Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Translations

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 6:28:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

Well first let me say that I'm impressed with your language skills (I'm appalling at languages probably lazy but also not something I excel at).

Now if you're referring to mistranslations from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic to other languages then surely you're not claiming that translation errors or ambiguities are impossible?

For over a thousand years all Bibles used (outside of Hebrew/Greek speakers) since around AD 200, were Latin. St. Jerome worked hard to translate Hebrew and Greek scriptures (selecting his sources from among several) into Latin.

Thereafter all translations to other languages were FROM that (already translated) Latin text.

This cascading translation practice will lead to an accumulation of subtle errors or interpretations.

For example in the Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis you'll find that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there earth became chaotic and disorganized" is still translated as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there was void and without form".

The change from "became" to "was" has important implications and very few people are even aware of this and many other similar translation issues.

Far too many people who adopt the Bible as having divine meaning, fail to diligently verify their understanding against what was actually written.

Translators have for centuries tended to resolve ambiguous possible meanings by adopting those that fit with their own already held beliefs rather than forming their beliefs around what was actually written.

Many practices and traditions associated with Christianity are the opposite of what's actually written in scripture like - the importance of the Sabbath, the nature of hell, clean and unclean foods, the trinity etc what prevailing Christianity teaches today is very different from what was originally written.

Harry.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

Though there is some truth in that, there are other, more important ways to judge a translation.

You are speaking of translations which convey, not literal verbatim meanings, but the feel, the sense of the original. That is what translations should do especially if the language you are translating from is rich in descriptive significance.

A very typical example of that, n my eyes anyway, is John 1:1.

Most people, even most translators have completely misunderstood the true meaning and sense of that verse, because they have ignored the fact that Koine Greek was more descriptive than literal.

Thus when John 1:1 uses a form of the word which we generally translate as "god" to describe The Word, it is not actually saying who the word is, but is describing his nature, his form.

Hence more accurate versions render that version of the word for "god" as "of divine substance", " of the nature of God" and similar terms which are more accurately descriptive, and convey the true sense of the verse far better than the bland "a god" though "a god" is completely accurate.

Incidentally, you don't need to know languages to work that sort of thing out, whilst I admit I do know a little French, mostly schoolboy French, though I did once have a French pen pal (more accurately keyboard pal since our discussions were held in French and online). I do now how to get to the true sense of a passage in English even and scored well on just that in my Arts course with the Open University.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:06:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.

That is easy.

The only thing it can possibly men is that the sun moon and stars were made visible from the earth, since they had existed since verse 1, and the light from the sun had reached the earth in verse 3.

After all, I am sure that even you can understand, if you choose to that is, that the sun moon and stars can't be created twice over. Once they exist, they exist. Simple as.

Or do I credit you with more intelligence than you actually posses?
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:12:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:06:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.

That is easy.

The only thing it can possibly men
Wrong before you even start.
I asked you to translate it not what you claim it should mean.
Translate gen 1:14.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:33:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

What religions are you talking about? Judaism and Christianity don't have any problem with translating the scriptures into different languages. It's been done since the beginning. I imagine you are talking about Islam, which holds that a non-Arabic translation is not reliable.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
TREssspa
Posts: 567
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:49:34 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 4:33:15 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

What religions are you talking about? Judaism and Christianity don't have any problem with translating the scriptures into different languages. It's been done since the beginning. I imagine you are talking about Islam, which holds that a non-Arabic translation is not reliable.

Hinduism. Right DanneJe?
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:27:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 4:49:34 AM, TREssspa wrote:
At 2/28/2016 4:33:15 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

What religions are you talking about? Judaism and Christianity don't have any problem with translating the scriptures into different languages. It's been done since the beginning. I imagine you are talking about Islam, which holds that a non-Arabic translation is not reliable.

Hinduism. Right DanneJe?

Hindusim can only be translated from high caste rabbit into low cast rabbit.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:32:39 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:06:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.

That is easy.

The only thing it can possibly men is that the sun moon and stars were made visible from the earth, since they had existed since verse 1, and the light from the sun had reached the earth in verse 3.

Ummm ... once again you demonstrate that you really do not comprehend the difference between a translation and a commentary. He didn't ask you to provide your own commentary on the passage.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 5:44:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

Though there is some truth in that, there are other, more important ways to judge a translation.

Yes, such as "does it fit with my predetermined brainwashing?". If not, change it! Or reinterpret it!

You are speaking of translations which convey, not literal verbatim meanings, but the feel, the sense of the original. That is what translations should do especially if the language you are translating from is rich in descriptive significance.

God should have made the bible bloody simple then. None of this bloody woo woo descriptive language with hidden meanings (hint: revelation) but strait forward meanings.

A very typical example of that, n my eyes anyway, is John 1:1.

Really? The translation is very simple:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" or

"God was the word"

The Greek words "God was the word" is Theos en ho logos, which literally means:

"God I am the word" (the Greek seems backward when translated to English, but it means basically "The Word was God".

So we can deduce that the message is that the Word is God. What is the difficulty here?

Most people, even most translators have completely misunderstood the true meaning and sense of that verse, because they have ignored the fact that Koine Greek was more descriptive than literal.

BS

Thus when John 1:1 uses a form of the word which we generally translate as "god" to describe The Word, it is not actually saying who the word is, but is describing his nature, his form.

No, it literally said "Word was God". It wasn't descriptive. It even said "in the beginning", which is obviously an allusion to Genesis 1:1 where God creates everything. It is describing him, but it's describing him literally.

Hence more accurate versions render that version of the word for "god" as "of divine substance", " of the nature of God" and similar terms which are more accurately descriptive, and convey the true sense of the verse far better than the bland "a god" though "a god" is completely accurate.

BS. Not accurate. "Theos" does not mean "divine substance". It means "God".

Incidentally, you don't need to know languages to work that sort of thing out, whilst I admit I do know a little French, mostly schoolboy French, though I did once have a French pen pal (more accurately keyboard pal since our discussions were held in French and online). I do now how to get to the true sense of a passage in English even and scored well on just that in my Arts course with the Open University.

Well done. Unfortunately you can't even bother to look up crap that doesn't conform to your own predisposition. *slow clap*
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Gentorev
Posts: 2,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:39:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 6:28:01 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Well first let me say that I'm impressed with your language skills (I'm appalling at languages probably lazy but also not something I excel at).

Now if you're referring to mistranslations from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic to other languages then surely you're not claiming that translation errors or ambiguities are impossible?

The bible has to be continually edited. I believe that almost every bible today makes a contradiction between Act 9: 7 which states that the men travelling with Saul heard the voice that spoke to him, while Acts 22: 9; concerning the same event, Paul says that the men who were travelling with him saw the Light, but did not hear the voice.

In Acts 9:7; the Greek "akouo," meaning "To give ear" or "to hear," is used, where it is written; "The men who were travelling with Paul heard the voice but did not see anyone." The same Greek term is used in Acts 22: 9; where Paul says that the men with him saw the light (Of the presence of the glorified body of Jesus of Nazareth) but the did not hear="akouo," the voice of the one who was speaking to me. This erroneous interpretation pits God"s word against itself.

But when we look to 1st Corinthians 14: 2; we find there that it is written, "The one who speaks in strange tongues does not speak to others but to God, because no one, "akouo = UNDERSTANDS" him." The Greek "akouo" is here translated "to Understand" and so Acts 9:7; reveals that the men who were with Paul heard the voice, but Acts 22: 9; reveals that they did not understand what the voice they heard was saying.

So we now know that the men who were with Saul, saw no man, nor did Saul, but He and his travelling companions did see the light, and all heard the voice, but only Saul was able to understand the voice which said, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" to which Saul responded ,"Who are you Lord?" to then hear and understand the answer, "I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you persecute."

For over a thousand years all Bibles used (outside of Hebrew/Greek speakers) since around AD 200, were Latin. St. Jerome worked hard to translate Hebrew and Greek scriptures (selecting his sources from among several) into Latin.

Try the fourth century.

Thereafter all translations to other languages were FROM that (already translated) Latin text.

This cascading translation practice will lead to an accumulation of subtle errors or interpretations.

And each false interpretation, blind us to a hidden truth; for instance, the good new bible has taken 1st chronicles 2:16; where it is written that David had two sisters, who were Zeruiah and Abigail. The authors of the GNB bible thought that because they were the sisters of David, then they had to be the daughters of Jesse the father of David, and so erroneously interpreted the verse.

Therebye hiding the fact that the mother of David already had two daughters and a son, who were sired by King Nahash, that son being the eight son=stepson of Jesse, who is spoken of in 1st Samuel 16: 6-13; ad 17: 12. All of David's seven brothers, were all half brothers, 6 being born from a different womb than he, and one being sired by a different father than he.

For example in the Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis you'll find that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there earth became chaotic and disorganized" is still translated as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there was void and without form".

This I have referred to many times, when speaking of our eternal oscillating universe.


The change from "became" to "was" has important implications and very few people are even aware of this and many other similar translation issues.

Far too many people who adopt the Bible as having divine meaning, fail to diligently verify their understanding against what was actually written.

Translators have for centuries tended to resolve ambiguous possible meanings by adopting those that fit with their own already held beliefs rather than forming their beliefs around what was actually written.

Many practices and traditions associated with Christianity are the opposite of what's actually written in scripture like - the importance of the Sabbath, the nature of hell, clean and unclean foods, the trinity etc what prevailing Christianity teaches today is very different from what was originally written.

Here is another good example of erroneous translations.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman=Almah is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin=Parthenos shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

The Greek word parthenos used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term "Almah" that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as "virgin" is absolute, and according to Young"s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term "Almah," carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)

Go to "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature," by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, "Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating "Almah" as "Young Woman" in Isaiah 7: 14.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; "A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son." I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc."

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an "Almah" an "unmarried female" is with child and will bear a son," into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for "virgin," the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of "girl," or unmarried youth, and denotes "virgin" only by implication.

A more accurate rendering of the Greek "parthenos" is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a "parthenos".

In reference to Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, it is said that Anna was a prophetess who earnestly hoped for the coming of the Messiah, she was an old woman of 84 and had been a widow for seven years, never remarrying, but remaining in her parthenia=unmarried and sexually chaste state, ect, She was a parthenos, but that does not mean that she was a virgin.

To be continued.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 6:41:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Continued from post #12.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that "A young woman was with child." Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, was, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Matthew 1: 23; should now read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, by Hebrews in Alexandria, before the days of Jesus and they like Matthew, were forced to use the Greek term, "Parthenos" in translating the Hebrew "Almah" Because there was no other word in that Language that they could use for maiden, or young girl, etc.

"Parthenos," was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah"s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for "virgin," "Bethulah" which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:14:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 6:41:58 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Continued from post #12.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that "A young woman was with child." Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, was, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Matthew 1: 23; should now read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, by Hebrews in Alexandria, before the days of Jesus and they like Matthew, were forced to use the Greek term, "Parthenos" in translating the Hebrew "Almah" Because there was no other word in that Language that they could use for maiden, or young girl, etc.

"Parthenos," was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah"s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for "virgin," "Bethulah" which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

The only thing you are missing is that according to the Mosaic Law every unmarried woman had to be also a virgin.

What applies to other faiths did not apply to those under the law.

However you have a point that virgin does not necessarily mean an intact hymen. It does however mean a woman who has had no sexual intercourse with a man. There are many ways a hymen can be ruptured, possibly without the one it happens to even realising it has been. Many of them do not involve any form of sexual activity. The hymen is more fragile than many people like to think.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:23:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:44:13 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

Though there is some truth in that, there are other, more important ways to judge a translation.

Yes, such as "does it fit with my predetermined brainwashing?". If not, change it! Or reinterpret it!

You are speaking of translations which convey, not literal verbatim meanings, but the feel, the sense of the original. That is what translations should do especially if the language you are translating from is rich in descriptive significance.

God should have made the bible bloody simple then. None of this bloody woo woo descriptive language with hidden meanings (hint: revelation) but strait forward meanings.

A very typical example of that, n my eyes anyway, is John 1:1.

Really? The translation is very simple:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" or

"God was the word"

The Greek words "God was the word" is Theos en ho logos, which literally means:

"God I am the word" (the Greek seems backward when translated to English, but it means basically "The Word was God".

So we can deduce that the message is that the Word is God. What is the difficulty here?

Most people, even most translators have completely misunderstood the true meaning and sense of that verse, because they have ignored the fact that Koine Greek was more descriptive than literal.

BS

Thus when John 1:1 uses a form of the word which we generally translate as "god" to describe The Word, it is not actually saying who the word is, but is describing his nature, his form.

No, it literally said "Word was God". It wasn't descriptive. It even said "in the beginning", which is obviously an allusion to Genesis 1:1 where God creates everything. It is describing him, but it's describing him literally.

Hence more accurate versions render that version of the word for "god" as "of divine substance", " of the nature of God" and similar terms which are more accurately descriptive, and convey the true sense of the verse far better than the bland "a god" though "a god" is completely accurate.

BS. Not accurate. "Theos" does not mean "divine substance". It means "God".

Incidentally, you don't need to know languages to work that sort of thing out, whilst I admit I do know a little French, mostly schoolboy French, though I did once have a French pen pal (more accurately keyboard pal since our discussions were held in French and online). I do now how to get to the true sense of a passage in English even and scored well on just that in my Arts course with the Open University.

Well done. Unfortunately you can't even bother to look up crap that doesn't conform to your own predisposition. *slow clap*

Completely wrong.

To be sure you have truth you have to test that idea out thoroughly.

Truth is too important to me not to "destruction test" any theory, whether I like it or not.

I suspect it is you who has been guilty of ding that which you wrongly accuse me of.

No-one who cares about "truth" being comfortable will ever even look at being a JW so unpopular are they.

Only those who truly like to make sure before they judge, even test out what they teach, and they invariably become JWs.

What on earth makes you think anyone actually wants to be a JW, until they find that they cannot escape the fact that the JWs teach truth? After all, they all know that they are going to have to face up bigots like you if they do. Often face to face as well.

In fact you are so scared of being part of something so unpopular that you don't even dare investigate them properly. That's the real truth of it.

You think you are too clever, but you are right! Too clever for your own good (1 Corinthians 1 26-30).
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:30:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 5:32:39 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:06:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.

That is easy.

The only thing it can possibly men is that the sun moon and stars were made visible from the earth, since they had existed since verse 1, and the light from the sun had reached the earth in verse 3.

Ummm ... once again you demonstrate that you really do not comprehend the difference between a translation and a commentary. He didn't ask you to provide your own commentary on the passage.

Apparently you don't know the difference between a commentary and an analysis, lol. You cannot understand meaning if you do not analyse properly to rule out the impossible. Man made rules will mislead you.

I didn't comment on it. I simply showed how to analyse it and reach the correct understanding, thus translate it accurately. Rule out the impossible.

Any who don't rule out the impossible stand little chance at reaching the truth.

You however demonstrate frequently that you have so little care for truth, and far too much for rules imposed by humans.

Lol.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:32:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:14:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:12:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:06:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.

That is easy.

The only thing it can possibly men
Wrong before you even start.
I asked you to translate it not what you claim it should mean.
Translate gen 1:14.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:34:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:12:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:06:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.

That is easy.

The only thing it can possibly men
Wrong before you even start.
I asked you to translate it not what you claim it should mean.
Translate gen 1:14.

You asked me to translate Genesis 1:14, and I did. There is no point in translating it as something it cannot possibly mean, that is why it is mistranslated in the first place.

It is not the words used that matter, it is what the writer was thinking when he used them.

Only a fool ignores the overall meaning of a passage. It is no wonder you understand so little.

What is most important to translate, the dead words, or the living thoughts behind them?
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:44:20 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:23:51 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:44:13 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

Though there is some truth in that, there are other, more important ways to judge a translation.

Yes, such as "does it fit with my predetermined brainwashing?". If not, change it! Or reinterpret it!

You are speaking of translations which convey, not literal verbatim meanings, but the feel, the sense of the original. That is what translations should do especially if the language you are translating from is rich in descriptive significance.

God should have made the bible bloody simple then. None of this bloody woo woo descriptive language with hidden meanings (hint: revelation) but strait forward meanings.

A very typical example of that, n my eyes anyway, is John 1:1.

Really? The translation is very simple:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" or

"God was the word"

The Greek words "God was the word" is Theos en ho logos, which literally means:

"God I am the word" (the Greek seems backward when translated to English, but it means basically "The Word was God".

So we can deduce that the message is that the Word is God. What is the difficulty here?

Most people, even most translators have completely misunderstood the true meaning and sense of that verse, because they have ignored the fact that Koine Greek was more descriptive than literal.

BS

Thus when John 1:1 uses a form of the word which we generally translate as "god" to describe The Word, it is not actually saying who the word is, but is describing his nature, his form.

No, it literally said "Word was God". It wasn't descriptive. It even said "in the beginning", which is obviously an allusion to Genesis 1:1 where God creates everything. It is describing him, but it's describing him literally.

Hence more accurate versions render that version of the word for "god" as "of divine substance", " of the nature of God" and similar terms which are more accurately descriptive, and convey the true sense of the verse far better than the bland "a god" though "a god" is completely accurate.

BS. Not accurate. "Theos" does not mean "divine substance". It means "God".

Incidentally, you don't need to know languages to work that sort of thing out, whilst I admit I do know a little French, mostly schoolboy French, though I did once have a French pen pal (more accurately keyboard pal since our discussions were held in French and online). I do now how to get to the true sense of a passage in English even and scored well on just that in my Arts course with the Open University.

Well done. Unfortunately you can't even bother to look up crap that doesn't conform to your own predisposition. *slow clap*

Completely wrong.

To be sure you have truth you have to test that idea out thoroughly.

Truth is too important to me not to "destruction test" any theory, whether I like it or not.

I suspect it is you who has been guilty of ding that which you wrongly accuse me of.

No-one who cares about "truth" being comfortable will ever even look at being a JW so unpopular are they.

Only those who truly like to make sure before they judge, even test out what they teach, and they invariably become JWs.

What on earth makes you think anyone actually wants to be a JW, until they find that they cannot escape the fact that the JWs teach truth? After all, they all know that they are going to have to face up bigots like you if they do. Often face to face as well.

In fact you are so scared of being part of something so unpopular that you don't even dare investigate them properly. That's the real truth of it.

Blah blah blah irrelevant not what I wanted diverting the argument.

You think you are too clever, but you are right! Too clever for your own good (1 Corinthians 1 26-30).
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 12:49:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:34:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:12:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:06:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.

That is easy.

The only thing it can possibly men
Wrong before you even start.
I asked you to translate it not what you claim it should mean.
Translate gen 1:14.

You asked me to translate Genesis 1:14, and I did. There is no point in translating it as something it cannot possibly mean, that is why it is mistranslated in the first place.
You haven't translate gen 1:14 , as usual you have presented the story you so desperately need to believe.
It is not the words used that matter, it is what the writer was thinking when he used them.
The words are all you have madman, what the author meant is encapsulated in what he wrote.
Only a fool ignores the overall meaning of a passage. It is no wonder you understand so little.
We know what the passage means, it means what the words say. It's the seriously deluded like you who can't understand.
What is most important to translate, the dead words, or the living thoughts behind them?
Translation is translating the words, I understand your inability to understand that.
Now translate gen 1:14 since you claim that it is mistranslated in every bible on the planet.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Gentorev
Posts: 2,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:13:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:14:52 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

The only thing you are missing is that according to the Mosaic Law every unmarried woman had to be also a virgin.

And how many unmarried girl who lived in Israel during the Roman occupation, were still virgins.

What applies to other faiths did not apply to those under the law.

There was as much shacking up by unmarried girls in those days as there is today.

However you have a point that virgin does not necessarily mean an intact hymen. It does however mean a woman who has had no sexual intercourse with a man. There are many ways a hymen can be ruptured, possibly without the one it happens to even realising it has been. Many of them do not involve any form of sexual activity. The hymen is more fragile than many people like to think.

I bet you have been reading the writings of the lying Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church of Emperor Constantine, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother's vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

Erroneous, Highly suspect and down right lies but he managed to convince the idiots of this world.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. The sonless Yehoshua, had three elderly daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna. Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, he married them off to chosen husbands.

Joanna, was betrothed to Joachim from the genetic lineage of David. The second daughter of Yehoshua III, was Elizabeth, the sister to Hanna and aunty to Mary. Elizabeth, who was to become the mother of John the Baptist, was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

Hanna/Anna, the youngest of the three elderly daughters, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) A Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite, who was the stepson of David. Alexander Helios [Heli] is thought by some, to be the twin brother of Herod"s young Jewish wife Cleopatra, a Macedonian Jewess and mother of Philip Herod who ruled from Bethsaida, perhaps the twin children of Queen Cleopatra and Mark Antony who were adopted out when their parents committed suicide after losing their war against Caesar Augustus.

Alexander Helios=Heli, according to the genealogy of Jesus as recorded in Luke, was a descendant of Nathan the prophet who was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Oded-Edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi, by his second wife Jepunniah, who was the widow of a man from the tribe of Judah, and the mother of Caleb, who, at the age of forty, became the adopted son of Moses, and Jepunniah was the daughter of Hobab the Kennite, one of the two fathers-in-law to Moses, see Judges 4: 11.

The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b)." In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house, which means, that Heli and his descendants, who were born from the genetic line of Nathan "the prophet," who was the adopted son of King David, were legitimate heirs to the throne of David. But the prophesied Messiah had to come through the genetic line of Solomon.

Heli and his descendants were heirs of David, through Nathan the adopted son of King David. And Naria, a descendant of Nathan, married Tamar, a female descendant of King Solomon.

After the death of Naria, Tamar was taken to wife by King Jeconiah, whose only son, with Tamar, was Zedekiah, who died prematurely in childhood.

According to Torah law, Nathan the adopted son of King David and his descendants, were legitimate heirs to the throne of David, but not in the ancestral line of the promised Messiah, who was to be born of the seed of Solomon, until Naria the descendant of Nathan coupled with Tamah the descendant of Solomon, to produce Salathiel the ancestor of Jesus, who has been made High Priest (From the tribe of Levi) and King (From the tribe of Judah) in the order of Melchizedek.

Originally Cleopatra ruled with her father, Ptolemy XII Auletes, and later with her brothers, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV, whom she married as per Egyptian custom, but eventually she became sole ruler. No children were born from her union with her two brothers, but she did bear a son "Caesarion" to Julius Caesar, who was later elevated to co-ruler in name only.

Cleopatra represented herself as the reincarnation of the Egyptian goddess, Isis and was given the title of "Queen of Kings" by Mark Antony. Her son Caesarion, was also given many titles, including god, son of god and king of kings, and was depicted as Horus the son of Isis.

It was after the assassination of Caesar in 44 BC, that she coupled up with Mark Antony and in 40 BC she bore the twins Cleopatra Selene II and Alexander Helios, and later on, another son, Ptolemy Philadelphus.

In late 34 BC, at the Donations of Alexandria, shortly after Antony had conquered Armenia, Cleopatra and Caesarion were crowned co-rulers of Egypt and Cyprus. Alexander Helios, their six year old son, was crowned ruler of Armenia, Media, and Parthia; Cleopatra Selene II, Heli"s twin sister, was crowned ruler of Cyrenaica and Libya; and Ptolemy Philadelphus the youngest of their three children was crowned ruler of Phoenicia, Syria, and Cilicia.

It appears that Alexander Helios=Heli, had previously sired a son who we know by the name "Joseph from Cyprus," and Heli was to later sire the child Mary to Hanna the elderly daughter of the high priest Yehoshua III, before he "Heli" was murdered in 13 BC, by order of Herod the Great, in the pogroms which saw the demise of many of the heirs to David"s throne,

It is said that after the death of her father, Alexander Helios=Heli "a father of renown," the seven year old Mary [who is believed by some to be the grand-daughter of Mark Antony] was taken north into the land of Galilee where she was raised under the protection of the Jewish zealots whose aim it was, to throw off the yoke of Roman rule and establish a descendant of King David, back on the throne of Israel.

There are those who believe that the union between Mary, the daughter of Alexander Helios, with her half brother Joseph the son of Alexander Helios=Heli, from which union the child Jesus was born, was arranged by the Zealots, as it was the custom in those days for the female heir to the throne, (Mary, the grand daughter of Mark Anthony) to unite with their brother, as Cleopatra and all female heirs had done before her.
To be continued.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:14:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:34:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:12:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:06:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.

That is easy.

The only thing it can possibly men
Wrong before you even start.
I asked you to translate it not what you claim it should mean.
Translate gen 1:14.

You asked me to translate Genesis 1:14, and I did. There is no point in translating it as something it cannot possibly mean, that is why it is mistranslated in the first place.

No you didn't. You didn't even come close to translating the text. You just shoved an unwanted comment in our face, without being asked to. And then when proven to be an idiot, you take your stupidity to the next level by then saying that you did translate it!

Typical JW.

It is not the words used that matter, it is what the writer was thinking when he used them.

Which you couldn't possibly know since the writer has been dead for 3500 years. The only thing you can know about the text is from the text itself. Don't just guess what it means, for Christs sake!

Only a fool ignores the overall meaning of a passage. It is no wonder you understand so little.

Reinterpreting clear scipture does not make you any less ignorant.

What is most important to translate, the dead words, or the living thoughts behind them?

You got that completely backwards. The words are fine. They are here with us today. The people and thoughts behind them are dead, and have been dead for millenniums.

Therefore, you should interpret the words as they were written, and not based on your own biased predisposition of what the writers meant to write. Guess what! The writers wrote down what they thought...because it's written down

But seems how you haven't translated Genesis 1:14, allow me to do so and whoop your a** is the process:

Gen 1:14: "A space between to seperate of the heavens in the expanse lights Let there be God and said and years and days and seasons for signs and let them be the night and from the day"

Hyper literal. Now for interpretation:

Gen 1:14: "Then God said, "Let there be lights across the sky to distinguish day from night, to act as signs for seasons, days, and years"

No where did it say anything about the visibility from earth.

Have you learnt you lesson, to not be a cocksure, assuming idiot that repeats garbage fed to them by the governing body? You haven't? Didn't think so. Please, do go on being an idiot.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:34:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/27/2016 6:28:01 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

Well first let me say that I'm impressed with your language skills (I'm appalling at languages probably lazy but also not something I excel at).

Thank you, Harry. It's the result of traveling all over the world, it helps tremendously to learn some languages, and it becomes a whole lot easier when one is immersed in it.

Now if you're referring to mistranslations from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic to other languages then surely you're not claiming that translation errors or ambiguities are impossible?

What was mistranslated?

For over a thousand years all Bibles used (outside of Hebrew/Greek speakers) since around AD 200, were Latin. St. Jerome worked hard to translate Hebrew and Greek scriptures (selecting his sources from among several) into Latin.

St. Jerome was probably not very good at it.

Thereafter all translations to other languages were FROM that (already translated) Latin text.

This cascading translation practice will lead to an accumulation of subtle errors or interpretations.

Are you sure of that?

For example in the Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis you'll find that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there earth became chaotic and disorganized" is still translated as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there was void and without form".

The change from "became" to "was" has important implications and very few people are even aware of this and many other similar translation issues.

Sorry, can't comment on that without proper citations.

Far too many people who adopt the Bible as having divine meaning, fail to diligently verify their understanding against what was actually written.

Translators have for centuries tended to resolve ambiguous possible meanings by adopting those that fit with their own already held beliefs rather than forming their beliefs around what was actually written.

That may be part and parcel to the usual dishonesty we observe from those who form fit everything to suit their religious agendas.

Many practices and traditions associated with Christianity are the opposite of what's actually written in scripture like - the importance of the Sabbath, the nature of hell, clean and unclean foods, the trinity etc what prevailing Christianity teaches today is very different from what was originally written.

Again, I can't comment without proper citations, Harry.

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:37:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 4:33:15 AM, Skynet wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

What religions are you talking about? Judaism and Christianity don't have any problem with translating the scriptures into different languages. It's been done since the beginning.

I understand that, but as you can see from posts here others already disagree.

I imagine you are talking about Islam, which holds that a non-Arabic translation is not reliable.

Oh yes, I've heard plenty of Muslims use that as an excuse, often when they are cornered and can't explain something.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:40:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:23:51 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:44:13 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

Though there is some truth in that, there are other, more important ways to judge a translation.

Yes, such as "does it fit with my predetermined brainwashing?". If not, change it! Or reinterpret it!

You are speaking of translations which convey, not literal verbatim meanings, but the feel, the sense of the original. That is what translations should do especially if the language you are translating from is rich in descriptive significance.

God should have made the bible bloody simple then. None of this bloody woo woo descriptive language with hidden meanings (hint: revelation) but strait forward meanings.

A very typical example of that, n my eyes anyway, is John 1:1.

Really? The translation is very simple:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" or

"God was the word"

The Greek words "God was the word" is Theos en ho logos, which literally means:

"God I am the word" (the Greek seems backward when translated to English, but it means basically "The Word was God".

So we can deduce that the message is that the Word is God. What is the difficulty here?

Most people, even most translators have completely misunderstood the true meaning and sense of that verse, because they have ignored the fact that Koine Greek was more descriptive than literal.

BS

Thus when John 1:1 uses a form of the word which we generally translate as "god" to describe The Word, it is not actually saying who the word is, but is describing his nature, his form.

No, it literally said "Word was God". It wasn't descriptive. It even said "in the beginning", which is obviously an allusion to Genesis 1:1 where God creates everything. It is describing him, but it's describing him literally.

Hence more accurate versions render that version of the word for "god" as "of divine substance", " of the nature of God" and similar terms which are more accurately descriptive, and convey the true sense of the verse far better than the bland "a god" though "a god" is completely accurate.

BS. Not accurate. "Theos" does not mean "divine substance". It means "God".

Incidentally, you don't need to know languages to work that sort of thing out, whilst I admit I do know a little French, mostly schoolboy French, though I did once have a French pen pal (more accurately keyboard pal since our discussions were held in French and online). I do now how to get to the true sense of a passage in English even and scored well on just that in my Arts course with the Open University.

Well done. Unfortunately you can't even bother to look up crap that doesn't conform to your own predisposition. *slow clap*

Completely wrong.

To be sure you have truth you have to test that idea out thoroughly.

Truth is too important to me not to "destruction test" any theory, whether I like it or not.

I suspect it is you who has been guilty of ding that which you wrongly accuse me of.

No-one who cares about "truth" being comfortable will ever even look at being a JW so unpopular are they.

Only those who truly like to make sure before they judge, even test out what they teach, and they invariably become JWs.

What on earth makes you think anyone actually wants to be a JW, until they find that they cannot escape the fact that the JWs teach truth? After all, they all know that they are going to have to face up bigots like you if they do. Often face to face as well.

In fact you are so scared of being part of something so unpopular that you don't even dare investigate them properly. That's the real truth of it.

You think you are too clever, but you are right! Too clever for your own good (1 Corinthians 1 26-30).

Please don't preach your JW crap here. thanks.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Gentorev
Posts: 2,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:46:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Continued from post #21.

But because Joseph the son of Alexander Helios, would have been seen as a threat to the throne of Herod the Great as was his father, the biological father of Jesus had to remain hidden, and for the safety of the child, the pregnant Mary, was married off to Joseph the son of Jacob, a descendant of the cursed genetic line of King Jehoiachin.

Herod"s chief advisors, would not have seen Jesus the son of Mary as a threat to his throne, as Mary was the wife of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, but a descendant of Solomon through the cursed line of Jehoiachin, of whom we read in Jeremiah 22: 30; "This man is condemned to lose his children, to be a man who will never succeed. He will have no descendants who will rule in Judah as David"s successor. I, the Lord, have spoken." This rules out the hope of any son of Joseph ben Jacob ever sitting on the throne of David, whereas Jesus the son of Joseph ben Heli was a legitimate successor to that throne.

Jehoshua III is supposed to have died three years before the birth of his grand-daughter, "Mary." If it was his death that ended his period as high priest in Jerusalem in the year of 23 BC, this would mean that Mary was born in 20 BC, the same year as Philip the son of Herod and his young Jewess wife, "Cleopatra." Therefore Mary would have been 7 years old when her father Heli died in 13 BC, and 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, who was born in 6 BC, two years before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, making Mary about 47 years old when Jesus, the first of her three biological sons, was crucified. Hanna, the elderly mother of Mary whose young husband was murdered in 13 BC, would have been a widow for seven years, when her grandson Jesus was born.

James the son of Alpheaus, is the brother of the Lord. ADELPHOS the Greek word meaning "born of the same womb".

Simeon, the half-brother of Jesus, who succeeded James the brother of Jesus to the Episcopal throne of the church of the circumcision in Jerusalem, was the son of Cleophas/Alphaeus to a previous marriage, as was Judas the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas, another half brother of Jesus.

According to Young"s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Cleophas and Alpheaus, which names mean, "Of a renown father," are one and the same person. Cleophas is the male abbreviation of the female Cleopatra, which is a Macedonian name and is the Greek, for "Of a renown father," and Alpheaus, is the biological father of James the younger of Mary"s three biological sons who, according to Paul, is the brother of the Lord, and "Alpheaus" is the Aramaic of the same meaning, "Of a renown father."

It was not uncommon for Jews living in the north to have three names, One in Jewish, one in Greek and one in Aramaic.

One of the half brothers of Jesus, was Jude which is a Jewish name, and Jude who was the son of Alpheaus/Cleophas is also called Thomas=Tau"ma, which is the Aramiac for "TWIN", and is also called Didymus, which is the Greek for "TWIN."

And the biological father of Jesus was Joseph which is a Jewish name, who was the son of Alexander Helios, "a father of renown," was also given the Greek name "Cleophas" the male abbreviation of the female Cleopatra, which is a Macedonian name and is the Greek, for "Of a renown father," and he was also called "Alpheaus," which is the Aramaic of the same meaning, "Of a renown father."
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 1:54:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 12:30:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/28/2016 5:32:39 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/28/2016 12:06:09 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:29:15 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/27/2016 11:14:30 PM, MadCornishBiker
Translate Gen 1:14 for us mad.

That is easy.

The only thing it can possibly men is that the sun moon and stars were made visible from the earth, since they had existed since verse 1, and the light from the sun had reached the earth in verse 3.

Ummm ... once again you demonstrate that you really do not comprehend the difference between a translation and a commentary. He didn't ask you to provide your own commentary on the passage.

Apparently you don't know the difference between a commentary and an analysis, lol. You cannot understand meaning if you do not analyse properly to rule out the impossible. Man made rules will mislead you.

I didn't comment on it. I simply showed how to analyse it and reach the correct understanding, thus translate it accurately. Rule out the impossible.

Repeat:

"Once again you demonstrate that you really do not comprehend the difference between a translation and a commentary."

One doesn't "analyze it", then reach the correct "understanding", THEN "translate" it, ya dimwit. That's not translation.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 3:43:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 6:41:58 AM, Gentorev wrote:
Continued from post #12.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that "A young woman was with child." Therefore, as the greater majority of churches now admit, that the words of Isaiah, was, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Matthew 1: 23; should now read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the Lord had said through Isaiah, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc." Because they all now admit that those were the words of Isaiah 7: 14.

The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, by Hebrews in Alexandria, before the days of Jesus and they like Matthew, were forced to use the Greek term, "Parthenos" in translating the Hebrew "Almah" Because there was no other word in that Language that they could use for maiden, or young girl, etc.

"Parthenos," was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah"s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin.

For the Hebrew has a specific term for "virgin," "Bethulah" which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

I stand corrected - 4th century.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,571
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 3:57:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 1:34:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:28:01 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

Well first let me say that I'm impressed with your language skills (I'm appalling at languages probably lazy but also not something I excel at).

Thank you, Harry. It's the result of traveling all over the world, it helps tremendously to learn some languages, and it becomes a whole lot easier when one is immersed in it.

Now if you're referring to mistranslations from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic to other languages then surely you're not claiming that translation errors or ambiguities are impossible?

What was mistranslated?

For over a thousand years all Bibles used (outside of Hebrew/Greek speakers) since around AD 200, were Latin. St. Jerome worked hard to translate Hebrew and Greek scriptures (selecting his sources from among several) into Latin.

St. Jerome was probably not very good at it.

Thereafter all translations to other languages were FROM that (already translated) Latin text.

This cascading translation practice will lead to an accumulation of subtle errors or interpretations.

Are you sure of that?

For example in the Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis you'll find that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there earth became chaotic and disorganized" is still translated as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there was void and without form".

The change from "became" to "was" has important implications and very few people are even aware of this and many other similar translation issues.

Sorry, can't comment on that without proper citations.

Far too many people who adopt the Bible as having divine meaning, fail to diligently verify their understanding against what was actually written.

Translators have for centuries tended to resolve ambiguous possible meanings by adopting those that fit with their own already held beliefs rather than forming their beliefs around what was actually written.

That may be part and parcel to the usual dishonesty we observe from those who form fit everything to suit their religious agendas.

Many practices and traditions associated with Christianity are the opposite of what's actually written in scripture like - the importance of the Sabbath, the nature of hell, clean and unclean foods, the trinity etc what prevailing Christianity teaches today is very different from what was originally written.

Again, I can't comment without proper citations, Harry.

Harry.

This sheds a little light on this point:

http://www.topical-bible-studies.org...

also note "without form" -> (hebrew) "tohuw"

If we allow for "became" we get: "...and the earth became tohuw..."

however if we now turn to Isaiah 45:18 -> "...he did not create it to be empty..." the same Hebrew term "tohuw" is used (and variously translated "empty", "wasteland" etc).

So by considering these we find they are consistent, God did NOT create the earth tohuw, yet it BECAME tohuw...(i.e. by the time of Adam something had previously happened to what God created that made it into a wasteland...).

There are many examples of this kind of thing in these ancient documents.

Harry.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2016 4:04:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/28/2016 3:57:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/28/2016 1:34:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/27/2016 6:28:01 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 2/27/2016 4:47:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
I have heard many arguments in which translations have been a key point, in that a believer will claim others can't possibly understand their religion because it was written in another language.

For those who know more than one language, they know this is not a valid argument.

For example, it's not very difficult to learn French, German or Spanish if you already understand English considering the alphabet is literally identical. However, other languages that don't posses the same alphabet are far more difficult to learn. I understand Russian and Greek as they both have a similar alphabetic structure, although are still somewhat different, not like the similarities between English and French, for example.

While learning Russian, I found there were single words in Russian that have no direct translation in English, however with an English phrase, the translation is relevant, complete and understandable. I found the more I understood the languages of Russian and Greek, the more I realized that anything can be translated effectively without any doubt as to the intended meanings.

So, if you use translations as an argument, that would show you know little about how translation actually works and how easy it is to understand what others are saying.

Lately, I have been working on Japanese, which encompasses three different alphabets and a syntax that makes my head spin. Notwithstanding, it's starting to make sense.

Well first let me say that I'm impressed with your language skills (I'm appalling at languages probably lazy but also not something I excel at).

Thank you, Harry. It's the result of traveling all over the world, it helps tremendously to learn some languages, and it becomes a whole lot easier when one is immersed in it.

Now if you're referring to mistranslations from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic to other languages then surely you're not claiming that translation errors or ambiguities are impossible?

What was mistranslated?

For over a thousand years all Bibles used (outside of Hebrew/Greek speakers) since around AD 200, were Latin. St. Jerome worked hard to translate Hebrew and Greek scriptures (selecting his sources from among several) into Latin.

St. Jerome was probably not very good at it.

Thereafter all translations to other languages were FROM that (already translated) Latin text.

This cascading translation practice will lead to an accumulation of subtle errors or interpretations.

Are you sure of that?

For example in the Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis you'll find that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there earth became chaotic and disorganized" is still translated as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and there was void and without form".

The change from "became" to "was" has important implications and very few people are even aware of this and many other similar translation issues.

Sorry, can't comment on that without proper citations.

Far too many people who adopt the Bible as having divine meaning, fail to diligently verify their understanding against what was actually written.

Translators have for centuries tended to resolve ambiguous possible meanings by adopting those that fit with their own already held beliefs rather than forming their beliefs around what was actually written.

That may be part and parcel to the usual dishonesty we observe from those who form fit everything to suit their religious agendas.

Many practices and traditions associated with Christianity are the opposite of what's actually written in scripture like - the importance of the Sabbath, the nature of hell, clean and unclean foods, the trinity etc what prevailing Christianity teaches today is very different from what was originally written.

Again, I can't comment without proper citations, Harry.

Harry.

This sheds a little light on this point:

http://www.topical-bible-studies.org...

also note "without form" -> (hebrew) "tohuw"

If we allow for "became" we get: "...and the earth became tohuw..."

however if we now turn to Isaiah 45:18 -> "...he did not create it to be empty..." the same Hebrew term "tohuw" is used (and variously translated "empty", "wasteland" etc).

So by considering these we find they are consistent, God did NOT create the earth tohuw, yet it BECAME tohuw...(i.e. by the time of Adam something had previously happened to what God created that made it into a wasteland...).

There are many examples of this kind of thing in these ancient documents.

Harry.
Yeah Harry what it actually means is that god created a universe in six days, woohoo, go god. That's what it says BTW.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin