Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bad translation?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
My friend ( trust_no_one ) is very big bible guy and was telling me that the people that translated the bible could have gotten some things wrong. ( For example he says that when they rewrote the bible into english they got the whole god created earth in 7 days thing could have been like 7 million years or something ). Does anyone eles know anything about this? and if so please post.




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Why doesn't your friend post here instead of you?

It was actually 6 days, 7th day he rested, but I understand the point you are meaning.

But it is not a bad translation, but more of a bad interpitiation. For some Creationists it is hard to belive the account of Genisis, so they come up with the explination of "one day equals a thousand years to god" as more plausible.

Notably there are 2 verses that uses the terms
First Moses Prayer to God


Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight

are like a day that has just gone by,

or like a watch in the night.

The other verses in that psalm support it as meaning how unaging God is, or how time is percived by him. Yet man life is so short. All symbology, being peotic

2 Peter 3:8-9
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

THis one obviosuly has to do with Gods patiance, and how he can wait.

Both are using symbology, and it would be really incorrect to think of those verses as actaul fact



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Well, lets see. Maybe the translation errors are the reason for the some odd thousands upon thousands of contraditions, direct at that, in the bible. Or, maybe the writers were just not intelligent enough to catch onto their own mistakes.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
seapeople, can you point out the bad translations of this subject? refering both to anceint hebrew and greek and thier English equivilant?

As i said before, it is poor interpetation to cover up a weakness in ones faith



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
seapeople, can you point out the bad translations of this subject? refering both to anceint hebrew and greek and thier English equivilant?

As i said before, it is poor interpetation to cover up a weakness in ones faith


Spot on , bro.

Its important to note that this so called 'christian' idea did not come about until evolutionists first proposed long ages for the earth.

One odd thing is, God created plants a day before he created the sun. Plants can tough it out for a day without light...but if these (long age days) are a million or billion....then the long ager has a new problem.
If you are going to say that God made them survive....then why not simply say God made the earth with lead and uranium already in it? None of the dating methods account for that possiblity.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
If your interested in bible mistranslations....use the search function here..there is a lot for you to learn! The bible has been added to, deleted from and mistranslated a lot, a whole here....there is a lot for you learn and read to make your own choices in your beleifs



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The best thing to do is let Google be you friend.

Where-ever there is a thorny issue in the Bible, you can normally find two sides arguing over the translation and interpretation. The best thing to do is Google a verse. You can then read through the pertinent material and make up your own mind.
Bear in mind, translations alone won't necessarily help you. You also need some sort of idea about Biblical history. Once you have this, you're in an even stronger position to see which side is correct.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Very good answer.

One of the aspects that the majority forget about is the differences in the cultures.

Eg. The Hebrew/Jewish culture is a different culture than the culture of the translators, and due to this (in addition to the difficulties translating languages) there are cultural misunderstandings regarding some of the words themselves.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
LadyV it is nearly impossible to truely know what the orginal writers wrote since most writing materials do not last 2000 year in even the best attempts to prevesrve them.

One thing to note is that when they uncovered the dead sea scrolls there were copies of NT books in thier. COmparing the two it was found todays bibles are incredibly accurate compared to those. That is enough to think that what we do see in the bible is true.

Perhaps the most amazing support comes from the Dead Sea scrolls which were discovered in 1947 after lying in the Qumran caves for nearly 2000 years. Here were literally thousands of pieces from the Old Testament, and some were nearly a thousand years older than anything we had before. And yet there is a 98% similarity to the texts that are in common use.

It is intesting how when I asked a direct question in response to a person's statement I am then directed to search, or use google. LadyV and Leveller, your actaully telling me told to go disprove myself


well, I did one better, I proved myself instead.
Here is a good link that allows you to folow the process of translation
www.ibs.org...
and thier bible FAQ
www.ibs.org...

only those that stand to gain from knocking down a religion would say that it is poorly translated. Of course I have seen Bibles that were translated to promote a certain docture, but that doesn ot mean they are all like that



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

It is intesting how when I asked a direct question in response to a person's statement I am then directed to search, or use google. LadyV and Leveller, your actaully telling me told to go disprove myself



It was My understanding that the suggestion was that you use Google to form your own conclusions, rather than to have a conclusion offered to you.

I personally belive the Bible to have been unintentionally mistranslated, (That being defined as 100% true/accurate of the origionals) Due in part to the differing cultures involved. (This is not to knock down ANY religion - for I do belive that it is wrong to knock a religion)

If one were to take the Holy Scriptures (The Old Testiment) and read the text in different directions (from lower right to upper left, top to bottom, ect) one would likely find other books - just as valid as the ones that we have today. Since the belief is that the Bible is the inspired work of G-d, Doesn't it make since that he would have written it in that manner as to insure that anyone reading it would be able to without the limitations of unidirectional text? (If that theory is true/correct then the translation is an incomplete/mistranslation - however unintentional it was). Will we ever know? Dunno - that is for a superior power to determine.

The Holy Scriptures is an incredible matrix - (containing not just the story as read, but with macro codes and other information interwoven. I think they are starting to figure that out with the Bible Code, however they haven't quite got it yet.

You mentioned the Lost Sea Scrolls, They are available on-line as are the Gnostic texts. I can assure you that regardless of ones religious inclinations they are worth reading (If the translation is or is not 100% accurate - I do not belive that reading any of these works will disapoint you).

Thats my .02c

btw, cool Sig.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Two observations:

a) wow, Google is now suggested as a tool to ehance one's religious experience. The MAtrix has you

b) Koran has a few places that are widely misinterpreted, as well. For example, there is an opinion that the 49 (or 70, I don't remember) virgins promised to the faithful after death were in fact precious white grapes, "hur", and not women. Just really old word usage, and I think hur might have been related to another language. Go figure.



[edit on 9-3-2005 by Aelita]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
First

Any God who doesnt have enough power to keep his word straight for me to find out about him and follow him...is no God at all.


Second...

If muslims blow you up they get 70 grapes in heaven?????????



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
If muslims blow you up they get 70 grapes in heaven?????????


They don't necessasrily have to blow anything up. If they conform to Koran and all, they get a little pack of grapes, similar to what I guess I can buy at my local Stop and Shop quick sale stand.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat


only those that stand to gain from knocking down a religion would say that it is poorly translated. Of course I have seen Bibles that were translated to promote a certain docture, but that doesn ot mean they are all like that


I wouldn't just say that it is poorly translated. I'd also add that in many places it is misinterpreted too.
But one can't really blame the translators. They were working with a very difficult language in the Aramaic and Paul's Greek isn't exactly a synch either.
The problem became compounded when Bibles were authorised as the exact word of God. Literary dogma became the norm for almost two thousand years. It's only now that we can question the texts and apply the translations and interpretations to errors that we know exist.

Jehosephat, you state that only people who knock Christianity see the Bible as poorly translated. Would you say all theologians and Biblical scholars are anti-Christianity? Many recognise errors in the texts. If so, that's a rather stupid view. We mainly rely on the King James version of the Bible. This Bible in itself was created because people saw the previous versions as being poorly translated. And they were not alone. There have been literally dozens of re-interpretations and re-translations of the Bible - some commisioned by Christian churches themselves before and since. Do you reckon that the Churches were knocking Christianity by authorising and encouraging these versions?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
First

Any God who doesnt have enough power to keep his word straight for me to find out about him and follow him...is no God at all.


Second...

If muslims blow you up they get 70 grapes in heaven?????????


Hahahaha Silly fellows I just got seventy grapes out of the fridge. No explosions. The milk might be off though.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
translations are not simple things. Hebrew underwent an "upgrade" in the 10th Century. Translations before and after that date will differ slightly.

As far as the Dead Sea Scrolls, If you believe what the dead sea scrolls say, then Paul(saul of tarsus), who wrote much of the new testamant, was an apostate and a usurper of Christianity. The dead sea scrolls make Paul out to be an agent provacateur, who changes Christ into a figure that Christ dismisses on various occasions himself. Paul is depicted as a power mad and dangerous feelance "televangilist" of the time.

You can have one, or you can have the other, but you cannot have both, they are in conflict. Interesting how the Bible evolved into separate branches.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Paul was woman bashing homosexual. Not that I have a problem with homosexuals, just that he was a nasty fellow who treated women like dogs. How any woman could read his writings and think of god is beyond me.






top topics



 
0

log in

join