The Mistranslation Argument

[rosends]

IMO the NASB is the best. Other good ones are the NKJ, Amplified, New Revised Standard. Ther are a few other good ones but I can't think of othem right now.

If you are really interested, google "best Bible translations".

My point is that that is a specious argument. "Best" is an impossible standard -- who decides? If the Judaica Press has "evil" and it is steeped in 2000+ years of Jewish history and understanding, plus a constant use of Hebrew, why assume that any other translation is better? What basis does anyone have to judge a translation's quality? One would have to be at least as much of an expert in order to have a position to judge the accuracy.

The Aramaic of Is 45:7 is ביש, Bish. If you go to The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon you can see that one definition of that word is "evil." So why is that wrong?

 

[savagewind]

Why not define "evil"?

What did the writer mean that God creates evil?

To avoid confusion, it is important to note that there are at least two concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. The broad concept picks out any bad state of affairs, wrongful action, or character flaw. The suffering of a toothache is evil in the broad sense as is a white lie. Evil in the broad sense has been divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils. By contrast, moral evils do result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Murder and lying are examples of moral evils.

The Concept of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[savagewind]

What is the real definition of evil which is translated at Isaiah 45:7?

It has to be the opposite of שָׁל֔וֹם

What is it?

 

[rosends]

What is the real definition of evil which is translated at Isaiah 45:7?

It has to be the opposite of שָׁל֔וֹם

What is it?

Just curious -- why does it have to be the opposite of שָׁל֔וֹם?

Maybe the verse is just listing things God made. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Are they "opposites"? Just because one part of the verse has "light" and "dark" doesn't limit the rest of the verse to being a list of opposites, does it?

 

[savagewind]

Just curious -- why does it have to be the opposite of שָׁל֔וֹם?

Maybe the verse is just listing things God made. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Are they "opposites"? Just because one part of the verse has "light" and "dark" doesn't limit the rest of the verse to being a list of opposites, does it?

Not for sure, but if anyone was writing it today it would be peace's opposite if they knew how to write. Isn't it?

 

[savagewind]

I have heard that without any stress a human being won't do well.

• disagreement
• hate
• hatred
• discord

• agitation
• disharmony
• distress
• fighting

• frustration
• upset
• war
• worry

God created stress. A little bit of it is actually good.

What if the human mind could not worry?

 

[savagewind]

Haha

It took awhile my friend to see what is so funny........

 

[omega2xx]

My point is that that is a specious argument. "Best" is an impossible standard -- who decides?

Bible Scholars who are experts in the language. IMO
best" in not an impossible standard. It also my opinion that anyone can find the truth an in any good translation if they have an open mind

If the Judaica Press has "evil" and it is steeped in 2000+ years of Jewish history and understanding, plus a constant use of Hebrew, why assume that any other translation is better?

Has the Judaica Press ever been updated? The KJ has "evil", the NKJ has "calamity."

What basis does anyone have to judge a translation's quality? One would have to be at least as much of an expert in order to have a position to judge the accuracy.

Those who translate Bibles ae not only experts, they are done by one person, they are done by teams of experts.

The Aramaic of Is 45:7 is ביש, Bish. If you go to The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon you can see that one definition of that word is "evil." So why is that wrong?

Go back to the whole verse. God is contrasting opposites. First light and darkness. Well being is not the opposite of evil.

Also, God's creation was verify good. The sin of Adam and Eve is what brought evil into God's perfect world, not God. God was trying to keep evil out of the world.

 

[rosends]

Not for sure, but if anyone was writing it today it would be peace's opposite if they knew how to write. Isn't it?

Nope. I know plenty of people who know how to write and make lists but who don't feel bound to writing opposites in lists. Some are old writers, some are young. Some write in black in and some in red.

 

[rosends]

Bible Scholars who are experts in the language. IMO
best" in not an impossible standard. It also my opinion that anyone can find the truth an in any good translation if they have an open mind

Though you define "open mind" as "willing to consider what you think of as the right translation." I would think you have an "open mind" if you would realize that "evil" is the "best" translation.

Has the Judaica Press ever been updated? The KJ has "evil", the NKJ has "calamity."

Does one have to change in order for you to consider it correct? The translation dates back a long time as "evil." Why must it change if it is correct?

Go back to the whole verse. God is contrasting opposites. First light and darkness. Well being is not the opposite of evil.

The verse is listing things. One part of the list has what some people see as opposites. Why does that limit he rest of the verse?

And, for the sake of argument, let's say the verse was listing opposites, maybe there is more to the verse than what you are saying.

There must be a reason that Jews greet each other on the Sabbath by saying "shabbat shalom" and in English, Good Shabbos and not "peace Shabbos." Maybe "Shalom" doesn't mean just "peace" but means "Good" (as it is clearly being used) so the opposite of "ra" being evil.

We use "tov" in reference to a day (yom tov) NOT to mean "good day" but "holiday." So one can't say "if he meant 'good' he would say 'tov.'"

In that case, the need for opposites, good vs. evil would be sustained via shalom and ra.

 

[savagewind]

I am going to write it over. OK?

I (God) accomplishes PEACE and I (God) makes you want peace.

Evil means no peace.

Nope. I know plenty of people who know how to write and make lists but who don't feel bound to writing opposites in lists. Some are old writers, some are young. Some write in black in and some in red.

Hahaha. OK.

Evil might mean needing something but not having it.

 

[savagewind]

....evil being the uncomfortable feeling a person gets when there is no peace.

God creates light and dark, peace and no peace.

Were there other things on the list?

 

[savagewind]

Nope!

 

[savagewind]

Light is knowing and dark is not knowing. Did you know that? LOL

 

[savagewind]

Peace is to light as dark is to evil.

Light is to know and dark is to avoid (at all costs).

God put it into me (obviously not YOU) to be uncomfortable with not knowing.

 

[savagewind]

Knowing is to seeing. In the dark, there is nothing to see.

(OK, I think I need three hundred posts and hurry).

Peace!

 

[savagewind]

Does anyone know why Cyrus should know that God was HE who created day and night?

 

[savagewind]

John 12:40
Exodus 9:12
Isaiah 6:9-10
Matthew 13:14

God put them in the dark.

 

[allfoak]

(OK, I think I need three hundred posts and hurry).

?????

 

[savagewind]

?????

It's a riddle and not a hard one.