Mistranslations of the various Translations of the Scriptures. (Moses, Earth)

[FFH]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

. And where, exactly, is this sand bar?

I am looking at a map and I see Katrina to the east and Jabal to the west and the Gulf of Aqaba in between. It would have been between these two points that Moses would have crossed. There is a shallow stretch of land extending across the Gulf of Aqabq.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by FFH

OK you are right the Sinai peninsula, which extends from the Red Sea. Thanks for correcting me.

OK, this would make more sense, geographically. Cross the Gulf of Suez and then proceed Northeast.

I would be quite interested in seeing the archaeological evidence you mention, FFH, and I'm sure Deut/Jayhawker would be too.

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

and I'm sure Deut/Jayhawker would be too.

Waits patientially for evidence.

[MidnightBlue]

One mistranslation is particularly egregious because it's apparently deliberate: the New International Version's revision of Jesus' words about the mustard seed.

At Mark 4.31, the NIV has: "It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground." This verse is more accurately rendered by the New American Standard Bible ("It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil [...]") and the King James Version ("It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth [...]").

Likewise, at Matthew 14.32, the KJV correctly translates Jesus' remark that the mustard seed "is the least of all seeds," as does the NASB which renders it "smaller than all other seeds." But the NIV translates it "the smallest of all your seeds," although there's no warrant for that translation in the text.

The obvious reason for the duplicity here is the NIV committee's slavish adherence to a narrow and literalistic idea of inerrancy. The mustard seed isn't really, literally, the smallest of all seeds on earth, and so they consider it necessary to "correct" the words of Jesus so he doesn't seem to say something inaccurate.

The NIV is notable among modern translations for its intentionally misleading translations. The committee effectively revised the Bible to fit the conceptions of Evangelical Protestants. The irony is that most of the people who use the NIV are Biblical inerrantists.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

The NIV is notable among modern translations for its intentionally misleading translations. The committee effectively revised the Bible to fit the conceptions of Evangelical Protestants. The irony is that most of the people who use the NIV are Biblical inerrantists.

I agree.

However I've met one of the NIV translators, and he is one incredible New Testament scholar. We've got one right here in TX, and he taught Greek to a good friend of mine.

Zondervan has a printed copy of the Greek New Testament with the NIV variants. When compared to the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland, it is clear that the only rationale for choosing many of the specifically NIV variants is not the earliest MSS but evangelical theology. And it doesn't end with choosing variants... phrasiology in translation is also distinctly evangelical.

When I translate Greek, I usually have the NIV, ESV, and NRSV within reach. The NIV is by far the most disappointing translation. It is so far from the Greek that it should be classified as a paraphrase and not a translation. I think that it is purposefully misleading.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by FFH

Would it matter if I showed you the photographs of these coral encased chariot spokes and axles on top of this sand bar that stretches across the Red Sea peninsula? Would it even be a valid photograph to you, since everything is a fraud to you?

That's real cute. If somebody asks you to substantiate your claim, or at least elaborate on it, refuse to do so, and deflect attention from the speciousness of your claim with a personal insult.

A more accurate answer for Jay: "They" are the late Ron Wyatt, a noted crackpot and con artist who made a number of unsubstantiated claims. His work, if you can call it that, is completely rejected by real historians and real archaeologists.

As an example, we can take a typical assertion from a website supporting Wyatt's claims: "One of his finds included an eight spoke chariot wheel, which Ron took to the director of Egyptian Antiquities, Dr. Nassif Mohammed Hassan. After examining it he immediately announced it to be of the eighteenth dynasty, dating the exodus to 1446 BC. When asked how he knew this Dr. Hassan explained that the eight spoke wheel was only used during this period, the time of Ramases II and Tutmoses (Moses)."

A few problems here. First, Wyatt produced photos of his supposed finds, but never produced the actual chariot wheel for anyone to examine. Second, nobody but Wyatt seems to know who Dr. Nassif Mohammed Hassan is, and Wyatt's dead. Third, while all the Pharaohs named Thutmose belonged to the Eighteenth Dynasty, Ramses II belonged to the Nineteenth. Thutmose I died almost 200 years before the birth of Ramses II, and Thutmose IV almost 100 years. Fourth, war chariots of both the 18th and 19th Dynasties typically had six spokes, and Wyatt never substantiated the supposed claims of "Dr. Hassan," who is most likely a fictional character created by Wyatt, that (a) eight-spoked chariot wheels were used during the 18th Dynasty and (b) they weren't used at any other time.

One might think I'm being unfair to Wyatt by picking on a single particularly weak claim, but this is actually very typical of Wyatt's "scholarship."

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I agree.

However I've met one of the NIV translators, and he is one incredible New Testament scholar. We've got one right here in TX, and he taught Greek to a good friend of mine.

Zondervan has a printed copy of the Greek New Testament with the NIV variants. When compared to the 27th edition of Nestle-Aland, it is clear that the only rationale for choosing many of the specifically NIV variants is not the earliest MSS but evangelical theology. And it doesn't end with choosing variants... phrasiology in translation is also distinctly evangelical.

When I translate Greek, I usually have the NIV, ESV, and NRSV within reach. The NIV is by far the most disappointing translation. It is so far from the Greek that it should be classified as a paraphrase and not a translation. I think that it is purposefully misleading.

And there is no reason to suppose the writers themselves were any less doctrinally motivated....

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by FFH

Would it matter if I showed you the photographs of these coral encased chariot spokes and axles on top of this sand bar that stretches across the Red Sea peninsula? Would it even be a valid photograph to you, since everything is a fraud to you?

The Egyptian chariot of the period was extradinarily light since it was used as a platform for javelin or bow armed riders as opposed to the Hittite styld chariot which was meant to be crashed through opposing infantry lines. The wheels were never six feet in diameter, almost always three to three-and-a-half feet in diameter with wooden spoking, created from "V"'s of shaped wood bound together to form two sides of the spoke. Metal fittings were rare unless at the hub, and when there were bronze not iron. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/chariots.htm

I went looking for the pictures you suggested and found them without any difficulty, taken by Christian ministers on a dive trip to the Red Sea.
http://www.anchorstone.com/content/view/134/53 To the best of my knowledge one is not allowed to retrieve potential artifacts from the bottom of the Red Sea, it being a felony in Egypt to disturn archeological findings without license to dig, so the wheel cannot be retrieved and examined, however, it will probably be a relatively modern wheel since it is on top of the sand bar, not burried. It only takes about thirty to forty years to build up a coral cover, we know that from aircrafdt and ship wrecks associated with the battles around Guadalcanal in the 2nd World War. As to your human femur, I wonder if that was recovered without a license, if so they broke the law, if it was, again how do we know it is not much more modern? Has it been carbon dated? And if so under what circumstances and where?

As to archeological evidence of the crossing of the Red Sea, its pretty worthless.

Regards,
Scott