Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bible Translation Issues"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(Taking command: new section)
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
: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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:22, 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. {{Bible ref|book=Revelations|chap=22|verses=18-19}}.
 +
 +
Comments, anyone? Reply here or on my Talk page for now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:07, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 20:07, 13 October 2009

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.--TerryHTalk 22:07, 13 October 2009 (EDT)