Is there actually a valid Translation of the Bible ?

by Phizzy 11 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Phizzy

  I saw a vid on-line awhile ago, I cannot remember the title so can't find it, but the guy was some sort of expert in the languages of the Bible, and he made a very good case that there has never been a proper Translation of the Bible.

  What he was saying was that all translators fall into the same trap of an overly slavish use of the etymology of words rather than how language was actually used at the time of writing.

  He said that what was needed were scholars who were familiar with secular contemporaneous writings, and knew how language was used at the time.

  This looks like a very interesting argument.

  Any thoughts ??
• 

  stuffwotifink

  I remember some shit on the telly I watched a while back - someone made the point that historical films about Rome, tell us more about the eras they were filmed in than they do about Rome.
  
  I suspect that the bible is similar in this regard.
  
• 

  Diogenesister

  From the way you explain it sounds like a very good argument.
• 

  TTWSYF

  This is exactly why you need biblical scholars to translate the scriptures. It is not just about the language, it's about the time, the place and the people as words mean different things to different people in different cultures even if they speak the same language throughout specific time periods.

  ie 'I want to smoke a fag' or 'I'm so pissed' will mean totally different things to an American compared to a Brit.

  just saying....that you need more than a greek-english or hebrew-english or aramiac-english dictionary to translate the scriptures
• 

  jhine

  There are lots of good study notes and commentaries available to non JWs written as understanding of the language gets better . Most people have several different translations as well . I have an NIV study Bible with good notes in it . That's the advantage of being free to read what you want ..

  Jan.
• 

  Vidqun

  Phizzy, problem is Biblical Hebrew is a dead language. Nobody knows how it was used by 1) the man in the street, 2) religious leaders, and 3) political leaders. From what era does a certain portion of the Bible come from? From what era does the recension of that portion date? E. g. the two Isaiah Scrolls from the DSS, one is close to the MT, the other is a vulgar version of the day. The closest scholars have come to language use of a specific era is graffiti, monument inscriptions and clay tablets (business and government archives). But because these are insufficient to establish language use, a lot of "educated" guess work is involved. Wordstudies, as is done by the editors of Theological Dictionaries of the Old and New Testament, are valuable in that they establish the different meanings of words over long periods of time. On the other hand, the translators of the different versions have been trained in seminaries and colleges of different denominations (e.g. Catholic and Protestant), which would also influence their translating technique. I think the Greek koine of the NT is in a slightly better position. Archeaologists have unearthed a lot of correspondence from the time, buried in rubbish dumps under the sand in Egypt, e.g. Rylands and Bodmer papyri, so they have a better idea of how the language was used in the first, second and third century CE.
• 

  TTWSYF

  vidqun- Dead languages are the easiest to translate. The meanings of words and phrases do not change anymore [the language is dead]. Example, no one speaks latin anymore so the translations are very accurate and can be re-translated to our language as our language evolves.. if that make sense.
• 

  tim3l0rd

  I remember getting into a heated discussion with my dad about the colloquialism in Psalms where it says "your enemies will lick the dust". My dad insisted that this meant that the enemies will be killed as "lick the dust" today implies that, but according to biblical scholars this was a colloquialism that meant someone would be bowed down sort of like "lick my boots". Surprisingly this was a colloquialism that WT got right, at least in ASL. The ASL translation does not say "lick the dust" but is translated as "be made subject to". The problem was that in the English WT there was no explanation of the colloquialism's true meaning.

  That was probably one of the reasons for my eventual awakening. I realized that I couldn't just read the Bible and think of it in our terms, but needed to research the context.
• 

  Vidqun

  TTWSYF, yes theoretically it should be like that. But remember, Hebrew existed for nearly 2000 years before it died off. During that period it had a developmental phase (time of the patriarchs, Moses), stabilization phase (time of the judges), bloom phase (David and Solomon), split (north vs. south), deterioration phase, (Babylonian exile), etc.

  Bible narratives have been taken from all these phases. Changes in the language would have occurred as it was influenced by the languages of surrounding nations, e.g., Ugaritic (in the time of David and Solomon), and Aramaic (Laban was a Syrian, also Aramaic would transplant Hebrew after the Babylonian exile).

  Some of the above changes are evident in the development of aspect/tense of the language. Early Hebrew concentrated on aspect (state of the verb), whereas later Hebrew leaned towards tense (past, present, future).

  Another problem with Biblical Hebrew is its limited literature corpus, which consists of the Bible, inscriptions, the Cairo Genizah, and a few DSS MSS. That is not nearly enough to trace its development with any degree of accuracy or certainty, thus the educated guess work by scholars. They have done exceptionally well in working it out, but there are many gaps.
• 

  John Aquila

  and he made a very good case that there has never been a proper Translation of the Bible.

  And that's why I finally came to the conclusion that the Bible is not inspired of God, but just a collection of books by men. If God wanted to communicate with his children, he would have used a communication method that would not require tons of scholars and translators to interpret. If God wanted to communicate with his children, he could have easily implanted his word in everyone's brains during sleep at the same time. That way no one would be confused and no human would have the power to say; "God talked to me alone" Even the Bible admits that God communicates with people by means of night visions or dreams.

  (Daniel 2:19) . . .Then it was that to Daniel in a night vision the secret was revealed. . .