Camel or Rope

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
What was your take on that?

Further admitting my bias here, but this guy was a very bright chemical engineer, and very close friend and work colleague, and I was kind of shocked by his comment.

My friend, to reconcile the mistranslation with his belief that the Bible was inerrant, he had to believe that the mistranslation was intended by God (for whatever reason God may have had), and that God knew all and never made a mistake, and for whatever reason God possessed, God wanted the King James version of the Bible to have "camel" instead of "rope".

In general, the fundamentalist brainwashing pushing the literal inerrancy of the Bible is incredible. And this guy is incredibly bright as I indicated. He got his B.S. in Ch.E. at Virginia Tech and his M.S. in Ch.E. at Cornell, and is now a top VP of a chemical company.

Originally posted by moon1969
Further admitting my bias here, but this guy was a very bright chemical engineer, and very close friend and work colleague, and I was kind of shocked by his comment.

My friend, to reconcile the mistranslation with his belief that the Bible was inerrant, he had to believe that the mistranslation was intended by God (for whatever reason God may have had) t Virginia Tech and his M.S. in Ch.E. at Cornell, and is now a top VP of a chemical company.

to cite camel or rope as an example of Biblical errancy, when lets face it, its based on
nothing but pure conjecture, has no foundation in the actual text and is not even a
mistranslation is more incredible than any claim that fundamentalists have made with
regard to the integrity of the Biblical text, in fact, dare i say it, it amounts to nothing
more than straining out the gnat and gulping down the camel, or should that be,
straining out the cat and gulping down the rope?😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Well done, yes indeed, the text actually reads Junia, there is no such name as Junias,
simply because she was 'noted among the apostles', she has become a man,
demonstrating, nothing more than gender bias in translation. Yes I have to agree, I
think it was much more egalitarian.

Man, I argued that up and down a few years ago. And you know I was not the worst schlock at exegesis. It just made me feel good to hear you affirm it, that's all. Silly, really. 🙂

Originally posted by RJHinds
The JW's are the ones that impose the most bias on their translation.

I don’t think that’s the case, RJ. And Robbie and I have traded a lot of exegetical disagreements on here, based on various translations as well as references to the original languages (though I was better at the Hebrew than at the Greek). I mean a lot of disagreements (all in the context of a developing friendship, however, which could have too easily been derailed by some of my early sharp comments).

All translation—even attempted literal word-by-word translation—ends up being inescapably interpretive. I recall in particular that the interpretive rendering of YHVH in the New World translation, as quoted to me by Robbie, was not my first pick—but it was valid, and caught some of the nuance of the Hebrew construct that other translations, even the ones that I preferred generally, didn’t. And Robbie and I, for example, seldom disagreed over the validity of differing possibilities, just the final rightness of some of them. (I would say the same for jaywill.)

There are lots of times, when you start dealing with that stuff, where you just have to say something like: “Well, that’s not what I think is the best translation—but it is valid and informative, and expands my knowledge of the original”. I think it’s the same as the arguments on here about John 1:1. I don’t think anybody has put a slam-dunk on the controversy—even though Robbie may think he has (with reference to the Sahidic Coptic texts), and Epiphenehas, on the other side, may think he has (focusing tightly on the Greek). And few were really happy with blackbeetle’s insights (as a native speaker and scholar) on the problems with the Koine Greek (though Robbie and I both accepted what he had to say: as I say, I was not as good at the Greek anyway 😉 ).

Originally posted by vistesd
Man, I argued that up and down a few years ago. And you know I was not the worst schlock at exegesis. It just made me feel good to hear you affirm it, that's all. Silly, really. 🙂

Lol, i love those terms, 'schlock', 'schmuck', they are just sooooo onomatopoeic, like
sizzling sausages, or bubbling brook, they kind of carry the idea of slapping someone
on the forehead for being a slacker! just brilliant.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t think that’s the case, RJ. And Robbie and I have traded a lot of exegetical disagreements on here, based on various translations as well as references to the original languages (though I was better at the Hebrew than at the Greek). I mean a lot of disagreements (all in the context of a developing friendship, however, which could have too eas ...[text shortened]... and I both accepted what he had to say: as I say, I was not as good at the Greek anyway 😉 ).

The interesting thing about John 1:1, as with all controversial passages, is that it
tends also to attract the most bias. As far as the term goes itself, regardless of
theological arguments which may or may not be correct, it is clear that the term
itself in the actual Greek text, has no definite article. Kia theos en ho logos, (i am
sorry dear friend to bore you with this, but it is important to state what is concrete
and what is not). Now we know that Greek has only one definite article, 'ho', or 'the',
in English'. A Greek indefinite noun will appear without the definite article and will
be translated into English with a, or an. This is not adding a word, its merely
obeying the rules of English grammar. We dont say for example, 'Vistesd is man',
no, we say, 'Vistesd is a man'.

The interesting thing about John 1:1 is that the translators of the text acknowledge
this when it comes to God, that is 'ho theos', the God, or properly in English simply
God and in the case of the Word, 'ho logos', literally 'the Word', but rather strangely
and conveniently ignore the rules of English grammar in the case of the second
theos, without the definite article and properly translated into English as 'a god'. If
John had wanted to state that the word was literally the Almighty he simply would
have put the definite article in and written , 'ho logos en ho theos', But he didn't, so
the question remains, why do the translators do it when they render the text into
English? Answer; religious bias.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
to cite camel or rope as an example of Biblical errancy, when lets face it, its based on
nothing but pure conjecture, has no foundation in the actual text and is not even a
mistranslation is more incredible than any claim that fundamentalists have made with
regard to the integrity of the Biblical text, in fact, dare i say it, it amounts to noth ...[text shortened]... gulping down the camel, or should that be,
straining out the cat and gulping down the rope?😵

Thanks for the reply. Based on your research, do you think it "camel" through the eye of needle or "rope" through the eye of the needle. And do you think the Bible inerrant.

Originally posted by moon1969
Thanks for the reply. Based on your research, do you think it "camel" through the eye of needle or "rope" through the eye of the needle. And do you think the Bible inerrant.

The Greek text reads Camel, there is no supporting evidence to the contrary, all else is
mere opinion. It depends what you mean inerrant? also it depends on what portion of
scripture you are referring to for there are literally thousand of extant parchments,
codices, manuscripts and papyri which can be compared and a consensus made as
regards the integrity of the text. Its in better shape than it ever was. The problem is
not with the integrity of the base texts, its with the translation of those base texts.

I suppose the best thing that we can state in this regard is that the text has not
succumbed to any fundamental change, despite the machinations of translators
harbouring their bias and seeking to slip it into the text with a slip of a tense here and
a readjustment of the Greek idiom there.

Originally posted by moon1969
The original Greek tells not of a camel, but a rope (kamilos ). When it was translated into Latin, kamilos was confused with kamelos (camel).

This translation error has been perpetuated into almost every language in which the Scriptures has been printed.

I have Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon and I looked up the Greek word
for "camel", which starts with a "K" in Greek. The next word listed in
alphabetical order as you said was spelled the same with the exception
that the fourth letter was an "i". The meaning for this word was given
as "cable". So I guess a "cable" could be a "rope" and you may be
right that it makes more sense to contrast a "thread" with a "rope" or
"cable" than a "camel". So a one letter error can make a difference.
Fortunately, the meaning of what Jesus was saying would not be any
different in either case.