*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Translations of the Bible
« on: June 30, 2021, 01:18:35 AM »
This is a subject I've become somewhat interested in recently, and the issue has turned out to be a lot more complex and nuanced than I initially realised. Broadly speaking, the Christian Bible can be broken into three parts with their own distinct history, and all three have generated controversy to a greater or lesser degree, either in their translation or in their status as scripture.


Parts of the Bible

The oldest is the Hebrew Bible, which is the collection of ancient Jewish writings that have survived in the original Hebrew (or, for a few passages, Aramaic), and which are considered canonical by Jews and all Christian denominations. These were first translated into Greek (a translation now known as the Septuagint) in the 3rd century BC, which is the source of most controversy surrounding the translation. For example, in Isaiah 7:14, the Hebrew word הָעַלְמָה ("young woman") was translated with the Greek παρθένος, which can mean either "maiden" or "virgin". Because Isaiah 7:14 is talking about a pregnancy, it would have been considered unlikely to be read as "virgin" at the time of its translation, but in a modern Christian context it is often taken as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus. Jews, who regard the original Hebrew text as authoritative, do not accept this Christian interpretation.

Next come the deuterocanonical books or apocrypha, terms preferred by Catholics and Protestants, respectively. These are pre-Christian Jewish writings which appear in the Greek Bible, but not the Hebrew Bible. These have widely varying histories. Some were originally written in Hebrew, but the original texts have been lost. Some are parts added to books in the Hebrew Bible — for example, around half of the Greek book of Daniel is nowhere to be found in Hebrew. Others, like 2 Maccabees, were entirely authored in Greek by Hellenised Jews. Whatever the reason for their absence from the Hebrew Bible, they are not considered canonical by Jews or Protestants, some are included in the Catholic Old Testament, and a few more are also included by Eastern churches.

Finally, there is the New Testament, thought to be originally written in Greek, although some proposals of a Hebrew original for the Gospel have been floated. This is, obviously, rejected by Jews, but it is universally accepted, as the same set of books, by all major modern Christian denominations. It is nevertheless controversial in the choice of manuscript used as the translation source. The most widely known English translation of the Bible, the King James Version (KJV), was created centuries ago based on the Byzantine manuscripts known at the time. Modern Biblical scholarship prefers the older Alexandrian text-type, which is missing some verses that were presumably added later to the Byzantine text-type. Therefore, from the point of view of someone familiar with the KJV, modern translations of the New Testament have "missing" verses.


Ancient translations

The issue of which source to use for translation is further complicated by the fact that no originals survive — and, indeed, for the older books of the Hebrew Bible, the concept of an original may be inapplicable, as these very likely originated as oral traditions that were only written down centuries later.

For the Old Testament, the main sources are the 10th-century Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and the 3rd-century-BC translation into Greek, the Septuagint (LXX), of which near-complete manuscripts survive from the 4th century AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls, from the 4th century BC, were discovered in the mid-20th century and have helped to improve the historical accuracy of recent translations.

The Latin Vulgate is also a useful point of reference, for two reasons. First, Jerome used the work of Symmachus when translating the Vulgate. Symmachus translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, independently of the Septuagint. His translation is reported by ancient authors to be more natural Greek than the Septuagint, but survives only in fragments, making the Vulgate our best insight into Symmachus's work. Second, the Vulgate was the only version of the Bible ever read by most scholars in western Europe for about a millennium, thanks to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church.

For these reasons, modern Bible translations typically use multiple sources in different languages, especially for the Old Testament. Only by comparing different surviving manuscripts can we obtain a clear picture of what was meant by the original. Yet, for the selfsame reason, modern translations often differ in their reading of particular passages due to preferencing one translation over another. The better translations offer footnotes with alternate readings so that the reader is aware of the ambiguity.


Modern translations into English

No translation prior to the 1950s can be considered up-to-date with modern Biblical scholarship, for the simple reason that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not available to translators before then. Since the 1950s, there have been numerous translations made — too numerous to list here — with varying advantages and disadvantages.

Generally, translations are classified on a spectrum of formal equialence vs. dynamic equivalence. Strict formal equivalence would produce unintelligible English, because Hebrew and Greek grammar is so drastically different from English, so formally equivalent translations tend to take just enough liberties to produce grammatically coherent English sentences.

Dynamic equivalence tries to convey the same meaning in natural English, which necessarily involves different phrasing in some cases. For example, in Luke 15:8, the Greek word δρᾰχμή refers to a drachma, an ancient Greek coin, but such currency is totally unknown to most modern readers. Modern translations, even formal translations, generally replace it with "silver coin", although formal translations tend to explain the original word as a footnote. In other cases, ancient idioms may need to be rephrased to make intuitive sense to modern readers, where a formally equivalent translation may leave them as is.

Another difference between translations is how they handle the deuterocanonical books. It is not always practical to provide these in a way that is useful for both Catholics and Protestants. The book of Esther, in particular, has whole new sections added to it in the Septuagint, that — if included separately — would make reading Greek Esther quite cumbersome indeed. Instead, Catholic Bibles either replace translations of the Hebrew books with the Greek ones, or include the Hebrew Esther and the Greek Esther separately.


My opinion

I have been researching available translations and selected personal favourites from the available options. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is generally accepted by Biblical scholars as the most accurate formal translation, and I now own a copy of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB), which is based on the NRSV and has a large number of annotations, maps and essays to explain how to interpret the scriptures. I love the NOAB as a reference, especially since it includes all deuterocanonical books, even those used by Orthodox churches but not the Catholic Church.

But the NRSV is not very amenable to easy reading, so I also now have a copy of the Catholic edition of the Good News Bible (GNB), which is written in clear, simple English, liberally seasoned with footnotes. I have been reading this for the past couple of weeks, and so far it is by far the smoothest translation I have ever laid eyes on.

Although it is quite popular, I do not like the New International Version, partly because of its Christian theological spin on the Old Testament (it uses "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14) and partly because it has fewer footnotes to explain alternate readings than the GNB. The KJV is right out for my purposes, as it is simply too old to benefit from modern Biblical scholarship.

But most of all, I'm glad I have researched the subject so that I have an understanding of how and why modern Bible translations differ, and what to expect. I have never actually read more than fragments of the Bible before, and the Good News Bible is making it extremely easy to do so, so I would wholeheartedly recommend that to any fellow Bible-curious folks.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2021, 01:22:32 AM by xasop »
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2021, 02:10:46 PM »
Quite an impressive educational endeavor, I must admit.

As to the subject matter, when it comes to fiction, I find other works (the FE WIKI comes to mind) that are much more to my liking.
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2021, 05:10:41 PM »
That's a pretty impressive dive into the weeds of the development of the modern Bible.

If someone is just trying to familiarize yourself with what's in The Bible, GNB is far and away your best choice. That's what I grew up with, it's the only one that's readable in my opinion. I tried a more ' authoritative' version after university at the peak of my anti-religious views, but multiple attempts at getting through the OT in the KJV failed miserably.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2021, 12:27:31 PM »
I tried a more ' authoritative' version after university at the peak of my anti-religious views, but multiple attempts at getting through the OT in the KJV failed miserably.
It's bizarre to me that people still consider the KJV authoritative, to the point that the Early Modern English of the 17th century is now associated with the Bible. It is highly noteworthy as literature and as an important historical translation, but it scores exceptionally poorly on both readability and accuracy, lacking the benefit of modern scholarship.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2021, 12:57:50 PM »
Yeah, that's why I threw in the quotations.

Brand recognition > product research in my case on that one. It seemed authoritative to me because it's the one that's been around I guess....but being around so long is the reason for its problems.

Interesting post.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 676
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2021, 02:19:24 PM »
You have not truly read the Bible until you've read it in it's original Klingon.

Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2021, 09:18:28 PM »
My limited research on the subject shows that the kjv is by far the most accurate, but decidedly not the most accessible to a modern audience. The nrsv (newly reviled substandard version, as it is known) is changed arbitrarily to sell new copies of it for profit :(

I highly recommend the pocket e-sword, and it is a shame it did not make the jump to modern mobile os's (it SORT of did, but in a vastly inferior form and for-profit, itself a violation of the scriptures and the ethos of the creator).  No one translation can do the job, and it is often necessary to go to the "original" language/source as best you can (along with commentaries / translation / strongs concordance etc.). Blueletterbible.org is the next best thing, but it is utter shit by comparison to the ease of use and interface of the pocket e-sword.

In any case, thanks for sharing! I haven't been involved in theosophy for quite some time, but this brings back some memories.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2021, 09:51:29 PM »
I'm fairly skeptical of the translations. Every word can mean several different things according to concordance dictionaries. Some people say it describes a flat stationary Earth, and here I used the top concordance results and translations to have it say that the Earth is moving upwards.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2021, 09:55:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2021, 10:16:35 PM »
My limited research on the subject shows that the kjv is by far the most accurate, but decidedly not the most accessible to a modern audience.
I would be interested to know the reasoning for that. All of my research indicates indicates that the best available sources for both the Old and New Testaments were not known when the KJV was translated.

I'm fairly skeptical of the translations. Every word can mean several different things according to concordance dictionaries.
Well, yes, which is where it's handy to have a translation with footnotes that explain ambiguities or an annotated study Bible. Obviously, it would be ideal to read it in the original language, but for those of us who don't have years to spend learning to read Hebrew and Greek, finding a good translation is the next best thing.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2021, 11:12:10 PM »
Obviously, it would be ideal to read it in the original language, but for those of us who don't have years to spend learning to read Hebrew and Greek, finding a good translation is the next best thing.

They all claim to be good translations though. All of the translators claim to be well read on the matter and have expertise, justification, and the correct interpretation. Why would someone would write a version that they knew was false?

Majority rule on the matter is also fallacious since some people might like things like idol worshiping and round earth theories and some might not.

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2021, 11:22:14 PM »
They all claim to be good translations though. All of the translators claim to be well read on the matter and have expertise, justification, and the correct interpretation.
That's not really true. Anyone who has ever seriously studied a second language knows that that there is no one correct way to translate every passage. Any translator worth their salt acknowledges this, and makes their priorities clear. Some prioritise literal accuracy, some prioritise ease of reading, some prioritise Jewish doctrine and some prioritise Christian doctrine. Some don't prioritise any of those, but try to aim for a balance between all of them.

Thus, it is a matter of choosing the translation that makes the trade-offs that make sense for you. Or, if you want to be sure you're not being misled by one person's interpretation, choose two or three and compare them. You don't have to learn Hebrew to make good use of the Bible.

If anyone does claim that their translation is the only correct one, that is a translation to be avoided. If they won't be honest with you about the translation process, I wouldn't trust the integrity of their translation either.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2021, 11:29:16 PM »
Thus, it is a matter of choosing the translation that makes the trade-offs that make sense for you. Or, if you want to be sure you're not being misled by one person's interpretation, choose two or three and compare them. You don't have to learn Hebrew to make good use of the Bible.

Three different versions are translating the parts of this passage very differently:

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/1-Chronicles/16/30

1 Chronicles 16:30

Quote
New American Standard Bible

"Tremble before Him, all the earth; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved."

King James Version

"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."

Holman Bible

"tremble before Him, all the earth. The world is firmly established; it cannot be shaken."

The first author translates the second and third pieces of the passage as stationary. And authors two and three interchangeably have different interpretations for the meaning of the second and third parts of the passage as something to do with stability, but think the other is stationary.

Who should we believe and why?

Any answer to this shows that none of the translators can be trusted.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2021, 11:46:06 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2021, 11:48:03 PM »
The first author translates the second and third pieces of the passage as stationary. And authors two and three interchangeably have different interpretations for the meaning of the second and third parts of the passage as something to do with stability, but think the other is stationary.

Who should we believe and why?
Are any of these translations intended to give an accurate description of the Earth? Last time I checked, the Bible was a book of religion, not geology. For the purpose of religion, your quotes all mean the same thing.

For the purpose of geology, they are all too imprecise to mean anything at all. The word "move" in English could mean several different things. If you are interested in geology, might I suggest a good textbook instead?
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2021, 11:56:02 PM »
As someone who has taken multiple translation courses, I'd just echo what xasop said. Either trust none of them, trust all of them, hope they provide the explanation of what their goals were in dealing with each ambiguous line.....but the best bet is just to learn the original language

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2021, 11:57:39 PM »
Are any of these translations intended to give an accurate description of the Earth? Last time I checked, the Bible was a book of religion, not geology. For the purpose of religion, your quotes all mean the same thing.

For the purpose of geology, they are all too imprecise to mean anything at all. The word "move" in English could mean several different things. If you are interested in geology, might I suggest a good textbook instead?

Your argument appears to be that we can't trust the translators to know what the people who wrote the bible meant, and we also can't trust the people who wrote the Bible to know what knowledge they are trying to convey from themselves or their divine influence.

If we can't trust something simple like the difference between stationary and stable from all involved sources then how can we possibly trust a translator to know what an ancient person of an ancient language meant about the nature of God and the true meaning of life hundreds or thousands of years ago?
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 12:03:19 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2021, 12:06:10 AM »
Your argument appears to be that we can't trust the translators to know what the people who wrote the bible meant, and we also can't trust the people who wrote the bible to know what they are trying to convey from their divine influence.
That is not what I said at all. I am saying that neither the original authors nor the translators were writing a geology textbook.

If we can't trust something simple like the difference between stationary and stable then how can we possibly trust a translator to know what an ancient person of an ancient language meant about the nature of God and the true meaning of life thousands of years ago?
The passage you are talking about is obviously figurative. It makes no sense to insert a sentence about the literal nature of the Earth in the middle of a lecture on bowing before God. In that context, there is no difference between "stationary" and "stable", because "stationary" can be used figuratively to mean "stable".

Just three verses later, there is this gem:
Quote from: 1 Chronicles 16:33 (Good News Bible)
The trees in the woods will shout for joy when the LORD comes to rule the earth.
Are you seriously telling me you have a problem with not knowing whether the Earth is stationary or stable, but you're fine with trees shouting?

If you try to use the Bible as a geology textbook, you are going to have a bad time, no matter what language you read it in.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2021, 12:31:13 AM »
Quote
Are you seriously telling me you have a problem with not knowing whether the Earth is stationary or stable, but you're fine with trees shouting?

I have a problem with that sentence too. I could take that sentence at various levels, figuratively or literally.

- It could be purely figurative.

- Maybe the demigods of nature exist and the nature-angles would angle the winds against the trees to make a happy sound.

- I've heard that plants can communicate by releasing chemicals, can talk to each other and to insects. Maybe the spirits of the trees caused them to release one of the joy chemicals and shouted for joy in their way that they and God would know.

- There are some theories that the Bible portrays early Earth as a gene experimentation lab. Maybe the trees had some kind of group sentience and did something to shout for joy, but they aren't as sentient anymore and lack their tree organs after some revisions and cleanup.

And this is assuming that the sentence is even translated properly.

Go Here: https://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_chronicles/16-33.htm

then click on the shout for joy part:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7442.htm

Quote
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

aloud for joy, cry out, be joyful greatly, make to rejoice, cause to shout for joy
A primitive root; properly, to creak (or emit a stridulous sound), i.e. To shout (usually for joy) -- aloud for joy, cry out, be joyful (greatly, make to) rejoice, (cause to) shout (for joy), (cause to) sing (aloud, for joy, out), triumph.

It could just mean that they creaked.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stridulous

Quote
Also strid·u·lant. making or having a harsh or grating sound.

God came to rule the earth and he makes a pressure wave and causes the trees to creak to signal his return. The trees are just trees in this scenario. They don't have minds of their own and just creak because they were made to creak. God is intending more shock than joy and isn't necessarily doing the happy fun joyous things the translators want.

One of the translations in the concordance definitions is also just 'properly'. It could mean that God came back and they were proper. And 'proper' might also some kind of synonym for joyous in the ancient languages, and many authors used it as 'joyous' but not this one, hence the confusion.

I doubt any translator knows what this passage actually means.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 01:00:01 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2021, 12:38:20 AM »
God came to rule the earth and he makes a pressure wave and causes the trees to creak to signal his return. The trees are just trees in this scenario. They don't have minds of their own and just creak because they were made to creak.
That is probably a valid reading (I am no expert on Hebrew so I can't say for certain). It doesn't make the one given in the GNB invalid. This goes back to what I said before: there is no one correct way to translate every passage, but that doesn't make all translations worthless.

I doubt any translator know what this passage actually means.
Insofar as the detail isn't there in the original, correct. If you are expecting a translation to add information that wasn't there in the source, you will be disappointed.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2021, 01:43:03 AM »
It's even more complex than words maybe meaning another word. Maybe the words and concepts as you known them don't even mean what you think they mean on a more fundamental conceptual basis. Now go to that biblehub lexicon page for the passage and click on the word 'trees':

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6086.htm

Under Brown-Driver-Briggs I see:

Quote
collective trees

figurative of source of (life and) happiness

place of illicit worship

olive trees

simile of great age

late (in Persian) used for executing criminals (? by hanging = gallows)

That one bolded was interesting. Place of illicit worship?

Lets check out the Thematic Bible:

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/themes/Deuteronomy/12/2#thematic_title_20179

Quote
Groves » Idols were worshipped in

Deuteronomy 12:2

You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree.

1 Kings 14:23

For they also built for themselves high places and sacred pillars and Asherim on every high hill and beneath every luxuriant tree.

Jeremiah 3:6

Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there.

Lets click on the link 'every green tree' on the right hand side:

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/phrases/Every-Green-Tree

Quote
Deut 12:2

Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree

2 Kgs 16:4

And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.

2 Chron 28:4

He sacrificed also and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.

Isa 57:5

Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of the rocks?

Jer 3:6

The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.

Weird. Now trees are where the bad idol worshiping takes place, sacrifices are made, and places harlots gather.

Maybe it's saying that God will return and the illegitimate places of idol worship and their spirits will creak in shock.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2021, 02:16:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9776
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: Translations of the Bible
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2021, 01:50:26 AM »
Maybe it's saying that God will return and the illegitimate places of idol worship and their spirits will creak in shock.
Maybe it is. As someone with no knowledge of Hebrew, I have to rely on translators with a professional understanding of the language rather than reading a website for 5 minutes that says what words might have meant in some unspecified contexts, at some unspecified time in the Hebrew language's 3000-year history.

If you would rather learn Hebrew, more power to you. But don't confuse perusing a list of possible translations for each word with an understanding of the language.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol