Talk:Bible Translation Issues

Translation issues

I think that we are putting the cart before the horse here. It isn't a question of simply changing words to be more acceptable, it is an issue of going back to the sources and, from their context and comparison to other sources, determining their meaning. If you simply take existing texts and make them PC, the result will be an object of scorn. (This comment added by User:Clarence)

If you had read anything about the project instead of just believing what the liberal blogs and talk shows told you it was, you'd know that we are doing precisely that. Our translated gospel pages are littered with Greek words and description of their meanings, and using context to figure the meaning of ambiguous words is strewn about the talk pages of the various chapters of the New Testament on this project. JacobB 11:25, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Please do not presume to suppose what I have read and not read. In point of fact I went over the materials on a few of your descriptive pages and that is what gave me pause. I guess you follow liberal blogs more than I because I have no idea that they are talking about this project.

You apology is accepted.

There is a broader question though. When I read something like this:

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

I see an assumption of meaning with no reference to the textual support for that criticism. Now, my KJV gives this verse as

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Is the suggestion that this 17th c. version is the result of liberals? Why would anyone suggest that this is a modern day liberal corruption? I would love to see the textual evidence.unsigned by Clarence

I don't think anybody is saying that modern day liberals are time travelling to put lies into the KJV and you know very well nobody is saying that. But when it comes to identifying what modern day liberals ARE saying, your rude tone (apology is accepted?), straw-man arguments, and refusal to actually examine the evidence gives you away.

Just because the passage in question is in the KJV, doesn't mean it was in the original text - just see the adulteress story if you need any proof of that.

You are welcome to stay here and contribute in a positive way, but if you continue to start arguments just to push your agenda, we know how to deal with that too. JacobB 21:17, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Clarence, in addition to Jacob's comments, note that no one said the insertion of the "for they know not what they do" phrase is a "modern day liberal corruption." But liberals insist on keeping this fabricated phrase in the Bible because they like it so much. Virtually all scholars acknowledge that the phrase is not authentic.--Andy Schlafly 21:22, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

Taking command

Attention everyone:

Under the authority of Mr. User:Aschlafly and the administration, I, User:TerryH, am taking command of this Project.

My qualifications are these: I can read ancient Greek almost as fast as I can read modern English, I've begun a study of Biblical Hebrew, and I own certain "off-line" (actually, hardcover) resources that allow me to function as a translator.

I am forming my Committee on Translation right now, as I sound people out as to their qualifications. In the meantime, I have certain positions on the translation issues mentioned on this page:

I believe that we should capitalize any and all references to God and Jesus, on account of Who They Are, not on account of what any given speaker might think They are.

I believe that we should refer to the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the scribes by those specific names. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were two opposing factions among the Jewish intellectual elite, and were united only in their opposition to Jesus, though for diametrically opposite reasons. But the two articles describing those factions are of stub quality and badly in need of expansion. I'll put it simply: the Pharisees' problem was one of adding to the Bible as they understood it; the Sadducees had a problem with taking away from it.

Concerning Herod Antipas' stepdaughter, call her "girl" when she is so described according to the ancient manuscripts, but make clear in our commentaries that she was indeed playing the part of a temptress. (In fact, she was playing the part of every over-passionate stepdaughter playing up to her step-dad in order to trade, shall we say, favor for favor. And Herodias knew it and used her. That dysfunctional family dynamic deserves an entire article by itself, but one that we should tread carefully while writing, in order to keep things family-friendly.)

Concerning πνευμα αγιος (literally, "Holy Breath"): I've seen the discussion about Divine Guides and Forces. In fact, the Holy Spirit played both roles. "Force" is too impersonal for my taste, and also reminds me just a bit too much of a certain motion picture franchise that I now know was a thinly-disguised anti-American screed in six parts. I do know this: let's get away from "Holy Ghost." A ghost is an apparition; hence my translation of the cry of the men in the storm-tossed boat as "It's a ghost!"

I believe that "Son of man" is accurate. We don't want to capitalize "man."

The Greek word μαθετης or mathetes means, literally, a student. That's what I prefer to call the disciples: students. The Twelve Apostles were His best students. "Apostle" is a literal Greek word, and it means "one sent out."

Concerning "first shall be last, and last shall be first": for now, I prefer to translate that literally. But a lot of Greek idioms deserve translation into English idiom. I believe in using idiomatic English wherever possible. Thus, "What is that to us? See thou to it" becomes "So what? That's your problem, not ours." Or: "The last error will be worse than the first" becomes "If that happens, we'll have a worse problem."

The eighth issue I covered earlier: "Pharisees" are "Pharisees." In point of fact, the Pharisees and the Sadducees were both incumbents. They were like the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress today. Worse yet, I have seen Pharisaical and Sadducee-like tendencies in many fellow churchmen whom I have known in my fifty-one years. (Pharisees like to add their own traditions and regulations to the Bible, while Sadducees like to take scissors and snip out parts of the Bible that they do not like. God warns against both attitudes; cf. Revelations 22:18-19 .

Comments, anyone? Reply here or on my Talk page for now.--TerryH^Talk 22:07, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Terry, your comments and leadership are superb, but we are a meritocracy. One is "king of the hill" only as long as he is the best. Let's expect and welcome talented contributions by many others, and perhaps even a run at your position at the top of the hill! This will get even more interesting.

Qualifications? I've studied ancient Greek, modern English, political bias and, perhaps most importantly, the effective communication of ideas to students. All four are important components of this project. But I concede and welcome your expertise in the ancient languages, which is invaluable.

I agree completely with your view towards capitalization, and add an additional reason for it: often there are multiple pronoun references (to Jesus and someone else) and use of capitalization is an efficient way to avoid repetition of the names for clarity.

I think your other points are open to more discussion and debate. Taking one, I feel the term "Pharisees" means nothing to people today, and their biblical views seem irrelevant. I'm intrigued by calling them "incumbents" because that gets at the real issue and conflict, doesn't it?--Andy Schlafly 22:57, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Further thoughts: it appears that the original meaning of an "incumbent" was an ecclesiastical position!

The more important translation is the "first shall be last, and the last shall be first." People don't understand that English phrase, and think greater clarity in the English would be helpful. I made a suggestion in one of its appearances after some thought, along the lines of the "highest position among men shall be last, and the last the shall be first." But suggestions are welcome, as the essence of this project is to bring out the best from many to obtain an optimal translation as of 2009.--Andy Schlafly 08:51, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Proposed man -> businessman

In Mark's parable of the vineyard (12:1...), I've translated man as businessman, highlighting clarity which was absent in the greek. Does this seem reasonable? DouglasA 20:01, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Looks brilliant to me. Thanks for the insight.--Andy Schlafly 20:32, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Kyrios vs. Theos/Lord vs. God

I have seen several places on the CBP where "Lord" is used as a synonym for "God." (See Luke 9, for one example.) I think it would be good to be more precise with those terms. Whereas we all probably use "Lord" and "God" more or less interchangeably in our personal prayer lives, theologically the two terms are quite distinct. I think it would be a good idea to be a bit more consistent, and always check the original Greek. I'm pretty sure, when the King James uses "Lord," it accurately translates the Greek κυριος (lord), and when it uses "God," it's translating θεος (God). --Cory Howell 16:29, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

Your point is well-taken, except note that this is not a strict word-for-word translation. Rather, this seeks the original intent. It seems possible that one could use θεος intending the concept of "Lord". Perhaps more discussion and analysis of this would be helpful.--Andy Schlafly 17:03, 21 October 2009 (EDT)

I can see your point as well, Mr. Sclafly. However, I think it would be good to approach each case with a good amount of sensitivity. It can be exceptionally difficult to discern "original intent," when it comes to the inspired Scripture. I am open to the idea that "God" could somehow convey the deeper sense of "Lord" in the right context, but at the same time, when you come to a statement like Thomas's "My Lord and my God!" it would be completely misleading to simply translate it either "My Lord!" or "My God!" "Kyrios" has more of the sense of a supreme Master, to whom allegiance is owed, whereas "Theos" is a very specific noun for God, the creator of the universe. I'm not familiar off the top of my head with any place in the New Testament where "Lord" would actually convey the full sense of Godhood. But there may be such a usage somewhere!--Cory Howell 12:24, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

Gospel or Good News? Translation of ευαγγελιον

There has been a bit of confusion on the Talk page for Luke 1-9 about how to translate the Greek word ευαγγελιον. There were several verses where it had been rendered as Truth, which doesn't seem to be very accurate to me. TerryH indicated that "good news" would be better, and that seems to be how it stands right now in Mark. But I saw several places in Matthew where it is still "gospel." Have we come to any consensus on this? My own feeling is that "good news" is a more descriptive phrase to translate the Greek, but "gospel" is certainly a term with some rich heritage. Has any official decision been made on this one?--Cory Howell 12:06, 22 October 2009 (EDT)