Are the modern Bible translations reliable?

[Sculelos]

priceless

Yet again: pathetically wrong. At least you're consistent.

And yet you won't even tell me your interpretation of the Hebrew verse. I don't know the Hebrew slang so to speak. Nor is my understanding of Hebrew good however my computer is smart enough to do the bulkhead of the translation so I compare it to that and use my own knowledge to fill in the gaps of machine crudeness.

I'd like to hear your interpretation if your so much more enlightened then me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The phrase is usually translated along the lines of "My father was a wandering Aramean," although the construction is odd enough that several other meanings are possible, most along the lines of "My father was a lost Aramean," or "My father was an endangered Aramean."

And we have Art Scroll and Chabad.org.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't know the Hebrew slang so to speak. Nor is my understanding of Hebrew good however my computer is smart enough to do the bulkhead of the translation so I compare it to that and use my own knowledge to fill in the gaps of machine crudeness.

In my opinion, you should stop using something that has heretofore proven itself to be so pathetically unreliable.

 

[sojourner]

I was asking the people on the forums.

The reason why I have asked this question is because it is important to me. I am once again considering Islam and Islam teaches that the Bible that we have nowadays is not accurate to what the original Bible said. That is why I am asking this question.

The fallacy of that statement is twofold. First, there was no "original bible." Second, the statement is meant to compare the bible with the Quran. There is no comparison; they are two completely different types of literature. How does one compare Harry Potter to the DSM IV?

 

[Levite]

And we have Art Scroll and Chabad.org.

It's Artscroll/Chabad. Of course they translate according to Midrashic understanding. They loathe pshat. Just look what Artscroll did to Shir Hashirim: it's embarrassing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The fallacy of that statement is twofold. First, there was no "original bible." Second, the statement is meant to compare the bible with the Quran. There is no comparison; they are two completely different types of literature.

That in no way addresses the claim which is that, unlike the Quran, the Hebrew Bible has been redacted/corrupted and, therefore, cannot be accepted as God's word as given to Moses.

 

[sojourner]

That in no way addresses the claim which is that, unlike the Quran, the Hebrew Bible has been redacted/corrupted and, therefore, cannot be accepted as God's word as given to Moses.

Sure it does, because, first of all, the claim assumes things as absolute which are simply not in evidence, such as a definitive, written statement that was "given to Moses." Second, there's nothing inherently wrong with redaction. The biblical texts have been redacted ever since they were first written down and cobbled together into various collections of stories.

If the Quran is "God's word given to Muhammed," that's fine -- so long as that's what it really is. But the bible has never been that and does not need to be forced into that mold. As i said, the comparison is between two different types of literature.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sure it does, because, first of all, the claim assumes things as absolute ...

Of course but, with no offense intended, the argument is:

our revealed text is more reliable than your revealed text because our revealed text has not been compromised.​

Whether the claim or conclusion are correct is a far different discussion.

 

[sojourner]

Of course but, with no offense intended, the argument is:

our revealed text is more reliable than your revealed text because our revealed text has not been compromised.​

Whether the claim or conclusion are correct is a far different discussion.

You're right. My argument (perhaps I should have been clearer) is that the bible has not been "compromised," because "redaction" =/= "compromise."

"Compromised" is a red herring.

 

[Pegg]

They are reliable because we know more about Koine Greek today then we did a few hundred years ago. The more we know about the language, the more accurately it can be translated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

They are reliable because we know more about Koine Greek today then we did a few hundred years ago.

That was either ignorant or insulting or both.

 

[Shermana]

They are reliable because we know more about Koine Greek today then we did a few hundred years ago. The more we know about the language, the more accurately it can be translated.

Oh really? Name an example of something we "know" today that we didn't know 400 years ago?

Colwell's rule? (Cough sarcasm cough)

 

[Sculelos]

In my opinion, you should stop using something that has heretofore proven itself to be so pathetically unreliable.

Your trusted version says:
"And you shall call out and say before the Lord, your God, "An Aramean destroy my forefather, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there with a small number of people, and there, he became a great, mighty, and numerous nation.""

My 'Dumb' machine algorithm.
"And you shall speak and say before the Lord God, A man displaced from his home was my father and he went down to Egypt and God blessed him there and he became a great, mighty and prosperous nation."

Since this was wrote by Moses and Joseph was clearly displaced "To move or shift from the usual place or position, especially to force to leave a homeland" I would say that my "Machine/Base-code" translation did a pretty damn good job for being such a 'dumb' system.

Abraham was NOT forced. Issac was NOT forced. Jacob was NOT forced. Joseph WAS forced.

Let the machine speak for itself what it wants to say. I'm not even saying what I want to say. The machine speaks for itself.

Edit: I will add the Moses wrote Deuteronomy and he was clearly NOT referring to his own genetic father, that would be extremely silly sense he died before he reached the promised land.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

<ignore-list>

Sculelos​

</ignore-list>

 

[Pegg]

Oh really? Name an example of something we "know" today that we didn't know 400 years ago?

Colwell's rule? (Cough sarcasm cough)

1961 Oct 15 Watchtower article explains:
It was not until the close of the eighteenth century that archaeological findings revealed that the Greek-language manuscripts of the Bible were written in a form of Greek that was spoken by the common people. It differed a little from the classical Greek, just as the English spoken by a laborer often differs from that spoken by the upper class in society. Prior to this discovery scholars made their translations according to their understanding of classical Greek. This resulted in inaccuracies because word meanings according to classical Greek often differed somewhat from the common, or koine, Greek. For example, the King James Version renders Matthew 6:27 this way: “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” The word it translates “stature” or size was right in Luke 2:52 and 19:3 and Ephesians 4:13, but the common, or koine, Greek also gave the word the meaning of age or time of life. Knowing the extended meaning of the word, modern translators make this verse plainer and more accurate. One version says: “Who of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his life span?” (NW) So the thought should be life span instead of stature.


Basically until the 200 years ago, scholars based their English translations on 'classical' greek when it should have been 'koine' greek. This made a huge difference to our understanding.

 

[Sculelos]

Basically until the 200 years ago, scholars based their English translations on 'classical' greek when it should have been 'koine' greek. This made a huge difference to our understanding.

Understanding of words and the meaning of words only comes from God. If God wants you to understand something, you will understand it. If not then you won't. It's quite that simple. I can actually do a somewhat decent job at translating languages that I don't understand based on machine algorithms and geometrical patterns. However that still doesn't insure perfection, but the passages I've crosschecked using the methodology are pretty true to the source work leading me to believe that the translators did a pretty damn good Job of making 99% of the word comprehensible. We are not suppose to be overly critical about words after all.

Nobody likes a nit-picker.

 

[Levite]

Understanding of words and the meaning of words only comes from God. If God wants you to understand something, you will understand it. If not then you won't.

That is arguably the most theologically unsophisticated and intellectually dishonest thing I have ever seen written on this forum. It's like something from the heart of the Dark Ages. Stunning.

I can actually do a somewhat decent job at translating languages that I don't understand based on machine algorithms and geometrical patterns.

You have already demonstrated quite thoroughly that this is not the case. You made absolute hash of your attempt to translate some Hebrew Bible. You didn't even know it was Hebrew, you thought it was Aramaic. Your counterargument when this failure was pointed out to you was that nobody today understands Aramaic. Which disregards that one can simply take the time to learn it. In fact, if one has good Hebrew, learning Aramaic is not too hard. I picked up the basics before rabbinical school in a single two-week crash intensive-- having, of course, been studying Hebrew since childhood already.

But while any language can be learned with time and effort, they cannot be effectively decoded by homemade algorithms and prayers. And not only are the results of trying junk, but it is disrespectful to both language and literature to pretend that both are simplistic enough that any fool with software and fundamentalist ideology can make sense of them. It's also disrespectful to actual scholars and scholarship, although that's secondary.

Obviously, it's a free country, and you can believe whatever junk you like. But don't try to pass off your nonsense translations as real, or your medieval theology of text as actual scholarship.

 

[Muffled]

Hey everyone. Would you say that the modern translations of the Bible are reliable or unreliable? Please debate and discuss but also vote in the poll!

I believe even with two of the worst tranlations: Good News Bible and NWT, there is still pretty good reliability. The NWT does its best to eliminate the concept of jesus as God in the flesh but the translators missed a few verses.

 

[Muffled]

Well how do we know? I mean, were we there when the biblical authors wrote the versus? We will never know unless we were there! Now if it rings true to our heart, then maybe if we ask the holy spirit for guidance he/she will speak to us.

I have never known the Holy Spirit to speak as a she but I deem it eminently possible. Perhaps Joan of Arc would qualify.

For me personnally the Holy Spirit picked The New American Standard Version.

 

[Muffled]

That doesn't make any sense? I'm sorry. "Argued the best sources and remained true to those manuscripts." Um I'm sorry but if there is any argument when it comes to something important as the quality of a translation and putting it in a manuscript...you have to be 100% sure without argument.

I'll be back, I have a pain in the **** that I have to deal with. Pray for me. PLEASE pray for me!

Btw, I said a.r.s.e. without periods, is that a bad word???

I am not sure that I beleive anyone ever achieves 100% understanding of what God says. Faith says what we do understand is sufficient for God's purposes.

That reminds me of the days before I recived Jesus as Savior when I thought I needed to repent all my sins (Which I interpeted as not do them) before I could come to Jesus. The reality was that I was never going to get there and Jesus was happy to be my Savior even though I was imperfect.