Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bible Retranslation Project

2009-02-23T16:16:26Z

JCSalomon: /* Kill vs Murder */

==Word==
I admit that I am not as great a linguist, translator and biblical scholar as Andy is, so pardon my question, but when did "word" ''not'' mean "a short expression of a single concept, which can include a vulgarity or a falsehood"? From what I see, the issue at hand seems to be rather how you actually translate "Logos" (a.k.a. "the '''W'''ord", as opposed to "a '''w'''ord"). If you just want to directly translate it to "Truth", that would sound plausible to me, but redefining "word" to ''really'' mean "Truth" is somewhat pushing it in my eyes.

But like I said in the beginning, this isn't exactly my special field of study, so I'm open for any source Andy or somebody else can show me to understand things better. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 15:04, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:AlanS, the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful. In response to your comment, the primary meaning of "word" in English at the time of its incorporation in translating John 1:1 was a "command" or series of speech sounds, not false or vulgar. Today its primary meaning in English is quite different from about 400 years ago, as in "he had a word with so-and-so" or "password".--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:07, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::Aschlafly, the less you rely on belittling and dismissing other people and posts ("the more you rely on silly sarcasm, the less likely you will be insightful", "I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]"), the more respect people will give you. I assume/hope you don't treat your students like this, so why your fellow editors? I came to this talk page to learn, not to get the wagging finger treatment from you. And I assumed that you, somebody who is going to ''retranslate the Word Of God'', have some experience as a linguist, translator and biblical scholar - no sarcasm intended. Because otherwise, I'd seriously ask what you were thinking when you started this. No offense, but this is a task more talented people than you and I have to study years for, so the thought of somebody with ''no'' experience or training in this field translating the Bible makes me frown to say the least.
::More on-topic, I find your explanation interesting, but I would welcome a source for your claim because I couldn't find any. I'm not here to doubt the you, but I want to verify it. Also, what is your explanation for the newer translations not having updated that word? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 08:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: AlanS, don't rant on these pages. Contribute, or please leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)

"Word" sounds better in my opinion. Also, which editions are you using as a source for your translating, the original Hebrew and Greek, or one of the many English versions? And how far do you plan on taking this? I personally find it superfluous, but since linguistically I am a prescriptionist, that may just be me.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:49, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't think "Word" means the same to people anymore as it did a generation ago. As to your second sentence, all early manuscripts were in Greek, and the term used was "logos" as stated.

: I think the table is merely scratching the surface. The English language is devolving quickly, and retranslation of many key terms is worth considering. This exercise itself is illuminating. I'm confident we've all learned something new just from reading the first three examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:53, 25 December 2008 (EST)

: But evolution isn't real, right? :)

: Joking aside, I'll help you with my basic knowledge of linguistics if you honestly want it. Just want to avoid this degenerating into an exercise in Newspeak or playing with deeper meanings. [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:58, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, that's bizarre: where did your comment on evolution come from? No, I'm not interested in wasting my time with someone suffering from [[evolution syndrome]]. If you have an open mind, then I do welcome your efforts; if not, then maybe Wikipedia is a better place for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:05, 25 December 2008 (EST)

==Logos==
ASchlafly: The word "Logos" does not translate to truth. It is generally translated to "word, thought, principle, or speech." Good luck on rewriting the Bible! [[User:MReynolds|MReynolds]] 22:20, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Alternative Procedure ==

This project is quite ambitious, and generally, I'd say it is out of the reach of the high-school pupils you're addressing.
Wouldn't it be more effective to write a commentary to the ''gold standard of Biblical translations'', i.e., KJB, to explain its verses to the contemporary audience? The language of the KJB is so vigorous that any alteration just weakens it.
Of course, I'm coming from a German perspective: It took a genius like Martin Luther to come up with a usable German translation for the Bible. He introduced numerous metaphors and proverbs into the German language which still live on. Granted, there are more modern translation - esp. the ''Einheitsübersetzung'' of the EKD (Protestant churches in Germany) and the German Conference of Catholic Bishops. But though it's more exact historically, it lacks the power of Luther's language.
Another thought: The Bible in its old translations has inspired or at least influenced countless works of literature. This influence is more easily spotted using the traditional translations.
[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: BRichtigen, with all due respect, the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students. Moreover, many of my students likely have a better command of history and linguistics than you do. Try your hand at [[American_History_Midterm_Exam_-_Boys]] and see how you stack up.

: Your put-down aside, your approach does not address the problem of how culture changes the meaning of modern terms used by ''all'' translations of the [[Bible]]. An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::"the greatest works throughout history have been produced by teenagers like my students" A closer examination of the greatest work of history (perhaps we could agree on a list of the TOP 100) will show that the statement is just wrong. In fact, the few cases of teenagers who excelled in their fields are so well known as they '''were''' rare. (There is only ''one'' Mozart...)

::I'm sure that your students have a better command of '''American''' history than I do. And they should speak better English than I do. I don't know about their German, Latin, Dutch or French...

:: ''An accurate translation using terms "x, y, and z" becomes inaccurate when culture modifies the meaning of "x, y, and z" to listeners.'' A reasonable thing would be to explain the meaning of ''x, y, and z'' to the listeners as used in the translations.

:: The Greek originals were in use for a couple of centuries while Ancient Greek was still a living language. Somehow, no one so the necessity to rewrite the originals...

::[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 09:41, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::BRichtigen, you're welcome to start a list of the greatest works in history, but I'm confident most will be accomplished by people who were teenagers. Your point about x, y, z, is not clear; the retranslation is precisely designed to explain x, y, z in a more accurate way as culture changes language. Ancient Greek, which I have studied (have you?) was not as vulnerable to cultural changes to language as today's society is.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:30, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::I looked into the claim ''most of the greatest works in history were accomplished by people who were teenagers'', and the more I research, the more absurd it becomes.
::::Take for instance mathematics, one of the fields were prodigies are said to be found quite often. Granted, there are accomplishments by young men (Abel, Galois), and Gauss constructed the regular heptadekagon age 18. But these examples are few, and most times, the works of the teenage mathematician will be overshadowed by the works of the matured one - if he is allowed to life long enough.
::::Another area: Music. Mozart is the child prodigy par excellence, and others tried to imitate his success (Beethoven's father lied about the age of his son...). But there are only few works of teenagers worth listening to...
::::Which ''accomplishments in history'' are you thinking about?
::::And my Greek is negligible, I'm afraid... --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Addendum: Your class voted on the [[Voted_Most_Influential_Person_in_American_History|most influential person in American history]]. None of the top four made his most important attributions to American history as a teenager... [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 11:39, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=496962 This] paper examines the age at which Nobel-winning economists published their important works, and also the ages at which they began their Nobel-related research. Table 1 lists the age at which they began their Nobel work; the youngest was 21, and the average was 29.3. They also briefly examine other fields: the mean "beginning age" for Nobel-winning physicists was 33.6, for chemists it was 31.6, and for physiology/medicine it was 33.2. Note that these are the ages when they began the work, not when the Nobel prize was awarded, as it often takes a number of years for the true importance of significant work to be recognised. [[User:BrianW|BrianW]] 11:57, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Well, fine, but few or none of those examples would rank as the greatest "works" in history. And as to BRichtigen's comment above, the issue of the "most influential person" is obviously very different from the issue of the "greatest works."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:22, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Could you give a few examples of the greatest works in history, preferably done by teenagers? Thanks, [[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 15:58, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Unique and useful project ==

Whatever the claims of your distractors and critics be, I believe it is a great project and quite suitable to the intended audience of the encyclopedia. You are quite right in spotting that the meaning of words change as the language evolves or change. This is especially true for English which has become the universal language and the de facto official language of the internet.I wonder whether any one has done this before. It may also be beneficial to recruit some one with special expertise in this field. --[[User:MRain|MRain]] 12:06, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Thanks for your encouragement. I'm not aware of anyone else doing this (or anyone who has "special expertise" in the devolution of modern English). We welcome contributions to the project ... starting with yourself! I'll be adding new items as I discover them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 12:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: I think that this is an interesting project, and a good opportunity to try and get across some of the wordplay in the original language that the KJV and most other translations just lack; things like Gen 15:2 or Num 21:9 to give a couple of simple examples - also there's very often the case when words are conflated - like the "kill" example - it's good you want to distinguish the more murderous הרג from נכה- there are a number of separate roots that get translated inconsistently as "kill" and "slay", but you'll perhaps want also to distinguish הרג from רצח and נכה from שחט? Also the names are often clumsily translated as footnotes, if at all, rather than elegantly worked in - sometimes the transliteration of a name is inferior to its translation (IMHO, naturally). Added to that, the KJV (which is very bad in this respect) is incredibly inaccurate when it comes to plants and animals, and it'd be nice to see a scholarly yet poetic translation that is sensibly consistent. I look forward to seeing the results of this! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks for your insights, Denise, and I look forward to your contributions to this project!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: Sadly I'm rather busy these days (and my Greek is not much good compared to my Hebrew, and my Aramaic is near non-existent), but I'll try and make some helpful suggestions. Do you mind if I add my twopennyworth to the project page, as far as examples of things I'd like to see included or avoided? I'm not necessarily always able to talk with reference to the KJV, and my interests (as you'll have gathered) are linguistic, aesthetic, and exactitude-focused rather than centred around political considerations. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 16:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Divine Right==

Sorry if I offended with the Divine Right translation. My intent was to say that only Christ has the ultimate authority to rule, not to suggest that claims of Divine Right by kings and despots had and validity. [[User:QWest|QWest]] 14:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Bearing arms ==

The text reads: "In Biblical times, as today, the bearing of arms to defend ones family and society was the hallmark of civilisation."

First, I corrected the British spelling in compliance with the MoS. Second, this description of the culture of arms is against the evidence, at least as far as the Greeks. In "History of the Peloponnesian War," Thucydides [http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.1.first.html spoke] of wearing arms as a custom of the barbarians, and waxes poetic about the lack of necessity of bearing arms in Greece:
{{cquote|And even at the present day many of Hellas still follow the old fashion, the Ozolian Locrians for instance, the Aetolians, the Acarnanians, and that region of the continent; and the custom of carrying arms is still kept up among these continentals, from the old piratical habits. The whole of Hellas used once to carry arms, their habitations being unprotected and their communication with each other unsafe; indeed, to wear arms was as much a part of everyday life with them as with the barbarians. And the fact that the people in these parts of Hellas are still living in the old way points to a time when the same mode of life was once equally common to all. The Athenians were the first to lay aside their weapons, and to adopt an easier and more luxurious mode of life.}}

Should I correct it?-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:The Greeks believed in false Gods. Surely the correctness of Judaeo-Christian beliefs is obvious? Also, your reference to 'improper' spellings is unnecessary. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::You know I agree with you on that first point Bugler, but I don't think their being pagans affects their beliefs towards weapons. And I'm sorry, I didn't mean "improper" in the pejorative: it's just that the Manual of Style says not to use British spellings.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::Alex, I'm not that hung up about the spellings so if you wish to copy-edit go ahead. As for the other thing, how about 'hallmark of Judaeo-Christian civilization'? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::Good idea! I'll change it, thanks Bugler. Good to see you again.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:47, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Kill vs Murder ==

One of the differences cites Ex. 20:13 and the clarification is to use "murder" instead of "kill". I agree with this clarification. I use the KJV with explanatory notes from the LDS church and the reference for Ex. 20:13 for the word "kill" says in an alternate translation from the Hebrew it means "murder". --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 15:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Wow, I never knew that. By the way, Dean, does the standard LDS Bible use the [[KJV]] plus explanatory footnotes?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Yes, it's a KJV with explanatory footnotes. The title page says it's the "Authorized King James Version with explanatory notes and cross references to the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". There are also footnotes and appendix referring to the "JST" which is the ''Joseph Smith Translation''. These are excerpts from the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:43, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Hebrew has two distinct words for killing (הרג) and murder (רצח). The Commandment is unambiguously referring to murder.—[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 11:16, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Rich ==

The entry is blatantly false. You have to look it up. You cant take someone's word for it. Just because it sounds interesting does not make it true. see [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4145&t=KJV here]. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Your link does not explain the meaning of the Greek term, but only its view of the Biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:05, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::What about [http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4145 this] and [http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=114459&category=REF this] and [http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4145&version=kjv this]? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:12, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::The problem here is that the statement is being assumed true, even though there is no reason to believe that it is, aside from the claim of one user who has agreed to the removal of the item. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:21, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::: The underlying insight is promising, given the very different nature of the "rich" then compared to now. Improvement rather than [[censorship]] is the better approach here. My research reveals that the Greek term really means "fully supplied,"[http://time2changechurches.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.html] as in being pampered or lazy.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 17:33, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Your source is a blog. I gave 4 separate sources that are greek lexicons. Which do you think is more reliable? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 17:40, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::a footnote to the CP commandments says "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others."--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:09, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Also, Aschlafly, while I share your concern with CPAdmin1's edits, I have to point out that he's right, it's not censorship to remove information because you think it's incorrect. Censorship requires (1) state or state-like action, and (2) removal of information (3) for subjective, viewpoint-discriminatory reasons. Even if he's wrong, it's assuming bad faith to call his deletions censorship.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 17:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Someone please provide a linguistic source that backs up the claim, or I will remove it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 18:50, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Having checked in my Liddell & Scott, I think it's safe to remove it pending a scholarly source that supports the variant reading. This is a wiki, we can always put it back if more research turns up such a reference. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 18:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Not so fast, folks. There is a key insight here that I've just learned from, as have others. The term "rich" DOES change in meaning over time, and the Greek term could not possibly mean what is meant today by "rich". Instead, the Greek term means "fully supplied." Perhaps "idle rich" would be a better translation or, in modern terms, the "complacent" or "lazy miser."--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::The experts say that it means rich. Do you know better than the experts? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 19:11, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::: I still don't quite see how your reading squares with the Joseph of Arimathea citation. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 19:18, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::: Tim, that is such a liberal argument: "the experts say that it means ...." The "experts" also say that [[global warming]] is a crisis and that more government spending is needed. God gave us all the ability to think for ourselves. Let's use it. Denise, I don't know what you're referencing specifically. If you mean a reference that Joseph of Arimathea was "rich" and yet a follower of Jesus, that would not disprove the translation of "idle rich" or "complacent" or "lazy miser." Indeed, Joseph had the time to intervene as needed.
::::::::::::::What? It is a liberal argument to say that people who have spent their life studying a language know that language better than someone who does can not even speak it. That argument sounds good to me. Are you saying that you have a better understanding of biblical greek than the people who have written those lexicons? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 21:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Everyone today is "rich" by the standards of Jesus' time, so presumably the term is more nuanced than that common term.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::::: Since when is consulting people who have dedicated themselves to studying a subject and trusting them over the layman liberal? That is equivalent to me, having no ability in building anything whatsoever, designing and constructing my house myself as opposed to hiring people who make their living doing that because getting their help is liberal. Your definition of liberal is a bit silly Andy, and seems to fall along the lines of "whoever does not wholly agree with what you, Andy Schalfly, believe. If trusting experts makes somebody a liberal, then I'd rather be a liberal than blindly rush into something as major as translating God's Word passed down to mankind without somebody who knows what they are talking about.[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:15, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::: Folks, blindly follow your chosen "experts" somewhere else. This is a wiki devoted to the pursuit of knowledge. Understand? That means opening your mind and actually using it. Parroting what you perceive to be an "expert" view might help you win the favor of some liberals, but our project is at a higher level than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:35, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::::So we should not listen to any experts because to do so would be liberal. In that case, how are we supposed to learn anything. Are we supposed to make up our own facts because we can't trust anyone else's? Should we automatically contradict any expert because to agree with them would be "liberal"? Should I disagree with you because it would be "liberal" to trust your knowledge? If you do not rely on the knowledge of others, it is impossible to progress very far in the area of knowledge. A faulty appeal to authority is a fallacy. That does not mean that every appeal to authority is a fallacy. It is only a fallacy when the subject at hand is not the same subject that the person is an authority on. Obviously an authority can be wrong, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Should I not believe that 2+2=4 because some expert said that it is? If you discredit all authority, then how can you gain knowledge? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 22:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::::::All of your "experts" are simply sites citing the exact same source, Thayer's Greek-English lexicon. To suggest that questioning that ''single'' definition is rejecting all authority is absurd. Healthy skepticism is necessary to any intellectual project such as this. Relying on a single authority as definitive is absurd. The biblical concept of "rich" is far different than the present. Denying that is patently ridiculous, and ignores millenia of economic and social change. That is why this project is necessary. Like Luther's 500 years ago, it is an attempt to ground our knowledge in the original ''meaning'' of God's word. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:01, 26 December 2008 (EST)

(moved discussion here below to "Rich" Issue for easier editing and comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (EST))

:::::::::::::::: Tim, the essence of this project is to open your mind and think for yourself, and not rely on an argument that "the experts say such-and-such." Yes, some and perhaps all of the unnamed experts are liberals. The process of inducing people to rely on "the perceived view of experts is a misleading one. In courts of law it is generally not allowed without also hearing from an expert with the opposite view.

:::::::::::::::: Most "experts" say there is [[global warming]]. Most experts say that government should raise taxes. Most experts say that government should increase spending. In fact, you can go down the entire list of liberal viewpoints and find that most "experts" support them. Give up your ability to think for yourself, just a little, and you will probably never get it back.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::::::::::: But those are experts in other fields. These are experts IN THE LANGUAGE. This is less being open-minded, and has now been degraded to Ostrich theory. What does the meaning of ONE WORD have to do with what Dr. John Q. Scientist has to say about [[global warming]]? You are basically saying "disregard all science, all research, all facts, make junk up as you go along."[[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 23:07, 26 December 2008 (EST)

The interpretation of "miserliness to the point of laziness and being unproductive" for plousios has implications at Ephesians 2:4 "But God, who is rich (plousios) in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us"[http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=2&v=4&t=KJV#conc/4] . Applying miserly and lazy to God is near blasphemy. The original interpretation of simply 'wealthy' is likely the intended and best interpretation. A benevolent God would never be miserly with His mercy, and He certainly isn't lazy or unproductive. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 21:38, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: "plousios" means "abundantly supplied," not "rich". "Rich in mercy" is an awkward translation at best. The context must be considered to find the right English word for "abundantly supplied."

: Your comment on "unicorn" was silly.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:: I'm happy with "abundantly supplied" as a translation in this case, though it seems a little prolix. Perhaps we could work on a more mellifluous alternative - possibly "over-replete" or something of that ilk, maybe even something with a nuance of luxury rather than mere adequacy. As a side question, does the "abundantly supplied" gloss apply to `ashir as well as to plousios, and if so, why? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:13, 27 December 2008 (EST)

::: I think you are right that "abundantly supplied" is prolix. I think the nuance that needs to be added is the laziness when some humans are abundantly supplied with food and entertainment. I'm not familiar with `ashir but look forward to learning more. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:40, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:::: In general, I can recommend Weingreen's excellent work ''[http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Grammar-Classical-Hebrew/dp/0198154224?tag=1672411-20&ie=UTF8 A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew]'' for the novice to Biblical Hebrew grammar. It's not a guide to vocabulary, obviously, and it's not in itself sufficient to give the experience and fluency necessary to attempt a translation project of this magnitude, but it's a good place to start. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:52, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::: For vocabulary, [http://www.amazon.com/Brown-Driver-Briggs-Hebrew-English-Lexicon-Francis/dp/1565632060?tag=1672411-20&ie=UTF8 Brown/Driver/Briggs] is the standard reference work, as far as I know. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 11:01, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I think what is needed are more nuanced definitions. The Bible uses the term rich as a blanket reference to those of monetary as well as spiritual wealth, and I think having cotextual definitions for each occurrence would be a generally good idea - such as avaricious (ie desire for riches beyond one's needs) for the cited example and others, and e.g. rich-spirited (or similar) for other occurrences. Plus further definitions as appropriate --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 11:49, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== Tetragrammata ==

What is the planned translation of the tetragrammaton? In English translations it's often been rendered as 'Lord', sometimes with all-caps, based on the Jewish custom of the pronunciation "Adonai", used to avoid saying the name; others use YHWH/YHVH/JHWH based on the unvowelled consonants; others go with "Jehovah" based on a Latin form, fairly discredited now, I understand. Still others try and capture the "to be" root of it, opting for "the one who is" or "the eternal". Thoughts? I personally prefer one of the latter forms, though I think there is room for innovation here! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 17:46, 26 December 2008 (EST)

==Grace==
I think the translation of grace is overly simplistic. To me grace is not merely generosity, but generosity towards those in whom it is undeserved. And is a gift specifically ftom the Lord to mankind, and allows for forgivness of the unrepentant sinner and ultimately is the reason God loves each and every one of His creation irrespective of whether they honour His word.

I appreciate what you are trying to achieve, and it is an honourable cause, it's just that IMO grace has always been a concept requiring more understanding than the word itself conveys, and is a central concept to Christianity itself, and by changing it to 'generosity' may hinder people from seeking its true, deeper meaning.

Grace is one of my favourite concepts to learn about and (attempt to) explain to others as I feel not only the concept, but the word itself, has a beauty to it that shouldn't be tampered with --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 19:49, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, J00ni, this is a lovely explanation! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:J00ni, your point is well taken, but the fact remains that there are millions who are misled by the term "grace" in many instances of its use. They may like the sound, but they think it is something other than what was intended.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== Peace ==

The retranslation of "peace" is based on the Greek word. Why is there a citation to the Old Testament on this point? The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

: cf LXX: ''καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς εἰ εἰς '''εἰρήνην''' οὗτοι ἐκπορεύονται συλλάβετε αὐτοὺς ζῶντας καὶ εἰ εἰς πόλεμον ζῶντας συλλάβετε αὐτούς'' - your Greek is likely better than mine, but I don't see the issue with this translation. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: I don't dispute at all εἰρήνη has a meaning of tranquility, but it ''also'' has a meaning of absence-of-war - much as ''peace'' does in English. See also [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=ei)rh%2Fnh&lang=greek&group=bilevel these sources] - e.g. “ἢ μέγα φρονει̂ς,” ἔφη, “ἐπὶ ται̂ς ἐψηφισμέναις μὲν πεντήκοντα ναυσίν, οὐδέποτε δὲ πληρωθησομέναις; οὕτω γὰρ ἠρέθικας Φίλιππον καὶ τοιαυ̂τα εἴρηκας, '''ἐξ ὡ̂ν οὐκ εἰρήνη γένοιτ' ἂν ἐκ πολέμου, ἀλλ' ἐξ εἰρήνης πόλεμος ἀκήρυκτος'''.” ([[Aeschines]]) [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 06:46, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:: Wow, you link to a superb online source! It's amazing what is available now on the internet!

:: The point is that "peace" in English is increasingly taken to mean an absence of war, thanks (or "no thanks") to the influence of the media and politics on culture. Very few people take "peace" to mean "tranquility" any more. But Jesus was not telling the Apostles to oppose Roman wars when He said, "peace be with you." He was speaking about an inner tranquility and lack of fear or anxiety. That's a meaning that needs to be restored against the ravages of the [[devolution of language]], particularly with the rise in anxiety disorders.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 07:16, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::: I don't doubt your assertion that at the moment, the primary meaning of the English "peace" is as you say. However, I do question the recency of this semantic position, and also whether this was not the case with eirene. I'd assume that someone listening to Jesus would have understood the Aramaic term he used to have a hefty flavour of non-war about it (in general, if not necessarily in context). In the same way, a reader of the English would understand that "peace" has multiple shades of meaning, and will select as appropriate. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 07:29, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::: But virtually no one today understands "peace" to mean "anxiety free," and Jesus never spoke about foreign policy in His time. It's a complete mismatch, I think, due to the cultural changes in the meaning of "peace" to most people.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:02, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::: An absence of interpersonal strife is not just foreign policy. Also, I think that virtually ''everyone'' today uses the adjective "peaceful" to mean "without anxieties or distractions"; it's easy to underestimate people in general. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 08:08, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== Relinquish or Release ==

The term "relinquish" has negative connotations: it means giving up something that may not have been properly yours. I don't see how that is an improvement over "release", which has positive connotations of resulting in a greater good.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 07:21, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: yes, good point, but "release" sounds too much like what one does to a captive. I think possibly something more like "hand over" or "give away" is in line with paradidomi - am I reading it too literally? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 07:29, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:: "Release" does have that political/legal connotation, but I don't see that as causing a problem in the context. "Hand over" has a negative connotation, and requires a recipient who does not exist in this context; "give away" implies an inappropriate abandonment of something typically having little value, and that doesn't fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:00, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==Question about implementation==

This is an interesting and worthwhile project - I'm learning a lot from reading about the various interpretations of the terms in question. What I'm wondering, though, is how to best implement the outcome for others to use. My first thought would be to choose a "baseline" version of the Bible as a starting point, like the King James Version, then apply the revised translations that are approved and publish this as a "New Conservative Bible" (since calling it the "Conservapedia Bible" would be immodest, I'd think). This could be done as a searchable electronic copy under a dedicated namespace on the CP site. The text itself would be protected, of course, but the talk pages would allow for background, commentary and suggestions for other improved translations. Does this proposal make sense? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:08, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::::I think that this project could be a good project if it was done better. Currently, I think this project is overreaching. I think in order to do proper Bible translating you need to understand Greek/Hebrew and ANE culture at a bare minimum. I also reasonably believe that in order to do a conservative translating of the Bible you need to understand the Bible exegesis method of Historico-grammatical exegesis which is given here: http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm So far, I don't see see aforementioned being done in any great depth. That is why I don't think the "New Conservative Bible" will catch on. I think Protestant Christian conservatives will stick with their KJV, NKJV, and NASB Bibles for some time to come. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:44, 28 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, is it 'overreaching' to have a vision? I don't think so. And can man achieve great aims without vision? No. Throughout history, those who have achieved mighty things have been accused of 'overreaching themselves' at the outset. We should have confidence and Hope, and lend support. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: The efficiency of the learning from this project is far greater than in any other medium, much higher than reading a book, attending a seminar, watching television, discussing with people, etc. In merely a few spare minutes or hours, the participants in this project have learned more than they could have after spending 10x or 100x many hours in any other medium. For that reason alone, I feel this project has been more than worthwhile. As Bugler says, let's see where it goes from here. What's there to lose? Nothing, but there is everything to gain in greater [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:05, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: Exactly. Learning about just ''one'' of these misconceptions/mistranslations allows you to better understand tens, hundreds, or even ''thousands'' of biblical passages and principles which use the words under examination. "Logos" is a good example, since it's the basis of all creation in John 1:1. "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." Better understanding that one word educates a reader enormously about God, his word, and his creation. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:20, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: I agree completely. Just one of the insights in the table in this entry can be worth hundreds of hours of personal effort in value. A stronger understanding of these concepts is priceless. Yet it is freely available here for merely the click of the mouse. Can you imagine the value when this table is two or three times as long?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 28 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Bugler, you are setting up a false dilemma. If you were more aware of exegesis you would know that. One of the principles of sound exegesis is to set the limits of the passage as can be seen by the link I offered before. With that in mind, I certainly did not say I was against having a vision. At the same time, often without adequate preparation the visions people have often fail. I doubt the Normandy invasion would have been successful if the generals merely had a vision apart from adequate preparation. The Normandy invasion was successful though because the generals had a vision which also had sufficient preparation. Now if you think you can retranslate the Bible without being knowledgeable in Greek/Hebrew, Ancient Near East culture, and exegetical principles then go right ahead, but I reasonably think your quest is rather quoxitic as can be seen by your rather poor exegesis of my previous post. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:17, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: I'd suggest that first we establish what sort of a translation we want; then we start with a smallish book with fairly simple language, and move to another book when that's completed and polished. I'd suggest Esther as a nice place to start - it's got a good consistent narrative, the Hebrew is not overcomplicated or overpoetic, and we don't want to get any "teething problems" in something like one of the Gospels. An interlinear approach might be best; and I'd really suggest we do our best to work ''in vacuo'' without too much reference to established translations. Do people prefer working with the Masoretic vowels, notes, and breaks, or just from the plain text, allowing for wider interpretation as to the vocalization? How do we arrrange dealing with disputes and variation in text? One talk-page per chapter? I'd like to be able to suggest that we take an LXX approach and work individually and have the translations miraculously agree, but the evidence above suggests this might not be the best plan ;) [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: This is not to say that there won't be opportunities to discuss the translation issues - right from the start there's some interesting questions. As a test run, how do people here render ''ויהי בימי אחשורוש הוא אחשורוש המלך מהדו ועד כוש שבע ועשרים ומאה מדינה''? The word ויהי is not easy to make smooth in English, there are at least two or three standard renditions for אחשורוש, and the country (or province, or state) names are always something of a point of contention. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:25, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: (and, with all respect, I think we should leave Daniel and Ezra/Nehemia until we know we have someone who's properly competent in Aramaic). [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:42, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::Denise raises an interesting question. While the table-format in the article is educational, is the purpose of this project to begin an all-new translation of the Bible "from scratch", i.e. from the original ancient texts, or is it to start with a pre-compiled baseline like the King James Version and look to bring clarity to selected phrases by reinterpreting them? Conservapedia's own article on the Bible points out differences in the layout and naming of the Old Testament books between the Jewish and Christian collections, so is the scope of this project to look at that as well? I'm totally out of my league here, but asking so that the people who are contributing have a consistent plan to follow. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::: Personally, I have no objection to either - but if we're going to have a retranslation as Aschlafly originally proposed I think it's intellectually sterile to re-translate a translation, taking all but one or two assumptions of the translators for granted. If we wanted to do that, I think that he would have suggested a commentary or gloss. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:55, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== "Rich" Issue ==

(Undent) Well I have 2 more (different) in hard copy. ''The Complete Word Study New Testament'' Spiros Zodhiates, which says it means "rich" And the ''Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament'' Rienecker and Rogers. which says it means "rich" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)
:That doesn't change the obvious fact that "wealth" in Jesus' time is worlds away from "wealth" in the present, and thus its implications and connotations when used in God's word. What confuses me is your motive in attempting to censor this obvious information. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:17, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Yes, the specific things that we have are completely different, but that doesn't mean that "wealth" was any different. It just means that a person has "an abundance" of material possessions. It doesn't matter whether those possessions are sheep and goats, or if they are gold and silver, or cars and televisions, or lots of digits that represent money in a bank. The point is that the person has many more possessions than they need. The concept is not bounded by time. Solomon had great wealth. Possibly greater than anyone since. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)
::Anyone care to respond?--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 11:41, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Anyone? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 23:31, 27 December 2008 (EST)

::: Sorry, Tim, I didn't notice your edits in the middle here. The Greek word does not mean "many more possessions than they need" as you suggest. Rather, it means "fully supplied" or "abundantly supplied." The term refers equally well to the person who has just what he needs and no more. In short, it applies to virtually everyone in developed nations, fully fed and entertained. That's why the term "rich" no longer works because very few of the "abundantly supplied" view themselves as "rich" today, yet Jesus is addressing them. The key to the Greek term and the translation is to capture the vice of an unwillingness to try harder due to the complacently of being fully fed and entertained.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::The word also means rich, the 2 definitions are very close in meaning. Abundantly supplied means more than enough. I agree that many or most of the "abundantly supplied" would not consider themselves rich, but I don't think that they'd consider themselves abundantly supplied either. You say that the greek term is about unwillingness to "try harder," and complacency. That is not true. The word means rich, and abundantly supplied. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 09:57, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::::: There are many people who are "abundantly supplied" who do not consider themselves "rich". So I disagree that the "2 definitions are very close in meaning" in today's culture. Today nearly all Americans and Europeans are "abundantly supplied" in food, entertainment and other comforts. But very few of them consider themselves "rich". And that's what matters in translating the Bible in a meaningful way. If they have the same misconception about being "abundantly supplied," then that's a good reason to reject that translation also.

::::: When this passage is compared with the Parable of the Talents, see [[Essay:Rich Man and Parable of Talents]], the real meaning of the term translated as "rich" sharpens into focus: it is the person who has what he needs, but buries it in the ground and does not produce more. "Idle miser" fits both insights well.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: If someone says A, meaning to imply B (what Aschlafly calls the "real meaning" - because A is an exaggeration, an ironic contradiction, hyperbole, metaphor, metonymy, or parable), I think that it's better to translate it as A rather than B - then someone reading the translation will have as close a thought-process as possible to someone reading the original and be able to appreciate the devices used. We're not trying to produce a commentary (beyond that which is inevitable). I think that Aschlafly may have in mind more of a commentary - a guide to interpretation and background - rather than a translation; and there's nothing wrong with that. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 05:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: I'm unsure what you mean by your comment, Denise. "A" is "fully supplied" rather than "rich", which is a relative term today. The issue is expressing "fully supplied" in a way that avoids awkward and misleading connotations of that phrase, which to most people today would falsely make them think of a retail store.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:24, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Ah, yes, sorry - I should have been more explicit. A is whatever term meaning ''"having enough" or "having a lot" or "rich" or "not poor" (the choice of which is a linguistic issue)''. B is the implication of laziness, stinginess, or whatever personal qualities, which while they may be conjectured from context and from theological exgesis, are not inherent in the word itself. B is a very interesting thing to have in a commentary, especially if one has useful proof-texts for it from elsewhere that support the point being made. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 08:41, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Denise, you make an excellent point, and thanks for your insight. I continue to learn from your comments and contributions.

::::::::: I guess I need to determine if the Greek term was ever used anywhere to describe an "idle miser" before recommending that as a translation. Maybe I could search for the general usage of the word somehow and see if "idle miser" (or an equivalent) shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:04, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: If you're happy to have ancient greek in with your koine (which is probably OK), the Perseus project is a good place to look. Also searching the Septuagint is a good source of ideas. I get annoyed when people ''unthinkingly'' conflate translation and intepretation - the two are linked and every translator is ''ipso facto'' his own exegete, but it must be done consciously - there are many levels of what ''means'' means, and they must be artistically layered to create a well-reading product. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:10, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ ==

I've seen in a few places that this is the general name used for the various forms of Xerxes that ruled Persia. This source cites the one in the Book of Esther as Xerxes I [http://www.answers.com/topic/ahasuerus-1], but I think I've seen him cited as Artaxerses II. He's probably one of the Xerxes or Artaxerxes in the 4th or 5th century, BC (300's-400's). [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:00, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Oh, interesting - thanks! I'm surprised that Artaxerxes and Xerxes should have similar versions in Hebrew, though - I wish there were more extrabiblical Hebrew historical/political texts. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 12:20, 29 December 2008 (EST)

==Great article==
Just read it all the way through. It's superb. Thank you Mr. Schlafly! --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 19:20, 1 January 2009 (EST)
:And to Denise and whoever helped put it together. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 19:20, 1 January 2009 (EST)

== Want to help ==
Hi I'm a long time reader and first time poster. I'm very much interested in your bible revisionism project and would like to know how I could contribute?--[[User:JesseC|JesseC]] 18:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: You're not off to a promising start. This is not a Bible (note capital "B") "revisionism" project at all. Try Wikipedia, perhaps, if you want to revise the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)
::Revising it into modern English. Poor choice of words. Still how can I help good sir?--[[User:JesseC|JesseC]] 19:14, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: Just add to a substantive entry, such as this one! You might also find [[Disputed Biblical Translations]] to be of great interest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 5 January 2009 (EST)

==Powerful new terms==
What an excellent idea! Language changes and develops, and as you point out, crystallising ideas have given rise to many expressions which the Bible expresses, but (in current translations) in an ambiguous, circumlocutory manner. I shall be racking my brains for some more. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 09:24, 8 January 2009 (EST)

: Thanks. This is tremendous potential.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:33, 8 January 2009 (EST)
::Two I'm struggling with a proper term for, which you might think worthwhile, are socialism and gun control. The term socialism might seem anachronistic in a Biblical context, but the meaning - anti-freedom, anti-enterprise, enslaving of human values - will surely be relevant as an example of everything Christ was fighting against. On the other hand, if the term Socialism sums it up best, why not use ity? As for socialistic gun control, might 'weapon control' cut it? I'd value your opinion. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 09:41, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::: Good ideas, but I think we need first to find (or imagine) a biblical passage where a specific issue came up, and thus a proper term could be used. Offhand, I can't think of one yet for "weapon control," but "socialism" is more germane to the Bible and should be added to the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::::Andy, it looks like "censor" is from 1526, according to Merriam-Webster online. See [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor here]. Not detrimental to the point, just a minor correction! [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 11:39, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::::In additon, the word [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/412 censor (or censur)] appears in Latin as well, although I can't find an origin date for this, although the Romans did use the word Censor as a title for [http://www.bartleby.com/61/57/C0195700.html Roman officials] with a particular duty (such as the census)--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 11:46, 8 January 2009 (EST)

== Translation suggestions ==

I didn't want to change the main page without asking here first. I think it would make more sense to replace "Meek" with "Humble" instead of "God Fearing". The former is much closer to the intent of what Meek meant in this context, and ties better with other phrases such as "the last shall be first". I'd also suggest using using "Leadership" to replace "Government", since it fits the context, and because his actions in New Testament showed the characteristics af a leader inspiring others than a ruler expecting compliance by authority. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:18, 10 January 2009 (EST)

== "Cast Lots" ==

The page suggests "gambled" as a correction for "cast lots". Might I suggest "rolled dice" instead? That's pretty much the modern equivalent of casting lots, to my knowledge, and more specific than "gambled". Plus, "gambled" has modern connotations of a trip to Vegas or some such, with all the wildness that entails, and also leaves the reader wondering "what did they do? play blackjack?" [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:47, 6 February 2009 (EST)
:When I was young I was told that when it said 'cast lots' it actually meant they played dice as well. It's still gambling, of course, but it's more specific. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:24, 6 February 2009 (EST)

::The modern translation should say "gambling", a word that did not exist for the [[King James Version]] translators.

::"Cast lots" is meaningless to people today. I can't even tell what is meant by it. No, it wasn't modern dice they were tossing either. What did happen was the soldiers gambled for personal gain, just like visitors to a casino today. The word gambling should be used so people see what it was, and how the evil practice is widespread today also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Disputed Biblical Translations

2009-02-23T16:08:14Z

JCSalomon: /* Psalm 22:16 */ It's not a prophecy of Jesus.

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

The most significant differences in translation arise between modern versions and the older [[King James Version]], rather than among different modern versions. One (of many) examples is the modern change in translation of the phrase "eternal damnation" in Mark 3:29 to "eternal sin."<ref>http://www.holybible.com/resources/version_comparison_chart.htm</ref>

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are called "interpretations", and not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== The "Past" ==

The "past" does not exist in the [[Gospels]]; the term is not used, not even once, by the [[New American Standard Bible]] or the [[New International Version]] in translating the [[Gospels]]. [[Jesus]] never used the [[Aramaic]] or [[Greek]] equivalent, not even once.

Yet the term the "past" does appear in the more [[liberal]] translations, such as the [[Revised Standard Version]]. For example:

{| class="wikitable"
|Luke 1:3 ([[New American Standard Bible|NASB]])||"it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;"<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=past&section=8&language_one=en&version_one=esv&language_two=en&version_two=nas&new=1&oq=past</ref>
|-
|Luke 1:3 ([[Revised Standard Version|RSV]])||"it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus,"<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=past&section=8&language_one=en&version_one=rsv&language_two=en&version_two=csb&new=1&oq=past</ref>
|-
|Luke 1:3 ([[Holman Christian Standard Bible]])||"it also seemed good to me, having carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus,"<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=past&section=8&language_one=en&version_one=rsv&language_two=en&version_two=csb&new=1&oq=past</ref>
|}

== Using "[[liberal]]", but not "[[conservative]]" ==

Some modern [[liberal]] translations introduce the term "liberal" in a favorable sense, but none introduce the term "conservative":

{| class="wikitable"
|Proverbs 19:6 ([[King James Version]])||Many will intreat the favour of the prince: and every man is a friend to him that giveth gifts.<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=liberal&section=0&language_one=en&version_one=asv&language_two=en&version_two=kjv&new=1&oq=traditional</ref>
|-
|Proverbs 19:6 ([[New American Standard Bible]])||Many will entreat the favor of the liberal man; And every man is a friend to him that giveth gifts.<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=liberal&section=0&language_one=en&version_one=asv&language_two=en&version_two=kjv&new=1&oq=traditional</ref>
|-
|Proverbs 11:25 ([[Revised Standard Version]])||A liberal man will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered.<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=liberal&section=0&language_one=en&version_one=rsv&language_two=en&version_two=niv&new=1&oq=liberal</ref>
|-
|Proverbs 11:25 ([[New International Version]])||A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes others will himself be refreshed.<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=liberal&section=0&language_one=en&version_one=rsv&language_two=en&version_two=niv&new=1&oq=liberal</ref>
|}

== Vanishing Devil ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to the [[Devil]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Bible|KJB]]||57 references to the Devil<ref>http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/search/?type=bible&keyword=Devil&translation=kjv</ref>
|-
|[[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]||32 references to the Devil<ref>http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/search/?type=bible&keyword=Devil&translation=kjv</ref>
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||35 references to the Devil<ref>http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/search/?type=bible&keyword=Devil&translation=kjv</ref>
|}

== Disappearing Hell ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to [[Hell]]. For example, the [[King James Bible]] mentions Hell 54 times<ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Hell&t=KJV</ref>, while the [[New International Version]] mentions it only 14 times<ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Hell&t=NIV&sf=5</ref>. The following translations of Matt 11:23 in chronological order illustrate the disappearance:

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Bible|KJB]]||And thou, [[Capernaum]], which art exalted unto [[heaven]], shalt be brought down to [[hell]]: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in [[Sodom]], it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[Revised Standard Version|NRSV]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[New American Bible|NAB]]||And for your , Capernaum: 'Will you be exalted to heaven" You will go down to the netherworld.' For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
|}

== Downplaying the Deity of Jesus ==

Modern versions tend to downplay the deity of Jesus, and use phrases like "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Jesus Christ" less frequently than older translations. Here is a comparison:<ref>These are taken from the keyword search tool on http://www.biblegateway.com/</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Version|KJV]]||81 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[English Standard Version|ESV]]||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||60 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|}

See also the section on "Jesus as God" below. One commentator argues that modern translations are not downplaying Jesus's deity, but the tables provided in the analysis indicate otherwise.<ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/kjodeityofchrist.php</ref>

== Downplaying the Spirit at Creation ==

The first few sentences of the Bible describe Creation, and liberal translations tend to deny the presence of the Spirit of [[God]]. Here is Genesis 1:1-2 in several different translations:

{| class="wikitable"
|RSV<ref>Revised Standard Version</ref>||In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
|-
|New English Bible||In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters.
|}

== Light versus Darkness in John 1:5 ==

The translation of John 1:5 requires addressing whether "darkness", which perhaps encompasses both a lack of [[faith]] and pure evil, fails to understand the "light" (Jesus), or whether it may understand the light but fails to ''overcome'' it. In addition, there is the issue as to whether the darkness ''continues'' to fail to overcome the light. Here are various translations of that single verse:

{| class="wikitable"
|New King James Version||And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
|-
|[[Today's New International Version|Today's NIV]]||The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it.
|}

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term as used in the [[Septuagint]] means "virgin".

{| class="wikitable"
|[[New American Bible|NAB]]||... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
|-
|[[Revised Standard Version|NRSV]]||Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|}

== Psalm 22:16 ==

Psalm 22:16 is sometimes seen to contain a prophesy of the [[Crucifixion]] of [[Jesus Christ]]; the evil and the harm to the hands and feet are translated slightly differently:<ref>http://www.biblestudy101.org/hbgen/transtest2.html</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Bible|KJB]]||For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
|-
|[[New King James Version|NKJV]]||For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet.
|-
|[[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]||For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||For dogs have surrounded me; a gang of evildoers has closed in on me; they pierced my hands and my feet.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
|-
|[[Revised Standard Version|NRSV]]||For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled.
|}
Jews consider all these to be mistranslations, and understand the verse thus:
{| class="wikitable"
|[[Jewish Publication Society of America|JPS]]||For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; ''like a lion, they are'' at my hands and my feet.
|}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
|-
|Holman||For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
|-
|NIV||For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
|-
|NRSV||For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
|}

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
|-
|Holman||... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.
|-
|NIV||... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|NRSV||... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|Msg<ref>The Message</ref>||... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.
|}

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
|-
|Holman||When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me.
|-
|NIV||When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
|-
|NRSV||When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
|}

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The authenticity of the story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11 is rejected by most modern biblical translations and many if not nearly all modern biblical scholars, and it does not exist in any of the early biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]: "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref>

The different translations of the Bible comment on this passage as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.
|-
|Holman||Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].
|-
|NIV||The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
|-
|NRSV||The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.
|-
|Amp<ref>Amplified Bible</ref>||John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. The story may well be authentic. Indeed, Christ's response of compassion and mercy is so much in keeping with His character that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate.
|}

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father'' (in [[Roman Catholic]] terminology) and ''The Lord's Prayer'' (in [[Protestant]] terminology) (at Mt 6:12-13):

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|Holman||Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
|}

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics. <ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref>

One passage however, Luke 1:28 in which Gabriel greets Mary, is translated differently by Catholics and Protestants. The phrase "Hail, full of grace," from which the first line of the Catholic [[Hail Mary]] prayer is derived, is likely to appear in Catholic Bibles; Protestant Bibles, such as the NIV, KJV, and ASV, use the phrase "highly favored" instead of "full of grace."

There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

== Jesus as God - Romans 9:5 ==

A point of contention is the description of Jesus as God in Romans 9:5. Here are several translations of it:

{| class="wikitable"
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
|-
|NIV||Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
|-
|NAB||theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|RSV||The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.
|}

==Acts 8:37==
{| class="wikitable"
|KJB||And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37&version=9;]
|-
|NIV||........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=31;]
|-
|ESV||.........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=47;]
|}

===Context===
Right before Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunch, the eunuch asked "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (KJV Acts 8:36) In other versions, nothing. The chariot stands still, and he is baptized (v. 38)

===Meaning===
This omission shows an emphasis being placed on works rather than faith in Jesus Christ. Baptisim alone will not take you to Heaven.

== Prodigal Son ==

The translation of the immoral conduct of the wayward [[Prodigal Son]], and the effect of that conduct, has been diluted over the years in Luke 15:13 (emphasis added):

{| class="wikitable"
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||... and there '''wasted his substance''' with '''riotous living'''.
|-
|[[NIV]]||... and there '''squandered his wealth''' in '''wild living'''.
|-
|[[NAB]]||... and there he '''squandered his estate''' with '''loose living'''.
|-
|[[NRSV]]||... and there he '''squandered his property''' in '''dissolute living'''.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||... where he '''squandered his estate''' in '''foolish living'''.
|}

== Ending to the [[Gospel of Mark]] ==

The ending to the [[Gospel of Mark]], who was not an eyewitness to [[Jesus]], briefly describes the [[Resurrection]] after Mark 16:8. Some cite an absence of this ending in certain early manuscripts in order to deny its authenticity as part of the Gospel of Mark.

As an ''ending'', however, it is possible that it was not always fully copied, and manuscripts that lack this ending also lack other portions.<ref name="Mark ending">http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_words_are_there_in_the_Gospel_of_Mark</ref> Very early Christians repeatedly cited the full ending as part of the authentic Gospel of Mark, and it is fully corroborated by the other [[Gospels]].<ref name="Mark ending"/>

== Exodus 21:22 ==

Pro-[[abortion]] [[Christians]] cite Exodus 21:22 in an attempt to downplay how wrong abortion is. That passage concerns an ''accidental'' injury to a pregnant woman, and the punishment that should be imposed if there is resultant injury:

{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
|-
|Holman||When men get in a fight, and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born [prematurely], but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman's husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment.
|-
|NIV||If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
|-
|NRSV||When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.
|}

== Matthew 9:18 ==

There is a difference in translation as to whether a ruler had [[faith]] in the ability of [[Jesus]] to bring his daughter back to life after death, or whether his [[faith]] was in [[Jesus]] to heal his daughter in order to avert death:

{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
|-
|Holman||As He was telling them these things, suddenly one of the leaders came and knelt down before Him, saying, "My daughter is near death, but come and lay Your hand on her, and she will live."
|-
|NIV||While he was saying this, a ruler came and knelt before him and said, "My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live."
|-
|NRSV||While he was saying these things to them, suddenly a leader of the synagogue came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live."
|}

== Diluting Proverbs 3:5 ==

[[Liberal]] translations of the [[Bible]] dilute the admonition against relying on one's own (faulty) understanding at the expense of [[God]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=Proverbs+3%3A5+-+6&section=0&language_one=en&version_one=kjv&language_two=en&version_two=csb&new=1&oq=&NavBook=pr&NavGo=3&NavCurrentChapter=3</ref>
|-
|Holman||Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding;<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=Proverbs+3%3A5+-+6&section=0&language_one=en&version_one=kjv&language_two=en&version_two=csb&new=1&oq=&NavBook=pr&NavGo=3&NavCurrentChapter=3</ref>
|-
|NIV||Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; <ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=Proverbs+3%3A5+-+6&section=0&language_one=en&version_one=niv&language_two=en&version_two=nrs&new=1&oq=&NavBook=pr&NavGo=3&NavCurrentChapter=3</ref>
|-
|NRSV||
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.<ref>http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/bible.cgi?word=Proverbs+3%3A5+-+6&section=0&language_one=en&version_one=niv&language_two=en&version_two=nrs&new=1&oq=&NavBook=pr&NavGo=3&NavCurrentChapter=3</ref>
|}

== James 4:5-6 ==

<needs work> See the blog at logos dot com.

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
* [[Bible Retranslation Project]]
* [http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/ Compare translations]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Judaism

2009-02-23T15:46:31Z

JCSalomon:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
What a so long digression about Mel Gibson. It's said that his father went to concentration camp during WWII. What do we care ? Jews have been exterminated by the Nazi during this war. It's absolutely out of context and interest. The pig talk is as well without any interest, empty and absolutely false.

I think what you read was vandalism. It's no longer there. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

This article should be merged with [[Jews]] and [[Jew]].--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Judaism ==

It seems to me that this article should contain information about Judaism. The long passage about Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedron is still here, and it is many times longer than the brief stub which actually is about Judaism. Also, the line about circumcision is out of context here -- in a longer, more detailed article, it could be worked in along with related issues.

Since [[Abraham]] is claimed by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as a Patriarch, this issue probably should be covered in a separate article aboout him, rather than being the second thing mentioned in an article about Judaism.

I hope we can make this entry as informative and accurate as possible.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 20:10, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Nobody seems to have mentioned that Christ was a jew. It's an important part of both our histories. Toryboy

:: Yes Boethius, I must agree with you – it might well profit us that an article headed "Judaism" "should contain information on Judaism" as you propose. But Toryboy, I can't see how you missed (and I quote) "Though Jesus is said to have been Jewish..." And this is my query, why the qualification "said to be". I mean is the Pope "reputed by some to have a connection with the Catholic Church"? What is going on here? His Mother was Jewish, even if the question of the exact nationality of his Dad is perhaps best left to the Jesuits. Regardless, Jewishness is conferred via the maternal line, so he is 100 per cent kosher in that regard, Does "Jesus was a Jew" sound perhaps a little infra-dig, just a trifle abrupt, mayhap?
mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au March 31, 2007

:::Interestingly enough, the father’s ethnicity does matter to many Jews. For the purposes of immigration to Israel you are quite right—maternal linage is enough. However, inter-religious marriage is and was deeply frowned upon. Deuteronomy 23:1-8 is one of the relevant text—because the Rabbis believe in “building a wall around the Torah” it is interpreted to forbid marriage to any non-Jew and the child of any such marriage is understood to be illegitimate and therefore not fit to enter into the congregation (and therefore not Jewish). So, one may be the child of a Jewish mother and still not a Jew if the father is not a Jew as well.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Wrong. While marriage outside the faith is prohibited, a child born of a Jewish mother is fully Jewish. Converts from certain nations (Moabites, Egyptians, &c.) could not marry full Jews (“enter into the assembly of the LORD”), only other converts—up to a certain number of generations.[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Not really...Jesus is an important part of Christian theology, but not Judaism. Claiming to be God's son isn't that special in a religion that applies that term to all of humanity. --[[User:M|M]]

:But Jesus was a Jew and was a devout Jew practicing all the laws and obeying the commandments. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, but there have been millions of devout Jews; that doesn't make them all historical figures. Jesus wasn't a scholar or a sage like Maimonides; he's of historical importance only to Christianity and Islam, not Judaism.--[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Jesus is of historical importance to Jews because he founded Christianity. That said, I’m editing the “Jewish views on Jesus” for relevancy & accuracy.[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I was actually rather offended that "circumcision" was referred to as "mutilation" on this page. The majority of white Americans are circumcised, as are most Jews, and our President, George W. Bush, recently allotted funding to promote circumcision in Africa, in recognition of the fact that circumcised penises are healthier, and (some would argue) more aesthetically pleasing. Please treat circumcision with respect: it is a proper and beneficial surgery. [[User:Isiah24]]

I am interested to hear that your President thinks highly enough of "aesthetically pleasing" black African penises to invest funds to ensure whole generations to come are properly endowed. Who would have thought that a leader of the Republicans would have supported a policy that would certainly have been rejected by the Gay Liberation Front as being a little too radical? mylesP email: myles325@yahoo.com.au

:While I agree with the benefits of circumcision, it is still debated whether it is healthier and more beneficial. Nevertheless, I agree that a better term can be used to describe circumcision. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:How about topping the asparagus, trimming the cigar, uncowling the capuchin monk?... mylesP myles325@yahoo.com.au

:Circumcision, if beneficial, is beneficial in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS among promiscuous people who refuse to use condoms. Abstinence until marriage and monogamy after marriage (assuming your husband/wife does the same) is a much safer way to prevent HIV/AIDS. Baring that, condoms are much more effective than circumcision. So Americans, especially those raised properly, have no “health reason” to be circumcised.
:So, health concerns aside, what would you call having a doctor cut off part of your son’s penis—sure, it’s a religious obligation of the Jews, but the New Testament is quite clear on the subject of circumcision (see Acts 15) circumcision is unnecessary. An unnecessary surgery that removes a very sensitive piece of flesh and that has the potential to castrate a child entirely sounds like mutilation to me.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unexpected deletions ==

I wish that Ezra Wax and Mountain Dew would explain why they deleted most of the article about Judaism, of which I was the major author. The current version is now far too sort and now lacks important information which was there in previous versions. I realize some of the additions to this article were in need of work, but this doesn't explain deleting the entire article and replacing it with a dumbed-down version.

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey, thanks M (whoever you are), the current version is a great step forward, I think. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome! I just hate seeing inaccurate info. --[[User:M|M]] 08:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Preposterous examples of stupidity==

That the Jews are descendants of Satan, and that the Israelites are the ancestors of the Celts and Germans. Has this been deliberately left in the article, or is it an oversight? The thing I can never really understand is anti-Semitic Christians - Jesus was a Jew and Jews wrote the entire New Testament (let alone the old). [[User:Dorpfeld|Dorpfeld]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Should there be something telling how the Jews will be converted to Christianity in the end, according to Revelations. [[User:LilGeorgiaPeach81|Mellie]] 15:49, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

That is a disgustingly selfish and misguided view. So what if someone doesn't agree with what we think? We should learn to accept other people for who they are.

== some more added ==

I added some more to the page, hopefully more of a introduction. I'll keep working on it to get a good blurb of judaism.

== Jews for Jesus? ==

I really fail to see why there is a link to "Jews for Jesus" in this entry; someone who claims to be a Jew for Jesus simply is not Jewish.
There is a term for anyone who views Jesus as the messiah and believes in the Holy Trinity - that term is Christian.--[[User:M|M]] 04:46, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

To be fair, so-called Messianic Jews really do consider themselves Jewish, and many started off Jewish, and retain the cultural trapping of Judaism. In other words, they are much like the first Christians, simply a sect of Jews. While not recognized by most mainstream Jews as being "jewish", they self-identify as jewish. For my part, I think they should call themselves something different, like "judeo-christians" or something, but that's neither here nor there.[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 16:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Messianic Jews are not Jews for the purpose of any official Jewish function. I can cite a ton of stuff on this; just let me ask my girlfriend, but in the meantime I'm deleting the language or rephrasing it. Oh, also, JFJ were formed by an evangelical Christian minister for the express purpose of converting Jews while convincing them they weren't being converted. True story.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

=="Nation'==
*''Jews became an independent nation when Moses (Moshe) led them out of Egypt''
Why is the word "independent" used here? And what are we to make of the Genesis 12:2, God speaking to Abraham, "I will make of thee a great nation"? Didn't Israel become a nation with the birth of Isaac, more specifically a "great nation" with the birth of Jacob (Israel)'s 12 sons, the Patriarchs? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would think probably because a nation enslaved cannot be referred to as a free nation? In the Seder service, it's said that the Hebrews became "a nation, great, mighty and numerous" amidst the Egyptians.--[[User:M|M]] 17:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestions==
The article should be divided into sections. It'd be good to add photos. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Menorah==
Why was the menorah replaced witht the Star of David? Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== G-d ==

Could someone change the 'G-d' in the last paragraph to 'God'? It is silly to use God's name five times in the page, then wrap it up with a 'G-d'. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 00:23, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:Then G-d should be written as such throughout the article. It is a Jewish Article. [[User:AniChai|AniChai]] 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::But it's a Christian wiki and country.

I am shocked and appalled by the use of the word 'yahweh' in the quotes from the bible. The article is about judaism and yahweh is a mistranslation of YHWH the letters of the true name of g-d. Any passage attached to judaism should have lord, g-d, adonai or etc instead of 'yahweh' ([[User:Shieldofdavid|Shieldofdavid]] 05:50, 13 June 2008 (EDT))

Shield of David, I'm the offender. Sometines it's hard to know what to do as we're coming, I think, from different frames of reference. In any case, in any future postings here, I'll refrain from writing "Yahweh" in an article itself. I did think of writing an article on Yahweh, and may still do so. But of course this would be a technical, so to speak, article and not a random use of the Name when it need not be used. But here, on this talk page, I'll just note - YHVH appearing in the Bible is from the root of the verb "to be" and that is why the Greek version translated it by "'o ontos" probably best translated "The One who is being" or "the being One". which is why the most common English translation has it "I am who I am" * who sent Moses on his mission. But almost certainly the vowels, which are not in the orginal text, as is the case with Biblical Hebrew, puts the verb in the Hiph'il (those are the vowels that appear in "Yahweh") which is causative, and since the form is causative without reference to time (past, present or future), It probably meant (clumsy in the English but not in the Hebrew) in the context, "I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being", It is I who am sending you, Moses, so don't be afraid!. Something like that. that's a mighty powerful God![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 07:06, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

*Linguistic note - Though the divine name throughout is YHVH which is in the 3rd person singular = "''He'' has, is, shall...", a key passage is Deuteronomy 3 :14 which is in the 1st person singular = " ''I'' have, shall...". As I noted, the vowels are not original to the text and the vowels that appear in the masoretic text put it into the Pa'al form making it imply (but not requiring it to be) a non causative sense; and so the words can bear the meaning "I will be whom (or what) I will be..." But knowing that the vowels are a centuries later addition (and interpretation) leave us open to consider the equal possibility, as I have noted, that the form is not Pa"al ("'eh"- 1st syllable) but Hiph'il ("'ah" - 1st syllable), making it causative, rendering the meaning, in this case in Deut. 3:14 first person - ''I who have brought into being everything that has come into being, and who am bringing into being everything that is coming into being, and who will bring everything into being that shall be brought into being.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 08:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)''

==Ethnicities===
I wish to expand of these but it is locked.
[[User:AniChai|AniChai]] 22:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

== Criticism Section ==

What do people think? The main goal would be to acknowledge that Jews are not saved without appearing anti-semitic. We could also mention the general permissiveness of Judaism, the higher rates of secularization, disputing that Jesus was the messiah, circumcision, Purim, etc. This would not be a section to allege stupid conspiracy theories ("Jews control such and such") or to criticize Israel.

:Firstly, I would not call it criticism. We have to tread very lightly and still be respectful and sensitive. Judaism is not viewed in any way as inferior on this site merely because it is not Christianity, and there is a deep bond and shared history between the two. I would put whatever information you feel is noteworthy under different sections as appropriate without bunching it together or making value judgements. After that we can see how it looks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:54, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

I think that Learn together's approach is a very good one[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 14:18, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Truly unintended slights ==

Here I see that people of good will are bumping into other people of good will. On one hand, we see that Jews can be offended by the Christians using the Divine Name in an article on Judaism and elsewhere, seemingly oblivious (but meaning no harm at all) to the fact that to Jews the Name is too holy to pronounce ''meforash'' = so explicity. Wasn't it only to actually be said only once a year, and that in the Holy Temple, and that only by the High Priest? On the other hand, we see that reference to God, to the Lord, can be so "casual" as to be written in small letters - g-d, lord, adonai, which seems to Christians strange and somehow demeaning of Him. And yet, Jews would not have intended it demeaningly at all but somehow it happens due to the influence probably/possibly of the Hebrew Language, as well as all semitic languages, namely, these languages have no differing sizes letters, no "Capital letters". All this requires a great deal of understanding of one another.

== "They do, however, respect him and consider Jesus to be an ethical person." ==

REALLY?! I do? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 04:07, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I pity the poor administrators and editors that have to deal with this question! This is a a hard one. There are so many Jewish views about Jesus, as well as no view at all. There is no uniformity on this question as well as among Jews generally. There is more of a tendency among Reformed Jews, due to the development of Reform Judaism, and there is more of an openness, to embrace Jesus as "one of us", as an ethical teacher, and even a prophetic voice within Judaism. On the other hand, there is more of a rejection of even these views among the orthodox from various streams, even to the avoidance of uttering the name of Jesus, sometimes referring to Jesus as "the man". This is not due, I think, to the religious referencs of Orthodoxy. but due to the various histories of the orthodox dispersions and histories. Yet I remember Dr. David Flusser of Hebrew University, a teacher of Talmud, Greek Classics, and New Testament studies, and an Orthodox Jew himself, saying, in his lectures with many religious Jews present, that Jesus was more than a man, and his being so against the critical liberal Christian scholars who throw out good history in their attempt of "reducing" Jesus. So there is no one single Jewish position about Jesus. Another factor, influencing secular Jews as well as the religious, is the viewing of Jesus, or rather the inability of view Jesus, as He really is, because of the Jewish experience amidst Christendom. of so much that is the total opposite of the goodness of the Lord. Yet, even here, there is also much good of sincere and holy followers of Jesus. The professor I mentioned above, Dr, Flusser, in his native Germany before the holocaust, had the good fortune, as he would tell, of meeting Mennonite Christians would showed him the difference between "Christians" and true followers of Jesus. I think that in the article, it is best to not include the Jewish attitude to Jesus. Only my opinion, not graven in stone.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 15:12, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

: I edited the article; is this closer to what you’d think correct?[[User:JCSalomon|JCSalomon]] 10:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

I earlier put in links to http://www.JewsforJudaism and http://www.MessiahTruth.com to try to show the Jewish view of Jesus, but one of the admins didn't like these links, if anything is going to be said about the Jewish view of Jesus wouldn't those sites be essential ? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 15:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

:Deborah, I took a look at/through the MessianicTruth site. I think that it is a decidedly "Jewish view of Missionary to the Jews" site, rather than a "Jewish view of Jesus" site. The view of Jesus that does emerge is more of a counter polemic with very little real view of Jesus coming through. In an expanded Judaism article, the sites you mention probably could go under a subsection or sub-subsection of this article under the title of "Jewish views toward Christian Missionary work" or "Jewish views toward Messianic Jews" but it may be better under an article itself with one of these titles.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 03:19, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

== Towafalaa ==

Is this spelled wrong? I get 0 hits on Yahoo and Google. The "11th of September" reference seems suspicious as well. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:Nobody can help me out? I'm going to remove it to be on the safe side. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:41, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:: Correct to delete. Justy some anti-Semite parody (Tower Fall) Tawafalla, Sept 11 9am-noon --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 20:04, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
:::No, this is an actual holiday, it's not commonly translated from Hebrew--[[User:AshleyF|AshleyF]] 20:07, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Jpatt is right, and you are a parodist. Jewish holidays don't follow the gregorian calendar, do they? [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 20:12, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Small fixes ==

I made some fairly minor, small fixes. Mostly just small factual changes, grammar fixes, or clarification. --[[User:Ohniner|Ohniner]] 16:27, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== More representation of traditional Jewish women. ==

How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--[[User:Antinous|Antinous]] 23:25, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== More representation of traditional Jewish women. ==

How about candlesticks, a challah (picturewise, I mean)...? You weren't born from thin air, bubbeleh! Man + Woman = Baby. Take woman away and you have the common enemy of Jesus and the Pharisees: Decadent pagan Ancient Rome.--[[User:Antinous|Antinous]] 23:29, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Judaism

2009-02-23T15:43:35Z

JCSalomon: Fixed Jewish view on Jesus.

[[Image:StarofDavid.gif|right|thumb|The Star of David, a symbol of Judaism]]
'''Judaism''' was the first [[monotheistic religion]], dating back to around 2000 BC. Like [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]], Judaism is an [[Abrahamic faith]], tracing its origins to [[Abraham]]. Judaism was the first of the Abrahamic faiths. The core of the Judaism as it exists today took shape from a later time period when [[Moses]] led the [[Hebrews]] from [[Egypt]] and climbed [[Mount Sinai]], bringing back the [[Ten Commandments]].

The five books of Moses (the [[Torah]]) are generally considered to be the core of the Jewish Scripture, and are supplemented by the works of the prophets and other writings which Christians call the [[Old Testament]]. The [[Talmud]] is another ancient Jewish writing considered by some Jews to contain traditions dating back to Moses himself, yet the Talmud also contains discussion by rabbis involving extensive disagreement and lively discussion, over interpretation of these traditions. The Talmud is not part of the [[Bible]] and the degree to which the Talmud itself is considered to be inspired varies across Judaism, with the [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]] generally giving it the most weight.

[[Jesus]] was one of many Jewish teachers who disagreed with the Jewish authorities during his lifetime. He founded a new school of thought, which flourished even after his death and eventually became [[Christianity]]. Christians consider him to be the [[Messiah]] and even consider him to be the [[Son of God]]. Jews on the other hand, do not believe Jesus is either the messiah nor God's son. Jesus has no religious significance in Judaism at all, though some Jews may admire him as a moral teacher.

==Sabbath==
[[Image:Menora exb HSTR7337.jpg|right|thumb|Yarmulke and Menorah]]
Many Jews observe a weekly day of rest (the [[Sabbath]]) that begins shortly before sundown on Friday and ends after sunset on Saturday. During this time no work may be done, business transactions are forbidden, and light switches are not to be turned on or off. Jews celebrate the Sabbath by lighting candles before the Sabbath, singing songs, going to synagogue, called shul, by some, and learning.

==Denominations==
There are many different branches of Judaism. There are four large branches. They are from the most traditional to the least:
*[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]]
*[[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]]
*[[Reform Judaism|Reform]]
*[[Reconstructionist|Reconstruction]]

==Ethnicities==
*[[Sephardi]] Jews.
*[[Mizrahi (sometimes spelled Mizrachi)|Mizrahi]] Jews.
*[[Ashkenazi]] Jews.

===The Diaspora===
"Diaspora" (Greek meaning "seeded throughout") is the term used to refer to the various dispersions of the Jews throughout the world through the eras of history. Its Hebrew linguistic forerunner is "Galut" meaning the "uncovering", betraying the understanding that being exiled from the Land of Israel is an exposing of Israel to vulnerability and danger. Some commonly known "Galuyot" (plural for Galut) are:

* the forced exile and assimilation among other peoples of the Northern Tribes of Israel by the Assyrians in 721, 722. Modern Israel has recognized among the ingathering of this exile (Kibbuts Galuyot) the ''Bnei Menashe'' (Sons of Manessaeh) of northern [[India]]. These members of the "Lost Tribe" are now allowed to freely immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. ''(see [[Religion in India]])''

* the ''Falashas'' of [[Ethiopia]], among whom, like the Bnei Menashe, Jewish practices such as circumcision at 8 days and the keeping of Passover are maintained by those eligible for citizenship under the Israeli Law of Return. The are racially native African in appearance. They believe themselves to have become Jewish from the days of Solomon and the Queen of Ethiopia. That was the basis for the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selase (Holy Trinity) taking the title "Lion of the Tribe of Judah".

* The Galut of Babylon, the so called "''Iraqis''" exiled by the Babylonians at the time of their conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (c. 538 B.C.) This Galut developed a rival to Palestinian Jewry of the first centuries and provided the second corpus of religious literature to the developing Talmud. This was in the common language of Babyon at the time - Aramaic. This corpus came to be called the Gemara ("completion"). The [[Gemara]] dates from about 200 A.D.to 500 A.D. The Gemara and the earlier Palestinian Hebrew corpus, the Mishna, dating from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. comprise the Talmud, which regulated most of Jewish internal life, until the western European "emancipation" and assimilation of the Jews - starting in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Talmud is still regulatory for Orthodox Jews.

*The Galut of the Jews by the Roman [[Titus]] after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D. They were triumphantly displayed in Rome and dispersed in the lands along the Rhine Valley known in the Hebrew tongue as Ashkenaz - which is known now as Germany. There they learned the language of the land which developed into Modern German. The Jews called their language, the early stage of German, Yiddish. From the Rhine, many of the "''Ashkenazis''" moved (were moved) to Eastern Europe, many fleeing from there, to America, to Israel, to Latin America, etc. learning new languages, but also speaking their old language, not Hebrew, but Yiddish. This, with the common religion, enabled the fostering of unity and brotherhood.

*the 1492 A.D. exile from [[Spain]], where the Jews had previously settled in the time of the [[Moors]] and some attaining to high positions and appointments as physicians, prime ministers, and poets under the Islamic conquest. This was the Golden Age of Jewry in Spain. At their expulsion ("gerush") from Spain they settled mainly around the Mediterranean basin - North Africa, Greece, Turkey, and also many going to Holland and from there to the American Colonies. The first synagogue in America was created due to this dispersion. These Jews soon were speaking the language of the their host countries - Arabic, Turkish etc. but also speaking the language of Old Spain. "Spain" in Hebrew is Sefarad, so the language is Sephardic and the dispersion is of the ''Sephardim'' (sometimes spelled Sepharadim).

*the Yemenites (''Temanim''). Yemen means "right (direction)" in Semitic languages. When facing the temple from the east, the "right" points south. Therefore, "Teiman" also means "south". This dispersion is the southerly dispersion to what is now Yemen, gaining momentum during the Himyaritic Kindom in Yemen which had adopted Judaism. With the founding of the Modern State of Israel, most Yemenite Jews have immigrated to Israel and speak Arabic as well as Hebrew.

The term "''Mizrachi''" means "easterner" and it covers a number of eastern dispersions as opposed to the Ashkenazi who were westerners - from Europe. Coming into Israel during Ottoman Turk rule (1517-1917), many immigrating Jewish families who were not European were given the name Mizrahi by the Turkish immigration authorities as they were all "lumped together" as Easterners.

The Return of the Jews to Israel is seen as a fulfillment of the Scriptures and is called Kibbutz Galuyot, the ingathering of the Exiles. Here are some of the scriptures that both tell about the ingathering of the exiles and which have provided a major influence for the some of the dispersions to return to the Land of Israel:

" I will bring your offspring from the east, and gather you from the west, To the north I will say 'Give them up', and to the south, 'Do not hold them'. Bring back my sons from far away, my daughters from the end of the earth. Isaiah 43: 5,6

"Those whom Adonai has redeemed return, they come to Zion shouting for joy. everlasting joy in their faces, joy and gladness go with them, sorrow and lament are ended." Isaiah 51:11

"He who has scattered Israel, gathers him, He guards them as a shepherd guards his flock...they shall come back from the enemy country, There is hope for your descendants" Jeremiah 31: 10,16

"The Lord says this: 'I am going to take the sons of Israel from the nations, where they have gone. I shall gather them together from everywhere and bring them home to their own soil. I shall make them into one nation and into My own land and on the mountains of Israel.'" . Exekiel 37:21,22

==Main Holidays==
:''Main article: [[Jewish holidays]]''

*'''[[Rosh Hashanah]]'''--New Years. Marks the creation of the world.

*'''[[Yom Kippur]]'''--the Day of Atonement. Observant Jews consume no food or drink for the entire day.

*'''[[Pesach]]'''--celebrating the liberation from Egyptian slavery. Observant Jews hold a special festive meal, called a ''Seder,'' on the eve of Passover and do not eat leavened bread for the duration of the festival.

*'''Shavuot'''-- Pentecost or Feast of Weeks. Traditionally celebrates God's giving the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai.

*'''Sukkot''' --Tabernacles or Feast of Booths. Observant Jews eat and sleep in temporary shelters shaded by cut vegetation.

*'''Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah'''--The day after Sukkot is a separate holiday, known as the "Eighth Day Feast." It also marks the completion of the cycle of reading the Torah in synagogues. The end of Deuteronomy is read, followed by the first chapter of Genesis.

*'''[[Purim]]'''--celebrates the thwarting of a plot to kill all Jews it is recorded in the Book of Esther, which is read aloud in its entirety in the synagogue.

*'''Tisha B'Av'''--also known as the Ninth of Av, 9th of Av, is a fast day that mourns the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

*'''[[Chanukah]]''' (there are several English spellings)--celebrates the re-dedication of the Temple after the revolt against the Greeks recorded in the Talmud and other non-Biblical texts. Jews light candles each night for eight nights, adding one candle each night. Chanukah is not a holiday recorded in the Bible and is considered a minor holiday from a religious standpoint, however from a secular Jewish perspective it has taken on a position of great prominence in modern times passing all other holidays as far as degree to which it is celebrated.

==Calendar==
The Jewish calendar combines lunar and solar features. During Temple times, months began when the new moon was sighted in Jerusalem. An extra month was added when needed to keep the Pesach festival in the spring. Today a complex algorithm, over a thousand years old, is used to determine when months begin. As a result, the dates of the Jewish holidays in the civil calendar vary from year to year.

==Jewish Scripture==
Jewish Scripture consists of 24 books, broken down into three sections:

*'''[[Torah]]'''--The Five Books of [[Moses]]: [[Genesis]] (Bereshit), [[Exodus]] (Shemot), [[Leviticus]] (Vayikra), [[Numbers]] (Bamidbar) and [[Deuteronomy]] (Devarim).

*'''Nevi'im''' --The Prophets: Joshua (Yehoshua), Judges (Shoftim), Samuel (Shmuel), Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the 12 minor prophets

*'''Ketuvim'''---The Writings: [[Psalms]], Proverbs, Job), Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, [[Esther (Biblical book)|Esther]], [[Daniel (Biblical book)|Daniel]], Ezra, Chronicles.

The Torah is divided into portions that are read during synagogue services over the course of the liturgical year. Jews refer to all 24 scrolls as the ''Tanakh,'' an acronym of the three sections. The Old Testament is the Tanakh, except with some different naming and a different ordering than the Jewish version. Some Jews find the term Old Testament to be offensive, as its meaning can be interpreted to mean the covenant of God with the Jews has been superseded and no longer applies.

==The Twelve Tribes of Israel==
The most famous of the tribes of Israel is Judah. From Judah's descendants, lineage, came [[King David]] ''“your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever”'' 2 Samuel 7:16, as did [[Jesus Christ]] '' 'The promised Messiah of Israel would come from the “house of David.”' '' Acts 13:34. No matter what tribe you originate from, all are considered Israeli.

In the [[Old Testament]], father Abraham's grandson Jacob, Isaac's son, his family would make up the 12 tribes. Jacob came to be known as the father of Israel, for it is written God changed his name to Israel. <ref>[http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/tribeisr.htm The Tribes Of Israel by Wayne Blank] The Church of God Bible Studsy</ref> The descendants of these twelve 'sons' of Jacob became the twelve tribe's of Israel.

In Northern Israel [[Gad]], [[Reuben]], [[Simeon]], [[Dan]], [[Naphtali]], [[Asher]], [[Issachar]], [[Zebulun]] and [[Joseph]]. In Southern Israel, the tribes [[Benjamin]] and [[Judah]]. The [[Levi]] were to serve as as the priests and their assistance for all tribes having their own levitical cities within the other tribes while having no land as inheritance for for themselves.

Each tribe was composed of a group of families, united by blood ties and constituting a social and political unit. As time went on, the stronger tribes tended to absorb the weaker ones. <ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=762510356&vv=450 Twelve Tribes of Israel] MSN Encarta</ref>
After the death of King Solomon, and in the time of his son, Rehoboam, the 12 tribes divided into two camps, the south was known as [[Judah]] with Jerusalem as their capital. The 10 Northern tribes made up the kingdom of Israel whose capital was [[Samaria]]. In 721/2 B.C. , the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered and the elite and powerful taken away by the Assyrians (leaving the weak and powerless) and resettled among various client kingdoms of their empire. The Assyrians, in like manner, settled other conquered peoples in various places of conquered Israel in order to dilute and weaken the population causing them to be compliant to the Assyrian overlords. This is how the "Samarians" were to arise, present in the time of Jesus and and present to this day - a mixed semi-judaized population with their religious center on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria rivaling Jerusalem. The northern dispersion came to be called popularly "the Lost 10 Tribes of Israel". But some of the "10 Lost Tribes" were not lost. At the time of Assyrian conquest of Israel, archaeology reveals, the city walls of the capitol city of the Southern Kingdom, Jerusalem, were suddenly and greatly expanded. This is because, it is thought, of the sudden influx to the southern brothers of the fleeing northerners. See also in the Diaspora section above, the Bnei Menashe, and see [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/973487.html]

The Southern Kingdom was conquered by Babylonians in 586/7 B.C. with much population taken to Babylon, which was to become a center for Judaism (and the Babylonian Talmud) rivaling Jerusalem itself. Cyrus, Emperor of Persia was to allow the Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, but many Jews preferred to remain in Babylon (most of these "Iraqis" would return to Israel with the erection of the modern State of Israel).

Alexander the Great, 333 B.C. would wrest the Middle East, and "Judah" with it, from the hands of the Persians, and after him, at the breakup of his Empire into Seleucid (northern) and Ptolomaic (southern) parts, the Seleucids took control of the Judah and Galilee (bringing "[[Hellenism]]" - the amalgamation of Greek with local cultures), and the occasion for the the revolt of the Jews against Seleucid overlord Antiochus and the beginning of the celebration among the Jews of [[Hanukah]] - the remembrance of the successful revolt, the setting up once again of a Jewish Kingdom in the promised land, and the re-dedication ("Hanukah") of the Temple (which had been desecrated). In 63 A.D., Pompey and the Roman rule would wrest power from the Hellenistic Greeks, and thus the Roman rule in the Land at the time of Jesus. The Kingdom of Judah, with its King Herod, was intended by Rome to be a buffer state between Rome and its hated adversary Kingdom - that of Persia. In this context there arose, another movement, followers of "the way" of Jesus, the forefront of another Kingdom, that was not of this world, the leading servants of which, would sit on the seats of the now ''12 tribes'' of Israel, and knowing themselves, as the "Israel of God".

Note: Among modern Jews, there is no knowledge of descent from any of the particular tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, except Jews with the family name of Levi or Cohen (and a very few others). "Levi" is from the tribe of levites and means "accompanier", that is the ones who accompany the priest and offering assistance in the service of the Temple. "Cohen" means priest. With the last great dispersion from the Holy Land, that of 70 AD at the hands of the Romans, with its destruction of "the House" - the Temple of God, the levitical and priestly families, now exiled to Rome and Italy were careful to record and remember their genealogies back to the tribe of Levi, as it would be they who would once again be called to function when God when would make possible the return to the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple.

==Post Biblical Jewish Development and Literature==
The Jewish [[canon]] of Scripture was defined at the Jamnia (Yavneh) on the Mediterranean coast of Israel at 90A.D., about two decades after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. Jews now also lived in great numbers outside of the Land of Israel, particularly in Mesopotamia (the Land between the Rivers of the Euphrates and the Tigris), and in Alexandria, Egypt. Mesopotamian Jewry, with its large core from the exile to Babylon continually added to, was mainly Aramaic speaking while Egyptian Jewry was Greek speaking. Aramaic Jewry began the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into [[Aramaic]], this came to be known as the [[Peshitta]] ("simple" or common). This development was accelerated particularly when the queen of [[Adiabene]], Helena (Shlomzion HaMalka, converted with others to Judaism. The Old Testament Peshitta (there is also the New Testament Peshitta as believers in Jesus translated the Greek New Testament into Aramaic) contains influence from the Jewish literature known as the [[Targum]]. Queen Helena was buried in Jerusalem around 70 A.D.

The Alexandrian Jews also translated, even earlier, the Torah into their language, Greek. Later books were added to the Septuagint by anonymous translators. This is known as the Septuagint (translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars). The Septuagint was used by Greek speaking Jews and was naturally turned to by the Greek speaking believers in Jesus. Later Jewish scholars retranslated the Bible into Greek, as the Septuagint was seen as having issues in translations of words, these translations were done by Symmachus, Aquilas, and Theodotios, all converts to Judaism. Around the same time of this process, the Rabbinical School at Jamnia (Yavneh) under Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, decided that what was canonical for Judaism was only those books which had already been accepted as Scripture and were found in the Hebrew language. This eliminated most of the Apocrypha which was found mostly in Greek and Latin (but the book of Ecclesiasticus - "Ben Sirach" - has now been found in Hebrew and considered canonical by the Dead Sea community of Jews) as well as elevating the ''Hebrew'' Scriptures over just the Scriptures of Israel no matter in which language. Eventually over time, not only did the Septuagint drop out of Jewish usage, but so did the other Greek translations.
They were replaced by various translations of the Bible into Aramaic, one of the best known of these was the translation by Onkelos, a convert to Judaism, although Jewish scholars still used the Hebrew translation of the Bible, the laity preferred the Aramaic translations because Hebrew became out of use expect for Jewish scholars.

===="Jamnia" and Protestantism====
Though the connection of Jamnia and Protestantism is little known, it is a real one and one that exerted much influence on the developing Protestant Church and its outlook. The Hebrew canon of Scripture with its emphasis on Hebrew language originals sanctioned at Jamnia, which would exclude the Jewish but Greek language books we now know as Intertestamental or Apocryphal, would be the basis of a continuing textual study and ammendation according to the passing on of readings and comments by succeeding Jewish authorities, scholars, and rabbis. This work would be carried on through the fifth century, the time of the Masoretes - the "tradition (of Scripture) bearers". The receiving and handing on of how Scripture texts were to be read and sung, and what they meant.

When the [[Renaissance]] took hold in Europe, great interest was shown in the rediscovering both of the Greek classics, entailing the renewed study of Greek for this purpose, and the study of Hebrew language. Here now was the possibility for many scholars, and the emerging Protestant ones among them, to study the Hebrew Scriptures directly in the original language instead of the necessity of working through the Greek ([[Septuagint]]) and Latin ([[Vulgate]]) translations. But the Hebrew source resorted to by these scholars was the [[Masoretic]] text - following the School of Jamnia - without the Apocrypha. From then on, the heritage and perspective of the Protestant Reformation churches was that the Bible excluded the Apocrypha, though some of the churches would use the Apocrypha as "secondary" readings.

===The Talmud===
In Israel, there arose a literature, mainly in the common Hebrew of the day. It is known as the Mishna ("secondary"). This was primarily the recordings of discussions of Biblical laws with view to application to the present life and experience of Jews in Israel and in the [[diaspora]]. Changing conditions required more current applications. The Mishna developed over four centuries (200 B.C. to 200 A.D.) and is divided into 6 orders, numerous tractates, and smaller units (mishnayot). Most of the Mishna is comprised of "''Halakha''"- that is, legal discussions, decisions, having, in many cases, enforceable applications either by the Jewish community directly or by the Roman or otherwise authorities. The non legal aspects of the Mishna - the anecdotes, stories, remembrances of the rabbinic lives, etc. are called ''[[Aggadah]]'' ("the telling").

The Palestinian Hebrew Mishna, having spread to Mesopotamia, came to be regulatory to the Babylonian Jews, and, as the Mishna had become a "commentary" on the Hebrew Bible, so the Babylonian Jews developed a commentary on the Mishna itself. This was called the Gemara ("completion") and is in their own language, [[Aramaic]]. The formation of the Gemara took from 200 A.D. to 500 A.D. The whole Talmud then was a work of 700 years. The Mishna and the Gemara together is called the Talmud ("the Learning"). The Talmud then became regulatory until modern times for Jewish life elsewhere with but a few non-mainstream groups not accepting it.

The process of G-d sanctioned and ordained commentary (the Talmud) on the Scriptures is a legacy of the one movement that survived the first century Roman destruction of the temple and Jewish authority in Israel. The [[Saduccees]] disappeared as did the [[Essenes]] and the Herodians. But not so the [[Pharisees]]. The Pharisees believed that with the written Torah given to Moses on Sinai, there was also an Oral Torah given to him, by which the written was to be interpreted and applied. According to this tradition this Oral Torah was transmitted to others - Joshua, then the seventy, the prophets, and then to certain pairs (Zugot) finally finding its expression through the discussions and decisions embodied in the Talmudic literature. Through this the Jews created over 600 laws that they had to obey. Having a "portable" law and, so to speak, a "constitution" in the Talmud, Jews then were able to survive as Jews when they no longer had a land to live in and define them.

==Dietary laws==
Observant Jews follow a strict and complex set of rules governing what they may eat and drink. Permissible foods are called ''[[kosher]].'' Per Biblical commandments, only animals that chew their cud and have cloven hooves may be eaten and they must be properly slaughtered. Fish must have fins and scales. Dairy products cannot be mixed with meat from animals or birds. Vegetables must be checked for insects, as insects are considered "treyf," meaning not kosher. Additional rules apply during [[Pesach]].

==Life cycle==
Jewish boys are circumcised eight days after birth. They become adults for religious purposes when they turn 13, and event marked by a ceremony called a [[Bar Mitzvah]]. Similar ceremonies for girls when they turn 12, called [[Bat Mitzvah]], were introduced in in the 20th century.

[[Jewish law]] only recognizes marriages between Jews. [[Divorce]] is permitted, but there are exacting rules that must be followed for the divorce to be valid, including the husband presenting a bill of divorce (''Get'') to his wife.

Jewish law requires bodies to be buried promptly, preferably no later than the day after death. [[Cremation]] is not permitted. There are prescribed stages of [[mourning]] for the first year after the death of a close relative (parent, sibling, spouse of child). The anniversary of such a death is observed with gifts to [[charity]] and the recitation of a prayer, ''[[Kaddish]],'' praising God's name.

==See also==
* [[Bible]]
* [[Israel]]
* [[Israel Tourism]]
* [[Synagogue]]
* [[Orthodox Judaism]]
* [[Jewish Republican]]
* [[Passover Seder]]
* [[Hebrew]]
* [[Aramaic]]
* [[Aramaic Church]]
* [[Had Gadya]]
* [[Kaddish]]
* [[Midrash]]
* [[Targum]]
* [[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]

==External links==
* [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jewishsbook.html Internet Jewish History Sourcebook]
* [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ Jewish Virtual Library]
* [http://www.jewfaq.org/index.htm Judaism 101] Tracey R Rich.
* [http://www.jewishstudies.virtualave.net/ Academic Jewish Studies Internet Directory]
* [http://www.AskMoses.com AskMoses.com for questions about Judaism]
* [http://www.Chabad.org Chabad's Website]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/jews/ What Liberals Say - Category: Jews], [[Accuracy In Media]]
* [http://www.aish.com Aish.com/]
* [http://www.beingjewish.com/ BeingJewish.com]
* [http://jewishanswers.com/ JewishAnswers.com]
* [http://torah.org/ Torah.org]
* [http://simpletoremember.com SimpleToRemember.com]
* [http://njop.org National Jewish Outreach Program (outreaches to assimilated Jews)]
* [http://ArtScroll.com ArtScroll.com]
* [http://Shamash.org Shamash.org]
* [http://shemayisrael.com/ ShemaYisrael.com]
* [http://jewishworldreview.com/ JewishWorldReview.com]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Judaism|*]]

Septuagint

2009-02-23T15:22:33Z

JCSalomon: The Masoretic Text is NOT a translation, but the original.

[[Category:Christianity]][[Category:History]]{{Christianity}}
The '''Septuagint''' ([[Latin]] ''Interpretatio Septuaginta'', [[Greek]] ''Hermeneutica kata ton hebdomekonton'', literally "Interpretation According to the Seventy", abbr. LXX) is the first translation of the [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] into any foreign language--and specifically the classical Greek that was spoken shortly after the death of [[Alexander the Great]].<ref>The [http://www.septuagint.net/ Septuagint] on the Web.</ref>

== History ==
Upon the death of Alexander in 332 B.C., one of his generals, named Ptolemy Lagus, took over Egypt as King [[Ptolemy I Soter]] (literally, "Ptolemy the Savior"). This king built, among other things, the [[Great Library of Alexandria]], which he intended to be a major research center throughout the [[Mediterranean]] region.

He continued the generally tolerant policy toward the [[Judaism|Jews]] that Alexander had observed since the priests at [[Jerusalem]] had surrendered to him. His successor [[Ptolemy II Philadelphus]] (r. 285-246 BC) continued that policy. In his effort to make the Great Library the best center of learning in the known world, Ptolemy Philadelphus sought to translate the Old Testament from [[Hebrew]] into Greek.<ref>[http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0840412.html Ptolemy II] at Infoplease.com</ref> Sadly, his staff found Hebrew to be a difficult language to understand, and were not sure of the meanings of several turns of phrase found in the Hebrew text. So Ptolemy appointed a team of seventy scholars, each fluent in Hebrew and in Greek, and assigned to them the task of translating the Hebrew text.<ref>[[Will Durant|Durant, Will]], ''The Story of Civilization, Volume 2: The Life of Greece''. ISBN 1567310133</ref>

The result is a work produced largely by scholarly consensus and was the primary translation in Palestine at the time of Jesus. The [[Gospels]], [[Paul]], [[Epistle of James|James]], [[Peter]], [[Jude]], and the author of the [[Hebrews (book)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] quoted from the Septuagint often in their respective writings.

The Septuagint contains the thirty-nine [[Biblical canon|canonical]] books of the Old Testament, but also contains the books called the [[Apocrypha]], which are considered non-inspired, and hence non-canonical, by most [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations. The Apocrypha are considered canonical by the [[Roman Catholic Church]] and the Orthodox communities, and are included in Catholic Bibles.

== Objections to the Septuagint ==
Any translation is automatically suspect, if only because of differences in grammar and idiom between the source and target languages. Also, later Jews were suspect of anything that had a non-Jewish influence, and so kept the original Hebrew texts. The [[Masoretic Text]] is the traditional Hebrew (and in some books, Aramaic), and is the text that is used today both for those who read Hebrew, and for translating to other languages.

Saint Jerome used the Septuagint as the basis of the Gallican Psalter and the book of Job of the [[Latin Vulgate| Vulgate]]. After more than a decade he decided the Septuagint was too fraught with mistranslations to be acceptable. At the beginning of the fifth century AD Jerome used only copies of biblical books in Hebrew and in some places Aramaic.<ref>http://www.ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml</ref>

[[James Ussher]], who made himself an expert on [[Semitic]] languages, concluded that the Septuagint contained errors of translation, and even errors of fact, that he considered critical and fatal to his purpose of determining a unified chronology of the world. For that reason, he rejected the Septuagint in favor of the Masoretic Text.

In 1947, ancient copies of Hebrew texts in scroll form turned up at [[Qumran]]. These "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]" were written over various times, but dated back to the time of Jesus and before. This was a monumental find as it pushed back the time of the earliest known Hebrew text by almost 1000 years and was still a few hundred years earlier than the earliest surviving Greek text. The scrolls vindicate the accuracy of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text which were surprisingly accurate for the large amount of time that had passed. In those cases where there were differences, the Septuagint was more accurate overall. Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts together vindicate the prophecies of [[Jesus Christ]], because they render any conspiracy to write "prophecies after the fact" temporally impossible.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible Versions]]
{{Bible Versions}}

Bible translations

2009-02-23T15:15:48Z

JCSalomon: The Masoretic Text is NOT a translation, but the original.

{{Christianity}}

The original translation of the Bible was the [[Septuagint]] (known as the "LXX"), which was Greek translation of the [[Hebrew]] [[Bible]] ([[Old Testament]]). It is the oldest version of the [[Bible]] [[extant]] today.<ref>http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/</ref> This is the version of the Old Testament was used by [[Jesus]] and His followers, and few disputed interpretations in that Bible (such as the prophesy of a virgin birth of the [[Messiah]]) were carried over into the [[New Testament]].

The Protestants rely primarily on the untranslated Masoretic Hebrew Texts, while the Greek Orthodox Church relies primarily on the Septuagint. The Roman Catholic Church relies primarily on the Latin [[Vulgate]], which is a translation of the Septuagint into Latin by [[Jerome]] around A.D. 400.

The major translations of the [[Bible]] into [[English]] are:

*[[Douay-Rheims]]
*[[Douay-Challoner]]
*[[King James Version]] (also known as the [[Authorised Version]])
*[[Revised Standard Version]]
*[[New Revised Standard Version]]
*[[New International Version]]
*[[New English Bible]]
*[[Amplified Bible]]
*[[Living Bible]]
*[[English Standard Version]]
*[[New American Standard Bible]]
*[[New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures]]
*[[Confraternity Bible]]
*[[New American Bible]]
*[[New Jerusalem Bible]]
*[[Jerusalem Bible]]
*[[Good News Bible]]
*[[New King James Version]]
*[[New Living Translation]]
*[[Complete Bible - An American Translation]]
*[[Bible In Living English]]
*[[American Standard Version]]
*[[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]<ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=77</ref>

Interlinear Translations

*[[Interlinear NIV Hebrew-English Old Testament]]
*[[Emphatic Diaglott]] Greek-English New Testament

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://ellisonresearch.com/ERPS%20II/release%209%20versions.htm Analysis of the popularity of the major translations]
*[http://www.americanbible.org/absport/news/item.php?id=63 Listing, with book covers, of all the English translations with a brief description of each]
*[[Disputed Biblical Translations]]
*[http://www.biblestudytools.net/ParallelBible/ Compare translations]
*[http://bible.cc/ Translations compared on one page, verse by verse]

[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

User:JCSalomon

2009-01-11T23:05:55Z

JCSalomon: New page: My name is Joel C. Salomon, and I am a politically-conservative Orthodox Jew. I intend to add an authentic Jewish perspective to some Conservapedia articles as I get to them. As ''per'' t...

My name is Joel C. Salomon, and I am a politically-conservative Orthodox Jew.
I intend to add an authentic Jewish perspective to some Conservapedia articles as I get to them.

As ''per'' the [[Talmud]], Sanhedrin 63b; [[Maimonides]], Hilchos Avodah Zarah 5:11; and Beis Yosef, Yoreh
Deah 147, I do not use dates or places pertaining to other religions as landmarks. I therefore prefer to use the Jewish calendar; when I use the Gregorian calendar I would much rather refer to years in the [[CE|Common Era (CE)]] or before it (BCE).

{{userboxtop|Joel C. Salomon}}
{{user Jew}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Conservapedia:Userboxes/Religion

2009-01-11T22:47:29Z

JCSalomon: Added Jewish option

===Religion===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|{{UB|Lent}}
|-
|{{UB|JP2 saint}}
|-
|{{UB|noforcedreligion}}
|-
|{{UB|Bible just book}}
|-
|{{UB|UnitedMethodist}}
|-
|{{UB|Presbyterian}}
|-
|{{UB|Quaker}}
|-
|{{UB|Lutheran}}
|-
|{{UB|Baptist}}
|-
|{{UB|Catholic}}
|-
|{{UB|Protestant}}
|-
|{{UB|Anglican}}
|-
|{{UB|Jew}}
|-
|{{UB|Atheist}}
|-
|{{UB|JesusTeachings}}
|}

Template:User Jew

2009-01-11T22:45:26Z

JCSalomon: New page: {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=36 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#fff |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=✡ |info=This user is a practicing Jew.}}

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=36 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#fff |info-s=8 |info-fc=#000 |id=✡ |info=This user is a practicing Jew.}}

Book of Isaiah

2009-01-11T22:30:03Z

JCSalomon: Including the Jewish view of Isaiah

The '''Book of Isaiah''' is a book of the [[Old Testament]] dating to the eighth century BC. It is organized into two sections of prophetic discourse (1-35 and 40-66) divided by a historical record. The most remarkable feature of the book is its prophetic utterances about the “servant of the [[Lord]]”. Classical Jewish sources (''e.g.'', [[Rashi]]) consider the servant to be the [[Judaism|Jewish nation]] taken as a collective, while Christian scholars tend to identify the servant as [[Jesus Christ]]. The end of Isaiah 52 and Isaiah 53, the "suffering servant" section, is considered to be one of the most forthright references to Jesus found in the Old Testament. It is quoted more frequently in the [[New Testament]] than any other Old Testament passage and is often referred to as the "Gospel in the OT"<ref>The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Corporation, 1985, Pg. 1094</ref>.

== External Links ==
*[http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/isaiahthebookof.html Book of Isaiah -Christiananswers.net]
*[http://www.xenos.org/classes/Isaiah/isweek2.htm Authorship of Isaiah]

==References==

<References/>

[[category:Biblical Books| b3]]
[[category:Old Testament Books| b3]]