The Bible, its Pussyfooting Translators, and its Lack of Veracity

[Etritonakin]

The following is intended to bring out the fact that some of the Bible's translators deliberately pussyfooted around its more difficult/embarrassing passages, very likely to more easily sell Christianity, but in turn torpedoed its veracity. Hardly an admirable enterprise, especially by those who expect us to believe they're dedicated to God's "truth."

My example is Isaiah 45:7 (a verse I've used before for other reasons) wherein God says:

(KJV)
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."​

In examining 30 different translations I found the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) is given nine different meanings. By far the most common and probably most demeaning to God is "evil," as noted above in the King James Version. Evil exists because God deliberately creates it---please note that the word is "creates" and not "created." God continues to create evil---anyone care to make a guess as to why?.

"Evil" occurs in 14 (47%) of the 30 translations I looked at. Reasoning that no translator would select a word that is more unfavorable to god than not, and that "evil" is the predominant translation, I think it's fair to conclude it's most likely the correct translation: God said he creates evil. So what about those translations that don't translate רַ רַע (ra`) as "evil"?

That's where I believe the pussyfooting comes in. In the other 16 translations of Isaiah 45:7 the translators chose not to tell the reader that god creates evil---God forbid!---but that he does something far less dastardly. Five of them say he creates "disasters," and three of them say he creates "calamity." Two of them say he creates "troubles," whereas another two say he creates "woe." The other four individually say he creates, "bad times," "discord," "doom," and "hard times." This is quite a spread, going from a god who creates evil to a god who only creates hard times. The point here isn't that various translators wrote conflicting things about god, but the implication behind the why of it. The implication, as I see it, being: If the translators have no compunctions about how they present the nature of God in order to save his image, something I would think to be sacrosanct, how can they be trusted not to have changed other equally important "facts" in the Bible? An attempt, more likely than not, to preserve their theology, and make Christianity an easier sell. If, in fact, "evil" is what God actually said then 53% of the Bible versions are lying to and misleading its readers. AND, if "hard times" is, for instance, what God actually said, then 94% of the Bible versions are lying to and misleading its readers.

My conclusion: So much for the claimed veracity of the Bible and those who translated it. At least half the translators couldn't bring themselves to tell the truth because they felt it would not only hurt their image of God, but hurt Christianity as well.
If you feel I've got it wrong here I welcome a better explanation for the translator's pussyfooting. AND why one shouldn't be suspicious of everything in the Bible.


.

The various translations are indeed subject to that which is in the minds of translators -among other things.

Some words have been replaced by others which are completely different -such as Passover being replaced by Easter.

Some translators might have an agenda -but even the sincere translators wanting to translate exactly have to deal with imperfect human languages. They must choose from the available definitions -and even the most correct translation is subject to general misunderstanding, the mind of the reader, etc.
Then there is the fact that a "correct" translation must be based on what was intended by the original source and their knowledge of the subject matter -which, in this case, would be God and absolute truth.

If there were no God, and the things therein did not happen, men would just be making stuff up -in which case we'd be discussing translations of some made up stuff.

However, God does exist -and actually uses initial imperfections -including imperfect languages -to bring about perfection (think of imperfection as the creative stages between a perfect idea and its accomplishment).

God wants those who are truly interested to seek diligently for the truth -so, yes, question every last thing in the bible. One part explains that God intended to speak to some with stammering lips, as it were, and that the word of the Lord would be to them line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little -so that those who did not do an in-depth study would fall backward, be broken, snared and taken due to lack of understanding of the truth.

God even uses language specifically to hide meaning from some until they are prepared to receive it -such as when using riddles and parables.

God acknowledges the imperfections of our languages -but can also overcome them and grant understanding to any. He decides who will understand what -and when -and though studying is good, written words are not always necessary. He is able to impart wisdom, talent, understanding, etc., by will. Part of the reason for having a written record (which has been preserved sufficiently) is so that -even though it is not widely understood or studied with an opened mind (those given an ear to hear, as it were) -it is known to have existed while all of the history written therein takes place. It is proof that God declared the end from the beginning.

In the end (the beginning of the rest of eternity), it is written that God will turn to us a pure language, so that all people may call upon the name of the Lord, and serve him with one consent.

 

[rosends]

If by “pussyfooting” the original poster means “whitewashing” or “watering down” or “diluting” that which is actually written to lessen the severity, or make it less offensive, there are dozens, if not hundreds. One in particular which comes immediately to mind is Vayyiq’ra/Leviticus 18:20, which reads:

וְאֶל־אֵשֶׁת עֲמִּיתךָ לֹא־תִתֵּן שְׁכָבְתְּךָ לְזָרָע לְטָמְאָה־בָהּ׃
V’el-ʾéshet ʾămiyt’ḵa loʾ-tittén sh’ḵav’t’ḵa l’zaraʿ l’tam’ah-vah:​

“You will not give your emission of semen to the wife of your neighbor for insemination; to defile yourself by her.”

That is the actual translation of that passage. I have never seen any translation which translates what is actually written.

If a man gives a bottle of semen to another man’s wife and she injects it into her vagina with a turkey baster, an eye dropper or a syringe, she is guilty of adultery, and by proxy the one giving it to her is also. Sexual intercourse is not specified and even though that would be the most common and popular method of inseminating a woman, it is not the only method.

The point being if any married woman is impregnated by ANY MEANS other than by her husband, both her and the one impregnating her are guilty of adultery. Can you see how watering something down drastically changes not only what it says, but what it means?

But if you are working with the simple and literal translation as the source of laws and understanding then the preceding verses only make unlawful "uncovering nakedness" and say nothing about sex with eyes closed.

 

[allfoak]

In the end (the beginning of the rest of eternity), it is written that God will turn to us a pure language, so that all people may call upon the name of the Lord, and serve him with one consent.

In the end of what?
Eternity?
How does that happen?

The time is now, the pure language is the language of the soul.
It is the birth of our soul that begins the journey home.

 

[Etritonakin]

In the end of what?
Eternity?
How does that happen?

The time is now, the pure language is the language of the soul.
It is the birth of our soul that begins the journey home.

"The end" in the bible refers to the "end of the age" between Adam and the beginning of the reign of Christ on Earth (which will actually continue forever -the thousand years is simply the amount of time Satan is not allowed to influence man before being loosed a short time again -and the time between the first resurrection -of the firstfruits -and the resurrection of all others -"the rest of the dead" -to the judgment -which is not all doom and gloom).

Time is a measure of interaction, and there is no technical end or beginning -just rearrangement -though certain arrangements happened before other arrangements, which result in past, present and future states.
The past states generally being the beginning -the future states generally being the end. Though there will technically be no end to the rearrangement of states, some things will become permanent, and some things will never be again.

Our human languages represent our incomplete understanding of those states, and were formed from our perspectives.
The pure language will be formed from the complete understanding of the "One" present for all states of the "One" -of whom/which we are a part -though separated logically.

The time for that actual, literal language to be given to us is a state yet future.

 

[allfoak]

"The end" in the bible refers to the "end of the age" between Adam and the beginning of the reign of Christ on Earth (which will actually continue forever -the thousand years is simply the amount of time Satan is not allowed to influence man before being loosed a short time again -and the time between the first resurrection -of the firstfruits -and the resurrection of all others -"the rest of the dead" -to the judgment -which is not all doom and gloom).

Time is a measure of interaction, and there is no technical end or beginning -just rearrangement -though certain arrangements happened before other arrangements, which result in past, present and future states.
The past states generally being the beginning -the future states generally being the end. Though there will technically be no end to the rearrangement of states, some things will become permanent, and some things will never be again.

Our human languages represent our incomplete understanding of those states, and were formed from our perspectives.
The pure language will be formed from the complete understanding of the "One" present for all states of the "One" -of whom/which we are a part -though separated logically.

The time for that actual, literal language to be given to us is a state yet future.

Ok thanks

 

[omega2xx]

What TEST? What are you even talking about?

Is there another "good doctor"? I don't ever remember posting to you?

I already said that an exercise in interpreting a biblical passage as a means to gauge one's understanding of the bible is a completely redundant thing to do and means nothing due to the inherent subjectivity in doing so; that renders such a "test" as complete garbage.

Looks like I was right to call you a moron.

The only one who is a moron are those who call someone else one, from their ignorance.

But hey - if you want to sling me a quote to interpret - go right ahead dude. I'll even let you set the rules and standards for your stupid test. It's Christmas, the office is pretty boring.

Since you have labeled such a test s subjective, that will be your default position if I say you are wrong. So, testing you under those rules will be a waste of time.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Since you have labeled such a test s subjective, that will be your default position if I say you are wrong. So, testing you under those rules will be a waste of time.

Yeah, that's exactly what I told you.

Are you for real?

 

[omega2xx]

Yeah, that's exactly what I told you.

DUUH. That's why I mentioned it.

Are you for real?

What a silly question.

 

[allfoak]

Are you for real?

This is not a generalization so please don't anyone interpret it that way.

l call them christian bots.

They only know what they have been told and nothing more.
Unable to think for themselves.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

DUUH. That's why I mentioned it.

What a silly question.

You make absolutely no sense and seem to have trouble with basic comprehension.

Why would you restate something that I had already told you then act like you were on to it the whole time?

It's sounds a little like this:

Me - "This apple is red."
You - "The apple is an apple and how should the apple be red?"
Me - "What are you trying to say? All I said is that the apple is red."
You - "DUUH. That's why I mentioned it."

Do you see how excruciatingly low brow your posts come across and how frustrating it must be for anyone to debate with you (someone who seems to experience serious difficulty in communicating)?

 

[omega2xx]

This is not a generalization so please don't anyone interpret it that way.

l call them christian bots.

They only know what they have been told and nothing more.
Unable to think for themselves.

To quote dumb and dumber, silly is as silly does.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

To quote dumb and dumber, silly is as silly does.

Wait a minute, you're 84 years old?!

Suddenly your posts make a lot more sense to me.

 

[omega2xx]

You make absolutely no sense and seem to have trouble with basic comprehension.

Why would you restate something that I had already told you then act like you were on to it the whole time?

It's sounds a little like this:

Me - "This apple is red."
You - "The apple is an apple and how should the apple be red?"
Me - "What are you trying to say? All I said is that the apple is red."
You - "DUUH. That's why I mentioned it."

Do you see how excruciatingly low brow your posts come across and how frustrating it must be for anyone to debate with you (someone who seems to experience serious difficulty in communicating)?

If you want to keep on blowing smoke, be my guest. When you get ready, if you ever do, to discuss a topic, get back to me.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

If you want to keep on blowing smoke, be my guest. When you get ready, if you ever do, to discuss a topic, get back to me.

Ready as ever.

What topic would you like to discuss?

 

[omega2xx]

Wait a minute, you're 84 years old?!

Suddenly your posts make a lot more sense to me.

I can still out think you. Especially when it comes to understanding the Bible. You haven't said anything yet to make me think you are an intellectual. Just the opposite.

 

[allfoak]

Ready as ever.

What topic would you like to discuss?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I can still out think you. Especially when it comes to understanding the Bible. You haven't said anything yet to make me think you are an intellectual. Just the opposite.

Okay... lol

I would've thought, in 84 years on this planet, you would've figured out how to be less defensive and quick to jump to presumptions.

I mentioned your age because your generation is one that is significantly different than the overwhelming majority of posters on here.

Really, you're 84 and write posts like the one I've quoted in this post which is essentially just saying "I'm not dumb! You are!" I mean that's 12 year old stuff.

 

[omega2xx]

Okay... lol

I would've thought, in 84 years on this planet, you would've figured out how to be less defensive and quick to jump to presumptions.

I would think that a know it all would not think such things.

I mentioned your age because your generation is one that is significantly different than the overwhelming majority of posters on here.

No you didn't. You mentioned my age to try and make me look senile and out of touch with reality.,

Really, you're 84 and write posts like the one I've quoted in this post which is essentially just saying "I'm not dumb! You are!" I mean that's 12 year old stuff.

I didn't say you were dumb. I said what you said was dumb.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I would think that a know it all would not think such things.

No you didn't. You mentioned my age to try and make me look senile and out of touch with reality.,

Well, I have to say: you are coming across as a little jumbled and confused.

I never mentioned your age to "try and make [you] look senile and out of touch with reality". I simply mentioned it.

You're actually the one who brought up the possibility that you might be senile and out of touch with reality. I didn't even go near that. In fact, I even elaborated in my subsequent post my reason for bringing up your age. I'm sorry that you feel so insecure about it.

You:

I didn't say you were dumb. I said what you said was dumb.

You:

I can still out think you. Especially when it comes to understanding the Bible. You haven't said anything yet to make me think you are an intellectual. Just the opposite.

So telling me that I'm the opposite of an intellectual and that you can "out think me" is not a reflection of "I'm not dumb! You are!".

Good luck dude. You're gonna need a lot of it.

 

[omega2xx]

You make absolutely no sense and seem to have trouble with basic comprehension.

Why would you restate something that I had already told you then act like you were on to it the whole time?

It's sounds a little like this:

Me - "This apple is red."
You - "The apple is an apple and how should the apple be red?"
Me - "What are you trying to say? All I said is that the apple is red."
You - "DUUH. That's why I mentioned it."

Do you see how excruciatingly low brow your posts come across and how frustrating it must be for anyone to debate with you (someone who seems to experience serious difficulty in communicating)?

It is always difficult when the other party lacks understanding.