-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does one need to know the original language?
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
The same way you find out whether or not a movie would be worth seeing: reviews.
In this case, however, the word of a scholar carries more worth than the word of a common person.
Therefore, from my experience and from the word of others, scholarly translations (such as Robert Alter's translation of the Torah) are much more reliable than committee translations, like the NIV.
kejos
Active Member
But the word of a scholar can be diametrically opposed to the word of another scholar.
As any scholar knows.
Therefore, look at those scholars and determine their validity based on their papers, etc.
In a scholarly translation, before you start reading it, read through the introduction. That will help you understand their intentions.
In the end, trust your gut.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
One can look at the reviews of other scholars. Personally, I put a lot of stock in Bart D. Ehrman as I find him very honest as well as fair.
kejos
Active Member
But how does one know that you are honest and fair? Or that anyone is?
There has to be an objective standard. And the fact is that, unless original languages are used, nobody, anywhere, is going to be able to argue with any confidence or respectability.
Try it and see, if you like.
kejos
Active Member
It might be quicker to learn Greek! And certainly far more reliable.
Sometimes, you simply have to trust. You ask for an objective standard. Too bad. You simply have to trust your own experience to determine whether or not a translation is trustworthy, through your own study. Compare translations to determine common elements, look at the introductions of each translation to determine intention, look at what other scholars have said, study, study, study.
Got news for you. My dad told me of a friend of his, who had a very good ear for language, and spoke several already. He took ancient Greek, and dropped out after 3 days. Why? Because there was so much to memorize.
What I've suggested to you would take a week, maybe two, if you studied consistently.
kejos
Active Member
What I suggest can be done right now. Just try proving anything from a translation, and see what happens.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
To believe that no one is honest or fair is bordering on paranoia.
The fact is, we can know who is being honest and fair for the most part. If they have the evidence to back them, then that is a start. If they add the oppositions side, recognizes any worth it may have, and shows either why it may have so ground, or is completely unfounded, then that is an addition to the credibility. If the general consensus of scholars agrees with a particular scholar, it gives that account even more credibility. If they explain all of the angles that need to be explained, the possible weaknesses, and what is known for sure, that is even more credibility.
Even people who speak the original language will disagree with what it means. Different people can and do translate the original in different manners. They interpret what they read in different manners. So the same problem arises.
kejos
Active Member
As Kaa said to Mowgli.
Too bad for anyone who engages in public theology without using Greek and Hebrew! Unless one actually enjoys being laughed at.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That happens a lot, and people do prove things using translations. To fully understand the ancient Hebrew and Greek in just the Bible can take a life time. Really, for the majority of people, and even many scholars, it simply is not a viable option.
kejos
Active Member
To suggest that anyone believes that could lead to a prison sentence.
We cannot know that any particular person is telling the truth. Leaving aside such things as expertise levels.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That's not true. There are many scholars who don't fully know either one or the other. Some have very little working knowledge of the original languages, or they simply rely on translations that they feel are the most competent.
That is why there is so many works on just the commentary of the Bible. Or why there are text books dealing with just understanding what the New or Old Testament states, and the reason for them saying what they do.
kejos
Active Member
Where there is no significant difference between translations, or where a difference is immaterial. But those are not the places that matter.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
One can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
Frankly and simply, I think its good to know the original language, especially for biblical things. Alot of bibles have an incorrect translation of the original words. Like 'eternity' is a mistranslation in my understanding, the original Greek means more like an 'age' or 'lifetime'. Whatever the original word is, I forgot lol. Also Islam does not consider any translation to be THE Qur-an, but rather a translation of the Qur-an. So yes, I think if one wants to fully understand a scripture, then its is good to understand what the words of the language actually mean.
kejos
Active Member
It's been true from before you were born. Theologians never use anything but Gk and Heb between themselves. To do otherwise would be instant suicide.
Go on, try proving anything you like from a translation, anything that has been disputed. It won't even work here, let alone in the real world.
With that attitude, Mowgli had no reason to trust that Baloo wouldn't eat him. Besides, Kaa said "Trust in me, JUST in me."
"Laughed at?" How many times has this actually happened?
Last edited: