Throw out your Christian Tanack!

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Yid613

My comment was base on a quote by Aryeh Kaplan one of greats in the translation of Jewish texts. Translation is more than just simply mapping words from one language to another. The grammar must also be adjusted and tenses mapped to ones available in the language you are translating to. The context of a verse must also be taken into consideration. A strictly literal translation would be unreadable.

As someone who is capable of speaking more than one language and having translated many documents professionally (mostly technical), I can state without equivocation that you have grossly over stated the actual process. IF one is indeed fluent in the languages they are dealing with. Then MOST of the translations are stinking obvious and automatic. One wonders how many translations you have accomplished.

Dealing with dead languages (no known native speakers) becomes more of a crap shoot. No matter who the scholar is, if they are without an agenda, they will be quick to point out their OWN uncertainty in what and how they translate a document. Idioms can be guessed at but their true meanings are often lost for ever.

So, one has to wonder why the first century Christians did not question the disparity you question so diligently. It appears that they made a BIG DEAL of the virgin birth and they even translated it into Greek as such. Could it be, that their understanding of the language was a bit more recent than ours? I would suggest that their understanding of the Hebrew of the OT was far clearer than our present understanding by sheer virtue of time. Think about it... what kind of a sign is pregnancy if the woman is NOT a virgin? It would only be a sign of promiscuity and not a sign of God.

As for the English translations, calling someone a "young woman" who is unmarried is still calling her a virgin. My neighbor three doors down is a Rabbi, and I simply asked him about the difference between a woman and a young woman in scriptures. Without any hesitation, he said that "young woman" is another way of saying that she is a virgin.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Yid613

The Septuagint (that is lost) and the first five books of the LXX (a copy of the Septuagint) are an acceptable translation.

So, the LXX = "a copy of the [lost] Septuagint?" Really? From Wikimedia:LXX:

The Septuagint (IPA: /ˈsɛptuədʒɪnt/), or simply "LXX", is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria, in present-day Egypt.

It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language, the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean from the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC). The word septuaginta[2] means "seventy" in Latin and derives from a tradition that seventy (or seventy-two) Jewish scholars translated the Pentateuch (Torah) from Hebrew into Greek for Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 BC.

The Septuagint includes some books not found in the Hebrew Bible. Many Protestant Bibles follow the Jewish canon and exclude the additional books. Roman Catholics, however, include some of these books in their canon while Eastern Orthodox Churches use all the books of the Septuagint. Anglican lectionaries also use all of the books except Psalm 151, and the full King James Bible in its Authorized Version includes these additional books in a separate section labeled Apocrypha.

The Septuagint was held with great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its authors. Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for the Slavonic, Syro-Hexaplar (but not the Peshitta), Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Old Testament. Of significance for all Christians and for Bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the Christian New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers. While Jews have not used the LXX in worship or religious study since the second century AD, recent scholarship has brought renewed interest in it in Judaic Studies. Some of the Dead Sea scrolls attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the Masoretic Text was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version. The oldest surviving codices of LXX (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) date to the fourth century AD.

Let me ask again: Would you mind telling us the last book you've read on either the Septuagint or source criticism?

Originally Posted by Yid613

The mistranslation could very well have been due to an incompetent translator. But as it fixed a theological problem caused by Matthew's mistranslation one could see it as intentional ...

Save for the fact that the purported 'mistranslation' of 'almah as parthenos (virgin) was the result of Jewish scholarship and preceded the advent of Christianity by at least a century.

Originally Posted by Yid613

It’s online, it’s free, and it has Rashi!!!

If you want to buy one then:

The ArtScoll Stone Edition Chumash is very good.
The ArtScoll Tanack is good, but with a freer translation as there is not a lot of commentary

.

I have the first bookmarked and the last next to my desk. (And, truth be known, I'm rather fond of Rashi.) But none of the above match the quality of the JPS in my opinion.

[gnostic]

Originally Posted by yid613

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

As far as I can tell, there is no scripture in the original Hebrew text, in regarding to the New Testament. They were most likely written in Greek only.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by [B

Yid613 ]This has been discussed before but here are a few other ones:

MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin."

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Deceitful rubbish.

Could you explain and substantiate this?

[Jayhawker Soule]

See here.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

See here.

Thank you.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Up until recently, it has always been assumed that being a virgin was a part of being a girl, and often they were not considered to be a "woman" until their wedding night.

Perhaps. I have heard that argument before. But this is where I think it might be reasonable to look at the context. It might seem reasonable that some people might have automatically associated the term “young woman” with “virgin” to the point that the two terms became almost synonymous. Even today if I were to write “my 13 year old niece is in the school band” you might automatically assume she is a virgin, but if I were to say “my 13 year old niece is 6 months pregnant” I am sure that most people would not assume virginity, not even the most conservative naïve reader.

[Ben Masada]

There is no such a thing as Christian Tanach. The Tanach is Jewish. Christian is the NT.

Ben