The difficulties of translation.

How can anyone be a bible literalist when faced with the following reality? Taken from:

http://m.ancient-hebrew.org/basics.html

When the reader of the translation comes across the translator's attempts at translating the difficult text, the reader almost always makes the assumption the translator has accurately translated the text. The following passage will give an example of some of the difficulties the translators face when attempting to convert the Hebrew text into an understandable English rendering.

Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks. (Genesis 6:16 - RSV)

The above translation seems very clear, concise and understandable. The reader would have no problem understanding the meaning of the text and assumes this translation adequately represents the original text. Behind this translation lies the Hebrew, which must be a translator's nightmare. Below is a literal rendering of the same verse according to the Hebrew.

“A light you do to an ark and to a cubit you complete it from to over it and a door of the ark in its side you put unders twenty and thirty you do.”

This is not an isolated case, but occurs continually throughout the Biblical texts.

It doesn't make any sense unless you propely understand ancient hebrew language structure, culture and way of thinking. But the translations are always from the cultural perspective of the translator, and reflects the translator's belief about the meaning of the text, rather than necessarily the original intention behind it, right?

I thought this might be an interesting point for bible literalists to consider, if they haven't already. And if they have, I'd be interested in knowing how they tackle it.

Originally posted by C Hess
How can anyone be a bible literalist when faced with the following reality? Taken from:

http://m.ancient-hebrew.org/basics.html

[quote]When the reader of the translation comes across the translator's attempts at translating the difficult text, the reader almost always makes the assumption the translator has accurately translated the text. The following ...[text shortened]... der, if they haven't already. And if they have, I'd be interested in knowing how they tackle it.

Could you please tell me which of these major tenets of my faith this effects?

1.) God has spoken in His Word the Bible, to mankind.
2.) God is the Creator of all.
3.) Christ is the Son of God
4.) Christ died and rose for our redemption from our sins and gifted us with eternal salvation.
5.) We can receive Christ as Lord and Savior.
6.) His church consists of all those indwelt with Christ as eternal life.
7.) God is available, knowable, and can live in our hearts.
8.) God's kingdom is coming and eternal.

Which one of these teachings is sorely effected by the problem of cubits or window size in the ark of Noah?

Originally posted by sonship
Could you please tell me which of these major tenets of my faith this effects?

1.) God has spoken in His Word the Bible, to mankind.
2.) God is the Creator of all.
3.) Christ is the Son of God
4.) Christ died and rose for our redemption from our sins and gifted us with eternal salvation.
5.) We can receive Christ as Lord and Savior.
6.) His church c ...[text shortened]... f these teachings is sorely effected by the problem of cubits or window size in the ark of Noah?

This is not an isolated case, but occurs continually throughout the Biblical texts.

You tell me. I'm not a biblical scholar, nor do I master hebrew, nor am I intimately familiar with the hebrew texts or their translations. I'm simply asking if you believe the bible literally, have you considered these problems of translation?

Originally posted by C Hess
How can anyone be a bible literalist when faced with the following reality? Taken from:

http://m.ancient-hebrew.org/basics.html

[quote]When the reader of the translation comes across the translator's attempts at translating the difficult text, the reader almost always makes the assumption the translator has accurately translated the text. The following ...[text shortened]... der, if they haven't already. And if they have, I'd be interested in knowing how they tackle it.

Response is better off when viable solutions attained during the night

Originally posted by C Hess

This is not an isolated case, but occurs continually throughout the Biblical texts.

You tell me. I'm not a biblical scholar, nor do I master hebrew, nor am I intimately familiar with the hebrew texts or their translations. I'm simply asking if you believe the bible literally, have you considered these problems of translation?

You tell me. I'm not a biblical scholar, nor do I master hebrew, nor am I intimately familiar with the hebrew texts or their translations. I'm simply asking if you believe the bible literally, have you considered these problems of translation?

Many good English translations have footnotes, side bars or even study notes. In these notes attention is often brought to different renderings or scholarly opinions on difficult translations.

One extreme version of this kind of study Bible is called the Amplified Bible.

That is all I can comment right now.

Originally posted by whodey
Response is better off when viable solutions attained during the night

Hah!

(I see what you did there.)

Originally posted by C Hess
How can anyone be a bible literalist when faced with the following reality? Taken from:

http://m.ancient-hebrew.org/basics.html

[quote]When the reader of the translation comes across the translator's attempts at translating the difficult text, the reader almost always makes the assumption the translator has accurately translated the text. The following ...[text shortened]... der, if they haven't already. And if they have, I'd be interested in knowing how they tackle it.

This knid of thing happen in translating every language that I am aware of. So what is the big deal?

Originally posted by RJHinds
This knid of thing happen in translating every language that I am aware of. So what is the big deal?

You're not the least bit worried that a literal understanding of the English translation might be way off?

Originally posted by C Hess
You're not the least bit worried that a literal understanding of the English translation might be way off?

If the translation makes sense in context, I may check a couple other literal English translations and see if they convey the same idea. If so I usually let it go.

If for some reason, I believe it could be in error, I check as many English translations as I can including the paraphrased translations. If I still have doubts I check an Interlinear version containing the original language and their English tranlation of each word and Strong's concordance for words in question as well as a lexicon for the language in question to see various meanings of the word.

Once I decide on something that makes sense in context and agrees with the rest of scripture without contradicting anything, then I am satisfied.

One example in which all the versions seem to be saying the same thing but still did not agree with the rest of scripture is Luke 23:43. The KJV has it like this:

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Other English versions are all in agreement with this and it even seems to make sense in context. However, it does not agree with the rest of New Testament scripture because we learn from scripture that this paradise referred to is the paradise of God in Heaven and Jesus did not ascend to Heaven that very day and we don't even know if the criminal that Jesus said this to actually died that same day. It was after His resurrection that Jesus told one of the women to stop clinging to Him because He had not yet ascended up to His Father.

The solution to this problem was solved by someone much smarter than myself and who knew a lot about the Greek language. So sometimes it is also good to consult commentaries of scholars on difficult passages.

He knew that capitalization and punctuation were add by the translator. So the above passage translated in English in the word order written in Greek from an Interlinear looks like this:

and said to him Jesus assuredly I say to you today with me you will be in paradise

So with the correct punctuation we have the corrected version that agrees with the rest of scripture as seen below:

And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise."

So the problem with all the translations is that they put the comma before today instead of after.

Originally posted by C Hess
You're not the least bit worried that a literal understanding of the English translation might be way off?

Yes its of some concern for the Bible reader because many of the translators have also not only the things that you mention to contend with but they come with a religious bias and attempt to impose that religious bias onto scripture where none exists in the text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes its of some concern for the Bible reader because many of the translators have also not only the things that you mention to contend with but they come with a religious bias and attempt to impose that religious bias onto scripture where none exists in the text.

The only solution seems to be that you put an atheist scholar, who's mastered both ancient hebrew and is intimately familiar with their culture, to translate the texts. That should give you a religiously unbiased translation, no?

Originally posted by C Hess
The only solution seems to be that you put an atheist scholar, who's mastered both ancient hebrew and is intimately familiar with their culture, to translate the texts. That should give you a religiously unbiased translation, no?

Not necessarily an atheist simply someone that is objective enough and will simply translate the text from the perspective of a linguist.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Not necessarily an atheist simply someone that is objective enough and will simply translate the text from the perspective of a linguist.

And where can I find such a translation? Because comparing different translations and figuring it out for myself is too much work. 🙄

Usually there are no real issues with the Hebrew text, the Masorettes were charged with copying it and numbered every single letter in every single page to make sure that when they made a copy it was as faithful as was humanly possible. The Christian Greek scriptures are a different matter and have been subject to interpolation and unscrupulous translation. As far as I am aware the New world translation of the Holy scriptures is the most accurate translation available. This has been independently verified by associate professor Jason BeDhun who made a study of nine of the most popular English translations from a pure linguistic perspective.

BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the most accurate of the translations compared", and thus a "remarkably good translation", adding that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation".



http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Usually there are no real issues with the Hebrew text, the Masorettes were charged with copying it and numbered every single letter in every single page to make sure that when they made a copy it was as faithful as was humanly possible. The Christian Greek scriptures are a different matter and have been subject to interpolation and unscrupulous tran ...[text shortened]... a literal, conservative translation".



http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/

He said he wanted an objective, linguistic translation not tainted with religious overtones.

The NWT is certainly not that.

In fact, the NWT was written specifically to adhere to the already-existing, man-made (not derived from any Bibles) dogma of the JW church.

Whereas most denominations derive their dogma directly from the Bible, the dogma of the JW church was derived from within, not from any Bible. The NWT was commissioned to adhere to this dogma, and so, IN FACT, the JW translation is miles behind ANY other Bible. And this is not to mention that these supposed 'experts' the JW church says worked on their translation have all been involved in other work creating equally specious texts. Their 'expertness' is questionable, as are their educational credentials. I'd go so far as to say they were PAID to come up with a translation that upholds the already-existing JW dogma, but I do not know this for a fact, and so it must remain speculation, although a probable one.

Robbie has a stake in this discussion, so OF COURSE he touts HIS church's questionable translation as "most accurate", when nothing is further from the truth.

'Pure linguistic perspective'? You have GOT to be kidding me. The sheer level of scholarly ability put into this translation is severely lacking. It is nothing more than a defense of their own questionable dogma. The JWs are the ONLY denomination to base their Bible on their dogma, instead of their dogma on the Bible.