One Of The Reasons I Find It Difficult To Take The Bible Seriously

[Skwim]

I think it is because Hebrew words carry multiple layers of meaning. So there can often be several English words that have almost the same meaning as a particular Hebrew word, but it is usually quite difficult to find one word that has almost the exact same meaning as a particular Hebrew word and it is usually almost impossible to find just one that expresses all a Hebrew word’s meaning. That is the reason a Strong's concordance is useful to look up the various English words associated with the Hebrew word and also taking the context into consideration.

Unfortunately no Bible comes with any such instructions. In almost all cases ALL of them simply state a verse, and leave it at that. Ever see a Bible say anything like:

Psalm 10:5
5His ways are always grievous . . .err, make that "always "twisted," or better yet "always "defouled" . . . . . come to think of it, "firm" would be a better interpretation, or should it be "prosperous"? Hmmm . . . . in any case; Thy judgments are far above, out of his sight; as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.​

Nope, a Bible uses the words it does because its scholars feel its the most accurate rendering of what the author of the source material intended to convey when he used the word he did. A Bible doesn't use "grievous," "twisted," "defouled," "firm," or "prosperous," in Psalm 10:5, but rather "successful," and it doesn't go into any alternative possibilities because "successful" is the correct choice and the others are not. So this ploy of appealing to the "original Hebrew word," or any other exculpatory dodge just doesn't wash. Each Bible translation feels IT got the right word and the others did not, or else it wouldn't have used the word it did.

Or is it that you think you're a better Biblical scholar and lexicographer than the professionals, and can better divine the true meaning of the ancient verses?

I suppose it is challenging, but most of the examples you listed are not really that different from each other and the overall message is consistent in all the standard translations.

Really! You think that

evil isn't that different from disaster?

That calamity isn't that different from woe?

That doom isn't that different from sorrow?

That discord isn't that different from hard times?​

If so you just got an F in eighth grade English.

.

 

[Skwim]

Well, first thing, Bible itself says so.

This must mean that everything in the Bible is factual. And your evidence for this is ______________________ .

.

 

[Skwim]

Or you could just study it in the original languages to learn the proper meanings. It's not difficult these days with the Internet.

And unlike Biblical scholars who have dedicated their careers to deciphering the meanings an intent of the source material, I, with my windows 7 desk top, would be better able to divine the proper meanings of the ancient words that were used. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I know when I've met my match, and I politely decline.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From get go Bible was intended to be understood by only who were spiritually ready.

And we know that is BS because there is no widespread consensus among believers. It is only a weak excuse used by believers when they run into non-believers that understand the Bible better than they do.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And unlike Biblical scholars who have dedicated their careers to deciphering the meanings an intent of the source material, I, with my windows 7 desk top, would be better able to divine the proper meanings of the ancient words that were used. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I know when I've met my match, and I politely decline.

.

I don't see what your OS has to do with anything. Resources are available to anyone with a library nearby. If you're too lazy to do research on a topic that interests you or a question you have, that's your problem.

 

[Skwim]

I don't see what your OS has to do with anything.

Of course you don't.

.

 

[Augustus]

Personally, any book that has so many inconsistency would be extremely difficult to take seriously no matter what else it has to say.

Any text which is translated multiple times will have inconsistencies, perhaps significant ones due to the impossibility of translating something perfectly. You'll find the same with Plato, Homer, Shakespeare, Tolstoy or Dumas.

For example, with a poem what is important to the translator, as the can't focus on everything: literalism and focusing on the 'letter' of the text or interpretation focusing on the 'spirit' or the text; authenticity or readability; maintaining rhyme; maintaining metre; rendering metaphors literally or in a manner that makes more sense in translation; how to render a pun, play on words or double entendre; how to deal with rhetorical devices in general; more important to reflect denotation or connotation; should translator make additions or annotations to text to help the reader or to reflect translators opinions; etc.

When multiple people independently translate any complex text it is impossible for there to be no inconsistencies.

 

[rocala]

You'll find the same with Plato, Homer, Shakespeare, Tolstoy or Dumas.

A good point Augustus but I think the problem is that people do not base their view of reality on the above writers, with the Bible, some do.

 

[Christian Democrat]

Unfortunately no Bible comes with any such instructions. In almost all cases ALL of them simply state a verse, and leave it at that. Ever see a Bible say anything like:

Psalm 10:5
5His ways are always grievous . . .err, make that "always "twisted," or better yet "always "defouled" . . . . . come to think of it, "firm" would be a better interpretation, or should it be "prosperous"? Hmmm . . . . in any case; Thy judgments are far above, out of his sight; as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.​

Nope, a Bible uses the words it does because its scholars feel its the most accurate rendering of what the author of the source material intended to convey when he used the word he did. A Bible doesn't use "grievous," "twisted," "defouled," "firm," or "prosperous," in Psalm 10:5, but rather "successful," and it doesn't go into any alternative possibilities because "successful" is the correct choice and the others are not. So this ploy of appealing to the "original Hebrew word," or any other exculpatory dodge just doesn't wash.
.

I don't get why this gives us reason to see the Bible as untrustworthy. Surely the same problem exists with translating any text at all from any language to any other? A Hebrew word often doesn't have any exact equivalent in English (or French or German or Greek for that matter). The best we can do is find an alternative word that conveys a similar but not identical meaning. It's not about the one word we choose being the 'correct' choice, it's about it being one that gets across the gist of the original text adequately. I don't think the people who compiled Bible translations were so arrogant as to say their word choices were 'correct' and others were not; surely they just chose a word that seemed to them to get the meaning across in a suitably poetic fashion? But this is true of translating absolutely any text and isn't a problem unique to the Bible.

 

[joe1776]

As an adolescent boy, I thought that if God wanted to communicate with humans, doing it in a human language, destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted would be a dumb way to do it.

I still hold that opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As an adolescent boy, I thought that if God wanted to communicate with humans, doing it in a human language, destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted would be a dumb way to do it.

I still hold that opinion.

That is good. It tells us that you can reason rationally.

 

[leov]

And we know that is BS because there is no widespread consensus among believers. It is only a weak excuse used by believers when they run into non-believers that understand the Bible better than they do.

It is a delusion unless Matt 13,
"11And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:"

 

[leov]

This must mean that everything in the Bible is factual. And your evidence for this is ______________________ .

.

It is a Gnostic type myth as I said before. Theological teaching treatise how to raise consciousness of humanity using archetype (example) of Christ in Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is a delusion unless Matt 13,
"11And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:"

You keep forgetting that the Bible is not a reliable source for your arguments. It is like trying to prove Spiderman with issues of Marvel comics.

Also I have seen that many Christians have a problem understanding parables, not non-believers. Some Bible literalists (not all of course) make the mistake of thinking that the parables had to be historical.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that makes it difficult for me to take you seriously.

 

[Muffled]

From get go Bible was intended to be understood by only who were spiritually ready.

I believe even a person who just uses logic ought to be able to see that "trash" and "garbage" are consistent translations.

 

[David T]

.

Lack of consistency among it various translations.


Take the four Bible verses below, which should make any student of the Christian religion tear their hair out in exasperation.


9 different translations of Philippians 3:8, "Because of Christ, I lost all these things, and now I know that they are all worthless trash. . . ."

Substitutes

Refuse
Garbage
Rubbish
Filth
Worthless
Less than nothing
Manure
Sewer trash
​

So, which is it?


10 Different versions of John 14:2 "In My Father’s house are many mansions;"

Substitutes

Places
Dwellings
Dwelling places.
Room
Room to spare
Rooms
Abodes
Places-to-stay
Homes​

So, which is it?


11 different translations of Isaiah 45:7 ". . .I make peace, and create evil; "

Substitutes

Disaster
Calamity
Doom
Woe
Sorrow
Trouble(s)
Bad times
Discords
Hard times
​

So, which is it?

12 different translations of Psalm 10:5 "His ways are always grievous;"

Substitutes

Firm
Prosper
Secure
Twisted
Successful
Succeed
Prosperous
Endure
Well
Defouled
Pain​

So, which is it?


Then there are reference in one Bible that are simply omitted in another. Take Mark 9:46 where the KJV says: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Now, quite a few translations (26) do include references to the worm, but quite a few do not. Their version of Mark 9:46 reads:

CEV
You would be better off to go into life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

TLB
Better be lame and live forever than have two feet that carry you to hell.

NIRV
It would be better to enter God’s kingdom with only one foot than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

MSG
You’re better off maimed or lame and alive than the proud owner of two hands and two feet, godless in a furnace of eternal fire.

Phillips
It is better for you to enter life maimed than to keep both your hands and go to the rubbish-heap,​

Other verses also disappear . Take Matthew 18:11 where in the KJV it says “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” But in some translations the verse is missing altogether , although it may make mention of the verse and its source in a footnote. Translations such as

(CEV) Verse removed
(NIV) Verse removed.
(NWT) Verse removed.
(NCV) Verse removed.
​

Personally, any book that has so many inconsistency would be extremely difficult to take seriously no matter what else it has to say. Of course there's always the up side in that a person can choose whatever version best fits one's theology and be comfortable that it's backed up by the Good Book.

.
.

One of the reasons i dont even bother with books
"Lack of consistency among it various translations
Of this"
i know factually it is not determined by any book mearly mentioned in books and that is all. And that is not reality regardless if the book is math, science, philisohy, or religion, on and on and on.

Get lost in that, and i pity you, a sad crearure lost in its own mistranslation that doesnt even know how to breathe. .

 

[leov]

You keep forgetting that the Bible is not a reliable source for your arguments. It is like trying to prove Spiderman with issues of Marvel comics.

Also I have seen that many Christians have a problem understanding parables, not non-believers. Some Bible literalists (not all of course) make the mistake of thinking that the parables had to be historical.

We are discussing Bible from within Bible , what else do you want to do? It is reliable as theological source but not source of exact history or physics. Unreliable are people interpreting it but it is by design...

 

[Muffled]

I think it is because Hebrew words carry multiple layers of meaning. So there can often be several English words that have almost the same meaning as a particular Hebrew word, but it is usually quite difficult to find one word that has almost the exact same meaning as a particular Hebrew word and it is usually almost impossible to find just one that expresses all a Hebrew word’s meaning. That is the reason a Strong's concordance is useful to look up the various English words associated with the Hebrew word and also taking the context into consideration. I suppose it is challenging, but most of the examples you listed are not really that different from each other and the overall message is consistent in all the standard translations.

I believe that happens with the Greek also. The word paraclete gets translated lots of ways but I use the word paraclete when talking about the third member of the Trinity.

 

[leov]

I believe even a person who just uses logic ought to be able to see that "trash" and "garbage" are consistent translations.

To some degree, yes. But allegory?