Inheritance Lost to Doomsday Church

[Alex2507]

So if I gathered up 20 different people from different walks of life, different ages, etc and all had them describe the mood of a person who just stepped off a rollercoaster and they came up with different words like, stoked, effervescent, ecstatic, happy, jammin', glad, pumped, etc it's proof that we can't trust their descriptions? I mean, after all they can't all be right because I have 20 different translations of that persons mood right?

Translation and synonym are two distinctly different things. Different translations have distinctly different flavors and were created for distinctly different groups to have control of distinctly different populations in distinctly different times and I distinctly don't want to be put on probation again for going round and round on the topic of religion. I mean this with distinct sincerity.

Seriously, here's a cool site that I like for this stuff. I don't know if they have a forum or anything but I'm good with just being able to look stuff up. Their concordance is a little weird but it's all I got since my Cruden's went missing some years back. I think maybe I lost it because I wasn't suppose to know all that stuff.

I do wonder about the people who buy groceries with food stamps and take a cab to the store, though.

Hopefully you'll never understand that.

 

[3db]

I think people who want to donate money or have money they don't intend on spending in their life time should buy cars for people waiting on buses because they don't have cars and nobody should have to take the bus. It' undignified and when you ride the bus everybody knows you don't have a car ... or they think you have a DUI ... or both.

Wait a second here. I ride the bus!! I'm to cheap to pay the $250/mo parking fee. Yeah I know.. I'm cheap. I also avoid all of teh bad drivers out there except fer me that is.

 

[3db]

Color me rather curious... Perhaps you can explain how someone was able to determine there are stacks of translation errors?

Translations errors can occur from one language to another. Its actually quite common. I apologize if you take offense too that but that's the way it rolls out.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Translations errors can occur from one language to another. Its actually quite common. I apologize if you take offense too that but that's the way it rolls out.

"Translation error" might not be the best term to use in describing the different perspectives when translating the different versions of the bible. First of all, the original authors were writing from their own perspective, in ancient languages. Some of what they wrote probably has no direct translation into English. Which means, the translator must try to come up with the most accurate English meaning that he can. This is where the translator's perspective creeps in. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased, is being dishonest with himself and his readers - it cannot be helped.

Some people claim that the King James version is the only "proper" translation. What about the versions that came before it? What about the versions translated into hundreds of languages other than English?

 

[Alex2507]

Wait a second here. I ride the bus!!

... at least you're not drinking and driving ... anymore.

What about the versions that came before it?

English translations?

I wasn't aware of any but if they're out there they're wrong.

The translations into languages other than English are all wrong too.

 

[GO-NAD!]

English translations?

I wasn't aware of any but if they're out there they're wrong.

The translations into languages other than English are all wrong too.

Hmmm, are you trying to stir up the pot a bit.

Here's a list of English translations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations

You will notice that there were several - partial and complete - versions prior to the KJV. Also note, the KJV was not translated from original source texts. There are some who feel that the KJV is theauthoritative version. I don't happen to be in that group. I think that a version which is written in modern English makes it more accessible to more people.

Have you read any of Shakespeare's plays? I remember MacBeth from High School. I got the general gist of it, but that's about it. Did I understand every line? Not a chance. The KJV was written in the same era and it's in the same Jacobean English. Which leads to the same problem of getting a comprehensive understanding of what's written.

 

[Alex2507]

Hmmm, are you trying to stir up the pot a bit.

Moi ?!?

Here's a list of English translations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations

Oh cool. That's really interesting and I didn't have to do any searching on my own.

You will notice that there were several - partial and complete - versions prior to the KJV. Also note, the KJV was not translated from original source texts. There are some who feel that the KJV is theauthoritative version. I don't happen to be in that group. I think that a version which is written in modern English makes it more accessible to more people.

I would say that there were several more translations after the KJV than there were before but as far as complete translations before I only saw a couple with an admittedly cursory glance but I'll look into that more right after I recalibrate my rec'r. Priorities, right?

Have you read any of Shakespeare's plays? I remember MacBeth from High School. I got the general gist of it, but that's about it. Did I understand every line? Not a chance. The KJV was written in the same era and it's in the same Jacobean English. Which leads to the same problem of getting a comprehensive understanding of what's written.

Yeah, I read Shakespeare. I didn't get it but I didn't try very hard or really care that much. Thanks for that link. That will be kind of neat to cross reference with that link I provided earlier. Okay, back to the rec'r.

 

[Rickster71]

If this misinterpretation happens now in the 21st century, I can't imagine the cumulative effect over centuries.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/thats-not-in-the-bible/

“You can see this manifest today in living room Bible studies across North America where lovely Christian people, with no training whatsoever, drink decaf, eat brownies and ask each other, ‘What does this text mean to you?’’’ Hazen says.
“Not only do they get the interpretation wrong, but very often end up quoting verses that really aren’t there.” [sic]

 

[GO-NAD!]

If this misinterpretation happens now in the 21st century, I can't imagine the cumulative effect over centuries.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/thats-not-in-the-bible/

“You can see this manifest today in living room Bible studies across North America where lovely Christian people, with no training whatsoever, drink decaf, eat brownies and ask each other, ‘What does this text mean to you?’’’ Hazen says.
“Not only do they get the interpretation wrong, but very often end up quoting verses that really aren’t there.” [sic]

That's an interesting link and a good point. However, it's not just laypeople who get it wrong. There are plenty of biblical scholars who disagree on the meaning of different passages. How do we determine who is right and wrong then? I wouldn't advocate going back to the days when the bible was only permited to be written in Latin, so that the Roman Catholic hierarchy could "control the message".

 

[3db]

If this misinterpretation happens now in the 21st century, I can't imagine the cumulative effect over centuries.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/05/thats-not-in-the-bible/

“You can see this manifest today in living room Bible studies across North America where lovely Christian people, with no training whatsoever, drink decaf, eat brownies and ask each other, ‘What does this text mean to you?’’’ Hazen says.
“Not only do they get the interpretation wrong, but very often end up quoting verses that really aren’t there.” [sic]

BINGO!! Why does everyone think it began with English translation and KJV? If you take a look at even the new testament, these books were written over a span of 50 to a 100 years in different regions. They were written in the language of the time so that the comman lay people could understand the message told to them by people who could read. The stories told were dumbed down for the masses back then already so we have our first error introduced. All languages evolve over time. As an example, when my generation calls sonething sick, it has a negative conatation. When my kids call something sic, they think its cool.

So even the KJV are subjected to the interpretational errors made in translation. Whats worse is when people take quotes from the Bible out of context which introduces a whole new series of interpretational errors.

 

[3db]

That's an interesting link and a good point. However, it's not just laypeople who get it wrong. There are plenty of biblical scholars who disagree on the meaning of different passages. How do we determine who is right and wrong then? I wouldn't advocate going back to the days when the bible was only permited to be written in Latin, so that the Roman Catholic hierarchy could "control the message".

The Bible was translated into Latin but I'm guessing that it was not the first translation done on it. Did the latin transation come from the original books or were they trabslated from a previous version?

I find this stuff really interesting and at the same time am very leary of those claiming their translation to be the most accurate.