Biblical Translation.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by mikie8

with the many interpretations , misunderstandings ,translations and the "reading between the lines " there is no direct path from the bible to god

That may well be your opinion - but that is all it is - not an expression of truth. Because one cannot see it, does not mean it is not there.

Thomas

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by Thomas

That may well be your opinion - but that is all it is - not an expression of truth.
Thomas

I believe that most opinion indeed comes under that regard.

Btw - brucegc's earlier links are very informative, if anyone wishes to check them out.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by aged hippy

What i am seeking is the most accurate translation of Genesis, and would deeply appreciate any assistance whatsoever.

Hi Malcolm -

Having posted just prior to this, I thought I might offer a more specific indication, rather than answer.

The best bet is to find a text or commentary that 'lights you up' as it were, but without knowing your tastes I can't offer assistance. What's your flavour - Doctrinal? Evangelical? Mystical? Spiritual? Neoplatonic? Kabbalistic? Alchemical?

My own turning point was symbolism - which I thought I understood - but in which 'my eyes were opened' by a Buddhist writing on Initiation and the Rending of the Veil of the Temple as accounted in the Gospels.

Thomas

[mikie8]

@ thomus what do you mean no truth in my statement .i said no direct path .if the path was direct i.e. form a to b then all christians will have the same belief but as they dont then there is no DIRECT path just a path they make for themselfs .the bible people read today is a book rewritten time and time again that is the truth .plz dont flame if ou dont understand ,because the book has been altered sooo much there is not direct path from god to the bible

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by mikie8

plz dont flame if ou dont understand ,because the book has been altered sooo much there is not direct path from god to the bible

OK - one step at a time -

I did not intend offence - I simply pointed out that there is a difference between a statement of fact and of opinion.

You cannot say 'no direct path' because you cannot speak for the rest of humanity - only for yourself - that is why I said you are stating an opinion - not a fact. To be a fact you would have to ask everyone whop has ever read scripture to endorse your viewpoint.

Divergence in belief is to do with people not the Path, nor Revelation, nor Scripture.

That each person is called to walk their own path is part of Christian doctrine. There would be no point in having two people live exactly the same life.

The argument that Scripture has been altered so much that it no longer serves as a Symbol and a Sacrament falls flat because it serves precisely as such for myself and for others.

Thomas

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

OT translation? why not start with the Septuagint LXX?

you can go here for a very good link for the Greek to English translation:

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Genesis/index.html

[mikie8]

for opinion to be fact it must be proved beyond any doubt and as i can not ask all chridtians i will not be able to speak for them .

the bible in its first form is very different from todays form true ?

is it the writings of prophets or of wealthy clergy and kings that give us the word of god through a book ?

why would wealthy clergy or kings rewrite the word of god ?

why would god allow such small minded (compared to god) entities decifer the book if a known truth exists ?

1+1=? is the answer a known truth with a single straight path or is it for all to decide on with thier own opinion?

fact even if a bible was written once apon a time the book today called the bible is not the one .it may help ppl find god but so may uncle toms cabin but that dont make it gods work or true scriptures .
the only book in mainstream religion as i know from my history lessons at skool was the koran as its newish and only written in its native tounge untill recently.the history of the bible is well documented and is known to have changed many many times .

[Nogodnomasters]

Mike 8, that is the common belief among scholars that the book was "rewritten." I contend the book was considered an astrological record of time, hence the OT (at least) was never "rewritten" in the sense of taking material OUT. I contend the original text is in tact and was simply added to over time. I have an unpublished book (at the moment) where I identify the original OT text written circa 2141 BCE. give or take a few years and a couple of verses.

One of the techniques I have identified as a way to detect inserted material is to look for the "doublet", a repeated sentence, phrase, or idea within the text. The passages in between those lines represent insereted material, normally with a small trickle effect throughout the chapter. hence Solomon becomes King twice, Saul dies twice, Abraham travels with Lot twice, Moses occupies the cities the Amorites twice, etc. etc.

Once this material is deleted, the anachronisms and Biblical contradictions go away.

[mikie8]

the bible has been translated many many times in its own day some books were wrote in different languages and then translated to others and back again ,scriptures rewrote some parts deletted and some books ignored altogether.all this is well documented.i have read the torah and there is more than one english version it all depends on who translates it on what the outcome of the scripture is .if there is one truth why is it not written down as a truth ?
the bible was illegal to be read except by priests even monks who rewrote the bible was only allowed one page to copy and someone else had to copy the next page .clergy cant have children to protect the churchs money from thier heirs .people confessed to the church the priest had the bishops ear and so on untill the pope ,so in effect the pope knew everything about everyone ,not a picture was painted of royalty without the church being in the picture someway .knowleage is power . he who contrals the knowleage controls all .the bible was not rewritten by accident it has cleverly been changed for a reason .
depends what you believe in but imo everyone believes something different
e.g. the holy ghost ?where oh where does it mention the holy ghost in the bible ? i have read four bibles and none mentioned the holy ghost but millions of ppl still think it must be in the book ,even ppl who have read it say it must be in there but they cant remember where ?
is that bad translation ?, misunderstanding ?, or just misleading ?

[I, Brian]

I haven't yet been able to find what I was looking for on the issue of translations.

I did, however, find the following article from an old back-up of my hard drive: (unfurtunately, it tends to be a very numbers based Atheist argument, but it does importantly illustrate some important translation issues) - - -



Here, more than anywhere else, is clear evidence of attempts by translators to resolve conflicts by simply rewriting the script.

GEN. 14:12 ("And they took Lot Abram's brother's son (i.e., Abram's nephew)...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, NIV, LV) versus Gen. 14:14 ("And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive"--KJ, ASV, NWT, MT) or ("When Abram heard that his kinsman was taken captive"--RS, ML, JB, NEB, NAS, NIV) or ("And Abram hearing that his brother's son had been...."--BBE, NAB, TEV). A contradiction exists in the KJ, ASV, NWT, and MT. All others wrote the text in such a way as to escape the obvious conflict.

2 SAM. 6:23 ("Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, NIV, MT) versus 2 Sam. 21:8 ("...and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul...."--KJ, ASV, NWT, MT) or ("And the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul...."--RS, ML, JB, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NAS, NIV) or ("And the five sons of Nadab the daughter of Saul...."--LV). Again, only the KJ, ASV, NWT, and MT reveal the contradiction. All others eliminated the problem created by 2 Sam. 21:8 through changing the name of Saul's daughter to Merab or Nadab.

1 CHRON. 18:4 ("And David took from him 1,000 chariots and 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 footmen...."--all versions) versus 2 Sam. 8:4 ("And David took...700 horsemen and 20,000 footmen"--KJ, RS, ML) or ("David captured 1,700 cavalry and 20,000 infantry"--LB, JB, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) or ("David captured...7,000 charioteers and 20,000 foot soldiers...."--NIV). Only the NIV resolved this contradiction to any meaningful degree.

2 SAM. 24:9 ("...there were in Israel 800,000 valiant men that drew the sword"--All versions) versus 1 Chron. 21:5 ("All they of Israel were a 1,100,000 that drew the sword"--all versions). In this instance, nobody rewrote the script to escape the dichotomy. Apparently they think one can defend the belief that women or unvaliant men compose the 300,000 difference, a proposition that's not really viable.

A classic example is found in 2 CHRON. 9:25 ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, ASV, BBE, NAB, NAS, MT, LV) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his horses and chariots and 12,000 horses"--JB, NIV, NEB, TEV, NWT) versus 1 Kings 4:26 ("Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen"--KJ, RS, ML, ASV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls and 12,000 horses"--JB) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for chariot horses and 12,000 horses"--NIV) or ("Solomon had 40,000 chariot horses in his stalls and 12,000 cavalry horses"--NEB) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his 12,000 chariot horses and 12,000 cavalry horses"--TEV) or ("Solomon had 4,000 stalls for his 12,000 chariot horses"--NAB) or ("Solomon had 4,000 boxed off spaces for horses for his carriages and 12,000 horsemen"--BBE). Close examination will show that contradictions exist within every version except the JB, NIV, BBE, and NAB.

Another exceptionally good example is 1 KINGS 7:26 ("...it contained 2,000 baths"--KJ, RS, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) or (...its capacity was 18,000 gallons"--ML) or ("...it had a 12,000 gallon capacity"--LB) or ("...its capacity was 2,000 measures"--NAB) or ("...the tank held about 10,000 gallons"--TEV) versus 2 Chron. 4:5 ("...it received and held 3,000 baths"--KJ, RS, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NWT, NAS, MT) or ("...it held 3,000 barrels"--ML, LB) or ("...it had a capacity of 3,000 measures"--NAB) or ("The tank held about 15,000 gallons"--TEV). In this case, any version except the LB or ML will cause a biblicist trouble.

2 KINGS 8:26 ("...22 years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign"--KJ, ML, TEV, LB, RS, JB, ASV, BBE, NIV, NAB, NWT, NEB, NAS, MT, LV) versus 2 Chron. 22:2 ("...42 years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign"--KJ, RS, ML, ASV, NEB, MT) or ("...20 years old was Ahaziah...."--JB) or ("...22 years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign"--BBE, NIV, NAB, NWT, NAS, TEV, LB, LV). Creators of the BBE, NIV, NAB, NWT, NAS, TEV, LB, and LV versions opted for a script alteration to avoid rationalizing.

2 KINGS 24:8 ("Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign and he reigned in Jerusalem 3 months"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) versus 2 Chron. 36:9 ("Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 3 months and 10 days in Jerusalem"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, NAS, MT) or ("Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem 3 months and 10 days"--NIV, TEV, NWT, LV).

Biblicists are trapped no matter what path they pursue. 2 KINGS 25:8 ("...and in the 5th month on the 7th day of the month...."--KJ, RS, ML, JB, NIV, ASV, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV) versus Jer. 52:12 ("Now in the 5th month, in the 10th day of the month...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT, LV).

1 CHRON. 19:18 ("...David slew of the Syrians 7,000 men which fought in chariots and 40,000 footmen...."--KJ, RS, ML, LB, JB, NIV, ASV, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT) versus 2 Sam. 10:18 ("David slew the men of 700 chariots...and 40,000 horsemen"--KJ, RS, ML, LB, ASV, NEB, TEV, NWT, NAS, MT) or ("David killed 700 of their chariot teams and 40,000 men"--JB) or ("David killed 700 of their charioteers and 40,000 of their foot soldiers"--NIV, BBE, NAB) or ("David destroyed 1,700 chariots...and slew 4,000 horsemen"--LV).

[mikie8]

nice post

it just illistrates how many interpretations there are has anyone studied this ?

can someone please look at the ten commandment one of the most important parts of the bible as they are direct laws given byt god .but in my research i found the commandment about adultery does not even exsist but if i misinterpreted this please correct me as my greek and latin are pretty bad

[Nogodnomasters]

Yes Mike 8, a lot of this has been studied. I might suggest Harper's Bible Commentary as a starting point. Exodus 34:14-26 is the original 10 commandments.

[mikie8]

34:14 for ye do not bow yourselves to another god -- for Jehovah, whose name `is' Zealous, is a zealous God.

34:15 `Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitant of the land, and they have gone a-whoring after their gods, and have sacrificed to their gods, and `one' hath called to thee, and thou hast eaten of his sacrifice,

34:16 and thou hast taken of their daughters to thy sons, and their daughters have gone a-whoring after their gods, and have caused thy sons to go a-whoring after their gods;

34:17 a molten god thou dost not make to thyself.

34:18 `The feast of unleavened things thou dost keep; seven days thou dost eat unleavened things, as I have commanded thee, at an appointed time, the month of Abib: for in the month of Abib thou didst come out from Egypt.

34:19 `All opening a womb `are' Mine, and every firstling of thy cattle born a male, ox or sheep;

34:20 and the firstling of an ass thou dost ransom with a lamb; and if thou dost not ransom, then thou hast beheaded it; every first-born of thy sons thou dost ransom, and they do not appear before Me empty.

34:21 `Six days thou dost work, and on the seventh day thou dost rest; in ploughing-time and in harvest thou dost rest.

34:22 `And a feast of weeks thou dost observe for thyself; first-fruits of wheat-harvest; and the feast of in-gathering, at the revolution of the year.

34:23 `Three times in a year do all thy males appear before the Lord Jehovah, God of Israel;

34:24 for I dispossess nations from before thee, and have enlarged thy border, and no man doth desire thy land in thy going up to appear before Jehovah thy God three times in a year.

34:25 `Thou dost not slaughter with a fermented thing the blood of My sacrifice; and the sacrifice of the feast of the passover doth not remain till morning:

34:26 the first of the first-fruits of the land thou dost bring into the house of Jehovah thy God; thou dost not boil a kid in its mother's milk.'

still not getting this adutry thing ?

[bananabrain]

hmmm. i dare say that many of these opinions are held sincerely and with integrity, but the way they are expressed is really calculated to put the back up of anyone who studies Torah using the traditional approach, because it assumes an unwarranted exclusivity of approach and, more problematically, appeals to a set of validation categories outside the system in which the text itself operates. the jewish sages have their own way of reconciling these apparent contradictions - the written Text is not even half the story without the Oral Law. do you think we haven't noticed these things? the "bible" you are attacking is a delusion of the "age of reason" - the so-called "vengeful G!D of the old testament" is an easy target, but bears as much relation to the Ineffable Reality of HaMaqom as something somebody told you in the pub does to the 'big bang'.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[mikie8]

@ bannanabrain

are you saying the text is no good unless someone tells you what it really means ?
and
it has no relevance ?