Lost in translation

[Anodos]

Could it be a problem of translation? Most of on this site would likely be in agreement that much or most of the bible appears to promote teachings that just conflict with reality, with our understanding of science, with our logic and just plain sense. To name a few: the world wide flood and Noahs Ark; the 7000 year old earth; Heaven and Hell; the confusion around this topic called 'salvation' and who are the chosen few.

 

I suggest most of us push against the idea that we should just throw out all common sense and understanding of logic and reasoning, of science in order to accept teachings that conflict with all of this.

 

Could it be, as I have indicated in the title, that the problem is not with the teachings as originally taught/written down, but instead, with translations that have been given to us. To be precise, could the problem be that our modern bible translations have been corrupted to the point where what is commonly taught and accepted today alien to what was originally intended to be accepted and understood? So, rightly, we would reject so much of what is commonly accepted and taught. 

 

To give one example: our word 'world' in the English language, is commonly understood to mean, the whole world, the planet, the globe. However, a brief check using a Strongs Concordance shows us that the word 'world' in the original Hebrew, does not always mean the whole planet. (Strongs ref: H776 The KJV translates Strong's H776 in the following manner: land (1,543x), earth (712x), country (140x), ground (98x), world (4x), way (3x), common (1x), field (1x), nations (1x), wilderness (with H4057) (1x)

 

The point being, that depending on the context, this word 'world' does not necessarily mean always 'the whole planet'. But if we are always to translate this word as 'whole planet', then we face difficulties with rationality and logic. 

 

So, perhaps the chief problem is a misapplication of certain translated words. 

 

Other words which may be misapplied through wrong translation: 'man', 'earth', 'tree', 'gentile'. All of these words can have very different meanings in their original language (Hebrew or Greek) depending on context. Our relatively simplistic modern translations do not necessarily recognise these differences.

 

This is not a defence of the bible, but I simply throw this out there as an alternative perspective. No doubt, most of you are already well versed in these translational issues and I'm sure this is not anything new to you, but it's worth bearing in mind, especially since so many here have such dreadful memories of our involvement with Christianity and continue to have major issues with the teachings promoted in churches.  Else, we wouldn't really be in this community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I feel like an omniscient and omnipotent god would be able to have his book translated accurately... if he really intended for us to understand it.

[Anodos]

A good point. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, Anodos said:

Could it be a problem of translation? Most of on this site would likely be in agreement that much or most of the bible appears to promote teachings that just conflict with reality, with our understanding of science, with our logic and just plain sense. To name a few: the world wide flood and Noahs Ark; the 7000 year old earth; Heaven and Hell; the confusion around this topic called 'salvation' and who are the chosen few.

 

I suggest most of us push against the idea that we should just throw out all common sense and understanding of logic and reasoning, of science in order to accept teachings that conflict with all of this.

 

Could it be, as I have indicated in the title, that the problem is not with the teachings as originally taught/written down, but instead, with translations that have been given to us. To be precise, could the problem be that our modern bible translations have been corrupted to the point where what is commonly taught and accepted today alien to what was originally intended to be accepted and understood? So, rightly, we would reject so much of what is commonly accepted and taught. 

 

To give one example: our word 'world' in the English language, is commonly understood to mean, the whole world, the planet, the globe. However, a brief check using a Strongs Concordance shows us that the word 'world' in the original Hebrew, does not always mean the whole planet. (Strongs ref: H776 The KJV translates Strong's H776 in the following manner: land (1,543x), earth (712x), country (140x), ground (98x), world (4x), way (3x), common (1x), field (1x), nations (1x), wilderness (with H4057) (1x)

 

The point being, that depending on the context, this word 'world' does not necessarily mean always 'the whole planet'. But if we are always to translate this word as 'whole planet', then we face difficulties with rationality and logic. 

 

So, perhaps the chief problem is a misapplication of certain translated words. 

 

Other words which may be misapplied through wrong translation: 'man', 'earth', 'tree', 'gentile'. All of these words can have very different meanings in their original language (Hebrew or Greek) depending on context. Our relatively simplistic modern translations do not necessarily recognise these differences.

 

This is not a defence of the bible, but I simply throw this out there as an alternative perspective. No doubt, most of you are already well versed in these translational issues and I'm sure this is not anything new to you, but it's worth bearing in mind, especially since so many here have such dreadful memories of our involvement with Christianity and continue to have major issues with the teachings promoted in churches.  Else, we wouldn't really be in this community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes and No

 

I see where you're coming from and hope this isn't spurred by a Christian trying to drag you back into the fold. I went through this phase as a fervent Christian. And I believe some of it is in the interpretation. And many apologetics from Christians have come from pointing these greek/hebrew to English translations out. I was a big fan of my Strongs concordance as a preacher. 

 

For instance let's go back to the word you brought up. "World" this could explain the "World" wide flood of Noah. If you stop there. But you have to take the story as a whole. A lot of Christians forget about that.

 

If I were a Christian and saw that, I could argue that geologists and the Bible are correct. That the Flood of Noah was a localized flood, but a massive flood. Possibly when the ocean filled the red sea. Or some other large flood. And it would make sense.

 

But when you consider that the Bible says that the ark rested on dry land in the Ararat mountains. (Genesis It would have had to be a World Wide Flood. It took 150 days in Genesis 8 for the tops of the mountains to be seen and Noah's Ark rested in the mountains of Ararat. So we have to assume that the mountain tops that were seen were those of the Ararat mountain range. If you'll look at a quick terrain pic from Google maps this is what you see. The red dot is the peak of the Ararat range.

 

 

It is believed that the Ark was built in the Mesopotamian Valley, now known as Iraq. So for this flood to have actually happened to the point the peaks of the mountains were covered at over 16,854 feet. 5,137 meters. It would have had to be a true world wide flood. The highest inhabited area on earth today is only at a height of 5000 meters in Peru. The oceans would have literally had to fill up to that point at least. 

 

Then you have to ask yourself how fresh water was ever present on earth again? But that is another matter. 

 

So yes in some instances a word incorrectly translated can completely change the meaning. But for these stories like this, I haven't found one that can coexist with modern knowledge. 

 

I did find one for the unforgivable sin (saying the lords name in vain) using that method and determined that saying God Damn isn't what it was talking about. I also associated that same study with the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. I still think my personal interpretation on that subject makes more sense than the accept Christian teachings. 

 

Hope this helps,

Dark Bishop

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Yes, there are problems with translations, bu that doesn't completely change the conflicting messages in the bible.

[Anodos]

I suppose, what I am trying to convey, (and most of you already were aware of this), is that vast, perhaps the majority of church goers live in almost complete ignorance or indifference to the vast number of variations in interpretation from original to modern scriptures. They have this belief in the 'inerrant word of God', so that every word in their modern bible is a 100% accurate translation. How do I know? I was one of those. I just was not aware of the differences between the original language and modern English bibles. I just assumed every word I read was an exact mirror image of the original texts. 

When I approached elders  about this, a wall of disinterest was erected. 

What does it matter? Jesus died for sinners. What else do we need to know? was the response I received. 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

23 minutes ago, Anodos said:

I suppose, what I am trying to convey, (and most of you already were aware of this), is that vast, perhaps the majority of church goers live in almost complete ignorance or indifference to the vast number of variations in interpretation from original to modern scriptures. They have this belief in the 'inerrant word of God', so that every word in their modern bible is a 100% accurate translation. How do I know? I was one of those. I just was not aware of the differences between the original language and modern English bibles. I just assumed every word I read was an exact mirror image of the original texts. 

When I approached elders  about this, a wall of disinterest was erected. 

What does it matter? Jesus died for sinners. What else do we need to know? was the response I received. 

 

 

It always struck me as weird that, in the denomination I was in as a christian (ASSemblies of god), we didn't trust Catholics.  Catholics were idol-worshippers who prayed to saints and confessed to priests and w÷re deceived and heretical.  Moreover, the Roman Catholic institution was a hotbed of pedophilia, political subterfuge, and earthly riches with known ties to the Italian mafia. 

 

But we absolutely trusted the bible... which had been completely controlled by the Catholic Church for over a thousand years.  

 

This was one of the smaller, less significant things that led to my deconversion.