Are you qualified to dispute translations of scripture?

[Beaudreaux]

I have read more than a few posts on RF wherein people claim that certain Biblical passages are poorly translated. I have to say, it drives me nuts! The most recent Biblical translations represent the pinnacle of human ability and scholarship. They are advised by the fruits of modern archaeology and come from the latest and most studied transcripts. The New International Version, for example, took 10 years and was completed by a team of up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more.

Yet without fail, people on this forum who have invested in a Hebrew or Koine Greek dictionary will make posts claiming that the translation went wrong here or there. Coincidentally, the translation error usually changes the meaning of some scripture whose current meaning with which they take issue.

So, to all of you who have posted on RF claiming that these scholars working in concert over a period of years have somehow gotten it wrong, what are your qualifications to make such a judgement?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

Good point. I think the problem many people have is that when you translate from the original, there is a certain degree of interpretation that has to be accounted for. In the words of Nietzsche, 'The hardest thing to translate from one language to another is the tempo of it's style' (Although I hate to translate that also )

Especially if you're trying to argue a point that the particular interpretation you are using doesn't support, but the original makes has slightly more meaning to your point.

Versions like The Message... I don't know what kind of scholars were involved in the translation of that but... I sure hope they earned the same wage as a butcher.

GhK.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I have read more than a few posts on RF wherein people claim that certain Biblical passages are poorly translated. I have to say, it drives me nuts! The most recent Biblical translations represent the pinnacle of human ability and scholarship. They are advised by the fruits of modern archaeology and come from the latest and most studied transcripts. The New International Version, for example, took 10 years and was completed by a team of up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more.

Yet without fail, people on this forum who have invested in a Hebrew or Koine Greek dictionary will make posts claiming that the translation went wrong here or there. Coincidentally, the translation error usually changes the meaning of some scripture whose current meaning with which they take issue.

So, to all of you who have posted on RF claiming that these scholars working in concert over a period of years have somehow gotten it wrong, what are your qualifications to make such a judgement?

For me it boils down to humility and honesty. If an individual is sincere about their studies, and wants to check whatever happens to be in a "new translation" they should have a reasonable concordance.

There are many that do just this, and there is a large consensus that the KJV is very accurate to the oldest Hebrew and Greek we have. However, if one doesn't challenge this consensus, I think they are once again relying on blind faith, or rumor.

So again it boils down to humility and honesty. As far as the NIV goes, it was crafted to appeal to modern English readers, and makes no bones about changing certain things. There is certainly bias throughout the NIV. Doesn't mean it is not useful to gain another perspective to check against, but I don't think it is as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Take our civilization in America, we have had 1,000's of years to study the world, and we still can't get a modern civilization to work right. It would be no different with translating something as complex as the bible in its original form. So your position of time and number of people just don't work for me.

 

[TheKnight]

I have read more than a few posts on RF wherein people claim that certain Biblical passages are poorly translated. I have to say, it drives me nuts! The most recent Biblical translations represent the pinnacle of human ability and scholarship. They are advised by the fruits of modern archaeology and come from the latest and most studied transcripts. The New International Version, for example, took 10 years and was completed by a team of up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more.

Yet without fail, people on this forum who have invested in a Hebrew or Koine Greek dictionary will make posts claiming that the translation went wrong here or there. Coincidentally, the translation error usually changes the meaning of some scripture whose current meaning with which they take issue.

So, to all of you who have posted on RF claiming that these scholars working in concert over a period of years have somehow gotten it wrong, what are your qualifications to make such a judgement?

I think no one should make comments about translations unless they speak the language of the original.

I think the discrepancies arise mostly in opinion. Some Christian translators have been known to purposely mistranslate verses in the past. Other then that, the biggest different comes down to the message you're trying to get across. Usually, especially in ancient languages, there is more than one meaning for one particular word. That being said, some pick one meaning over another.

Ultimately, the best way to understand a text is to learn the original. After I started learning Hebrew/Spanish I realized this even more. You just can't get the full grasp of a text without understanding the original language.

Sure, it's tedious to go learn the original language, but if we're really serious about our religious faith, I think we'll do it for the sake of accuracy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I sure am.

How 'bout 98% of a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/know-your-moderators/51647-about-angellous.html

 

[freethinker44]

I think when people say they are poorly translated, they really mean that the translators don't support their personal views.

 

[Smoke]

The New International Version, for example, took 10 years and was completed by a team of up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more.

The Wikipedia article you quote verbatim and without attribution doesn't impress me. So, the group of evangelicals who produced this tendentious, evangelical translation come from a variety of Protestant denominations. So what?

Yet without fail, people on this forum who have invested in a Hebrew or Koine Greek dictionary will make posts claiming that the translation went wrong here or there. Coincidentally, the translation error usually changes the meaning of some scripture whose current meaning with which they take issue.

So, to all of you who have posted on RF claiming that these scholars working in concert over a period of years have somehow gotten it wrong, what are your qualifications to make such a judgement?

I am not a qualified scholar. I have, however, spent the last forty years reading the Bible and studying the work of qualified scholars. And frankly, anybody who can read English and compare the various translations can tell that something is up with the NIV.

The most recent Biblical translations represent the pinnacle of human ability and scholarship.

Really. What are your qualifications to make such a judgment?

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I think when people say they are poorly translated, they really mean that the translators don't support their personal views.

None of the translations of the bible support my personal views. I can still tell that there is a significant difference between the translation of the Message and the KJV.

GhK.

 

[Man of Faith]

I don't have to be einstein to understand that things are lost in translation. There aren't the same words in different languages sometimes. Most of the time I rely on those that are qualified, like the internet.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have read more than a few posts on RF wherein people claim that certain Biblical passages are poorly translated. I have to say, it drives me nuts! The most recent Biblical translations represent the pinnacle of human ability and scholarship. They are advised by the fruits of modern archaeology and come from the latest and most studied transcripts. The New International Version, for example, took 10 years and was completed by a team of up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and more.

On what grounds do you claim that this translation is superior to that of the JPS? Level of expertise? Number of people involved? Typical breakfast consumed by the respective editors?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I am in no way qualified to dispute translations of scripture, or even to simply to debate scripture. Then again, it doesn't take a scriptural scholar to tell when somebody is pushing their own agenda under the guise of scholarship.

 

[jennadp1216]

Most of the time I rely on those that are qualified, like the internet.

i wouldn't necessarily call the internet Qualified :no:

 

[Beaudreaux]

On what grounds do you claim that this translation is superior to that of the JPS? Level of expertise? Number of people involved? Typical breakfast consumed by the respective editors?

The NIV is just an example. Other official translations also had teams of scholars with many years of experience and expertise.

I didn't mean to make this a debate about which version is best. What bothers me is when people are discussing a Biblical passage and one person, usually the Christian, is having a hard time defending the passage, he/she will sometimes claim that the passage was translated incorrectly. If they're practiced at this dodge, they'll pull out a Hebrew and/or Greek dictionary and a copy of one of the published manuscripts and try to find a way that the passage means what they want it to mean.

Someone tried to pull this on me once and I just had to laugh. Take an introduction to Biblical hermeneutics class and you'll get a gilmpse into how incredibly difficult it is to grasp the meaning of texts you wish to translate. There's a reason that official Bible translations are done by scholars who have immersed themselves in the field, working in teams over a period of years. It's hard stuff! Someone who merely has a text and a dictionary and has taken some classes in the language is NOT qualified in my opinion to dispute these translations with any veracity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Someone who merely has a text and a dictionary and has taken some classes in the language is NOT qualified in my opinion to dispute these translations with any veracity.

I agree that scholarship deserves respect so long as it is not prostituted to dogma.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree that scholarship deserves respect so long as it is not prostituted to dogma.

:angel2:

 

[Light On]

Are you qualified to dispute translations of scripture?

Is anyone?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is anyone?

Perhaps folks who have some competency in the languages.

 

[Light On]

I'm sure stuff gets lost in the transulations as well, so they switch it.. I hope not! O.O