The Mistranslation Argument

[Skwim]

Every so often when debating an issue that depends on the support of Biblical scripture someone will bring up the point that some critical word in the Bible is mistranslated, leading to the wrong impression of the scripture. However, whatever one thinks the proper translation may be, the fact remains that the "incorrect" word is what the faithful reader is being led to believe is true: his Bible is misleading him. In short, it's untrustworthy.

One such case involves Isaiah 45:7 where God declares he creates evil.

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

Those objecting to this translation of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) as "evil" say the proper translation should be something else (there are several notions as to what it should be* ). In any case, the Bible in which this supposed incorrect "evil" appears in Isaiah 45:7 continues to mislead hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Christians as to the true character of God. Hardly a decent thing to do.

Worse yet, it leads to the conclusion that if this one translation can be wrong and misleading, who's to say that the translations of other Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can't be wrong?---some of them having gone unnoticed and perhaps quite critical to one's theology. It does no good to argue, as has been done, that such errors in translation are insignificant or meaningless to the over all message, because one doesn't actually know this to be the case. It would be wishful thinking at its most desperate. It's also sometimes argued that a particular word has to be correct because it also appears in the same context in different passages. But this only points to a translator's objective to be consistent. One wouldn't expect different words to be used to describe the same subject.

Moreover, given the assertion that Biblical scripture was at least inspired by God, one has to ask why these mistaken translations appear in the Bible at all. One can only conclude that either God was only concerned with the faith of those people contemporaneous with the Biblical writings and that He doesn't care that errors pop up in subsequent translations, OR he's incapable of insuring his word remains true to his intended meanings. Got your pick it seems.


*Translations of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) in Isaiah 45:7 in 30 versions of the Bible.

"Bad times"........ 1.... 3%
"Calamity"...........3... 10%
"Disaster(s)"........5... 16%
"Discord".............1.... 3%
"Doom"................1.... 3%
"Evil"..................14.. 47%
"Hard times" .......1.... 3%
"Troubles"............2.... 6%
"Woe" ..................2.... 6%​

Am I right or am I right!


.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Excellent post.

If only it showed just how vastly basterdized the Bible in its entirety actually it. Progress of a kind I spose.

 

[savagewind]

doesn't care that errors pop up in subsequent translations,
.

I think that the story of Adam and Eve proves that God cares not for preventing pop up mistakes.

 

[निताइ dasa]

However, whatever one thinks the proper translation may be, the fact remains that the "incorrect" word is what the faithful reader is being led to believe is true: his Bible is misleading him. In short, it's untrustworthy.

While I see your point, I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows (that God "incapable of insuring his word remains true to his intended meanings"or their is a fault with scripture). If what you are saying is correct, does not the guilt of 'misleading' lie with the translator/interpreter of scripture, not scripture itself? For example, let us say we have the US constitution. Now, a certain Supreme Court Justice interprets the constitution in such a way that she delivers a verdict that is deemed harmful to a certain group of people. Does the responsibility for such harm lie with the constitution or the Justice who has interpreted the constitution in such a way? There are certain schools of philosophy how argue that all that exist are interpretations. There is not such thing as a correct textual meaning, only interpretations.

I think the answer lies somewhere in between. Certain textual passages are clear and its perceived meaning is usually one. For example, if I issue the statement: "Frank is a cat", it is very difficult to interpret the passage in a way contrary to what I intended it to mean (that Frank is a four legged, whiskered and deceptive animal). It is possible to argue another meaning, but considering my context it would very hard to justify.

Other passages are deliberately vague. Especially when we are dealing with ancient languages such as Hebrew of Sanskrit, where words do take a contextual or varied meaning. I shall give you an example. In Hinduism, there are literally 10s, sometimes 100s of interpretations of scriptural passage. in Vedanta alone, there is a set of sutras called Brahma Sutras (sutras are short vague statements), and your school is not deemed an authentic school of Vedanta unless you write a commentary and explanation on these Sutras. The meanings takens can also oppose diametrically. For example the word atma in Hinduism is vague. Some schools say that atma refers to the Self. Others say atma refers to God, the Supreme Soul. some schools say that the Self is one with Supreme Soul, others say that they are different (in varying degrees). However the implications of the interpretation (the faults included) lie not with scripture, but rather with the interpreters of scripture.

, who's to say that the translations of other Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can't be wrong?-

The dilemma here deals with authority. Are there certain individuals who have a greater authority to interpret scripture then others? This seems to be the case for many texts. Let us say that we find the notes of a famous biologist on a certain subject. However the handwriting is very vague, and two individuals give their interpretations of the work (one individual is a biologist himself, the other has an arts degree and knows nothing about biology). It would be an easy arguement to make that the interpretation of the biologist is greater then that of the arts degree holder, simply out of the qualification of the interpreters. Again, the fault lies not with the text, but the interpreter.

The Abrahamic religion however generally lacks these figures, and hence anyone is free to interpret. Hinduism however is more strict. The interpretation of scripture is passed down a lineage from Guru to student, who trace their line to God Himself. This system is known as the Guru Parampara and scripture must be read under the guidance of Guru in a succession. To try and distance scripture from the interpretor of scripture is something that cannot be done. Therefore the faults and virtues of the meaning lie with the interpreter not the scripture. Jaya Nitaai!

 

[Skwim]

While I see your point, I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows (that God "incapable of insuring his word remains true to his intended meanings"or their is a fault with scripture). If what you are saying is correct, does not the guilt of 'misleading' lie with the translator/interpreter of scripture, not scripture itself?

One has to ask: why would god go to the trouble "writing," or at least inspiring his exact word, but then permit it to be mistranslated? Either he doesn't care that various translations have messed with his Word, leading its readers to misunderstand what he said, or he's unable to prevent it.

Again, the fault lies not with the text, but the interpreter.

Lay the blame wherever like, but the fact remains that the claimed errors in the Bible lead the the reader astray. If they didn't people wouldn't be pointing them out.


.

 

[JakofHearts]

Every so often when debating an issue that depends on the support of Biblical scripture someone will bring up the point that some critical word in the Bible is mistranslated, leading to the wrong impression of the scripture. However, whatever one thinks the proper translation may be, the fact remains that the "incorrect" word is what the faithful reader is being led to believe is true: his Bible is misleading him. In short, it's untrustworthy.

One such case involves Isaiah 45:7 where God declares he creates evil.

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

Those objecting to this translation of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) as "evil" say the proper translation should be something else (there are several notions as to what it should be* ). In any case, the Bible in which this supposed incorrect "evil" appears in Isaiah 45:7 continues to mislead hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Christians as to the true character of God. Hardly a decent thing to do.

Worse yet, it leads to the conclusion that if this one translation can be wrong and misleading, who's to say that the translations of other Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can't be wrong?---some of them having gone unnoticed and perhaps quite critical to one's theology. It does no good to argue, as has been done, that such errors in translation are insignificant or meaningless to the over all message, because one doesn't actually know this to be the case. It would be wishful thinking at its most desperate. It's also sometimes argued that a particular word has to be correct because it also appears in the same context in different passages. But this only points to a translator's objective to be consistent. One wouldn't expect different words to be used to describe the same subject.

Moreover, given the assertion that Biblical scripture was at least inspired by God, one has to ask why these mistaken translations appear in the Bible at all. One can only conclude that either God was only concerned with the faith of those people contemporaneous with the Biblical writings and that He doesn't care that errors pop up in subsequent translations, OR he's incapable of insuring his word remains true to his intended meanings. Got your pick it seems.


*Translations of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) in Isaiah 45:7 in 30 versions of the Bible.

"Bad times"........ 1.... 3%
"Calamity"...........3... 10%
"Disaster(s)"........5... 16%
"Discord".............1.... 3%
"Doom"................1.... 3%
"Evil"..................14.. 47%
"Hard times" .......1.... 3%
"Troubles"............2.... 6%
"Woe" ..................2.... 6%​

Am I right or am I right!


.

I assume this was your "ah-ha!" moment when you came across this scripture?

Evil is not a 'thing' like a rock or electricity. Evil cannot be placed in a jar, or worn like a garment. Evil has no existence on it's own; it is what it is due to what already existed. It is the absence of good.

I wouldn't get too caught up on the semantics on this verse regarding the word 'evil'. Essentially as I think we can all agree is that 'evil' is the correct interpretation, though there are other words that similarly bring about the context of what the verse mentions - Evil = bad thing (s), basically.

 

[Skwim]

I assume this was your "ah-ha!" moment when you came across this scripture?

If you had been around years ago you'd know that I've used this scripture several times before---I've been familiar with it well before I joined RF. And even if it was an "ah-ha" moment, so what?

Evil is not a 'thing' like a rock or electricity. Evil cannot be placed in a jar, or worn like a garment. Evil has no existence on it's own; it is what it is due to what already existed. It is the absence of good.

I wouldn't get too caught up on the semantics on this verse regarding the word 'evil'. Essentially as I think we can all agree is that 'evil' is the correct interpretation, though there are other words that similarly bring about the context of what the verse mentions - Evil = bad thing (s), basically.

Totally irrelevant to the thrust of my post. Please try to pay attention. Thank you.


.

 

[निताइ dasa]

One has to ask: why would god go to the trouble "writing," or at least inspiring his exact word, but then permit it to be mistranslated? Either he doesn't care that various translations have messed with his Word, leading its readers to misunderstand what he said, or he's unable to prevent it.

Lay the blame wherever like, but the fact remains that the claimed errors in the Bible lead the the reader astray. If they didn't people wouldn't be pointing them out.


.

It seems your view of God, is a God that is constantly interfering with the running of this world. (You know the whole, nothing happens without God willing it). It however is not necessarily my view, or the view of certain Christians. I would argue He simply doesn't care about the misunderstanding translations because understanding of scripture is also a progressive thing, and only when one is spiritually advanced does not have the qualification to understand the true meaning of scripture.

but the fact remains that the claimed errors in the Bible lead the the reader astray.

It does, I'm not disputing that. However I don't think the blame falls on God not doing something etc, but rather on the interpreters in question. If I were to write a book and give it to humans at the start of their existence and leave them alone in that regard, then chances are that a great majority of the interpretations would be mistranslated from my original intent.

 

[Skwim]

It seems your view of God, is a God that is constantly interfering with the running of this world. (You know the whole, nothing happens without God willing it).

Personally, I don't even claim god exists. My observation that God could interfere is strictly from a Christian standpoint that asserts that God, being omnipotent, can do whatever he wants.

I would argue He simply doesn't care about the misunderstanding translations because understanding of scripture is also a progressive thing, and only when one is spiritually advanced does not have the qualification to understand the true meaning of scripture.

So even if his words have been so bastardized as to mislead the ordinary person, this is fine because his words are only meant for spiritually advanced anyway. And evidently you don't think understanding his words has anything to do with achieving this spiritual advancement. Interesting.


.

 

[निताइ dasa]

My observation that God could interfere is strictly from a Christian standpoint that asserts that God, being omnipotent, can do whatever he wants.

That is fine. My view of God is also omnipotence. However, the sub-clause is that God remains detached from this universe. The universal laws operate without God needing to be there every second and willing it. Omnipotence doesn't necessarily imply that that God ought to do certain things. Would (question of will) and could (question of ability) are different concepts. I am aware certain Christians have this view but others don't. Certain forms of Judaism for example (what I've studied of it) has a concept of God and omnipotent but also detached and generally non-interfering. This is also seen in Hinduism. In the Gita, Lord God says:

na ca mam tani karmani
nibadhnanti dhananjaya
udasina-vad asinam
asaktam tesu karmasu

O Dhanañjaya, all this work cannot bind Me. I am ever detached, seated as though neutral.

So even if his words have been so bastardized as to mislead the ordinary person, this is fine because his words are only meant for spiritually advanced anyway.

It is not fine (there are ways in which the right translation is ensured) but it is a consequence of the nature of communication. This doesn't apply to simply scripture, but all forms of communication (which have a possibility to be misinterpreted). If I am a collage professor, and I write a book, do I have a moral duty to go around and ensure that everyone is interpreting my work in a way that is consistent with my intent? (I do have the ability to do so). I would argue no. Rather, if you want to understand truly my work, you either come to me directly or perhaps approach someone who is more qualified to understand my work (perhaps my students etc). Not all interpretations are equal.

And evidently you don't think understanding his words has anything to do with achieving this spiritual advancement. Interesting.

I didn't imply that. The understanding builds upon itself. According to our spiritual eligibility we are attracted to a certain interpretation of scripture. That is why Hindu scripture is so vague. You can be an atheist and also a Hindu. You can be a monotheist and be a Hindu. Same goes for monism and polytheist. More then that, you can generally interpret scripture for support your view point. However as your soul spiritual evolves you are reach closer to the purest understanding of scripture. I don't see why this cannot be the case for Christianity.

 

[Deeje]

According to Strong's Concordance.....the Hebrew word ra` (Strong's H7451) can mean.....

1. bad, evil
   
   1. bad, disagreeable, malignant
      
   2. bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
      
   3. evil, displeasing
      
   4. bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
      
   5. bad (of value)
      
   6. worse than, worst (comparison)
      
   7. sad, unhappy
      
   8. evil (hurtful)
      
   9. bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
      
   10. bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
       
       1. in general, of persons, of thoughts
          
       2. deeds, actions
          
          n m
2. evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
   
   1. evil, distress, adversity
      
   2. evil, injury, wrong
      
   3. evil (ethical)
      
      n f
3. evil, misery, distress, injury
   
   1. evil, misery, distress
      
   2. evil, injury, wrong
      
   3. evil (ethical)
      

Strong’s Definitions:

רַע raʻ, rah; from H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (natural or moral):—adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displease(-ure), distress, evil((-favouredness), man, thing), + exceedingly, × great, grief(-vous), harm, heavy, hurt(-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief(-vous), misery, naught(-ty), noisome, + not please, sad(-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked(-ly, -ness, one), worse(-st), wretchedness, wrong. (Including feminine raaah; as adjective or noun.)

The KJV translates Strong's H7451 in the following manner: evil (442x), wickedness (59x), wicked (25x), mischief (21x), hurt (20x), bad (13x), trouble (10x), sore (9x), affliction (6x), ill (5x), adversity (4x), favoured (3x), harm (3x), naught (3x), noisome (2x), grievous (2x), sad (2x), miscellaneous (34x).

Obviously the context of the usage is key to understanding what the word means in situ.

Taking one verse and trying to make a case against God is lame IMO. It looks more like ignorance trying to make a point.

If all things have an equal opposite, (as science knows) then the opposite of good has to be bad....right?
Evil exists as an equal opposite of something beneficial and it is noteworthy that, in the beginning, the Creator was going to keep this knowledge to himself, knowing that it would not benefit anyone. But humans wanted to experience it for themselves, so he let them. Are we happier for the knowledge? Has it made the world a better place?

 

[GodsVoice]

Every so often when debating an issue that depends on the support of Biblical scripture someone will bring up the point that some critical word in the Bible is mistranslated, leading to the wrong impression of the scripture. However, whatever one thinks the proper translation may be, the fact remains that the "incorrect" word is what the faithful reader is being led to believe is true: his Bible is misleading him. In short, it's untrustworthy.

One such case involves Isaiah 45:7 where God declares he creates evil.

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

Those objecting to this translation of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) as "evil" say the proper translation should be something else (there are several notions as to what it should be* ). In any case, the Bible in which this supposed incorrect "evil" appears in Isaiah 45:7 continues to mislead hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Christians as to the true character of God. Hardly a decent thing to do.

Worse yet, it leads to the conclusion that if this one translation can be wrong and misleading, who's to say that the translations of other Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible can't be wrong?---some of them having gone unnoticed and perhaps quite critical to one's theology. It does no good to argue, as has been done, that such errors in translation are insignificant or meaningless to the over all message, because one doesn't actually know this to be the case. It would be wishful thinking at its most desperate. It's also sometimes argued that a particular word has to be correct because it also appears in the same context in different passages. But this only points to a translator's objective to be consistent. One wouldn't expect different words to be used to describe the same subject.

Moreover, given the assertion that Biblical scripture was at least inspired by God, one has to ask why these mistaken translations appear in the Bible at all. One can only conclude that either God was only concerned with the faith of those people contemporaneous with the Biblical writings and that He doesn't care that errors pop up in subsequent translations, OR he's incapable of insuring his word remains true to his intended meanings. Got your pick it seems.


*Translations of the Hebrew רַ רַע (ra`) in Isaiah 45:7 in 30 versions of the Bible.

"Bad times"........ 1.... 3%
"Calamity"...........3... 10%
"Disaster(s)"........5... 16%
"Discord".............1.... 3%
"Doom"................1.... 3%
"Evil"..................14.. 47%
"Hard times" .......1.... 3%
"Troubles"............2.... 6%
"Woe" ..................2.... 6%​

Am I right or am I right!


.

Those who don't believe God created evil or the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" have never read prophecies like these;

Deuteronomy 28
15: “But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: “the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

61: Every sickness also, and every affliction which is not recorded in the book of this law, the LORD will bring upon you, until you are destroyed.
62: Whereas you were as the stars of heaven for multitude, you shall be left few in number; because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God.
63: And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you; and you shall be plucked off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.

 

[Skwim]

Those who don't believe God created evil or the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" have never read prophecies like these;

Deuteronomy 28
15: “But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: “the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until you perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

61: Every sickness also, and every affliction which is not recorded in the book of this law, the LORD will bring upon you, until you are destroyed.
62: Whereas you were as the stars of heaven for multitude, you shall be left few in number; because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God.
63: And as the LORD took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the LORD will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you; and you shall be plucked off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.

.​

 

[GodsVoice]

.​

Have fun on the day of the Lord screaming like a lost child.

 

[Tumah]

One can only conclude that either God was only concerned with the faith of those people contemporaneous with the Biblical writings and that He doesn't care that errors pop up in subsequent translations, OR he's incapable of insuring his word remains true to his intended meanings.

OR that the Tanach was meant for Jews who have not stopped studying and praying in Biblical Hebrew since it was written and G-d doesn't bother correcting a people who are intent on mistranslating the Tanach to suit their needs anyway.

 

[LXX70]

A man who had been employed in quality control decided to change his life. He entered a monastery. He was sent to a room where monks were copying manuscripts. He was given a rather new manuscript to copy. He asked the brother in charge, "Wouldn't it be better to be copying from an older manuscript? I mean, wouldn't it lead to less mistakes?" The brother went to the Abbot and asked. The Abbot said, "That is a wonderful idea, I shall go to the basement and retrieve our oldest manuscript." Time passed, and the abbot did not return. Finally, the group of monks went to the basement where they found him weeping. They asked, "Why are you weeping." The Abbot replied, "The word was celebrate."

 

[Reggie Miller]

Skwim, you hate Christianity and the Bible. Obviously you believe both are BS. So why bother questioning the meaning of one scripture from a book you think is BS, anyway?

 

[rusra02]

How a word is translated from Hebrew into another language does not make the original "untrustworthy ", IMO. While many might incorrectly assume that 'evil' always means wicked or unrighteous, that is not the case at all. One of several definitions at dictionary.com, for example is: "characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous:" You have listed a number of words that translate one Hebrew word. Thus, while Jehovah may create misfortune or suffering, calamity, or woe, as he did to the immoral cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, he never acts unrighteously or wickedly.

 

[omega2xx]

Your statistics may be right, but you understanding is way off.

Evil was not created, it came into being because of disobedience. All of the good translations translate the word as "calamity."

 

[Reggie Miller]

"There is no God, God is an impossibility, the Bible is pure hoax and should be thrown in the trash and burned."

--Skwim

Yada yada yada. Heard it all before, but thanks, anyhow.