Children "witches" tortured.

[blackout]

In it's origional Hebrew the word used means poisoner, not witch.

Other than that I'm staying out of this one.

So if the actual translation is poisoner...
(which I neither deny nor doubt)
WHY the "witch" substitute in everyone's .... erm... translations?

What happened to "literal interpretation" & accurate translation... and all that important stuff?


*UV witholds her own suppositions for now*

 

[Gentoo]

So if the actual translation is poisoner...
(which I neither deny nor doubt)
WHY the "witch" substitute in everyone's .... erm... translations?

What happened to "literal interpretation" & accurate translation... and all that important stuff?


*UV witholds her own suppositions for now*

I believe it happened in the King James version of the Bible. This site isn't scholarly but explains it well enough: here.

 

[blackout]

I believe it happened in the King James version of the Bible. This site isn't scholarly but explains it well enough: here.

But did all the OTHER "translations" just copy the King James?

That makes no sense. Why would they?
Isn't that plagorism?

I have also heard that "tyrant" was edited/"translated" out of the King James.
If this is true... has it been corrected in other versions/translations
that are not "King James"?

 

[Gentoo]

But did all the OTHER "translations" just copy the King James?

Some probably did... I'm no authority here.. just relaying what I've read

That makes no sense. Why would they? Isn't that plagorism?

That depends, is "divine scripture" copyrighted? And if so, how different does it have to be before it's not plagiarism?

I have also heard that "tyrant" was edited/"translated" out of the King James. If this is true... has it been corrected in other versions/translations that are not "King James"?

That I don't know...

 

[richardlowellt]

that's pretty sad.

religion poisons everything!

 

[Alceste]

But did all the OTHER "translations" just copy the King James?

That makes no sense. Why would they?
Isn't that plagorism?

I have also heard that "tyrant" was edited/"translated" out of the King James.
If this is true... has it been corrected in other versions/translations
that are not "King James"?

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say it might have been difficult to find Hebrew speakers in 16th century England who could render another translation from scratch, especially since the Jews were persecuted and slaughtered alongside the people suspected of being "witches".

FYI, what your average 16th century English person meant by "witch" is actually quite a lot more like "poisoner" than it is like our post-Crowley perception of "witchcraft" as a form of paganism. The "witches" of the time were generally elderly Christian * widows or spinsters who were unable to support themselves in a patriarchal society without begging from the neighbours. Because everybody hates beggars and everybody wants to blame someone for their misfortune, spinsters and widows were a natural scapegoat for outbreaks of sickness, drought, crop failure or any kind of misfortune you would care to name. You didn't get sick because of viruses or poor hygiene - you got sick because creepy old Mabel up the road MADE you sick. She looked at you funny, cussed at you on the road, asked for two eggs but you only gave her one, etc. I.e. she "poisoned" you.

IMO, some fundamental tenets of Christianity make it inevitable - or at least very likely - that in the absence of meaningful education about things like hygiene and weather, unpopular individuals will be blamed and punished for supernaturally causing collective misfortunes ("poisoning" the community). All Christian denominations promote the belief that God is omnipotent, merciful and good. It's a schismatic and psychologically dangerous belief, IMO. If God were thought to be just a little bit evil sometimes, Christians who lack access to secular education wouldn't need to blame stubborn children and spinsters for everything that goes wrong in their twisted little world. They could direct their angers and petty frustrations toward God, where they belong.

* I say Christian because everybody was Christian except the Jews, who had to pretend to be Christian.

 

[blackout]

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say it might have been difficult to find Hebrew speakers in 16th century England who could render another translation from scratch, especially since the Jews were persecuted and slaughtered alongside the people suspected of being "witches".

FYI, what your average 16th century English person meant by "witch" is actually quite a lot more like "poisoner" than it is like our post-Crowley perception of "witchcraft" as a form of paganism. The "witches" of the time were generally elderly Christian * widows or spinsters who were unable to support themselves in a patriarchal society without begging from the neighbours. Because everybody hates beggars and everybody wants to blame someone for their misfortune, spinsters and widows were a natural scapegoat for outbreaks of sickness, drought, crop failure or any kind of misfortune you would care to name. You didn't get sick because of viruses or poor hygiene - you got sick because creepy old Mabel up the road MADE you sick. She looked at you funny, cussed at you on the road, asked for two eggs but you only gave her one, etc. I.e. she "poisoned" you.

IMO, some fundamental tenets of Christianity make it inevitable - or at least very likely - that in the absence of meaningful education about things like hygiene and weather, unpopular individuals will be blamed and punished for supernaturally causing collective misfortunes ("poisoning" the community). All Christian denominations promote the belief that God is omnipotent, merciful and good. It's a schismatic and psychologically dangerous belief, IMO. If God were thought to be just a little bit evil sometimes, Christians who lack access to secular education wouldn't need to blame stubborn children and spinsters for everything that goes wrong in their twisted little world. They could direct their angers and petty frustrations toward God, where they belong.

* I say Christian because everybody was Christian except the Jews, who had to pretend to be Christian.

Many interesting considerations here Alceste.
Thank you.

*UV sits back to consider....*

 

[Alceste]

Many interesting considerations here Alceste.
Thank you.

*UV sits back to consider....*

I should add that not only was everyone a Christian, but everyone was also a pagan on every day but Sunday.

 

[blackout]

I should add that not only was everyone a Christian, but everyone was also a pagan on every day but Sunday.

What? lol. You could only be a christian on sunday?

 

[Alceste]

What? lol. You could only be a christian on sunday?

Heh - no, more like, paganism (nature worship) was the default setting and Christianity was the "religion". When they were thinking religiously, they would probably have been thinking of Christianity, but every other breathing, conscious minute, word and deed would have been inherently pagan.

 

[blackout]

Heh - no, more like, paganism (nature worship) was the default setting and Christianity was the "religion". When they were thinking religiously, they would probably have been thinking of Christianity, but every other breathing, conscious minute, word and deed would have been inherently pagan.

aah

got'cha.

 

[Wookiemonster]

So if the actual translation is poisoner...
(which I neither deny nor doubt)
WHY the "witch" substitute in everyone's .... erm... translations?

What happened to "literal interpretation" & accurate translation... and all that important stuff?


*UV witholds her own suppositions for now*

This is all just a guess, but I think it has a lot to do with the KJV translation of the bible and James' fear/dread/hatred of all things having to do with "witchcraft". That combined with the vast majority of others "translations" being re-writes of the KJV rather than actual translations is what I think lead to the use of the word witch rather than poisoner.

 

[Autodidact]

This sad story is a good example of two very different approaches or ways of thinking about the world, the old, superstitious, magical, religious approach, vs. the new, empirical, scientific approach. Sad.