Faith... to what/whom?

[jaguar]

either way the point is made, do it a few times between languages and you've lost most of the meaning.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by Tomas Rueda


is the Backeth. not fronteth

tomas, i;m illustrating that my perception of what the message is ...is that the cat was not eating out back because my motivation tells me that it is only ok out front. therefore, as the translator, i have imbued the message with my belief that front yard pork is good, while back yard pork is bad. now do you see? your seemingly inane example can be twisted against you just like the "word of god" can be. try again.

[lumberjim]

no, i take that back. don't try again. quit now while you're behind.

[Carbonated_Brains]

Was the cat gay?

[perth]

From "Lost in Translation":

N'a, of which it is not afterwords eats the pig to him, him leaves

That's with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.

Without:

The cat did not eat a pig in the patio.

But that's not nearly as much fun. And it appears to only use Latin-based languages (French, German, Italian, Portuguese[maybe not Latin-based?]).

Just for the heck of it, I tried translating the phrase into old English (which is what we would have all been posting in 2,000 years ago). Upon reflection, I take that back. We most likely would have been posting in Latin which was the "lingua franka" of the times. But what the hey. My point still remains.

"Se deor hwaet maew nic forswelgan flaescmete swin in se geard ongean."

Before any PhD's in old English jump my case, its as grammatically correct as I could figure (I used the rules for German grammar since old English resembles that language more closely). It means:

"The animal that meows did not eat the flesh of a swine in the back yard." (for some reason I couldn't find a translation for "cat" anywhere).

Now factor in tranlating that into the Greek of 2,000 years ago, then translating that into Latin then Middle English then modern English. You gonna tell me something might not have got lost along the way? Get out of here!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Carbonated_Brains
Was the cat gay?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally posted by marichiko

Now factor in tranlating that into the Greek of 2,000 years ago, then translating that into Latin then Middle English then modern English. You gonna tell me something might not have got lost along the way? Get out of here!

That's not even remotely what happened. Our modern English translations were translated directly from the existing Greek manuscripts, which date back to the 200-400’s CE. It’s not like Bruce Metzger and the rest of the translation team for the NIV started with the King James, and just started picking and choosing new words. We have an amazing textual record that’s in the original language, and dates back in some cases to within 100 years of the original writing.

The Nestle-Aland text is a compilation of the oldest and best available Greek manuscripts, written itself in Greek. It’s the starting place for most modern English translations.

As I’ve said, the argument for accuracy is different than the argument for inspiration. Ask any serious scholar of ancient literature, particularly of Greco-Roman literature, and they will tell you that the textual basis for the New Testament is by far the strongest of any ancient work. They’ll give you reasons why they think it had different authorship, or involved theological editing, but they won’t argue substantial transmission and translation errors. The text was transmitted and is translated remarkably well.

Choose other reasons for disbelieving it. This one’s no good.

-sm

[Carbonated_Brains]

What about all the gospels that weren't included in the bible, and contradict it?

Originally posted by smoothmoniker


That's not even remotely what happened. Our modern English translations were translated directly from the existing Greek manuscripts, which date back to the 200-400’s CE. It’s not like Bruce Metzger and the rest of the translation team for the NIV started with the King James, and just started picking and choosing new words. We have an amazing textual record that’s in the original language, and dates back in some cases to within 100 years of the original writing.

The Nestle-Aland text is a compilation of the oldest and best available Greek manuscripts, written itself in Greek. It’s the starting place for most modern English translations.

As I’ve said, the argument for accuracy is different than the argument for inspiration. Ask any serious scholar of ancient literature, particularly of Greco-Roman literature, and they will tell you that the textual basis for the New Testament is by far the strongest of any ancient work. They’ll give you reasons why they think it had different authorship, or involved theological editing, but they won’t argue substantial transmission and translation errors. The text was transmitted and is translated remarkably well.

Choose other reasons for disbelieving it. This one’s no good.

-sm

OK But was the old Testament originally written in Greek? Did Jesus speak in Greek?

[smoothmoniker]

Originally posted by marichiko


OK But was the old Testament originally written in Greek? Did Jesus speak in Greek?

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew – I’m not nearly as familiar with the textual record for the OT as I am for the NT, but I do know that the Jewish priestly cult was meticulous about their copying methods, to the point where they had a letter count for each line of each scroll, and it had to be checked by multiple people. Remember, this is a nation that believes that it’s text is the literal Word of God. It makes sense that they would place a very high value on the transmission of the text.

Palestine at the time Jesus lived was Quadra-lingual (don't even know if that's a word - we'll assume it is. ) Hebrew was the language spoken in religious circles, the temple and synagogues around the country. Aramaic was the indigenous language, the local language of the northern part of the country, up around the Sea of Galilee. Greek was the trade language used throughout the near east, and would have been commonly understood by everyone – Greece ruled that whole part of the world just a few years earlier. Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire.

We don’t know what language Jesus spoke, but we can make some educated guesses. He undoubtedly spoke Aramaic and Hebrew, since he grew up in the North and had religious training. He probably spoke Greek, since some of the quotes in the New Testament are word-plays and puns that only make sense in Greek.

-sm

(BTW, forgive me if I'm slipping into professor mode. It's one of those things where education and passion cross)

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by smoothmoniker


We have an amazing textual record that’s in the original language, and dates back in some cases to within 100 years of the original writing.


~snip~

Choose other reasons for disbelieving it. This one’s no good.

-sm

why? There's 100 perfectly good reasons right here.

Go back in time to the days of Jesus. Picture it as best you can. You attend a sermon given by christ almighty. Would you remember all that he said? word for freaking word? Maybe it was a particularly meaningful sermon that really touched you and showed you the beginning of the path to heaven and the Lord's Bounty. Do you think you'd catch every bit of meaning? What if you tried to convey that message you heard to a friend? you may think that you've gotten your message across pretty well, and if you know your friend, you probably did. Now your friend goes home and tells his kids what you told him, and then they tell their kids what they understood it to mean when they are of an age. Many people heard that same sermon, and it is famous and retold countless times mouth to ear. Now somebody learned catches wind of this, and writes it down as a testament to the speaker of the original sermon (JC) in a way that makes good sense to HIM ( the writer, not god). Years later, it is collected amongst many texts like it, that deal with the same topic, written by other learned fellows ( mostly with beards)*
How could there NOT be a smearing of the mesage? Perhaps half of the real message that JC gave was understood by the time that it was first inked. Maybe. Now, 2000 years later, and only god knows how many translations, we're stupidly arguing about the bible being the word of god, for chrissakes. do the math. it just doesn't float.

Now, if you're saying that the words written in the bible can open your eyes to the beauty and joy and love around you, and make you savor every breath you take, and that's what you mean by it being the word of God, then I say, Hell yeah. party on, Jesus. But don't exclude people from your club for stupid control related reasons, or fear or jealousy or money. God would not have wanted that, and Jesus wouldn't have said he did. and any asshole translator or preist that put that shit in the bible about it should torture himself in his own litle imagined hell for a good long while until he's ready to come back to earth and learn a lesson about humility.


*never trust a white man with a beard

[lumberjim]

do you think there were any misspelled words in the "original" bible? any typos? grammatical errors? hmmm? wonder how well god wrote that "first bible"? word of god....literally....bah! god doesn't even have a tongue. or teeth. I fart in your general direction

[wolf]

Bible translation gets a lot of discussion in pagan circles ... Why?

Mostly because of that one passage in the old testament which appears to be a command of the lord to kill pagans outright ... "Thall shalt not suffer a witch to live." (funny thing for the same god that exhorts "thou shalt not kill" to say, eh?)

Anyway, conventional pagan wisdom declares that the "original" text was supposedly "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live," but Good Old King James was on an anti-witch kick at the time and that bit was put in there because of it.

And no, I've never bothered to check snopes on this one. I don't much worry about it one way or the other. Some motherfucker who's trying not to suffer me to live is going to end up suffering some bilateral lead therapy hisownself.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally posted by lumberjim

Now, 2000 years later, and only god knows how many translations,

OK, I'm trying to make a very, very limited, and very specific point here. I'm not saying that the authors were right. I'm not saying they were accurate. I'm not saying that God himself whispered the right words into the ear of the guy who wrote the book. I’m not even saying that there’s anything of value in the texts.

My only argument is that the chain of custody from the authors to us is very accurate. The preponderance of the evidence makes it more reasonable to believe that we have substantially the same text today as what was written down by the author when he originally put pen to scroll.

We do not have god knows how many translations in succession; each translation is only one step away from the original language, and the original language documents that exist are very, very good.

This is not an issue of belief, or of faith. This is a matter of textual criticism. There are standard rubrics for analyzing how close an existing text is to what the author originally wrote. The New Testament documents are off the charts on those rubrics.

-sm