people who wrote the Bible already knew that virgin birth is normally impossible, and that you can?t normally feed thousands of people with five loaves and two fish. That?s why these events were called miracles in the first place: because they broke the normal laws of nature!

Oh well, what?s the use. I should listen to Proverbs 23:9 and save my breath.
--------------------------
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
October 15, 2011

This baffoon is a prime example of the Peter Principle at work in academia. He proclaims that the Bible does not tell me not to covet. So what in blazes does this twit think it says? Does he really think that we need him to ?translate? archaic terminology? And then Spong?Lord have mercy on that man!
------------------------
Smurf Breath
October 15, 2011

ok, I think I see what he?s trying to do. He wants to cast doubt on the notion we can know anything accurately about what the Bible says from the original language manuscripts:

?there are three common ways of determining what the ancient words of the Bible mean:?

But all he can do is end up making the far more modest claim that some people who read the KJV don?t understand some of the archaic English. What a bozo. This is just a case of: ?move along, nothing to see here?, similar to Ehrman?s distortions and overstatements.
-----------------------
Confessor
October 16, 2011

While these pretend scholars are putting out cheese puffs and cotton candyIsraeli researchers have done a heavy-duty computer analysis of synonyms in the Pentateuch?with fascinating results.
----------------------------------
Sparky
October 16, 2011

Read Ex. 33 lectionary and then some from Biblia Hebraica this a.m.

Observation 1: Use of language: face, rock, presence, glory, etc. is fascinating

Observation 2: Hoffman has sedimentary rocks in head, signifying layers of accumulated ignorance. (That?s just theory, not to be taken literally.)
-------------------------------
The Little Myrmidon
October 16, 2011

Interesting how many commenters over at HuffPost don?t agree with Hoffman either.
-----------------------------
Stephen
October 16, 2011

It stands to reason that if the words are related they ought to mean the same thing, but it?s not true. Cognates, like etymology and internal structure, are unreliable.

He makes a good point. For example, he calls himself a Christian; however, this word clearly does not mean the same thing that it does for others, and as such is unreliable.
--------------
Just a few other opinions.
__________________

__________________
A nobody telling everybody about Somebody.
Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2011, 01:07 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
................

Quote:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
October 15, 2011

This baffoon is a prime example of the Peter Principle at work in academia.
WTF is a prime example of the Peter Principle at work.

baffoon: no entries found.

buffoon, noun, adjective, & verb.

/b@"fu;n/
M16.
[French bouffon from Italian buffone, from medieval Latin buffo clown, from Proto-Romance verb meaning 'puff', of imit. origin: see -OON.]

A. noun.

? 1. A pantomine dance. Scot. rare. Only in M16.

2. A (professional) jester, a clown. arch. L16.

3. A (vulgar or ludicrous) joker, a wag, a mocker. Usu. derog. L16.

B. attrib. or as adjective. Belonging to or characteristic of a buffoon; vulgarly jocular. arch. E17.

C. verb.

1. verb trans. Ridicule, burlesque. arch. M17.

2. verb intrans. Play the buffoon. L17.

? buffoonery noun the actions or an act of a buffoon; silliness, farce: E17.
? buffoonish adjective like or characteristic of a buffoon; silly, ridiculous: L17.

Oxford English Dictionary

95 THESES ON THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT (50)
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed on the internet, under the presidency of the Peter Ludlow. Anyone wishing to debate with us, may do so by e-mail at ludlow@umich.edu.

In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said "love thy neighbor", willed that believers should show *compassion* toward others.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean mere lip service ("I love them, but I hate their sin"), but genuine concern for the welfare of others.
3. Yet the Religious Right has forsaken compassion for a doctrine of institutionalized hatred and violence.
4. Specifically, the Religious Right has taken the Word of God and wrapped it in the flag of Right Wing Politics, replacing God's message of redemption for the entire world with a narrow message endorsing right wing American politics.
5. Item: the Religious Right has neglected the teachings of Jesus in the gospel of Luke, where He instructs that we are to show compassion for the poor.
6. In place of God's words, the Religious Right has substituted a right wing political doctrine in which the poor have only themselves and their alleged laziness and moral weakness to blame.
7. For example, the Religious Right has rejected the needs of poor children of unwed mothers.
8. The Religious Right has rejected the cries for help from the children of impoverished families in the inner cities.
9. The Religious Right, has advocated fewer resources for the elderly poor and for the millions of children now living in poverty.
10. In place of giving to the poor, the Religious Right has advocated political doctrines specifically designed so that individuals may acquire vast sums of money.
11. The Religious Right has thus seized on a contemporary economic ideology as an excuse to ignore the teachings of Jesus.
12. Item: the Religious Right has ignored God's injunction that we are to be caretakers for the Earth.
13. In place of God's injunction, the Religious Right has advocated policies in which the natural resources of God's creation are stripped from the earth and given to wealthy corporations without replacement.
14. In place of God's injunction that we are to be caretakers for the creatures of His creation, they have advocated policies through which these creatures may be extinguished forever.
15. The Religious Right has rejected laws designed to protect God's creation from pollution, claiming the "rights" of property owners are to be paramount.
16. In each case they have ignored the message of the Bible that this is God's creation, and they have substituted a doctrine in which God's creation may be partitioned and sold to the highest bidder.
17. Again, God's message has been cast aside for a message that supports a narrow economic message with its roots in right wing American politics.
18. Item: the Religious Right has neglected the teachings of Jesus that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone."
19. In place of God's words, the Religious Right has substituted a doctrine in which perceived sinners are to be persecuted.
20. Gays, for example, are persecuted because of their alleged sins. In some cases, leaders of the Religious Right have encouraged acts of physical violence against gays.
21. While the Religious Right has been eager to persecute others for their alleged sins, they have been blind to their own.
22. While the Bible counsels that a rich man can no more enter the Kingdom of Heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle, many in the Religious Right have celebrated the acquisition of wealth.
23. While the Bible enjoins us against pride, the Religious Right appears to be flush with pride in it's holier than thou stance.
24. While the Bible asks that we be slow to anger, the Religious Right is quick to anger -- indeed it appears to revel in anger and in fanning the flames of anger in others.
25. While the Bible counsels that we are not to be "revilers," key members of the religious right have consistently and aggressively reviled their political enemies as well as those who are perceived to be sinners.
26. It seems then, that the Religious Right picks its sins selectively, ignoring the clear Biblical message against avarice, pride, and anger, and emphasizing selected ?sins? that have little to no Biblical basis.
27. Item: While the Bible counsels that we are not to bear false witness, the Religious Right has engaged in smear campaigns against numerous political foes, often telling outright lies about ?liberal? political leaders.
28. Worse yet, these smear campaigns have often been carried out in the house of God, sometimes in the form of inserts in church bulletins, and sometimes directly from the pulpit.
29. But the Religious Right has not merely spread its lies within the Church; they have done so outside the Church as well.
30. The Religious Right has used its financial resources not to spread the word of God, but to spread lies in the populace.
31. Item: Religious Right has failed to see that God's call to help our neighbors also extends to our international neighbors.
32. International aggression is not a Christian doctrine.
33. Where the Bible calls us to be peacemakers, the Religious Right claims that we have no business trying to bring peace to troubled areas but rather counsels that we should use military might to secure our business interests.
34. Where the Bible, through the story of the good Samaritan, instructs that we are to help our international neighbors -- indeed, even our enemies -- the Religious Right counsels "America First".
35. But "America First" cannot be a true Christian Doctrine.
36. The Bible gives no special status to political entities like the United States of America, and any suggestion to the contrary is to simply lie about the content of the Bible.
37. God does not bless nation states, and if He did, He surely would not bless them for practicing international internal intolerance, and propping up corrupt kingdoms and military juntas that traffic in institutionalized poverty and violence.
38. Item: the Religious Right has claimed that abortion is immoral, yet there is no Biblical basis for this claim
39. Rather, the doctrine appears to be driven by a medieval philosophy of the person, which they have imported into their theology.
40. Why has medieval philosophy taken precedence over the Scriptures? Perhaps the Religious Right never took the Scriptures very seriously in the first place.
41. This is highlighted by the frightening extremes to which they have taken this political dogma.
42. Victims of rape and incest are not to be allowed abortions. What could the Biblical basis of this possibly be?
43. Even when the mother's life is in danger, they would reject the possibility of abortion. Thus once again God's message of love and redemption is tarnished by advocates of a political doctrine of hatred and cruelty.
44. More troubling than their anti-abortion doctrine, however, is the tone with which that doctrine is advanced.
45. Here they use they weapon of hatred, encouraging the harassment of women, the bombing of clinics, and in some cases the taking of human life.
46. Their rejoinder that abortion is the taking of a human life has no basis in Biblical authority.
47. Their anti-abortion campaign is merely a political campaign dressed in the clothing of religion.
48. Item: The Religious Right has failed to distinguish its political message from what is left of its genuine religious message, leading Christians to conflate the two.
49. The Religious Right has engaged in a form of idolatry -- idolatry of certain patriotic symbols.
50. They have wrapped the Bible in the American flag. Indeed, one can find Bibles that contain documents such as the United States Constitution and pictures of the presidents.

[50 of 95]
Bible Translation-1100bkpg.jpg 

__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2011, 09:15 AM  
Senior Member
 
Hillman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 318 | Kudos: +31
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
................
WTF is a prime example of the Peter Principle at work.

baffoon: no entries found.

Out of all that you picked out bafoon a Peter Principle?!? I kind of like "a clown", "A (vulgar or ludicrous) joker, a wag, a mocker." and "silly, ridiculous". They seem to fit him just fine.

95 THESES ON THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT (50)

In a cursory read...I'm OK with these. At least I don't disagree.
I didn't read all 50 but I pretty much agree with them.

How about the religious left...do you agree with them to?
__________________
A nobody telling everybody about Somebody.
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 07:18 AM  
Supporting Member
 
teaberryeagle's Avatar

Richmond, VA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,444 | Kudos: +200
Images: 16
http://www.jrsbible.info/
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 08:29 AM  
Supporting Member
 
teaberryeagle's Avatar

Richmond, VA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,444 | Kudos: +200
Images: 16
SAND SCULPTURES

RANDY HOFMAN PAINTINGS AND SCULPTURES
Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2012, 08:01 AM  
Supporting Member
 
teaberryeagle's Avatar

Richmond, VA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,444 | Kudos: +200
Images: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by teaberryeagle View Post

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.jrsbible.info/

EXAMPLE OF TOPICS INCLUDED IN ABOVE LINK.......

Life of JESUS
http://media.inspirationalfilms.com/player/?bctid=eng529english28802otmp4
__________________

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity." - A. Einstein

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > Religion / Philosophy
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.