FINDING THE CORRECT TRANSLATION of Holy writings

by Terry 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Terry
    Terry

    This is an important topic. Which means, of course, it will be largely ignored! Mostly it will be ingored because it is deep. Deep how? It requires a lot of background familiarity with sources.



    A layperson who approaches this subject can easily be put off. For one thing, who do you read first and how will that color your view going in?

    As with all controversies the presuppositions you carry around will direct you toward your conclusions like a strong magnet. It is, alas, only human to try and support your own views by bolstering them as much as possible and dismissing contrary evidence. Why? Changing an opinion isn't only a matter of changing one or two facts. No. Changing an opinion requires a complete rooting out of all connecting inferences like tangled roots beneath the soil on weeds you pluck from your garden. Our ideas are connected and the insidious nature of our mental filing system means the redundancy of an error is everywhere lurking and doing its damage.

    But, I digress!

    I've been reading and studying about this subject since I was about 40 years old and now I'm 58. At first it was just curiousity. Later it was more than that--more like furious determination. It became clear to me rather quickly that there was a dead skunk in the woodpile that everyone pretended wasn't there. I'm talking, of course, about the bull'seye issue of "inspiration" in religious writing and what was canonical and what wasn't.

    Without a verifying text to support a religious doctrine you have only human opinion. And that, my friends, is a thorny fact. Once you have a verifying text your problems have only just begun. How do you ascertain the veracity of a written text? How do you authenticate the god-breathed part of it and distinguish from the man's-hands part of it? How do you parse a text for the distinction between hidden meaning (symbolical) and contextual historical meaning? How can you ever know what you are reading wasn't just the result of a redaction and rewriting of some person or group (like the Watchtower with its "a god" rendering of John 1:1) intent on influencing a beloved doctrine?

    Well, you can't!

    You end up proving your presupposition. If you demand for yourself that the Bible MUST HAVE BEEN "inspired" then you will also insist it was PRESERVED. And that will settle the issue for you and you'll dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

    Your investigation will only have been an annoyance and not an honest intellectual inquiry of warts and all.

    People hate and despise uncertainty. This is especially true about religious views. Truly, religious people are intent on surrendering their mind, their willpower and their life to a higher authority because it is easier to do so than think for themselves. All they really want is some palatable assurance that their surrender terms include rewards and blessings down the road. A fool's paradise is still a paradise, after all!

    Back to our subject.....

    The SEPTUIGENT (also spelled SEPTUIGINT) is a mere case in point of the entire process I've been discussing.

    Whenever a revision, translation or redaction of a beloved document is undertaken it is sorely tempting to make it into what it (by your own opinon) SHOULD BE rather than what it is. That is why a fisherman will lengthen the size of the fish he caught each time he tells of the catch!.

    The 70 translators weren't 70 translators. Seventy appeals to the numerologists and does not conform to the actual facts. That's just a head's up going in to this subject. As the rabbi's will tell you, "All translations are lies". And they don't mean necessarily deliberate ones. They mean a translation calls for CHANGES and changes require judgment, familiarity and pivotal viewpoints to resolve issues of importance. So, it comes down to why the changes are made and not merely what changes are made. This is policy.

    The King James translators were not translators per se, as an example. They were learned and scholarly men who were charged with propping up the notion of a King and lending as much credence to his authority as humanly possible. Further, they were intent on sifting through PREVIOUS translations into the common tongue and choosing the apt phrase and the beautiful cadence rather than sourcing a Hebrew word and literally showcasing it. This is a fact. Should we expect that the Septuigent translators were free from all worldly and human issues, policies and rationale just to assure ourselves that truth is crammed into every sentence? That would be delicious and yet lacking in realism.

    My own conclusion is that a kind of sad and unfunny farce has been perpetrated on generations of humans that concerns our gullible acceptance of the very notion of an "inspired" writing passed on to us for our edification and enlightenment. After all, you'd expect a superior mind and transcendant intelligence (who made our own brains work, after all) could concoct a document of surpassing transparency of intention and less bumbling, rambling and murky patchwork repairs. No, our Bible is an embarrassment of cut and paste hackwork and smells of the fingers of furtive fanatics and political prudes who wish to grasp us by the nape of our gullibility and and toss us handily into their service for their singular purposes. We become hangdog sinners by their handiwork. We skulk about in our depressing lives with an eye on the heavens and one foot in our graves. We are beaten down into semi-obedient vassals obeying greedy liege lords of our local congregation. Our "service to god" is mere puppetry as we shovel bagloads of cash into the coffers of self-important puppetmasters who crack the righteous whip of orthodoxy over our perspiring brows. Our beloved Bible gives us a sense of being worthless and doomed and our lives are filled with endless rituals of reassuring the invisible ill-tempered Soverign in the sky that we mean well. The life of a religious fop being what it is; dull, furtive and frightened of shadows on the one hand and alternately pompous, arrogant and assured on the other. Such induced schizophrenia is everywhere evident in every church and congregation as the eager puppies of righteousness scamper to and fro licking up their own poop and vomiting it back out onto their brethern in gleeful anticipation of a pat on the head.

    Such is the fate of the faithful! And we can thank the Bible (no matter which translation) for that.

    T

  • stevenyc
    stevenyc

    Nice post Terry,

    If I may, I'd like to add a little story to the thread.

    As part of my work I get to travel around the country, staying in various hotels. In the evening I relax at the bar, and talk to whoever there. Americans are easy to talk to, and very open to questions. I use this to get a feel for the country outside of the big apple.

    Last week I happened to be in Columbia Maryland, close to DC. At the bar sat this guy, drinking wine, watching the world series which was playing on the bar TV. He was reasonably animated about the performances from both sides, occasionally informing the TV of what was either a good pitch, or bad defence. Being a Brit, I had no idea what he was talking about.

    At one point, he asked me for confirmation on some bad managerial decision, where I explained, being an ex-pat, I didn't understand. So, our little conversation had begun.

    We sat and drank together, talking about various things, both British and American. I am always frank, honest, and clear as to why I ask questions. I ask to understand people.

    After many topics, including war and politics the conversation moved toward religion. He is penticostal. I explained my background and we went on from there. He was very determined not to evangelise to me, which I appreciated. Even when he started too, he explained it was hard not to, and asked me if he should continue.

    This chap was becoming overwhelmed from inside with this conversation. At one point he started to cry. His emphasis was "All you have to do is say,'I recognize Jesus Christ is my saviour'", which is an other topic. He asked if I had read the bible, to which I answered, Yes, many times, however, it was written by a control group and so that version could not be trusted. I explained how difficult it is to trust a translation of scripture, because of the bias, intentional or not, will always be with the translator. He didn't like this.

    He wanted to know which version I used now, I replied, I don't know. I would guess that the more recent, and open versions, would more likely be a better choice because of the amount of theocratic and scientific research put into place. And that any version of a historical and foreign writing that comes into my hands from someone telling me this is the only, and TRUE, version is either deceiving me or themselves.

    Well, I guess penticostals must have there own translation.

    "PRICK". Ahh? "PRICK". Ahh, sorry? "You're a Prick!". I don't undsta.."Hey everyone, we've got a PRICK at the bar".

    The guy was red faced, and angry. He said I was deliberately toying with him. Funny thing is, it would have been incredibly easy to toy with him, however, I wasn't. I'm not that arrogant. He ordered himself another drink, so did I, and I apologised if I had offended him. "PRICK". I ignored this and proceeded.

    You see, I had now become incredibly interested in this guys reaction to an obvious statement. Something he would absolutely agree on, if perhaps we were talking about the ratification of treaties between two countries of differing language, and say, land boarders set up 200 years ago. Given that scenario: (that any version of a historical and foreign writing that comes into my hands from someone telling me this is the only, and TRUE, version is either deceiving me or themselves.)

    After I explained my reasoning of questioning him, that I wasn't toying, and about 10 minuets, we continued, and he apologised too. Although, he absolutely could not agree that his translation could be wrong.

    My point: COGNATIVE DISSONENCE. Jesus had to give him the correct translation. Without this he would have to start to question his relationship, and his avoidance of Hell. His faith was based on translation. His eternal existence was so. Remember he had instructed me to say those words and then I'd be saved. I had explained to him that merely saying words is not what Jesus said. You have to believe them. He had condemned me to Hell, because of his translation. Even when I said that my relationship with Jesus is between him and me, and no religion can say otherwise, he condemned me to hell for not saying those words. His words. His translation.

    steve

  • Check_Your_Premises
    Check_Your_Premises

    Great post. I would love to hear more about the subjects you encountered in your search to validate the Bible and canon. These are haunting questions for me as well.

    We have had a few exchanes in the past (pleasant I hope?) about the issues involved for the individual deciding what they believe and why.

    But what about mankind as a group, since no man is an island. "How then shall we live?" What I mean is that Dostovyesky concluded, as I understand, that if there is no God we would probably need to invent him. How does mankind define morality without an external referee. We can appeal to practicality, but that always leads you to questions about who benefits, who bears costs, and who gets to decide. And ultimately the decision is always backed by force. Without force to back it up, there is no civilization.

    So do you think we are better off as a species without the idea of an external referee? Without the idea of such a ref, isn't our best hope then to try to define a moral structure that benefits the greatest number in terms of the amount of control they have over their existence? But there will always be those who would rather forgo all the difficulty of allocating resources in an objective way, and resort to thuggery and looting. Are we only to hope that we can keep the thugs and looters at bay indefinitely. Or do we hope to survive as a species each successively worse spasm of violence, repression, resistance, liberation, and ultimately violence again?

    I can think of two examples of godless societies today. One is Europe, which from the historical vantage point appears to have its best days behind it. It's populace is shrinking, it's economies are bloated and stagnant from failed socialist experiments, and mostly the only things it believes in strongly is how shameful it's history is. The other example I can think of is China. They are clearly a nation on the rise, having shaken off some of the shackles of marxist dogma. It will be interesting to see how they traverse the murky waters of rapid economic advancement, old world tradition versus apparant decadent consumerism, and all without the safety valve of the democratic process. Historically China's internal squabbles have been extremely bloody. I guess when you have over a billion people, losing ten or twenty million here or there isn't that big of a deal. Especially when you don't have the idea of an external referee telling you the death of millions is not a good thing.

    I know these aren't easy questions, I just figure I have to give some balance since your post seems to dwell on the costs of faith while excluding the benefits. I also thought it didn't seem to recognize the cost that can come from man's lack of faith.

    How then shall we live? I guess we could just tell everyone to "be rational", but I don't think that one will work. Thanks in advance for your reply.

  • Check_Your_Premises
    Check_Your_Premises
    "PRICK". Ahh? "PRICK". Ahh, sorry? "You're a Prick!". I don't undsta.."Hey everyone, we've got a PRICK at the bar".

    You kind of lost me here. Are you saying this guy flew off the handle and started calling you a prick? This is a paraphrase or quote of his reaction to what you said?

    CYP

  • Sheepish
    Sheepish
    He had condemned me to Hell, because of his translation. Even when I said that my relationship with Jesus is between him and me, and no religion can say otherwise, he condemned me to hell for not saying those words. His words. His translation.

    There is no translation that says that. He condemned you cause he didn't know his own scriptures.You were right, you gotta believe it or it's meaningless You also gotta know it. The issue of faith comes to play.And the scriptures don't really come alive to you, become understandable to you unless you come to them with faith. I don't expect you to understand or accept this, I am just laying it out for you.

    There is plenty of evidence that the scriptures have not changed since the early church through many, many translations except in very small, in consequential ways. The NWT is pretty easy to discredit. It's changes are very obvious.

    The harder part of reading scripture is understanding what was going on at the time these words were said. The idioms etc. But even if you don't understand it all, the main history, and message comes through. And you don't need an organization to explain it to you. Even that is said in it. And the purpose is not to walk around like a shamed dog waiting to die, but to have peace about it. I think (since no one asked me!) the biggest problem with self-called Christians today, is they don't know their Bible's and rely on Preacher's and teacher's to tell what it says.

    I prefer the Pashitta myself. Translated from the aramaic. The interesting thing is, even when there is a clarification, it doesn't change the meaning...for instance, The Pashitta translates it, "It's harder for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle" rather than the king James "...camel through the eye of a needle". The sense does not change, the point is still made.The translater says the letter that makes the difference has the difference of a dot over it or not.

  • Kaput
    Kaput
    Our beloved Bible gives us a sense of being worthless and doomed and our lives are filled with endless rituals of reassuring the invisible ill-tempered Soverign in the sky that we mean well.

    Then just don't follow the Bible. After all, isn't this how we were made to feel as JWs? I wouldn't want to go through THAT again.

  • stevenyc
    stevenyc

    CYP,

    That's verbatim my friend. He was caught in his mind trap, he understood exactly what I was saying, rationalized it himself, got brain block from his beliefs, and exploded.

    steve

  • Check_Your_Premises
    Check_Your_Premises

    Thanks for the clarification Steve. That is pretty funny. Not a very good model of Christian behavior.

  • Terry
    Terry

    My current theory is that ALL religious writings begin with arguments requiring some sort of proof text.

    I look at the split in the kingdom when Solomon died. I think of the hard feelings and bitter resentments which isolated groups and set them in concrete about their pet beliefs. Then, I think about the uprooting of the movers and shakers who were transplanted to another culture when Jerusalem was destroyed. Another faction born.

    Imagine being taken by force to another culture with entirely contrary beliefs, customs and opinions. Imagine the absorption and filtering that would penetrate the mind decade after decade when all the contexts are altered and the rewards and punishments of life must be shifted to accomodate new thinking!

    Then, returning to the old group's children's children and their "untainted by new experience" opinions about things--you'd find the dissonances so dramatic the arguments would certainly be quite heated. How to solve these mad debates??

    Then, almost too good to be a true story----the book of the law is conveniently "discovered" to set things aright. And, Lo and Behold! There are two and three different versions of the same "histories" in this book!! One version to match each faction's recollection of things.....just amazing.

    No, I don't trust Holy Writings to be whole or even marginally true. I especially don't trust that the mind of a super-intelligence guided them and preserved them.

    I meet people all the time who angrily refuse to even consider for a moment that the Bible even needs to be re-evaluated as to veracity. It is just UNTHINKABLE. What would it mean if it really was bogus?? HORRORS!!!

    Thousands of years of civilization would be proved to be insane!

    Quite a powerful thought.

    T.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    A glaringly obvious but overlooked fact is that whatever translation a person reads he is reading a text that is a compilation composition of hundreds of varying manuscripts. Master texts that translators use do not reflect any ancient copy, they are created by picking and choosing from the often dozens of variants in each particular verse based upon sometimes whimsical criteria such as preferring copies from one region over another or use a variant that was quoted by an influential Christian writer 200 years after the book was written. While there is value in such texual criticism in identifying late insertions and deletions the best that can be hoped for is an approximation of what a hypothetical text would have looked like at the period when wide distribution began. This wide distribution unfortunately likely began after a hundred and fifty years of emmendation and redaction. This is where other forms of criticism (Higher Criticism) begin there work, however only very rarely does the results of this critical scholarship affect translations. Generally those involved in translating have a religious bias that prevents them from consulting the work of Higher Criticism.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit