Mistranslations of the various Translations of the Scriptures.

[wmam]

Please when showing what you believe to be a mistranslation add from which translation that you quote from.
Others are welcome to refute or defend. Please show proof of either.

I will start this off with................

KJV.........

Exo 15:4 Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.

I believe that "Red sea" is a mistranslation. Lets look at the same in Hebrew.

Exo 15:4 מרכבת פרעה וחילו ירה בים ומבחר שׁלשׁיו טבעו בים־סוף׃

What I have enlarged and underlined is Hebrew for Reeds.

H5488
סוּף
sûph
soof
Probably of Egyptian origin; a reed, especially the papyrus: - flag. Red [sea], weed. Compare H5489.

If it were "Red" wouldn't it have been "Adom" instead of "suph"?

Now it's your turn....................

 

[FFH]

According to the Joseph Smith translation, this scripture is correct.

It was probably formerly known as the Reed Sea until certain events caused the name to be changed to the Red Sea.

There is an LDS footnote that seems to suggest the word Reed could be a substitute for the word Red. Either seems to be correct. http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=Exodus+15%3A4

Wasn't Moses pulled from among the reeds, in the Nile, while floating in a basket made of reeds by his Mother? Was it prophetic as to what was going to happen in the future? He and his people would be delivered by the Reed Sea. He was delivered by a Reed basket made by his Mother.

It may have been called the Reed Sea when Moses and the 12 tribes of Isreal crossed over it, but then Pharaoh renamed it the Red Sea, after he lost so many of his men when they were swallowed up by the Reed Sea.

Also it could have been originally called the Reed Sea, because of the Reeds that grew there, until Moses turned the waters into blood. At that time the reeds may have all died. Pharaoh and/or Moses then renamed it the Red Sea because of what had happened to it. All the fish and plant life had died as a result of the waters turning to blood.

 

[Valjean]

I was taught that the King James translators were unfamiliar with the word "suph" , though it clearly modified "sea/body of water" (Yam). The only sea in the area was the Red Sea, so that's what they wrote.
Many people say that the "reed/seaweed" adjective referred to the papyrus swamp at the mouth of the Nile, and point out that it would have been sheer idiocy for a group to take off West across a barren desert, with escape blocked by a 150 Km wide sea. Even if Moses' band believed they could cross the Red Sea they would have found themselves in the even larger, and more barren, Sahara.

The only reasonable escape from Egypt would have been to slog across the papyrus swamp at low tide and on to the developed towns of the Eastern Mediterranean.

 

[jewscout]

i've seen it both ways...my siddur (prayer book)uses the Sea of Reeds

 

[wmam]

Well Thanks all ...........

Now is there anyone that has anything they they would like to share about any mis-translations that they know about?

I have others but would like to see from others what they have.

Seems we pretty much got it down to "Sea of Reeds" on this one.

Isn't there a lake or something there called "Sea of Reeds" or "Lake of Reeds"? I heard that it was some 200 to 300 feet deep and that it was probably where they crossed.

 

[FFH]

Isn't there a lake or something there called "Sea of Reeds" or "Lake of Reeds"? I heard that it was some 200 to 300 feet deep and that it was probably where they crossed.

There is a sand bar, or shallow stretch of land, that stretches across part of the Gulf of Aqaba, from one end to the other. They have found objects, similar to the size and shapes of spokes and axles of chariot wheels encased in coral along this shallow sand bar or stretch of land. This stretch of land that rises up under the Gulf of Aqaba could have been shallow enough at one point in time that reeds may have grown all the way across, pointing to Moses where to stop and ask God for a miracle. There was a possibility to cross there if the winds were strong enough. Moses may have asked God to part the sea at this point with a strong wind. An extemely strong wind, caused by God. This could have caused the sea to part at this point. Or as the Bible says it was parted by God to the point where there was a wall of water on each side of this dry land. If it was made of sand it could have been crossed while still wet or the remaining water would quickly subside into the earth, because of the sand. The water could have been moved enough to cross this shallow stretch of land or sand bar. It was a miraculous wind or parting by God that cleared the water enough for them to cross on this shallow streatch of land or sand bar where the reeds could be seen growing. The reeds and some of the sand bar could have been washed away to a deeper level at this point when the sea came together again. The sand bar or stretch of land is still there with the chariot wheels encased in coral. Nothing has been moved or touched. After Moses and the children of Isreal crossed this shallow sand bar, the winds could have died or God ceased parting the sea and as the armies of Pharaoh crossed it they would have been submersed with their chariots and drowned. The sea would have settled back over this shallow sand bar and killed or drowned all in its path. This can be proven by looking at the Red sea floor for this stretch of shallow land where the coral encased chariout axles and spokes are still located. They have not been moved. I am sorry I don't have a link to this right now. It was a video documentary that has this information on it.

God probably used this point to cross the Sea of Aqaba, which extends from the Red Sea, because otherwise the children of Isreal would have had to make a steep descent into the sea floor. Something that would have not been possible.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry if I sound ignorant, FFH, but where is this "Red Sea peninsula?" The only projection I know of into the Red Sea is the Sinai peninsula. And where, exactly, is this sand bar?

The Red sea is something like 150 Km wide. Crossing it would be no day trip. We're talking at least a week, probably more considering all the baggage described in Exodus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is a sand bar, or shallow stretch of land, that stretches across part of the Red Sea peninsula, from one end to the other. They have found objects, similar to the size and shapes of spokes and axles of chariot wheels encased in coral along this shallow sand bar or stretch of land. ...

Who is "they"?

Ron Wyatt is such a distasteful fraud that only the most ignorant take comfort in his 'discoveries'. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[FFH]

Who is "they"?

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?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., since everything is a fraud to you?

That is a repulsive lie for which you have no warrant. To the best of my knowledge, I have never turned my back on evidence, and you have neither cause nor credibility to suggest otherwise.

As for Wyatt's wimsy, show me the peer-reviewed references and we'll talk. Otherwise, keep your pathetic ad hominems to yourself.

 

[FFH]

. 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.

 

[Valjean]

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]

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

Waits patientially for evidence.

 

[Smoke]

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]

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.

:clap I agree. :clap

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.

 

[Smoke]

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."

 

[Valjean]

:clap I agree. :clap

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]

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

 

[wmam]

Wow....... If we are going to stay on my "Red Sea/Sea of Reeds" query for this long then I am almost scared to death to see how long the next one I have will last............. I'm not complaining, mind you, rather amazed that it would last this long and still be a item of debate among those well educated minds found here at this forum.

 

[FFH]

I corrected my previous posts. It is the Gulf of Aqaba, which extends at the North end of the Red Sea, and according to the map I am looking at there is an area called Katrina to the east and an area called Jabal to the west, on the Sinai peninsula. Moses would have crossed at this point from east to west.

I was just thinking yesterday that there would have to be two opposing winds to clear the water off of this shallow submerged stretch of land. I could picture these two opposing winds, at very high speeds, and pushing water off of this submersed sand bar, or stretch of land, and forming a huge hurricane, with a very large eye. I could picture this huge hurricane with an eye big enough to allow the 12 tribes of Isreal to pass safely across this stretch of land that would now be exposed. Picture it now, a high speed wind all around, and you are in the eye of this hurricane, and it is calm, and you see a stretch of dry land ahead. It would have been a natural miracle of God at exactly the right time when Moses needed it. The armies of Pharaoh would have felt safe to cross over. The wind then subsides, and the waters once again submerge the shallow sand bar or stretch of land. I was picturing this yesterday morning when I looked at the map and saw Jabal on the west and Katrina on the east. I was shocked. I had seen a Katrina sized hurricane in my mind with speeds similar to what they experienced in New Orleans. Is it a coincidence that this area is named Katrina? No !!, and it testifies to me that this truly was the area in which Moses crossed. Only a Katrina sized hurricane would have cleared the shallow sand bar enough to cross, and there would have to be a very large eye for the 12 tribes of Isreal to fit in while crossing.