Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why is 2 Thess. 2:7 mis-translated? | 2 Thess 2:7 | Morant61 | 73252 | ||
Greetings Justme! You make an excellent point! May I add though that it goes even further! Translation is very difficult. :-) Greek word orders are different than English. Greek idioms are different than English. To 'literally' translate a verse is really impossible. The words chosen to translate a word, the order in which one places them, and many other variables impact how a verse 'reads' in English. This is why I hesitate to use words like 'mis-translated', expect for those occasions where the text clearly does not support a particular translation. Allow me to provide a relatively simple example. Here is how one very literal rendering of Heb. 13:9 reads: "With teachings various and strange not be carried about; for good with grace to be confirmed the heart, not meats; in which not were profited tose who walked." Here is how the NIV translates this passage: "Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them." Which one makes more sense for an English reader? :-) Now this is a relatively easy verse! There are some where no one is entirely sure how a certain word or phrase should be translated. Of course, there are two points of application from these observations. 1) We should be very careful when accusing people of mis-translating a verse. 2) It takes more than a strong's concordance to qualify one to translate Greek or Hebrew. I know these points don't apply to you my friend, but I thought that they might be good reminders for all of us! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Why is 2 Thess. 2:7 mis-translated? | 2 Thess 2:7 | Taleb | 73292 | ||
Tim, My problem of referring to mistranslations as “mistranslations” stems from discovering the vast differences in translations of such verses as Hosea 11:12, (or, as one bible has it, in Hosea 12:1) “Ephraim surrounds me with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit; Judah is ALSO UNRULY AGAINST God, Even AGAINST the Holy one who is faithful.” Others translate it, “Judah RULES WITH GOD and WITH the Holy ones.” Vast difference. Too many sermons are preached because a “wrong” translation of certain portions of scriptures is “believed as gospel.” Or, take Job, where it says ‘curse God and die’. That Hebrew word, “BaraK” everywhere else, except Job, is translated bless, blessed, blessings, blessedness, etc. etc. Why? If the author (inspired of God?) of Job had wanted to convey the premise of a “curse”, what was the matter with the word “arar”, or, “kawbab” or any other word referring to the opposite meaning of bless? (Don’t you just love trying to spell in an attempt to convey Hebrew words phonetically?) Once I recognized the "error", it helped me understand the real messages filled in Job, as opposed to what some of our present-day books claim. These are just a few such, (if I may again use the term – mistranslations) that I have come across in my studies over the years. Appreciate your valuable labors, Tim Taleb |
||||||
3 | Why is 2 Thess. 2:7 mis-translated? | 2 Thess 2:7 | Morant61 | 73299 | ||
Greetings Taleb! Your examples are good examples of why I hesitate to use the term 'mis-translation'. Though the translations of Hos. 11:12 are completely opposite in meaning, they are both possible in Hebrew. Here is what the footnote in the NetBible says about this verse: ***************************************** The verb (?to roam about freely?) is used in a concrete sense to refer to someone wandering restlessly and roaming back and forth (BDB 923; Judg 11:37). Here, it is used figuratively, possibly with positive connotations, as indicated by the preposition (?with?), to indicate accompaniment: ?but Judah still goes about with God? (HALOT 3:1194). Some English translations render it positively: ?Judah still walks with God? (RSV); ?Judah is restive under God? (REB); ?but Judah stands firm with God? (NJPS); ?but Judah remains faithful? (CEV); ?but Judah yet ruleth with God? (KJV). Others adopt the negative connotation ?to wander restlessly? and nuance in an adversative sense (?against?): ?Judah is unruly against God? (NIV) and ?the people of Judah are still rebelling against me? (TEV). ********************************************** The NetBible actually goes with a positive sense, but they recognize that it can be translated in a negative sense as well. Concerning Job, it seems obvious to me that 'barak' is used in a negative sense in Job. For instance, Job 1:11 says, "But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.? Here 'curse' is 'barak'. Was Satan challenging God by saying that if God allowed Satan to test Job that Job would pass the test? :-) Or, was he challenging God by saying that Job would not pass the test, but would curse God? The same context occurs in Job 2:4, "But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face.? Even the context of Job 2:9 makes it clear that Job's wife is asking him to do something wrong. Notice v. 10, "He replied, ??You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?? In all this, Job did not sin in what he said." If Job's wife was asking him to 'bless' God, why would Job rebuke her? While the normal meaning of 'barak' definitely is 'to bless', it appears that in Job it has the opposite meaning. This may be simply a less used meaning or it could reflect an older meaning which dropped out of use latter, since Job is beleived to be a very ancient writting. In addition to the other difficulties which translators face, there is no 'dictionary' to which they can appeal for word meanings. Even if there are 'dictionaries' from a certain time perioed, word meanings change over time. For instance, even in English, note the change in meaning for the word 'let'. During the time of King James, 'let' meant 'hinder', now it means 'allow'. :-) So, translators must rely on context quite a bit. The context of Job is clear that 'barak' (at least in Job) means 'to curse', in my opinion! :-) p.s. - I too appreciate you my brother! You bring an unique perspective to some of these questions, having actually been on the mission field and dealing with the real life applications of some of these issues! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Why is 2 Thess. 2:7 mis-translated? | 2 Thess 2:7 | Taleb | 73311 | ||
Hello, my friend Tim. Thank you for searching out evidence to back up the efforts of the hard working translators of His word. Do you understand my “problem”, however? With “such and such” a phrase translated in a positive sense, but the translators recognizing that it can be translated into a negative sense as well, (or visa versa) and either or, but never both, are preached as gospel – one, or the other, is wrong. Right? Most of my too many bible translations have cross references, foot notes, or other type of “aid”. But in the “troubling verses” they too often fail to provide “both sides of a possibility”. That’s where the source of too many problem verses begins, when I discover on my own the “other possibility (and, thank you, Tim, I agree. I really should refrain from using the term mistranslation, especially without proof which is which). I knew the other scriptures with curse in Job tossed a curve ball, but often the word does. My Hebrew-English Bible translates the words, to read right to left, like Hebrew does. It translates “barak” as bless. Whoa, I thought. I checked other words translated from “barak” and, low and behold, they were all bless, etc. A few weeks later, I heard a sermon on that section. Poor Job’s wife, I concluded. How many times have you heard a sermon about poor Job’s wife ridiculing her husband? You inquired, “If Job's wife was asking him to 'bless' God, why would Job rebuke her? What if she actually said, “Job, just bless God and get on with dying. That will put you out of your misery.” What if Job responded with the same words as recorded, but, because the translators failed to catch the “bless”, wrongly concluded Job “meant” something else with his words. Perhaps, (and that is ONLY a perhaps) Job meant what he said, but the translator’s emphasis were misplaced. Couldn’t Job’s response have meant? “Foolish, Woman, why do you think I should bless God and die. God gave me a great life, yet it doesn’t mean God doesn’t allow sickness. So, I have no excuse to “want to” die.” Don’t forget, God DID allow the sickness. That seems to be why the portion of scripture stated, “Job did not sin with his lips.” So, why bother to wonder, you wonder? Perhaps I should begin wondering that too, but the Berean in me refuses to NOT want to check it out. Once again, I promise to refrain from starting any “First Blessed Church of Mrs. Job”, or, “The Congregation of Was He For or Against God”, but still …. Tim, where you shared about our own language changes – Good points. Sometimes it just takes another mind to help clear our own. Is that one of the reasons Paul stated in 1 Cor. 2:15, "But WE share the mind of Christ, rather than "I" (meaning Paul, not me)? Blessings, Taleb |
||||||