Bible Translation

[Howl]

Just stumbled across this great article about original versions of the Bible and how modern translations have changed the original wording to show the Bible forbidding homosexuality. 

The original translations from the Greek forbid men lying with boys (pederasty).  

Has “Homosexual” always been in the Bible?

Here's the wiki on the KJV:  King James Only movement

American Baptists/evangelicals who believe that the KJV is divinely inspired is only one aspect of the King James Only movement.   

Edited October 5, 2022 by Coconut Flan

[subsaharanafrica]

That’s really interesting. I wonder what it says in Hebrew since the Greek is a translation itself. (Insert here another reason why Shrader’s grand plan to translate from the KJV is bonkers. You lose something every time you translate it).

I actually know a couple people who have PhDs in Biblical/Ancient Hebrew. I just might have to send a couple emails inquiring because now I am very curious. 

[Howl]

Please do and let us know of your results; I find this fascinating. 

I also realized that the title of this thread should read: 

Bible Translation: Weaponizing the Bible

Edited June 16, 2019 by Howl

[ophelia]

10 hours ago, subsaharanafrica said:

That’s really interesting. I wonder what it says in Hebrew since the Greek is a translation itself. (Insert here another reason why Shrader’s grand plan to translate from the KJV is bonkers. You lose something every time you translate it).

I actually know a couple people who have PhDs in Biblical/Ancient Hebrew. I just might have to send a couple emails inquiring because now I am very curious. 

There are a lot of highly problematic examples when it comes to bible translations and the impact certain stories had over centuries: Eve wasn't created from Adams rib, but from his side. Which gives this story a whole new connotation IMHO and makes submission and the inferior role of women that is proclaimed by a lot of christian groups doubtful. 

When it comes to the original text, I'm not sure how much of the Hebrew Old Testament really remains today. A lot was lost over the centuries and even ancient Hebrew scholars used the Greek version of the OT to translate the text back into Hebrew. Since every translation is at the same time also an interpretation it is pretty obvious that things get lost over the time. 

[subsaharanafrica]

9 hours ago, ophelia said:

When it comes to the original text, I'm not sure how much of the Hebrew Old Testament really remains today. A lot was lost over the centuries and even ancient Hebrew scholars used the Greek version of the OT to translate the text back into Hebrew. Since every translation is at the same time also an interpretation it is pretty obvious that things get lost over the time. 

I was under the impression that when it comes to Leviticus, the Dead Sea Scrolls were pretty much word for word what the Hebrew texts we have from 1000ish years later say. 

 

Anyway, the question has now been asked. We’ll see if either of them get back to me. 

[47of74]

When I was in undergrad their was literally an entire section of shelves with various English translations of the bible.  There have been over 300 translations of the bible just into English over the past few centuries so that doesn't surprise me. 

Plus many older translations went through one or more languages from the original in to English.  For example from the original Hebrew and Greek into Latin and either in to English directly or going through other languages - such as German - before the English translation.

I remember a local priest who thought 1 Peter 3 - the wives submit to your husbands verse - was poorly translated.  It's been about twenty years since his homily on this, but as I remember he thought all the languages the verse went through from Greek to English caused the original meaning to be lost and that marriage was supposed to be a more equal partnership.

[Howl]

I'm remembering something about Michael Pearl.  When he was in Bible college, and learning Greek and Latin, he spent no small amount of time pondering the meanings of different translations of the Bible.  Then he decided that God believed in King James Version only, so done and done. 

[47of74]

2 minutes ago, Howl said:

I'm remembering something about Michael Pearl.  When he was in Bible college, and learning Greek and Latin, he spent no small amount of time pondering the meanings of different translations of the Bible.  Then he decided that God believed in King James Version only, so done and done. 

Really.  I'd like to ask Mr. Pearl what language Jesus Christ spoke in day to day life?  Sure as fornicate was not English - which hadn't even developed yet and in any event didn't develop in the middle east.  The answer is the Galilean dialect of Jewish Aramaic BTW.  He also probably communicated in Greek as well.  The Romans probably communicated with him either in Aramaic or Greek.  (Of course being who He was He could probably speak and understand all forms of communication). 

[Terrie]

Ironic, considering there's signifigant evidence that James was into men.

[Marserin]

I kind of geek out on this topic. I have a soft spot for the KJV; but more from an English major perspective. Seriously, one of the best praises of the KJV is by Richard Dawkins. Also, Job is amazing in the KJV.

Biblical Hebrew had no vowels; there are articles still being published that question if a particular word is translated correctly.

I still haven't forgiven translators for Junia's erasure. This might also be a product of it's time. "Obviously," the translators at the time would think, "a woman couldn't be an apostle. They must have meant Junias" 

 

That being said, we like to think that translation is an easy word=word situation. And it isn't. The most unreadable translations are the one's that try to do that, some words just don't map well. Additionally, you run into problems like Mark. Mark's Greek is bad. Imagine taking HS Spanish, getting a C, and then deciding to write a book with your knowledge of Spanish. That is Mark's Greek. Do you translate it so the English is as bad as the Greek? Maybe there is meaning in the bad Greek. Or do you pretty it up a bit. 

 

[Howl]

1 hour ago, Terrie said:

Ironic, considering there's significant evidence that James was into men.

Ooooh, tell us more! 

[Terrie]

10 minutes ago, Howl said:

Ooooh, tell us more! 

It's hard to say if he was gay in the modern sense of it. A lot of the expression of sexuality is bound up into general cultural norms, so withthe combination of how history gets muddied up with people's variosu agendas and our own modern biases, we'll never be 100% sure, but many people think he was probably bi. The wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I, gives an overview of the three men who he may have been involved with. 

[Dreadcrumbs]

1 hour ago, Terrie said:

It's hard to say if he was gay in the modern sense of it. A lot of the expression of sexuality is bound up into general cultural norms, so withthe combination of how history gets muddied up with people's variosu agendas and our own modern biases, we'll never be 100% sure, but many people think he was probably bi. The wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I, gives an overview of the three men who he may have been involved with. 

*nods*

The idea of having a sexual orientation is relatively new. Back in the day you could have a ton of gay sex but it was something you did, not something you were. 

[AuntKrazy]

On 6/16/2019 at 2:42 PM, subsaharanafrica said:

That’s really interesting. I wonder what it says in Hebrew since the Greek is a translation itself. (Insert here another reason why Shrader’s grand plan to translate from the KJV is bonkers. You lose something every time you translate it).

I actually know a couple people who have PhDs in Biblical/Ancient Hebrew. I just might have to send a couple emails inquiring because now I am very curious. 

FYI - The article is referencing the 2 NT references and Greek.  The KJB relies heavily on the Latin vulgate. The Hebrew Scripture is probably different as Hebrew doesn't construct verbs the way we do. Studying it reminded me of the Star Trek:TNG episode where Picard has to figure out how to use imagery to communicate. I'll need to look it up.

Edited June 21, 2019 by AuntKrazy
phone sent before finished

[Howl]

On 6/16/2019 at 2:42 PM, subsaharanafrica said:

(Insert here another reason why Shrader’s grand plan to translate from the KJV is bonkers. You lose something every time you translate it).

Also note that you could ADD something every time you translate it, or put your own specific spin on it, which I'm sure is part of Shrader's grand plan to make the Bible Shrader Again.  

[AuntKrazy]

@Howl

When I was studying theology (at a very conservative seminary), even we talked about the adding to the text as a specific valid scholarly criticism of the KJB.  The Johannine Comma - extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 (specifically in the Vulgate) is a prime example of translating from a translation.  The KJB itself is: (original texts lost) translated to Latin Vulgate, translated back to Greek to include stuff in the Latin not in the Greek texts available, translated from that to King James English, Shrader would then use that and translate again.  That's a lot of interpretive steps away from the original text.

[47of74]

 
That being said, we like to think that translation is an easy word=word situation. And it isn't. The most unreadable translations are the one's that try to do that, some words just don't map well. Additionally, you run into problems like Mark. Mark's Greek is bad. Imagine taking HS Spanish, getting a C, and then deciding to write a book with your knowledge of Spanish. That is Mark's Greek. Do you translate it so the English is as bad as the Greek? Maybe there is meaning in the bad Greek. Or do you pretty it up a bit. 
 

That’s what made things like Babelfish so much fun back in the old days. You could translate stuff into a few other languages then translate it back into English at which point it was almost gibberish.

For example sexual congress usually became the characteristic National Assembly.

[gustava]

Great discussion!!!!

[smittykins]

29 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

 

That’s what made things like Babelfish so much fun back in the old days. You could translate stuff into a few other languages then translate it back into English at which point it was almost gibberish.

For example sexual congress usually became the characteristic National Assembly.

 

On the old Snopes board, it was a holiday tradition to take a Christmas carol, run it through several languages and then back into English via Babelfish or Google Translate, and post the results.

Edited June 22, 2019 by smittykins

[Marserin]

On 6/19/2019 at 2:57 PM, Howl said:

Ooooh, tell us more! 

There is this delightful #SexyHistory thread. Do not read with liquid in your mouth.

 

[Howl]

50 minutes ago, Marserin said:

There is this delightful #SexyHistory thread. Do not read with liquid in your mouth.

 

OMG! Now following Rachel Hawkins on twitter.  "So this was fuuuuuuuun, send me a raven sometime!" or in regular talk, drop me a text. 

Also, this is mindblowing: Lost Rubens portrait of James I's 'lover' is rediscovered in Glasgow  and, not to be a spoiler, but the 'lover' is George Villiers, first Duke of Buckingham. 

<snip!> 

Quote

Although the Duke of Buckingham’s personal relationship with James VI and I is much debated, the king referred to Buckingham as his husband, and their relationship scandalised the court. 

But not to worry. One of them was assassinated and the other died young (relatively). 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Howl

[meee]

I just took a look at the Hebrew. It just says "male" which doesn't specify an age. Don't lie with a "male" the way you lie with a "woman."

[FloraKitty35]

On 6/19/2019 at 2:48 PM, Terrie said:

Ironic, considering there's significant evidence that James was into men.

It (from what I've read) was no great secret at the time.  There a contemporary epigram that went Rex fuit Elizabeth, nunc est Regina Jacobus (Elizabeth was a King, James is a Queen).

[Marmion]

6 hours ago, meee said:

I just took a look at the Hebrew. It just says "male" which doesn't specify an age. Don't lie with a "male" the way you lie with a "woman."

Here is commentary on Leviticus , from a Jewish standpoint .  { https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/reading-the-prohibition-against-homosexuality-in-context/ , https://tbatikkunolam.org/2012/05/22/what-does-the-torah-really-say-about-homosexual-acts/  ,  and especially this  https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/redefining-leviticus-2013/ } 

[Marserin]

Here is another analysis from Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg